Sep 01, 2015 City Council on 2015-09-01 1:00 PM

Good afternoon and welcome again to this Tuesday, September the 1st, 2015 City Council meeting. It is 1.03. We will proceed down through our agenda items. The first agenda item is to receive citizen comments on consent agenda items. Do we have any citizens' comments on consent agenda items? All right. Thank you. Number two is request for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for September the 1st, 2015. Council members have any clarifications of agenda items? All right. You're looking Council Member Wasney. I believe Mr. City Manager you said five. Five B, item five B on the rail yard, the action item on the rail yard. I would like to ask that you table that or postpone it until the 15th. We will go ahead and have the work session item on that and the closed session discussion. Okay. But we'd like to postpone the action item if it's okay with the Council. Madam City Attorney, do we need to, can we just, or do we need to take an official action on that agenda item? You'll need to take an official action. It will be a motion in a second. Okay. All right. And we'll pass the postponement. Thank you. Yes, Council Member Wasney. I would just request on consent agenda K that we have an explanation to Council from representatives from DME who are here just on explanation of what this is just because I had a few citizen questions. Which agenda item? K. K. Okay. All right. Do you want to do that now Council Member Wasney? You want to do it? Sure. Okay. Sure. Yes, we have a closed session item on this since it does partly deal with some competitive matters. But in summary, this is an agreement with Texas Municipal Power Agency for the municipal electric to assume some of the responsibilities that have been delegated from TMPA to Garland Power and Light. Garland Power and Light is performing all the construct, operate, maintain functions for the TMPA lines for all of TMPA. Denton would like to assume those responsibilities for the lines that are in Denton County. And so that we would take over that responsibility and there would be no increase in cost to me. We would take that cost and bill that to TMPA for the functions we perform. Does that answer your question? Okay. Mine's just while Phil's up there. Oh, yes. Go ahead. Which one? On item I. And I'm sure it's pretty self-explanatory, but it's for the cranes for the three years, you know. And that seemed like a lot of money. I was just curious, I'm sure cranes are hard to store and they're expensive and all that. Is that why we don't own our own cranes or? Not only that, but you need different size for different jobs. And so sometimes you're going to need a hundred ton crane, 150, 170, 200, and just vary so much for each job for what you're trying to do. Size of transformer you're lifting or size of tonnage of equipment you're doing that you get a crane for each job. And so this company is one of you that has a variety of different sizes of cranes that can fit for each different job. Thanks Phil. Yes, Councilmember Rhoads. Also a DME related question relating to item J. This is the , it seems like a renovation of a house project. And, you know, I got wind of this actually know the gentleman have known it since I was in college. And it just seems like actually a really great story. I just like to allow you guys the opportunity to share a bit about that project and how that came about. I want to ask Brian Dascom to come up, our manager of external affairs and let him kind of go through. He's been dealing with coordinating a lot of this project and putting the information together to get to this point. And so I ask you to present on this. Thanks. Good afternoon. Well, back in December, the City Council approved a site for the Hickory substation. And after a lot of public involvement, you chose the site that's there on the east side of Bonnie Bray between Oak and Hickory streets. And that was the site, the site option that had the fewest people that need to be relocated. But there were five homes on that site. And so after the City Council made the determination of that site, I got contacted by members of Mr. Joe Revis and he said, I've lived here for a couple of years. I really like this home and I don't want to move. Am I going to have to move for the substation? And so of course the answer I had to give him was, yes, we 're going to build a substation there. You will, your house will be demolished. And so you're going to have to move. But there's two pieces of good information that I was able to give him. The first was to say none of this is going to happen very quickly. So that was in December. We're in September now and he's still in the home. So it didn't happen quickly. The other was that you have rights to a relocation package. There's relocation benefits that you'll receive. And those will be help in moving, any rent differential. So if your new place costs more than your current place, then we can help you out there. And also, since he has ADA needs because of his disability, we would make sure that wherever he moves is decent, safe, and sanitary is the terminology. He would need to have a place that was appropriate for him. And so as we looked at different places that we could get for Mr. Revis to rent, we were discouraged by how few were going to be appropriate. And as we saw that we were going to have to renovate his living space to be compatible for his needs, and then we'd have to retrofit that after he left to put it back in the previous condition, the cost, as the cost got higher, we realized this was going to be a very difficult relocation. Someone had the idea, and it wasn't me, but someone had the idea that 1224 Bonnebray, which is just down the street from where he currently lives at 108 Bonnebray, DME came into possession of that house. And if we were to relocate him to that house, then he could use his relocation benefit, this relocation package, he could apply that to the home, and he could become a homeowner potentially. And so the more we've looked into that, the better of a deal it seems to be. And so that's what we're moving forward with is renovating this home to make it appropriate for Mr. Rivas, and he'll go from renting a 700 square foot house to owning a 1900 square foot house. And that's all following the federally mandated relocation guidelines that we have to follow, and so it seems to be a good deal for everyone involved. Thanks for sharing that, Brian. I mean, it puts a human face on what the city has to do sometimes when we do acquire properties, either voluntarily or through eminent domain, and it oftentimes feels like we're running people out of town or something like this. And I think it highlights that we are following strict guidelines, but here's an individual who's been a great contributor to the UNT community in terms of advocacy for disabled citizens. He's a children's books writer. He has cerebral palsy, and you'll see him wheeling around town all the time, just making life better for folks. So it's just a great story of what the city's able to kind of bring together a creative solution to an otherwise difficult situation for a citizen. So I commend you guys on that, and I appreciate you telling that story. Question? Yes. So just to be clear, because there's nearly always somebody who will find something to complain about. Yes, sir. Just to be clear, the house that he would be becoming a homeowner doesn't add any expenses to what we would have to be spending to relocate him. It just basically comes out pretty even? Yes, sir. Again, we're having to follow these federally mandated relocation guidelines. Larry Colester, would you care to weigh in on the specific question of cost? Oh, let's not have lawyers talk. Okay. You asked a very specific question. So the funds we're expending to do this were required to by the relocation rule. And what wasn't required by relocation, we would have been required, we had to do something with this house. And to get the proper easement from this house, we're going to have to remove the garage. And to properly do anything with this house going forward, we're going to have to make repairs, asbestos removal, those kind of things. And so we're going to have to spend that money anyway to go forward doing those things. And so this allows us, this opportunity allows us to spend those funds and at the same time do some good for someone who's been very positive in the community. All right. So this is truly a win-win. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Any other questions on that particular agenda item? Thank you. Any other questions of clarification for the agenda? Okay. Seeing none, we will move on in the agenda. We will now go to agenda item 3A, which is receive a report , hold a discussion to give staff direction relating to the Denton County Transportation Authority passenger amenities program. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to ask Mr. Mark Nelson, our Director of Transportation, if he would introduce Mr. Flying, who's going to make a presentation. Thank you, George. Mayor, members of council, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you this afternoon. We in one of the budget discussions, there are some questions about some of the enhancements and amenities that DCTA is able to provide as well as the services that their organization, their authority provides our community. So with that in mind, we've invited Jim Klein, President of DCTA, to come and visit with you a little bit, outline some of those services as well as touch on some plans moving forward with some enhanced passenger amenities. So with that, Jim. Thank you, Mark. Mayor Watts, members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to come talk today. I'm joined today by Ann Bolden. She's our Manager of Capital Projects. She has to cash the checks I'm about to write as we go forward. So oh, rats. Very good. Okay. You know, we provide a lot of services in Denton and this is at the downtown Denton Transit Center on here just down the street from this location. I wanted to really talk about three things today. Just bring you a little background and update. We have a lot of good news at DCTA, specifically address a path forward on improving the passenger experience and specifically having to do with shelters and benches on a go forward basis. And then I'll be happy to take whatever questions you have and at any point in the presentation, but certainly at the end as well. For those of you who aren't real familiar with DCTA and I know a couple of I had a chance to meet the two to the new council members today. We're founded under Chapter 460 of the Texas Transportation Code, which is a separate we're the only transit authority in the state under that code under that section of the code. We're supported by a half cent sales tax in Denton, Louis ville and Highland Village. And in the course of the time since 2002 forward to today, we've implemented the A train revenue service on the A train and greatly enhanced the service in Louisville, Denton and Highland Village. We have a 14 member board. Your representative is Richard Huckabee. He's very doing a great job. We really appreciate what he does for us. And from a business model at our operation, we contract for rail operations in both both bus and rail operations. A little bit different models, but it's still under contract service and that is provided. It's really working well for us. And an example also is how we do services. There is one engineer at DCTA happens to be me and I don't do engineering for DCTA. We hire those consultants when we need them. And then when we stop needing them, we cease using them anymore. I mean, it just works real well for us in terms of managing the funds that were so that we receive both from the federal government and Fairbox and then in sales tax revenue. A few facts about DCTA. We carried almost three million people last fiscal year and we should exceed that this year. One of the things that makes us a little bit different from a lot of commuter type agencies is that we carry both workers come into the central business district coming into Dallas. We also carry a lot of students, faculty and staff come in northbound in the morning. So it's not quite 50/50, but it's a good split between the two and it's a little bit different than most other agencies do. We provide paratransit service under the access moniker, demand responsive service RSVP in portions of Lewisville and Highland Village, the A train commuter van pools. And then when you really look at how we succeed, it's all been through strategic partnerships, both with our member communities, other agencies and the federal government and other and certainly the private sector with our contractors. So we're that's a we don't do a lot on our own, so to speak . We do a lot with other people and it seems to leverage those things that we do to make it better for the citizens of our communities. Now a couple of things that we I think a great success story is that one of the this is we did a community enhancements project in the southeast neighborhood area, the north end of the A train project to enhance the trail bring some history for the area and take a look at those things, add some amenities and had a great ribbon cutting. Mr. Roden, you were there and we had several members of the neighborhood and a lot of members of the community there to join us as we cut the ribbon on that and kick that project or finish that formally brought that project to a close. So we're real happy to be able to do that. We've been working closely with the Southeast neighborhood association, actually having had several of their neighborhood meetings in our facility at the bus at the bus maintenance yard. So we're real pleased with that. And it's been a good again, one of those partnerships that continues to to be so positive. We are in the middle of looking at our our comprehensive comprehensive bus review. We want to take a look at our service. And is there a way to do we have some duplicative services or we can stretch some of the dollars that we have? We've been over the summer, we did a lot of work in Lewis ville and Highland Village. Now that schools back in session, we're going to be kicking that off in the next couple of months here in Denton. And so trying to see what what potential opportunities exist, how can we tie better to the a train and again, expand our service and provide better service in those areas. So stay tuned on that one. That's something that's coming forward. We have had some public meetings on that. There will be another public meeting on the 16th of this month. That's a Wednesday night over at the downtown Denton Transit Center at 6pm. So we certainly welcome any of y'all to come. Denton is usually one of our better attended meetings. And so we'll we again welcome your input and any citizens that would wish to come. We'd certainly welcome their feedback on that. Now in terms of how one of the things that I take a lot of pride in is that that you'll like doing business with DCTA and how we manage our business. We have worked to sustain our financial strength. When you look at our budget going forward into FY 16, we maintain our board has some very, very strong standards, one of which is we keep 90 days operating funds in reserve of our annual expenditures. And we have 3% of our sales tax that is set aside for stabilization in case we have a dip so we can continue service. And we look at our numbers for having some reserve for fuel and capital. So those are good things that again it keeps us in good stead with that. We also have internal coverage ratio target which we achieve every year to exceed 1.25. We have about $35 million in debt right now. We're able to manage that very effectively. Our current year revenue exceeds our current year expenditures. So we're able to keep track of business and not be we pull money out of reserves when we have capital projects, one-time expenditures, but out of our cash but not out of these other than the capital reserve, we hold those until board action says we need to pull from those numbers. We have a sustainable five-year cash flow model. We look actually look at 20 years but we adopt the board adopts a five-year model to make sure that the decisions we're making this year are sustainable through the years. When we add a service, we program it into the future so that it's not a decision that's made every year. We add a service not that we wouldn't ever change it but that we want to plan for it to be in existence well into the future. We did just recently receive the platinum level award from the state comptroller's office on the leadership circle. So we've added our check registers online, all of our budgets, all of our CAFERS, all those things that you may wish to look at or any citizen wants to easily accessible on our website. Good audits, last two years no management comments at all and our finance department gets the certainly for the last several years running has gotten the GFOA awards for the distinguished budget as well as our comprehensive our CAFER , our certificate of excellence in the financial reporting. So real proud of that. This is the underpinning on why we can do a lot of the things we do and you know normally a transit guy gets up here and talks about the buses and everything and those are really important but if we don't have the money squared away in the finances we can't provide those things on a sustainable basis. So I'm real pleased that the board gives us the latitude to do those things. In terms of challenges and opportunities, positive train control I've talked to you all about before, that automated safety system with that will stop the train if it's over speeding or if there's a potential for a conflict is something that we're continuing to