Oct 20, 2015 City Council on 2015-10-20 12:00 PM

[SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] Good noon or good afternoon since it's 1202. On Tuesday, October the 20th, 2015, this is a meeting of the Denton City Council. And this is a work session. Then we have a regularly scheduled meeting at 630. And we do have a quorum, so we're opening the meeting. Our first item on the agenda is to move into closed session at this time. So I will convene the closed session at 1203. We will consider the following items-- consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code section 551.1 and 071. Are we just-- that's only that one. Yes, and then we'll come back into open session after we look at agenda item A in the closed session. So-- [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] [SIDE CONVERSATION] All right, we're back in open session at 123. We will now proceed on with our work session agenda in open session. The first one is citizen comments on consent agenda items. We have one card, and it's Cody-- is it Betis? Yes, sir. All right. If you'll come up, state your name and address. And I believe the time limit is it-- Yes. What's-- OK. Is it three minutes? Three minutes, yes. Yes, sir. You bet. Hello. I'm a little ill prepared today because we just learned about the situation last night on a contract. My name's Cody Betis. I'm with Doc and App Solutions. We've been providing service for the city for about 15 years for the laser fish software. And it reminded me, Jennifer has a plaque in her office. In years past, the city of Denton has been award winning implementation of ECM software, which helps the departments get rid of more and more paper. And so we've been working with the city quite a while. What had happened is there's a renewal contract and upgrade , and there was an RFP. We've responded to RFP, tried to follow all the rules. We've got to follow RFP. And in addition to the RFP, there's DIR contracts or state contracts that the city can purchase off of. And so when we responded to the RFP, we didn't have a state contract at the time. And the time the RFP was over, we did have a state contract, a DIR contract. And so what happened in the exhibit one is when you look at exhibit one and look at the comparison, it looks like we're $60,000 higher than our competitor. And I think when the city saw that, they lost faith that we didn't make a good bid, weren't trying on the city's-- to hold the cost down for the city, didn't do a competitive bid. But that is a mistake, and a substantial mistake. Maybe in one line item, there's about $50,000. And I haven't had time to reconcile all of it. But what I'd like, I'd ask you to just set it aside, give it two weeks, go back, review the process. Because once the determination was made that we hadn't given a fair bid, I think that that kind of stacked against us in the selection process. And certainly wasn't our intention to not have a accurate bid for you. The DIR contract is a little different than a RFP. RFP has hundreds of pages and has tons of stuff that we're agreeing to when we sign that contract. And on that one item, it's a turnkey. And that's to say, do everything we need for this whole implementation for all the departments, all the repositories. No matter how much time it takes your guys, you're going to give us one price, can't go over it, just charge us up to that. But anything more than that, you're going to have to eat as a vendor. Well, a turnkey price is always more expensive than an hourly rate because the vendor takes all the risk. But we bid both in the RFP. They failed to get the right line item. They could have chosen the hourly rate and put it in there and got apples to apples. But it didn't work out that way. So I'd like you to consider that and then just go through a review process to see where those holes could be fixed if there's mistakes made like that before it gets to contract and council. OK. All right. Thank you. Oh, yes. Are we allowed to ask them a question? Or how does that work? Is that just upstairs? Yes, sure. No, go ahead. So just to make sure I'm clear, if we do end up pulling this-- I'm just reviewing H. No flag came up with me on this one. Are we awarding the contract to somebody else in this one, in H? Is that what-- Yes. Well, and I just wanted to make sure. And what you're saying is your bid somehow on that line item, you made a mistake or we read it wrong? You made a mistake. We made the mistake. OK. So the bid was correct. But in the comparison, they took items that were not apples to apples. I got you. OK. One was a $60,000 item. One's a $10,000 item. Thank you. OK. All right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Oh, question for this? OK. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yes, Council Member Wozni. So in response to that, what is the procedure? Can we ask that staff reexamine the bid process and bring this back at a later time? How do we handle that? Madam City Attorney or Mr. City Manager? I guess my first question would be, how long are these proposals alive? What's the time frame that the city has is forwarded-- is looking at? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. When we have requests for clarification, yeah. And that way, it'll give us some direction on how we need to proceed with this particular agenda item. And so we're going to move on to agenda item two. And Council Member Wozni, you-- yes, go ahead. So on that, just in light of fair and honest bid proposals and transparency, that we could ask for some clarification from staff on item H. Mayor, I'd like to ask Melissa Craft, because I'd like to be sure that if this is delayed, that there's no downside or implications to delay. And perhaps Melissa and/or Elton could-- our purchasing officer could address the process. We'll tag it to you in this one. Elton Brock. Mayor, Council Members, it's a pleasure to be here today. And I want to make sure that the process that we followed was a very legal one. We first conducted an RFP process to try to get to the best value for the city of Denton. Unfortunately, we only got one bid back or one response back that was deemed responsive to the city's requirements. And knowing that, at this time, that was going on. We were in negotiations trying to get to the very best value. DIR awarded a contract that had both vendors on at the same time. We saw that in the marketplace. And so the other vendor that did not respond originally to the RFP process, we contacted them to try to get to where we get in the very best value, comparison pricing. And so that's exactly the process that we followed. It was to get a comparison pricing. Lo and behold, when we got the pricing back from the DIR contractor, it was lower. And there's a lot of reasons for lower-- and Melissa can probably explain those technical reasons for that. So just to give you a little bit of history, so at one time , we did use DocuNav as a sole source. And the reason being, they would build some customized tools for us. One of the things we did about a year and a half ago, let's get away from those customized tools and try to use some standard tools. So we tried to migrate away from customized tools so we're not just constricted to one vendor. I think as we're looking through this process, we're trying to find out what's best for the city. As part of that process, when we first asked for the best and final offer with DocuNav, they went from $234,000 to $194,000. So obviously, they had some wiggle room to try to bring on the cost. When we're looking at costs, we're trying to find what's the best value for the city and how do we keep keeping away from custom and doing more commercial off the shelf so we can get better support. And quite frankly, over the years, DocuNav has provided mediocre support to the city as far as the pro-activeness when we're looking for services in regards to upgrades. One of their customized tools, over seven years, we weren't able to upgrade. And part of that does belong to what's the best quality and what's the best value for the city. And one thing we found out, MCCI provides that cost and provides that value. And I think moving forward, we really want to try to keep more commercial on the shelf for better support. So we're not so resilient on consultants. So we have more of that in-house knowledge that we can produce that. And part of that cost, when they were talking about, well, $60,000 versus $18,000 or $16,000, it's because a lot of that internal stuff we can do ourselves. And they kept saying, well, no, you need to do it this way. And it's like, as far as how we're looking at what we're doing, we're trying to produce some more of that knowledge in-house. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, I'm looking at the price comparison sheet. Big difference. And so what I'm curious about is, are you, as a technical person, satisfied that we are comparing apples and apples? Because I'm looking at one of the items, which is-- I think it's a grade 4 implementation services for LaserFish United 8.2 to RIO for Turnkey, where all aspects of the upgrades for professional services is a fixed fee. And I see $68,400 for one vendor and $11,880 for the other. Are we comparing apples to apples? Yes. And when we did that, we went through a statement of work as far as what our requirements are. This vendor is saying it's going to take a couple weeks. DoCuNav is saying it's going to take three months. It's a big difference there. And one of the things that MCCI provided was a credit for our licensing, where DoCuNav didn't do that. Credit for our existing licensing in preparation for the upgrade. DoCuNav didn't provide that for us. Again, we had my staff ask them three separate instances. Hey, is this your best price? Is this your best price? And it's still $70,000 more than the other vendor. Again, we have to do what's best for the city as far as service and delivery. Now, when you were asking those questions, is this your best price? Did either of the vendors have an opportunity to know what the other vendor was bidding? Absolutely not. So at this particular point, now each vendor knows what the other is bidding. So if they had built in a particularly large profit, they could lower it now that they've seen the other person 's bid. Is that even legal? No, it's not. OK, thank you. Yes, Kip. Yeah, as a matter of process, I'm a little uncomfortable with-- here is a procurement process. Somebody is looking after these things. Sounds like you guys did your due diligence. To open the door for vendors to come and pitch themselves when they didn't get the bid and for us to react quickly and say, let's pull this for further consideration, is probably not the best thing from a process perspective moving forward because there are going to be a lot of vendors at the door that didn't get the bid. So I'm comfortable with your explanation. And so just from my opinion on moving forward, I'm comfortable with leaving this on a consent agenda. OK. Any other questions of clarification outside of agenda item H unless we still have questions for agenda item H? I have one for agenda item I. OK, so thank you all very much. All right, Mayor Pro Tem. Just reading this, first of all, it was very reassuring as reading the backup to look at the great questions that our public utilities board asked regarding the rejecting of all the bids and doing the project ourselves. But I'd like for staff to maybe just explain that $569,000 savings from us doing it ourselves as opposed to contracting it out. Thank you. Mr. Gregory, I'd like to ask Frank Payne, our city engineer , if he would address your question. Thank you, Frank. Well, staff looked at the bids. And as you can see in the backup, they came in per utility quite a bit higher than the engineer had anticipated. And so when the project manager went back to the Water and Waste Water Department and asked them what they wanted to do, they took a look at the project to see what they could do with in-house forces and believe that they can do it for a significant amount of savings. When you have bids come in that much higher than what you estimate, do you-- We don't do that very often. Good. Do you ever contact all of the vendors to see if they really understood the scope of the work to see if maybe they were bidding for things, putting things in there that were not required or-- There's times when we are quite a bit off that if we are, that we would call them and ask what was left on the table. But we're not going to call them before an award or decisions made. The proper action, if we're not going to award it to the lowest bidder, is to reject all bids and move forward. Now, we can look at it with them after the fact. My feeling is you've got just two bidders on a relatively small public improvement project. And you've got their best prices for that particular work. I'm not sure why we didn't get more bidders. Both of the projects that we have on the council consent agenda today, both were utility projects. And both just got two bidders. One of the questions that the PUB asked, that I want to ask again, because I want to make sure that I'm clear on the answer is, by us taking this in-house , does it realign any of the other projects that we have going since we're trying to sequence our underground utility work with our street work? Is this going to delay anything else down the road? Well, I don't know, Howard. I wasn't in that particular meeting. But at least they didn't ask me that question. I think Jim covered it. But I don't think that-- I don't know an answer to that. I don't think they would volunteer to take it on if they thought it was going to delay that work. Do you have anything else, Howard? I think fitting that project in will be possible. I think the issue is we've got work going on right now that 's going to need to be finished, where if this was contracted out, we could be doing both at the same time. And so I think, one, fitting that in is going to delay the project a little bit. Not a great deal. But then it has the possibility of putting something else off or contracting out another project that maybe we had done in-house. Substituting an in-house project and going ahead and contracting that out-- Just thinking about that-- --would be the logical explanation for that. So you might be able to contract something else out and keep on track. OK, thanks. I've got a question. I'm not sure if it's for you, Howard, or for you, Frank. When I look at the AIS-- well, first of all, I would like to use this as a beta in the sense that there's got to be a way that-- you guys, obviously, if you came up with an estimate, there's a way that they track those costs internally, like equipment hours, however they do that. I'd like to see, in the end of the project, how close it came to being on budget. Not saying it should or shouldn't. Because when I look at this particular example, what I realize is-- let's say, for instance, it comes in pretty close to cost. Yes, sir. Well, the engineer bid-- engineer's opinion-- and who would that engineer be? Is that you, or who is it? No, it's one of the project managers that works for us. It's about 30% more than what we think we can do it for in-house. I'm not making a comment about that. That's why I would want to see, once it's finished-- because if that's true-- and not all projects are the same, obviously. That's just an interesting observation. Well, I would tell you that-- I don't know if you had something to add. I will tell you that our consultants are telling us the same thing, that we're having a very difficult time coming up with accurate estimates these days, because the bid pricing is fluctuating. It's climbing. OK. And so what we do when we do estimating, we look at the last half a dozen jobs that we had. We look at the consultant bids, and we do a comparison and come up with average pricing. Hopefully, we're not the low bidder the last few times we have been. And that's not a trend that's unusual in the industry. It's unfortunate. But yes, we can track internal costs. And I just concur with Frank that there's-- we track all of those costs internally and would be able to bring back that cost to council once completed. Sure. Generally speaking, what we're seeing is those smaller projects tend to carry some premium when there's a lot of work to be done in the community or in other communities when economic times are good. And we pay-- we have a tendency to get those higher bids at that point in time. Howard, is this one of the projects that we approved an additional crew some four or five months back? I don't know if it was a wastewater or sewer crew. It was a wastewater crew. OK. So this is sort of the kind of projects that we're trying to say with an additional crew, we can do things a little bit more expeditiously. And in this case, it may provide us an opportunity to do something that we might not have been able to do before in-house with a minimal impact maybe on projects going forward because we have the manpower. In general, I would agree with that. Two things. One, to a large degree, that additional wastewater crew was justified predominantly on our EPA administrative order work, so the replacement of sewer lines. The second part of that is that we don't have that crew in place yet. Right. OK. Well, then that-- two question-- follow-up questions. When are we going to get that crew in place, number one? And number two, I would like to see-- because that presentation is sort of just maybe an informal staff report of what the projects, according to the EPA order-- because I know we did very well on that, and we avoided a lot of things-- but just what that order did say or what we agreed to do in regards to that. Well, that follow-up informal staff report's on my things to do list. And so we'll get that to-- what the other answer to your question was, we had hoped to have all of the equipment in and that crew in place by the first of next year. We put that-- you approved this concept of a crew summer of this last budget year so that we could get the equipment on order and get the equipment in for that crew. And we're in the process of interviewing. We've got the crew leader position in process, and then the rest of that crew will follow. And we hope to be able to complete all of that before January 1. So just to refresh my memory, that presentation was for this current budget, FY '16-'17? That's correct. OK. That's correct. Fantastic. We just needed to get the equipment on order so we wouldn't wait till October 1 and then put the equipment on order and be June getting the equipment. Yeah, '15-'16 I was correct. I'm pushing us out of here. I'm sorry. Yes, Council Member Johnson. I just want to make a comment on that if I could, just to commend the engineering staff. I'm often a public critic of the use of consultants and challenge often on are we sure we can't do this in house. So I just want to compliment you guys on-- easy thing to do would have been to say, well, we got bids and here's the lowest one and that's it and we're moving on down the road, but to go, well, wait a minute. We can do this in house and we can save money. So my compliments to you on that and I'm looking forward to all the rest of you fine like that. I'd like to be able to take credit for that, but that's really an operations staff decision. So we did the design work, but they made the decision to pull it in the house. And they have a really good, talented staff. They do a lot of work for the city. OK, any other questions on this agenda item? All right. Thank you. Thanks, Frank. Good to see you. Let's see. Council Member Hawkins? Thank you. First, a comment on S. I just wanted to thank staff for getting that lease done. Seemed rather quickly on the homeless shelter. If I could make a comment on that, Mayor. We've worked very diligently and staff tried to get that done. And frankly, we're not quite there. As we-- George, we're just trying to compliment you. As we speak, we're still trying to finalize that agreement and hopefully we'll have the final version that we've all agreed to this evening. If not, we may need to push that a week, but I don't have the answer to that yet. We're very close to having that and are trying to get it done in time that we can get this work done. Well, most things I do is about 90% too, so-- but good job anyway. