Jun 02, 2015 City Council on 2015-06-02 2:00 PM

[SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [MUSIC PLAYING] Good. We got a robust council up here. Good evening. Welcome to this Denton City Council meeting. It is 6/34 on June the 2nd, 2015. We do have a quorum. I want to recognize Troop 164, Boy Scouts from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They're going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance to both the US and the Texas flag. So if y'all would go ahead and come down forward. They're getting some-- fulfilling some merit badge requirements. So I appreciate you young men being here to help us. I pledge allegiance to the United State of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. Thank y'all. Thank you very much for helping us. OK, we're going on to proceeding to our next agenda item is proclamations and presentations. I don't see any posted. Moving on to our agenda item number three, which is citizen reports. We do have two citizen reports, so if we could play the procedures for addressing the city council. The Denton City Council has adopted rules of procedure, including a code of conduct, which applies to citizens as well as council members. These rules were enacted to promote an orderly process and to preserve decorum. Here is a brief review of the rules that apply to citizens' reports. Citizens will have four minutes to give a report. There will be an electronic beep when time has expired. If the remarks are not concluded by that time, the citizen will be asked to stop speaking. If the citizen does not cease and a second request is made, the mayor will request to have the citizen removed from the council chambers. Citizens are asked to not approach the dais. If a citizen has papers or other materials to hand out to the council, please let the city secretary know, and she will have a staff member distribute the materials to the council. The attorney general has ruled that council members may listen to citizens speak and may ask questions of citizens for clarification of the issue. Council members will not engage citizens in discussion of a topic, because to do so could potentially be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. When speaking to the council, citizens are to direct all remarks and questions to the council as a whole and not to any individual member. Please refrain from making abusive, personal, impertinent, profane, or slanderous remarks. Anyone who violates this rule will immediately be removed from the council chambers. Citizens' adherence to these rules will help make an effective presentation and will preserve the order and decorum of our proceedings. Copies of the rules of procedure are available from the city secretary. We have agenda item 3A, which is Isabel Cano regarding benches for bus stops. If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin . My name is Isabel Cano, and my address is 1323 Broadway Street in Denton, and 76201. And OK, so most of you have seen me here before. I've been working on this for about a year. And I'm asking the city council to please push benches at the bus stops for several reasons. I'm going to show you some of the pictures that you have seen to remind you and some others. OK, so here is the-- I have a picture. Go ahead and lay it. Yeah, lay it there, and they'll pick it up. OK. So these are the ones I showed you where the people are sitting on the ground and need a place to sit, obviously. And this is what some residents have decided to do to solve the problem. Obviously, there is a need for benches or a comfortable place to sit. Over here, I noticed the other day that they have chained it to the bus stop. But anyway, they're being very creative about it. And so what I wanted to ask you is, since you have places in Denton that already have the infrastructure to put a bench, like over here and over here, that-- over here and over here, that you take advantage of this to put a bench in it. And then there are places that have benches, but there are no bus stops. And so you could take advantage of that. Then I wanted to show you some benches. These are in San Antonio. And this is one that has the seats attached to the pole. And here is an example of a bench there in San Antonio. And I'm going to go on to my next-- is that, according to numbers that I have found, it cost the city of Denton and DCTA, since you work together, $3,000 per shelter. And a bench, there is a-- you can start at $100, and we'll pick $300. So the first set of bus shelters that you put in were $60,000 for 20 of them. And so if you use the numbers here, and you have about 200 bus stops to go, then 200 bus stops times 3,000 would be $600,000, versus 200 bus stops at 300 per bench, it would be $60,000, which means that if you had a budget of $60,000 a year, supposing, which is the first chunk that you got, in a year, you could have benches on 200 bus stops. If you wait for the bus shelters, it will take you 10 years with a budget of $60,000 a year to give the necessary accommodations to the residents. So this is my final speech, and I really do hope that you both will pursue this. I have talked to DCTA. I have talked to you. I have met Jim Klein. And I can't quite convince him, but I know that you understand the logic behind all this. And please, please keep this from happening. Keep this from happening, because Denton is a civilized place, I think. And this belongs in a third world country, not in Denton. [BELL RINGING] Sorry, OK. And you don't need to get rid of the benches after you put them. You can install the shelters afterwards and leave the benches. So there. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. I have some papers that I'm going to pass around with all these pictures to remember me by. I think I've got some people requesting to speak. Council member Roden. Thank you, Mayor. Isabel, thank you so much for your persistence on this issue. Thank you. And most people would have given up by now, beating your head against the wall. I've got a question for you. And you described it a bit, but can you tell us where you feel like you're at in the process? You've advocated for some changes. And what specifically are you being told are the obstacles to seeing some of this done? Well, from what I have done so far, I have decided that all I have done is raise awareness of this. There are many obstacles, many obstacles. The state, DCTA, the city of Denton, many obstacles. And my idea of asking the senior center to build the ben ches and putting them here and there, well, they don't want to do it because of liability issues. So I can't do anything. I'm not going to become superwoman and produce them. So it's really hard. I know it's really hard for all of you. But that's where I stand. I think we can put this on an agenda from Mobility Committee and talk about it specifically. OK. And so let's talk more about it. OK. Well, thank you so much. Council member Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I was too going to just thank you. I think this is the third time I've heard you, just since I've been on council. You've probably done it more than that. But I really appreciate that you just keep coming up here and doing this. And definitely, I wanted to add to Kevin during the Mobility Committee, if we can figure out where the city can-- we have a new budget coming up. And I'd like us to at least take a crack at this and really remember it during that time, too. So I just wanted to thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for your time. And Council Member Johnson. Thank you. Well, I wanted to thank you because what a great example of a citizen taking action and not giving up. You see a lot of that going on around here. The $300 bench that you showed, it looks like you did some research on benches. Because I know you talked before about having the senior center build them out of wood. Do you know if that was a ready-made bench, a weather-protected-- The one I showed you? It's a ready-made. And I've seen them online. I don't have the quotes. But they're available. And then secondly, you mentioned you talked to Jim Klein, I think, at DCTA. Yeah. Has he indicated that there's a problem with the city to get that done? Or is it-- Well, they're set on bus shelters. They're not considering benches right now. They're bus shelters. And so it's really hard to bring them around. So I don't know. I'm hoping that I have convinced you and you can work with him. I'm giving up working with him. Or I'm not going to try working with the state. I'm asking you to do that. Well, I think you've done enough. You certainly have been persistent. And I really appreciate your effort. And I think it's up to us now. The mobility committee will take that up and-- Thank you very much. --work with DCTA to see if we can get something done for sure. Yeah. Thank you. Let's make things happen. Thank you. Council Member Wasney. They said it was a liability issue. Because if that's the case, liability-- there are a lot of cities in the United States and around the world that have liability issues, because they all have bus benches. So we're moving into budget. I think this is an affordable item. I think it's important. I don't want to wait 10 years. So I'd be happy to work with you and see what we can get done. I have heard you, but from out there. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate that. [APPLAUSE] A couple of housekeeping measures before we go on to the next agenda item. My screen-- I don't get my normal screen. I just want to let Billy know that. OK. All right. And also, on agenda item 6B, which is the individual consideration item on the hydraulic fracturing issue, I just want to remind everyone it is an item for individual consideration. And you would need to fill out a blue card to be able to speak. And the blue cards are over here at the entrance. So if you want to speak, be sure and fill one of those out and turn it back in. And we'll ensure that you get an opportunity to share your thoughts. Then we'll proceed forward with agenda item 3B, which is a citizen report from Willie Hutspeth regarding Southeast Denton issues. Mr. Hutspeth? Is Mr. Hutspeth here? OK. All right, we'll move on to the next agenda item, which is the consent agenda. I'm going to have to look on to Madam City Attorney's screen. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of consent agenda items A through J. Councilmember Rodin. Second that. All right, we have a motion and a second for the consent agenda, which is agenda item 4. Let's vote on the board. Consent agenda items passed unanimously. We will now move on to agenda item 5, which are items for individual consideration, consideration of the use of eminent domain to condemn real property interests. Consent agenda item 5A is considered option of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to acquire fee title to a 0.13 acre track situated in the E. Pulsasky Survey abstract number 996. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to ask Mr. Smith Day, who is our compliance manager, if he would present this item for your consideration. Thank you, Smith. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Appreciate you taking the time to entertain these items tonight. I'll move on to 5A immediately here. OK, item 5A is one parcel, which is part of the future Hick ory substation. That is the middle item here in the yellow with the yellow hatch marks. Mayor, city council, members before you tonight is in ordinance making findings of public use of necessity and instructing staff to acquire the necessary land rights via eminent domain regarding parcel of land affected by the Hickory substation project. Upon favorable motion, I will proceed to display the affected tracks of land on the overhead screens. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the city manager or his designee is authorized to one, make a written final offer to the owner, any and all of the owner's successors and interest to the property interest, or any other parties who may own any interest in the property interest to purchase a 0.13 acre track located in the E. Pielczalski survey, abstract number 996, city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, and located generally in the 100 block of North Bonnie Bray Street, the property interest. 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, for the expansion, construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the city's electrical transmission and distribution lines, facilities and structures including substations and switch stations. And two, if the terms of the written final offer are not agreed to by the owner, any and all of the owner's successors and interest to the property interest, or any other parties who may own any interest in the property interest, to then use of the power of eminent domain to acquire a fee simple title to the property interest. Councilmember Rodin. Second. Thank you. Displaying on the overhead screen is the legal description of the 0.138 acre tract. We'll follow this description by the actual survey. The survey contains this language. Here I've just blown it up so you can actually read it. It's a little bit small on the survey. I'll take a moment. And this is the actual tract survey, certified survey. And up here on the upper right is the same legal description I just displayed previously. OK, we have a motion and a second for agenda item 5A. Councilmember Hawkins, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, just before we voted, I just wanted to clarify eminent domain is always the last ditch effort to get this done. And we're still in negotiations with this property. I just wanted to kind of make that clear. We had talked about that in work session. That is correct. We're still in negotiations. OK. This is part of a normal process. But more often than not, we do conclude with a successful negotiation. And those are ongoing. Thank you. OK, thank you, Councilmember. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Agenda item passes 6 to 1. Agenda item 5B, consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to acquire fee title to a 0.164 acre track situated in the east. Kulchowski survey, abstract number 996. Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. Once again, we're from Mayor Bonnell. This is the same substation project this time. The upper left quadrant of the proposed Hickory substation site is the subject of this agenda item. Mayor, city council members, before you tonight is an ordinance making findings of public use and necessity and also instructing staff to acquire the necessary land rights via eminent domain regarding a parcel of land affected by the Hickory substation project. Upon favorable motion, I will proceed to display the affected tract of land on the overhead screens. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the city manager or his designee is authorized to make a written final offer to the owner and any and all of owner successors in interest to the property interest or any other parties who may own any interest in the property interest to purchase a 0.164 acre tract located in the E. Polanski survey, abstract number 996, city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, and located generally in the 23rd block of West Oak Street, the property interest , 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 for the expansion, construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the city's electric transmission and distribution lines, facilities, and structures, including substations and switch stations, and two, if the terms of the written final offer are not agreed to by the owner, any and all of the owner's successors in interest to the property interest or any other parties who may own an interest in the property interest to then use the power of eminent domain to acquire fee simple title to the property interest. Council Member Rodin. I second that. Thank you. Displaying on the overhead screen is the legal description of the 0.13 acre fee tract. Take a moment to read this version, and I will then display the survey containing this language . And here you have the full survey, certified survey. Upper right is the legal description I just previously displayed. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. We might try to re-vote. I don't think something happened. Did mine go through? OK. Can we reset the vote? Or-- Oh, Council Member Hawkins made the motion, and Council Member Rodin second. Motion carries, 6 to 1. We'll go on to now agenda item 5C, consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to acquire fee titled to 0.138 acre tract situated in East Plochalski survey, abstract number 996. Thank you again. I have displayed-- this is the final-- the final tract of this proposed substation site. This is the item 5C item. Mayor, city council members, before you tonight is an ordinance making findings of public use and necessity , and also instructing staff to acquire the necessary land rights via eminent domain regarding a parcel of land affected by the Hickory substation project . Upon favorable motion, I will proceed to display the affected tract of land on the overhead screens. Council Member Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the city manager, his designee, is authorized to one, make a written final offer to the owner, any and all of owner's successors in interest to the property interest, or any other parties who may own any interest in the property interest to purchase a 0.13 acre tract located in the East Plochals ki survey, abstract number 996, city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, and located generally in the 100 block of North Bonnie Bray Street. The property interest is 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, for the expansion, construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the city's electric transmission and distribution lines, facilities, and structures, including substations and switch stations, and number two, if the terms of the written final offer are not agreed to by the owner, any and all of owner's successors in interest to the property interest, or any other parties who may own an interest in the property interest to then use the power of eminent domain to acquire fee simple title to the property interest. Council Member Johnson. Second that. Thank you. Displaying on the overhead screen is the legal description of the 0.164 acre fee tract. Again, for ease of our eyes, I've blown it up here. I will then display it on the survey. It contains the same language. And here it is in the upper right. And this is a certified survey. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please, for agenda item 5C. Motion carries 6 to 1. We'll now move on to agenda item 6, which is items for individual consideration. Agenda item 6A, consider appointments to council committees. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. I believe the city secretary, Mr. Walters, will address this item for you. Yes. Mayor and council, at your seats are the revised committee assignments that you discussed in your work session. And if they are consistent with what we discussed, you can go ahead and approve those. Council Member Rodin. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank the council members who jumped in and the new council members who expressed their interest in these committees and got involved. Thank you both for that. And also just to express to the public, in addition to what you see here tonight, all of these-- I'm counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 official committees-- these are all public business items and meetings that you can attend at any point. So if on any of these topics you have an interest, come on out. They're not usually pretty heavily attended, but we'd love to see you there. But I would move approval of this item. Council Member Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I second. We have a motion and a second for items 6a. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries, 7-0. We'll move on now to agenda item 6b, which is discussion determine whether to repeal initiative ordinance number 2014-1, prohibition of hydraulic fracturing, and if necessary, to consider adoption of an ordinance repealing initiative ordinance number 2014-1 and providing an immediate effective date. We don't have a staff presentation at this time, so we're going to go ahead and move to the public comment portion. Again, as a reminder, this agenda item is an item for individual consideration. So in order to speak, if you would, just fill out a blue card, which are available outside the door down here at the bottom of the stairs. And we will begin to call the names who wish to speak. And then once we process through those, we'll read into the record the cards of those who do not wish to speak but have expressed either opposition or support. Council Members, any other comments to make before we get started? OK, great. Our first call-- Council Member Rodin. Well, I think we wanted to make sure that they could feel free to ask questions. Oh, yes. And we know that this is an item that a lot of people felt like came on pretty quickly. And there's been some discussion about it already since it's been posted since Thursday. But we want to do our best to answer the questions in a fashion that makes sense. There might be some questions that are legal in nature that we need to confer with our attorneys prior to answering them. There might be some that require further data that would require us to look into some things. And there might be some that we can answer right tonight. But the goal is to take the questions, figure out how we can best answer them, either tonight or on the form of a website or something else, get that out to you guys. So if you have questions, throw it at us. We'll be taking notes and do our best to figure out how to respond. Thank you, Council Member Rodin, for that. Council Member Wasney. It's about transparency. And it's about bringing you to the table, because this is your city. These are two really important issues to me. They're important to you. So I'm happy to see a full house tonight. We want to hear from you. We welcome your comments. And again, it's important to make you a part of this decision-making process. So thank you for coming out. Council Member Gregory-- oh, I'm sorry, Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. I think another thing that I would like to say as the folks speak is that while we're certainly interested in hearing your thoughts on repealing or not repealing the ban on fracturing, we would also be very interested-- or I would be very interested in hearing any ideas, any suggestions for ways that the city can be in the very best position to fight for local control and the local control that's been taken away from us by the state and the passage and the governor's signing of House Bill 40. Council Member Briggs. I also-- I also echo Council Member-- or Pro Tem Gregory. And I welcome-- I'm glad to see everyone here. And I do also welcome creative solutions and options about moving forward. So thank you all for coming. Before we get started, I just want to say that I and I believe my colleagues are committed to doing what's the best thing for Denton given the vote, given the House, HB 40. And we are here tonight to hear your thoughts and to hear your opinions, because that's important. Because we heard you loud and clear on November the 4th. And so we just want to make sure that we understand where you are. And we also want to provide some information that we can to help you understand the landscape and what has changed, if anything, has changed in the landscape. So we want this to be a dialogue that is productive. And I appreciate that. And I appreciate you coming out here and giving us your thoughts and for your energy and your commitment to this process. Without further ado, we'll go on to the first card, which is Adam Briggle. If you will come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. OK. My name is Adam Briggle. I live at 1315 Dartmouth Place in Denton. I'm speaking tonight as a president of the Denton Drilling Awareness Group, which led the Fract Free Denton campaign. We find ourselves today at a melancholy crossroads, one that is shrouded in uncertainty and fraught with peril. We can thank Austin for putting us here. We had no control over that. But now it is our decision about where to go next. So my group, Denton Dag, has three messages tonight. The first message is, to stay strong, we must stay united. We have become a force. We stood up to protect our neighborhoods when no one else would. In so doing, we spooked the industry into an epic crescendo of propaganda and drove the legislature into a bizarre and frenzied ritual of naked corruption. Despite all odds, we dealt a blow for grassroots democracy that has sent shockwaves around the world. Denton is a place where citizenship is taken seriously. Even today, in our weakened position, we refuse to back down. When all else fails, we put our very bodies in the way. And all of this is only possible because we work together in beautiful interdependence. The industry is trying to set a trap. They want us to turn on ourselves and tear down the community we have built. They know they are not strong enough to do that. It could only crumble from inside out. Do not give them that satisfaction. Our second message is directed at City Council. We need more time. We only heard talk about repealing the ban on Friday. No city is more creative or intelligent than Denton, but ideas take time to germinate. Please table this decision. I am confident there will be much to weigh and consider after hearing from people tonight. Our third message comes from our attorney, Deborah Goldberg , at Earthjustice. Deborah is the attorney who successfully defended Dryden, New York's fracking ban. She is also helping people in Seneca Lake to fight fracking there. Now, for once, I'm in a position to have information from attorneys. That I can share. And so Deborah was kind enough to prepare a statement from me, a very brief statement. And I wanted to share it tonight so that others can weigh it as they do their own thinking. And so here's her quote. HB 40 has rendered the fracking ban unenforceable. If we follow through on the existing lawsuits, we take a very serious risk of setting a bad precedent for other Texas communities. Repeal does not mean giving up the fight. It means shifting terrain so that we can fight from a position of strength. We want to be as strategic as possible to maximize our chances of success against a far-reaching statute that needs to be taken down, but needs to be taken down carefully. End of quote. And so I just want to conclude by thanking all of our elected and unelected city officials for their tireless efforts on this issue. And I want to ask you to please listen very carefully to all the perspectives, ideas, and concerns of our inspiring citizens. Thank you. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Sure. Thank you, Mayor. And first, I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate how you lead and you're very professional about it. And I definitely think that you hear all sides. And reading that statement too, I feel like that was important. And I agree that we're going to need more time too, but I just publicly wanted to say I admire you quite a bit. So I just really appreciate everything you've done. So thank you. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. >> Thank you. Mr. Bruegel, Dr. Bruegel, do you -- would you feel comfortable elaborating on any of the conversations that you've had with your attorney regarding -- I think what I heard you say is that she recommended repealing the ordinance so that we could fight when we have a better chance of winning. Is that -- is that accurate? >> That's an accurate summation of Deborah's sentiments. >> Some people are nervous about the strategic withdrawal and waiting for fighting a better day. Do we have any ideas of where the best battleground might be without giving away a whole lot? What area we might have a better success in rolling back some of the draconian actions of House Bill 40? >> Well, without going into specifics, I can just say that I know there are a lot of fights being waged across the state. And if there's a silver lining to HB 40, it's the fact that it's activated so many people. And I've been telling the media that the industry and their cronies in Austin have sowed the seeds of their own destruction with this bill by pissing off so many people. And so I think it's quite likely that we would see something happen elsewhere in the state. But again, I don't want to discourage people from voicing their own opinions by reading Deborah's statement. Okay. I mean, we all know lawyers are also humans too and they have their own interpretations. Okay. That's not the be all end all interpretation of the things. But I did want people to hear that so that they know somebody who's very authoritative on this issue and well respected, they could hear her position. >> Well, I'm interested, if I may, push it a little bit further. When you heard her give that advice, what was your reaction ? How do you feel personally? I mean, you live here. She doesn't. >> Right. >> You've been pretty neck deep in this. At least wrist deep in it. [ Laughter ] >> Councilman Gregory, you put me on the spot here. I thought, you know what, tonight I'm going to be speaking just for dag and nobody will ask me personal questions about how I feel. I mean, I would only say that it's, it is certainly disheartening and it's confusing. And I think we're all looking for council to explain the situation better to us so that we can triang ulate. And I'm really looking forward to tonight because I know we can maybe multiply our options. >> I appreciate your comments. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> I wanted to say thank you for your dedication to our city and to the cause and to the environment. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you and congratulations on your new position. >> Thank you. >> I do have a question. You had mentioned that you're wanting to hear or you're here hoping to hear some explanation from the council as far as the situation, options. Do you have any specific question that you would like to have answered either as representative of DAG or just as Dr. Adam Bregel? >> Well, I would like-- and you don't have to answer it now . But a lot of folks are asking, I think, really smart questions about technical possibilities here. And one of them I think and I want to credit-- well, I should-- maybe I shouldn't single out a single person because a lot of people have said this but in particular, I'm thinking of Cindy Spoon who shared an idea with me. So I'm really channeling a lot of people's voices is, is there a way to leave the ban on the books in some unenforced state, right? I don't know, right? And there's a million other questions but that's one I've heard a lot. So at some point, I'd be curious to hear a discussion of that. >> Sure. And I do want to encourage everyone who speaks if you have a burning question, as Council Member Rodin had said, we're going to be taking these questions down, we're going to be addressing the ones that we can tonight, the ones that we can't. We're going to make sure that we can get an answer to those if we can within the legal bounds of the two lawsuits and so forth but we want to make sure this is, as Council Member Wasney said, as transparent as possible. So I really appreciate you coming forward and sharing your thoughts. >> Okay. >> Council Member Hawkins. >> Thank you, Mayor. Adam, if you don't want to answer this, that's totally okay . It's going to be a long night here but personally to you, leaving this ordinance on the books when it's unenforceable or some have even said it's an illegal ordinance now, what does that, what would that personally mean to you? >> Well, I mean it's more than just symbolism. I mean the idea here is that if it's on the books then when HB 40 is found to be unconstitutional or somehow kicked out of here, we would have it, right? We would already have that ordinance still here. Again, I have no idea if that's possible but so it's not just symbolic, it's an effort to think strategically long term I think. >> Okay. >> About how to respect the vote that we took last November . >> Okay. >> Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. >> Thank you. So now a question for our legal staff and you may want to defer this until you have a chance to think about it but I think that we need to pursue Ms. Spoon's suggestion of is there a way to leave the ban on the books and somehow deal with the pending litigation that we have. And one of the ideas that I've heard is the possibility of a resolution on the part of the council saying something to the effect of we recognize that HB 40 makes the ban unenforceable and we do not intend to enforce the ban. Would you care to opine on that now or do you need to think about that before you react? >> No, I think we can make very brief comment on that right now. I believe the Texas legislature would say to the city that pursuant to House Bill 40, the hydraulic fracturing ban is preempted . In fact, I believe the Texas legislature would say in three different places in House Bill 40, they have indicated that it's the intent of the legislature to preempt cities from being able to ban hydraulic fracturing in their cities or to enforce an ordinance that is already on the books. I would also say that as resolution is sought and the consideration of leaving the ordinance on the books is brought forward, of course, there's litigation on the-- on deck right now. There's two lawsuits in fact. And as we look at resolution potentially of those lawsuits and possibly even some kind of consent decree, of course, it's in the nature of both the city and the individuals who brought the lawsuit if a consent decree is to come forward, there would need to be some kind of agreement. I will say without-- I cannot get into discussion about the substance of those negotiations but I will say at this point in time, we have not been able to agree today with regard to language that might go into the consent degree. So there is no agreement at this point in time. >> OK, seeing no further questions. Thank you, Dr. Brighill, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] Is it Ron Seifert? Come down and your time will begin. State your name and address. Is that-- Ron? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Oh, OK, read who's next. Sure. Cindy Spoon is up next. Yeah, all right. I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Hi there, my name is Ron Seifert. I'm at 1400 Moran Drive. So I'm happy to follow Mr. Brighill. I really enjoyed hearing a lot of things that he said. I hope you all had a chance to read the statement he made yesterday. It's pretty powerful and it brings to light the fact that fracking is happening right now in our community again . And it's pretty clear that in our community, people do not want fracking to happen. You got Mr. Roden over here talking about how no one goes to the other meetings here. You put fracking on the agenda. You see everybody comes out. It's clearly a top priority for this town and it's happening here and nobody wants it to be happening. So my question is what is the city prepared to do to follow through with the will of the people here? What is the city-- is the city's goal to get as close as we can to keeping fracking out of Denton? Is that really your priority in moving forward with this? If your goal is divergent from that, then it's also diver gent from the will of the people which brings me to a follow-up question. How do you think you derive your authority? Like where do you think your power comes from? It comes from us. Clearly folks in Austin don't have anyone in this room's interest at heart. In theory, you all do. But if you don't, then it's up to us to do something about that which is why I think it's so important that the city has our back as folks defend the ban here over the course of the next month. Folks need to protect themselves. This is about health. This is about safety. This is about our lives. This is about a politics of disposability. We do not think people in this town are disposable. We cannot allow fracking to just happen. We cannot allow ourselves to roll over, take a step back, let fracking happen for a little while while we fight it on a different front. Although that is important, that's not -- we're not disposable. We need to stop fracking right now. And I would love to know what you all are going to do to ensure to the best of your ability using all the resources of the city that fracking will not happen in Denton or be minimized to the best of your efforts. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Cindy Spoon and then Jim McKinney. >> I asked you a couple questions. I thought we were answering questions here. Wasn't that the deal? >> I see no one -- okay. >> Mr. Member Johnson. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> I can only call for people who are requesting to speak. >> Yeah. I'll take a stab at answering the question. I think that's exactly what we've been doing. You know, since the ban passed, we've all spent time in Austin lobbying. We've all spent time meeting with various folks from industry trying to figure out, you know, what are the alternative options. And what we found out is that our aces got trumped, right? I mean, the state of Texas has overruled us. So we've been doing exactly that, which I think those that were on the council when the conversation started, those who were campaigning at the time said if the ban passes, we will enforce it. And we did. And we're doing everything we can today still within our means by law to do that. Now obviously we can't go lock arms in front of the gas well advantage and stop the trucks from entering. That's against the law. >> You can, though. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So you asked me a question. I'm going to try to answer it. By law, we cannot go lock our arms in front of the inference. Now, people can choose to go out there and do whatever they want, right? But then we have to enforce the law. So you've got the federal government -- >> But not in the fracking line. >> I'm answering your question. You let me answer, please. You've got the federal government and the state and the counties and the cities. And we're doing the best we can. And we're going to do, I think, what we can within the law to do so. We're not done fighting, but this is a very strategic fight , right? And sometimes in a fight, you don't want to lead with your face, right? And so we have to think very strategically in this thing. And it's a tough deal, right? Because obviously people are very passionate about it. I don't want fracking in our town. But we have to obey the law, right? And we have to fight a strategic fight. And that's, I think, from my perspective, that's what we are doing and will continue to do. >> And now we've got three other speakers that I want to recognize. And I certainly -- I understand the passion here. But for us to get through this in a timely way and to be able to hear everybody's comments and to be able to hear the questions, I'd really appreciate it if you just show some -- the decorum of just maybe keeping public comments from out there to a minimum because it really can be disruptive. But I want everybody to be heard, but I also want it to be conducted in a civil, respectful way. And I really do appreciate that because we are here to try to have a good public discourse. So I just would really ask for your help in that. Councilmember Rodin. >> More of a question of procedure for the council. As we have a lot of folks here, a lot of folks wanting to speak, and I bet a lot of folks with the same question, or some folks with some similar questions, might it be better to ask folks to raise their question or take notes and maybe have a time after all the questions and all the comments are posed that we can start kind of organizing our answers and deciding how to tackle those from there. Just a suggestion, I don't know. >> Sure. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. >> A question for you, if you don't mind. When we took the oath of office, we made a promise that we were going to uphold the constitution and laws of the state and the federal government and the ordinances of the city. And now we've come across a situation where an ordinance of the city is in direct conflict with the law of the state. You acknowledge that. So I'm curious to hear what your suggestion is for how we would go about dealing with and regaining more local control, given the realities of House Bill 40. >> Thank you for asking. I am happy to hear that there's a legal institutional strategy that you all are wanting to move forward. I'm happy to hear from Mr. Johnson that you all's interest is to keep fracking out of town, out of Denton forever with every move that you make. I think that in the short term, here is how we keep fr acking out of Denton. The people in this room can keep fracking out of Denton as long as you all aren't roadblocks. We can keep fracking out of Denton. You all can fight fracking in the courts, I mean, this HB 40 in the courts and move it forward and leave it to the people of Denton to keep fr acking out of its own town. And we can do that. Just don't get in our way. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> I heard you say something pretty important and you asked us what our priority is. And I think that's a pretty good question. And I think we all need to think really hard about that. That's a good question for us and for the city. >> Okay. >> I'm really happy for you, by the way. Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> I think Senator Roden had proposed a sort of procedure of taking down the questions and then addressing them at the end, the ones that we can't address now and then making sure that we get those answered and posted to the oil and gas well web -- portion of our web page, those that we can do without endangering or jeopardizing our legal strategy. So is that something that the council wants to do? Councilmember Hawkins. >> Specific to that, I'm awful at that, but I will do my best. But if I want to ask a question sometime tonight, is that still okay? >> I think he was referring primarily to questions that were asked from the podium. >> I got it. Okay. >> Was that my understanding? >> Yes, absolutely. It wasn't to preclude us from asking follow-up questions, more of having to feel that we have to answer every question as it's asked. To feel like we can do that maybe in a more orderly fashion at the end. >> Thank you. >> All right. Cindy spoon was up next. And after her, Jim McKinney. >> Hello, Cindy spoon, 2210 Westwood. Absolutely think you all should table this discussion. We need more time. I feel like there's no reason to rush. It feels not -- even if you all have our best interest and are going to defend the ban, it feels no good that this came up in a closed session, even though you all are saying you all want to hear from everyone. I think it would be nice to table this discussion, give us more time. There's no reason to rush. Include more public input. Like Bregel mentioned, I think there is a way -- I hope there's a way, obviously I'm not a lawyer, that you can pass another ordinance saying that you're not going to enforce the ban. So a new law in the book saying we're not going to enforce the ban, but it stays on the books. Right? So that you all can be legally protected. And also, I mean, I don't know how that wouldn't hold up in a courtroom when there's fracking happening. Like what are they going to say? Like there's already fracking happening. We're obviously not enforcing the ban. I think that's what you all should do. As you all know, six -- hopefully you know that six residents of Denton have already been arrested defending our ban. So that's where people are at. I mean, every single legal institution has failed us. These folks are not criminals. They shouldn't be treated like criminals going to jail. They're fierce defenders of our democracy. I know that that measure might seem a little bit extreme, but I think that people are extremely against getting their water poisoned and they're extremely against having poison air and they're extremely, extremely against being bullied by industry. I also want to just put into my testimony that the last couple weeks of defending the ban for me personally have been the -- my biggest experience of building community. Like I have met more people in Denton and connected with more people that aren't in my social circle, older people, people with kids defending the ban. That's just real. I didn't know a lot of these people before that. So I invite you all to stand with us in a more direct way, you know, and actually be a part of that. It's amazing. What else do I want to say? Oh, I don't want to get too off topic, but the Zoning Board of Adjustment, those people got to go. I mean, the only reason that -- seriously, those people got to go. I don't know who they are, but the only reason that fr acking is happening here is because they passed a waiver or variance for vantage. That's absolutely unacceptable. Those people aren't appointed. That clearly doesn't reflect the will of the people. I don't know when else I would express this to you except for right now, so I'm doing it. Like, those people need to go. Put people on these boards that actually represent the vote of these constituents. That's ridiculous. That's happening. I guess my last 30 seconds, I would say that if you all choose to not be a part of this fight, if you all choose to roll over, that's your prerog ative. This is the fight of our lives. It's not just about Denton, the fight for clean, drinkable water and the fight for breathable air is the fight of our lives. So you all can either be leaders in that. I know it's a hard road and it's confusing, but you can be leaders in that, or you can get out of the way because the residents of Denton have already proven that we are going to be leaders in that fight. So support us. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Thank you, Mayor. Maybe a question for legal. Have we -- have you ever heard of that where there's an ordinance on the books and rather than getting rid of the ordinance, you have an additional ordinance that says no longer enforce that ordinance? >> We've heard from some of the councilmembers that some of the citizens have raised that issue. We are thinking about that at this point in time without -- can you not hear me back there? Let me restate that so perhaps you can hear me. My comment was that I have heard from some of the council members that some citizens have raised that issue and I in turn have raised that with our legal team and we are looking at that and thinking about that. So we will be addressing that issue with council in upcoming days and as we have an opportunity to look at that. We are at this point in time contemplating this issue that has been raised. >> And just -- that's an interesting -- >> Oh, no, go ahead. You still have the floor. You're right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor. That's a very interesting idea. I appreciate you bringing that up. So that is definitely outside the box. So thank you. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> So there's talk of other cities wanting to fight. When you mentioned specifically fighting, do you think that the City of Denton is up for the fight? Are you willing to do that? >> Let's ask. City of Denton, you up for the fight? >> Yeah! >> Thank you. >> I think so. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Jim McKinney and then up next, I think it's a good question . I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> I think it's a good question. >> My first demand is you all table this tonight. We need more time. Everyone, whatever your position is, you can table it now and we can get this done in a few weeks. That time will help us. My second demand on top of that is that you try to keep the ordinance on the books by any means necessary. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> I think that's a good question. >> My last part is this is my notice of criminal tresp assing that I got earlier this morning. My job was to take pictures of the folks getting arrested and I was given this notice of trespassing by the city police. My job was to take pictures of the folks getting arrested and I was given this notice of trespassing by the city police. My understanding is that if I go onto that site again, I will be arrested. My understanding is that if I go onto that site again, I will be arrested. I was just there to take pictures. >> Thank you. Amy Taylor, then Matthew Frye. Amy Taylor. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for the comments. I would like Denton to do whatever it can to preserve local control and protect our fracking ban. Matthew Frye. >> Matthew Frye. >> And Denton. Okay, good evening and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak tonight. I'm really frustrated that the oil and gas industry has used regulatory capture to gain control of both the railroad commission and state government. And have effectively negated the one right that every American has and that's the right to vote. As you all are aware, we voted to ban fracking in the city because we were tired of having the oil and gas industry operate with impunity in our city territory. It was the lone gas drilling legislation enacted by the city that took the majority of citizen opinions into account. It was the lone gas drilling legislation enacted by the city that took the majority of citizen opinions into account. And I am not convinced that we should repeal the ban because as a citizen initiative, it set an extremely powerful precedent. Now in the case that the city doesn't repeal the ban, and this plays out in court, I understand the concerns about a judge finding in favor of HB 40 and giving it some judicial standing. However, that's not a guarantee because Texas courts have long recognized the home rule authority of cities as equivalent to the state legislature's powers. However, that's not a guarantee because Texas courts have long recognized the home rule authority of cities as equivalent to the state legislature's powers. With municipal authority preempted only if the legislature seeks to exert its control with unmistakable clarity. And as most people who have read HB 40 have commented, what constitutes commercially reasonable, as well as some of the other components of the bill, are not unmistakably clear. Texas courts have also recognized that municipal police powers are valid, so long as they are reasonable and are substantially related to addressing a legitimate public goal. Since it was voted in by majority, the fracking ban seems to be both reasonable and related to a legitimate public goal. Since it was voted in by majority, the fracking ban seems to be both reasonable and related to a legitimate public goal. With that being said, I think we also recognize that as a result of this regulatory capture by the oil and gas industry, With that being said, I think we also recognize that as a result of this regulatory capture by the oil and gas industry, our state's court system is also compromised. And this is one of the reasons we're debating whether to repeal the fracking ban. In the case that you all do vote to repeal the ban, I would suggest that you be certain that there is nearly the same level of a majority of citizen support for our next move. I want to finish with a suggestion that I've phrased in the form of questions. Why are City of Denton police arresting Denton citizens at gas well sites? With HB 40, aren't these places exclusive jurisdiction of the state government? According to the language HB 40 inserted into the Natural Resource Code, "A municipality may enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance or other measure," which suggests that the city is not required to enact, amend, or enforce anything at those sites. Because according to HB 40, "An oil and gas operation is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state." Would it not be prudent to let the state government enforce trespassing complaints at sites under their exclusive jurisdiction? Shouldn't Vantage Energy be calling the railroad commission and not our police? Thank you. [APPLAUSE] Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. A couple of questions for you. Good to see you here tonight. Are you suggesting that you would rather the state police take care of these arrests rather than our local police? And you're suggesting that folks go to wherever state police take people rather than to our municipal core. Do you think that that's a - are you really suggesting that 's a better plan? Yes. Really? I actually - I stand by the people who have been arrested. I commend them for doing that. I recognize that this would be the worst case scenario for them. But I mean I think if we're going to stick a stand as a city, one thing to say is if you're going to tie our hands, then you take care of this. I mean if we've got to call the TCEQ to get them to come out here every time we smell something and it takes eight days for them to get here, why can't Vantage also call down to the railroad commission and have them take two hours for the troopers to get up here instead of our police coming over there in a minute? And then we don't have these same complaints that you read about in the paper today about our city police are - what if there was an emergency and they were wasting money on our city police to arrest these protesters and stuff? Another question. Now, you've got the doctorate. I've just got a master's, so you're smarter than me. But neither one of us are lawyers. No. But we both read House Bill 40, right? Yeah. I agree with you that there's not unmistakable clarity regarding economically feasible. But having read that ordinance or having read that bill several times, it seems crystal clear to me that they have been very explicit in preempting a municipality's ability to ban fracking. Do you read that differently? No, I read it the same way. I mean, this is - I wrote this earlier and I actually think the suggestion of keeping our ban on the books some way, but having another ordinance that actually changes that would be a prudent way to approach this. I mean, my point is just that it's not a clear-cut case. I get it with the lawyers' advice and stuff, but it's not a clear-cut case. There's a lot of historical precedents for municipal control in the state. And so this is written. This is in the books. A question that I think we want to refer to, or I want to refer to our attorney for maybe elimination at a later point in the evening, would be our local police department 's responsibilities as opposed to the state police. So if you'll think about that, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Matthew - oh, is that - I'm sorry, that's you. That's me. I didn't turn my card over. I apologize. Jennifer Hensley is up next. And behind Jennifer is Brandon Finley. State your name and address and your time will begin. My name is Jennifer Hensley. I live at 517 Cardinal Drive in Denton. Good evening, councilmembers. I am a wife, a mother, and a teacher. I've lived in Denton all my life. I vote in every election. I voted for the fracking ban. And I was elated when we won. And I was heartbroken when HB 40 tore it to pieces. This is not the democracy that I was taught in schools. Denton public schools that I attended and now teach at. I am a French teacher. I tell you this because I believe we could all take note of the tenacity and pride in which the French approached their duty to uphold their freedoms and defend their civil liberties. I don't have any ideas, but I can echo those ideas that have already been said and probably even better ideas that will come after. And I have no questions. Just please, on behalf of my kids, my biological child, and the thousands of students that I've had the privilege of teaching, please do not condemn them and us to breathe toxic air and to drink contaminated water. Stand with us. Defend our ban. I leave with a quote from Gandhi. There is a higher court than courts of justice, and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts. Thank you. Thank you. Brandon Finley. And after Brandon is Eugene Hargrove. Hi, I'm Brandon Finley. I live at 806 Denton Street, Denton, Texas. I'm not real happy with any of this, and I just came to talk about it. Without strong representation from our local officials, we stand no chance against a state that favors industry over the voice of the people. Last July, this council decided that instead of making a strong stance on a divisive topic that they would leave it up to the people, and we made that stance in November for you, we decided to ban fracking. We took a stand on a slippery slope against an even slipper ier opponent, knowing it would be a hard fight, and we laid the first blow. Now that blow has been returned in kind, and it's our turn to make the next move. Like that last fight, we were outmatched, but this time we 're not alone. The tactics they used to squash our ban affect every community in the state. HB 40 is the biggest attack on home rule since 1912. It's a broad, desperate move by an industry under siege. It was created to silence the voice of the people when and wherever they try to speak out against the oil industry in Texas. So what do we do now? Protests will not work. Calling Myra Crown over will not work. Calling Michael Burgess will not work, and calling Governor Abbott sure won't work. It's up to you now. That brings us to you, who tonight I may have to see repeal our ban that we voted for into law. I understand that's the case, but I have to ask you, if that is the case, where do we go from here? HB 40 was made to end this ban and take control from cities with strong regulation. I say we took a lead when we voted for that ban and that we shouldn't let that go now, and to lay down and just repeal this ban is cowardice. We need to stand up to the state as bad as any community in it, and how are we to do that when the oil and gas companies have a louder voice than ours? Repeal without amended regulation is a mistake. We need to fight. We need to have the strongest regulations in the state, not the 15,000 feet that works in Dallas. We need to be above that. We need to take the lead on this like we did when we had a ban. We need more organization. We need you to help bring the community together and to help build a fight that we can have against the state. I, for one, believe that it's not over. I don't plan to give up. I would rather see us move away from oil and gas and towards an industry that we can be proud of to support as a community. We, the people of Denton, are not the sum of our raw materials or our mineral rights. We have a voice and it is loud. Let our representatives embrace that voice and stand up for us. If you do repeal this ban, I hope you have a good plan to follow up. Thank you. Thank you, Brandon. Eugene Hargrove. Now for Eugene. Rebecca Lindros. I'm Gene Hargrove at 2025 Houston Place, Denton, Texas, 76 201. And kind of interesting, it came up earlier about mineral right owners and I was surprised when I started getting phone calls to discover that I was a mineral right owner and that everybody in my neighborhood, which would be basically the West Oak Historic District, are also mineral right owners and we've been refusing to cooperate. The offer for what they would give us was really chintzy in comparison with water pollution, air pollution and earthquakes. Not all that exciting. I had to go give some lectures at Oregon State at the end of April and I ended up accidentally attending a lecture by a lawyer from University of Oregon on public trust obligations. And she's focused primarily on something called atmospheric trust litigation, trying to prevent pipelines from being built across Oregon and so on. But in passing she mentioned that a town in Pennsylvania had a fracking ban and then the legislature of Pennsylvania passed a law telling them that they couldn't have a ban. And then they went to court on what was called public trust obligation that the legislature was preventing them from being able to carry out their public trust obligations to the people that they were supposed to govern. And I think that you could look up the lawyer, I'm willing to provide you with her name, and find out what happened in Pennsylvania and it might be a good approach. And in previous fracking hearings, I made another suggestion which the City Council never followed. In the event that we lose everything, I think at least when a dr iller comes in and wants a permit that you should require them to publicly say what their secret ingredients are. Some time ago I was a little involved with the Health Department Association for the state of Texas and I came up , I thought what in the world can I say to them and I came up with this idea and they told me they'd already done it in Garland. And it turned out that there was a paint company that was emitting emissions into the air and people were very unhappy about it. And so they basically figured out what the emissions were and then the Health Department ran around when people complained and did air samples and was able to say these air samples are coming from you. And they were able to get the company to fix its emissions. And I think that if you force them to say what their secret sauce is, then it would give individuals some chance of trying to protect themselves if they had a problem. >> Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. >> Just to let you know, we're trying to explore all of those options. I appreciate you bringing up the Pennsylvania case. I ended up talking to a lawyer on the phone today from New York that was familiar with the Pennsylvania case and I asked if there was any chance that that case would help us. And the answer I got was the facts in that case are so different from the facts that would be in our case regarding our fracking ban that if we're talking about the same case, and I think we are, that the results of that case would not be replicated here. So we're exploring that. I appreciate you bringing it up. We need to go down every possible trail possible to do what everybody is asking, which is to retain as much local control as possible. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just sort of a heads up, we'll be taking a break at about 820. Give everybody a chance to stretch their legs. So I just wanted to give everybody a heads up on that. Up is Rebecca Lindro, Lindrose, I'm sorry. And then Walter Lindro is on deck. >> Good evening. My name is Rebecca Lindro and I live at 8 25 Lindhurst Lane in the Southridge subdivision. A man whose family is noted for being in the forefront of the oil and gas industry recognized the importance of balance between extracting oil and environmental responsibility. His name was Lawrence S. Rockefeller, and the Rockefellers were a major in the oil business. Here's his quote, and this was at the end of his life. How we treat our land, how we build upon it, how we act towards our air and water will in the long run tell what kind of people we are. There is a balance between the oil industry and environmental protection. We are not seeing it in Eagle Ridge and we're not seeing it in Vantage. They have shown us what kind of people they are by showing little regard for our air, land, and water. The issue before the Denton citizens was and remains an issue of regulating an industry that refuses to regulate itself. We voiced that opposition by passing a ban on fracking in Denton. Repealing the fracking ban allows the oil and gas companies in Texas, for the industry in Texas, to regulate us, not the other way around. Defending the ban is the right course. You've talked about being transparent. I could read what I've written and put a lot of time and practice to get in within three minutes, but the bottom line is House Bill 40 is a bad law. I don't understand how a legislator, I understand politically, I understand following the money and contributions. I understand all of that. I don't understand how they can come in and take out home rule. Why can one legislative body undercut decades of litigation in Texas with home rule? I don't understand that. More specifically, I see this whole thing as an attempt to silence the voice of the voters. This is a right we have to vote to try to protect our rights when the state is not. The state is very definitely on the side of big business and oil. So what do you do when you have a bad law? I don't have an answer, but I have examples. I hate to bring this up, but it's kind of comparable. Bonhoeffer was a brilliant family in Germany who happened to be born during Hitler's time. He saw that the laws that were written in that country were wrong, and he had to make a decision whether to roll over, which a lot of people did, or to find a way to stand up to it, which he did. I recommend that we defend the ban on fracking. I know I don't have time for this, but I watched a clip of Anita Burgess's being questioned by the state, and they asked her questions about our city. They asked her two questions. They said if the city, the people of Denton knew what it was going to cost them if they banned fracking, would they have made that vote? And then they asked if they really understood what it cost them, would it have changed their vote? They're talking in monetary terms. What it cost us in money? We're talking about what it cost us in lives. I can answer as a member of that community, I'm willing to bear that financial cost, because the cost of lives, you can't put a dollar amount on that. Thank you. Walter Lindros, and then up is Michael Briggs. Walter Lindros, and then Michael Briggs. My name is Walter Lindros. I live at 825 Lindhurst Lane with the excellent speaker who came before me, and I can't measure up to as far as speaking goes, but I'll try my best . You are our council and our mayor. Your attempts to regulate hydraulic fracturing within city limits were reb uffed by the industry. As a result of this recalcitrance, Denton citizens petition ed to place a ban on fracking onto the ballot and voted 59 to 41 percent to ban hydraulic fracturing. All sides had ample opportunity to present their viewpoints , and the outcome was determined by a well-informed citizen ry. Such a vote by the people is the bedrock, the foundation of a democracy. What is the issue? Why did conservative Denton voters come out so strongly against hydraulic fracturing? It is based on one of the most conservative principles that there is. It is the right to be secure in one's own home. Whether you own it or rent it, you have a right to be secure. If someone were to say to me, I'm going to enter your home any time, day or night, I would tell him that I and a 12 gauge would object. The right to be safe and secure in our own homes is a fundamental American right. Whoever my neighbor is, he does not have the right to spill wastewater onto my property through a leaky drainage system . He does not have the right to put drain water into a stream running onto my property. He does not have the right to shine floodlights into my windows or send 80 decibels of sound through my walls. He has no right to send a blue haze of pollution from diesel engines onto my property or to poison the air that I and my children breathe or spill chemicals on the ground and tell me it's healthy. Big government in Austin has coupled itself with the gigantic oil and gas industry to rob Denton citizens of the right to be secure in their own homes. If they had said, let's allow Texans to vote on whether to regulate oil and gas, if Texans voted that way, it would be legitimate. If they voted the other way, it would be legitimate. But what actually happened in the Texas legislature was a lot of gift giving by oil and gas, most of it through campaign contributions. Scores of oil and gas lobbyists harangued our legislators. Out of this came HB 40, a denial of the citizens' right to regulate hydraulic fracturing. The choice is not between allowing the industry to extract gas or oil or not. It is to do so while respecting the rights of the citizens to be secure in their own homes. It is possible to eliminate the intrusions onto property that I mentioned as well