work through we'll be opening bids on that in September. That is a high cost item. We think we have the funds set aside for it. Believe we found a better way to do it but that is something that's going to continue to challenge us. Working to improve the service within our you know just improving service within the existing service area. So we want to keep looking at how can we make things better in Denton, Lewisville and Highland Village and then look and see if there's an opportunity for expansion in such a way that does not draw from or impact the existing communities, the business, I call it the A trained business unit. Those that are associated with that I think there's potential leveraging that we can do but it's something that has to be done in such a way that it doesn't impact our financially participating member cities. So that's important and I know that going into it when we have discussions with the colony or Little Elm or any other of the cities around us. And then the other thing which I think is really and I've heard some discussion about in the meeting at the tail end of the meeting that I came before as I came in on the downtown area all the quite all the effort that's going on for development, potential parking areas and things like that. We've been working closely with the staff to be a part of that and we look forward to being a part of that in the future. One thing that we'll be doing there's a conference called Railvolution is coming at the end of October and in fact and we'll be actually leading a tour up the A train downtown and Amy and I visited about that just here recently just today and be a great opportunity to highlight what's going on in downtown Denton. And so we're real proud to be able to do that. So with that I know that the a lot of the discussion that we had was how do we make improve the passenger experience. We've installed some amenities at different locations in Denton already and we want to continue that process. And so when we look at those passenger amenities I like to look back and see where we came from. How do we what are we doing to make those things better? What have we done in the past? Where's my ride which is a predictive tool for arrivals that you can use on your iPhone or your smartphone or through texting or by phone. We've implemented that go pass which is again smartphone access to tickets. We just updated our schedules. We do that twice a year in August and in January in fact I brought Mark copies of our our go guides which is our schedule. And we'll continue to work on the hike and bike trail. We've had the eight mile system in place from downtown Dent on to Swisher. Text dot has funded from Swisher down to Kelton and across the lake. And then we've got one and we've also gotten funded from He bron up to the Old Town Station and that rough area. We've got one gap left that's not funded or under construction. It's already designed and we're looking forward to bringing that bring a 20 plus mile system to the community. And then we've also installed a number of buses and shelters in Denton. We did in 2014 and Ann led this effort to get 20 new shelters. Some of those are at train stations and installed in Denton . And we've completed coordination with the city for some other locations as well. And so when we look to install a new location one of the things we look at a couple of things as we do that. The first is there are two we've got right now the count is 243 bus stops connect bus stops not necessarily the UNT shuttle system but the connect bus stops in Denton. There's a lot of different varieties for site conditions how many riders there are level of community interest different accessibility issues. There's a lot of things that go into it. And then we look into when someone asks how do you select where do you put an amenity of some note. Could it be a shelter? Could it be just the pad could be a bench whatever it is how do we pick those locations and we do that really looking at these four things. We look a lot at boardings. You'll notice I didn't put a solid number on there. Okay. That's by intent. We want to look at take a holistic approach to this. So we look at the boardings we look at citizen community input. So I think many of y'all know Miss Kano has spoken to us on occasion. I know she's addressed the council. We've got several locations that oh by the way and also what she's requesting makes sense. And so we've got some of those things already programmed to move forward as an example of citizen feedback into this process. When we look at the site conditions how much right away is available accessibility is you know what's under construction or there's some other infrastructure conflicts we have to deal with and then available funds which we have been able to fund this on an annual basis and we believe we can do so on an ongoing basis. So with those things in mind that's how we get to the next steps. And then when I look to a path forward I've got a map in here it's probably hard to read but I've got a copy of Mark's got the electronic version and y'all can certainly have access to that one print out a big one if you need one whatever we need to do is that we've got seven locations selected that we can complete this calendar year. We have already submitted those into the permit process. We've worked carefully with the city manager and the staff and have been very gracious in working with us in terms of streamline the permitting process trying to eliminate some costs where we can and it's been successful and that stretches our dollars a little further. So those are really good things and continues to trend to work in hand in glove with the city staff and the community. In terms of the material for the shelters they've already been ordered it's already funded there's back order right now but we're waiting to get the material in once we procure an installer and we'll begin the implementation to make that happen. I feel confident we can get that done this fiscal year. From that point forward that isn't where the discussion stops. We've got several locations on University Drive which are currently text dot has them under construction in that area. We didn't want to put in something that would be torn up and we'll be ready to move forward with we've got 25 locations along University Anne is that right 25 and we'll start phasing those in as they become feasible and as we can make those things happen and then work with the city to coordinate installations in the sidewalk program that when a lot of this has to do with can you not only is the stop accessible in other words can you get off the bus and get to the stop but once you get to the stop can you go somewhere if you have a mobility impairment of some sort and so we'll look at that and then certainly this is a program we see continuing every year and we get a certain amount of funds for passenger amenities that come through our grant programs and those are things that we'll continue to work through. So to me if we continue the path of working as we not if as we continue the path working closely with the city we can continue to build this and work as we go forward to improve again the passenger experience. Jim we got a question. Yes sir. So on those seven locations are those all the same kind of amenity or some of them benches and some of them summer benches and summer shelters and it a lot of it has to do the cost difference you know there's a couple of cost elements to go into this you got to put in basically the same pad whether you put in concrete pad whether you put in a shelter or a bench because you have to have a because of the ADA requirements to be able to turn a wheelchair around and so there is a there's a there's a delta between the bench and the shelters most of the time what we when we look at the bench versus shelter is just a question of space do we have the right of way to do that so if this we would generally prefer to put in the shelters but if we have the space or if we just depend on what material we have to be able to come in with the benches so that's kind of an on site call it's not a huge difference in cost we would favor a higher boarding level which push you more towards a shelter than a bench but it isn't going to necessarily I don't want to put in an absolute requirement on that I was joking with Dan at lunch that I had a as a young cadet at the Brazos River School for Waiver Boys as we say I asked my survey prof Professor Turpin how are you going to calculate my grade and found out that was a bad question to ask he said well I'm going to look at your lab book I'm going to look at your test scores and look at your attendance and you know then I'm just going to decide what you're going to do so I learned very carefully we will take a very holistic look at these locations and how do we and how we make those happen so I don't see us coming back with a formula to say there's a cutoff on how this works there's an absolute number a minimum number of boardings and a dart and some location some different agencies do that we would tend to be more likely to want to put one in where there's more people we would tend to like to put more in where there's more space and there more sidewalks there is not an absolute on how those go so and have you found any sites where you feel like that there's probably enough boarding all of the other requirements are there except that the sidewalks are inadequate and that the city needs to do something have you identified any of those there are some of those locations we've looked at and that's part of what my intent is is we discuss with the staff is to look at the sidewalk program and see how one can inform the other if we have clearly have some locations where we'd like where we think there's some improvements that ought to be done if that can be if that can inform the sidewalk program or if the sidewalk program might inform where we improve some of our bus stops so it's it's a it can go either way on that but I think we've established we've established the protocol to make that a reality thank you thank you mayor is any of the data relating to your board number of boardings per stop or something is any of that open to the public or something that you kind of put out there is for general consumption well we I mean very little we have is not open to the public for discussion so these are records we can share and I think we have shared with others we don't necessarily put that on our website but not because we're you know have an issue with it's just a lot of information sure no and I you know oftentimes when Pete it's it's easy to take an anecdotal example you know a picture of a mom in 110 degree heat with her kid in her stroller sitting there but there's oftentimes a bigger picture I ride the bus pretty often and kind of understand sometimes there these stops aren't used as often as other stops are used so it would make sense that you're investing in one thing or another but on some of these I think another part of this story as you talk about like the technology of where's my ride as you talk about things like your consistency of service for regular bus riders who now are taking advantage of that or know the system you can kind of time when you go to a stop accordingly and so to me that's also part of the larger picture as well because I know me I'm 108 to the last second so I'm not having to stand up there at the stop or something like that well that's part of why I wanted to lump that in not to lump it in but to consider that as part of our passenger amenity package because if we can make it easier to buy tickets we can make it to where you know when the bus is coming and have confidence because there's nothing worse than wondering if the bus is going to come and we think that's a limiter to people riding the bus a lot of occasions they don't there's not confident that it's going to be there when they when it's scheduled or when we expect it versus being able to have that predictive tool that can say yes it'll be here in five minutes and I'm not going to wait an hour in the sun I will go do something else I'll time my shopping or I'll make my plans a little differently in order to mesh up with that so thanks yes go ahead Jim thanks for being here my question about the you mentioned ADA earlier so is it that if there are no amenities that have stopped today then there's no requirement for ADA compliance but if you construct something here's what I'm what I'm getting at in my mind and because I think we've all shared the same frustration with this right as you know citizens are coming and why is this taking so long can we do something temporary it's hot out there and then we hear from you guys we hear from our engineering staff and we get text dots you got city engineering at you guys right away discussions and then you know so now your comment was well I could go build this thing but but if there's not facilities to take the people who who may be have ADA requirements from the bus stop to somewhere else at the side the reason I bring it up is it feels to me like there's a lot of red tape and there's a lot of stuff that just has to get done which is nobody's fault but it just is so is the ADA issue one of the major blocking issues is it do you have a requirement today or is it just if you build something I think a great parallel in that because we're obligated to do it it's much like curb curb ramps when you do a street project and and I faced this when I was public works director at the city of Irving is you would you know we haven't we had a mandate to put curbs curb ramps everywhere but how you phase that in is when you do overlay projects and you repay the street you're obligated to go put those ramps in at that point and what we're faced with is yes we're we're working ultimately the goal is to have the entire system accessible but it clearly is required when we do an improvement we we we and our particularly our use of federal dollars is that we must make those improvements accessible and so you know there's there's a bunch of different ways to tackle that maybe we need to move a bus stop just a little bit maybe we need to again coordinate with the city and and whether it's timing right because you're never always get the sidewalk timed exactly with the shelter or the the bench you know which comes first and how can we make that happen could it be part of a long-term program and and kind of stepping back and that's part of what we did here recently when we were preparing for this discussion and moving forward is take a little bit of a step back and make sure that what we've what we're putting in and the program we're doing moving forward is not being stopped by things but it's how can we address those things so you know the Americans with Disability Act and those accessibility requirements clearly are a requirement it's something that's the law of the land and we have to deal with but it's something we deal with not as a as a necessarily something that would say no we can't do anything because of that I'd like to take a different again that's that's the tact on it that I see for our agency and for the city and that when you look at again that comparison on curb ramps and doing overlay projects you know you would think why am I doing curb ramps with I'm just overlaying the street well it's that phasing in of these improvements over time and that you know I've seen a lot of times it's not just people in wheelchairs it's you know we our bus our trains have level boarding completely right you just roll from the platform or walk from the platform straight into the train the old trains we had you had to lower a ramp go down a deal and it was accessible but it was not the most dignified experience you know and it actually was very inefficient for us because a conductor we had to stop the train you know pass her to and now someone who either maybe just needs a little extra assistance maybe just has trouble climbing stairs can very easily get right on the train just like everybody else and so when you look at the example like curb ramps and the ability to move around if you again stepping back from it these things help and you know example curb ramps help people with baby strollers you know and and so there's a lot of I again I see I don't want to show that I don't want to make that the limiter for what we do that is part of our operating environment and then okay with that in hand how do we move forward so so specifically is it a requirement when you when you build a shelter for an example that there is ADA accessibility not only onto your bus but but then onto a a sidewalk from it yes I and we've got to look at the specific every site is a little bit unique and how that works but in general the answer is yes and that we want to again how can we then the question is not is that reason to say no how do we say yes how do we work together to say yes in that in that instance and again if the if the if our amenities program can inform the sidewalk program and vice versa then we're we're we're operating hand in glove which is the way it should be good thank you yes thank you mayor thank you Jim if you're going to address this later to just stop me but I'm just wondering are there any goals that we're that you are trying to hit like a certain percentage of stops that either need a bench or need a shelter is it something like that or what's the timeline look like well I'm trying to address this I've got it's the answer is no I don't have a specific goal there's 243 so that would be one end of the one boundary condition I don't ever see us getting to that point because we put a stop every quarter mile and some of them are very rarely ever used so we'd want to use them where they where it makes sense I think that's reasonable and just having more stuff in the right of way is