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And then two on item A, I just thought the wording was a little funny. I know that this comes up before, but it just says to declare the intent to reimburse. And I know that there are different timelines. We sell our bonds in the spring, if that's right, and we adopt our budget in the fall. Is there any way we could just get a real quick refresher on how that works? Mr. Chuck Springer is our director of finance, and I'm sure Chuck can give you all of the explanation. Yes. This is kind of a federal tax law issue where it allows us to pass this resolution and allows us to begin the initial expenditures for those programs, like Howard talked about ordering equipment or starting the design on a project, those kind of things. If you pass this resolution, we're allowed to start that work and then reimburse any actual dollars spent when we have the bond sale this summer. So it's really an efficiency effort for the capital projects to get them going a little bit more quickly instead of having to wait till you sell bonds, and that's the start date. And that's a pretty typical way of doing business. I mean, there's not any danger necessarily in doing-- No. For most of these, for like the utilities and others, we still have some funds remaining from a prior bond sale that we actually spend. This is just the legal purposes so that we can begin to do that. We've been doing that here for several years. Thanks, Chuck. Councilmember Briggs? Well, I had also had a question about A, but that kind of answered it just because it's such a large amount of money. So I just-- C, the clean fleet vehicle ordinance that we're going to adopt is great. My question is, what exactly type of vehicles? Is that hybrid, electric, a mix of everything? Do we know? Let me ask Mark Nelson if he is here. He's on the back row and has to work his way out here. But he'll-- oh, I'm sorry. Terry Kader, our fleet manager, is here. OK. The ordinance that we're looking at is a revised ordinance from 2005, which we currently fall under. And it does cover alternative vehicles and alternative fuels. So there are a lot of different components in the ordinance and vehicle purchases, acquisitions, as well as technology and fuels, anything to reduce emissions and improve air quality. OK. And on that note, in the same item O is the purchase of police vehicles. Will that be included in this? Or is that something different, like since it's-- The purchase of the police vehicles is through a specific vendor, whereas the clean fleet policy allows you to purchase through whichever vendor you choose. But yes, certainly you take a look at the most efficient vehicle for the type of operation that you're going to use it for. OK. So that would kind of be in line with-- It does tie in. OK. And my last question is-- Can I have a follow up on that? Belton, do you have a follow up? Can I have a follow up on the fleet question? In our sustainability plan, our goal about increasing our fleet, the number of hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles, we have no specific numbers with that. Are we at a point where we could assign a number to that? Because as it is right now, it seems to be a rather easy to obtain gold, since there aren't any numbers. We're just going to increase. So if we add one more, then we've done it. Given the cost now and given the savings that are involved, are we at a point where we could attach a real number to that to maybe challenge ourselves and stretch our fleet in terms of reducing our carbon footprint? I think it would be a good time to give staff direction on just exactly what our future plans are in terms of alternative fuel vehicles. And I can certainly get you the numbers that we currently have. I don't have them here in front of me today. I'm sorry. But I can let you know what our fleet-- Then it might be good for you to get with Catherine Burnett . And maybe we could put that on the future committee on the environment meeting. Yes, sir. Thank you. Last question is, who is your designee? I've been on council, and it just says city manager or his designee. Is it different for every-- No, generally, if you're talking about signing contracts, generally that's me, and I do that. But there may be times when I'm either absent, or there may be an instance or two where we have a director or somebody in DME that's designated to be a signatory. It's probably few and far between that that occurs. Generally, that's language that allows the process to go forward, even if I'm not available. OK, thanks. Council member Rhoades. It's clean fleet policy, and I appreciate it. So when we talk about alternative fuel, a lot of what we've been doing, as I understand it, is converting some diesel type vehicles to liquefied natural gas, correct? Correct. And so that's generally going to be in kind of a heavy maintenance type of trucks that really couldn't be run on electricity, at least how the technology is right now. That's correct. I think what would help in preparation for that is to get a report for the whole council just on what's the state of our fleet now. Because I think we have done some significant things, and I think we're probably a leader in the region on this. So it would be nice, especially being on regional transportation council, to be able to take this sort of information back to the other cities to demonstrate, not only are we implementing this policy, but we're going beyond even the spirit of it. So that sort of report would be helpful. I'd be happy to do a state of the fleet address at some point in the future. Like that. Riveting. Yes, Council Member Warren. And on the agenda, under public hearings, item C, it's the Eagle substation public hearing. And I know we're liable to have some members of the public enforced tonight. So I would ask indulgence of this council and the mayor to just take a look at how many people are there for that public hearing, and possibly move them up earlier in the agenda, as we have in the past for some public hearings. OK. I'll certainly take that on advisement. Council can be thinking about that. Yes, Council Member Johnson. So did I miss-- did I screw up here? We're still on clarification of the jacket. So items X and Z, specifically, we're approving things for festivals. My question is, what is the process for approving whether a festival can use public property or not, and who makes that decision? I'm a big fan of the festivals. And we have a lot of them. And we're having more and more. And we're hearing things. And following on a thing, Council Member Rodin had said at the last meeting about, in terms of when public access is blocked and so on, we have some concerned vendors or tenants in the city that have significant investment and worry about access to their businesses being blocked. So for the benefit of the public, I think it'd be great to know if someone is wanting to use public property for a festival, what's the process they go through? But more importantly, who decides whether or not that is appropriate at that time and whether it's appropriate to block access and so on? Mr. Cabralas apparently would like to address this. He would like to. I don't know. Would like. He's also anxious to get up and address it. I don't know. Would like would be language. But I do have some of the information he asked for. First of all, as it relates to somebody asking to hold an event on city property, depending on where that property is, for example, if it's Parks and Recreation property, it goes through our special events coordinator that we have out of Parks and Rec to help those folks go through all the proper procedures that are in place. If it has something to do with the William Street Square downtown, the parking lot across the street, we made an agreement with Economic Development a while back where somebody of an economic development will walk them through the process as it relates to what their needs are. Regardless of the fact, the process is still the same by which they need to present certain types of information to city staff as it relates to whether they're needing street closures, whether they're going to need to have any kind of permits reviewed as it relates to, for example, food trucks. Make sure the food trucks are registered to operate in our city. As it relates to street closures, we need to make sure that public safety is involved. Our police department needs to be aware. There also needs to be an emergency response plan that our emergency management department needs to look at regarding any type of cooking occurring inside tents or what have you. Our fire marshal gets involved. So again, depending on what the event is, what the requirements are related to either cooking, vendors, street closures, what have you, there's a process in place that brings in various departments involved to work with those folks. Sometimes a challenge becomes if they're wanting a street closure, for example, but yet you have some businesses along that property that do not want the street closed is where we sometimes have a rub in trying to figure out whether or not that event will thus be able to close the street down or not. Sometimes also the issue comes up as it relates to the timing of the event. Sometimes we have a last minute request for a large festival. We're just not able to accommodate all the requests. So we'll sometimes have to push back and say, unfortunately , we won't meet all the timelines. So let's sit down and start talking on an alternative date that may work for your event as opposed to next week or what have you. Does that answer some of your questions? Well, the only kind of specific question I would like to get answered, because I think we might want to have a work session or something about it is, specifically as it relates to closing a public street, blocking public access, or utilization of public parking, is it a foregone conclusion that if they meet all the requirements of the application and all that, that they can do it? That's what I'm getting at is we're having more and more festivals. So I'd like for us to think about some sort of a committee or something that would make the decision whether or not we're going to allow-- so for example, on a Saturday to close William Square and block Hickory Street, while the applicant may meet all of the requirements of the process, at some point, if we keep using public parking for festivals and closing streets, we're now impacting those taxpaying businesses that are there. So I'm just throwing out that I'd like for us to think about-- in other words, if you make the decision now, George, or if it's a committee, or if it's a certain assistant city manager, might we want to think about a different decision making process, just whether or not to allow public property or a public access or a parking lot to be used? I think it's a very valid question. And I think we have a work session that's being planned for talking about festivals in particular. But if these two items, x and z, are the ones that-- maybe Amy could provide some specific answers to specific questions on this item. Yeah, I'm good on those. As you go through this, you've got a variety of sound ordinance variations in some of these. It just made me think, man, this is becoming very common. And I'm sensitive to those businesses that are affected. So along with that, I guess the question for you, John, do we have as part of our current decision making process-- and the email that we got from Ms. Bissett helped a lot in giving some of the answers, but not all of them yet. Because I had the same concern about the businesses that are already downtown. Do we limit the number, or do we limit how close these festivals can happen to one another? It wouldn't necessarily do any good to say, we're only going to allow 12 festivals a year. Because if they happen 12 weeks in a row, then we'll have some businesses that will be hurt significantly. If there was only one allowed every four weeks, or three weeks, that might be different. Do we have any rules like that now in terms of part of the decision making metrics for the staff? To answer your question, no. We do not limit-- as a request comes in, staff will process it and work through it as best we can to try and meet their timeline. I will tell you, there have been quite a bit of internal discussions with staff as it relates to numerous high profile events, all occurring on the same weekend. I think it was last year that we had, during the Blues Festival, we also had another event that took place downtown that also happened to be on the same day that UNT had a local home football game. And I think there was also something going on up at the fairgrounds. So from a public safety perspective, we were really stretched very thin if anything had happened at any one of those or anywhere else in our community. So there is a concern about the number of events occurring on one particular day or weekend, certainly. But as far as limiting the number, we've never gotten any direction, to my knowledge, from our policymakers to do that. In fact, the opposites occurred. My understanding is we've been encouraged to try and accommodate, as best we can, festivals that occur. But certainly, that is something that we can have a discussion with council if that's as part of our special events work session. We're preparing to bring it sometime in the future for you and determine if that's something you want to-- I think that would be good. Make sure to have that as a discussion point. Thank you, Mayor. And I'm going to try and be specific to this posting with this, because it sounds like we're going to have that policy discussion, which is needed. But in relation to this particular event-- and I know technically we're only approving a noise ordinance and the allowance of alcohol sales. But in this one-- and I mentioned this to staff in an earlier email-- according to their Facebook page, they only have 46 attendees. And if that plays out in reality, that's going to be a significant hardship for folks. Goddesses of Light music festival. And so I wish them success. I hope they're huge. I hope it's a huge draw, and they bring in a lot of folks, and it's successful for everyone. Given that this is about three weeks out, is there anything in our internal policies that allows us to huddle with them and say, hey, here's what we're looking at. I don't know what your marketing piece is. Maybe you've got thousands of people coming that we're not seeing in your public attempts to get people to come. Do we have any ability to be flexible and say, let's try and move you somewhere that's more appropriate for your size? Because as we're kind of looking at this, this is probably going to be a big weekend and the lead up to the holiday season. A lot of parking is taken offline for 46 people. I get concerned with an event like this. It hasn't proven itself. I mean, earlier on in the agenda, we know we've got Day of the Dead Festival, which has certainly proven itself. Certainly worked with all the downtown business owners to get them involved so that it's a win-win for everyone. Here's kind of a new event. Might not have proved itself, but yet we're guaranteeing them this huge scale prime weekend space. So I guess my question is, is there any flexibility at this point in the game to go back to those organizers to say, let's look at other creative options, given what seems to be the size of your actual event? Maybe economic development can-- because this is one of the areas that they're handling, so maybe Amy can answer that. Just to give a little bit of history with this particular festival, when they first started coming in and meeting with us, we tried up front to find another location for them. In fact, we looked at multiple options because we felt like it would be more appropriate to not block that parking. In the end, all the parks were full. There were issues with the other venues that they looked at and the impact that it might have on the neighborhoods. And they ultimately chose to apply to be able to use that parking lot. Now, as a part of the process, because it's downtown and because we're seeing such an increase in festivals, economic development has worked very hard to kind of work, customize with them. How can we minimize impact? We want to see your traffic plan. We want to see your parking plan. We want to see your pedestrian and bicycle safety plan. And we want to work with you to try to minimize the impact and make sure that it's not in conflict with other things that are going on. And we're really handling that right now on a