as many that I didn't mention. But it requires some regulations. This Texas state legislature did not pass one law regulating hydraulic fracturing. The vote of the people of Denton carries moral and ethical authority. Our Texas legislature does not. If someone is going to repeal the vote of the people, do not let it be us. >> Councilmember, Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. >> Thank you. >> I'll get used to that. >> Whatever you want to call me. >> Just don't call me late to dinner. I appreciate the comments that you made. When I first got on council, I did not really fully recognize why we had consultants in Austin that were so busy during the legislative session. And I soon learned because we are playing a game of defense all the time. Where legislation is introduced in Austin that is very negative towards municipal governments. They don't want to raise taxes. So they decide that they're going to take the first, they were taking the first $40, now they're taking the first $80 of every traffic fine that Denton police assess. Or when they write a ticket and when our municipal judge, all funded locally, but the state takes the first $80 off the top. Why do they do that? Because they have the authority over the city. I was stunned when I learned about all of the bills that get introduced each year that are negative towards cities. And this year was particularly bad because a lot of people that ran for state office made campaign statements against cities enacting paper bag or throw away shopping bag ordinances and tree ordinances and fracking bans. I'm wondering if you are aware that there was a law introduced this year in the legislative session. Thank goodness it didn't get very far. A law introduced that would actually take away every city's right for local initiatives, citizen generated initiatives. Are you aware that that was a law that was proposed in Austin this year? I heard of that, yes. All I'm trying to say is there's a big fight. Somebody said earlier the fight is certainly about fracking . But there's even a bigger fight and it's about the people having a voice and about local control. And I don't think the fight is over yet. I think what has happened is that when Texas government was first formulated back in the 19th century, it made some sense. And that and the county governments made some sense. But what has happened in the meantime is the growth, the tremendous growth of cities. So that 90% of the people who were agrarian now is 90% live in cities. And the cities have the power. And when I have a problem, I go to city government. I don't try to look up who my state legislator is to try to get some solution to this. And I think right now what is happening is that the HB 40 is kind of a dying gasp from the state legislature that power is actually in the cities. And the cities have the right to govern themselves free of this kind of interference. I think that's the trend. I hope it's a dying gasp and I hope it's not a big bite of which they're going to take more. >>Councilmember Hawkins. >>Yeah. I appreciate what you said. And I just I want more of a comment just to find it to be ironic to all these state Texas politicians want the federal government to leave them alone. But yet they want to meddle with cities. It's very interesting dynamic to me. I think you gave your wife a little run for her money there on speaking. So I'm just going to have to thank you. Sorry. >>Okay. Thank you. I see no more questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Michael Briggs. And I've got a question of clarification. The next card I have says Ed and Carol Soph. Does that mean you all want to speak sort of behind back to back? Okay. Fair enough. You bet. All right. I'm sorry. >>My name is Michael Briggs, 2311 Houston Place. I don't have anything super profound. Just a few thoughts. My gut feeling is that repealing the ban is the wrong thing to do. It just doesn't feel right. Especially as far as symbolism and optics go. It would be admitting defeat and that we're weak and scared and that we're backing down. And it would -- I mean, clearly there's international attention on Denton right now. And that would resonate in a big way, very negatively, I think. And one question I have is the current ordinance that was in place before the ban, which I assume is incompatible with HB40, what is this -- would that need to be amended to fall in line with HB40? Because that would also be in conflict and a problem as the ban itself would be. So I mean, I'm just curious, would that stay on the books as is and not be enforced? Or would that need to be changed also? And one concern is that if the ban was repealed, I would be concerned that the city and/or DAG would not have standing to -- something to complain about if it was to go to a higher court, perhaps the Texas or the U.S. Supreme Court or something like that. There would be nothing to fight for because we wouldn't have anything on the books. So I'm worried about just a question of legal standing. If we eliminate that, what do we have to go to court over in the future? If it is repealed, I think that we would need to feel really comfortable that there is a very clear path forward and a really good reason of why it would be repealed and what the next steps are, because it just seems too dangerous to repeal that and not have a clear path forward. And also I think that since this was a citizen referendum and voted on by the city, that it should only be voted out by the city. I don't think that the council has the right or the moral authority to repeal an initiative that was voted on overwhelmingly by the citizens. I think that if you wanted to repeal that, I think that you should put it up for a vote for the entire city to vote on. And that's the only way that that should be able to be repe aled. And that's about it. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Mr. Briggs asked I think a significant question that the council has already discussed. So I would refer it to our city attorney. And it's the question about are there other parts of our gas and our gas drilling ordinance that might be rendered unenforceable by House Bill 40? Mayor Pro Tem, that is an issue. I think if there's any comfort here, I think Denton is not alone. And I think many cities are pondering that very question. With the intervention of House Bill 40, I think a lot of cities are looking at their ordinances and trying to determine if they are enforceable in some respects and not in others. And so I think Denton, along with many other cities, are going to have to think through this issue and ponder it and come forward, perhaps with looking at some amendments. Can you think of any categories that might be more vulnerable because of House Bill 40 or is that something that you would rather address in executive session? I would probably address the language of House Bill 40. I think as we all know, there are some specific items that have been listed that the legislature has indicated where cities can in fact regulate. And then there are some other areas where the legislation says cities cannot enact or enforce certain things relating to the oil and gas industry. So I think suffice it to say this law is new. We are all looking at it and we will be moving forward with some ideas and some thoughts and having a great deal of dialogue about this in the future. Thank you. Ed and Carol Soph and then after their comments we'll take a short break and I'll tell you when we come back. We are Ed and Carol Soph and we live at 1620 Victoria. We figured we'd make one statement to save time because there's a lot of people with some great things to say. We are very conflicted and we've been involved in this since the very beginning and it's so easy to get emotionally worked up that we are trying to remain cool, calm and collected. And we ask that everybody do the same as well as counsel. House Bill 40 has stolen our freedom. It mocks the democratic process that produced Denton's fr acking ban. The question is how do we win back that freedom and restore our local control? How do we defeat House Bill 40? Like many here tonight, we are not sure. That's why we're having this get together. Do we stand our ground and refuse to repeal it? If we do, what are the consequences? What if the ordinance is repealed? Is the strategy then to unite with a city, another city or cities that have lost their own protections when reasonably prudent operators operating under commercially reasonable regulations prove that House Bill 40 is not as protective as the ordin ances that it preempted? Is that scenario a possibility here in Denton if that opportunity arises? Will a citizen's referendum be required to reinstate the ban ordinance once House Bill 40 is defeated? And it will be eventually. Notice of the proposed repeal was ridiculously short as Dr. Brighill pointed out. Neither the city nor concerned citizens have had the time to really sort this all out. In that spirit, we ask that you please table this vote and continue the discussion. Thank you. Thank you. And I have one question that I thought of while I was listening to people ask questions about protesting. And if the police weren't there, would Vantage have the right to protect their property with armed guards? Then we're going into a new level of safety. There's a safety issue here where people legitimately want to protest. Would they be protecting their private property and have the right to have guns? That's my question. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember -- Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Madam City Attorney, there's a question that's probably a legal question. If you don't mind, Mayor Pro Tem, let's delay that to the end of this discussion and we'll circle back on that when we circle back on the other issues. That's a good thing to get an answer to. Thank you very much. It is 825. Let's -- we're going to adjourn until 835, so we'll take a short 10-minute break. We are reconvening our City Council meeting tonight on June 2, 2015 on agenda item 6B, I believe it is, item for individual consideration. We're going to proceed on with our blue cards and speakers. Our next speaker up will be Riley Briggs, and behind Riley will be Donna Bloom. State your name and address and your time will begin. Hello. My name is Riley Briggs. I live 3108 Broken Bow, 76209. Today I'm here to speak about our rights of democracy and freedom and how Texas, the big state legislator, is taking away our personal rights and freedom with House Bill 40, and I do not like that. But now we're wanting to repeal the vote even though they 're trying to take it away already, which seems like we're backing away from a bully. But that's not how you want to fight. When there's a bully bullying you, you get back up, fight, defend yourself. No matter how bizarre or hard it may seem, you fight back, especially now, since our future, our environment. So far, the only world I know where we can live is Earth, and we need to protect it by injecting chemicals and harmful things into the air and the water and the ground, and causing earthquakes is not going to help. Thank you. Remember, fight back, defend ourselves. Sure. Riley, Riley, we have a couple questions for you. Can't hear me. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Riley, Mr. Briggs. We've got a couple questions. Okay, it's been a while, but didn't you appear before council on July 15, about two in the morning? Yes, I did. I'm glad that we got you here a little closer to my bedtime . I don't know when your bedtime is. Yes. Thank you for your comments and for the eloquence of your comments and the passion. Thank you very much. A couple more. Councilmember Roden. You must have really great parents. I do, very much. Thank you, Riley, for coming out again and being involved in this process. And I'm just curious, remind me what grade you're in. Sixth grade, so I'll be going into seventh grade. Awesome, awesome. What are kids your age? Are they aware of this? Are they talking about this? Folks in your school, this whole idea of the frack ban? I mean, obviously you're an advocate. You've probably talked to an educated bunch of folks, but is this on the radar of folks in middle school at this point? Well, generally, overall, I wouldn't say so. I mean, me and my couple of friends, we aren't fans of fr acking. But generally, overall, kids are just obsessed with getting cool joggers and shoes and swag. As I was in junior high as well. But no, thank you for being engaged and you're obviously a light to your fellow students about citizenship. So keep it going. Thanks, Riley. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. So Riley, does that make you about 13? Well, right now I'm 12. Right now I had my birthday May 11. So you're just 12. I just want to tell you, number one, you're incredibly impressive for your age. At your age, I couldn't remember where I put my shoes, much less when I come down and talk in front of a group like this. But you're very well spoken and you made eye contact with us and you were brave to walk down there and do that in front of this crowd. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but I don't think many 12 year olds could pull it off. So good on you. Thank you. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. Back in July, I was giving you a compliment, hoping that my son grows up to be like you. So are you involved with student government at your school? No, I am not. I'm part of the PTSA now. I wanted to be, but I never directly got information to be in it. Well, thank you for what you said. I appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. I just wanted to tell you thank you for coming and reminding us why we're all here. Thank you. Councilmember -- oh, I'm sorry. And don't forget to brush your teeth when you get home. Councilmember Wasney. And you also came to all of the forums and all of the debates, and so thank you for being involved. It's how we move forward with the next generation. And also I have two granddaughters. Hey, Riley. I really appreciate you coming down. I met you formally for the first time at your mom's swe aring-in, that reception, and you're such a polite and respectful young man, and I really appreciate that. And I appreciate your heart. And I do remember when you came down July the 15th. You probably had more energy than everybody in this room put together at that time. So thank you very much. Thank you. You bet. All right. Thank you. Yes. Up is Donna Bloom. And then after Donna is Kelsey Freiman. Hi. My name is Donna Bloom. I live at 2019 Crestwood Place. So the first thing I want to say is that I practice as an attorney. I'm not well skilled in what I believe you've probably become very well skilled in around all the oil and gas industry issues, Ms. Burgess. But I will say that as an attorney, this process has been incredibly frustrating because I truly want to understand, and I have the mind to understand, and truly kind of believe that most of the people here without necessarily a legal education have the mind and the ability and the desire to understand. And there's very little information and all sort of behind this idea of attorney client privilege and legal strategy, which as an attorney, I understand. But I also sort of see myself as a part of that relationship and someone that deserves to understand the legal strategy. And one of the messages that we keep getting tonight is if in fact the determination was made that it was the best sort of legal strategy and decision to repeal the ban, which I clearly understand that's what you guys are contemplating, not anything that's substantive about the will, but a legal strategy. What I'm hearing from people here is they want to know what the plan is. In fact, you know, I support DAG and the groups, the folks here saying that y'all ought to wait. Like, I don't totally understand the timing. I know I read Mr. Rodin's comments, which were very helpful . Thank you for being that transparent and giving some guidance. But there was references about motions for summary judgment and being an attorney, I understand the timelines behind those. So I know that there's no rush to like to immediately have this done from a legal perspective. And so that I'm curious about, like why so quickly? Why rush here today to do this? As an attorney, I would like to have that question answered . Like, what is the what's the rush, first of all? And then secondly, I would just encourage you guys that if and when you do decide upon an approach, that you be loud about it, that you tell us, that you educate us, that you spend some money, the money that you won't spend on this litigation if you in fact repeal and you think that's going to make the litigation, at least right now, go away, that you invest some of that money in educating these folks about this process, about the intricacies that Ms. Burgess so fully understands. Because I believe that the constituency here has the mind and the desire to fully understand the complexities of this issue and that we don't have to speak in broad terms and hide behind, you know, legal strategies that can't be discussed. Transparency, I so appreciate that from you, Ms. Wasney, that that's been you were vocal about that throughout your campaign. And I totally appreciate that, that that is what you guys want to do. Find a way to do it. Social media. Mr. Roden's a great example of that. Meetings. Teach us what you're learning. You guys are all getting a great education on hydraulic fracturing, on case law. Teach us. We want to know so that we can all be on the same team. Thank you. Councilmember, Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Thank you. Okay, so I had supported the fracking ban. Yes. And I felt like that there was an opportunity that it could be successful in a legal challenge. Yes. Because there was not law on the books that explicitly banned or prohibited or preempted the city from banning fr acking. There were some laws that implied that, but nothing that was explicit. You've read House Bill 40? I have. And you know, they say in the first section, they say the legislature intends that this act expressly preempt the regulation of oil and gas operations by municipalities and other political subdivisions, which is impliedly preempted by the statutes already in effect. Right. And then two other times, they say cities are now preempted . Sure. Given that, with your legal background and having read this and looking at our ban, do you think that if Texelga who's suing us and the Texas Land Commission who's suing the city asked for a summary judgment by a Denton district to judge, do you think that the summary judgment would go in favor of Denton or against Denton, given House Bill 40? So, Mr. Gregory, I'm going to give you a lawyer answer, which I'm sure you've gotten a lot of. Oh, Lord. It depends. And I don't know because I practice family law. If you're a victim of domestic violence, I can help you. I'm good at that. I can explain the intricacies of family law. I can help you navigate a very complex situation. But you're asking me in a moment to answer a question that you've got a team of lawyers that are digging around trying to figure out how to answer that question. Well, I will tell you this, I think the law is overbroad. I think it oversteps. I think it infringes upon a lot of case law and precedent. And I think if there's any city out there that is to challenge this kind of overstep, we're the city to do it. Well, by the way, I might need your card because depending on my vote, I might be -- there may be some domestic violence in my house. There are people here that have it. So I certainly will accept your referral. So there are lawyers that have said the likelihood of us losing and getting slapped down pretty hard with a judgment against us is high. So here's another question. What do we win by losing that legal battle? Oh, my gosh. I think you win a lot. Tell me. I think you win standing by these good people in this city who have spoken to you. So sometimes I have clients that are in very difficult situations and there's really no good choice for them. And I have to explain to them all of their options and choices. And that's my job, not the one that I think is best for them or the one that's going to benefit someone else down the road, but what's their options. And sometimes I know what the outcome is going to be, but they just have to hear it from a judge. Sometimes they just need to hear it from a judge because they need to see me fight and they need their narrative told. They need an opportunity to tell their story. And litigation gives you an opportunity to tell your story. There was an opportunity with Eagle Ridge. You all sought a restraining order, an emergency ex parte restraining order. And it got it didn't get granted. And for a lot of, I'm sure, very good legal reasons, that case went away. It didn't get pursued. That was not a loss. We never litigated it. We have vested rights issues. That's really at the heart of all of this, really. Not this, honestly, not the fracking ban. It's even if we have commercially reasonably stat protections in place, we have a vested rights issue. Where is that? That's what we need to be litigating. That's the plan I'm talking about. Like how are we, we're the city to do it. We've got really good leadership, really smart people that are committed to this community. You've got a bunch of people that are showing up and care about this. And so sometimes it's just a good opportunity to build your , tell your story. Even if you lose, even if you lose in Judge Shipman's court , even if you lose at the appellate level, even if you lose at the Supreme Court, okay, so what? So what? When this ban got in place, we got mailer after mailer after mailer telling us how much money this was going to cost us. Right? That was talked about a ton. And this 60% of this community said, okay, do we not expect that this was going to happen? I mean, we knew when we passed the ban that this was going to happen. Nobody thought that we were going to walk into the sunset with our ban. Nobody thought that. We knew that the legislature was coming. We knew that they were going to do that. So where is the plan? I mean, I'll get behind it because I trust you guys. I really do. But so far I don't have any idea what the plan is. And to hear, to read on Facebook that, you know, we're considering repealing our ban was heartbreaking to me. It was very, it was heartbreaking. I was so disappointed. And I sent some, I communicated with Keely, I communicated with Kevin, and they did their very best to communicate back to me given the constraints that I believe you guys are placed under to share information. But we need more information and we need an articulated plan that's transparent that involves us, that educates us. Council? Just to follow up, and there are other people that want to ask you questions. Don't go away. If you have an idea for what a good plan would be, I'd be interested in that. I think other people need to ask questions, but let's talk later. Okay. Councilmember Briggs. I don't really have a question. I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for your energy and your passion here. And you brought up a good point about being a lawyer. Usually they don't sit and tell you you're going to lose. You don't have a fight. What they do is they do their best to protect you and to fight for you and let the judge decide that. If you did something bad, a criminal attorney isn't -- I mean, you know, you may think to themselves, oh, man, we're not going to win this, but you're right. You know, if you do that, you knock someone's hope out. Right. And I don't think that's fair. And for the plan, I ask legal, is there something that we can answer to her question about a plan? You know, I think that's something that we probably ought to talk about, or the council ought to talk about, as far as going forward and where this city, where this council wants to go with these various issues. That's not for me as the city's lawyer to direct that. That's for the client. That's for the city council to think about that, form a co gent plan and move forward with it. So I'll respond in that fashion. Thank you. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you, mayor. I just -- I really appreciate some of the ways that you've said some of these things. I feel like they are brand new to me. Like, I haven't heard it like that. Like, sometimes a people -- somebody needs to hear something from a judge or they need a venue to tell their story. I don't know. I just had like this light bulb moment. I didn't -- I've never heard of it that way. So I just really appreciate you saying that. Thanks. Yeah, you're pumped up. I bet you're a rocking lawyer. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Next we have Kelsey Freiman. And then Kelly Barr is on deck. Oh, no, it's the mean one. Kelsey Freiman, I live at 701 Fort Worth Drive. The Black Lives Matter movement made it clear that when people's lives are not valued, resistance can be expected. I can't help when listening to some of these testimonies feel like I felt when chanting Eric Gardner's last words in the streets. He said, "I can't breathe." For years, we have known that climate change is real and that our governments have done nothing because those who primarily face the brunt are brown and black bodies, the people who shoulder the burden are poor. We are expected to sacrifice our health and our homes for the sake of profits. We are expected to suffer without question to allow decisions made by those who will not suffer the consequences to overrule what we have decided. I'm here to say that I will not die quietly. I will fight this not only because my life has value, but because those who have no choice in the feeling the effects of our actions, lives matter too. I will not be complicit in their deaths. I will not say there is a price at which you buy our voices and our lives. The arrogance to overturn a law democratically decided by people here serves as a demonstration that you think there is a price tag on our bodies and that you can buy our democracy. If you do not defend this ban, then we will. I will say that some people think that this is just about local control, but "I will not die quietly" also speaks to the fact that climate change affects people across the globe and our contributions to that crisis puts us equally at risk and equally at fault for people who are flooded across this globe, including in our own communities. When you allow open frac pits to spill over into flooded lakes, you are complicit in their poisoning. I will tell you that most of you know that I cannot stand by idly and allow you to assume that this ban could be und efended. That is your job as our elected officials. That is what we elect you to do is defend us on our behalf, to negotiate on our behalf. When you don't do that, you've failed at your jobs. I will end with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. King. "C owardice asks the question, is it safe? Expedience asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? There comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but we must take it because it is right." And you should keep in mind that he went to jail probably more than any of us have. Thank you. Thank you. Kelly Barr. Kelly Barr? Yes, I'm sorry. And then on deck would be Kevin Moffitt. Hi, my name is Kelly Barr. I live at 701 West Sycamore Street in Denton, Texas. And before I start, I just want to anticipate a question that I think Mayor Pro Tem Gregory might ask me and to say that I am not and I have never been a Russian agent. Did you know when I asked that? Well, I'm glad somebody got that joke because it really, you know, it was awful. Oh, at 1.30 in the morning it was perfect. Yeah, thanks. I want to thank all of you who are up here. I live in District 3, so Councilman Wasney, welcome. I want to talk a little bit about something that happened this morning at the Vantage Frackwell site. I was there this morning and I watched as after Elida and Rodney and Jonathan were arrested and I commend them for doing that and taking that risk. After watching them being led or walking away of their own volition, I watched as the workers cut the chains to a sign that had our ordinance written on it and that was chained to the gate of the frack site. I watched them cut that and throw down our ordinance and then carry it back behind the fence to their camp on private property. And I thought that was a particularly weighty moment. I think it really nicely sums up the situation that we have right here, which is that our ordinance is being taken out of the public realm and secreted away to a place where the public can't go. It's been, for example, it's been taken onto the realm of private property, out from the street where everyone could read it. The state legislature has taken it out of the context of a local governance issue and has made it into, has turned it over to the lion's den that, Gregor, you were saying is very hostile to local control and municipal authority. So I think it brings home to us what's at risk here and I think really we've been having a conversation all along about acceptable levels of risk. So it's good that we're coming back to that point. What's at risk here is the erasure of our ordinance, the silencing of our voices by the last line of defense that we have against the state's crotism and hypocrisy and all of the things that we've been fighting against from the very start. So it's a little bit disheartening that we're talking here tonight about the possibility of a repeal because it means the possibility of confronting some really heartbreaking outcomes, maybe things like undoing all of the hard work that we've done and all of the massive strides that we've made in banding this community together and doing something that a lot of people in this country think is kind of impossible to do, which is to have a sort of populist democratic action. I've been really inspired by the things that citizens have been doing in the past few days to defend our ban. And so I want to add my voice to the chorus of people who are requesting that the vote be tabled to give us more time to explore all of our options. I also support Cindy Spoon's suggestion to keep the ban on the books while making it clear that it will not be enforced if that's possible. Thanks Cindy for your suggestion and generally for being awesome. I have a couple of suggestions too. I think it's clear that we need some sort of plan regarding how the city intends to maintain transparency throughout the process of discussing the possibility of a repeal. I think this plan needs to be open to the public. Can you ask me a question so I can keep going? You can finish your thought. Okay thanks. So I think it's clear that this needs to be made public whether we do that through something like town hall meetings or some other public forum. I think that would be great. Something like regular public updates on a widely accessible platform. Maybe we create a new website where people can go as a central repository for information about where the process stands and what city council is thinking, what you are discussing, where you're kicking around. That would be really great. Maybe plans to raise awareness among citizens who aren't already engaged but are definitely affected by fracking. Two, I think we need to think about ways to support citizens and their peaceful resistance to the imposition of HB 40. One way in which the ban could be enforced indirectly is to support citizen direct action initiatives which some people have been pursuing and I commend them for that. Then law enforcement is a key piece of the puzzle in figuring out how to get out of this position of being caught between a rock and a hard place. It feels a little bit like we've had sand kicked in our face so we're all a little bit disoriented but I think the local law enforcement could be a really key ally in us in the meantime trying to enforce what I think is all of our goal which is preventing fracking in the city limits. Third, I agree with Mr. McKinney's assessment that HB 40 is a vindictive law. I'm hoping that this is a case of having to wake into sleeping giant all across Texas and that I would like to see that as city council you leverage the citizens who are here who have gotten really, really good at community organizing and engaging people to act. You leverage them to band together with other cities and municipalities across the state of Texas who are also going to be affected by HB 40 and are really incensed about it such that when it comes to challenging the constitution ality of HB 40 which I would submit should be our goal here that we are not alone in doing so and that we have strength in numbers. So thanks for letting me. We have a question. Councilmember, Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Thank you. The the attorney for Earth justice recommends that we repe al the ordinance, because they'll lose. Do you think that, and a speaker before you said, if we lose. So what. So my question for you is, do you think that losing in court is okay. I think we have much more to gain from losing in court than not fighting. Can you explain that. I think there's something to be said for the fact that this conversation that we've been having about fracking in our community for the past five years has always been a conversation about justice. In this country the courts is often how we ameliorate justice claims. So it's really important symbolically but then also for just giving people an outlet to push things as far as they can possibly go and to exhaust all of our options in order to make sure that we do everything we can to achieve our goal. It's a laudable goal. What we're doing. Just in preparation for this we spent about $200,000. And, and, and I've said that I understand that the voters have considered that that was part of the discussion during the election. If we lose a district court, would you want us to appeal it to the state appeals court. I think I'm going to have to claim ignorance here, I really don't know that much about about law. I think what happens is, is there's a appeals court. And then there's the Supreme Court, and all of those judges by the way are elected. And, so, as is our district court. So, I'm just. When I hear folks say, let's fight this and let's let's work for justice, understanding the system that we're in the state that we're in. If you want us to fight if you want us to, to, to keep it on the books and deal with the possibility of the court fight. How far would you want us to go. Or, and if you're not ready to answer that, I understand that, but, but think about it, maybe I suspect that we might be postponing action tonight. But, but it's something. This is, this is your money. And all of our money and we need to be thinking about that and, and, and how much we're willing to pay for that symbolism. Sure. Well, it's not just symbolism. I mean, HB 40 is a vindictive law. It's also an unjust law. I think that's worth fighting against. And so my hunch is that, or my sort of knee-jerk reaction is what needs to happen is that the constitutionality of HB 40 needs to be challenged. And, and if it takes us appealing through various chains of judicial review through the state of Texas or even up to the submarine court. I don't know about everyone else. I can't speak for everyone else. I would like to see that happen. If it needs to. If it needs to. I see no more questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin Moffitt and then up is Paula Collins. Kevin Moffitt. I will go ahead and read his card in his record. Kevin Moff itt 2332 Solado Street, Denton, Texas 76209 support to continue a long-term plan to support anti fracking and didn 't Paula Collins is up followed by Jody. I smart. So I apologize for that in advance. Paula Collins. 