it needs to be a benefit if we're gonna put something out there the plan going forward I see is that we we first of all start off with these ones we've got right now and we continue as we have to budget this every year and keep chipping away at it it's you know we we sometimes get grant opportunities I think there's you know these run about ten thousand dollars a location all in between seven and five and ten thousand kind of depends on the circumstances but that 's that's roughly the kind of DCTA side of the cost and so as we go to put those in if we can get more grant dollars if we can bring other people in the equation if we can leverage some work that's already being done by the city that can be very helpful you know there's a bunch of different ways so my path going forward is how can we work together with the community and the city to maximize what we can do within our constraints and then move forward we'll keep ordering parts we'll keep making sure we got this stuff right and we can certainly work on a goal I mean I'd be happy to do that and we did 20 and 14 we've got seven right now we'll get more so I think those are you know I know it's a daunting task but that's good to hear too so that you want to utilize the money we have try to almost have partnerships with them but just keep whittling away at it that to me is it's just something that it's it's like Americans with Disabilities Act on the streets again I use that parallel based on my you know background as a public worksite is you can't solve it all at once right but you can chip away at it and make progress and so and I think if our community if our citizens help us out we we've already taken that input and used it and that informed the process that we've got today and we'll continue to let and to not let it inform it that should drive a lot of what we want to do and what we do as an agency in the city together thank you yes ma'am and so in that vein congratulations to our citizen who really let this charge and she's kept it fresh and alive so that it remains a priority for this council and a priority for our citizens and a priority for you to keep moving forward so just so that's real clear you know this is important and to just keep moving forward on that is there a site on your website where a citizen can log in and say we really need a bench here or we really need a shelter here and if we don 't I think that would be helpful what we we actually have it's a broader scope than that we have what we call the go request program it's a it's actually it is on the website so if you have a request for service a request for a bus bench request any request of DCTA that routes through that and we have a seven-day turnaround on that good in terms of getting an answer I can't say we'll put in a bench in seven days but you know certainly we will we will get answers and that's a that's a metric we track for our board is the dwell time for a request so that's something we watch so real quickly just to finish up I've got a couple of maps here we've got the existing locations in the new sorry it's hard to read this is an eye chart not expecting I'll do that but we do have you know the we're starting to fill in the gaps and that's what this picture is really going to show and then the specific locations that we have in this area a small chart a hard copy version would make this a little bit easier so we'll continue to move forward work with the staff and keep you all informed about those things and then okay we've already had a lot of questions so any more I'll be happy any other any other questions well thank you very much for coming and giving this presentation and you know I'm always I will I will let me know whenever you'd like us to come in and I will be happy to be here to meet with y'all at any time thank you Jim appreciate that thank you very much you bet if with Council's indulgence I was talking with the city manager and we'd like to maybe take the item C next which is receive report and hold discussion provide staff direction on the use of the city facility located at 300 Woodrow Lane as a homeless shelter and then move the coal ranch discussion to immediately after that if that's okay with with the council it looks like I'm seeing consensus yes so we will call that and I just believe I just did all right Mr. Mayor thank you John Cabral so our assistant city manager will present this item for your consideration and your discussion thank you John thank you Mr. Campbell good afternoon mayor council members wanted to have a brief discussion with you to give you a status report as to one of our facilities also to let you know that we have some representatives from the Monsignor King outreach center that are with us this afternoon so they probably would like to visit with you at some point part of this discussion or if you have questions for them Roy Metzler is the president of the board of the M onsignor King outreach center and Betty Kay is the executive director I don't know if you recall but back in January of this year we were contacted by the Monsignor King outreach center and asked to see if the city might be able to allow them to temporarily use one of our shelters for emergency shelter operations because the location where they were at they were given a just a very short notice that they needed to vacate this was right during the winter and in fact the winter forecast for February the 20th when we were contacted was there was going to be freezing temperatures we did have a facility that was not being used at the time located at 300 Woodrow Lane that's our old animal shelter we went ahead and accommodated the request we had representatives from our building inspections division as well as our fire marshal's office to go out and do a quick inspection of that facility because they had been vacant for a little bit of time the occupancy was granted for their use of that facility for some specific areas for specific conditions and it was supposed to be a short term occupancy unfortunately they were not able to find a new facility so back in May they contacted us and asked if they could go ahead and start preparing to use those shelter operations during the upcoming heat temperature months that we would be facing we did have a meeting with them back in May staff did with some executive members of Mons ignor Keene we advised them that we understood that they were needing to use the facilities that we would have to go ahead and continue to refine the notification procedures and protocols for their continued use of that location but that we were encouraging them to look for additional location other than our facility they did stand up the shelter beginning in July we had our fire marshal office go back out there again and do some further inspections of the facility we've noticed that there were some lacking some health safety issues like emergency lighting possible obstruction of some of the fire exits there was evidence of food preparation with open flames which was a concern to us and higher occupancy levels that we were anticipating as a result of that we started having conversations with the Monsignor King folks to let them know that we were going to need to have some immediate measures taken of that facility to address some of the high health and safety concerns that we had I will tell you the Monsignor King outreach folks have been very accommodating to us and working with us on trying to make sure they adhere to whatever procedures or policies that we asked them to as well as working with us on ensuring that the improvements to that facility were made we were I also asked staff to go ahead and start looking and preparing for me what the cost would be if we tried to bring that facility up to code because understand that that facility was not built for that use we never had an intention to use it in that fashion and we needed to make sure if we were going to continue to use that facility that we were up to code both fire code building codes it's an old facility because we were going to discontinue the use we did not replace it badly the HVAC system that needs to be replaced out there so all in all when we started adding up some of the immediate costs like adding a fire sprinkler system fire alarm system we were somewhere in the north of $130,000 just for those items that did not take into account what we would have to do to try and make that ADA compliant because it's not an ADA compliant facility we knew we would probably have to add more restroom facilities showers and of course make sure all of those are ADA to ADA built ADA standards one other little quark in this in a portion of that building is located in the floodplain for those of you that are aware of what the served and folks had to go through rehabbing that Wheeler building to turn that into their shelter operations this would be very similar to that you would have to hire an engineer to come in do some modeling run some elevations to see where the hundred year flood would be and then we would need to start putting together some waterproofing plans that we would have to waterproof the facility to meet FEMA requirements if we were going to do that and that that would be triggered whenever you end up renovating a facility to any more than 50% of what the value of that facility is that I believe that's 50% rule that will trigger that FEMA flood claim requirement if you are in fact in the floodplain which we knew we would end up triggering that so we had to factor that cost in. So as a result of the ongoing life safety concerns that we have for that facility as well as the cost that it would be to upgrade that facility to meet code but also because of the ongoing expenses beginning back in February to date we spent approximately somewhere in the neighborhood of about $12,000 in various operational costs just to keep that facility operational for that use. I met with the Monsignor King representatives back in August and informed them that unfortunately after September 15th we were no longer going to allow them to be able to use that facility for that use. I did provide them an opportunity to visit with various staff members and in fact we had a meeting I believe it was last week to see if we could find some other more suitable locations or at least give them some more information about what would be the zoning requirements for where a shelter like this could be operated, what are some of the fire and building code requirements that they would have to take into account and we ran different types of scenarios and continue to work with them on seeing if there is another more suitable location as they start to prepare for their winter operations again for this year. And with that I am open to any questions you might have. Yeah, any questions and we are going to give the representatives a chance to make a presentation on this in this regard. So any questions for staff at this time? Thank you. If you would like to come up you bet. Thank you Roy. And just to let the public know that the Chair has the discretion with Council's indulgence to allow people to speak at a work session. It is typically not allowed but I think this is important enough to we certainly want to hear your thoughts and responses. And we thank you for that. An ironic note, in the wettest spring we have had in 100 years, the only time that building flooded was when an employee from the city used the bathroom and the commode stuck and that is when it flooded. That is the only time it flooded this spring by the way. Before you have a packet I think showing some of the statistics and I will bore you with all of those. The people we serve, the meals we have given, the respite we have given are weary throughout the city. The other sheet I gave you is a different proposal and the staff has been great working with us by the way. We really appreciate it. We really have never been told that yes or no we could get the building. We could purchase it. We could lease it. We could do anything with it. We certainly know it needs work. We have been in the midst of fundraising but it is very difficult to fundraise when you don't have a set goal to give people out there. We couldn't say we are going to be in this building because we can never get an answer. We have heard all kinds of things what might happen to it. Our plan as you see on this piece of paper is if we can get a long-term lease on the property with the city, possibly purchase it, that we don't have the money for that yet. We would immediately at our own expense put in the fire and sprinkler system and alarm system which I think city staff estimated around $50,000 cost. We have that in our funds. We could do that immediately. So we would be open in time for the winter season. Then getting a temporary CO for the next six months so we could be open in the winter, we would begin exploring all the FEMA requirements, the ADA requirements. Getting more showers and restrooms is something we wanted to do. We don't care who requires it. We need them. When you average 40 to 60 people a night, you need that. So we were going to do that anyhow. Some of those are not. Some of the air conditioners and some of those things we believe can wait. So we would like six months to look into it a little further to see if we can afford to do it all. And then if we decide to stay there, we would pay for all code requirements. We would immediately start a fundraising campaign and we would not at city expense, at our expense, bring that building up to code. But we can't do it immediately. If we got the building and we started and we got shut down, it's going to be really difficult to raise money. It's much easier when you're viable and you're a key part and you're open to go out and fundraise for all that we need. So that's the reason just shutting down immediately until everything is done is really difficult. To me, the question is, what degree is a city going to be involved in getting a permanent emergency shelter in this city? If it's going to be pretty greatly involved, and obviously I'm talking financially, then why not this site? To say, well, it's not functional, let's find another site. We looked at all those sites they gave us and they're all at least a half a million or more remodeled. And then we have to fight zoning. As you probably know, most people don't want a outreach center in their neighborhood. Where we're at is perfect. We're walking distance from Salvation Army. When Salvation Army fills up or the people get turned down from Salvation Army, they walk to us. We're next to the police station. Police picks up some people on bad weather nights when we 're open, instead of putting them in jail and costing, I don't know, what do they estimate, $200 a night for when they arrest them, something like that. They bring them to us. We take them in, feed them, shelter them for the night. Saves everyone. I've had many downtown owners, including the Main Street Association, support us saying, this is great. It's helping us. It's helping our downtown and how it looks. So I think there's a lot of benefit to the city and to the citizens. The question is, what is the participation of the level of the city? If it's going to be significant, we think this property will work. Yes, Councilmember Rodin. Thank you all for coming here today and sharing your thoughts with us on this obviously a very important topic. My question has to be, where you are at in the stage of some sort of capital campaign is I think about Councilmember Gregory referenced the animal shelter, which kind of had a certain formula of coming about in the community. And so there's a private nonprofit entity that had formed to kind of help push an issue, raise some funds, work directly with the city. We all knew kind of what that contribution was moving ahead and we kind of worked it out as things moved along to achieve that goal, which is a new animal shelter. Have you guys launched a capital campaign? I know up to this point you've been utilizing, I think at Immaculate Conception Church at one point in time, at Denton Bible Church at one point in time, now the city. And it sounds like the goal now is to find some more permanent facilities so you don't have to keep moving. Where are you at in your fundraising goals? We had two weeks of fundraising, each one the last year called Shelter Thy Neighbor Week. And we raised about $35,000 per year during that. Once we got the press in the paper in different times that we've been open at the old animal shelter, we've had people walk in and just hand us a $2,000 check. So we haven't launched a formal campaign to remodel a building because you really need to have a plan and we've kind of been tied up where we don 't have a set plan. The difference in the animal shelter moving to their new facility and doing all their private fundraising, I know they did a majority, I'm assuming, was they had a place. They had an old animal shelter and so they could take their time and raise money for a new animal shelter and continue operations. So if we had a place where we're at or wherever where we could stay while we fundraise and build another one, that would be an equal comparison, but right now it's not an equal comparison. You've, have you, wow. You know, the city got beat up pretty good a few years ago when I think a group called Sons of Thunder had a shelter for homeless folks downtown and the city said you can't keep doing that. The reason why was because it was inappropriate. I don't mean inappropriate downtown. It was an unsafe place for those clients to stay and it turned out that that very same year that the city said you can't do that anymore, a town in Texas east of here had a similar kind of a shelter that wasn't really developed and suited for folks that burned and people were killed. It turned out the city had done exactly