case-by-case basis. Part of what we require is a site plan that shows how they're providing for safety as well as traffic flow and parking. And I took a look at the site plan this morning. And part of the challenge with where we are today is that they have 15 bands booked. And they have a stage booked. And they've had their site laid out for some time where we've worked with them to get them to that point. And in short, though, the answer is yes. We could go back and visit with them about perhaps a smaller footprint in the same area, but not occupying as many parking spaces. I don't know that we'd be able to relocate them at this point, just because we tried that early on and didn't have any options. Well, it's simply a suggestion. Maybe this has been-- one of the unique things about the state of downtown now is there's one large private outdoor venue, another one that's yet to be developed that's been used as an outdoor venue for a recent downtown festival. So there's a big space that no one's using that perhaps is rentable. I don't know. We actually approached-- OK, so that's already been-- That's already been-- Yes. OK, I'm just kind of thinking about it, and I just guarantee you that come November, whenever this is, that next weekend, if the perception is there are about 70 people at that festival and they've blocked off an entire section of downtown parking on what's probably going to be a beautiful weekend, we're going to all get a phone call. So I'm just trying to kind of head off that controversy before we begin. So whatever-- I know we probably had some guarantees in some of those conversations. I don't want to give undue hardship to an entity that's been working with us in good faith. I'm just throwing out those concerns. We'll certainly be creative and do whatever we can to minimize the impact and look at options. And I'll also say that we do have a work session scheduled for December 15 to have these discussions on a policy level . We're concerned because of the uptick of festivals that we've seen in this particular season. You and I met on Saturday morning and watched a festival unfold. And they're everywhere every weekend right now. What a great problem to have. It is. It is a great problem to have. Can we just stop the rain this weekend? That's the question. All right, any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Councilmember. I'm not on that one, but it might involve those two. And this is item-- I think the keys are out. There's your mic on, Kevin. Thank you. And I guess it's a policy question too, and I just don't know the answer to, and it may be that there's nothing to discuss. As it relates to noise ordinance and the approval of decibel increases, do we have a policy that makes different cases for weekdays versus weekends? So this is on a Tuesday night in the middle of a neighborhood when there's a lot of kids around there that are probably trying to get ready for school the next day or go in the bed. Yes, our noise ordinance does differentiate between week night, so to speak, versus weekend and whether it's going to be amplified sound. I will tell you, though, that historically we as staff have been bringing forward pretty much a recommendation on any noise variance requests that we get from any event. I don't recall the last time maybe we denied or we recommended denial for a variance to the noise ordinance. So there's been discussion within staff as to whether or not we need to come back and revisit the noise ordinance with council and determine, do we still need to have that in place? Do we need to modify it? Because more and more, it's become the norm for events occurring in our city to ask for that variance. And it's usually to increase the decibel amount for a certain period of time. And of course, that will vary as to what that amount will be based on whether it's occurring on a weeknight versus weekend. So in this case, it's not the decibel that is affected by whether it's a weekday or weekend. It's the time cut off. There are some time limitations as to when you can have a certain level of sound before then it kicks in that you'll need a variance to our noise ordinance. That you'll need-- oh, got you. So a variance could ask for anything. It can. OK, got you. Thank you. OK, Madam City Attorney, you had one and then I have one. Yes, sir. Thank you. You bet. Item J, if you would please, we'll pass out a substitute ordinance. And so if you would please act on the substitute ordinance that we've handed out to you as opposed to the ordinance that's actually in your book, I would appreciate that. All right. And the one I'd like to-- I think I'd like to pull it and we can either do some explaining in the current work session or we can do it at the regular council meeting of agenda item Q, which is the lease for KDB with the rail yard. Can we talk about it in here? However you want to. We can do that now. I think I'd still like to pull it to have it just individual consideration so it'd be an individual vote. So it's whatever the council's pleasure is. We can either hear it now or-- I tell you, well, I just want to make sure we get out on time for the regular council meeting because we do have a couple of big public hearings. So do we want to take the time to do that now or do you all want to wait to hear it in open session? I've just got some questions about it. Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. If you're going to pull it anyway, we could just do it then. OK. Let's do that. OK. Yeah. Sorry, Lauren. Make Lauren stay. OK. That's all the questions for clarification. Any other? Yes, I'm sorry. Council Member. So just to be clear, the only one we pulled was Q and we are going to replace J with the handout. That was it? Yes, I believe so. Good summary. Thank you. We'll go on then to agenda item work sessions, agenda 3, 3A . Hold the discussion, give staff direction to certain legal issues raised by legal counsel for the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. And also, just want to encourage as we get-- go through our work sessions and our closed sessions that be as efficient as possible on presentations and time so we'll make sure we get our time. So yes. Work session 3A. Council Member Wasner. I'd like to recognize a member of the public in the audience, David Zoltner, who would like to come forward and speak for three minutes on this item. OK. And we did receive an informal staff report on that. I believe it's either major discretion but also we'll give courtesy to my colleagues to have him come speak for three minutes on this item. Are we OK with that? Yep. OK, good. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Zoltner, if you could state your name and address for the record, please. Yes, thank you, Mayor. My name is David Zoltner. I live at 2501 Timber Trail in Denton. Three minutes is very little time, but I did volunteer to Council Member Wasner that I did want to make a very brief statement about the confidentiality letter that you received from the Freedom Foundation and just the broader subject of public engagement and closed sessions in general . Almost four years ago in 2012 during a campaign for Place 5 on the city council, we focused on trying to stop the out-of-control growth in closed sessions and stealth decision making. This wasn't imaginary. We actually had tallied the number of closed sessions since 2008 by going over past agendas and minutes and found almost doubling a number, even after factoring out the gas meeting sessions that you had. Since that time, things have even gone from bad to worse. It's a never-ending saga of competitive utility matters, stealth land purchases, withholding details about new developments even when developers don't seem to care, and lastly, the one that is most likely to make my head explode, those disciplinary rules of conduct by the state bar of Texas. As if I'm supposed to care about the state bar when I know right now that the attorney-client privilege has become the public information number one enemy in Denton, Texas. Sadly, secrecy has become the default setting in Denton, rather than a willingness to share and be open and transparent. Exploit any exception, find any excuse you can, including involving the attorney general if necessary. But we will not share this information with the public. In too many instances, that's how the field is now striped in Denton. Over the past weekend, a member of this council tried to justify all this to me by implying some great harm could befall our city if information were made public after a closed session. I'm standing here right now to tell you or suggest that the exact opposite is probably closer to the truth. The less you share with the public, the greater the likelihood of a bad deal, wasteful spending , and bad policy outcome. And the evidence is staring you right in the face. Lame convention center deals, transmission line routing fiascos, Bonnie Bray right of way screw up, Senate Bill 12 30. The list goes on. And God only knows how far this renewable DME plan has gone in closed session without public awareness. So in closing, I say the first step is to level the playing field between the council and the citizens and to get rid of this unconstitutional and frankly hideous confidentiality ordinance on today's agenda and in the name of transparency, respect for the citizens, and better decision making long term. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. City Manager, staff presentation? Or Madam City Attorney, I'm sorry. City Manager, you can now become a lawyer. Mayor and council, we didn't prepare a staff presentation for this work session item. Your legal staff has briefed this matter to the council in closed session. And this has been posted so that the city council members can have a discussion with one another with regard to the ordinance that's been cited 2-30. So we stand ready to receive the instruction from the council and assist in any discussion. Council Member Wozni. And this is primarily for the public that is wondering, what are we talking about? Since 2006, we've had an ordinance on the books that says if a city council member talks about anything from a closed session meeting, it's a criminal offense. And there's also a $500 fine and some other sanctions that would come down from the city council. An organization in the state of Texas, Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, sent us a letter, all the members of city council, sent a letter in August holding this ordinance up and citing different instances where they felt the ordinance was in conflict with state law. So it has come before the council now to say, what do we do with the ordinance that has been put in the sunshine? And my comment is that the city got along fine without it prior to 2006. No one on this council, including city manager and city attorney, were present on this council in 2006. And in a quest for transparency and open government, I would like to promote two different choices, either repeal it and then incorporate any of the concerns that this council does have into a new ethics ordinance that is also being considered in the ethics committee at this time, which will come forward then to the whole council. So repeal it and put those concerns into the ethics ordinance that we hope gets passed. Or second choice, modify it so it's more conducive to local government transparency, that the law has some redundancy because state law already has on the books protections for certain topics that are discussed by a government body like the city council, where those-- if you disclose some of those items, it's already against the law under state law. But you have to recognize that there is a balance between what we call attorney-client privilege , the privacy of competitive bids, and also the public's right to know. So it's a delicate balance. It's a legal balance. But it's something that's before this council right now. And you've heard my two choices. And it's where I stand on it. Thank you. OK. Any other comments? Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. Well, I certainly think that we need to look at it carefully. It certainly appears that some aspects of the ordinance as it's written now are-- to use the words from the letter have too much of a chilling effect. On the other hand, I think that just looking at the ordinance and the fact that it originated from the ethics committee at the time back in 2006, that the purpose was to try to protect the interest of the city as an organization and the interest of the taxpayers. Because there's certain information that you certainly would not want disclosed that happens in a closed session that would have to do with real estate transactions. It would have to do with litigation and negotiations of that nature, where if that information were to be shared , could end up costing the taxpayers a lot of extra money. And the city could be harmed. Taxpayers could be harmed. And so it appears to me that maybe that this was an additional effort to put some additional teeth in what is already arguably mostly covered by state rules. And I guess what I'm really concerned about is whether it's this or whether it's any other proposal for new ethics rules, whether it's in an ordinance or resolution-- I don't have a heartburn one way or the other on that-- is that we don't need to restate or to add additional criminal penalties for laws that are already on the books at the state level. So I think that we need to look carefully at it. I don't know that it would be of any particular harm at this particular time to repeal it. We don't know of anything that had led up to the enactment of the ordinance that had created the problem. There doesn't seem to be anything in the near future that would put the city in jeopardy. But I certainly don't want to necessarily have an ordinance that adds additional criminal penalties when there are, in many cases, according to state rules, already state penalties or federal penalties for violations. I am kind of curious-- and I'd like to hear from the attorney on this-- if someone violated this particular rule as it is in place right now, how would that be addressed? Who would address it? Is that the district attorney? Is that district court? Is that-- who would-- does somebody file a complaint with the police department? How would that-- I mean, I just don't even know how that would work. Mr. Mayor, if I may. Sure. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this ordinance is written as a Class C misdemeanor. The jurisdiction for a Class C misdemeanor is in the municipal court. Of course, as you insinuate, these matters don't just happen. Something has to occur in order to initiate some sort of action in the municipal court. In that respect, a complaint could be filed with the prosecutor's office and asked that a complaint, that a case be initiated against an individual asserting a violation of this ordinance. So in that respect, this particular ordinance works similarly to all other ordinances on the book. Complaint has to be filed, and then a case is initiated. And so that's how that would proceed. And they would file the complaint with the police department, with the city prosecutor? It could be filed directly with the city prosecutor. A complaint could go to the police department, and the police department then would potentially look at the matter and determine how to handle it. And so either way would be a possibility. So then the prosecutor would look at it as the prosecutor would look at any other case and decide if it is prosecutable? The prosecutor would look at this case as the prosecutor looks at all cases and determine if there is probable cause to proceed with the complaint at hand. And men make an independent determination. The prosecutors are working on behalf of the state of Texas . And in that regard, the prosecutor has an independent duty and responsibility to make a determination on behalf of the state as to whether or not to proceed with the prosecution. And then if the prosecutor decided that it should go forward, it would go to the municipal court and there could be a jury or it could be a judge determined trial? Correct. It's the discretion of the individual who is the subject of the complaint. And if a complaint, a similar kind of action, happened and it was a state in violation of state ordinance, and it was-- are those all Class C misdemeanors? Would they go through the same process? Or does it depend on what level of offense it is? The jurisdiction is determined by the level of the offense. So this ordinance is written as a Class C misdemeanor. And the jurisdiction is in the municipal court. If there is, let's say, a penal code issue relating to the misuse of confidential information, then that is a Class B misdemeanor. And the jurisdiction is not in the municipal court. And so the complaint would go to the district attorney, not to the municipal prosecutor for consideration on that matter. My first reaction is just that it would be better to happen at the district court level because the district, the DA, doesn't get their paycheck from the city. And neither does the district. I mean, not that I would say that-- I think it could be awkward at times for folks if they were having to prosecute somebody within the organization where they work. I think what you're saying is mostly it would be uncomfortable for me. And you're absolutely right. And that's why, in certain instances, you will see a city attorney ask for a special prosecutor so that they can step out and let the special prosecutor look at it with complete and absolute independence. But the ordinance doesn't call for that. No, the ordinance does not call for that. But that is certainly something that can and not that infrequently is considered. Well, thanks for the information. I want us to honor the First Amendment, freedom of speech. But I also want us to honor our fiduciary responsibilities to those of the council members and of the staff to not divulge information that would harm the city. Well, on that note, I would like to advocate for Council woman Wasney's option one and repeal this ordinance that is affecting our First Amendment, but then work on the other concerns, the non-criminal issues, on our ethics committee. That was one of your options? I thought it was modified or something. That was option two. Option one was to repeal and then take whatever concerns the council has to the ethics committee, because we're working on an ethics