1223 Highland Park Road. I was going to recuse myself because everything's been said , but I'll read my little letter that I sent dear mayor Watts and city Denton city council. I wish to weigh in as a concerned citizen regarding the ban on fracking that was so solidly approved last fall. HB 40 to me is a knee-jerk reaction forced by the big money of the fracking lobby. We should be proud of our community and getting the issue on the ballot then overwhelmingly passing the ban. Our band came first. Then their denial of our rights to determine our environmental and health protection. It appears to me that our choice of the ban on fracking provided the framework of democracy should be grandfathered in. It seems counter constitutional to deny our vote. Is it possible to at least table this decision until further examination of the legality constitutionality of HB 40? Thank you for staying strong and sensitive to the community . Thank you. Thank you. Jody and then. Jonathan Adams. Hi, I'm Jody is Mert and it's okay. Eight 19 Anna Street and I know that so many others have already come up here and said the same thing, but I am I'm definitely in the same vote when I I'm urging you guys to please table the vote. I think everybody will agree when we say that we just don't have enough information as as the public. We definitely want to understand what our options are going forward. We want to understand the path forward. I voted. I voted to ban fracking within city limits. And I definitely want to defend the ban. I'm not for the repeal, but I'm open to understand, you know, where that would take us if we did repeal it. I also have a question. If we did choose to repeal it, would that give strength to the industry? Because you know, the second we repeal it in the news the next day, the industry is going to say, oh, we were right. Denton is admitting that they are they were wrong, that their ban was not right. What kind of strength would that give them in the courts if we did choose if we did choose to push forward with the path that we're on? Can we examine that? Another thing I would like to say is that being united as a as a community, I also like the idea of being able to disagree. I think it helps when we disagree with each other because it helps us to reexamine and examine things from a deeper perspective. And it helps us come to better solutions. And I really genuinely hope that you choose to table this so that we can do that together as a community. Additionally, lastly, I just want to remind you when you do make the decision and do vote, the world is watching us right now. This is a local issue. But this is this is an international issue. And it has been in the papers all across the world. The world is watching us and what we do and what we decide. And I would I would appreciate it if you guys would think about that when you are choosing how we want to move forward with this. Thank you. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. And legal, if I'm saying this incorrectly, please stop me or correct me. But I think one of the strategies we are possibly entertaining is if we do repeal the ordinance, it actually there is no more court case. So I think in the court venue, it takes away power from them. If I'm saying am I saying too much possibly or that's one of the. So I think that's why we're kind of entertaining this idea is we're actually trying to I think Kevin even said pull the rug out from under them in that venue. So did you say that, Kevin? Okay. But I just want to comment there. I'm a pro tem Gregory. Thank you for your comments. I think that you have really distilled down the real strategic question that the council has regarding House Bill 40 regarding local control regarding the fracking ban. Is it better to repeal the ban? Or is it better to have a judge rule that the ban is illegal? Which is better. I mean, that's really the basic question. It seems the way that the law is written and from the advice we've gotten from attorneys that that's the ruling that the judge would have. So so and it's not necessarily about winning or losing. But but does it help in the long run for local control and for. Other our ability to regulate other issues regarding gas wells. And other issues all across the spectrum for local control. Or are we better off to repeal the ban and possibly let some people say all they can see that they said it was wrong. Well, we're saying it's not wrong. We're saying House Bill 40 took away our ability to do anything. Or is it better for us to lose in court? You've really asked the question that we're struggling with . Do you have an answer? Do you have a do you have a notion as to which would be a better position for us to be in? In the eyes of the public, I think that we need to push forward and defend our ban. In the eyes of the public, the way symbolically, it's going to lie on the papers across every paper. We choose to repeal it. I think it would be it would be horrible. I think it would it would it would essentially every citizen who feels that this ban should be in place would feel like. Like justice is not being done essentially. And I'm sorry, I'm very tired. But but I think. That we also need to consider what our options are. And I think that that requires time. I can't answer this and I can't answer it because I don't have the information. And if you guys table the vote, maybe maybe that will give us time to actually understand and digest and have those answers. Well, thank you for really distilling what the question is that we're grappling with. Councilmember Briggs, a couple more questions, ma'am, ma'am . Couple more couple more questions. Yes, yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just wanted to kind of go back over what you're saying about how people may feel on the outside if we were to repe al it. And I think that if we take it away or repeal it on our own , in a sense, it tells industry that we validate them and we accept their law as law. Yes, is what you're saying. And I think that if we do the opposite route and fight it and take it to court, then the court says that it doesn't ever say that the citizens give in and validate them. Is that what you're you're trying to get at in your questioning earlier? Yes. And I think I was not so eloquent in responding. So thank you. Thanks. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. I haven't said much tonight, which is not normal. Beat you to that one, Dalton. But you made up for it. I hope. I have a question for you in a minute, but I hope that everybody can understand the like the emotional person in me wants to say to the state, you know, punch them in the mouth. How dare you? All those things, right? I mean, emotional, you just want to fight. The struggle that I'm having with this is, you know, I don 't want fracking. I don't want the industry to have their way. I don't want the state to tell us what to do. All those things. The struggle that I'm having now, and I just hope everybody can understand it, because I think that's what we're all wrestling with is the emotion of this and wanting to say, you know, to the state, which I really want to say. I don't want to hurt our ability to govern in other areas. Right? I mean, in other words, what will they do next? And so, you know, hearing from the industry from the from the DAG Group 's attorney, you know, and what she's saying and sort of what all the experts are saying to us is you've done your part. If you take it too far and you go to court and lose, then it could be, well, see, the industry would have what they want. Legislature said it. Court said it. End of discussion versus somebody said, it's like you're in tug of war and then you just let go of the rope. Well, they didn't win. You know, you just let go of the rope. So really, who has the last laugh, right? So I hope everybody understands that's the struggle, meaning because I hear everybody saying don't quit or don't let us down or, you know, you got to defend our ban. You know, that's what in a strange sort of way in my mind, it feels like if we repealed it, don't give them the satisfaction of the victory. Let HB 40 be defeated some other way, which would allow us then to implement our ban and enforce it if HB 40 was defeated. You know, in other words, we lose the battle, we win the war. And so I hope that, you know, I just want to say I hope that's that everybody understands that's the struggle, right? The struggle isn't stand behind our citizens or stand up for the vote or any of those things. It's really that other struggle, which is by going the emotional route, do we lose the war by winning the battle? Does that make sense? I mean, in other words, do you do you does that you see what we're what we're grappling with? I do see what you're grappling with because I grapple with that, too. I think overall, though, I really I firmly think that we need to understand this better. Like, for example, property rights, if it's constitution ality, property rights, as well as if if we did lose that in court, what that would mean as well as. We basically we just need to understand what we're up against. We need to understand what it is that the attorneys are saying that would make them believe that we are so solidly going to lose this. Well, I really appreciate what you said. Thank you very elo quently stated that exact struggle that you know those questions that we're trying to answer. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Jonathan Adams and then Eric. Is it mole MOL? Mole. I'm sorry. Yes. I am Jonathan Adams. I'm from 2210 Westwood. So I just have a few different points and I'm going to try to stay on topic with all of them. But I don't know when else I'm going to be able to have the chance to get all of these in at the same time. So it's already been repeated time and time again, tabling the issue at this point seems like the most strategic. It seems like there's still a lot of misinformation. There's a lot of things we don't understand for me personally. One thing I don't understand is if we do repeal it and later on we get rid of HB 40 then what do we go through this whole process again? Are we do we have to go and get this ban on the books again and go through this whole election cycle situation. So that's one question I have. And like a few people have already said this is decided in closed doors just last week. It just really doesn't feel good at this point that this is just already on the agenda. We're just kind of, you know, hit like a ton of bricks with this. My next point is I know that there has been talk of mayors across Texas getting together and creating some sort of coalition to fight HB 40. And I know that at this point you haven't really taken a strong stand on that. I'd really like to see some motion and some measurable motion forward and momentum behind that and creating some sort of coalition across the state of Texas to really sort of take this on. You know, I was down in Austin, whenever you testified in front of the Energy Resource Committee, and I know you went through that grueling hell of a process. And I really appreciate that. But I really want to see some more action and I really want to see some more measurable way forward in that. So I guess my last point is, you know, as you may know, or as you do know, since several people have already said, six people were arrested in Denton yesterday and today. And the police are really the buffer between the citizens in this company. And I know that you all have some authority over this. And at this point, nobody wants to go to jail. Nobody is excited to do this, but they see it as enforcing this ban that they work so hard for. So we would really like to see the Denton police force start to stand down. We'd like to see these charges dropped . We'd like to see this tension towards citizens really sort to succeed. And, you know, if the city is willing to make so many lee ways for the company, I mean, we've already seen that vantage was given variance, you know, in this situation to actually do the site. You know, we'd like to see the same treatment, if not better for us and these companies that are from out of town than this aggression towards citizens that actually live here. Councilmember Briggs. I would just like to speak to your question on repealing from what I understand. I think that if we do take it off, it's off, it's gone. And it would depend on the time that it takes for HB 40. Like there could be a complete new council, new mayor, new city manager, new attorney. You know, we don't know. So and also the citizens. So I'm not quite sure about the whole process. I don't think it just automatically reappears. I mean, I don't know. That's a that's a good question for legal. I think that's an issue that we can answer pretty quickly here. In the future, if the hydraulic fracturing ban were to be repealed, there would be two ways it could be placed back on the books. One is the way the citizens have placed it on the books now . And that's through the initiative process that's resident in the charter. So that would be one. The second way would be as a result of action by the city council enacting a hydraulic fract uring ban in the future. So there remains those two options as far as re implementation of the ban if the ordinance is repealed. So what I hear is that one, it would be starting the process over with with the citizens. And the second option would be depending on or trusting your council at that time, whatever time it would be to vote on it. Yeah. Can I just respond to that really quick? Sure. Yeah. I mean, that seems that just gives me a headache thinking about it. You know, like, I know a lot of people can testify to this that are in this room. We put a lot of work into that initiative process and we saw the city council not take any action of their own and actually just putting this on the books beforehand for us. So I really don't trust the city council is going to do it, you know, and I really don't want to go through this process again. So I think we we've got to figure out something else because that's just months and months and months of hard work that is just going to fly out the window. And we don't know if we're ever going to get it back. So thank you. Thank you for your comments. Eric and then Pauline Rastin. Hi, my name is Eric Ma. I live at twenty two ten Westwood and I can just kind of piggyback off some of the things that Jonathan said. You know, first of all, the issue of the police and the authority you have over them to decide, you know, kind of what what they're enforcing and the degree to which they enforce it. It's very strange that the police were at the site this morning because Vantage called them and they were following Vantage's, you know, interests to get these people out of the way of the truck so that Vantage could continue to fr ack. But the police didn't listen to the more than a dozen eyew itness people saying that Vantage was working before seven a .m., which is a violation of their permit. So why are the police not doing their job to actually investigate these companies and make sure they're following the regulations? I agree that we should pass an ordinance saying that we aren't going to enforce the ban, but keep the ban on the books. The real question is about the commercial viability stuff and HB 40. And I think we need to test that there are so many more ordinances that we can pass that are related to surface level stuff, which is allowed by HB 40. So we could say no more open evaporation pits. We could say, hey, Vantage, your well just got struck by lightning and exploded. Maybe you should install all sorts of technology to prevent that from happening. We could say we could pass any number of ordinances and then the courts need to decide what is commercially viable. We could say your pipes need to be twice as thick. We could say you can't store past X number of cubic feet of gas in one storage tank because it's dangerous. We could actually enforce our setbacks rather than giving rather than having the zoning board give specific allow ances to these companies to be within 200 feet of homes. We could say that they have to have solid gold pipes and let the courts sort out whether or not that is commercially viable. And if we do those things, we can make companies be afraid to come frack indent. Vantage is fracking right now, but there's no reason any other companies need to come in and violate our ordinance because we can make it difficult for them even within HB 40 . And the people of Denton will do that even if you all don't do it. So I think that if you really want to show that you want to defend the ban, there's a lot that you can do to prevent fr acking. And you can also be putting more city resources towards actually protecting people. We need baseline water testing. We need baseline air testing, real time air testing. All of those things are things that you all could certainly pay for. It's not that expensive. We're fundraising for it ourselves, but it'd be a lot easier if the city could help out with those sorts of things. I mean, shoot, buy some air filters for people who live right next to these things. They can put them in their homes and at least breathe slightly cleaner air. But if you're not willing to do that, I think it really shows a lack of willingness to actually enforce the will of the people. All right. Seeing no questions. Thank you. Pauline and then up is Sue Smith. Is Pauline here? Oh, yes. Sorry. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Pauline Raffast and I live at 2015 Bowling Green Street. I'm here to urge you not to vote on this item tonight. Please don't make such a hugely important decision for Dent on after only a few hours of discussion. Please don't reverse hastily a citizens initiative that took months to put together. Please don't rush to overturn a Democratic vote in the name of legal strategy. I urge you to take your time and so citizens questions asked for input and take recommendations before you make your decision. And all the while, please be thinking of the children in our community. Children don't have much of a voice on this issue, although we've seen we have great kids like Riley who do a wonderful job. But little children don't have much of a voice on this issue, which is why we grownups have to fight to protect their air , their water, their health and safety. Children don't have much of a voice in this fight, but they certainly are listening and watching. The Fractally Denton campaign has been a fantastic lesson in civics for the children of Denton. We in Denton have showed our children that citizen engagement can make a difference. We in Denton have shown our children that democracy still works, that spending many weekends distributing flyers with their mom and dad or riding your scooter from house to house why he or she repeats the same thing over and over again might not be the most exciting fun thing, but it works. And it works because it's a little part of a big community effort. It's been hard enough to tell our children that the lawmakers in Austin did not like our decision, so they passed a law that canceled it. Please don't make us go home and tell our children that the city of Denton itself removed the ban tonight because of bullies in Austin. Please take the time to consider all your options, and in the meantime, please keep our ban on the books. If after much thinking and strategizing, repealing the ban seems like the likeliest way to restore local control in the long run, then we will try our best to make that sound logical and palatable to our children. But there is no way we can do that tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Sue Smith and up is Deborah Armatuer. My name is Sue Smith, 1819 Crescent. According to an article in the Denton Record Chronicle on May 28th, Denton had not been approached about forming an alliance to fight HB 40. If that has changed, I would be delighted to hear it. If it hasn't, I would encourage you to get with other cities. We're all affected by this horrible bill. If you didn't see the article in the paper of our guest columnist, Thomas Allen Lindsay, he is the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund of Pennsylvania, and they have helped over 200 cities fight this very thing because they want to protect our health, safety, and welfare. Thank you. Thank you. Deborah and then up is Topher Jones. Hi, my name is Deborah Armatuer, and I live at 2003 Misty wood Lane. From a strictly legal perspective, I believe that repealing our fracking ban is the most cautious response to HB 40. However, if legal caution were the default response to bad laws in the South, we would still be living with legalized segregation and drinking from separate water fountains. Fortunately, now, thanks to the legally proactive brill iance of civil rights activists in the civil rights movement , and if any of you have seen the recent movie Selma, I think that movie provides some good models of how to go about getting rid of bad laws in the South, and we don't have to take anywhere near the kind of risks that people took back then to get rid of bad southern laws. Fortunately now, thanks to the legally proactive brilliance of the civil rights movement, we can all drink from the same fountains, but now the new bad laws are poisoning the water that flows from those fountains. Repealing our fracking ban might be our most legally cautious option, but it is profoundly undemocratic, not to mention unnecessary and I believe bad strategy as a response to HB 40, if our goal is to protect our city from fracking. Only a court of law should have the authority to declare a past election invalid. We all know that no matter what city council decides to do tonight, the frackers will continue to profit from poisoning our water until HB 40 is overturned. But if city council decides against the surrender of legal caution and chooses instead the legal proactivity of keeping our ban on the books, while formally acknowledging that HB 40 makes us unable to properly enforce it, then we will continue to win the essential battle of public opinion. As long as our ban remains on the books and our inspiring all-American story in the media, the story of the small town that came together across political differences and dared to stand up to big oil and political corruption, big oil in Austin will continue to look increasingly like the bad guy to the rest of the world and the nation, from tea partiers to green partiers and everyone in between . But the world, which might care even more about rooting for the good guy in a good story than it does about protecting the environment, will only remain invested in our inspiring story as long as we stick with the narrative we started and stand by our ban . I'm a mom of -- should I stop? Yeah, just finish your thought. I was just going to say I'm a 42-year-old mother of two Denton public school kids, and I'm an English professor, and I've read enough to know that it would be naive to predict that retracting our historic ban altogether in the face of HB 40 and falling back on a plan B of heavily and relentlessly enforcing local regulation ordin ances, which is one well-intentioned strategy being considered, would have any effect on fracking at all. Precedent suggests that industry would just continue doing the same thing to our regulations that they did to our ban, fighting it every step of the way, and they have the money, the chutzpah, and the clout in Austin to do so. So say we succeeded in nabbing the frackers for violating regulations and they're found guilty. What then? The offenders just pay the fine and carry on fr acking because that's just what corporations do. Or Austin comes up with another crazy bill legalizing whatever violation we nabbed them for, thereby preventing us and anyone else from enforcing that regulation in the future. It would be naive of us to put it past either of them. It's their modus operandi. And I had some more to say, but I had sent that to all of you in an email earlier. So apologies for going over. No, I can't. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Well, you're an English professor. So if you got a paper that said, "Which impliedly preempted by the statute already in effect," if you saw that word "impliedly," what would you do to your student? You like that? Yeah, I'd send them to the writing lab. We have a writing lab. I would send them there. Thanks. Joe would be crazy. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Topher Jones and then up on deck would be Mike Sutton. Hey, everyone. Thanks for allowing me to speak today. And before I reiterate some of these amazing things that have been said by my fellow citizens here. I could state your name and address. Oh, yeah. Topher Jones, 419 Fulton Street here in Denton. Thank you. Like I said, before I reiterate some of these incredible things that have been said, and I'd like to thank everybody that has spoken against standing up for our ban that we've put into place. I'd also like to thank Councilmember Keely Briggs for attending the event we had on Sunday here at City Hall and standing up with me, my neighbors, and my fellow citizens to stand up against the seemingly illegal and un constitutional House Bill 40. So thanks for doing that. And Kevin Rooden also. And what I'd like to see is for all of you guys to also show up to these events that we have. As you guys said, you would help support the ban. And I'd like to see you guys there. I'd like to invite you guys to come out to Nail Road and also stand with the citizens there that are fighting hard to keep this ban. I'd also like to thank some of these amazing, outstanding citizens and some of my heroes who've been taken into custody over the past few days at Nail Road. That is Tara Lynn, Nikki, Alita, Adam, Rodney, and Jonathan . And Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, if you have any pull whatsoever, I'm asking you guys to at least speak up against these charges that are going to be placed against these citizens that were protecting our ban. We're standing up for that, which you guys have said that you're going to support. And I'd hope that you guys could speak up against that and maybe even drop these charges against them. And again, I'm asking you guys to show up and support with us, stand with us at these events that we have. I'm inviting you, please. So thanks for that, Keely and Kevin, for being at these. I don't really have any ideas, but I'd like to reiterate that I'd like you guys to table this vote tonight. I'd like you to keep the ban on the books. This is something we worked really hard at. I'd also like to ask, you know, what are you guys going to do to fight this bill, House Bill 40? Are there other cities that have had their regulations taken away? And are you guys talking to other cities? Are you guys working together to go against this bill, to go against the state? Because it's not only a didn't fight anymore. It's gone beyond that. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Mike Sutton and then Frank Mayhew is up. Okay. I'll read his comment in the record. Mike Sutton, 3212 Old Orchard Road is in opposition. Mr. Mayhew is up and then Sharon Spies is on deck. My name is Frank Mayhew. I live at 2100 Greenway Drive here in Denton. I'm a history professor at Collin College. I'm going to give you a history lesson and I expect you to show up for the exam tomorrow morning. At the Jupiter House, we solve all the problems by 9 o' clock whose owner will have to remain anonymous. I've been listening to these. I had some stuff written down here, but I listened to the people that are talking here tonight and it dawned on me that this battle is really not about fracking. This battle is about the people's right to decide for themselves. I've already come to the conclusion that we've fought this battle three times already. If you think about it, 239 years ago we fought the British over a subject very similar to this. 179 years ago, we right here in Texas made the same demands of Mexico and they wouldn't agree to it, so we fought them as well. Then 150 years ago, we fought amongst ourselves to define and refine the citizens' rights. What we're talking about here is the sovereignty of the citizen, the supremacy of the voter. With HB 40, they've taken that away. What the strategy is going to be to pursue this, I don't know. I can have some ideas. I think what I'm hearing tonight is I think you should table it and give the people a chance to come together and talk about it, give you a little more chance to study it. Ultimately, this bill is going to have to be reviewed by a Supreme Court, state level, maybe even all the way to the US Supreme Court. There are issues here that are basic to basic democracy, and those have to be resolved. Simply fighting it for fracking alone, I don't think it's going to solve the problem. I think we need the right to decide for ourselves what our future is going to be. We need the right to protect our families, our homes, and our children. They've taken that away. Now, what are you going to do to help restore that? You've got a group of people here you've heard tonight, very passionate about this. There's a lot of intelligent people here that are more than willing to work with you on it. But you're going to have to come up with a strategy. You can involve us in the strategy, but as soon as that strategy is developed, we have to know what it is, if we're going to support it. I'm reminded of a poem by Dylan Thomas, history professor talking poetry. Isn't that strange? In that poem, he said, "Do not go gentle into that good night." He was talking about leaving this life and going to another one. I use that as a metaphor for this very dilemma that we're facing here. After hearing these folks here tonight, I can tell you, without equivocation, we are not going to go gentle into that good night. We're going to be here and we're going to be making a lot of noise, so you need to be prepared for it. Councilmember Briggs. I wanted to thank you for the history lesson. I appreciate that, and we need to be reminded that you have to fight for something sometimes. It just doesn't come easy, and I appreciate that. It was good to hear some of your arguments because from the lawyers that are just the word out there on the street is that HB 40 is constitutional. I don't believe that. Thank you. No offense to lawyers. There's several of them here tonight, but lawyers provide advice. It's not direction. It's advice. You don't have to take it. Am I correct? They provide you with the information, and you make the decision. Sometimes you have to go against what the lawyer wants you to do. To answer a question that Councilman Gregory asked earlier, which was what do we gain if we lose at the court level? We gain the right to appeal to the next highest level. [Applause] Councilmember Hawkins. If I may impose a little bit longer to answer the question that -- We've got one other Councilmember. Go ahead. It's impossible for me to stop him at the coffee shop either. [Laughter] Councilman Johnson made a statement earlier, and he was all uding to the fact that we're bound by -- we, the City of Denton, is bound by the laws as far as what we can do. But in every one of those cases I just decided there, we were also obeying the laws, and then we violated those laws in order to secure our freedoms. So sometimes -- and Dr. King would be the first one to tell you -- there are bad laws, and you are obligated as a person to go against those bad laws. And this is a bad law. Councilmember Hawkins. Yeah, preach. I'm just glad the rest of Denton is getting to know you, because I've gotten to know you over the last eight years, and I just appreciate you speaking here tonight and waiting your turn. So thank you, Frank. I'll give you a cup of free coffee. Uh-oh. Is that legal? Thank you. [Applause] Sharon Space, and then Jim Greenfield. I'd like to put this up on the overhead, because this is the crux of what this is about here. Okay. Good evening, everybody. My name is Sharon Space. I live at 7501 Stallion Street, here in Denton. I'm here to ask you to table a vote on the repealing the fr acking ban. HB 40 was only passed last week. While I think I understand the strategy given for repealing the ban, I feel it is too soon to take such a drastic action. I think it will send a wrong message not only to the people here in Denton, but across the state and even beyond. Many people here have known all along that HB 40 was about more than the Denton fracking ban. While it stated -- while it started here in Denton, it now truly is much bigger than this town. It was a knee-jerk reaction to nullify our ban, and in the process, it carried with it the greater loss of local control. Now, the citizens in 300 other cities in this state know the full impact as well. They, too, have seen their oil and gas ordinances thrown out the window along with their local control. I am suggesting that we build on that momentum of knowledge . This room and the overflow downstairs is filled with very intelligent, innovative people who are more than willing to continue brainstorming ideals and strategies to come up with a more viable option than repealing the ban and the one that will also overturn HB 40. I appreciate this council allowing that process tonight. Now, multiply the efforts here by the citizens doing the same thing in all those other 300 cities in Texas. Can you imagine the possibilities of forming a coalition with these other cities? Please explore this and other options first. Democracy is hard fought. We must not be fearful and shy away. We have to stand up as a collective group and overturn HB 40. And doing so, not only will local control be restored across this state, the city of Denton will once again be able to enforce its hydraulic fracturing ban. I heard a quote this past weekend. One must first face and conquer fear to become fearless. The industry tried fear tactics to stop the ban last year. They quoted absurdly inaccurate figures on how much money Denton would lose with a ban on fracking. Those amounts were proven inaccurate by the truth. Let us once again not be fearful of all of the what ifs. Let us instead become fearless in the quest for democracy and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this great city of ours. I ask you once again, please table the vote on repealing the fracking ban and explore other options, including forming a coalition with other cities to overturn HB 40. All right. Any questions? Can I answer a question from earlier? Sure. Councilman Gregor, you've asked us several times, would we, you've asked individual people, would we stand up and support you if this ban was taken to court and it was considered to be nullified, if we repealed it? My statement to you is the same as it was last July when I came in front of this council. I will support our city to the end as far as it takes to defend these three things here because they go hand in hand . We need to be able to stand up as a collective and say we support this ban and in turn that supports local control and that supports democracy. You cannot repeal this ban and expect all these people that voted to come back out and vote again to initiate another ban if you take it off the books and then HB 40 goes down and you lose. Keep it. It's a symbol. It's what we worked very hard for. Councilmember Roden. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. I appreciate you also bringing up the fact that 300 other cities are now in this camp and we need to talk with them. If we could bring up that sheet because I think that is a telling group of three. The overhead. My question is assuming in that conversation with those 300 cities that we entered into a dialogue with, they said everyone agreed Denton isn't the place to fight this. Maybe San Angelo is. Maybe Austin is. Maybe there's another because of what they have in their court system. Maybe the particular issue that they're bringing to the table to fight HB 40. Could you get comfortable with that if after that conversation took place understanding this is a statewide thing that maybe number one isn't the fight in order to get number two and number three. If there's a collection of people and that's all I'm asking is for that dialogue to open up. This HB 40 was passed last week. We do not need to jump into this faster than what they just like they did when they when they submitted the two lawsuits against us within hours. Don't don't buy into the fear tactics and the what ifs. We we showed with our ban last year and with the initiative that we're not afraid of what ifs. Don't buy into that. And yes, if there is a coalition, if there's all of these other cities, if you're in communication with them and conveying that to the people, if that's what the consensus is to fight it in a different effect in a different manner. Yeah, I can agree with that, but I don't think we've explored those possibilities. There have been great opinions here tonight. Great suggestions on what other ways we might be able to approach this. I think you need to explore those. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. I have heard many, many people tonight ask us about coalition with other cities. Yes. And I just want to is that can we ask legal is that can we that's a plan is that being discussed. Is that something we can answer to or no. I can only answer within my own personal knowledge and with regard to my professional colleagues in the municipal law community. I know there is a lot of talk and concern about what they 're seeing with House Bill 40. But I will say we we meet on a regular basis, but not like every month. We meet a couple of times a year. So I'm sure they'll be continue to be dialogue as far as where this issue may go. But at this point in time, it's still a little bit early in the process. I don't know that there's been any solid type of coalitions formed. I don't know if there's going to be. But again, it's a little bit early in this process. How many other cities are you in contact with as far as discussing HB 40. I'm a member of the Texas City Attorneys Association. And as such, there are I'm not sure I can tell you how many cities, but I would say a huge number of cities throughout the state who are part of this group. And the discussion comes many times as we gather at our annual meetings, which is coming up in fact this month. So I suspect there's going to be some discussion and some dialogue in the next couple of weeks. I would say that because I was in Austin with with the two of you, I sat through all those hearings. I listened to you. You all heard the same thing. You asked the same questions as many of the other attorneys that sat down there. They tried to open up a dialogue to add language that would make that bill more robust or not have it be left open to so much ambiguity. You heard all of those attorneys and those are in the major cities that came in there. But you've got three hundred cities that are under local control. That's what needs to be tapped into, because all of those people in those cities are doing the same thing that we are here. They are incensed that local control was taken away. And I just encourage you all to really make sure that you work to try to talk and have some kind of forum with all of those cities, because that's how it's going to be overturn ed. That's going to be the voice is everybody, not just Dallas or Fort Worth or Denton or Arlington, not the bigger cities , but all of them that are having local control taken away from them. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. I because we're talking about transparency tonight and trying to make sure that the community understands you may or may not be aware, but a couple of years ago, our city passed a very unusual ordinance. It was basically a bank regulation ordinance. The cities don't ever do. But we we tailored our ordinance after Dallas is ordinance and San Antonio's ordinance and the pass those ordinance and. And mainly Dallas. And it was to to try to rein in predatory lenders payday l enders and title company lenders title car car title lenders . And that coalition has been successful because we had the same ordinance virtually. And we had lawyers from all of those cities that were putting their heads together and finding ways to thwart the the fight that was coming at us from the payday lending industry. The issue that we have with gas well drilling ordinances is that cities are all over the place in terms of their specific rules all over the place in terms of how they've crafted them. How much their setbacks are. Of course, we're the only one that has a ban on fracking. So so it it becomes a little bit more difficult in that area. But you should also know that our city is a charter member over 100 years has been a member of the Texas Municipal League. That's the city's organization of working together and. And at both state and the national conference. The mayor from Galveston, who is the president this year, Galveston or Corpus Christi Corpus Christi, who is president this year of the TML had indicated. We've got your back. And they were in Austin with us the entire session trying to push back on especially the original. If you think this version of House Bill 40 is bad, you should have seen the original version. I was there. I heard it. Oh, yeah. And and and a lot of the other ordinances. So there's a there's a there's a history of cities working together and and. But one of the things that we have to take into consideration with that is that for some cities, they're not going to get involved in this fight. Necessarily, because. They don't have gas. You have three hundred cities in the state of Texas that have oil and gas ordinances on the books. I'm not arguing with you. Effectively nullified. I'm not I'm not arguing with you on that. And and and we've been working with them and what I'm trying to say is I agree with you. And and and there have been efforts and there will continue to be efforts for us to work with them. And that needs to be made transparent. And that means trying to do that right now. That's good. These people here and downstairs and the ones that are at home, this whole city needs to be aware. It needs to be in the open so we can help you so we can come in and brainstorm and work with you. That's how it's going to get. It's going to get taken care of. That's how our band is going to be defended. We can't hide behind other cities. We have to work with those other cities. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I've made a we had a card that Jim Greenfield is on a different agenda item. So Mr. Greenfield, I apologize for probably giving you an anxiety attack thinking you have to speak on this issue. So I apologize for that. So the next one next card is Jonathan Van or Vaughn. I think it's Van and the person on deck will be Allison Tra pp. My name is Jonathan Van. I live at 1803 Wayne Street 76209. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. It's good to see you again, Mr. Hawkins. I first just have a quick legal quandary. Would it be possible to go to the federal government and ask that all of the oil and gas remain inside the ground for later use for national security reasons, much like we do the that we have gas and oil stockpiled? Maybe we could keep it there safely in the ground for an emergency purpose. But that aside, I was arrested this morning. I decided to be civilly disobedient and go against an unjust law. When I was in high school and I read Henry David Thoreau's on civil disobedience that really awakened something in me. And I didn't know then that I'd be able to use that that energy that had been inside me. I thought, you know, that was all in the 60s and 70s and it was long past. But now today I find myself needing to not just protect the health and safety of the people in the environment here, but more importantly to protect our democracy. And I, along with others who are here today, have decided that we are willing to give up our liberty in order to defend our democracy. I think that's really what is at stake here with HB 40. It sets a dangerous precedent for other bills to come across to nullify other votes that people that the people decide to take up. And I cannot think of any precedent where a legislative body overruled a popular vote. I just can't think of a single instance of that. We've seen it in the courts and even when you have the federal contention with the state, generally the one side wins over the other through the court process or through people just not wanting to deal with it. And I'm not sure why that does not translate to city versus state as well. But I just wanted to let the council know that we will continue on our side to do what we can. And I hope that you will table this discussion so that we can work more closely with you in the coming weeks and months to see how we can best move forward. Thank you. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Jonathan, for staying here this late. I got to admit Amy and I were a little bit in shock when we saw your picture this morning. But we'll still go to Carino's if you're still there. Anyway, do you have an opinion if we should keep this ordinance on the books or do you just need more time like you just said? >> I honestly need more time. I feel like there have been a lot of good points raised on both sides tonight. I do -- I have the emotional, like Mr. Johnson said, the emotional want to keep it on the books because, I mean, that's what we fought for. And like others that came up here and stated that it would take a whole other long months and months and months of hard work just to get back to it. So it's difficult. I will say that I think we should table it to flush that out further. But I will go back to something that Mr. Johnson said, that , you know, if we were to back off, maybe a different city would have a better fight for it. And I agree with that reasoning, but I also disagree with it because I believe -- I mean, they billed it as the dent and fracking bill. It's our fight. You know, it's not another city's fight. It's our fight. >> That's a good point. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Allison Trapp. Then on deck is Ashley Milam. >> Hello. My name is Allison Trapp and I live at 3437 Christopher O Drive in Denton. I'm here tonight. I was here in July with you that long, long night. I was speaker number 61. And it was a very late night. And it was a long road getting to that night. And that night we asked you to vote for the ban. And one man did. And then you all voted it down, except for the people who are new to the council. And then we had to wait. And we had to campaign. And it came to a vote. And we won. And now just moments after HB 40 is signed by our governor after he spoke at the UNT commencement, you're saying let's repeal it. Let's make a quick decision. I ask you to take the time you took, at least the time you took to make us go to a vote and campaign. Because you were unwilling to vote for the ban yourselves initially. With the exception of Kevin Roden. And I thank you for that. And no disrespect to any of you who voted it down. It's just the way it went. And I've been bearing witness to the whole process and been actively working throughout the process. And I think we need time. And I think you should not vote tonight to repeal the ban. And I think we need to keep it on the books. And some things are just bigger. Bigger than we are. And this is big. This is local control. And the history professor who spoke earlier I think said it very eloquently that there's a time to fight. And I think that time is now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ashley and then Christopher Furman. Is Ashley Milam here? And then Christopher Furman is on deck. Who are we? Are we a democracy? If you could just state your name and address first. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. I'm Ashley Milam from 1221 West Oak Street in Denton, Texas . Zip code 76201. Thank you. And I just have to ask who are we? Are we a democracy? Or are we a state run by big business and industry? And the recent ruling made by the people in Austin are telling me that we are being run by big business and industry and not necessarily the will of the people. There is great concern to the toxins and other chemicals that fracking puts into the environment. And I think it's a sad day when we are more concerned about big business than public health and the safety of our citizens and our children. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Christopher and then up is Christine. Thank you. Yes, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. My name is Christopher Furman. I live at 2924 Longfellow Lane here in Denton. And I want to thank each and every one of you for your service to our city. We know that you guys are working hard to help work through this. I really appreciate it. I think we all do. Unfortunately, though, I don't necessarily trust you and I want to come back to that at the very end. I want to actually touch on first the ad campaign run by the outside money group North Texans for Natural Gas. But if you surf the net in Denton, you know, they play ads on YouTube that are quoting you, Mayor Watts, quite a bit unfairly, unkindly out of context, bending your words as well in ways that are exceedingly dishonest. And which is part and parcel of their ham fisted ugly campaign that they were running before the November vote. And my fear is that if you choose to do something tonight that might seem to you in some way nuanced, like let's pass on this so that it can be refought later. If you if you undermine our fracking ban, there's not going to be nuance about this. This is you know, they're going to run the YouTube ad with you guys change your mind. Didn't itself has repudiated the ban. Any kind of nuance, any kind of complexity on this will be lost. And our city will be made to look weak. And you as council members will in particular be made to look weak. And, you know, I know that that might not be fair, but I promise you that that is unfortunately the way it will play out if you choose tonight to repeal our fracking ban. So and, you know, one thing that I don't understand about this is there's fracking in Denton. They all know the fact of HB 40 and, you know, they have won and it's as if they want us to be extra humiliated or something in order, you know, just to make it clear that we shouldn't have done this in the first place. I think that we should not give into them. At the very least, you should table this tonight. Even better would be for you to vote unanimously to turn down this agenda item and stand by the ban. We've talked some about the possibility of going to the Supreme Court. I know you don't feel ready, but a lot of people don't feel ready to go to the Supreme Court and they find themselves, you know, appealing up anyway. And that is something that, you know, would be good in this case for us to make this their problem. You know, they've already transgressed our law. They've already overwritten it and they are doing what they want to do in Denton as they kind of always have. So we're kind of like a poker player with a mediocre hand. We've got one chance to play it right. And if you get rid of, you know, the ban that is in the book that it created a minor problem for them, they had to create, you know, this unfair law against. If we throw that away, that's not coming back. These other towns we're talking about, there's obviously not something ready on the level of our ban to go into place. And I do greatly urge you not to punt on this tonight. That's the kind of thing we want to see you do so that you earn our trust. Okay. You know, that trust needs to be earned by you showing us that you stand behind us and the citizen vote that we took place that was decisive and fully legal and fair in November. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll take a couple more cards to about 1025 and then we'll take a little short break. Christine is up and then a Rodney Love. Good evening. My name is Rodney Love from 700 North Austin. Christine had to take the kids home. Okay. Sorry. She couldn't be here. She can do this much better than I can. But I will try to fill in our conversations that we've carried with us from the kitchen and put them together. I'd like to begin by just pointing out to today, after being released from jail, the thing that I noticed most on the media and the news, other than my ugly mug shot all over the place, was the headline saying that Denton is moving to repeal. It was kind of a done deal. I don't know if you'll notice that or not, but the headlines in the press are that it's over. It's done. That's the way they're leading this. And so I think most of us are a little bit shocked and we 're stunned that we're even having this conversation in the way that we're having it. But I just would like to echo, I think primarily this earlier, this attorney that was up here, that we are smart enough to handle the information. We just need more information and we don't feel like we've been given enough, even tonight. I don't quite feel that these answers are being given to us directly. So I'm just going to start off the best that I can with a few very basic, maybe obvious questions that I would like answers to. First of all, what's the rush? Can we go? Can I do that? Can I ask you all questions? Okay. Can you explain to me why we're feeling rushed about this? Why? It's the legitimate reason. I mean, I'm sure you all have a reason why we need to feel rushed right now. I want to address that and I haven't said much tonight because I'm trying to also just run the meeting. I do want to address that because I do want to address the media's spin that this was quote unquote a done deal. I mean, we had a conversation. We posted an agenda item. In fact, I had three television interviews today and tried to emphasize to them that as part of the conversation to get started, that this was going to have to happen sooner or later. And so if it happened in a premature way as far as the posting and the posting was in some way seem to indicate that quote unquote is it, I can rest assured it's never a done deal when it comes in here. I know people think that. So I don't feel that I am rushed quite frankly because I haven't voted. And so and I don't know if any of my I don't know how the rest of my colleagues feel. But it's unfortunate the press had spun it like that. And we I can take some responsibility for that, you know, in the way that, you know, maybe there should have been some different communication. Totally will be accountable for that. But I think at the end of the night, whether it was a rush or not will be determined by our vote. And so I don't feel rushed personally in that regard, but I can understand how that has been the perception. And unfortunately, in some respects, it's you know, I can take some accountability for that, but also know that the press does spin that somewhat like that. So I appreciate that question. Yeah, this is this is OK. I appreciate your point. But you somebody one of you put this on the agenda and another one of you seconded it. And I would like to know, first of all, I don't think why can't we know who that was? I'd like to know who that was. And I don't think that happens in Texas for whatever reason . But that's apparently what happened. And I need an explanation for why that happened. That's all I'm asking for. OK, why were why were being forced into this vote? When I said vote, it wasn't a vote up or down. We don't know what's going to happen here. So if I misspoke in that regard, OK, I'm not saying a vote to deny repeal or not to appeal. There's all different myriads of options that are available for us this evening. So OK, thank you. Next question. What's the rules? I don't even know. I mean, this is the obvious question about a repeal of a referendum. And I don't know. Is this just a basic majority? I mean, I don't think it's been brought up tonight. But how does it how does it happen? Madam City Attorney. I'll take a crack at that one if I could. The initiative ordinance that was placed on the book by the electorate is an ordinance of the city having equal dignity to an ordinance that would be placed on the books by the vote of the city council. As such, it would be subject to the same rules with regard to repealing as any other ordinance that might be on the books that then would take pursuant to our charter, a vote, an affirmative vote to repeal of four members of the city council. Our majority vote to repeal. Correct. Our charter requires an affirmative vote of four members for any action. So it would be four members of the city council to repeal. And then that's a done deal. Once for vote, then it's over. I just I can't believe that. Surely we have a super majority in these situations. But you're that's that's the way that that's the way the show goes here. Well, there are some there are some circumstances under which a super majority is required in zoning type cases where there is a recommendation of denial from the planning and zoning commission or where there's a certain percentage of objections from property owners to a zoning case. Then in those instances, supermajority is required. This is not one of those, however. Thank you for your answer. One more question. If HB 40, which I assume all of you all agree has made our band null as nullified our band. What's the fight about? I don't quite understand why the lawsuits are even legitimate. Once it's once HB 40 makes our ordinance null and what's nullifies it. I don't I don't understand that at all. And there seems to be this presumption that that there's even a fight to be had, especially considering that there can no longer be damages if we do not enforce the band. And from what I understand, the lawsuits are based on damages. Where's the fight left. I think I think your question then is, since House Bill 40 has been enacted. Why do we need to take any action at all on this hydraulic fracturing ban ordinance? Is that fair? Exactly. Why do we need to take any action if there is no real threat? Meaning they can't sue us because there's nothing to sue. And there is no damages from what I understand if we cannot enforce the ban. I think you've heard, are you probably seen in the newspaper articles and whatnot that the city manager actually has made some comments to the effect of the city will not be enforcing the hydraulic fracturing ban because of the action of the Texas legislature and House Bill 40. I think you've probably seen some of that. Yes, ma'am. And all of all of that. Notwithstanding, there are still pending to lawsuits one by the Texas Oil and Gas Association, and one by the general land office. The pleadings are open to the public to look at those issues are still out there. But nonetheless, that litigation stands, and that's something that the city is going to have to deal with. We can't ignore that those those lawsuits remain, and the city is going to have to deal with that litigation. This is one way to do it. Perhaps there are others but this is one way to deal with that. Those two pieces of litigation that are on deck. Thank you very much. I know I ran out of time, but we have some some other questions for you. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. Well, first of all, thank you because you 've asked some fantastic questions. And one of the questions you asked was how did this thing get on the agenda, like somebody had to make a motion somebody to second it. And actually, that's not how things get on the agenda. But I'm glad you asked the question because we've been dealing with these lawsuits. And obviously, that stuff that has to get talked about in closed session. And, and as we work through this right, our legal counsel gives us. Here's what your options are here's the potential outcomes here's you know the kind of advice you get from your attorney. And, and as we sorted through some of this stuff, a lot of our conversation came to. We really would like to hear what the public thinks. Right, like, meaning you can't talk about all your legal strategy in public because then your opponent gets to see it. Right. So it's like you show them your hand. But the reason, in my opinion, that this is on the agenda tonight was because repealing the ordinance is one option. One of the options. But as we continue to talk about this, it became very clear , I think, to all of us that having. Input from the public about these potential options and what what you guys think without saying here's where we're leaning or here's what you know we think they're going to do or here's the other demands are making on us or any of that business. It's given us the opportunity to hear from all of you. And I think you guys to have the opportunity to hear what we see as the potential strategies and why we would consider those things. That's why it's on the agenda was, you know, it became very clear last week that these are some things that while it's tricky because you don't want to tip your hand to your opponent and lawsuits are real and they're out there and the potential have to pay their legal fees is out there and all those other things is out there. We have to think about we have a responsibility to all of you guys. But we also have responsibility for the checkbook and all those other things. So I would just say to you the reason it's on the agenda is because we wanted to hear from the citizens. It wasn't let's get it on there so we can vote real fast at all. Does that does that help? Yes, that does. And I appreciate the answers. And I just want to leave it at this. If you don't mind, I'm kind of filling in for my wife. And now it's my turn. I got arrested today and I did that because I believe that HB 40 is a bad law period. And I believe that all of us must consider that even you all who have supported and represented your city that HB 40 , no matter what you do with the lawyers and on the legal no matter how we choose to fight that you still have a personal decision. And as a representative of our city, I challenge you to stand with us with me out in civil disobedience. Each one of you I challenge you all to be considered being arrested by our very kind police who took me in today because that lets us know that you're covering it on this front, but you're also making a very clear stand that you believe that HB 40 is a worthy of civil disobedience. And you only get those a few in your life. And it came knocking at your door. And I'm asking you all to consider if there was ever a time that you would step out because of something that is moral, that the moral thing to do is to stand up against a bad law . I want you to think about now is the time to do that. You're not going to get any other chances than now. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. We have some additional questions. Can I just follow up, Mayor, on the last thing? Sure. Because I already had the floor. So I really appreciate what you said. And I want you to know that I think everyone up here would agree and has publicly HB 40 is a bad law and it's wrong. It needs to be overturned. I'm going to stop short of getting arrested just because I have a wife and four kids at home. But don't make me a bad guy because I don't get arrested. But we are fighting. I just want you to know that. That's my challenge to you. You're not a bad guy. I believe we're all in the same fight. But I'm just going to leave it with it. Don't just leave it to the citizens. And I also ask you to make it as easy as possible within all your powers so that we make this as seamless. Talk to the chief. He said there's a couple of options regarding -- there's going to be a lot more of us. And I'd like you all to consider at least make this as easy as possible regarding releasing charges. And there are ways that the DA -- some things are beyond your control. I understand that. This is in the DA's hands. But he does have the option under special circumstances, according to the chief here, that he can make that decision under special circumstances to drop the charges. I just want that to be known. And I want you all to know that that is an option in the future. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Thank you, mayor. Thanks for waiting, Rodney. And sorry, your wife had to go home. I've never been arrested. And I think I want to keep it that way. But I will think about that. But I hear what you're saying. Standing unified with you guys in that kind of public way that would mean a lot. I don't know if I'm there all the way. But I did want to address the first thing you asked. What's the rush? Since I've been on council every Tuesday, either enclosed or somewhere on the agenda, we have always talked about gas wells. And even just with the passing of HB40, we're always trying to anticipate what their next move is. So even though it may seem rushed tonight, we've been talking about, well, what if this happens? And what if this happens? And to kind of just, you know, back up what Greg said, we just need input from you guys. And we wanted that. I mean, we're struggling. We're talking about things. And we're like, what do they want us to do? I mean, if they're not -- if the strategy is to, you know, take the ordinance off the books, what do they think about that? I hope that's become clear tonight. Yeah. But it has. And we needed to do this in order for us to understand the level of that. And so there's not a rush. And I would -- I'd be willing to bet we're not going to be voting on anything tonight. We're probably going to continue this or table it. But I just wanted to say that. Okay. Yeah. Councilmember Briggs. Thank you. Also, I wanted to say that the lawsuit question, I've heard you and someone else said it earlier, and I asked the same thing. Like, it just doesn't make sense. So I guess sometimes laws don't make sense. I thought maybe the lawsuit would go away if it can't be, you know, enforced. It seems like it would just -- I talked to my sister who works for the Supreme Court in Nebraska. And that would be what would happen in Nebraska. And I'm not -- you know, I live in Texas. But I think it's worth pursuing. So, yeah, and this is one of the options, I think, considering for those two lawsuits. But I also wanted to say that for us to stand unified with the citizens, it would mean for the city to decide to enforce the ban. And then you guys wouldn't have to do what you're doing. I agree. Councilmember Wasney. Timing. The other attorneys are circling the wagons. So that as we look at our legal options, we're not looking at a six-month decision window. They're on the move. How much -- what's the window? We don't even know. But it's like we needed to have tonight to get the citizens here to really listen to you. And the only way to do that was to get this here now. Because things could happen, may happen. So it has to come in stages. And having you people here is such an important part of this whole process. So thank you for everything that the citizens have come out for tonight. But we don't have the luxury of a six-month playtime. And that's why we're here tonight. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Thanks. And it's good that I'm sitting next to the city attorney, so if I go too far, you're going to poke me and tell me I'm bordering on a violation of our closed meetings. While it's not a rush, there is some time issues involved if we want to avoid a summary judgment by a judge that would be likely to be unfavorable. What we understand is we're faced right now with this lawsuit that the plaintiffs have not withdrawn, even after House Bill 40. There are three options. And one of them is to seek a consent decree where the judge makes this decree, but it's with the consent of both parties, the plaintiff and the defense. And we've talked about some possibilities of what the words would be in the consent decree, and the plaintiffs have talked about some of them. They didn't like ours, and we didn't like theirs. So it doesn't look like that's going to work. So I'm just waiting for her to jab me because I'm a little ticklish, too. So the other thing is to face a summary judgment where the plaintiff suggests to the judge, I want you to rule that they can't do this and that it's unconstitutional and give them a whole bunch of language that would be -- we feel very harmful not only to the city, but to other cities and to the whole issue of local control. The other option is to possibly avoid that is to repeal the ordinance. We can't repeal the ordinance unless we have a public discussion and hear from citizens. Because that's an option. It has to go on an agenda. But just because we have that as consider a repeal doesn't mean it's going to be repealed. If you follow the council, there are a lot of things that go on the agenda that end up being denied by the council. There are motions that council members make knowing that it 's going to be voted down. But the discussion has to happen, and sometimes it takes a motion for it to happen. Does that help you understand the procedural issues of it being on the agenda? I understand all that. And the legal issues, if they don't withdraw their lawsuit, we have to act and we have to consider all of the options. Yes, and you're asking us to take your word for it. I mean, totally, right now tonight, after all the work, you 're asking us with those three options, and we're asking you to give us more time to weigh in on this. I think that we're going to do that. Okay, great. I get that, but at some point, here's, you know, when we end up having to make a vote, and lots of people have been saying, I'm conflicted about this. My emotions say this, my logic says that. At some point, we have to actually punch a button one way or the other. And from what I've gathered from the conversation among my colleagues up here, whichever way they punch the button, they're doing it in hopes of doing the right thing to communicate House Bill 40 is bad, and that we want to be in the best position to make House Bill 40 go away. But there can be a difference of opinion on the way to make that happen. And clearly, there is among even folks who've talked to us and advice that we've been given. But you can have the same goal, but have a different notion as the best way to achieve that goal. My challenge to you is let's not back down on either front on the streets and up here, and I appreciate you giving us more time to weigh in on this conversation. And I hope that we've -- I appreciate your questions. I think they were great questions, and I hope you understand the rationale behind the process that we face. Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you all for your time. Thank you very much, Mr. Well. Thank you. The next speaker is Tara Lynn Hunter, followed by Nicole Ch okoret. Is Tara Lynn here? Okay, sure. You bet. Yeah, we'll take -- you want to take one now? We've got basically three more cards after Ms. Hunter. Just go take a break. Yes. Yes. All right. My name is Tara Lynn Hunter. I just ran up the stairs because I didn't hear you call me on deck. Take your time. I live at 2210 Westwood in Denton, Texas. I'm going to start with what I see should be the obvious outcome of tonight, that you should table this issue so that we have more time to consider and incorporate the input and ideas of the people you hear tonight. I would also like to see an additional public meeting regarding this. We've only had a few days to develop our thoughts about this. Any step that the council takes should only be taken in light of this question. Does this further our goal of upholding the people's vote? Does this move us towards the frack-free Denton that the people have clearly made known that they want with their votes? Does this further our strong and winning narrative of a small Texas town standing up to Goliath? I'm a member of the board of DAG and have heard the advice of our lawyers. I respect our lawyers and I think that it was important that we read the statement tonight to be transparent. But as an individual, I do not agree that a ruling in a lower court would be a bad thing. And I do not believe that we need to volunteer to assist the oil and gas industry in overturning our vote in any way . We, the people, have already considered the issue of the cost to defend the ban. We spoke to this issue with our vote. We knew we would be challenged and we chose to move forward . This is not a new choice to be made here tonight. We said in November, this battle is worth it. Have you not spent more money in trying to work with the oil and gas industry to implement regulations than you have to defend the ban? It costs more money to create the rules to allow it than it does to ban it. Building homes rather than frac sites generates two times as much economic activity and four times as much tax revenue per acre. Every acre devoted to fracking means more pollution and less tax revenues for our roads and schools. My main concern is that repeal by the City Council would be a devastating and confusing message that is in contrast to our story as a community. If facts were enough, we would have won this battle a long time ago. We have to be good storytellers instead. Many of you have drawn distinctions tonight between hearing a message of logic and one of feeling. But that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing that promoting our story is the most strategic move forward. Our story is that of a town who stood up to and beat a billion dollar industry with the power of community. Our story is a powerful one and I believe we are currently winning the battle of the story. And we can continue to do so if we move forward in support of one another. I'd like to say a little bit more. Your residents and your constituents, myself included, are willing to be arrested in order to uphold the vote of the people. We are no longer pleading with the oil soaked politicians of Austin. We have seen how much good it does to ask those who are opp ressing us to stop oppressing us. I think that we can support each other moving forward and I am seeking your recognition of the importance of inter dependence. During the civil rights movement, one of the first things the leaders did was to aid young people in going to law school. So that when the movement came to fruition on the ground, there would be people ready to fight these lengthy legal battles. I learned this week that there is a reason why we have a photo of Rosa Parks on the bus that day. It's because that was a planned, direct action to an unjust law. The residents of Denton who are out each morning protesting at the site of the first well to be refract are a powerful part of this narrative in bringing a face to what it looks like when the vote of the people is overturned. These legal and legislative battles and the civil disobed ience that has happened daily since Fracking returned are both necessary and can be of great support to each other if we have the foresight to recognize it and the courage to both move forward. Thank you. [Applause] Council Member Roden. [Applause] Thanks, Terri Lynn. I've got a couple questions for you and one is you referenced the statement from your attorney that Professor Briegel quoted. And as a leader in DAG, I think I heard you say that you disagreed with that advice. Is that accurate? I do. I think that I want to echo the people who have said that lawyers give legal advice and they lay out our options. That doesn't mean that we have to choose those. And I think that one thing perhaps missing there is -- and one thing that she's not required to analyze is the strategic nature of moving forward with our story and our narrative as a community. Sure. What do you think she's thinking about? What's her strategy if you're able to get a sense of why is she encouraging that a repeal is perhaps the best option in terms of the ultimate goals? What do you understand to be her? I think it's an approach to say, you know, there's a fear there that it could set a precedent. My thought is that great, let it set a precedent and let's fight this at a higher court. That's my personal opinion. I don't speak as for DAG. And as we're kind of wrapping up, I think, on our speakers tonight, a lot of people have asked for more time and it sounds like the Council's in agreement on that point. What happens from here and how does the conversation shape itself from a bunch of ideas, which we've heard some of tonight, a bunch of questions which we're going to try and answer. How does that go forward from that to here's what everyone agrees on moving forward? I mean, is DAG bringing something to the table in terms of a process, in terms of your own communication with the folks involved in this movement? Is there any thought on what happens next? I have a couple of ideas. I think my main concern, as I've said, is that y'all promote a strong narrative of support for the people's vote , regardless. I would like to see the consent agreement option more fully explored. I know that you, I've read your blog and you say, you know, that perhaps they're going to tack on these additional things. And it sounds like you've already been in those negotiations. But I think that it would be great to get on the record them saying, will you admit or will you admit that HB 40 is constitutional? And the City Council saying on the record, we will never admit that this bill is constitutional. I think that would be a powerful message to the people. But I think, you know, we exhausted all of our options and we'd like to see you all do that, too. So that's one idea. Okay. Thank you. I've got a question on that. So let's say, for instance, that there's not an agreement available in the consent decree, which my personal opinion is I think it probably wouldn't be. And so the options at least have been identified so far, and that's why we're having this to identify some additional options. But the ones that have been identified so far is go ahead and just move forward in the court system with the lawsuits , with the facts that are on the ground, with the laws that are on the books. Or we have this other alternative that we've been talking about tonight. Which one of those given, you know, and you don't necessarily have to answer this tonight, but I think these are the kind of ideas and the kind of narrative because I understand what you're saying about the story. I mean, the story really is the story. It's not necessarily I mean, we can all talk about the science. We can all talk about the law. We can all talk about these things. But the story is the story. And I forgot who said it, but I'll tell you that one of the most compelling things I've heard tonight for me, just speaking for me, is that, you know, the city council chose to put it to the voters, which quite frankly, I personally believe strategically that was the best thing to do. I know it was hard work. I think if the council would have passed that that night, this conversation would look very different because regardless that they passed this and basically nullified this vote. They would have been much worse. They would have. It would have been much worse if all they had to deal with was seven people that they sort of had to beat down instead of 15,000. So the story is the story. So that is the compelling issue because you have your legal fight, but then you have something that sometimes is much higher than that. And I think that's what we're wrestling with. I think that's what everybody's wrestling with. So I appreciate that. So that's just something to think about because I think in the end it may come down to, unfortunately, a couple of really sort of black and white options. And because I just don't think on the consent decree, which means we're going to have to all try to agree when they feel like that they've just won a huge victory. How are they going to ever agree to I mean, they're going to want to just add more on, pile more on. So I look forward to some of those ideas. And in the end, it may just come down to one of those two options. Yeah, that's fine. And I think if you can walk through that consent agreement and be as transparent as possible with the citizens, we would love to know what kind of horrible things they're trying to tack on there and what y'all are not agreeing to. Right. So that that gives you that sends a better message to us that you're trying. One of the things we'd like you to present in that consent agreement also is the ideas that have been presented tonight of keeping our ban on the books. And in the case that HB 40 is repealed, then our ban goes back into law. Right. They're not really losing anything. As long as HB 40 is on the books, then then they're fine fr acking still happening. You know, they should be happy. Really, the only thing that I not allowing that to remain on the books is doing is a slap in the face to our volunteers who worked so hard and sacrificed tons of times with their family and their real lives. You know, to to get out the vote and that petition, it was just an incredible. It was a full time job. And so we just don't want to deal with that headache again. The other option, I think the coalition is a great idea. We've got to get with other cities, obviously. And I'm glad to hear that a little bit of work has been done on that. So but if it comes down to that black and white choice, I do say move forward. I say move forward. I don't think that a summary judgment is the worst thing because if we get a ruling there, the message is still the Texas state overturns the vote of the people. That's still our message rather than the city council of Denton repeals their own ban. That's that's not a message of unity. So I think that's my really wasn't the city of Denton repe aled their own ban. The city didn't repealed the ban that was voted on by the people. And for in the sake of transparency, because this consent, it sounds like that what's important is to understand what we what we're doing and what has been proposed and what can and cannot be agreed to. But I'd like for the city attorney just to enumerate as far as on unfortunately the legal nuances of settlement negotiations and the potential confidentiality of that and what are some of the consequences. And I'm not taking a position on that. I just want an explanation from from the city attorney on on that if you don't mind, Madam City Attorney. Absolutely. You know, I know that there is great interest in knowing some of the intricacies of these negotiations and what's been laid on the table and what the issues are in that kind of thing. These settlement negotiations, however, are confidential between the lawyers and we are not at liberty to discuss those and for very good. I think policy reasons the law acknowledges the confidentiality of those discussions. And so for those reasons, I think that's why you don't hear the city's lawyers laying out the particulars. I don't know what you've been cautioned, but I would suspicion that you all have been cautioned. You shouldn't be laying that out either. And I don't think that you're hearing our city council lay out those particulars with regard to those settlement discussions because because again, the law recognizes that those discussions are sacrosanct. And so we do hold those confidences and we do that, I think , for a good and valid reason. And while there's great interest, I do think that we we cannot disclose those discussions. I think we have said and I think the council has said, I think I've said we have not been able to reach an agreement such that we can enter into a consent decree. Yeah, that's that's great. And I think that's really good for people to hear, you know, because when I read Kevin's blog, it seemed like there it was speculating that they would tack on things, you know. So I think that's really good for people to hear that you all have been fighting and have brought those options to the table. But in this case, then I stand by. I don't think that a ruling would be about thing. I think that we could bring it to a higher court than. But I pro tem Gregory, thank you. You know, this is this is not been maybe as long or as emotional as July 15th. Thank goodness. But it's been very illuminating for me to hear different perspectives. I've heard some new ideas proposed that that I think that we can explore. I think your comment about the story is maybe as compelling as anything I've heard. Because I'm a storyteller and and one of the things I've told my students is, you know, you get to you can. I've had students talked about creating stories, but I've also talked about your life being your own story that you get to have some control over how that story plays out. So here's my question for you on this. We don't remove the ban. We don't repeal the ban. Which, which pretty much ensures that the lawsuit stays alive and that that we either have a judge that issues a summary judgment or doesn't. And we go to trial. But given the way that House Bill 40 has been crafted, it's really likely your lawyer says it. Our lawyer says it. It's really likely that we lose. So tell me what the next chapter is. Do you do you mean because there's a possibility that the way this plays out is it's appealed to the appeals court. And because of the way House Bill 40 has been crafted, we lose again. And then we appeal it to the state Supreme Court and we lose again. Are you OK with that being the end of the story? I don't think it will be. Tell me, tell me how it tell me what happens. Well, let me ask you this. Can you appeal it then at the federal level after that, after the state level? I guess your question is if if it goes through, I mean, we 're talking hypothetical here. We have no idea about what the ruling will be. Let's say either side. Could they file an appeal to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals from here? Yes. Could they file an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court? Yes. Under some circumstances, could they try to go to the United States Supreme Court? Yes. That's great to hear. OK. And I like what you said about these are all hypotheticals that we're laying out. We we don't want to assume you have a lot of people behind you who are building a daily story of resistance to this and are in support of y'all going to bat for us. So I think it's something to consider. Thanks. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. I have a legal question and the ideas that have been coming up. So if we repeal the ordinance, is it possible to repeal an ordinance with a caveat that says an if then meaning we're going to repeal this ordinance because we cannot enforce it . It's been preempted. But if HB 40 is determined to be un constitutional and must be repealed, this ordinance is now automatically in force. I think that was the question that was posed earlier by some of the citizens and that indicated floated to me from some of the council members and our legal team is looking at right now and that we would think about a little bit more and see if we can come back to you. You know, I will say to you, as I sit here, I have not seen such an ordinance in the number of years that I have acted as a city attorney. I'm not seeing one, but I'm certainly willing to give it additional thought and do a little bit more research on it. So please tell me I was getting coffee when that conversation happened. Yes, sir. I think you were eating chocolates. Councilmember breaks. Oh, I just wanted to direct to Councilman Gregory that that that was a lot of losing that he kept going over and over and over again. And I mean, at some point, at some point you want you want council and people around you with confidence and optimism. And that makes a big difference. It does. Thank you. Councilman Councilman Rodin, I think to follow up on that line of discussion about what kind of ordinary it seems like we could technically pass all sorts of types of ordinances and thinking about this repeal resolutions and things like that. But I think the central point we need to come back to is in our options of how to resolve this lawsuit. The question is, what has the effect to moot a court case so we could pass all sorts of things and then the opposing attorneys say, I don't I don't like that. I'm going to continue on pushing this thing through. That doesn't moot anything or the judge could say that has no mo oting effect on this case. So I think that's important as we look at these alternative options. Can we keep it on the books? Can we amend it? Can we pass a resolution saying we're not going to enforce it if the whole point in pursuing that strategy is to end a lawsuit without a judgment? We need to look at it and filter it through those questions because legally we can do all sorts of things. The question is whether it has that effect. And so that's I think that's what we got to think of moving forward. We might be able to see those are options, but they're not effective options. That's what we need. That's what we need to figure out. Well, and I think that that and I'll address this to you. So I'm just not pontificating. I think in essence, it comes down to a real very simple question. And that is, I mean, because we're going to talk about if our objective is to render moot the court case. I mean, that seems to be to some degree the end goal hypoth etically. But there is going to come a point where we have to decide is that the end goal or is it just we just need to move forward and see what the determination is. And then we'll just have to decide hypothetically if it keeps going and going what we do at that point. I think the objective is to uphold the vote of the people. I'm not sure if our objectives are to moot this court case. I understand. OK, any more questions? And I do want to and I was trying to reach I believe it was Mr. Love before he left, but I do want to say something. And he issued us a challenge to the council here to join the acts of civil disobedience. And I appreciate that. But I do want to say what I do appreciate is those people who act under their convictions, but also who have been respectful, have been out there. And as the authorities have had to do what they've had to do, whether that's agreeable to some out here or not, but that that you've done it with respect and integrity to your values and to your cause. And I really do appreciate that no matter what the outcome. Thank you. Yeah, I think that one thing that I considered when I was doing it is that it's more important to do what is right than to comply with an unjust law. So I think that that's something I would pose to the council to is are we complying with an unjust law? So thank you. Thank you. Is it the consensus of the council? We've got four more cards left as far as people wanting to speak is the consensus just to blow right through it or you take a five. Okay. All right. I'll do that if I need to. Then I'll do it . Okay. The next speaker is Nicole and then Sarah. Frederick's is on deck. State your name and address and your time will begin. My name is Nicole Chakrak. My address is 1716 Carlton Street in Denton, Texas. I'm here tonight to re-emphasize and to ask the council to at the least table the referendum until better avenues can be explored. We need more time. This ordinance is a crucial part of our narrative. I find no reason to rush this course of action. I'm asking you to hear and respect the voices of this community and have it present during the decision process. So I appreciate you opening it up for discussion tonight. It directly affects us. It's important. We have asked on countless occasions for your transparency. So I hope you will continue to view this as a priority. We need to continue to address the issue of accountability. We have put our lives in so many ways on the line to protect our people and our land, our health and our safety. It is clear our motives here and they are more than reasonable. This is a sensitive issue, especially in the heat of vintage energy fracking again since the passing of our ban in November. We have already had our voices temporarily muted. Let's not have them erased. There are ways around this. Let's explore our options together. After all, it was the people who put forth this initiative. We will be the ones to see it through. Any questions? Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you for your comments. Sarah Fredericks and then on deck is Rachel Sanders. Hi, I'm Sarah Fredericks and I suppose I live at 5801 South Dorchester Avenue, Apartment 12B in Chicago. But yesterday my address was 810 West Congress Street here in Denton. I'm moving tomorrow and I wasn't planning to speak and I put my card in over the first break. But the reason why I decided to speak is I thought the thing that I could add is to say that I'm coming here on my last night in Denton because I think this issue is really important. And because I care about all of my neighbors and colleagues and my students have been a professor at UNT for the last seven years and I'm moving for a job. I care about those people and I care about the town. And I think that as I am leaving tomorrow, somebody else is going to be coming in. And frankly, given the growth rate of Denton, probably more than one person is going to be coming in. And my concern is that those people that couldn't be here tonight because they aren't yet here, I would guess that if they're like all of, or the majority of our neighbors and fellow citizens, that they too will be concerned about this ban and they too will want it to continue. And so I would ask you tonight to at least take more time to consider. I don't think that as someone who's frankly leaving in less than 12 hours that I can prescribe or really suggest more than that. But I do think that as someone who's been concerned about this community for the last seven years that I can say, take a little bit more time, please. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Rachel Sanders. And then next person would be Marshall Smith. I'm Rachel Sanders. I live at 200 South Bonny Bray Street. I love Denton Farmers Market. And I know that when I use my Brita filter to water my cactus, it won't be good enough for an entire field. And that plants can't accommodate for all the contamination that fracking produces. And I know that this is an ugly issue. And the ban is unethical. It's been discussed. It's tasteless. And that doesn't matter. What matters is 20, 30, 50 years from now, we're probably still going to be dependent on the money that we make from fracking. It's been said that if Denton was cut off from all of its food supplies, we would only be able to sustain ourselves for three, maybe a few years. And if we're cut off from a slow, almost unsustainable and sluggish system like fracking ban, like the ban, we will have no choice but to look towards a cyclical, timeless, and most importantly, money saving system. Like farming with clean water and air instead of gaining revenue from fracking. The schools and colleges pay for themselves. And the locals stand up for themselves. We don't need another cent to a dollar. We need health. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Marshall Smith. Good evening. My name is Marshall Smith. I live at 2016 Redwood Place in Denton. And I had no intention of speaking tonight, but after I've heard all the comments so far, I just have to add. I worked a little bit on passing the ban, and not nearly as much as most of the other people here. But I know I feel as if my money and my time has kind of been for naught. But on the other hand, the reason it had to be on the ballot was because the city council didn't want to pass the ban initially. So my hope is if the ban ends up being repealed, that without having to put it back on the ballot, it wants all the dust settles and if it's ever possible to reinstate the ban, that you all would reinstate the ban without us having to go back out on the streets and print up all the signs and stuff. My other comment is, and I apologize because I didn't know I was going to speak tonight. I didn't bring any documentation. But I get a lot of information from the Union of Concerned Scientists, from Food and Water Watch, from Greenpeace, from all those people. And I have no idea how the regulations concerning setbacks and the restrictions put on the drilling operations without a ban. But I remember specifically reading one that just took me back and it's been documented that within a 10-mile radius of a fracking operation, it's been shown that it causes birth defects. So it would seem like it would be reasonable as far as a health standpoint to try to figure out, you know, a 10-mile setback might put a crimp in somebody's fracking operation. I mean, it might put it clear out of the city limits of Denton. I have no idea how, you know, how that works. If there's what the considerations are, how much money versus how much public safety is involved. But it would be worth checking out. I could probably find some more information. I think if you just Google birth defects and fracking, like I said, I can't remember which source that was. But 10-mile is a big distance to make it safe to be near a fracking operation. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Marshall. Well, those are all the cards we have wishing to speak. And so what I will do is read the number of cards, the blue cards, and summary of what they say as far as their position, which I think they're all the same, pretty common. And they will go into the record, so it's not individually. We've got 24 cards who are wishing not to speak. And they all say, in essence and summary, in opposition to repealing the ban and postponing the repeal. In other words, they don't want a vote taken tonight on the repealing of the ban. So those are all the cards we have. We have, let's see, Councilmember Briggs. Yes, Mayor, Councilman. We have heard a lot of citizens tonight, and I am moved and inspired. What tonight has shown us is that we are not ready to vote to repeal this ban or the will of the people. And so I make a motion to postpone this vote until June 16 th so we can have more time to explore other options and communicate with our citizens. May I approach him, Gregory? I'll second that. And then I think if we have the discussion, I would like to give some request to staff to prepare some things. Sure. And yeah, but before we, yeah, Councilmember Rhoad. A couple of things. One is I thought we had agreed to try and handle some of these questions tonight prior to kind of closing down this discussion, which I think a vote would ultimately do. And there are some probably conversations we can have. It's late. I understand that. But especially for the folks who hung with us, asked questions, I think I'd like to know whether or not you guys want to, this is a good form to try and do that. The other thing is the timing of the motion. And I guess my question would be whether or not it would be better to do in a week. And so I guess that's a friendly amendment request to the mover as to whether or not next Tuesday's meeting would be an acceptable time to do it instead of the 16th. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. I think there was a question that oh, yes, friendly amendment. Yes. Okay. Yes, I'm sorry. I was trying to get everybody to respond. Is that is that good guys a week? That that's it would be back. It would be back for vote. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So you this is all new to me the rules. So somebody would have to make a new motion. If this one isn't okay. Madam City Attorney, if you could clarification, please. Yeah, I think I what I'm hearing from the councilwoman is that she 's not amenable to the request for the friendly amendment is that accurate that is that the desire of the mover would be for the consideration to be on the 16th. Yes, ma'am. So we have a motion and a second and no desire then to accept the friendly amendment. Okay, we've got a couple people who are still requesting to speak so we'll hear those and then we'll consider that motion is that I believe that's proper procedure. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Thanks. And then a request for an opinion from counsel. Do we put ourselves in a more awkward position by waiting two weeks that to consider the action, then by waiting a week. Well, certainly we can have some discussions with the parties on the other side the general land office and the Texas oil and gas Association and have some discussions I really can't answer what their position might be at this point in time until we have some discussions with them. Well, another question I would have is, one of the things that I would ask of staff is to craft language, and both a resolution and language in an ordinance form, stating something to the effect that we acknowledge that, based on the current preemptions in House Bill 40, that the city is unable to enforce the ban. But that if the preemptions in House Bill 40 are ever removed, that we will then enforce the ban. So, can you craft that ordinance, that language, is it going to take you longer than a week to craft that kind of language. I would like to have a chance for it to be crafted, and for citizens to have a chance to look at that with sufficient time before we have that, because that could very well be an alternate to repeal of the ban. How long would it, how long do you feel you would need to craft that? If we were going to place something on the agenda, of course we've got a 72 hour notice we would have to post something no later than close of business on Friday at five o'clock, and it's our policy to post at five o'clock on Thursday at this point in time. So we would have essentially tomorrow and until five o' clock on Thursday. So that's a fairly short period of time to craft that, but certainly we can work through that if that's the direction. Then I think it might, I might feel more comfortable having , giving a little bit more time to get that crafted, and a chance for council members and for citizens to digest it. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you Mayor. I had written down, I have six questions here that kind of, I didn't know at what point are we going to be kind of giving all of our questions up here that we'd like answers to, is that after this vote? Well no, no, if we're going to do that at this time I assume it would be prior to that. Okay. So if it's the council's pleasure, we can answer some of those questions that we're able to answer tonight. And if they're legal issues then we can look at those, and if that's the case then we would, I guess, not vote on the motion on the table. This would be part of the discussion as far as the question and answer period. Is that the desire of the council at this point? Well, but I didn't know if legal was ready to answer some of these because I think Anita had even said, you know, if there was a second ordinance on the book saying we will not enforce this, have we found an answer to that one yet? Well, I think the, it would be, the process would be to ask the question, you know, to repeat the question that had been brought up. Sure. And then if legal counsel, the city attorney thought that that might be something that needs additional consideration from the city attorney's office, then we could do that. Okay. And also to try to find a way to post some of this information on the website. I think we've got an oil and gas section on our website, the city website, where some of these questions and answers could be posted to. So if we're going to take up the questions, which I'm okay with that, I would like to take about a five minute break, a five or 10 minute break to do that. It's 1117 so we'll come back about 1125. We're going to be conveyed or repeated and answered if they can be. And if not, then we will get back with some type of posting on a website or something that will communicate that information, make sure that we get that out to the public. So Councilmember Hawkins. Sure. I was just going to read off some of the questions I had here. I think it was earlier in the night, there was a pretty interesting point brought up that if we had the state police come in to help. And I know we probably can't do that, but I just wanted us to look into that a little bit, you know. Get a second ordinance on the books and what that would look like saying we won't enforce the current ordinance. Is a lawsuit void if there are not damages? What does our latest, the last ordinance that we passed considering gas wells look like in the face of HB 40? Okay, sorry. I think the first two, well the one about can the state help, but the other one about can we get a second ordinance on the books. I think legal is going to be looking into that. I think that was part of what. But I think the question about, and the city attorney can say what she will about this, but that was a good question about the lawsuit and damages and maybe even just a general basic primer about the type of lawsuit this is, i.e. a declaratory judgment action if I'm correct. And what does that mean? And are damages even necessary in that regard? I mean, I don't know the answer to that question. But what's just the general nature of that if that's not too much and if it is, then we'll figure out a different way to communicate it. Okay, well I'll start the dialogue and then it may be that some of the other attorneys want to add to some of my comments here. But let me point out that this lawsuit was filed immediately after the hydraulic fracturing ban was enacted by the electorate. And as such, it really to date has not taken into consideration House Bill 40 in the pleadings, I will say, from Texoga and from the general land office. And so it's not uncommon to see pleadings be amended to add different claims or to take claims off of the table or that kind of thing that happens in lawsuits all the time. And so at this point in time, the lawsuit as filed doesn't address any additional issues that might have been presented or laid upon the table as a result of House Bill 40. And so I would say currently as pled, the lawsuit is a claim for injunctive relief. And that's what we're looking at, at least to date. Not to say that could not change in the future, but currently that's what we're looking at. Okay. I guess, and again, I guess the question was if, quote unquote, there seems to be no damages, then how can there be a claim? But it's my understanding that declaratory relief and injun ctive relief is saying the stance is that the ordinance was either whatever they plead, unconstitute. And so it doesn't necessarily mean they're asking the court to determine if it's a valid ordinance. But do there have to be damages, monetary damages present in order for that to even be an issue and controversy? Terry, do you want to address some of those questions while you're here with us tonight? Terry Morgan, counsel for the city on the Texhoga case. Basically, you're right, Mayor. There's no necessity that any damages be alleged one way or the other. But, you know, even if the city passes an ordinance, nothing happens in the lawsuit. You're going to have to file a motion that the lawsuit is moot. And hence they can't go forward. I mean, that would be the, whether you repeal the ordinance or whether you pass an amendatory ordinance that we believe has that effect, which is up in the air. We can't give you definitive answer tonight. That's the process in order to end the lawsuit in that manner. Okay. All right. Thank you. Kevin, I would just want to get his questions out and then we'll go. Yeah. No, and I don't. I just had written this one down to does legal or anybody here on counsel feel like repealing the ban would give the gives more strength to the industry. And I just written that one down. Those pretty much my questions. Okay. All right. Council member Roden. I have several questions that I, they're written that I wrote down, but I think they're condensed some we've already addressed. Obviously, what are the other options? That's something we need to look at. But there's this overarching question of what is the goal of the council? We've all been talking about we're defending the ban. You presented the ban to citizens voted on it. We've not really had to opine our personal thoughts in that . But I think what they're asking for, because there's been this question of trust. Can we trust you moving forward if you do this that we're on the same page in terms of our ultimate goal in this. And I think there's an overarching question now that the Denton City Council has the answer, which is what is our goal in regards to the coexistence of gas drilling fracking operations in the city of Denton? And that will then determine our strategy moving forward in terms of future ordinances and to future possible defense of the ban in the absence of HB 40 sometime in the future. I think there's that question. So I think we need to have a significant policy discussion. We've got a new council to try and define that. And I think the community deserves to hear that. So that's that's an overarching question we can't answer tonight. But we're going to have to have that question because it's going to define a lot of things going forward, including strategy. There is a good question on what's the impact of HB 40 on our current gas well ordinance or on anticipated changes to that gas well ordinance. And I think that's a key question. I think to put in context and I have said this before, the question that we're struggling with really at this point in light of HB 40 isn't simply how do we defend a ban? I mean, we're pulling our hair out to think how can we write an ordinance in which we can defend something greater than 100 foot setback in light of HB 40 because of the ambiguity of this commercially reasonable. So that's an important issue to look at, especially considering every other city with gas well ordinances having to struggle with that same question, which puts this entire discussion on a larger scale. It's not just about Denton and it's certainly not just about Denton's frack ban. It's about ordinances to regulate oil and gas development in cities now that we know it's got to happen, or at least for the time being. And so I don't know how we can answer some of those questions because we're not quite sure, but the impact on our current ordinance or somehow we need to address that and communicate that. Another question that I think was raised, but I think it would be interesting to address if we can in somewhat generalities. And that is there's all this question of what really is the legal impact or the consequences to a unfavorable summary judgment to be able to kind of spell out to some degree in some sort of terms. What does that mean? Is it just in case another city is interested in defending specifically a frack ban that it's harmful or is it another city who's trying to defend specifically a setback provision that they're in court? Does this impact that kind of the extent of why we should worry about that? Because that seems to predicate the entire discussion. And then I guess the last question, this is kind of unrelated to these general questions, but it was raised and I would just like the staff to look into it, perhaps Darren . And that the question was raised as to whether or not V antage was working before 7 a.m. in violation of the ordinance. And so that certainly ought to be looked into and figure out what we need to do to enforce that. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. One of the questions raised by Rodney and I think I got his last name is Love, is it correct? That is not directly related to this issue. But but that I'd like to find out a little bit more about it is sort of a head scratcher that a citizen initiative that becomes law can be removed by a simple majority of the council. Is that in our ordinances or is that in our charter? And if it's in our ordinances, I think at some point, not immediately. It's not our most impressive concern. But at some point, we probably need to review that it probably just logically thing ought to take at least the super majority to undo a citizen initiative, or at least we ought to have that discussion. And, and maybe that discussion has to be set aside for the next time that we do a look at council and a charter revision. And that may mean that we want to speed that up at some point. Councilmember breaks. I just wanted to make a statement of something that I noticed tonight, I did get tons and tons of emails. And I got a lot of form letter emails from the North Texas for natural gas, and I wanted just to make a statement that no one showed up tonight in favor of the repeal. And I just want to kind of put that out there. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. So I'm a data guy. So, actually charted every every speaker tonight that spoke I charted the address. I've got a, I've got a, I've got an app. And it's fascinating. Of the 40 that I charted. Three of the addresses have a gas well within 1500 feet, which was shocking to me. But what it, what I gather from that is, you know those people that spoke you're about something bigger than yourself right it's not just about you, it's not just about your house it's about a bigger, a much bigger issue, you know that you're concerned with right. And, and as we think through this I think that's the exact same spot we're in. It's not just now, because of HB 40, because it's interesting. It's been about a fracking ban. Now, the conversation largely has been about HB 40. Right, so it, the conversation got much bigger. And so, that's the place I think we find ourselves in is now we have to think about others besides ourselves as a city, and other issues besides fracking in terms of our ability to enforce our own ordinances. So, you know it's really, it's really encouraging. On one hand, to see that all the people that showed up to speak tonight. Three have a gas well within 1500 feet of their own home. Because that means to me that you guys are not just worried about yourself, but you're worried about the whole city. Now as a city. I think we can't just be worried about ourselves but we have to be thinking about other cities and their rights, and our rights to enforce things other than a fracking ban. And I don't think anybody likes the situation that we're in . But I think we have to think about that now, because how we go forward from here is not only going to impact our ability to enforce our fracking man it's going to enforce others, it's going to impact other cities ability to enforce anything around oil and gas, but also our ability to enforce other things that the state may decide HB 40, or a derivative of it could apply to. So it's, it's, it's, it's just the whole stage got bigger right a lot of people have said the whole world is watching . But I think for us now, a lot of the other cities in the state are watching as well and I think if I was another city, I would be worried about us pushing to win in court, knowing that the chances are very very small and impacting their ability to win in court, which could ultimately give us the ability to enforce our band so it's fascinating but also I think there's a lot to think about outside of just the fracking band. Mayor pro tem Gregory is it okay if I call on Council member was she she hadn't really spoke since. Is that okay. All right. Council member was transparency. So we have three options. Consent decree, and I know there's just a lot of legal mum bo jumbo that it's hard to really get through and try to understand. And that's pretty much off the table, because we can't agree with opposing Council on what it is that's going to come out of this lawsuit. So then we come down to summary judgment. And why is that so frightening for a city. It's a multiple levels. We stand to lose. Much of what's in our current ordinance that we've worked hard for years to put together to protect our community. And a summary judgment would come down from the judge, and it could encompass anything and everything that you can imagine. It could be possible. Because we're not in control of that summary judgment. The judge is. We're at the mercy of the court then to get left with whatever the court hands us after a summary judgment. Third option, repeal the ordinance. Adam Briggle came tonight and stated that the attorney for DAG recommends repealing the ordinance, that the fight is not in dent. One of the things that could hurt, and I've heard it from probably 20 speakers tonight, is cities coming together. A summary judgment could hurt that goal and hurt those other cities in their attempts to move this forward. And it's my opinion that that's why the DAG attorney recommended repealing the ordinance. So that's what we've been struggling with in terms of those are our three options. Wow. That's tough. That's hard. That's why we ask that you come here tonight to help us think this through. But those are the tough issues on the table. And while we would like to drive the bus and make it be whatever we want it to be, for now, HB 40 is the law of the land. So we are compromised as a city in what our options are. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. I'm glad that Councilmember Briggs brought up the form letter that we've been receiving. When I got the first one, I thought it was just an individual letter from an individual. So I answered that person and tried to explain all of the inaccuracies. And that letter was filled with inaccuracies. And then I got really frustrated because I realized, oh, I 'm going to get a whole bunch of these today. So for those of you who want to lobby city councils or state representatives or any other elected official, rule one is no personal attacks. Don't make people mad before you try to persuade them. It's terrible. These form letters didn't do that. Number two is avoid form letters. After the second one, it's just a yawn. Number three, and maybe this ought to be number two, is always avoid form letters or any other letter where your argument is based on nothing but mainly misinformation. So just a couple of points. The form letter said, and it quoted the record chronicle, and I don't know if they quoted the record chronicle correctly or not. We recycle our newspapers. I don't save it. That our city has spent nearly a million dollars writing and defending rules that prohibit natural gas development. It's ten times what we were initially promised. Nobody ever promised anything. And I've looked at the expenses. We spent about a little less than $200,000 defending, legal work defending the ban. A little under $200,000. We spent about $700,000 crafting a new ordinance. A lot of work that may be jeopardized by the way House Bill 40 came out. And we spent $25,000 on a suit saying that are challenging the moratorium. They say in the letter that the moratorium violates Texas law. Well, the court said, no, it doesn't. And in fact, we had members of the gas industry standing right at that podium saying, please extend the moratorium. Wow. The gas industry is asking us to extend the moratorium. And I commented at the time and some of the rest. This is one of the few times when the folks fighting for the ban and the industry had agreed. They all agreed. Extend the moratorium. So, folks, if you want to lobby, don't use form letters, especially don't use form letters with a lot of inaccurate information. It's very ineffective. Councilmember Briggs. I just wanted to kind of go over and state that we did propose another option tonight possibly, right, of trying to see about writing another ordinance. So it might turn into four options instead of three, correct? Is that what we decided legal was going to do? Okay. And then also that it's possible that we'll have to totally rewrite our current ordinance anyway because of HB 40. So and then I kind of want to just make a personal thing here that to put our crystal balls away and try to quit thinking that what other cities want until we talk to them. And that, you know, that's what I ask. I ask that we communicate with cities before we decide what they want. Just have a couple of comments. You know, when the ban passed, I met with a group that were instrumental in that endeavor and shared that, you know, to me, one of the major goals was to not do us more harm. All right. And unfortunately, I mean, House Bill 40 and I was down there testifying. I think you've heard my interviews. I think you've seen my letters. And I'm going to throw this out there. This is just me. We haven't really talked about this. But as I've listened tonight and as I've listened to my colleagues, I don't necessarily want to be constrained with a sense of urgency. Now, I can't place a time frame on that. I can't tell you. Well, what does urgency mean to me? Is it one week, two weeks, a month, two months, six months? I don't know. It's more of a psychological approach. It's more of an approach of when do I do my best thinking? When do I realize, okay, how do I really want to process through this? And I have appreciated greatly and will continue to appreciate the citizen input and also our legal advice from our legal team, which is that advice. They don't give direction. They simply lay out the options. And for that, I'm appreciative. So in some ways, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with thinking that we are going to bring back this particular item in two weeks to have this discussion all over again. I would prefer, unless the council in that time can create a strategy, communicate that strategy, feel comfortable with that strategy, and move forward and to be able to vote on that strategy. Could the passage of time work against the city of Denton as far as its ability to enforce or how it could impact other aspects of our ordinance? Absolutely. I mean, that's assuming that the oil and gas industry will do something and file a plea and they can be watching this on television, and that's okay. Because what I've learned in the brief time that I practice law is people are going to do what they're going to do. I mean, unless you can really come down and talk and try to find an agreement to resolve a dispute, which from what I understand and from what my experience is, we've attempted to do that through the consent degree, to some degree, excuse the pun, without being able to disclose the different specific issues that have been proposed. My hunch is that's going to be almost impossible to achieve simply because there's a sense of victory from the industry because of House Bill 40 passing. So why would someone who feels that they just won the whole enchilada decide to give up something and won't decide to try to add something to it? So I get that. So I'm not so sure for me if, and it may just be a matter of a posting, how the posting is, but to me I would want to think that whatever we bring back on a posting is something that has been deliberated, has been decided on a strategy. In other words, we're saying we're going to bring back this whole issue again about putting it up to a vote on do we repeal or not? Well, to me, if we do that, that's assuming that that's the course that we've taken. And based upon the conversation here, at least I'm not so sure that that is the decided course, because if it is the decided course, then why bringing it back in two weeks really isn't going to make that much of a difference, in my thinking. I'm not speaking for my colleagues. I'm just speaking for myself. So I'm okay with giving it some time and not feeling like we have to control the whole process. Could it harm us in the end? Are we going to have to decide how far do you take a legal battle? Sure, and I'm not going to even try to say to commit to any level in that process, except to say that that is the question. Councilman Roden, you've got a good question. What is our goal? I mean, and I don't think we, I mean, we've got an immediate goal of what do we do with the hard work that the citizens have done in passing the ban and honoring that work and also honoring the rule of local authority. So it's like we're trying to answer a lot of different questions on a lot of different levels, and I sure don't want to think that what we do with one may harm the other. So I'm real okay with taking some time to think this through, being as transparent as we can within the legal bounds of our legal relationships and to not totally just give away our hand, because I will tell you as a lawyer, that's important. And I know that it's difficult in this situation, and it is difficult to, you want to, you don't want to show your cards, but also we're not in just a normal dispute in that sense, but yet we are when it comes to the judicial system. I mean, this is nothing, I mean, it's just another case, but it's not another case to our community. And I will tell you, I thought about this a lot over the weekend, and I communicated with some of my colleagues, with one colleague, I didn't communicate with more than one, to talk about this just to see about, hey, what are we doing? These are my thoughts. And so I'm sharing my thoughts, and those thoughts are, I'm okay with taking some time to do this. I don't know if two weeks is enough, and if two weeks is it, we're bringing back the same issue again. And so that means everybody's going to come and say the same thing again, and so is this what we want to do? I don't know if I'm ready and have the information to make that decision. I understand the implications from the different method ologies, the different options. Now, this one option we haven't really talked about, the fourth option, we've got some direction on that. But in the end, we just have to decide what we think is right. We have to decide what we think we need to do. And if we want to entertain and collaborate with other cities, that's fine. But in the end, it's our community. And then we have to do what Denton believes is right, because I will tell you, that's what every other community is going to be doing. Every other community is going to be making decisions based upon what's right for their community. That's why I opposed House Bill 40 was because it was a one -size-fits-all. Every community is different. Some communities don't care if they have a hundred-foot set back. Some don't want more than a 2,000-foot setback. So every community is different. So I know there's a motion on the floor to continue it to a date certain. I think it was June the 16th. I guess I would like some clarification on what are we continuing and what is the posting and what is the decision that we're attempting to make. And so that's what I'm trying to understand, because if it 's the same agenda posting that we had today, tonight, I'm going to struggle with that, because we, unless we have a lot more information, but then we may be coming to a different conclusion or a different approach or a different option, but then we've already made the motion to continue. So we have to bring this one back. Am I correct on that, Madam City Attorney? Right. That's the item that's posted on the agenda and that the motion related to the posted item. Now we've heard some other direction that the Council would like to see this other ordinance, perhaps another resolution, but the motion related to the posted item. So that's what we're looking at. Councilmember Briggs. I made the motion because I didn't want the vote for the repe al to happen tonight, and that was the only thing that I knew to do. I am with you all the way on time. I'm glad to hear you say what you're saying. It makes me happy. And so I don't know what is next in the legality of the motions. Well, I guess, and Madam City Attorney chime in on this. I guess if we took no action tonight, in other words, nothing happened. What happens? Right. If the Council chooses to take no action on this item and they don't make a motion to postpone it to a particular date, then of course the action just falls off the table. In other words, no action is taken. So there is it. Basically the item fails. And unless the agenda committee puts it back on the agenda for additional consideration, then it would not come back before this body again. So it would need action by the agenda committee to put it back on the agenda. But that could certainly happen. That's it happens. Sure. All the time. So that's that's still a possibility. And just like if if some other decision is made on direction, then that's would be posted by the agenda. That could be put on the agenda by the agenda committee on whatever that would would come up to be. Sure. You bet. OK. All right. Councilmember Rodin. Well, and that and I guess my suggestion would that could happen concurrently with a continuance of this particular item. So right now we've just engaged a large number of citizens, all of which said we need more time to discuss it. Sounds like there's going to be some continued discussions in the community on this issue, trying to find some creative solutions. We're doing the same thing. We're trying to answer some questions. So we could very likely if we move to continue this to June 16th, have that on it. And if we came up with an alternative ordinance in the meantime, also post that and then be able to act however we needed to on this in order to consider what we found was an alternative. I don't think we're harming ourselves by continuing this, given that we've kind of signaled that and people it sounds like we've got a good discussion going in two weeks seems like a good touch point to come back and say, officially have a conversation on what we've learned and what they've learned. And if this at least gives us the opportunity to continue that, to me, that's a positive thing. Councilmember Johnson. So, so we posted this agenda to accomplish is what we accomplished tonight was to hear a lot of input. So if we if we voted tonight and it did not pass, like the decision to repeal the ordinance did not pass, this item would not be continued. We then would have whatever time we wanted to have to flesh out all these ideas and everything else. And when the time is right, post again an agenda item with whatever description we want to have, because it seems to me like if the if the we flesh all this out and then in the in the same posting happens right then all these people are going to come back and they're going to they're going to say the same thing. I said tonight because that's the information and there could be another item on there which talks about some other strategy. To me, I just don't know that all these people want to or we frankly want to sit through all of the same conversation again on this topic. I guess what I'm getting at is if we if we continue it, then the public hearing stays open. Right. And then when we come back the next time, everybody would have a not a public hearing but citizen input or whatever the right fill out a blue card. So I'm just, I mean I'm thinking out loud here which is dangerous but it seems like. I don't think anybody's ready. But if it, if it did not pass, then, then whatever the result of all this work and continued conversation could be posted. Again, potentially posted in a different way. Does that make sense. I'm not trying to say here's how we would vote because everybody's going to vote what they vote. But that's just the thought. Councilmember Hawkins. I was kind of thinking this along the same lines like why are we doing this if we kind of don't even know what the ultimate goal is yet. What are we voting on what are we continuing. So, I agree with what you say what you just said there, you know if we just kind of denied the motion to repeal right now, we're in the same point that we were, and we will continue to collect data, figure out all the legal ram ifications of everything and then assess that situation when we are ready. When you've had enough time mayor and I've had enough time I think that's. I think our city attorney wanted to just a reminder that if you take no action at all in other words you don't vote on this tonight. It will fail, because it takes for affirmative votes just as we discussed earlier with the speaker to pass anything. And so, if you take no action, then it doesn't pass, but you have not voted on it so that's the other possibility just take no action on the. So, just to let if we don't vote on what's on the table, then the motion here would come up and then possibly we wouldn't vote on that. Is that what you're saying attorney. Well, I would assume that if you're not going to take action on it you wouldn't want to continue it. So, in other words, what would have to happen is the motion and the second I assume would be withdrawn and then the council would not take. I got you to be withdrawn. Thank you. Council member was named. Yeah, that would be my wish to have the motions withdrawn and just have this off. It doesn't have a sin in any way. There's also no message broadcast out there to opposing council on a boat here on this tonight, because they're watching every word, so I think that would be wise. Council member for Tim Gregory. We have. It seems that we have three options. The consent degree, the summary judgment or repealing. But I think what we've discovered is there's a fourth option, which is crafting either a new ordinance or new resolution. That says under the effect of. We acknowledge that at this time House Bill 40. Makes the fracking ban on enforceable. But if at some point, how's the provisions of House Bill 40 that preempt the fracking ban go away. We reserve the right to begin enforcement. Now, we haven't really fleshed that out. We haven't seen what that kind of an ordinance or resolution would look like. We don't know whether the ordinance would be better, whether the resolution would be better. But what we've discovered tonight is that there's another option. And what we might discover is that there are some yet und iscovered options. And I would like to explore the option that has been generated by the conversation tonight. If we do nothing. I am pretty darn sure that we're going to get complaints about that or complaints that well, you know, now. We don't know when you're going to make a decision or if you're going to make a decision. And when we finally come up with a strategy. Through advice of our attorney in closed session, we're going to get the same criticisms of, oh, well, you did it all behind closed doors. And now we don't have time to think about it because you posted it. Well, we have to post it in order to make a decision. So I'm a little bit worried about doing nothing. Sometimes, by the way, I think doing nothing is probably the very best action to take. I'm not sure that that's the best action here, especially given the fact that we have discovered a new option that is certainly of interest to me. And if we could explore that more thoroughly in a couple of weeks, and it may mean posting it differently rather than consider a repeal of the fracking ban, it may be consider action to either repeal or modify our ordinance regarding the fracking ban. Councilmember Briggs, you had a request to speak. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, let me clarify. I'm not saying that we do nothing. I'm saying that and maybe I'm speaking too technical of terms. What I'm saying is that to continue this specific agenda posting item to June the 16th to me is is sort of moot in a sense that in these two weeks we're going to explore another option and you and I are on the agenda committee. And so whatever options that we believe we craft is something that we can bring to the public. We can get that onto the agenda. Whereas if we continue this, it forces us to have to do and we can pull it. We can decide we don't want to do it. I just for me, it's just a matter of, well, we can we can kick the can down the road to the 16th. But in the meantime, we're going to be doing all these things. And if we want to put something else on there, that 's fine. That's so I'm not saying we do nothing. I'm just simply saying that we're going to post the same thing that we just had a five hour meeting of six, six hour meeting about it. And so that that's my only thought on that. Yes, if I may then I understand that. But the we may explore this option of a different ordinance and realize it's got some flaws that have not been considered. After after our legal team has had a chance to reflect. Sure. And then we've not done anything. And all of a sudden, now there's another posting to repeal the ordinance. Well, that's my point. If we continue it, if we continue it to the 16th, that's what I'm trying to avoid is what you're describing. OK. I mean, yeah, I'm not I'm saying we don't put the ordinance automatically on the agenda on the 16th by this continuation. But if something comes, if there's something that develops, then we put that on there. And if it doesn't, it's not on there that we then have to go. OK, we're either going to pull it. We're going to have to tell the public we are not going to consider it or they're going to have to come and we're going to have to go through this whole discussion again. Whereas it's yeah. Does that make sense? No. OK. It's after midnight. OK. And I'm tired. You don't like these after 11. I'm not going to say anything else because. I'm OK. They're going to work for me. Councilman Rode. I think to help in Councilmember Gregory's after midnight train of thought. Is that the issue here? I think that we heard from the community was this was posted Thursday night at five p.m. They're getting wind of it at some point Thursday evening, Friday, Saturday, Sunday or whatever. And then they're getting having to get engaged for a Tuesday meeting. Typically, that's how we post things. And we generally aren't broadcasting well in advance that we're posting this thing two weeks from now or something like that. My point is we've engaged the community in conversation. They know that we're having this. No one's worried that this is a done deal, that we're having to vote on this particular issue the way we have it posted today. They understand that we've started a conversation and we've asked them to get together and come up with creative ideas. We've told them we're going to get together. All I'm saying this acts as a placeholder. Everyone kind of knows what the discussion is now because it's been overly abundantly clear the trajectory of this conversation, which is to get some creative things on the table to avoid any surprise. Post surprise. I say surprise. But the typical posting that will seem late because we may want to do it again in two weeks or have some sort of conversation again. If we just project now, we want to touch base again in two weeks to continue the community conversation. We can do the same thing as we did tonight. We can act. We can not act. We can continue. We can whatever at least guarantees to everyone engage that we're going to continue this and we're going to have that conversation. I still maintain if we have an alternate alternative ordinance that we come up with between now and then that we want to consider, let's drop that in concurrently, not act on this, but we still have the conversation with the community. That's my thought. I think it gives us a level of predictability that we want to touch base again in two weeks, whether we act on something or not. We're just talking. Councilmember Hawkins. So June 16th, if we're still not ready to really act on it, what what do we do at that point? We just move to continue again and then. Is that a question to me? Anybody. Well, since I brought up the idea, I mean, I don't think we have to be prepared to act in order to continue the conversation. I mean, if we don't have some sort of answers to these questions within two weeks, I've got to ask what we I mean, and we're asking them to come back with some new creative answers as well. And it gives them two weeks to do that for those who are interested in engaging that process. So it's not like I don't think we're going to have something to talk about, even if we're not acting on an ordinance. But our options are still in front of us. Just my thoughts. Councilmember Briggs. I would be happy to keep the motion to come back in two weeks. But it does it have to say, can we change the wording and not have it repealing the ban? But just like you said, just in exploring the conversation more. Well, if you're going to continue, you're going to have to act on the item as currently posted. And so that would be your motion to continue. On the other hand, if you wanted to allow this issue to fail today, then you would not continue it. And the council could. And I have heard some conversation here and direction that the legal team should consider and explore this alternative possibility that's been laid on the table, which, of course , we're going to do. And then the question would be, are you going to direct that it be on a particular agenda? Are you going to leave that in the hands of the agenda committee to put it on when the agenda committee is convinced that the legal team is ready to move forward with it? And I can I would withdraw my motion. Okay. Does it that does that need a second on that or help me with the. I withdraw my second. Nevermind. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mary. Clarification. I think when you were saying continue the conversation for clarification, you weren't saying continue the item. In other words, if we take no action, the conversation continues, but we're not continuing the item as posted, and it has to be posted right the date certain all that. So if Keely withdraws or motion, Dalton withdraws a second, no action is taken, then we have the flexibility to bring it back in whatever form we want whenever we want. Well stated. Is that correct? Great. Thank you. Okay, we, we have no motion on the table at this time. For the sake of procedure, the chair would call for motion of action. Chair sees no motion sees no second. The item therefore fails. All right. Okay, thank you. We're going to move on now to agenda item. Let me get my agenda out here. Mayor I think everybody should have to stay now. Okay, we're going to a public hearing agenda item number seven. Seven a hold a public hearing consider special sign district for the Golden Triangle mall. Thank you, Mayor, I'm going to ask Amy visit our inner director of planning and development if she'd present this public hearing. Thank you, Miss visit. Good morning Mayor and city council members. I made a prediction about 12 hours ago that it would be after midnight before we got to the these items I guess I was correct. As a result, I'd like to start by saying thank you to my team who is still here and thank you to all of the applicants and others who are interested in these public hearings for enduring this and still being here. And I don't I don't know if you actually read that first item. Did you. You may have. Okay. That's correct. Okay, this first public hearing is the consideration of a special sign district. Sign districts are an opportunity to basically address a sign issue when a proposed plan would be superior to what would be accomplished under the standard regulations. And the request is from the Golden Triangle mall. The subject property is a proper approximately 70 acres and you know where it's located. It is at I 35 and loop 288. It encompasses and not just encompasses the main building of the mall, which you can see on the on the screen above you. And it also encompasses the four anchors associated with the mall today may sees JCPenney Sears and Dillards. And this proposed special sign district also includes four pad sites, including Wendy's Corner Bakery, Starbucks and P ollo Tropical. And what are not what parcels are not included in this particular proposed special sign district are three out parcels that are separately owned entities who have chosen on their own not to participate in this application. Subchapter 33 of our sign code. So what's normally allowed under existing signage? And when a property has more than one frontage on a freeway arterial or collector street, it may have one sign per frontage and each premises with over 500 feet of frontage may have one additional sign or portion thereof. So what's permitted under our standard sign ordinance? The four the four pad sites would each be allowed one sign for a total square footage of a thousand feet. The four anchor stores would each be allowed under our existing sign ordinance or they'd be allowed a total of 11 signs for a square footage of 1280 feet. And then the the primary mall building would be allowed an additional five signs at another 920 feet of square footage . So totally total under our sign ordinance as it's written today, the mall would be allowed 20 signs with a total square footage of 3200 feet. The purpose of the special sign district is to deviate from the sign code when the proposed plan would be superior. And the Golden Triangle Mall is requesting a sign package that we do consider to be superior. It has a theme that is consistent with its most recent facade upgrades and renovations. And in exchange for that, it allows fewer number of signs at a greater height in order to specifically address visibility as it relates to an approach from I-35. The proposed sign district would include three primary signs, including two large multi-tenant signs along I-35. So they'd be the two big tall signs and then one at the mall entrance on loop 288. Those are existing today that have been permitted and constructed previously. And their proposed sign district would also include two additional signs that are multi-tenant signs that would be near the intersection of Colorado and San Jacinto and along loop 288. There are 14 other signs that are proposed in the sign district. These signs are smaller signs that are along the interior ring road of the mall and provide some directional mobility through the mall parking lot and entry markers. The primary benefit of this proposed sign district is that it reduces the total number of traditional signs that are utilized for advertising and consolidates primarily into two larger signs that are taller along I-35 in order to increase visibility. I'm going to quickly walk through what signs we're talking about. We'll start with existing signs that are along the pad sites. Starbucks has an existing sign. It is 14 feet tall. Barnes and Noble has an existing sign that's 32 feet tall. Wendy's has an existing sign that's 8 feet tall. And Pollo Tropical has an existing sign that's 6 feet tall. These are all proposed to remain in the sign district. Additionally, we have one of the large, more traditional signs, which is a multi-tenant sign on loop 288. Some of you may remember a couple years ago when we had the big ceremony where former mayor burrows helped us knock down that old sign, and this one went up in its place. There's also an existing multi-tenant sign. This is one of the tall ones that's along I-35. It's 60 feet tall, and it is existing. It was constructed around the same time as the one on loop 288. There is an existing directional sign at the entrance to the mall near JCPenney. And there's an existing sign that is along the ring road that is on the I-35 site as well. In the sign district, they are proposing six new directional signs that would be 8 feet tall and would be along the ring road of the mall. And six new entrance signs that would provide for visibility, low-lying visibility for entrances into the mall. They're also proposing two new multi-tenant signs that are 11 feet tall. These would be more ancillary signs, smaller than the ones that are there today. One along San Jacinto and Colorado Boulevard, and one on loop 288 further down from the existing sign today. Lastly, they are proposing an entry marker, which would be on the corner in front of where L. Phoenix is today. You may recall that there's been a very ugly dumpster there for a long time, and they've worked with L. Phoenix to have that removed. And they want to replace that with a nice monument sign coming into the mall. So in summary, their sign district includes seven signs that are existing today, 16 new signs for a total of 23 signs. Nine of those are the traditional advertising signs that we would typically see at a mall, and this is a reduction from 20, which they would be permitted under our sign code today . This is also an attempt to bring these signs into a consistency in terms of theme and image with the renov ations that they've done, as you all know, because you have approved the incentives and seen representatives from the mall multiple times over the last couple of years. They've invested, or in the process of investing between $ 45 and $60 million in renovations in the mall, bringing in new tenants. And this proposed sign district is one of those additional things that they're doing that we consider to be a desirable action. In order to approve a special sign district, we must show that it provides a comprehensive plan for all signs that would be clearly superior to what would be allowed without the plan, that it would be compatible with surrounding properties, and that under no circumstances would it be used to authorize construction of billboards or anything else that is otherwise prohibited in our sign ordinance. So just a side-by-side comparison here. The special sign district, as proposed tonight, would allow nine traditional ground signs, where our sign code would allow 20. The total square footage under the proposed sign district would be 3,145 square feet by comparison of 3,200 square feet, allowed under our current sign code. And it would provide for a consistent theme and for directional and entry signs, which are currently not provided for under our sign code. Just a visual representation by comparison. On the right, you'll see the 11 parcels that are contempl ated in the sign district. And you can see the yellow stars around the edges of those parcels. Those are the 20 stars that represent the allowable signage on mall property. By comparison, on the left, you'll see nine stars that would be allowed under the sign district, with the red star being the Barnes and Noble sign, which is going to be a condition that that would be removed at the end of the lease with Barnes and Noble, which I'll walk through in just a second. We did do public notifications on March 15th. 27 were sent out by certified mail and 68 by courtesy mail, and we received no responses to that. The Planning and Zoning Commission does recommend approval with the following conditions. Number one, that the special sign district be subject to the provisions of the Golden Triangle Mall sign plan, which is in your backup, along with site plan and elevations. Number two, that the Barnes and Noble sign be removed at the property owner or tenant's expense upon expiration of the lease, which is January of 2019. And number three, that the regulations of temporary and wind device signs with the sign code shall be applied to the district as a whole rather than each individual parcel. Number three was added by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a condition. Staff was recommending approval with the first two conditions. The applicant is here with a presentation and can answer any questions as can I. I've just got a real quick question on the PNZ's recommendation. What's the gist of that? I mean, what was the rationale? The temporary signs that you've seen go out, like the wind devices where they've got the flags all along the roadway, they would want that number to be an allowable number using the entire sign district rather than one tenant, for example, being able to go in and putting up a whole bunch of signs and then on the other side of the mall, another tenant being able to do that. They just wanted that to be regulated as a part of the sign district. I was thinking wind devices and signs and numbers and never mind. It's too early. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? Thank you, Amy. And I will tell you as you were presenting, I thought you were just as energized and awake as if you'd have done it at 7 o'clock. No, seriously. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. We will now open the public hearing. We've got one card that wishes to speak and two that don't wish to speak. We'll read those into the record. Jim Greenfield. Jim, come on up. Thank you. I have a little slideshow presentation. My name is, I'm sorry, my name is Jim Greenfield. I'm at 2201 South I-35E. I'm representing Gold Triangle Mall. And I had a slideshow. I still have the slideshow, but in the interest of time, we can zip through it. I also have some handout materials for you. The recent, there's a shopping center convention that takes place every year in Las Vegas called ICSC and it's recon. And I'll hand out this magazine, which was handed out to all of the retailers that were there. And Golden Triangle Mall was on the cover. And there's an ad on the inside that will give you a lot of information about what's taking place at the property. Let's see if I can keep this going. This is the new facade. I'm going to feature a lot of the details of what we've been doing and why we wanted to have the district created. We're real proud of the fact, as you look at the list of tenants there, that H&M has been added as a sub-anchor for us. And they'll be opening in August, 24,000-foot store and in a lot of the other stores. We've added 10 new stores in the past two years during the renovation. And as a result of the renovation, all of which are new to Denton. We also have had 10 of our merchants who have remodeled and upgraded their stores during the past two years. And so we just want to continue that work. But this will give you an idea of what the property used to look like and what the new facades have done. On the graphic side, which is what we're talking about tonight, these are two of the signs that are on the left side. The entry or sign at the top is one of our markers to give direction. And then we want to show you what the sign used to look like before the renovation. And then just a shot of many of the merchants that have come in in line and have become a great improvement to the property. And the fountain that we've added, the new play area and other things. We just want to continue this activity with this overlaid sign district so we can kind of have a unifying theme. And I'll be here to answer any questions. Any questions? Any questions? Seeing none. Thank you. We do have two cards wishing not to speak. Matt Ludman, 2201 South I-35E is in support. And David Staltz. Is that how you pronounce? OK. Thank you, David. 2201 South I-35 in Texas is in support. This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this item, please feel free to come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak on this item during this public hearing? Seeing none, we will now close the public hearing. OK, sure. Yes. I just wanted to say that I'm a fan of the external renov ations of the mall and I think that -- can I say that? Is that OK? Here, I think it's really good for our city and I'm proud that you guys are doing that. Thank you. Fantastic. All right. Seeing no questions. Councilmember Johnson? Thank you, Mayor. Maybe I should have asked the applicant. Amy, you may know. Was the applicant OK with the stipulation added by P&Z? Mike? OK. So -- Yes, we are. I was at the hearing at the time. If you could just -- We'll start talking about -- Is that -- I'm good. Mike gave me the thumbs up. You know, those wavy wind things that have a fan at the bottom and they go -- I hate them. And so -- and we want to keep control within the property line so it looks as good as it can at all times. So we have no objection to that restriction. OK. Great. All right. So I'm going to make a motion for approval of item 7A. Councilmember Hawkins? Before I second, I just want to thank you guys for staying here so late. Yes. Really, the mall looks great. It is now Wednesday. I don't know if you guys know that now, but anyway. So I second. OK. We have a motion and a second on agenda item 7A. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries unanimously. Agenda item 7B, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, regarding a change in the zoning classification from regional center residential. RCR 2 zoning district and use classification to a regional center commercial neighborhood RCCN. Thank you, Mayor. Amy Bissett, our director of planning and development, will also present this public hearing. Thank you, Mayor and city council members. This is a zoning case for South Ridge Village Shopping Center and is to consider a rezoning from RCR 2 to RCCN. Just to give you some perspective on where this is, this is the shopping center on the corner of I-35 and Lillian Miller where the vacant former Albertsons building is. Here's a location map. The contemplated property is the potential tenant lease for proposed uses in 67,000 square feet. The current zoning today is RCR 2, as you can see on the map, and the proposed zoning is RCCN. The future land use designation for this area is regional mixed use. This is consistent with the future land use plan. The goals for regional mixed use are that located along I- 35, a mixture of uses will complement existing uses and create a regional draw. The request of RCCN does conform to the map. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for indoor recreational uses by right. The applicant has two potential tenants for this property, one of which is a fitness center and the other one is an indoor trampoline park. Both of those are classified as indoor recreational uses. The center was built in 1984. The current zoning was established by a citywide rezoning initiative in 2002. The property would meet all of the regulations for RCCN. The staff analysis showed that RCR 2 zoning has allowed commercial development to continue on the property. However, RCCN is actually better suited to the zoning district to encourage higher density uses. The RCCN would remove zoning limitations and be consistent with the Denton Plan 2030. Here's a comparison of permitted uses under the two different zoning districts with indoor recreation highlighted about two thirds of the way down. The criteria for approving zoning change is that it must conform to the future land use plan, which we've established that it does, and that it should facilitate the adequate provision of infrastructure and utilities, which it does. The public notifications were sent on April 9th. 13 went out by a certified mail and 53 went out by courtesy mail and there were no responses. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval and based on its conformance with the future land use plan, the staff recommends approval as well. I do believe the applicant is here if you have any questions or they may wish to speak as well. Councilmember Rhoads. Thank you, Mayor. Amy, I remember, and this has been about two or three years ago, an interested grocery tenant. This would have been before your time maybe of being engaged in something like this. But what they were wanting to do was going to trigger a number of new parking requirements and landscaping requirements and things like that as a result of, I think, some of their redevelopment plans. And while that's not necessarily tied in with the zoning question, do we know if their project also has those same triggers? I'm going to speak here and if I have a staff member behind me that wants to correct me, they can yell at me or run up here and correct me. My understanding is that because the 67,000 square foot space is being splinted to two uses, the parking requirements are different on that. I think what's happened is that I-35, the right of way acquisition has come in and lowered the overall number of parking spaces, which was making a grocery anchor challenge due to the parking restraints. I believe this overcomes that. Is that correct, Ross? My name is Ross Culbertson, Senior Planner, Project Manager on the project. We're working with the applicant on the building permit. They're ready to submit. They haven't submitted yet. With that, they are not going to change any landscape requirements and parking. The two uses proposed will use the parking there and not need to modify the parking and landscaping on the site. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing? Seeing none, we will now open the public hearing. I do not have any cards, but this is a public hearing. Anybody wish to speak to that? If the applicant wants to speak or make a presentation, they're welcome to or if they just want to hold for questions. This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak? If so, come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. One more time. All right. We will now close the public hearing. Council Member Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of item 7B. Council Member Briggs. I second. We have a motion to second on agenda item 7B. Let's vote, please. Passes unanimously. Going on to agenda item 7C. Hold the public hearing. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, repealing ordinance 2013-328 and approving a specific use permit, SUP, to allow base utility of DME electric subst ation on approximately 7.334 acres of land. Thank you, Mayor. Ms. Bissett will also present this public hearing. Thank you, Amy. Thank you, Mayor and City Council members. This is a request for a specific use permit to allow a DME substation on approximately 7 acres on the McKinney substation. This is also a request to repeal an existing specific use permit on the same site. This is a -- here's an aerial map here which will help depict this. When this property originally came in for a specific use permit, the area outlined in yellow was encompassed in that SUP that was issued in 2013. The area outlined in blue was not in full ownership of the City of Denton yet, but it was contemplated ownership by the City of Denton. So this is an SUP that's basically repealing the first one and then applying it to the new property in addition to the existing property. This particular aerial doesn't show that the substation is actually already under construction and almost complete, but it is, and I do have a photo of that here in a moment. This is a substation site that is adjacent to two zoning districts, NRMU and NRMU 12. The original SUP was approved for the 6.2 acres in November of 2013. The Carter tract, which is the blue hatch track, was being -- in the process of being acquired at that time. The site plan today is the same as was approved in November of 2013. It includes a 10-foot masonry screening wall, a 10 -foot buffer zone, and six new trees. Here's a site photo of it under construction today. The criteria for approving SUPs is the same criteria under the DDC for any specific use permit. Specific to this project, it is required that nuisances are properly screen ed and that there's sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony with the adjacent property and that it's compatible with and not injurious to the enjoyment of the surrounding properties. The notifications were mailed on April 22nd of this year, 12. Notifications were mailed by certified mail and 14 were courtesy notifications. No responses were received in favor or against. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this SUP with the condition that a perimeter masonry security wall be constructed at a minimum of 10 feet tall and staff recommends approval with the condition above. The applicant is here for questions and may want to make a presentation as well. Any questions for staff? Will we open the public hearing? Councilmember Briggs, you had a question? You have a problem with your screen, didn't you? Yeah, it doesn't want to work. I just wanted to know, is the landscaping, more landscaping, besides the trees or is that just the trees? There's a buffer as well, a landscape buffer that's required as well. That would have shrubs and... Okay, thanks. Thank you. All right, thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak? Come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. I have no cards. Anybody wishing to speak? Seeing none, we will now close the public hearing. Council member Rodin? I move approval of agenda item 7C. Councilmember Hawkins? I second. Let's vote on the board, please. Agenda item 7C passes unanimously. We'll go on to agenda item 7D, which is hold the public hearing considered option of ordinance of the city of Denton regarding a change in the zoning classification from a regional center commercial downtown zoning district and use classification to an employment center industrial. Thank you, Mayor. Ms. Bissett is still our planning director. I'm going to present this last zoning case for tonight. Thank you. I didn't get fired between the last one and this one. That 's good. This is a rezoning case as well that is located on Worthing ton Drive, which is between Schuller Street and Barcelona Street to give you a little bit of perspective here. This is Barcelona down here on the bottom of the screen. That's where EDSCO is. There's some other industrial uses in that area. That's over in the area where the old Denton Regional Medical Center was. The area in blue is the area that's the request for rez oning. It is currently RCCD regional center commercial downtown. And the request is for ECI, which is employment center industrial. The future land use map designates this area for business innovation, which is intended to be a mixed use category for large scale office and employment parks, includes uses such as retail hotels and residential. But the primary uses would be office R&D and light manufacturing. We do consider employment center industrial to be consistent with that future land use map. Here's a site photo or a couple of site photos here from different angles for you to look at. The criteria for approval for a zoning change requires that it does be consistent with the future land use map or the land use designation in the Denton plan. The staff analysis has determined that it is consistent with that plan because of the intent of the ECI zoning district. The ECI essentially removes the residential components and adds a light industrial and manufacturing component, which is consistent with that future land use designation. And there are adequate facilities to support the build out of that development. The notification date was April 23rd, 11 notifications were sent by certified mail and 22 were sent by regular mail. We received one response to that and they were neutral. The planning and zoning commission recommends approval and based on the consistency with the surrounding land uses and the future land use map, staff recommends approval as well. And I do not believe the applicant is here for this one. If there are questions or concerns, their preference is that you allow them an opportunity to be here and have this come back up at a future date. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Yeah, what's an example of light industrial? >> Light industrial would be some sub assembly or assembly, for example. A lot of the Peterbilt suppliers would be categorized as light industrial. Heavy industry is really starting from a raw material, so starting from manufacturing a product out of a raw metal or doing some sort of fabrication from raw metal would be considered heavy industry. Light industrial is not as much of an environmental concern or a drain on the surrounding uses. There's not as much to mitigate. It's more of assembly, sub assembly and value added manufacturing. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions before we open the public hearing? Seeing none. We will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak? That's all rushed down. State your name and address. Anybody wishing to speak? I see none. We will now close the public hearing. Councilmember Johnson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Before I make a motion for approval, I just want to say I'm so proud of that applicant for not being here. I'd like to move approval of Item 7D. >> Councilmember Rodin. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second on Agenda Item 7D. Let's vote on the board, please. Somebody hadn't voted? Who else would be missing? There we go. Passes unanimously. We now will move on to concluding items. Anyone have any concluding items? Don't do it. Don't do it, Councilmember Rodin. Go ahead. >> I do, actually. So I'll try to make this short. But, you know, before all of us were on council, except for the mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, you might remember back at the advent of the A train being set to go through its current route. And the council in working with DCTA and working with the neighborhood in southeast Denton really required the spending of about $750,000 on community improvements along that rail trail. That is finally finished. And what went from being a real threat to the community has now become a real amenity to the neighborhood. And it's been wonderful to see the progress. And so tomorrow at 5 o'clock out there in the corner of Cur ley and Duncan Street, there will be an official unveiling, complete with I think the majority, if not all, of the DCTA board to kind of unveil the rail trail, the amenities, and the community enhancement grant that this council fought to get included in that. So thank you two for being a part of that. But I just want to welcome any of you guys if you can come out. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. Well, I was hoping to be able to do this yesterday, but I just wanted to wish my wife a public happy birthday. I'm sure she's still up watching. And I'll make it up to you this weekend, honey. Should we sing happy birthday to her? You know, I proposed that and she said if I did that she'd kill me so we'll pass. And she's been sleeping for two hours now. Okay, any other new I probably had some but I've since forgotten it. So, any other new business. Seeing none, we will stand adjourned.