the right thing. It just concerned, you know, I felt good about it in a way when I heard that that we were opening the old animal shelter up and then I felt awful about it. Oh, we have a new facility for homeless pets and so we'll give the old homeless pet facility for homeless people. Well, it just doesn't seem like the right thing in the long run for us to do. Are you here today saying you want to buy the old animal shelter and redesign it, redo it? Or are you saying you want to keep reusing it and be a partner with the city? So that's one question. The other question is are there really no nonprofits right now that can step in and fill the void? Have you, do you think you've turned over every rock on that issue? They've talked to all of them and they work with us. They say that they really need us. I mean, Hope works with us. Salvation Army works with us. We're the only ones that will take in people that drink, do drugs, if they have serious mental problems or Salvation Army is limited to do anything . It sounds like I'm qualified. Love to have you. So but there's at this time there's no church, there's no facility in town. No. Wow. And believe it or not, the homeless love the old animal shelter. They're thrilled to death. They said at first they were like, we're in an animal shelter. And after about a week they were so thankful that the city gave it to them. They said the location is great. It's easy to walk to. They love it. And you know, the citizens that I've talked to out there when we tell them where we're at and all, sure there's some jokes about an old animal shelter. But they come volunteer and they see how we run it and how it's set up. Believe me, whenever I saw that we were getting to use a building without a sprinkler system, I was shocked. We want to get that in immediately if we're allowed to continue in any length of time. But we keep volunteers up all night long. We haven't had any instances of any problems. We were open 44 nights since we've been there and we haven 't had any problems. So is it the perfect scenario? No, but the reality of finding the perfect scenario is probably not out there or feasible. Thank you, Mayor. Betty Kay, how long have you been doing this? I've worked with the homeless since 2000. And Monsignor King, we started in 2009. And Roy just touched on how somebody stays up all night. You're one of those people who stays up all night. I'm there when it's open, I'm there 24 hours a day. I wasn't there all night with you, but I had a couple shifts. And just talking about being unsafe, anytime that I was there, there was never an unsafe moment or I like that the police station is close to. Are you all worried about people being able to get to it at all? I know that somehow they get to the Salvation Army too, but . No, they haven't had a problem. They haven't had a problem. Again, once we find a permanent home, whether it be this or somewhere else, we have plans down the line to arrange to either do pickup vans or to have passes that we give out to use the bus service. It's just really difficult whenever you can't identify yourself as a home. The mayor's council that we were both on, they had every level from Salvation Army to Denton Affordable Housing, all the different levels of homelessness unanimously agreed that the single most important thing to do to solve the homeless situation in Denton is to find a permanent home for the emergency shelter. Because that's the beginning stage, because you can't help them get permanent housing or jobs or anything else until they come to you the first time. This lady has been able to do this quite a bit, get people jobs and get them off the street which is our ultimate goal. Just walking away from here, if we were able to figure out possibly a lease and in the future maybe I'll buy the building, but at least you would have a plan in place and then you could do the upgrades and then just that temporary CEO to give a little bit of time to raise funds to get it. Absolutely, we have a little over $100,000 in the bank as of right now, which is pretty remarkable coming from where we did. I have no doubts that once we have a plan in place, seeing how the citizens have responded have they with a little very little knowledge about what we do, and it's still been a tremendous response so yes I think we can raise the funds. Thank you guys. Thank you Mayor. Roy, thank you guys so much for what you do. So a couple comments. One, I wouldn't compare this to the illegal animal shelter that was operating downtown because that thing got closed because they didn't have a fire exit. I mean they built bathrooms inside that weren't permitted with open pipes flowing down and all that. I just happen to know because it's now a beautiful mellow mushroom and I got to see it all when we went in the building for the first time. So just from a safety standpoint I think, I've been out there and we've spent some time and certainly fire sprinklers are necessary and would get done. But I wouldn't want to compare the animal shelter facility to the one that was downtown because it's already appropriately structured. It's just a matter of from a code standpoint. The other thing I want to bring up is I think we should differentiate between bringing a building up to code to meet the 2012 international building code versus bringing it up to code to make it safe for this use. What I think we would find is when we looked at the building and say what has to be done in order for it to be safe today for people to be in it. That's one set of code requirements and then there's probably other requirements that we would say to bring it up to code for a change of use. And the question is, is housing homeless pets a different, I mean in other words we could play out all kinds of scenarios and that's for the technical people to figure out. I would just say surely as a city as long as we operate within the law and not put people in danger that we could have a slow migration to get these improvements done. So the next thing I would bring up is it does sit in the flood plain like some other properties have in flood plain. We just had our 500 year rain in May and none of them flooded. So the question really would be this FEMA regulation about 50% of the total value, one, who determines the value and how do you determine the value because I've been through that and there's really nothing in our code that says here's how you establish the value of the property. Secondly is that something that we have to enforce or that we selectively enforce, in other words that we choose to enforce on everyone. We don't select who we're going to enforce it with or not. But there's some question about whether or not that's actually that 50% of the value or you have to waterproof the building whether that's something that is truly a FEMA law that every city in this land has to enforce or if that's something that we choose to enforce. So I would just say that I am completely in favor of doing this. We have the facility. I think we need to put our money where our mouth is. Not to say we haven't spent money on the homeless initiative in the past, but these people have worked their tail off for a long, long, long time without a whole lot of support other than bootstrapping it. So we have the facility. It's the right location. I would like to just go out there that I think we should structure a long-term lease with an option for them to buy it. City's not going to have to do any of those improvements. The worst thing that happens is they go do all the improvements and then they decide they don't want it anymore. They've made our property more valuable. So I don't see any downside for us. I don't think we have another use for the facility. And I think we just need to make it happen. Hi, I want to thank you both for what you do. And I also think that the location is great, as you mentioned, and it is a great reuse of a current of a building that we have. And as long as it functions for you and you think, you know , it's just going to get better, I am in agreement with this as well. And we were $72,000 is what was in the supplemental budget request to demo it. And so, you know, that is something that we don't have to look forward to spending as well. So thank you. We'll take the contribution. We'll put it to good use. And if we do a lease, I'd want to make sure that legal has kind of a stepping stone timetable for improvements so that there's the balance of striking the lease, but also a balance of expectations from the city in terms of here's the timet able that we'd like you to kind of use as benchmarks as you go through to get these improvements completed. Absolutely. Very fair. Very fair. I had a couple questions. This was generated from you all, right? This isn't the city. It was generated from me last night. Okay. No, our committee, but I put it together. Okay. Just a couple clarifying questions and then I mean, at some point, I'd like to get some staff response to some of these points just to get the discussion kind of rounded out. But on the first point of the long-term lease, do you have a suggested term for that that would be ideal? Not really. Not really. You just want some certainty that this thing's going to be in a position for a while? We don't plan on going away. And we've got, it's not just her and I, we've got a lot of volunteers, a lot of very strong board getting stronger. So we will have staying power. Obviously, going out soliciting funds, it's going to be easier to say we have a 20-year lease here rather than a five-year, but we will be open to whatever the city would want to do. Okay. And then on the second point, the immediately install the sprinkler and fire code. So the goal would be by the winter season, I guess, to have that in place. And then on the last point, city of Denton will allocate $ 50,000 to the building fund as recommended by the mayor's homeless task force as the highest priority in solving the city's homeless problem. Is that understood to be like for some future capital campaign project that this $50,000 would be like an annual contribution toward fixing up this or some future building? No, not just for the general beginning structure to do all the improvements we need to do to bring it up to code and to expand it to a 75-person. We're only using the two buildings. We're not actually using where the actual kennels, if you will. So we need to fix all them up and get more space. I put that in there because, again, the task force recommended very highly that the first step was finding an emergency shelter place. And I was out of town, but I understood that it came across that we need to spend $50,000 to go hire a homeless coordinator and that that was maybe approved. And I thought, why would we do that before we would put $50 ,000 toward getting us going? And so that's really where that came from. Okay. Okay. I guess, and I don't know if the question is for you all or if you've had an architect or if it's for staff, but if we did a lease, whether it was five-year lease with another option or longer term than that, are we certain that, it seems to me that, I ought to finish a question before I ask another question. Are we certain that we can bring it up to code in a way that folks are really comfortable? I would hate for the council to commit to you a five-year lease and maybe even the council direct staff to use $50,000 to help with it if indeed, even after that, when we're thinking about this in terms of five years or longer, we don't think it's really completely safe and appropriate. It seems like that what we did this past winter and then this summer were a very, very emergency kind of a situation to fill a gap that was immediate. So do we know if this would really work or if this would be throwing good money after bad and it's not really going to be an adequate facility even with your $100,000 and the city's $50,000 and a dollar a year lease or something like that? Do we know? I don't even know if it's... Where the dog kennels are is a lot of room. That's where all the bathrooms, showers, I mean we haven't even used that area and it's... I don't know. I'm not an architect and no, we have not engaged someone to come in. Again, we really never were told we would have the opportunity to get it long term. Space wise and square footage, it will fulfill what we need . As far as bringing it up to making it a viable safe building, staff might know more than I do. - So maybe could we get here from the staff? - Sure. And then I have some comments that I'd like to make, but let's go ahead and get these questions answered. - Yes sir, in answer to your question, a couple of things here that I understand from talking to planning as well as building inspections, Fire Marshal's office. There are going to need the fire sprinkler system, which we 're anticipating somewhere in the range of about $60,000. Going to need a fire alarm system somewhere in the range of $21,000. Water line tap for the fire sprinkler around $3,800. We're also to get a TCO, temporary certificate of occupancy . They are going to have to hire an architect to come in and look at the facility and draft a design to meet the ADA standards that will then have to be submitted to the Texas, and I apologize, I don't know what TDLR stands for, which state agency that is, but we have to submit that to Texas TDLR to make sure that they agree that the design falls within ADA compliance standards, and then they'll have to build it to that standard, and when I say build that, I'm talking about the restroom facilities , the showers, the entrance and extra access points, all of that needs to be built to the ADA compliance standards, is my understanding. Before you can even get your TCO, we don't know what that cost is, obviously, because we have not hired an architect to come in and look at what that design is going to be. Also keep in mind that as it stands today, they've only been allowed to access the admin office building and what used to be the cat room as well as the storage room. They have not had access to the dog kennel. That dog kennel part of the building has a lot of other issues that we have not even begun to address. I know there's some drain issues there. There's also a lot of open spaces because they had dog runs going in and out of the building, and the heating system is different in there compared to the cat room and the admin room, so we have some additional. So I got $60,000 for the sprinkler system, $21,000 for what ? $21,000 is going to be for the fire alarm system. Fire alarm. You got $3,800 for the water line tap. That's $4,000. So $85,000, and then architects fees and. And the architects fees will just be the plans that are submitted to Texas TDLR. Once Texas TDLR says yes, these plans are in compliance with ADA standards, in other words the bathroom stalls are wide enough, the showers are wide enough, the entry and exit points are wide enough, then you come back in and you have to bill them to those standards. Those costs are obviously, but those have to also be in place before a temporary CO can be issued for use of that facility. And then currently the HVAC system does work? It does work, but as I understand it, it's in very bad condition and it needs to be replaced. That's about $38,000 for the replacement of that. And keep in mind that's, again, I'm not sure if that also feeds into the dog room. It does. That one does feed into the dog room. It's the heating that does not. And so we think that all of that, it looks like about $100, 000. We're estimating that just those piece, well again, not taking into account what the cost is going to be to make that an ADA compliant facility, because we don't know what those costs are. But just the known cost that we have today, we're at about $130,000. That does not take into account the 50% trigger, and to answer your question, we're in the process of getting an appraisal for that property, because if you recall, the county has expressed an interest in maybe acquiring that property for us to expand the footprint of their campus out there. So we've been trying to determine about 8.8 acres of that property as to whether or not we would be able to convey the park use portion of that property to the county and have since got a legal opinion on that. So we're doing the appraisal. I understand we should be getting that appraisal back sometime after Labor Day, if I remember correctly. That will establish the value that I understand from building inspections and planning. That sets the value because it's either that or you use what's on the DCAD system. Well, it's owned by us, so we are not paying taxes. There is no DCAD value. So the appraisal is what's going to set the value of that building, which then we will determine or planning building inspections will determine what is that 50% threshold. From what I understand, the question you asked about whether or not we actually enforce that floodplain rule, my understanding is yes. I don't see anybody here from engineering. They're the ones that can answer that question for you because they're the ones that are the ones responsible for enforcing it. But I will tell you that my understanding is yes, and that 's why ServDent had to go through all the different hoops that they had to go through to floodproof that Wheeler old printing building because it did sit in the floodplain very similar to the situation we have here. And we have no idea what those costs are. We just know that we're going to have to hire an engineer, first of all, to come in and do the study to establish the levels and then start getting a plan for waterproofing that building, which then we can submit. All of those things are what's necessary in order to get a temporary CO. That is my understanding. And the Monsignor King Outreach Center has heard that and they're willing to spend