ordinance for the city of Denton that will come to this council when the committee finishes hashing it out at that level. So that's option one. Option two was to modify this ordinance so that it was more conducive to local government transparency. Obviously, my first choice is Councilwoman Briggs's repeal and then take it to-- and put those concerns into an ethics ordinance. And currently, city council has an ethics policy that is very different than an ethics ordinance, because an ordinance is law. A policy is policy. Policy is full of good intentions. The law is the law. OK, Councilmember Rodin. I'm on the ethics committee, and I'm not sure that we've been given direction from the council to write a new ethics ordinance. I know that's of interest. But it sounds like we're going to have a full council discussion on that topic, generally speaking, as to whether or not we feel the need to do that at some point. And I think that's queued up coming up. So perhaps-- I mean, there seems to be no fire here to put out. There's no real harm at this point. So if there is an interest in folding this into that larger discussion, perhaps we keep the policy or the ordinance, I guess, in place for that to that larger ethics ordinance, ethics policy question of the council. So then there is some direction for us as a committee, going back to us, of saying, what is the councilor's pleasure? Do we want us to rewrite the whole ordinance? If so, do we want this aspect included in that, so that we kind of get a nice, neat package? In other words, I agree with you. I think looking at this comprehensively is probably the best way to go. But I think on the point of the ethics ordinance, we probably need a little bit more council direction as to whether or not we ought to be spinning our wheels in this direction or that. That's my thought. Yes. Council member-- Thank you, Mayor. All four of us reviewing this, I definitely have more of an appetite for us modifying it than just totally repealing it. I don't want anybody to ever feel muzzled here or feel like they're not allowed to say something or they're scared to say something. But I am nervous about future councils if a council member does become disgruntled for some reason . And they feel like there could almost be a strategy put in place where they could take down a project or do something outside of this room with giving away information. That's the only thing that makes me nervous about doing that. So by repealing it, if we were to take away the criminal aspect and just point towards the state law or federal law, if we're able to do that in a city ordinance, I would feel comfortable with that. So maybe that's a question for legal. In a city ordinance, can you point to other laws where you're already under that umbrella? You know, this is really a more complex question maybe than it looks like on its face, because it's going to depend on the nature of the issue at hand. There's going to be some aspects of confidential information which will be addressed by state law. There will be some aspects which will be addressed actually by federal law, but not all aspects. This ordinance, before you, would purport to address and impose penalties as it concerns all types of confidential information that you might discuss. So I guess in direct response to your question, I don't think that the state or federal law is going to be as broad as what you're seeing here. And it's not going to cover each and every type of confidential information. So there will be a fairly large area that would not be addressed by either federal or state law, if that makes sense. OK. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. So I guess in my mind, I was trying to figure out why was this letter sent to us and all that stuff. But it seems like there's more than one topic kind of wrapped up in what we're talking about. One of them is like number of closed meetings. Why are we having so many or too many? Everybody has their varying opinion on how many we should have. And then just the timing, because I agree with you, Kathleen. If you look at a snapshot in time from, I think you said 2006, 2012, if you have a massive CIP project with DME where you have to acquire a ton of real estate, there's a ton of those things. So I think the number of closed meetings is one topic. More important to me, I think, is the content of the closed meetings. What are we talking about in closed? Because if we're talking about things in closed session that we shouldn't be, then that, to me, is where this issue comes into play. And certainly there have been topics in the past where as a citizen, I felt like, man, why are they having closed meetings about that? Now being on council, and I understand the negotiations that take place with a vendor or with a property owner or with a developer, et cetera, they don't want that information out in the public because there's competitive issues for them and so on. So I guess what I would say is, as it relates to the number of meetings and the content of the things we talk about in closed, that's up to us. I feel like we all should feel empowered any time there's a closed session item to say, before we get started in the meeting, hey, guys, unless somebody can tell me otherwise, I don't think we should be talking about this topic in closed. And I think that the mayor does a fantastic job when we're in closed of waiting for Anita to start rattling her paper in terms of keeping us on topic . And if somebody-- I may have just incriminated myself. So I think it's important to break them out. Like the criminal charges, that is one thing. If there's a concern amongst the public that we're talking about topics in closed session that we shouldn't, I would hope that they would bring those to us and say, hey, I'm looking at the agenda, and you guys have a closed session on so-and-so item. And I don't think that should be enclosed. And if you agree, as a council member, before the meeting ever starts, raise your hand and say, I'm uncomfortable with this. I mean, I think we all have that right. We don't just have to, do we? We have the right, don't we? I'm saying that. I'm not sure I know. Right, well, here's the thing. On some of your closed session items, we're going to look at those closely. And we're going to post them pursuant to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act. And I'm going to give you an opinion. I'm going to look at those, and I'm going to give you an opinion on those. And you get those each and every single meeting. But as you look at some of those items, it may be that in your discretion, that doesn't mean you have to talk about those in a closed session. It means you can talk about them in a closed session. And it may be that in some circumstances, you desire not to take advantage of the rights that you might otherwise have under law. And you might determine that you would just like to talk about this in open session. And that's the prerogative of this governing body to make the call on some of those things. Some things are going to be highly problematic, some not problematic necessarily at all. But it's your call on it. OK, that's helpful. So I guess here's where I stand on what should we do now. It sounds like there's a lot of-- a lot. There's certainly concern about the criminal part of it. And I would concur, especially if somebody says something in earnest, not with any malicious intent. But in passing, they slip up and they say something that was talked about in closed, because it might have been open, because we're here for 12 hours every Tuesday. Then that's one thing. My concern with just completely repealing the whole thing right now without having thought through what potential B, C, and D effects there could be of that A decision is, you know, there's an election every year. And you get somebody on here that's-- that an example I would use is they own a business. And there's a competitive business that wants to come to town. And we talk about in closed session, because that person says they want an incentive. And let's say we say that we don't think there should be an incentive. So they go out and then use that information for a competitive advantage over that other person. Again, I don't know all the intricacies of what the state covers or not. What I don't want to happen is for us to not think through in the new ordinance or a amendment of the ordinance. I just don't feel comfortable making that decision here on the spot, having not heard or talked through what the potential ramifications could be of a complete repeal. You know, I feel like if somebody does something unethical and wrong, we can't excommunicate them from the city. There ought to be some penalty. I mean, you do take an oath when you take one of these chairs. So I think there should be something. Is it criminal? Probably not in my mind. But I'm fully in favor of an amendment to it to make it clear what specific items from a closed session should remain confidential. I'm totally good with that. I'm not in favor right now of just saying, let's just repeal it and we'll work on something else later . Because something could happen between now and when the later comes that could be harmful to a business in the city or the city as a whole. Good. You had your hand up. Move, please. I just wanted to comment in reference to what the city attorney said in terms of being very, very specific about all the different things that could be said and couldn't be said and would fall under open and closed. I just want to go on the record to say, I would rather err on the side of the public and take that chance occasionally with transparency and open government on something that's being discussed rather than err on the side of keeping that door locked and the blinds closed and telling our public, no, you can't come in here. And no, you can't know what's going on in here. So that's my challenge to this council. We have to find the balance, and I recognize that. But I just want to go on the record to say I want to err on the side of sometimes maybe we've got to take that risk. And then to make it a criminal offense, if we break that risk, that's why we've got to look at this thing. To leave it on the books as is is unacceptable. It needs to be repealed. It needs to be modified. And it has to fall one way or the other. To leave it on the books, I think, is unacceptable. Yes, council. Well, I agree with you, and I disagree with you. I agree with you that it either needs to be modified, revised, or it needs to be repealed. I agree. I don't necessarily agree that getting rid of it is erring on the side of the public and not is not. Because if someone were to-- if we were having discussions about a real estate deal, and we decided that in our negotiations that our top price was right here, and a council member goes out and shares that information, a seller who might have been willing to sell for a lesser price is now going to demand that price. And that's not in the best interest of the public. So I don't think that it's just-- I think that we can err either way in a way that either helps the public or hurts the public. And I think that we have to recognize that. That's what I think you're talking about when you talk about that balance. And that's what I'm very, very concerned about keeping, is the balance of being as open as possible, as open as reasonable, as open as the law allows, without harming the taxpayers, without harming the citizens , without harming the organization. And that's what we've been trying to do. I do not understand the statement that we have too many closed meetings. In the last few years, we've had a lot of additional closed meetings. They've increased significantly. But what constitutes too many? We're doing a whole lot more real estate transactions because of the expansion of the DME transmission system, because of Bonnie Bray expansion, because of Mayhill expansion, because of other right of ways. All of those entail agenda items on closed meeting that weren't there before, because we didn't have all those projects going simultaneously. So there are a lot more. But are any of those unnecessary? They're probably all necessary in order to protect the interest of the taxpayers. So I'll end by saying again, I agree with your point that the current ordinance needs to be revised, or it needs to be repealed. And I'm not sure which. I would need to look closer at whatever the proposed revisions were to see if those were satisfactory. And if they're not satisfactory, then I would be interested in repealing it. Council Member Bray. I'll just go on record by saying that with this current ordinance, I have felt muzzled at times and confused about what to say and what not to say since I've been elected. So clarification on all that would be welcomed in our discussion in the future. OK. I've got a couple of comments. Anybody else? Anything? I guess all of our comments are on the record. So I'll say I'm on the record all the time. We discussed some options in closed session as far as repealing and then maybe some language modification. There's no question. I have no problem with taking out the criminality of it. I think we do have an opportunity to embed it in an ordinance or some kind of ethics revision as it comes forward from the council. I think that's not going to happen overnight. So I'm sort of hesitant to totally repeal it. But you know, it's not an action item. Obviously, we can bring this back with some modification recommendations. And then we'll be able to have a vote on it. And as far as erring on the side of public disclosure, I tell you, that's really on us. That's not on the city attorney. I think the city attorney needs to follow what she believes is legally correct under the law. And if we want to have an opportunity to say, hey, we as a council don't think that we really need to have that in closed session, we can do that. I mean, that's something I think we can be accountable for. I don't know if I would want her to be guessing that. I mean, unless we just think that somehow the city attorney is not following the law, which can be subjective, I understand. So I certainly understand-- and I don't disagree with that -- that the information that we can share that won't compromise in a large way a position that we have, but also I believe it's up to each end of a council member. If they believe that strongly, bring it to us and let us decide it as a body. And then we'll all be on record on whatever we decide on that. So I guess I just-- it sounds like the consensus is-- we don't have a consensus, but we have some options that we can come back and lay on the table and then have an action item for a vote. Is that-- yes. Well, here's a proposal that we may have consensus on. As chair of the ethics committee, which is made up of three members-- council member Briggs, council member Roden, and council member Wozni-- that this goes to the ethics committee as we meet with legal. And we wrestle with it in there, because we're also going to take a serious look at the need for an ethics ordinance for this city. And quite possibly, we solve two problems with one ethics ordinance and then bring forward to this council a solution that meets the concerns from today, because I've heard seven different concerns and seven different positions, and then present to this council as we look at-- does that work for you all? I think my only comment on that-- I have no issue with this particular ordinance, with the particular concerns expressed by this ordinance, either via modification or repeal. If the ethics committee wants to look at that and bring back a recommendation of either repeal or-- Incorporate. Or modify. But as far as an overall ethics ordinance and the direction of that, it's my understanding that the council was going to talk about that first and then give direction to the ethics committee on what the consensus was on that. And that's going to take a little bit longer time, I think, than just looking at this ordinance just in and of itself. So it's just a matter of timing. I don't feel comfortable with just repealing the whole thing with nothing else sort of in place to help give us some guidance. But I think if with some modifications, we can pull out the things that are really problematic, if they're problematic as far as the criminality and this broad definition of what we can't talk about, because we saw some of that in our closed session. But I have no problem with sending it back and saying, hey, you guys, there may not even be consensus there. But that's OK. We can come and we'll still have a vote on it. So those were sort of my observations on that. It was my understanding that this ordinance in 2006 originated in the ethics committee. Is that correct? That's what our research indicates, yes. So logic states. It goes back to the ethics committee. And let us study it there. Oh, I thought that's what I just said. Yeah. OK. All right. Yes. Council Member Rhoades. Yeah, I mean, I guess it depends on what we want to do and how fast we want to do it. I mean, at the end of the day, we know, and we've seen the options as to what would be possible modifications. And they involve two things. Or there's the option of repeal. So it's a pretty short ordinance. It's pretty clear cut as to what it says. So again, depending on the time, I just don't know how much conversation we'd have beyond what's already been presented as the options of how to modify that particular ordinance, if there is, especially if there's an interest in looking long term into embedding it into a larger policy slash ordinance, whatever we decide to do with the ethics ordinance. So one way to do that is if we feel like there's a need for some interim thing, because this is such an important pressing issue that needs to be solved now, which I'm not feeling. I mean, the city was fine prior to 2006. The city's been functioning just fine since 2006. So to me, there's no urgency. There's no significant problem. I don't feel my First Amendment rights are being violated by anyone at this point. Others may feel differently. So to me, if the question is simply, should we send this particular ordinance back to the Ethics Committee, my thought is that it's so simple as to what to be changed. Let's just put it onto a future agenda to have that council vote on that. And maybe-- Councilman Walsh, maybe I need some clarification on what you had suggested. Because it sounded like, to me-- and I could be wrong-- that you'd suggested let's bring this ordinance back to the Ethics Committee and look at it, but also look at it in regards to a larger sort of policy discussion of ethics in general, a future potential-- or are you saying bring this specific ordinance back to the Ethics Committee to discuss specifically about what we're talking about here regarding this ordinance and then bring forth a recommendation? I think that's what committees are for. It's what this Ethics Committee is there for to really look at this. What I don't want to see happen is that we just hand this back to legal and say, here, you make your changes. I want the Ethics Committee to really look at what these changes are. Specific to this ordinance? Yes. OK. All right. From a timing perspective, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I mean, so what's the consensus of the rest of the council? I'm fine with that. I mean, ultimately, we vote on it, right? Yes. So whatever. Yeah. And just that the Ethics Committee understands it, the addressing is of this particular article. Ordinance, do you recommend revisions, or do you recommend repeal and just give a report back? Sure. Is that clear direction for city staff, legal team, and Mr. City Manager? Fantastic. We'll expect that back at the next council meeting. So you guys get ready to have a-- Along with that lease. Yeah, that's right. OK, thank you. Good discussion. We'll go on to agenda item 3B, receive a report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding potential changes to chapter 23, article-- let's see, Roman numerals. Is it the thighs before that? So that's Article 6. Is that correct? I'm sorry. Of the code of ordinance as it relates to change in police initiated towing. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to ask Lieutenant David Mays of the Police Department if he would present this item. Thank you, David. Thank you for having me here today. I'm going to put my thumb drive in here, so give me just a second. And I emailed my presentation. It looks like it's messed up, so hopefully it'll be right in the thumb drive version. And I'll try not to take too much of your time. Do I need to break? Let's see. I added a slide today on a short notice. So my editing skills may not be up to par. We'll see. Cross your fingers. All right. So it's going to be Article 5. Article 4 governs police initiated towing. It should be Article 5. Article 5 will be the non-consent towing. OK. All right. So non-consent towing, to provide some background, because this came to council in March. Initially, this came to council because citizen Pat Smith was representing Denton for fair towing. And the concern that he raised was that the state law allows the towing companies to charge up to, at that time, it became $255 just for the hookup of a vehicle to a tow truck, and then not the incidental cost of impounding a vehicle, storage, and other things that the state allows. What his concern was was that without local regulation, that $255 fee could be exercised by any company to any citizen. To give you some perspective, there were, I believe, 181 non-consent tows the week before the school UNT, TWU started up. And I think it was 81 the weekend of. So there's a lot of vehicles are towed in the city of Dent on on non-consent. Now, to the credit of the towing companies, they don't all charge the maximum. They don't charge $255. They pick the amount that they're going to charge up to that amount. For instance, you have companies like On the Road Again that charge $175. You have Proto charges $250, I believe. And this is from consulting with one of their property owners. Texas Impound Services charges $218. So it's dependent on which one wants to do it and what they want to charge. So that's the rub, I guess, basically, the non-consent is not governed by the city ordinance. Now, there is a piece in this Article IV that I need to get to that I was hoping that I wouldn't miss out on. When towing companies tow for the city of Denton Police Department on police-initiated record service, they're on a tow list. It costs $150 to be on there. We allow them to charge $100 for that tow. Now, consistent with what comes up later on, I would like to say that the fee ordinance will hopefully be amended so that it's fair and equitable between what we allow them to charge and then what they charge on their own. Because the fee that we get to later on today, I think, is a fair rate based on what the research that we did. I'm sorry, sir. So let me see if I understand what you just said. Yes, sir. There are a group of towing companies in town that pay the city $100 to get on a list so that they can tow for the police department. Yes, sir. There's a towing record rotation list. And we only paid them $100 per tow? That rate was set when Article 4 was initially written. And I don't know that it's been updated. That's the thing that I'm getting at, is that later on in this article or in this ordinance, Article 5, we're expanding the amount that-- we're lowering the amount that the towing companies can use across the board. But I wanted to point that out, that the Article 4 amount needs to probably be raised just so that it's out there. And it may be something I have to bring up later on in another session. But I wanted to make sure that was broached so that didn't -- the towing companies didn't feel like we were not looking at it from their perspective as well. But they're still wanting to be on the list? Yes, sir. To tow for $100? That's the $100 for the initial-- that's the police department fee for pulling from an accident scene. Yes, sir. So do they charge the owner? There's other fees. Yes, sir. There's other fees that they're allowed to charge, by TDLR regulations. And I'll get into some of that. But probably not any great dips. I'm sorry to interrupt. No, sir. No, sir. This is your meeting. It's only my second time to stand up here. I'm going to get the wrong things. OK. So all right. So non-consent towing and vehicle storage facilities, they're regulated by the state law under Texas Occupation Code Title 14, 2303 and 2308. So basically, that's where TDLR gets Texas Department of License Regulation gets its ability to be able to regulate what these towing companies can do and what the VSFs can do. Under 2308, there's a provision that says that municipalities can regulate the fees, the maximum fee that can be charged for towing within their city. So that's what brings us to this. After Mr. Smith did his presentation back in March, there was a work session item-- I'll come back to that. There was a work session item that asked the staff to form a task force. And there were some items that were on that. Some recommendations were registration and permitting of tow trucks, insurance and equipment requirements, background checks for drivers, maximum fee rates, a fee study procedure to be set up, the use of VSFs within the city limits, signage requirements for property, property owner representatives available for all tows, a towing bill of rights, and that ad hoc task force. I can say that a lot of those items ended up in the final ordinance. Some didn't. And it was because of the give and take that we did during those meetings. To go over the task force, we had these individuals. Pat Smith's here with us today. And I want to thank him for-- he donated a lot of hours to the city to be able to give that perspective of the citizen view. But he was there for Denton for Fair Towing. We had representatives from towing companies here, and also business owners who contract with towing companies to provide them with the service of getting cars out of their parking lot so their tenants or their customers can come and stop. Anyways, we met between July 7 and September 10. That's all the divisions in the article. And I won't try to go through all of them, but I'll hit them in brief so that I can go over some of that stuff. Unless-- Is this the new-- This is-- --that you're proposing? This is Article 5, yes, sir. OK. All right. Yes, sir, I won't go over the-- No, no, Council Member Hawkins. Yes, sir. Maybe if this isn't the right place to ask, then-- I guess it's in regard to the old ordinance. So there's 23-154, and it was G. Do you want me to wait later, or-- I guess I'm trying to understand. It says for payment of any fee under-- it goes to the end there. However, payment by credit or debit card may be refused if the named card holder is not present. And I was wondering if that's kind of-- if there's an issue there, let's say somebody-- they're in the hospital, or they're in jail, or something like that, and somebody's trying to get their car out. Am I just getting kind of hung up on a little thing that never becomes an issue, or-- I think they were trying to avoid someone using-- misusing another person's credit card. That's just one of those things we're trying to prevent. So it just says maybe refused. Yeah, that would be up to the towing company that's receiving payment. If they have a concern about it, they can deny the transaction. Because there's another piece in here that says when transaction has been rendered, or the transaction has been completed, they have to release the vehicle. So you'd think you wouldn't have to say that, but-- No, it makes sense. Thank you. Sometimes you do. So I'll hit some of the highlights in this, and if there's a question. So the authorities and duties falls to the police department. Compliance is required to be licensed and permitted by the city of Denton. There's an exclusion for governmental entities, because that's covered under Article 4. An exemption that appears in there is that there's a-- this doesn't cover repossessions. And the reason for that is because some of the things that we're putting back on here, the photography and the need to be completely hooked up and the type of record that can be utilized wouldn't be appropriate or wouldn't be useful for those types of situations, because they use a different type of record a lot of times. As far as fees go, those are established by council. It would be updated yearly. The fees that we have that way would be consistent, and it would always be fair and equitable to both parties. Prohibited charges would be excessive fees. Fees for services not performed and things that aren't in the ordinance. And there wouldn't be an allowable-- it wouldn't be allowable to use non-consent towing on parking lots that aren't marked for parking. So in other words, it's just some lot. If it's a lot, in those types of instances, you can contact the police department. We can go out and put an impound sticker on it, and we'll take care of it from a police initiated standpoint. Photography requirement-- this is something that Councilman Johnson pointed out in the first session, was that in this day and age, you should have a photograph of the vehicle just to prove up the charge. It makes it easier for the JP court when they do the towing hearing. Within 14 days, you can file for a towing hearing. It's pretty cut and dry, whether it was or it wasn't, if you have a photograph. So that makes it easier. The license requirement-- a city issued license would be for the drivers. It's $20 for two years. They can operate while license is pending, as long as they have been issued a license by another municipality or they're working with a licensed operator. The application process is fairly straightforward. It lasts for two years, like I said, and then you'd have to apply for a new license and refill out the information. It allows us the opportunity to do that background check, and it's the same background check that we do for Article IV for police initiated. So it's nothing outside the pale. If there's revocation or denial, it lasts for six months before you can reapply for the license . The tow trucks have to be registered. They get a sticker similar to this that would be posted inside the truck. That way, in the middle of the night, if the truck's pulling a vehicle, a police officer can see that, yeah, that's a registered tow truck. It might cut down on some of the idea of someone coming in here from a different city and pulling cars or someone taking a car without the right-- they've got to have the sticker. Let me see. As far as the application for registration, they basically have to meet the TDLR regs. And one of the reasons why we duplicated some of the stuff that's already being enforced by TDLR is because one of the things that came up at the meeting is TDLR is responsible for regulating a lot of industries in the state of Texas. And as far as when they get a complaint that something's not in compliance, their ability to go back and investigate that complaint is hampered by the fact that they have so much to do. If we duplicate a lot of the regulations that they have in force from a city standpoint, we can actually get a correction on the problem initially instead of waiting until the state agency has time to send somebody out to work on it. The registration for the vehicles would last one year. In order to do the registration, there would be-- yeah, it would last for one year. And when we do the registration process on the vehicles, it would be a safety inspection. We do it for the police initiated. In this case, we would do it for each vehicle that's going to be used. You couldn't utilize a vehicle for non-consent towing if it hadn't been inspected. And that's just looking for cables. We were going to use the commercial motor vehicle officers that do the commercial enforcement just because they have extra training. Now, these don't fall within the guidelines of what they're trained to do for the 18-wheelers and whatnot, but they're going to understand better what to look for and what could be a safety hazard for the citizens of Denton. As far as equipment and markings, once again, it comes back to the state regulations that you'd have to have the state required markings and equipment. And any officer can stop and verify that everything is a safe operational standard of the vehicle. Same thing with the notification. It's one hour notified just like it has always been. I think that's a TVLR standard. They have to let us know that they took the car. It cuts down the number of stolen vehicle reports that we take as an agency because someone doesn't report the car in time. And they provide who took it, when, whatnot. The towing restricted piece, if a tow truck is going to hook into a vehicle to take it out, if it's not completely ready for transport, by the TVLR reg s, they're required to release the vehicle to the citizen without any kind of charge. If it's ready to go, ready for transport, they can charge a 50% drop fee. Now, it's 50% of the 255 that the state allows. And that's what we did. We took a 50% of what the city rate would be. So basically, the person can get their car back without having to pay for the impound, the storage, all the other things that could come along with it if it makes it to the yard. We also made a provision in there where the vehicle would have to be released. If it's released, it needs to be removed within 10 minutes. And the reason for that was that if it's-- I've got to release it, and the guy can come out and say, leave my car alone. It was one of the things where the tow truck operators were like, OK, but you've got to make it where we can do our job and not have to keep coming back to these deals. So if they've already informed the people or they've already paid the drop fee, the vehicle's not released and they're hooking into the vehicle, the drop fee applies for the second time of them trying to hook it up. So you've got some time to move it, but it looks at the property owner's rights of being able to enter their parking lot in a timely manner . You might have explained it. I was looking at the numbers in the backup. I don't understand the difference between a light duty tow fee and a light duty tow drop fee. I apologize. Let me run back here just a second to the-- sorry. Light duty vehicles, a vehicle is under 10,000 pounds. OK. OK, I'm sorry. It's not so much the light duty, but what's the difference between a tow fee and a tow drop fee? The tow drop fee is basically if the vehicle is ready for transport, it's being completely hooked up by the towing company to the back of their wrecker. They've got the stop lights and everything. It's ready to go. The person says, I want my vehicle back. The drop fee would be for them to unhook the wrecker. They would have to pay 50% of what the value of the tow would be if they had taken the vehicle across town and taken it to their VSF. OK, so the tow fee is one fee if they hook it up and they haul it off. Yes, sir. And the drop fee is if somebody gets out there in time and they say, don't do this, well, they're going to be charged for having had it hooked up and then dropped it off. And they have to pay it right then. Yes, sir. You need to pay it right then. And then what if their complaint is, so you're hooking me up and you're towing me off, and I don't want to pay that fee because I didn't break any rules? Well, that's where the photograph would come in. That would be if they're already hooked up to the vehicle and it's completely hooked up, the requirement is that they can tow the vehicle because they've completed the service. If they're not completely hooked up, they have to release the vehicle without any charge. So it's not ready for transport at that point. If they've got a complaint about the tow process, they can file a complaint with the JP court. Any JP in the county can hear the complaint. And that's where that photographic evidence will come back in. OK, thank you. So we talked about the towing restricted service rates. Once again, set by council, single fee for non-consent, the towing fee schedule. What we did was we took a note from something that Houston's done. They've taken a CPI adjustment of what the Morningside study said that the average cost of towing in Texas was. And what it was was the Morningside did this study in 2010 and then updated again in 2012. And that information was provided to our finance department. And so they were able to set the fees. I apologize that I kind of have to intermingle these two different ordinance discussions together, but it's the only way I can do it. But that's where that would be. And so that CPI adjustment I'm talking about would be based on that Morningside report that came out in 2012. And I'll get more into the fees in a little bit, but I wanted to clarify