those kinds of funds to get a lease to do that. Well, also there's one thing I haven't gotten around to and that is the zoning. I've checked with planning and that building is not properly zoned. So we'll have to go through the zoning and SUP process because you will be required to have an SUP. Again, very similar to the situation ServDent had with the Wheeler. My wife has influence with somebody on city council. So that might not be the biggest hurdle. But there is that timeline that we'd have to go through to get the zoning and SUP for that use. Let's get sort of this discussion out so you'll have a good list of the go ahead, Kevin. John, I'm trying to understand the difference. And certainly we need to be concerned with safety at these facilities. That's our job, especially if this is something we own. And that's what we need you all thinking about and instruct ing us on. I'm trying to get an understanding of the difference of the city posture back when we said we're going to make this happen and we've got this facility. They were out of a facility. We're trying to get them something. We had a recently vacated building and somehow we made it happen. I don't know what we did to get them a temporary CEO. I don't know how we looked the other way on ADA issues, on floodplain issues, on all the things, but somewhere along the line as a city organization we said make it happen. Now we're hyperly concerned about these sorts of things. I'm not saying reject them, but I want to how can we get ourselves into first I guess answer the question is how did we make it happen up to this point without these hurdles and what can we learn from that approach that helps us take some steps forward that maybe says hey, maybe we don't have to do all this right now, but let's get some safety stuff done and move this thing forward. Help me understand the history of that. Sure. Again, if you recall back when the request was made of us it was right in the middle of winter. We were trying to accommodate the request because our understanding was they were just going to need it for a few evenings to get through the winter. So we were going to only allow them for a very temporary use of that facility and then at limited locations that they would have access to that facility. So it's not the whole facility we're talking about at that point, we're just talking about a few. And they did have to come in and meet with our officials or inspectors and understand the ins and outs of what would and would not be allowed. For example, things like no open flames. We unfortunately have found that they have been using open flames from time to time. We in fact had to ask them to remove a grill that they had out there at one time, which again was not part of the agreement we had made initially. But they did come into compliance when we asked them to do so. So back when the request was first made to the city, our understanding was going to be for a very limited period of time, very temporary, and now it seems to continue on and on and on and now is when we're concerned because we have some serious life safety concerns very similar to we would not allow any other entity, private or nonprofit, in our city to operate this facility for this use without the very permits and COs that I'm talking to you about or the upgrades that I'm talking to you about. >> John, I think one and this is my understanding of at least the initial facts was that it's my understanding that the center lost its ability to use its current facility and with a very, very short notice period. I mean, I think it was a couple weeks or something like that, two weeks. So I think it was, I mean, and I'm not trying to say that's why we sort of look the other way, but I think it was that was an emergency emergency situation. And so I think part of it was that staff was trying to accommodate and I would like eventually, you're getting to the history of the summer and the fire marshal and all these, I'm presuming. Okay, you had something you wanted to. >> I guess to reiterate what you just said, Mayor, that was a very short fuse in a sense when the staff came to me and said we've got an immediate problem, there was to an extent we kind of looked the other way. I gave authority and approval to the staff to use it on a very temporary short term basis because there were no options and it was something that needed to be done. That's really different than having this grow and asking officials, the fire marshal and others to approve a longer term use when we know there are life safety issues there. That issue initially was almost an emergency basis and there weren't any options and I gave the authority to do that. >> Do you want him to continue on as far as with the summer and how we sort of evolved to here? >> Yeah, I would like to hear just more discussion on what led to the current concerns. >> Sure. So as I mentioned, we had met with them back in May and they stated that we again were encouraging them to go and find another location. There have been some asks made of us. They wanted to use the facility for board meetings as well as most recently during the summer. They also wanted to expand the use for a cooling station of which they were not allowed to have those uses just so you'll know. But back in May we did meet with them again encouraging them to start looking for a more permanent solution than the facility that they currently were in. They did notify us until they had not been successful and able to do that and they were concerned because summer was right around the corner and they were going to need again some places to house -- a location to house individuals when it met that threshold of I think it's a triple digit type of day, 100 degrees or more, than they want to have a cooling area for the nighttime. So again, we did come back out, did some further inspections, did some further refining of their layout for where they can place their COTS. There's also the issue of what the load should be as to how many individuals should actually be allowed to be sleeping in there because again you don't want to obstruct emergency exits should that need arise for them to vacate that location. And that's where then I started getting contacted by the building official in the fire marshal's office expressing some of the concerns that they had if we were to continue to allow this use so that they started putting together a list of what were those immediate quick emergency type items that we could implement like the fire safety bars that you can put on exits, things of that, more fire extinguishers, whatnot, smoke detectors. And we've gone ahead and done those at our cost. So we've added those right now so that they could go ahead and continue to use it through the summer. But again, my understanding is if we're looking at using this facility for this type of use, we definitely are going to have to do the rest of these life safety improvements, which starts to add up to some money but then unfortunately starts to trigger other state or federal requirements. >> Councilmember Johnson. >> John, I appreciate that background. Because I think it's important for us not to confuse the conversation. So what happens all the time in our downtown, for an example, is you have a change of use of an old building and there is a lot of work that has to be done to that building to bring it up to some code. You don't have to bring the building up to the current code in all situations in all parts of the building. Life safety, you certainly do. And sometimes there is learning that happens between the building owner and the tenant and the city staff. For an example, you can only spend 50% of the value of the property. So what if someone did all of that work for free? Well, they won't have spent any money. Or if someone says I'll charge you a dollar for your fire sprinkler system because I care so much about the homeless. So in my mind, I think what we should do is separate because if the shelter is not asking the city to bear the burden of the expense of whatever improvements are required to make it a safe place, then we don't even need to spend time talking about what it's going to cost if they're going to bear that burden. I can tell you there are a lot of people because I'm in the real estate business and do a lot of business with contractors. And so I've spent time with Roy and Amelia looking for places like crazy trying to find something that will work. It's not out there. But there are a lot of people out there that care that have the ability to provide a service like installation of a fire sprinkler system or fire alarms or sheetrock work or HVAC work, et cetera. So I guess I want to approach this as a let's talk about how we can, not what the obstacles are. And the good news is the hot we may not have any more 100 degree days and it's going to be a while before we have a freeze. So I think if we just make a decision that we're going to go make it happen, right now is the time. Right? If we can structure a long-term lease with them so that they can go raise the money that they need but also get those people who are willing to come in and do the work, now is the time because they'll have two or three months to go get it all done. The ADA thing sounds really complicated, but you do that on every building. Your architect does a drawing. He submits the drawings. The third party charges them $500 to look at the drawing and then they tell you here's what you have to do and when your build out is done, it has to meet whatever those specs were. All that stuff is not complicated and it doesn't take long. What will take long is if we talk about it for two months and then they're sitting here facing with a freeze again. So if they're going to bear all the burden of the improvements, then I don't think we need to even worry about what those are. At the end of the day, if we're going to keep owning the property and they're going to pay for all the improvements, the city doesn't get hurt at all if they ever decide to give it back to us. So that's my proposal is because I will venture to say that whatever the value of that property is, they can get all the work that they need done for less than half of that amount of money for sure because somebody is going to step in and say if it's $50,000 over what you tell me we can spend, I'll just donate the work. It happens when it's not a charity. So it will certainly happen. They'll be able to make it happen. We just need to make a move. And understand my questions were not unfriendly questions. I hope they didn't come across that way. I just wanted to be absolutely sure that we weren't entering into a deal that wasn't going to end up working out because after we agreed to do it and after they got a budget, it still wasn't going to get a CEO. I just don't want to be in that situation. And it needs to be a CEO. They need to have a CEO so that they -- so it meets all those life safety issues. And of course it's going to need to be a zoning situation. Who brings that? Is the city the applicant for the zoning change or is it the lease? I would assume we are because we are still the property owner. And I don't know legally -- I know what you're mentioning, Councilmember, but we have procurement laws we have to follow for work done on our facilities. I don't know if we have a lease agreement if we're able to circumvent those procurement laws or not. So just to continue a little bit on that thought track. So we have allowed it to be used for that use since last December, right? No, sir. It started in February. February of this year. And so then off and on only for certain nights. So is there -- is a homeless shelter specified in our zoning ordinance? What I understand from planning is it's lumped under the group home classification and there are certain -- only a handful of zoning categories where you can have a group home but you still have to get an SUP for that use. So is -- here's what I'm going down. So I do recall a time when we had a charter school that was wanting to go into a building. We didn't have a specific zoning class that stated charter school. And so what -- one thing that is in our code says that if there is not a zoning classification specified, you can seek a special use permit or at the discretion of the director of planning. In that particular case, the director of planning said we believe this is a good use for this building and I'm granting permission. So again, going down the path of can we focus on how we can or focus on how we can't, if someone on our staff has interpreted that a homeless shelter should be classified under group home, that's one point. But if it doesn't specifically list homeless shelter, then as a city would we be able to say we believe that a special use permit is acceptable and we will allow it there and we're not going to require a zoning change. So I'm just saying as far as when we're looking at any particular decision or roadblock, I think we need to look at it with the mindset of here's how we can, not here's how hard it is, and be sensitive to -- I'm not saying anybody is doing that. I'm just saying the -- be sensitive to the timing of this, right, because we're a few months away from a freeze and they're going to be funded to get all this work done. We're going to be waiting on us. We're not going to be waiting on them. And so I don't know how we do it, but we made it happen the last time. And to your point, we figured out a way to make it happen. So if we're going to lease on the facility, and I think we should, then let's just figure out a way to make it happen. And if it's making temporary decisions until such time we can go through a zoning case or whatever it is. We do that now with uses. There are uses on properties that are zoned the wrong way right now in our city, and we allow it to exist as a nonconforming use or, you know, it was zoned the other way or as long as the new business owner is not changing the use, we let it continue. My point is I think if we want this to happen, we can figure out a way. And if we want to make it complicated, we can do that too. I got a couple comments. I really want to address the -- I understand what the two of you are saying about if we made it happen before, but I don't fully agree with that line of logic simply for the fact that if the decision was because it didn't meet code and because there was life safety issues that we couldn't allow it, we would be -- I mean, it would be a very, very difficult situation. That decision would not be made. I mean, it just wouldn't be made. It was an emergency situation. And I'm not saying I'm for or against it. I'm just saying I don't know if I agree with the logic that because it happened on such an emergency temporary basis in the beginning, now if you want to say the second decision, okay. So I don't know that that necessarily means that we have to look away or sort of turn a blind eye to what caused us to enter into that decision in the first place, which was pretty extreme. And I don't disagree. And first of all, I just want to make sure that I don't think anybody who asks questions here has any kind of -- is in any way trying to put up an obstacle or put up a roadblock or try to say they don't want to make it happen. I think it's just we're trying to make sure that we comply because we put someone else through a lot who developed a particular shelter on Elm Street. I mean, the Wheeler House. I mean, so we want to make sure that we are consistent but flexible from my perspective. As far as the $50,000, I mean, you know, when I first got elected, I put together the Homeless Task Force because -- and what I learned from meeting with them, the times that I did, was that there are a tremendous amount of organizations in Dent on and in the county, but primarily in Denton, who are really catering to the different level of needs with this particular -- for this particular population. And the recommendations that came out from the task force were really good. Emergency shelter, temporary transitional housing, and then permanent housing. It's sort of a three-step ladder. And so my intent on the homeless coordinator -- and I understand about using that money to fund your particular organization, but the problem becomes then organizations will say my purpose in the homeless coordinator -- my acceptance of that recommendation is because I think as we begin to look at it holistically and get some coordination, I think it will provide more synergies that will allow organizations like yours to continue to work together. And so I'm not thinking -- I don't know if we just have to write a bigger check, and that may be the case. We may have to do that. But I also think can we find efficiency of funding that will help us maximize those particular dollars? I don't have any problem with allowing this. I'm still trying to understand is the request to -- is the request -- and if y'all -- because I know y'all want to address some of the questions as well. Is the request to -- because I know you've been using it on an emergency inclement weather purpose. I believe is how it started and how it sort of migrated into the summer. So is the request to not only continue that but to make it a more permanent -- not withstanding the weather, the temperature. It's like, hey, it's going to be like the Salvation Army. People can come and go on a daily basis. Is that the mission? >> Certainly our long-term -- yeah, long-term, we certainly want to be open at least during the days many times because that's when we can get them in touch with other agencies during the days. We can't do that overnight when they're staying with us. And that's where we can get counseling. We have doctors lined up that will come in and do small physicals. One day we had a gentleman, a barber come in and gave everyone in there a free haircut