that. Should the towing companies want to have a towing fee study that's specific to Denton, there's a nonrefundable fee of $5,000 to pay for the services. And that would be something that the finance department would have to come up with how to structure that study and how to determine what's a fair rate. According to TDLR rigs and the representative I spoke to, there's not a lot of parameters on how that study has to be done. So it would be basically up to the finance department to determine what that would fit. And they would probably base it on what other cities do. Why recreate the wheel route? You're required to have a vehicle storage facility. And one of the pieces about that is it's licensed by the state of Texas. The other piece is that it would be located within the city of Denton or within the ETJ. And the reason for that is because otherwise a car could be pulled to Lewisville. It could be taken to Dallas or anything else. And it's probably not cost effective if you're going to make several trips back and forth. But if you're only picking up a vehicle every now and then because it's parked someplace, taking it to a different city, it inconveniences the citizen. So then we talked about the release of the vehicle from the storage. If they receive payment, if there's a problem with the payment, then the cost of the vehicle freezes for 12 hours if they can't receive payment because their credit card machine's down or something like that. So it's fair to the citizen. And then we get into denial, suspension revocations of licenses. That has to do with people that violate. If there's a safety violation, you can remove the permit from the vehicle. You can also take away the license if a person has a conviction or they violate some of the tenets of having a license. And there's a hearing and appeal process. Is there any questions on any of that? I know it's dry and it's a lot to go through. Yeah. I know. Yeah. [LAUGHTER] I don't dance, so yeah. OK. Anyways, allowable fees. Hey, it actually came through, right? This is something that I was asked to do. If you look at this, it says Article V, TDLR, and Dallas. The light duty, like I said, is the 10,000 pound vehicle. Under Article V, with that CPI adjustment-- and I hope it's not too small to read-- it's $145. With the TDLR regs, the maximum fee is $255. The city of Dallas-- I looked up their ordinance this morning. They allow on $121. Now, I didn't see anything about a drop fee, so I didn't include it in here. I don't know if Dallas allows that or not. Medium duty tow is a vehicle's 10,000 to 25,000 pounds. It's going to be some of your larger vehicles. And then heavy duties, they're really like if someone had to pull an 18-wheeler, non-consent. So the Article V is what you're-- Yes, sir. That's what-- --is our proposal. Yes, sir. That's our proposal. Yes, sir. So our proposal is more than Dallas, but less than TDLR. Except when you get down into heavy duty tow, it's actually higher. But the thing about TDLR is with the heavy duty tow, they can have a maximum fee of $900. And I don't know how they get to that. But considering we're within range on that, and that's based on the Morningside study, I don't feel any problems with that. Plus, there's probably not a lot of times that a non-consent tow involves a vehicle that's over 25,000 pounds. Daily storage fees based on the length of the vehicle. Article V is set up with the $20, and that's only because the city of Denton Police Department has charged $20 for storage on all of our stuff for years and to change it for everybody. And we're trying to be consistent with everyone else. $35 on vehicles that are over 25 feet. I don't think we've ever utilized that as a city, but that's fair and consistent with what TDLR allows. $50 for the certified mail. Based on that, that's because the tow companies have to actually submit two certified letters before they can auction a vehicle. And so that covers their cost for the certified letters. And there's a provision in TDLR that they can actually charge more if the publication to the local newspaper or whatever would cost more. They can raise that, but they have to justify that. And the impoundment fee is $20. So that's consistent with what we've done as a city. Real quick. Yes, sir? Is this part of agenda item C? It is, and I apologize. Let me just read it right quick, the caption, just so that we make sure that we get it. Yes, sir, I'm sorry. No, no, you're good. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, we are discussing now, and we'll need to discuss agenda item 3C, which is Receive Report and Hold Discussion, give staff direction regarding creation for ordinance governing permissible maximum fees associated with non-consent towing and the regulatory fees to tow companies by the city. So yeah, I apologize. It's just I couldn't think of a way to separate those. It still makes sense. Yes, ma'am? Well, I think it's really interesting that Dallas does not charge the drop fee. I don't know that they do or they don't. I didn't find it in their ordinance. Which means they don't. So I'm looking at $72. And if you break that out into a per hour fee, how long does it take to-- I've watched a tow truck hook a car up quickly. So I guess my question is, first of all, I'm happy to see the tow fee dropped significantly, because I always consider 255 to be just off the charts and not healthy for our city. We're a college town, for heaven's sakes. And that happens. I also have a concern, though, with that light duty tow drop fee and how you came up with the $72. Did we have the light duty tow drop fee previously? What was it? And how did we come up with the 72? No, ma'am, we didn't have a light duty drop fee. What we didn't have prior to-- and I'm hoping this is passed by January-- we had nothing regulating this. So all those TDLR fees, because we didn't have anything, people were being charged $127.50 if they got the drop fee in. The thing about the drop fee, and it's interesting, you've got a person that hooks into the car and is completely ready for transport. TDLR says that they have the right to charge half the fee. So that's based on the TDLR reg. So that's how you came up with the 72? Yes, yes, sir. They can charge up to, I think, half the fee. And so that's the reason why we said it at that rate. And I believe that's on TDLR's website. I have to clarify that. But I don't think that as a city that they have to-- that a city actually has to write that in municipal ordinance. We're just doing that to clarify so there's no mistake. Well, and I guess that's a good question, Councilmember Woz ni, is just because it's not-- and this may be a question for legal-- because it's not showing up in Dallas's ordinance, that means it defaults to state law. So they're charging, and they can charge up to what the state law is. So it's not that they don't have it. They're just charging it. OK, that's good. Yes. Go ahead. So to clarify, they can charge up to half the fee. Yes, ma'am. That's my understanding. Which means if we wanted to make it less than half the fee, we have the authority to do that, yes or no? I would have to get back with you if that's based on what the record service-- because these are based on maximum fees. And so what we would be setting-- what we would be setting is we would be setting that any tow company in the city of Denton could charge $145 for the tow . Now, to explain that, that's a significant deviation from what they currently charge. Correct. The thing about that is that if we set that $145, then I believe that if TDLR says that they can charge half the rate, I would think that you would basically be hemmed into the idea of the $72. And the reason why it's not $72.50-- when we brought this before, the towing task force, that was one of the things the towing company asked us to do, is drop all the percent. Anything that's not a whole dollar, we don't want to see it on there, because it just frustrates people, makes them angry. But that's my question. Is a black and white state law half the fee, or do we have flexibility to lower that drop fee? I would have to look at 2308. I know that when you look at the TDLR website, it says that a towing company may charge 50% of the fee. So my belief is that they would be allowed to charge $72. We're setting the fee. So I'd like clarification on that fact. I'm sorry. What you're saying is that if we lowered the $145-- No. Do we have the legal authority to lower the $72? I don't believe we do. That was my question. I don't-- under my understanding, I don't believe we do. I mean, I could be wrong. But I looked at TDLR, and I think that theirs is based on the law. And reading their rights of the toad, basically they have a consumer website that explains everything. And it says on there that they can charge up to 50%. Madam City Attorney. I'm going to have to look at it. And I can put something in status on this Friday and work with the police department on it. Yeah, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. And let me make sure I clarify on these numbers under Article 5, these fees, you're saying this was what came forward from the task force that was comprised of the group that Pat had put together and a couple of the tow truck owners. This has got towing representation, yes, sir. OK. Everyone in the task force agrees with this stuff. Yeah. OK. OK, all right. OK. Fair enough. All right, forward. And like I say, I guess I have to stop and say that this-- I basically moderated the meetings. I put the information in front of the task force. And they came up with the consensus view. And they were allowed to challenge it. And to quote something that Mr. Smith said in one of the meetings, he wasn't, as Denton for fair towing, he wasn't looking for us to have a $70 fee or a fee that wouldn't make it where a business owner could ever get their lot cleared. He was just looking for it to be more fair than $255. So that's what brought this to council in the first place. Great. Let me see if I have anything else I don't believe. I went back over the deals in case there was a question. There is a piece in here about the towing bill of rights. One of the things that we wanted to require was that there would be an ability. And I don't know if my heart link's going to work. That's OK. I've got the document right here. So we created this towing bill of rights. And I took it from Austin. Austin had something similar. I added the hyperlinks or the QR codes. So basically, this is Denton County specific. It's made to be posted at the pay window. So whenever a person goes there to get their car, they can look at all their rights or post it right there in front of them. They can hyperlink or they can-- sorry, QR code while they're waiting for the transaction to be completed. But it explains what they can do, all their rights. And my hope is that on the police department website, we can have in English and in Spanish someone explaining what their rights are and explaining what the fees are and then have the backdrop instead of a person talking, have a backdrop, have that be the local or the most recent fee schedule. So the person's able to look at that while they're standing there instead of putting it on this document, which had to be reprinted each time you did it. And I talked to one of the representation I had on the committee from the apartment complex management. And her attitude was that she loved to post this at her apartment complex because it reduces the amount of questions she's going to get about it. And my hope was that once this goes forward, we can go to the apartment manager's meeting and explain to them our position on this. And we want the tenants to understand this is where you're at. And that way they can know and it can be posted where the mail is or something like that. But it's not part of the-- we didn't require a posting at the apartment complexes. Question. Go ahead. I'm glad to see that this is being done. I'm holding in my hand a towing receipt that my neighbor came over a few weeks ago and said, this is ridiculous. But anyway, so downtown or over by the university, there's a lot. And if it says, don't park here towing, is there a certain company that is responsible for a lot? Or can any tow truck just sit and watch and see? Because this is an elderly neighbor who parked in a handicapped spot. And then he came out. It was like five minutes. He went inside and came back out, but wasn't in the designated spot for the parking. And he said, OK, you give me 120 cash right now. I'll let your car down. So he was like-- he had to go to an ATM and get the cash. He said, if not, it's going to be like $500 or something like that. So anyway, so I just-- I wasn't sure how it worked, if businesses have certain contracts with special towing companies or if anybody can just hook up a car and take it. As far as the way TLR requires that the signage be posted at the entrances of the parking lot, and basically it has to have the information. TLRs get very specific on their signage. So I didn't duplicate that in our ordinance. But basically the signage requirements-- and it has to be posted which company services this lot. And this is the phone number to reach them so that you can go pick your car up from their vehicle storage facility. So it has to be posted. If it's not posted, then that's a problem. So make sure and check for that. I'm pretty sure it's posted, because I mean, it's in their interest to post it, because they could have a violation with TLR that they're not posting their signs. And that's something that could get them in trouble there. And that's an administrative type. They're an administrative agency. They can do administrative fines and things like that. So the company that has the car would match the sign? It should. They take it to their vehicle storage facility. But it should have a phone number there for like its-- ProToe Automotive or On the Road Again, one of the companies that does a lot. And On the Road Again does a lot of towing, ProToe not as much. And it's just the difference in their fee schedules. Well, the $72 would be much better than like say the $120. I mean, it's still high, but so that was good to see. It goes back to the idea that people deserve to be paid for what they do for a living. And I don't think anybody's trying to take that away from you. You pay for a plumber, even if he's at your house for 15 minutes to unclog the drain, you still pay the hourly rate and the trip charge. What they're trying to say is that they don't want someone to be charged for the drop fee if all the guys done is basically he's gone out and touched the handle on the truck to lower down the boom. So that's what they're trying to get at is people deserve to be paid because this is a business and they're in business to make a profit. But they also need to look at the rights of the consumer who didn't choose this service to provide them the opportunity to move their car. I think it's fair. It's fair. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. I'm looking in the backup and I cannot find that bill of rights. It's not in there. I apologize that I didn't include it. I can email it to the council. Either that or send it in the Friday packet with the informal statement. It didn't make it onto there. We wanted to get the ordinance on there. And that piece, I was still trying to flesh it out there towards the end, so it didn't make it into the packet. So that's my understanding. And so we have one ordinance that covers-- you're proposing one ordinance that covers both non-consent done by the city and non-consent done by private? No, sir. Right here at the start, this includes governmental agencies. And the reason for that is because Article 4, the police initiated tow, already exists. The only thing that I've mentioned making a change to on that was bringing that up from $100 to $145 so that we were consistent. And we weren't telling people, you're going to work for us for less than you work for yourself. Right. OK. Yes, Council Member Rudden. Well, I certainly appreciate the time put into this and the Towing Task Force members. They deserve all the credit. Well, and I appreciate you made a statement earlier. You said, not all of these things on this wish list kind of made it into this because there's some back and forth going on, which is kind of the spirit of democracy. And so it's nice to see that played out, that this wasn't an all or nothing game for either side, but people were willing to come to some reasonable position . My question relates to-- this is something I brought up at the outset of when we started talking about this a few months ago. And that is, if you think about the predatory aspect of this business that concerns people, it's this real non-human contact. You see an agreement is made between a towing company and a property owner, and that's the end of that human contact. There's circling of tow trucks looking for people to do the wrong thing. As soon as they're doing it, they pounce on it. And there's nothing to mitigate that. And I'll give you an example on the other side. I live by T.W.U. and we have students parking all the time inappropriately. But every time I call the police when someone's blocking my driver, which happens a few times a year, the police always come out and they look at the situation, and they always ask me the question, do you want this person to get towed? And I have to make a decision as a human at that point saying, well, my wife's got to come in and out with the kids, and she's not going to be able to do that. There's no other place to park here. Yeah, and other times I've actually said, that's going to be a bad day for that kid. They're going to get out of there. It's raining as much as I want justice to be done in this scenario. I made the human decision to say, you know what? Give them a ticket, but let the car stay here, because that's going to be a bad day for that freshman coming out. So there could be that human case by case on making a decision based on the facts of the ground. Now, I understand that's difficult when it comes to a property owner managing their property at 2 in the morning trying to make sure. But was there any discussion along those lines to try and insert back that human decision making to keep this from being a one-time contract, and then it's fair game? Well, and there was. And I'll point you to a couple of the people that were on the committee. You have Curtis Loveless. He's an attorney