out in the grass because how often do you think the homeless get their hair cut? They were just so happy. I want to address just a couple of quick issues. The cooling station sounds pretty extravagant. It was -- one of our board members brought some scaffolds and a blue tarp and people were loud men, it was, going in in shorts and a shirt and go inside of there with a garden hose to take a makeshift shower. It wasn't really a cooling station. It's a little strong. So we have tried not to abuse the gift that we were given us. We just tried to be open as often as we could. We always expressed an interest in staying there. We have since the beginning. It made sense. But we were told that no decision had been made what would happen with the building. So we did not proceed with any further plans for anything. I have on a previous building a year ago that we thought we were going to get to remodel. Went in touch and presented to the habitat, local habitat, and it is a precedent setting. Other habitats have remodeled charitable homes and I have got an oral commitment from them. Again, once we have a building and a plan, they will jump on board. So imagine the strength of that if you can pull it off. >> So a couple of things, and staff may help me with this. So I want to make sure I understand what -- so you guys are asking that before you occupy it on a permanent basis, that the sprinkler system and the alarm systems will be installed and functional. >> Yes. >> Okay. Before you start using it in the same way you have been using it, that those issues will be taken care of. >> Yes. >> Okay. And does that include the dog kennel area or just the -- >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. And so on the second bullet point, extend the temporary CO for six months to allow the MKOC to remain open while we research FEMA and ADA requirements for property. Now, I understand it says research, but is that six months to -- how much time will you need once the research is completed to bring that into compliance? Are you saying you're going to do that within the six months or is that just the six months research? >> We're going to do it as fast as we can, obviously. I don't know what -- he's getting suggestions of what it might be. But if it's a matter of putting in the showers that are ADA spec and the restrooms ADA spec, we're going to do that anyhow. As far as the FEMA requirements, I don't know. I've never done that. >> Sure. >> But we're going to do it as fast as we can. The six months was just an arbitrary amount to me because we're solving the number one safety issue, which is the fire and the sprinkler system, so we could remain open during the winter and it would keep us visible and in the public eye so we could fundraise better. >> Sure. Okay. And then as far as -- I don't know about the other code requirements within two years. I don't know exactly what those are. And eventually I do want to hear from the fire marshal just -- I mean, we do pay them for those professional sort of thoughts. So I do want to hear what they're thinking about if those are done to what level that is. Because I mean, I certainly want to be able to see how we can do this as well, but I also want to make sure that we're responsible about it and that 's not to delay time, but it's to say, hey, because what we do here is going to also set precedent for what we may do later on. So I just want to be mindful of that. Those -- I mean, again, for me, I still would like the funding for the homeless coordinator because I think we can leverage those funds with some other agencies to really provide somebody that can help us continue, not that it's not happening now. >> Mayor, I want to clarify. I didn't mean to demean in any way -- >> Oh, no, I didn't take it that way. >> -- the importance of that coordination. >> Sure. No. No, no, no, no, sir. No need to apologize. >> You got to throw your hat in the rain. >> You and I have had a conversation about that. So that's not an issue. Absolutely not. Gosh, you can't get what you don't ask for. I mean, that's what this is all about. So conceptually, I'm okay with it. I just really want to make sure that we're doing it in a way that is flexible, that can provide some -- that we're really not saying that this is a requirement when it's just a suggestion, and that we can provide the safest environment for your clientele. I mean, obviously, you guys have been doing this a long time. I mean -- and unfortunately, you were thrust in a situation on such a short notice that I can't imagine what it must have felt like being in that position. I just -- I couldn't even imagine. So if it's something that council can move forward on, I'm real okay with that as, you know, continuing to work out the details. But it sounds like the most pressing need is the fire safety issue. And so if it's okay, I would just like to hear from the fire marshal just her thoughts on the discussion that's occurred and the discussions that she's had with you guys and her observations and just general observations about moving forward in this direction. All right. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. So in just history, a little bit of history from our perspective, in February, when this issue came to us, it truly was an emergency situation. They had been given two weeks' notice, and the actual, you know, severe weather was upon us at that time. So my office went out and we did a quick inspection and made some fire safety changes at that time for that immediate need. When we were given notice again in the summer of a more long-term use, we went back out there and took another look and immediately requested some additional fire safety code requirements for, you know, a more long-term use. Those things included the addition of carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors were installed back in February. And we had also made some requirements as far as exiting because all of the doors there, the only -- due to the occupancy at that time as an animal shelter, the only marked exits were the front doors, and those were the only doors that had panic hardware. All of the other doors were regular doors, unmarked, and had bolts. Did not have panic hardware. So coming back in the summer, we were immediately asked that there be illuminated exits along with emergency lighting, and that the bolts were taken off the doors and replaced with panic hardware. We also had some additional exiting challenges that actually still exist that we can definitely work through. Not anything that can't be overcome, but that had to do with the gating. That facility is gated, and several of the doors that we were using as exits led you to an enclosed, gated, and locked area, and that's prohibited by code. Moving forward, having those things done, really the two biggest requirements that are left are going to be the addition of the fire suppression system and fire alarm system. This particular occupancy generally, and I've done a little bit of research on it as well, falls, could fall under two categories. Either an I, occupancy, which is institutional, that includes the group home concept, and then an R, occupancy, which is residential. The majority. But when you're talking about those labels, you're talking for the city of Dinn code, or are you talking about like international fire code? International fire code. Okay. All right. And this is applicable both to the code that we're just transitioning out of and into the 2012 code, which became effective today. So that hasn't changed. So it's either an R or an I. The majority of them are classified as an I, an institutional occupancy, and the reason for that is because of the transient nature. Most R occupancies are more permanent or long-term, the institutional are short-term or transient. It is the I occupancy that is triggering those more string ent requirements. So if the fire suppression system and the alarm system, together with the things that have already been added, the, you call it panic, is that where you push the door, alarm goes off or you're able to get out and just push the door to get out? Panic hardware actually provides you two different things. It gives you that immediate exit capability, but it also provides security to your building. So people from the outside cannot get in, but people on the inside can still get out. So if some of those things have already been done, if those other items are done, from your department, you're comfortable with, you're comfortable with that. You're okay with that. It would meet code, absolutely, yes. And again, the only other outstanding issue that we could easily overcome is going to be the gating of the property. We would have to work that out because right now that is still being done manually. We have changed some locking mechanisms on some of the doors that would allow for that immediate exit out of the gated areas, but we still have two gates that again have to be manually unlocked every time the shelter operations are going on so that they can not only get out of the building, but actually get out of that gated area and move a safe different distance from the building. Okay. But again, that can easily be overcome. Sure. So we need to give staff direction. Yes. I just want to clarify something. Yes. Because you're motioning over here to me and so. No, I was looking at Chief. Yeah. Well, I just want to be clear on what I was trying to communicate. Because you said that, you know, as you motioned to me, you said that, you know, what we were saying I guess was that if you let them use it before, you can let them use it now. I'll tell you what I was referring to. What I heard was we have to do an ADA study. We have to get an appraisal, waterproof the building, re zone it, special use permit. What I was referring to was a mindset, right? So a mindset of, okay, so we know what the end game is. We know what the goal is. We're now going to march towards that goal. We have to address immediately fire safety issues, which they've said they're absolutely going to do immediately. But what I heard was that in order for them to get a temporary CO, these things would have to be done. And I'm not so sure that in my mind if we have a fire safety issues are all addressed, that a temporary CO could not be obtained. But maybe we do have to go through rezoning and all that stuff before somebody can get a temp CO. I don't know. The point that I was trying to make wasn't, hey, if we let them use it starting in February up to now, that we shouldn't make them do anything else and we shouldn't put any roadblocks or requirements. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is we figured out a way to make it happen because it was an absolute need. Well, there's still an absolute need. There may not be for the next few months. So let's have a mindset of foot on the gas, remove the obstacles as fast as we can. If it requires rezoning, let's make sure we get it on agenda fast. If it requires an SUP, let's get it. But let's tell them exactly what's required so they can address it. We don't have to address it, but we just have to make sure it happens. So I want to be clear because that's not what I was saying. Fantastic. Yes, I totally understand that. Well, I mean, I think that's a -- I mean, I think you said it very eloquently as far as the direction. I mean, so we've got to give staff direction, and so what I 've heard is the direction -- and y'all correct me. Oh, you had something -- yes, go ahead. No. Go ahead. You sure? Yeah. Is that to proceed forward with the discussions of a potential lease and what those terms would be, the immediate kind of scheduling of the fire suppression and the alarm, and to really begin to inventory the outstanding issues like zoning, things that we can begin to get those before the proper bodies that they need to be. And I think to even come back -- because I don't have a problem moving forward with this. I think the real challenge is going to be as they get in, as it gets established, and there's still these requirements that need to occur over time that we make sure that we monitor that, that we have some timeline in that regard. So that's what I've heard, but there could be more than that. So -- Well, and just to add to that, I think when they came in here, they wanted to make sure that -- well, they had a home. They could start raising money. They can start getting a plan together. And I know that there's a ton of obstacles, and Greg said it perfectly. Let's just knock down the obstacles and get there. And they've been doing this for 14 years in our city. I mean, they have history here. And let's just make this happen. So -- You had a -- did you have a comment? I was just going to say that I feel like this is an opportunity, a starting point for us as a city to get more involved in helping the homeless population. So I think it's a good -- Absolutely. Very good. I think anymore here after noon. You know, I think it's pertinent maybe for everyone in here , but even for the citizens out there to know how this all started in 2009. Good. That's good. Monsignor King, and those of you who knew him, loved him. He called a meeting of the church leaders, the Macklecon ception Church leaders, and he got us all together on one very cold night, and he said, "I 've got a brilliant idea. We're going to open our new church up to the homeless. Anybody. Any homeless. Young, old, we don't care. We're going to give them a good meal. We're going to give them a good place to rest. We're going to give them companionship, and we're going to give them hope." What do you all think? And I was one of those leaders. And immediately we started saying, you know, everyone in there is brilliant. They're all saying, "What about the liabilities? What about the expense? How is it going to look to our neighbors having homeless people on our campus? What are some of the parishioners going to say about us doing this and allocating our funds for this when we've got so many other uses?" Monsignor, why should we do this? And he looked at us and he said, "We should do it because it's the right thing to do. We should do it because it's the right thing to do." And maybe now in present day it's the same thing. We've got a brilliant group of leaders and people here, and we shouldn't do it. >>Except for Dalton. >>Yeah. We shouldn't do it because it's going to clean up the square or it's going to make our resumes look better or anything else. We should figure out a way to do this because it's the right thing to do. >>Yes, sir. Thank you. That's important to understand the historical context of that. Absolutely. Thank you for that. Any other additions to the direction that I've -- yes, Councilman Brodin. >>Well, I think to -- because it sounds like there's a lot of unknowns that I want to make sure you guys know what you're getting into as we start talking about what it takes to get the temporary CO and all that. I'd like to see us come to a solution, but I don't want us to get to November before we're updated on, "Oh, there's all these things that no one anticipated and you guys are frustrated, we're frustrated." So if we could come up with a regular pace of briefing the Council, I don't know what that means every two weeks, every once a month, just so we 're aware so that as issues arise if we need to chime in from a leadership perspective, we can, that that be part of the direction. That's a regular report. >>That's a great idea. Great idea. Did you have -- >>So I was going to add two things to that. One, I think part of the direction needs to be -- because when you use a phrase like "move forward toward some sort of a lease," that doesn't give them any certainty what that means. Is it at $1 a month or is it at $1 a year? So I'm going to just throw out 10 years at $1 a year, and the city is not going to pay for any of the improvements. They're going to privately fund all the improvements. We've got to start somewhere, and they've -- in some renewal -- so 10 years at $1 a year and a 10-year renewal option on the backside of that for $2 a year. >>You're doubling? >>We're going to double their rent after 10 years. >>Oh, my gosh. You're a real -- >>Because our option for that building is to go tear it down, right? I mean, that's what I've heard, so -- >>Roy wants $1.50. >>And then the second thing -- so we have to have some direction on -- I think we should have direction on that today. And then the second thing is, to Kevin's point, I think we need to establish who from the city is going to have ownership of this so that -- because there's a lot of different things that have to get figured out. FEMA and flood and whatever -- the things that the city wants to make sure are getting done. Who is their point person at the city? Who's the get it done gal or guy that's going to work with all the different departments to make this thing happen? Because time is our enemy on this. >>Well, Mr. City Manager, we can leave it -- >>I think at this point it's John and Mark Nelson. >>Okay. >>They've been the one that's been mostly involved in it, and we need to keep that focused in one place. >>And I agree with you on the lease to get specific about that. There are also other terms of that that will have to be ironed out as far as how fast -- just all these other -- but yes, I agree. Yes, Joe. >>And if anybody from council wants to be appointed to kind of help with this, I would like to offer my help unless somebody else wants to, but I would love to do that, sir, whether you guys like it or not. >>Yes, absolutely. Whoever wants to do that, certainly more than that. >>So is everyone okay with the direction that has been given and that has been stated? I'm seeing nods. >>And just to be clear, we've called them obstacles or hurdles or the traps that we've got to set in order to make this happen. We're simply doing those out of concern for the health and safety of those people that are going to be in there. And because we've had a long-time policy that the requirements that any other developer or any other landlord has, the city has to follow the same rules. And so we're not trying to create obstacles. We're simply trying to say we have to follow the same rules that we ask other people to follow. >>Yes. Is that everybody's understanding? Okay. All right. You want me to ask you to repeat that? You got it? >>I've got it. >>Okay. All right. Okay. Any other questions or discussion for this? Thank you all very much for coming in. Thank you. You bet you. Okay. We'll go back to it. Really, I want to thank all my colleagues for that discussion and for our guests. I think that's a very good discussion and something that's been needed for a long time. So I appreciate that. Coal Ranch. We don't need a break. We'll just keep going. Do we need a break? Jennifer, you need a break? Everybody sort up and about. Let's take a five minute break. We're back reconvening our open work session. It is 310. Our next agenda item is agenda item B, which we took out of order. We had C. Now we're going back to B. Receive a report. Hold discussion. Give staff direction regarding possible financial incentives related to the Coal Ranch development. Thank you, Mayor. Brian Langley is our assistant city manager and is going to present this item. Thank you, Brian. All right. Thank you, George. Mayor, members of the council, I want to spend a few minutes today talking to you about the Coal Ranch development. I do have a short presentation. I heard that loud and clear. Ten slides. So it is short. Before I begin my presentation, I do want to take a moment to introduce with us Osi Vest. He's the developer on this project with Stratford Land. And so once I conclude my presentation, Osi is available for any questions. We also have some more detailed information if the council does want to get into that, Osi would be happy to go through that with you. So just as a reminder about Coal Ranch, this is a large development on the southwest side of the city. The downtown area is back in this area of the map. This is 35W. An existing development of ropes and ranches out here in this area. Coal Ranch, as proposed, is about 3,100 acres, about 10,500 developable units. Hunter Ranch is to the south of that, which is another very large development. Combined, all of these three developments are extremely large for the city. At build out could potentially represent another 74,000 residents to our city. So very large developments, very large impact to the city. Again, Coal Ranch, 3,100 acres. Currently unimproved land at this point. It is zoned as a master plan community with, as planned, 8, 500 single family homes, 1,890 multi family homes. And it also has a commercial and business park component, about 2.2 million square feet of commercial space and 1.45 million square feet of business park space. The projected assessed value at build out is approximately $4.2 billion. So again, very large development. The developer, which is Stratford land, they proposed to build the project in three phases. South, north, and artist colony. The projected average home values for each phase are shown here on the slide for you. For the south, about 4,400 units, single family units are proposed at an average value of about $266,000. On the north side, 3,400 units are proposed at an average value of about $390,000. And the artist colony component is $290,000 average home price with about 500 single family, 580 single family homes and about 1,890 multi family homes. So a few different pieces, but those are the average values proposed. That is much higher than our average current home value, which we've talked about in the past with the council is about $179,000. The average new home that's being constructed now each year , we're seeing that go up a little bit with the new homes that are constructed. So the ones that we've seen year to date for 2015, the average is about 299. And due to the high infrastructure costs associated with this development, again, it's on the southwest side of the city, unimproved land, does not have a lot of the infrastructure in place. Stratford land is seeking some financial incentives from the city to help make that happen, which I'll go through with you in just a moment. So the relationship to the strategic plan, this is something that we've talked about on a number of occasions with the council. But we do think it's from a staff level that this development has a good relationship to some of the strategic plan objectives that we've been looking at. In particular with key focus area three related to economic development, we've identified two particular goals related to that which I think it's applicable to. The first goal is develop targeted policies and incentives to achieve desired economic growth. And the objectives related to that would be increased home ownership and increased housing values, which we think it fits very well, coal ranch fits very well in that goal. And also goal three is promote a business friendly environment and utilize development incentives to attract high quality projects. And we think there's a strong connection here with coal ranch being a high quality project and being congruent with some of the things that we've been talking about with the strategic plan. We've also had a number of discussions with councils and work sessions and past retreats talking about trying to increase our home values in the city and the types of quality projects that we're looking at. So again, we think there's a good connection there. So following that, the developer Stratford land came back and originally proposed two things that the city consider. One would be a public improvement district, a PID, and the other would be a tax increment reinvestment zone. In the PID, the developer had proposed an assessment which would be equivalent approximately to about 28 cents on an effective tax rate basis. 28 cents per $100 valuation, so if you think about it like our tax rate is 68.975 cents, this would be an assessment equivalent to 28 cents. The revenues from those assessments would then be used to issue bonds to pay for the infrastructure cost. And as I've talked to you about in the past, these would be bonds that would be issued in the city's name, but they would be ultimately payable from those assessments , there would not be a financial impact to the city of Dent on. On the TURS, what was proposed by the developer is that the incremental tax revenues from the TURS would be split between the city and the developer. The developer would be receiving 40% of that increment. The city would be receiving 60% for all properties. And that provides another type of way to get a reimburse ment for some of the infrastructure cost. And when we were looking at the infrastructure cost with St ratford land, the cost that they were looking at was $147 million of cost that they needed to cover. At this structure, the original structure that they presented to us, 98.7 million would be funded from the PID and 48 million would be funded from the TURS. Again, that's the original proposal. We've had some discussion over the last few months with council and staff about this issue. We held a work session back in December of 2014. I know it's been a while, but December 2nd, 2014, we talked about some of these issues with you. The developer, OC, came and made a formal presentation to the council back in February to discuss this issue. The council asked for several items at that meeting, an infrastructure oversizing analysis, an economic impact analysis, and a parks trail oversizing analysis. We've since provided that to the council and we've been looking at that here at a staff level and working with the developer. So since that time, staff has had ongoing negotiations with the developer to address some of the council and staff concerns that we had about really two particular areas and that was inclusion of the TURS for residential properties. That was something as we've talked about it through our discussions with council and staff, we had some concerns about doing that. The precedent setting nature of that and looking at how we do that primarily just for commercial properties at this point. And then we were trying to look at what's the value of the public benefits that are going to be constructed and does it make sense, the level of the incentive that we offer in a TURV with the public benefits that are received. So following that discussion with the developer and looking at that internally, Stratford Lane has come back with a revised proposal that we're presenting for your consideration today. Again, it's two pieces to it, there's the PID and the TURS, but the structure has changed somewhat. The PID would be equivalent to approximately 33 cents as an effective tax rate, but be allowed to increase up to 40 cents. So as they're looking at their project and looking at their costs, they'd like to have the flexibility to go up to a maximum of 40 cents. But right now, the way they're modeling it would be doing it at a 33 cent tax rate or an effective tax rate. And the same kind of structure, the bonds would be issued based on the assessments through the revenues. Yes, sir. >> So that's an increase of at 33 cents, of five cents or 17.8%. And if it went up to 40 cents compared to the original ask of 28 cents, that's about a 42.8% increase. Do we know why? >> Yes, sir, and it's primarily related to the TURS. What we had looked at with the TURS is saying we were not comfortable having a portion of the city's tax rate for residential properties be funded out of the TURS. And so we were saying we're going to restrict that only to the commercial properties. And because of that, they're trying to make up for some of the other costs that are there that they have to pay for in the development. So they're shifting more of the costs out of the TURS into the PID. >> Okay, and when, and if, if and when, if the PID is established, is the rate set and then it stays or is it, is there a possibility that it might start at 33 cents and it might go up to 35 cents or all the way up to 40 cents? Or once it's established, is it, is it firm and concrete? >> I believe it's by phase they have to set the PID rate. It's something I'd have to check on for sure. I believe it's by phase they have to set that. I know Rick Rosenberg is here with DPFG. Is that correct, Rick? >> Yeah, because I guess what I'm curious about is if somebody buys something and, and, and they buy it with a 33 cent, under, understanding that it's 33 cents, somewhere down the line, can it jump up to 40 cents and do they have any? >> No. It's once that's set by, by phase, then if they develop further areas, they would have the flexibility to change that assessment. >> Okay. >> It could change. >> All right. >> But once you buy the house, it's set. >> All right. >> I know that Harvest has a PID, and what is the rate that they have down there? Do you know? >> I don't know the rate on the PID. I, if you'll allow me, I'll jump out of this for a moment. >> Because we, we had a chart, I think, last time. >> Yes. >> And we looked at that, and we knew that it was some wiggle room for coal. Okay, there we go. >> This is the, the, this is exhibit two in your, your backup. So Harvest is here. It's, it does not, it looks like it has a small PID, but it 's also in, is that a mud, guys? >> The Harvest PID is only for operations and maintenance. >> Microphone. >> Yeah, if, if you're needing to speak, yeah, we just need to have you on the microphone, because we're, we're being televised. >> Rick Rosenberg is here, he's working with the project. >> Good afternoon, Mayor of Council. Rick Rosenberg, Development Planning and Finance Group. The Harvest PID is an operations and maintenance PID only, is not used for any capital or debt items, and is an ad valorem base of approximately 21 cents. They're using muds or other water control districts for their, their debt component. >> Okay. I'm going to jump back to the presentation, I apologize. Thank you, I appreciate it. >> Again, two components, PID and the TURS, just for commercial properties for the TURS. They've also asked that we consider sales tax rebate agreements on a case by case basis. So as they're looking at commercial development that's taking place, have us just look at that on a case by case basis and see if that makes sense. I don't see this as anything different than what we currently have in place, is if a developer comes in and looks at a particular development that they're putting in, we could certainly always consider that. >> Brian, just while you're on that slide, if you can remind me and the public, how is the taxpayer on the hook when a PID is created and those bonds are sold? >> There's no direct obligation to the city. So the assessments would be collected from the property owners and then the bonds would be issued back by that assessment. There would be some administrative work that the city has to do, but it can be paid for out of the assessments. So there's no direct financial impact to the city. >> Okay. >> Okay, so the, any questions? Okay, the costs again are the same, $147 million as we talked about with the original proposals. But as I mentioned earlier, they'd be shifted to more heavily weighted on the PID, 125.5 million for the PID and 18.6 million from the TURS. Now that's currently as it's modeled, if they were able to get higher end development at the commercial area, certainly they could hopefully get more revenue out of that , hopefully this provides an incentive to do that. So that's currently the way they're looking at the numbers at this point. So from a recommendation standpoint, staff does recommend approval of both the PID and the TURS for coal ranch, but with conditions. And I'd like to go through some of those conditions with you. The PID would be limited to no more than 40 cents per $100 evaluation. Again, 33 cents is proposed at the current time. We would propose that the TURS be only applicable to commercial property and a 40% contribution from the full city of Denton tax rate would be used. But we'd further limit that to a city contribution of 20 years, not 30 years that was originally proposed. And that the value of the TURS would be limited to no more than 33 million. This is the value that we've calculated as the public benefit. >> Question on that. >> Yes, sir. >> That the cap on 33 million is somewhat confusing to me because I thought that they only needed 18.6 million, so why wouldn't we cap it at 18.6? >> Well, 18.6 is what they think they would currently be able to generate based on their model. What we're saying is if they're able to get higher end development and they can actually get more revenue out of that development on the commercial properties, that that would help offset some of the cost. >> But I thought that this was just to offset their cost that they had to do for infrastructure. And if we're just helping them with infrastructure, then the cost is what the cost is. >> Well, one of the things that we're looking at is to try to provide some type of reimbursement mechanism for some of the facilities that we would have to build to overs ize the lines, to oversize the roadways, those types of things. So this is an attempt to try to match up with the incentive with what the value of those public benefits are, which we figured out to be, or we've calculated, is 33 million. So that's the idea, is to try to provide some flexibility to them. >> That's almost double. >> Right. We think it would be difficult for them to get to that number under the TERS structure under commercial property. But nevertheless, we think that's the public benefit of what we're getting. So actually, we're getting more public benefit than we're giving up in the TERS. That's another way to think about it. >> Well, I'll just say, the TERS causes me a little concern anyway, but that causes more concern, so. >> So you'd want to limit it at the 19 million, roughly. >> I'm not there at that particular, but that's for later discussion. >> Okay, we would also propose, as I mentioned before, that sales tax incentive agreements could be considered on a case by case basis. If there was some type of attractive development or desirable type of development that was brought forward, that we would look at that as not placing any type of commitment on the city. But we would look at it just as we would frankly do now for any development that would come forward. We would also recommend that home sales and coal ranch contribute half a percent of the sale proceeds to the enhancements of schools. This is something the school foundation currently receives some money from the Lantana development. So it's similar to that concept. They would set up a public school foundation for that purpose. >> Is that only for schools in that area? >> It's for schools in that area, and I believe that there 's also some methods where they can provide some support to areas outside of that area. I don't know how much of that, and perhaps O.C. when he comes up for his comments, he can perhaps explain that a little bit more. But primarily it's for that development, that's correct. >> Okay. >> One of the other points that we've looked at is through the PED, is that the developer will donate sites to the city for public safety and elevated storage needs. This is something that we think we need for a development that large. Subsequent to me putting this presentation together, I've also received word from the developer O.C. that he'd be comfortable in donating a library site as well . So that would be something that we would look at putting as part of this proposal. We'd also like it to be clear that the developer will be responsible for all the maintenance costs associated with the lakes in the development. We think they're doing some good things with those lakes, but we don't want the city to have any kind of financial responsibility to maintain them going forward. So we want that to be a responsibility of the developer. And then finally, one of the things that we've looked at is having DME be the sole provider of electric services to Co al Ranch where they can. So there's some areas of Coal Ranch which are served by co- serve, others that are dual or triple certified. So when they have an opportunity to serve those areas, that they be the sole provider of services. Let a site for a future substation be secured. This is something that we need to work with the developer some more and our staff to look at the details of how we would do this and how we would make that work. But that's something as a concept that we wanted to throw out as a recommendation to the council. >> Regarding the lake, granted this is a development that's going to take place over 20 years, 30 years. But my experience is that sometime the developer goes away, but the lake's going to stay. So how do we hold the developer responsible for maintaining the maintenance on the lake in year 31? When it's completely developed, they've cashed out and they 're over at Razor Ranch in the retirement resort. >> I don't know the answer to that. That's something that we'll have to look at in the development agreement, perhaps making that a responsibility of the HOA or maybe making sure there's some money set aside for those purposes. We'd have to look at the details of how to do that in a development agreement. >> Or is it possible to set aside a couple of pennies in the PID, since we just saw that you can use a PID for maintenance and operation issues. >> That certainly could be a possibility, yes. >> Okay, let's- >> We're good with the concept, I think we can. >> Because I would like an answer to that. Because I want to make sure that we're not burdening a future council with something. >> Good point. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> So with the DME, I know that it would be financially advantageous for them. But in 1988, the Public Utilities Commission set the territories. And I know that another provider is out there, and they provide service to ropes and ranch, and also spill into some of this territory. So out of respect for those territories and the Public Utilities Commission in the state of Texas, I'm more comfortable removing that as a condition for approval and let the territory sit where they are. Out of respect for the greater Texas Public Utility Commission. >> Help me understand that, when you talk about- >> Well, they've carved up the state of Texas, and it's like you have this, and you have this, and you have this, and you have this. So DME doesn't have all of coal ranch, they have maybe what , two-thirds of coal ranch, if you kind of look at that. >> Yes, it's somewhere around there. >> What we're saying though is there is a particular area of coal ranch that is only served by co-serve, my understanding. So it does not have, the DME does not have the ability to serve that. But there are other areas that are dual or triple certified , meaning that DME can serve it, co-serve can serve it, or another entity in some of those areas. And so we're saying in those areas where there are options, only those areas, that that's the area we'd like to say DME is the sole provider. So if I've misspoken on anything, just feel free to correct me. >> No, I think that makes sense. >> Yeah, CNN, CCNs I mean. Thanks. >> So yes, in those areas, Public Attributes Commission defined the certification areas. And all around the edges of Denton, we are duly certified or multi certified between Encore, Co-Serve, or DME to serve. So in coal ranch on the north side of the highway that goes through there is multi certified. And we're just saying in those areas where we can choose us as provider, that we're the provider in those parts of coal ranch. But in the third coal ranch that's south of the highway, that area is singly certified to co-serve, and only co-s erve can serve them in that area. We understand that. >> Question? >> Okay. >> I wasn't here for the last one. This just seems to be a repeat of the couple of copy outs of the terms, I think. >> Yep. >> Sort of massage of the terms. The commercial, so if this is a redundant question, forgive me. Commercial does not include multifamily, I presume. >> I know, that's correct. >> All right. I struggle with the ters on the commercial. Certainly at that level I might be convinced. The cap of 33 million I just can't. I mean, if we're looking at 18, you're talking about. If people want to be here, they're going to be here. We're providing some very good opportunities. As far as a staff recommendation, I don't feel comfortable with the sales tax incentive, even though that's a case by case basis anyway. But when it's memorialized like this, it seems to give sort of the perception that, well, we're more likely than not. And I don't know really, I mean, we've done some 380 agreements, sales tax agreements, but they've typically not been for either individual type box users. I mean, it's going to have to be a pretty substantial. >> Yes. >> But the ters is part of, I perceive the ters as being part of that, even though it's a quote unquote reimbursement for, assuming that's what that's for, is reimbursement of utilities. So I can't agree to the, I mean, I probably don't want to agree to the ters altogether, quite honestly, but since that's going to be out there probably a little ways. And because I think we get ters happy, especially since we don't have, nobody else is participating, I presume. The county's not participating? >> Not yet. They have not indicated they are. And the developer still has the option certainly to go and approach them, but. >> I would feel more comfortable putting an asterisk by that term to see if the county is going to be willing to do it as well. >> For the ters? >> Yeah, for the ters. And not to say we're not, but if they say, well, is the city doing it? Well, the city may do it if you do it. Because I think it helps, and it might help lower the cost to the city in that regard, as far as the amount of reimbursement. In other words, that ters amount we split between the city and the county. Instead of the county absorbing all that. So if it can stay at the 18 or 19 million, I guess I'm okay with that. The 20 years, then it's more of a performance incentive. It's hey, if you guys can get it done. What triggers the 20 years? >> The 20 years, what the developers propose, which we would agree with, is that it would be a delayed trigger. So it would start once their first CO is pulled on that commercial development. So there have to be a number of rooftops out there in Coal Ranch before they would probably want to put in some of the retail. It may coincide perfectly with the start of it, but I doubt it. There would probably be some delay between the first house is being built, get some kind of synergy out there. And then there's a time when they say we're going to proceed with the commercial. And when they pull that CO, that's when that 20 year period would start. >> It doesn't matter what phasing it's in. Will the first CO that's pulled on the first commercial property, whether it's in the artistic square or this or that, or are you saying this 20 year period is tied to within that phase? >> We've been looked at by phase is what we've been looking at. So there could be, I mean, the north part of the proposal, the Coal Ranch, it could be a number of years before they start that. They may start south. I think it was south, then artist colony, then the north. Those could be years apart. So this is an opportunity for them to try to match up the timing with the turfs, which we think makes sense. Rather than to say it starts with the first house being built and 20 years later you're building your last phase of the development. >> And this 0.5% contribution, I understand that. As far as going to the school district or the schools within that particular community. But I really sort of struggle with that, somehow that's not available to some of our other schools in the district here in Denton that may need some help with that. And so I'm inclined that if we can't do that or if somehow we can't work out a situation with the school board or the school. I don't even know who to administrate. Is this the school foundation? >> The school foundation. >> That I don't think we need to limit it to that because I mean there's schools in this community that are good schools, that are old schools. I went to Newton Raiser, I mean whatever that was 50 years ago or 40 years ago. So I struggle with it being strictly limited to that. And I understand the purpose, I do. But if we as a city are going to do that, I think I would want it to be more of a contribution that applies to as much of the city wide schools that we have instead of saying, hey, we're going to set this development aside. We're going to receive special funding for the schools that are within this development. I mean, I understand the purpose of it, but I'm not sure I agree with the principle of it. >> If I can make just two comments on that. I know there's some other questions, but the idea behind this is that hopefully it would lessen some of the needs that DISD has for the rest of the school district. If there's some materials or items that could be provided to these areas that they don't have to find out of their tax rate, that certainly would be advantageous. The other thing is these are costs that are going to be bor ne by these homeowners and these individuals in this development. And so most of that needs to be directed back to the benefit of those that are making those fees that are providing that to the school district. So there's some ways that that could be shared with the rest of the community. >> But they could make those contributions themselves to the school foundation board within that community. Instead of it being a requirement that the city puts in its incentive policy that the developer pays for, which I don't mind the developer paying for it. But I understand that the people who are there will receive the benefit. But if they want to receive that benefit anyway, they still have the opportunity to make contributions to that. I understand it from a principal perspective. I just struggle with it. But that's just me and somebody else who has a different opinion. I certainly understand that. Go ahead, Kathleen. >> I'd like to hear from Denton ISD and have them actually weigh in with an opinion on this. Because they're the ones who manage and build and fund and have long range plans and all of that. And because they are going to look at those population numbers and they're going to have very real numbers and impacts on how this money should be directed. So I think before we make that decision, let's get the experts who do this kind of weigh in. My other comment is that as we look at that huge chunk of land with ropes and ranch, coal ranch and hunter ranch. I would love to get all three developers together and look at an overlay in terms of water, sewer, roads. And has the city looked at an overlay with that? Have we brought all three developers together to sit at a table to actually look at, which will become the largest single area of development in the city of Denton. And I'm talking about those three huge communities. So have we done that? Can we do that? >> Sure, I think we can certainly try to do that. I'm not aware that we've done anything at that level with planning and development. But we certainly can initiate some type of conversation to make sure we're all talking about how to develop that quadrant of the city. >> I think it would help the city planning. I think it would help each developer. And we're not talking about 100 homes here. I mean, we are talking about, what was that figure, 75,000 people at Build Out. And they have all three developers sit down with city planners and actually look at an overlay and a plan for all of this. Before we pull the trigger on this to really have some solid information in terms of infrastructure planning in that part of the city. I'd really welcome that. I think it's a real bonus. I think the developers would welcome that as well. And I think it's good for the city. >> Okay, we can certainly do that. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor. Has there been any discussion as the staff's been thinking about this recommendation or even in conversation with the developers as to tying in certain required phasing into the agreement? Is there any benefit to the city in seeing a certain phase of this come sooner than another phase or a certain type of house come sooner or when we think it makes more sense to have commercial? I mean, I know a lot of that's dictated by what's happening in the market to some extent. But I know in other cases where we've looked at plan development, we've tried to be a little bit clearer about how that's going to roll out. Was there any discussion of that? >> Staff has not initiated any type of real discussion about a preference over one phase of the development starting earlier than another. What the developer has proposed is that they develop the south, then the artist colony, and then the north. I believe the three pieces that they're looking at. They feel like they've developed the best way out of that type of scenario. If there's some kind of desire from the council to look at it differently, we can certainly talk to them about that. But from the staff perspective, we were really looking at what their thinking was and what made the most sense for them. >> And is commercial contained in each three of those phases? >> Yes. >> In the history of Denton pursuing TURS agreements, do we ever agree to those, I guess it's inappropriate to say it this way, but I know another term, but blindly, I guess. In other words, agreeing to a TURS conceptually on commercial areas or any other areas that we have no idea what we're getting for that. Is there any precedent for that? >> No, this is different for us. And I think the thing that's also different is that this is a 3,100 acre housing development with over 10,000 housing units. And so we're looking at trying to find a way to provide some incentive for the developer to move forward. Help pay for some of the over sizing infrastructure that we 're putting in. You're right, Mr. Rodin, it is different than what we've looked at previously. But because the length of time it may take to develop the coal ranch property, the developer also doesn't really know exactly what the commercial property is going to look like in five to seven to ten years down the road for those pieces. So that's something we're trying to figure out together. That's why we looked at also having the sales tax incentive on a case by case basis. We don't really know what the development might look like, but if there was something that was very attractive, that's something that we could think about. And I understand the reservation about that too. But we're trying to find a way to kind of make it work so that we can get the development moving forward. >> Well, I guess on that point, it makes me think, is there a way to, and I guess we're going to have to have some sort of conversation on this. Because I don't know what people think of these crazy ideas we're talking about. But to almost take that TURS concept and make it similar to how we're talking about the sales tax concept to say, at the outset, we're interested in talking about that. In fact, we might at the time because of some grand project coming to us, they might actually get a better deal than what is conceived here on the front end because of something we're trying to encourage or a timing by which we're trying to encourage it or whatever of making that less firm on the front end. But we're willing to engage that discussion as we move forward. >> And I can certainly let Mr. Vest respond to that when we get to that point in the presentation. But I think what you'll hear is that they're going to have to make some commitments on the infrastructure cost upfront . And know what the financing arrangement is going to be on that so they know how to pay for that. But I'll let Mr. Vest answer that when he gets to that point. >> Thank you, Mayor. On the home sales contribution to the schools, if that's something that Cole Ranch wants to work out with the school district, that's their business. I don't think it's our business at all. It, for me personally, in terms of the principles of the thing, it does not sweeten the deal, it sours the deal as far as I 'm concerned. When Lantana first proposed that to the Denton School District, the school board at that time said no thank you because of the situation that the monies were going to be going to only those schools in the Lantana subdivision. And the school district has a commitment to fund all schools equally. So that meant that those schools were getting extra money that the other schools didn't get. And then later, Lantana came back and offered a slightly different deal of designating one of our, the Denton ISD schools that had a high risk school population of getting part of that money. And that other schools could apply for some grants from that. And different composition on the school board and they bought that deal. But what it has created is haves and have not schools within the district. If that's what the school district wants to do, if that's what the school board wants to do, and there might be someone on the school board that would disagree with my characterization. That's fine. I'm not going to run for their seats. But I think that's their choice. But for us to do anything to encourage that.