in town. And Adam Whitten, they work out of the same office. They've had a problem with their parking lot being full downtown that they can't get people to come see them that are their clients. Same thing with Renee Hines. She's the property manager for Providence Place Apartments, Providence Village. She's actually a part manager of basically three different complexes, a huge amount of units near Walmart. The thing about it is that-- I broached that subject. I don't know that having the representative of management there to observe and decree that it's OK to tow this car was viable just from the standpoint of the hours that it would require of that individual or staff hours. I mean, honestly, the towing bill of rights putting something like that up on the property, as far as-- I broached that with Hines about would her management company be willing to put up signage to explain that, because that was something that my ACM had looked at, wanting to make sure that we got that word out. And she said, we just wouldn't have the towing. She said, they're not going to go for that expenditure. She said, they're-- and that was-- what I saw was a lot of pushback from apartment communities and apartment complexes, whereas I actually need their buy-in on this to make sure that their residents know. And Hines pointed out that she'd be willing to put that towing bill of rights in each one of the new tenant packages so that people would know. And I think from the standpoint of requiring someone to stand there and decree that it's OK to take that car, especially when a lot of these cars are taken in the wee hours of the morning when no one wants to be up, it was just-- it fell on-- it didn't go over real well whenever I approached it. I broached it. I tried. But like you said, there was a give and take. And so I think the give and take of that was that much like the movement of the rate on the Article 4, it was trying to be consistent and trying to be fair to both sides of this issue. If-- yeah. It's OK. Sure. Come on up. Yeah, just so we can get you on the record for the television. Yeah. Let me just make three quick comments. First, I want to commend Lieutenant Mase. He's done an awesome job. Good government has been done here. And you should be proud of your police department. And I'm proud of the task force, the way we work together. There was a lot of negotiations. We talked about this issue at length. And I understand the property's owner's perspective. I mean, Curtis Loveless, he is the most abused parking lot in downtown. Why? Because he's right off the square. Everyone wants to park there. And he can't get his own clients in to see him. So we compromise that. So my three points are one, other than committing the task force and the lieutenant. Second, there's got to be a public education process. That follows on this. And I think Denton for Fairtelling can help do that. But to clearly help people understand what the fees mean and what the fees don't mean. For example, $145, that's it. There's no additional for credit card processing or for putting on dollies or for all these other things that I talked about initially. That's $145, even, no more. And everyone agreed around the table to that. So there's an education component. The second and the third point is-- and I don't know if you're going to get to this about VSFs. You're going to talk about VSFs at all? So one of the biggest challenges for people in a single-- how many cars do you guess get lost by owners out of vehicle towing, take a guess? So a tar gets towed, and the people ultimately can't recover their vehicle. Out of 10 cars, how many do people not get their car back? Three. Two. So 20% of all cars that are towed, the owner never gets their car back. Because they can't afford to pay the VSF fee or the impound fee or get to South Dallas, where often many of these vehicles end up. So a big key point in the ordinance was the VSF has to be within the ETJ. The challenge is that vehicle tow companies have tried to get VSFs approved and have had zero success. So as we're passing an ordinance-- am I putting my governmental affairs hat on here? Is the ordinance enforceable as it is written? Most of it is, but the VSF part is going to be very problematic. And so as we look-- I would encourage the council to consider that as asking staff to look at, or I'd come back with some recommendations about where we are going to cite a VSF so that it can be enforced as written. Because right now, some of these companies have to take it to Beltline or has to take it to South Dallas, because that's the only place where they have access to a VSF. And the VSFs are highly regulated beyond probably what's reasonable. But because it's state law, we can't amend that. Does that make sense? Yes. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem, you had a question? Yeah. And I don't know if this is for Pat or who, but I guess it would be handy for me also when you send the Bill of Rights to send what that original wish list was. OK. And I was just thinking about Councilman Rodin's suggestion about people authorizing it. And you used the term the wee hours of the morning. And I got thinking at a certain age, that has a whole new terminology for me. I can do that. The only thing that didn't end up making it into the ordinance would be that piece that you're talking about about the management representing. I mean, because the rest of it-- the fee study procedures was one of those things that we just used the state's guidelines, unless there's someone that posts the $5,000. But of all those things that initially came in, the July 23rd informal staff report, that's the only thing was-- because the science requirements are covered by the state, and it would just be that piece about having someone stand there and say yes or no. Question. Go ahead. I have a question. Yes, ma'am. So I have been lucky not to have either of these situations occur. But where does the police take a car when you guys tow it? Like if someone gets arrested or you take someone in and you have their car towed, where does that car-- does it stay in Denton? It does. At one time, we had the-- it's the rotation list records. We at one time had our own private wrecking service, basically I say service. They towed to our lot. As time wore on and the city grew, our lot needed to be expanded to the point where there was no way to get evidentiary vehicles in there . So what we did was we privatized it. And so basically, they tow it to one of the wrecker services for the police department. And they have a 30 minute response time, that type of stuff . So they're close by, but like anchors, towing, and things like that. OK, any other questions on this? Well, I really do appreciate this. And I appreciate, Pat, thank you for your work on this and the task force. And I've talked with one of the tow operators. And they felt that the process was reasonable and fair. And they really appreciated their ability to provide some input. So I really do think that, as Pat said, that this was government in action in a very positive way. So and this will be an action item that comes back. And then if there's any other questions or amendments or changes to it, then we'll have an opportunity to take a look at it at that time. Any other questions on this agenda item? It was either B or C, because this was sort of a combined agenda item. OK, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Pat. Appreciate that. OK, you want to sort of explain what you're trying to explain to me before? Let me make a couple of comments. We have a couple of items left, one of which is Vance Kimmler to present a discussion on solid waste recycling in the department. But we also have a consent agenda item tonight on the Monsignor King agreement, which we now have completed our discussions on. We have a document for you to consider adopting tonight. And I'd like to have some time, either in this work session or in the meeting tonight, to explain the differences between this agreement and the one that was in your packet. I think John could do that in a relatively short time. You had a copy of a draft of the agreement in your packet, but you need to know what the difference is if there's an intention to try to get this adopted tonight. And we're trying to get that done in order to accommodate Monsignor King getting contractors to work as soon as possible. So I'd prefer not to put it off until next week if we could give that explanation to you. So we could take some time to do that now and then get to Vance's presentation if we have time following the other items. Or we could do the Monsignor King presentation out in the council chambers. But I think it'd be more productive to do it in here if you can accommodate that. Council, it's a pleasure on that. Yeah, because I want to make sure that-- That's an action item, correct? Yes. And is this a time-- No, it is not. Vance's presentation is very important. It's a project we've been working on for a long time. But there is no action item associated tonight. No, I meant on the lease. So there's an action item there on the lease. On the lease, we do have a consent agenda item on your agenda tonight. Is there a-- But the agreement is different than the one that was in your packet. Is there a timing? I guess my question is I'm trying to really be cognizant of our time. And so Vance, is that project a time sensitive project? If we don't hear it today, we hear it the next time. No, we could put it off until next week if we needed to, or some other time if we need to. Is that OK with council? Sorry about that, Vance. Councilmember Johnson, you had a question. [INAUDIBLE] Yeah, just clarification on the-- so we got a draft agreement. And I thought what the consent agenda item was for was to give direction to move forward to negotiate a lease. What we've been trying to do is get-- we've been negotiating a lease. We have a-- we've had a draft that we gave you so that you'd have essentially the elements that we were talking to them about. Our intent was to try to get an agreement that you all could be comfortable with. Mr. Metzler has now signed that agreement and is comfortable with the changes that we've made since I sent that draft to you. And if council is comfortable with those, we could act on it tonight. OK, yeah, so I-- yeah, I'm good. OK, so do we want to-- do we want to-- how do we do that? [INAUDIBLE] We-- yeah. [INAUDIBLE] Right. Right. Oh, item two. Just clarification of item two. Do we want to do that now, or do we want to finish these work session items first? I don't-- my recommendation would be that we do this now to make sure we get it done. And if you have questions, we'll know whether to postpone it until next week or-- I read Vance's presentation already. It was very good, very detailed. I can probably answer any of y'all's questions about it. Great. All right, so then we need to revisit agenda item two, which is request for clarification of agenda item. It was on the agenda for October 20, 2015. So I would like to get some clarification on agenda item S, which is apparently some new information on lease terms for the lease as the subject of that agenda item. Thank you, Baron. I'm going to ask John Cabrales, our assistant city manager, to essentially talk about the highlights of the changes and the differences between this agreement that he's handing out to you and the one that was in your packet earlier today. Is everybody OK? Do we need to take a five minute break? Jennifer says we need to take a five minute break. Let's take a five minute break. That's fine. Yep. [AUDIO OUT] [AUDIO OUT] [AUDIO OUT] [AUDIO OUT] [AUDIO OUT] [AUDIO OUT] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] >> All right, welcome back. We are reconvening for our work session. We flipped back to Agenda Item 2S, I believe it was, clarification for Agenda Items on the lease that was the original draft in our packet and now some proposed changes. >> Correct. And again, I introduce to you Mr. John Cabrales , Assistant City Manager, who is going to briefly outline the differences between the agreement that we've just handed to you that's on your agenda for consideration tonight and the one that was originally in your packet. So John, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. City Manager, Mayor, Council. The lease that I just handed out to you is the terms that have been agreed to between the city and the Monsignor King Outreach Center that was just signed today. It is a 10-year lease beginning this evening if adopted by Council and it will go to October 19th of 2025 and there is an option to renew for an additional 10 years if both parties are amenable. Just real quickly, a couple of changes compared to the actual agreement that was attached to your backup under Section 1, the use. It's been expanded a little bit to include allowable uses to include services for homeless individuals. It's not just a shelter, it's also going to provide services. It also includes now some prohibited uses for that facility. So that's what you see on Section 1. Section 2, we need to go in there and do a little bit more redrafting, but the intent is supposed to read for a dollar a year for 10 years paid $10 payment at the execution of this contract and we're done for the first 10 years. So we 'll change that wording, but that's the intent there. If you go down to Section 6, which is alterations, Monsign or King, Page 2. Section 6 alterations, they had asked for the city manager to be the one approving some of the alterations and so we have included that in there. So the city manager will approve some of the alterations as they come forward. If then if you'll go down to Page 8. We have changed the wording for the termination on Section 35, so that they are now given 30 days as an opportunity to cure once they receive written notification of any type of nuisance violation. And then if for whatever reason they are not able to cure, do not cure the violations or the nu isance, then the city may at that point decide to turn it over. They may decide they terminate the lease and give them a 90 day notice but that's strictly up to the discussion I'm sure as to whether or not that will occur. Section B, which is if the city decides that they want to terminate the lease without cause, then we are going to give them at least a 180 days written notice for them to go ahead and vacate the premises and find some other location. But then we also address some sort of compensation back to Monsignor King on the investment they're about to make and if you go down to Section 36, that addresses the reimburse ment and any depreciation for the items that have been approved for improvements made to that facility within the first two years from the date of this contract. And it depreciates all the way down until the end of the 10 th year, at which point they will not qualify for getting anything if in fact they are asked to vacate the property. Well I'm not looking to rewrite the lease here, just a thought was on the default, so if they're in default and they've got 30 days to cure, we just might consider it, because Roy may not know this, but we might consider adding some language in there that as long as the tenant is diligently pursuing cure of the default. A lot of times if there's a default because of some construction that they did or some improvement that they did or something other than a monetary default, in other words they didn't know that something they did was wrong, they may not be able to cure that in 30 days. They have to hire a contractor, they have to hire a vendor or something like that, so most lease language will say they've got a certain number of days to cure, so as long as the tenant is diligently pursuing. Basically it allows you as the landlord to say I understand you're working towards it, when are you going to get it done or when's that vendor going to be there or whatever, but it doesn't just give the landlord a carte blanche if it 's not cured in 30 days. You're talking about non-monetary things that may involve them having to have some work done. Yeah, and I think that's the intent, and I don't have any problem with that recommended change. I think that's the reason we've made sure we put in there the word that we may terminate the lease rather than it would be terminated. We may terminate it because the intent would be we're not going to unreasonably do that. Again, I'm not looking to pick it apart, it just was just a thought there. We've got to make another correction so we can certainly get it done. I mean that's if you are cool with that, it's just a thought. Yes, that's my order. And under six alterations, if all alterations, additions, and improvements are tenants' expense and become, then it becomes the landlord's property. So in other words, if there's a fire and whatever they improved was destroyed in a fire, then it would fall under our insurance and not their renter's insurance? No, ma'am, if you actually go to the insurance requirements , we left those alone, Section 8, where they are going to be asked to take out insurance on the property itself. And I think that they're willing to do that because they're aware that if anything happens to that building, council at the time may or may not decide they want to invest any more money in the building. If council decides they do not want to invest money in that building, then they're basically out of a location. So it's really in their best interest to make sure they have insurance to cover, for example, fire damage so that they can come in, follow a claim on that insurance, and be able to rebuild and not have to ask the city to do it. I've got a -- it's a question, but it's also a thought. On the termination -- and this is just me. I mean, I haven't really discussed it with John or George or Anita. I haven't even really -- I mean, I've had a couple of conversations with Roy. On the termination of -- by the landlord, which I believe is the council, and so first of all, termination would have to be a council decision, correct? It's landlord, yes. Okay. Yes. And city. Okay. City being policymakers. In other words, who can terminate this lease, I guess, is my question. I mean, sometimes we have a city manager who can do that, but yet I'm going to assume that any termination pursuant to this lease, and if it's not hard-coded in here, I would like that to be -- that that has to be approved by the city council. I mean -- I guess my understanding is -- and John or Larry could correct me -- is that in that provision, it would be the city council. We changed the terminology to the city manager to approve the improvements that could be made so that we could accommodate that in a relatively efficient fashion. Larry, thank you. I would look at this and say that the landlord is the home rule municipal corporation. The corporation acts through the city council by resolution or by an ordinance, unless the city council has delegated specific authority to the city manager, which in that limited exception, the council would do so by this lease. But if there's not a specific delegation, I would look at the definition and say it's got to come back to the council . Okay. So that's what your legal conclusion is, that that -- as it reads currently, it has to come back to council for a term ination. That's my read of it. Termination by the landlord is termination by the city. It's got to come back to the council. Okay. All right. Yes, that's -- anything you want to add? Yeah, I just want to address Councilmember Johnson's question about -- you're talking about reasonably pursuing -- diligently pursuing a cure. The reason I didn't put that language in there was because termination is by the landlord, the council, and they may terminate after the notice to cure is sent out if it's not cured. So what's going to happen here is let's say there's a nu isance down there, there's problems, whatever. We sent out a notice letter. We're going to have -- the city staff will have to come back before you guys to ask to terminate. Then Monsignor King and their individuals can show up and talk about it at that point. So -- I'm good, yeah. Okay. As long as that's sitting there, then that's going to be plenty of time and conversation for that. Yeah. And I know one other thing is I just -- I get a little uneasy with B, which is the termination by the landlord for any reason. And I understand that we're -- that we've got a reimburse ment clause or a series of reimbursement clauses based upon a termination for any reason other than a breach as in Section A. You know, for the first two years, I mean, I would hope that personally I'd like to -- you know, what would we terminate it for if it's not caused by them? In other words, there's not some issue that's arisen that we need to do something because of a potential health safety issue or whatever. You know, to me, if we terminate it for any reason, it's going to be -- what if somebody -- I mean, I don't even know except for if somebody wants to buy the property. That's the only thing I would think that would be one of the main reasons. So I just really struggle with saying that, you know, we could pass this tomorrow in six months. We could give notice a year from now, even though they're reimbursed, they're full amount. That would just seem odd to me that counsel would give this direction to really try to move in this direction and quickly thereafter. So I think I'd like to beef that up a little bit to put in some restrictions as far as either, okay, if it's for a year or two, your reason -- if it's a no-cause reason, I'd just like to see either some specifics or something that -- because just being reimbursed for your cost isn't going to help them. And that's really the whole reason why. So I understand the necessity of that. I really do. Yet given the direction and given sort of what we're trying to accomplish, I'd like to make it a little bit more difficult for the CDA to do that in the early, early years, except for specific reasons and/or provide a little bit more compensation. Yes. Yeah, I agree with that too, because councils change. And while everybody here is in consensus and, you know, is moving forward, who knows, you know, who's going to come on this council who maybe doesn't agree with us. So I agree with that, you know, give them a little bit of protection. I also see a real big typo in the Exhibit B in the heading, just because this is a legal document and it should -- compensation up at the top. Exhibit B, workers compensation . What's the typo? Okay, wait, hold on. It should say compensation. We picked this up. Yeah, compensation is misspelled. Yeah, compensation is so if you'd correct that too before it's inked. Okay, yeah, I'm not a spelling person so to me I don't know what the misspelling is, but that's great. COMPEN. Oh, it's in there. Compensate nation compensation is what it says it's got three or four letters. I'm gonna let y'all. Well, it's all just if you just want. So, what would be helpful to me. Oh, I know you want to say but what would be helpful to me is if I could be okay with leaving it as it is if we adjusted for the first two years, and maybe the third year to say you know what if we kick you out within two years instead of 100%. We'll give you 100% either 150% or 125% in other words something that says, okay, we're going to cause you all this trouble. And most likely for doing something with it we're going to be receiving funds I can't imagine what we would want to do with that building other than trying to dispose of it. And then using the third year to be 100% reimbursement and then just start it don't don't adjust it after that but just, I just these first couple the first three years I just, if we decide we need to do something different with it. All the expense are going to go to all the hard work they 're going to go to they're going to have to find another place. Yeah, they'll have a little money but they may have to do improvements there but it's also like hey you know, if we need it then if we should probably try to, to, to provide some additional funding so that those are my thoughts on it. I'm not trying to rewrite it either but I've this first time I've seen this so in the intent if I could, what we change that from originally. The intent is, and the way this is worded at least as I understand it is if it's within the first two years. They get 100% of their investment back right intent was to make them whole. If we for some unforeseen reason decided this is still owned by the city. It's immediately adjacent to a facility that's owned by the county and operated from juvenile detention. I don't have any idea what reason could come up that would cause us to say, we need that building back for some reason that section be is intended to make them whole for anything that they invest in the first two years 100% whole, and we don't know, we don't think they're going to make their entire investment in the first year, they're going to try to get a temporary CEO for this next winter. But then they'll be spending some money in the second year. So we extended that to say 100% of whatever you've invested for the first two years, then we'll start to diminish it 10 % a year through the first 10 years of the agreement. Oh, I understand. So I guess what the intent was to make them whole we did not think about it. I mean we talked about needing to go ahead and make sure if we, the council decides, you're providing a service we want to make sure you can continue to provide in the community, but we need our building back. And I'm real okay with that, then we want to make sure we 've given you some money back to represent your investment, so you can go somewhere and continue to do what you're doing. I totally, I totally understand that. And I know I do understand that. And all I'm saying is, for me, this is just me, that if it's within the first two years that we provide them something that's more than just making them whole, because of just the inconvenience and the expense they're going to have to go to to do something different and whatever that percentage is, I'm real okay with talking about it if there's a desire to talk about it if not that's okay too. And then, at the third year, make it the 100% re imbursable and don't go down 98 just started. And so you just go down to 80 you don't have to change the whole 10 just, well, if that if that makes sense so that's really my own thought is okay for any reason, two years, you will make you a little bit more than whole and then after the third year you'll be whole and then after that it just starts diminishing. That's, that's sort of my thought. And I know Mayor Pro Tem has been trying to get in. I think you need to finish that talk. Yeah, if somebody has to wants to react to that. Yes, Councilmember Hawkins, I totally agree with that I want us to send a consistent message and I don't want them to just feel like they're in a building I want them to feel like they have a home. Those are two different things and so I like that idea, even if it's 125% just because there's going to be a ton of work they're going to be campaigning getting money. That would be kind of a weird message to send to them. I want to respond to that part of the issue we discussed about that is when we did a straight line 10% depreciation. But here is what is not being discussed. They're paying $1 a year for rent they're not paying market rent on that for one to the city is not a position that's going to make a way to make a gift to them above re imbursing them dollar for dollar, what they put into it, which is why we did a depreciation. And what you're doing is essentially making a gift to them by giving them any more than they put into it. But I mean you're talking about a termination fee. We're, it's not a gift. It's a no words I'm leasing you something. I want the right to be able to tell you to get out whenever I want to. I should be able to, we should be a part of our negotiation what I'm trying to play attorney here but I'm pretty sure that amount doesn't matter because what it is is I'm paying you. I want to write in this agreement. This is just consideration for you for me to be able to tell you you got to go even though you had a 10 year lease. This is a nonprofit. And it's not between arms length between two private parties we're talking about the public's money, which is we 're getting into a whole different area. What I'm struggling with, may I go mirror. Sure, if we kick them out of a place where the rents $1 a year, and we just given their money back. They have to go find another place, and it's not going to be at $1 a year. Let me let me say this then I hear what you're saying. First of all, the question is, are we prohibited by law. If you catch it that way but I would argue if we were going to go down that road is that $1 a year lease is given the money away as well because it's not at market rent. That's what so if we're going to be able to say we're only going to lease it to you for $1 and we don't have to go through these bid processes of trying to lease this building. I'm struggling to understand how that's consistent or inconsistent with. If we say, as a contractual provision that we're going to pay, let's forget the reimbursement making them whole. If we were to have put in a hard number there. If we were to just say we're going to reimburse you, or we're going to pay you $125,000 for a termination fee. That's just a contractual provision which I think we have in many of our contracts so I'm not trying to be argument ative I hear what you're saying but it needs to be, I need to be convinced that we are legally prohibited instead of just being something well we really don't want to do that. That's a difference between a legal requirement and a policy decision. How we've drafted it is reimbursement for approved tenant improvements. This isn't drafted with giving them money back in the event they terminate or in the event we terminate. So Larry I guess my, Anne, go ahead. It's a pretty simple question. Okay, now let me let me see if I can skin this cat in a little different way and get you all where you want to be. I love animals too so let me just stand corrected in that comment. Let me see if I can help you solve the problem. Here's another possibility and it may do what I think you 're concerned about, in that section 35 under the term ination clause B where it's termination for any reason, we could add a little bit of language there and say, beginning two years after the day of the execution of this lease landlord may terminate this lease for any reason. So it would give us the two years, it would give the tenant the two years and perhaps solve the issue you're talking about because we were kind of operating on the fly here if we want to get this lease done tonight. We can go look at it, we can think about it, but if that would solve your problem and in other words, it would have to be a for cause termination during that two years. You're saying we'd be prohibited from terminating it for any reason within the first 24 months. It would be a cause reason, you could do it for cause. Right, but under paragraph B we cannot exercise that particular. For two years. For two years. After the execution of the lease. So then following two years then you would be able to terminate for any reason you would still have this depreciation reimburse ment schedule that would apply. I mean, I just, can I weigh in on it? So I have two issues with it. One is part of what we heard from Roy, and I do know happen to know this to be true is very difficult for them to go raise money, not having a deal. We're buying this building for this much money and here's the improvement costs, we're leasing this and so on. So if Roy came to me looking for a donation, he's going to disclose, I mean they can't say we have a 10 year lease. Okay, I have a 10 year lease on this building. However, the city can terminate it for any time with 180 days notice or after two years they can terminate it. I worry a little bit about their ability to go execute their plan effectively with a termination option anytime or within, you know, or even two years because they're not going to go do the full shebang, everything they want to do to the property day one. Right, they're going to have to, they got to do the triage right now, right? Fire sprinkle it, they got to, they already got the money raised for that part. But then the next round is going to be, they want to provide these services during the day, right, education, blah, blah, blah. This isn't just like here's a place to eat and sleep, but education, here's how you find a job. So I guess in my mind it's almost like are we committed or not? So I can't think of any reason other than we want to sell the property that's not a for cause termination. Meaning if they're misusing the property, if they've got, you know, people camping out in tents in the front, if they , whatever. So when I take all of the for cause items out and say we got a building that's in the floodplain today, you know, maybe out of the floodplain, whatever. What are we really going to go use that building for? I don 't know. So it would be to sell it. But let's just say you fast forward three or four or five years and we really have some burning need to use that building. My thought is to say, because this happens all the time, right, is to go save. The landlord may have the right to terminate this. If it's a ten year deal, terminate these lease at any point after five years. I mean, we got to give them enough time to go do what they want to do. And I'm worried about their ability to really go do what they want to do if we say, even if it's two years, with all due respect. I know we're trying to do mayors get something out there, right. But I would just throw out, you know, maybe an easier way to do this would be to say at any point after the fifth year we can terminate. And then I think you just got to put a termination fee on there, a bogey. One, five years gives them time to really have utilized a lot of the improvements that they put in. So reimbursing them 100 percent of what they spent after five years. I understand why we're trying to amortize it. But secondly, a lot of the stuff that happens on this building is going to be in kind. So I worry about their ability long term to prove up or we have a whole new council. And now what the lease says is whatever you spent. Well, they may have had four hundred thousand dollars worth of work that they got done for a hundred grand. So now it's here's what I spent. But now they have to reloc ate and go do all that stuff again. So I guess I would just throw out if we're going to if we 're doing this on the fly, I don't think we should be able to terminate it for the first five years. But then just put some amount of money, whatever, 100,000 bucks or whatever it is, a termination right by the landlord. We're going to pay you a fee and you're on your own. That way we're not trying to make them prove up what they spent and arguing over what was the in kind worth. And it's just very clean, in my opinion, that way. For cause is a whole different issue. I understand. Housewoman Waske. We're either committed to this homeless shelter or we're not. And I think this council is committed to it. So I'm I'm all in on that five year minimum because they are going to be out there fundraising. And it's hard to look somebody in the eye and say, you know , give me a substantial check. But, oh, by the way, you know, we could get kicked out of here in two years. So I like the five years. We're either on record as supporting this or we're not. And I think we need to be on record as supporting this. Councilmember Roby. I'm fine with the conversation has it's gone up to this point. I wonder two things as it relates to as I think about what they're going to do with the campaign. One would be this this whole naming issue. So I guess technically that building is called the Denton Animal Shelter or something by in terms of what it's called . At some point, I'm guessing they're going to want to call it something else. And is it worth just putting some sort of naming rights aspect into this agreement so that we don't. And they may even want to offer that up to a big contributor. It could be the Greg Johnson Sunshine Center or something like that. Who knows. But maybe that's something we deal with later as it relates to naming rights. But it's a unique situation that's unlike any other city building that we have naming rights to. And we certainly wouldn't want someone else randomly coming and saying I want to name that building. So I don't know if that's worth putting in here. The other thought is, have they expressed any interest in any of our conversations with them of any sort of option to purchase the property? Well, you can do. I don't know whether they've expressed interest to purchase it. Yes, they have. But we've got some other issues now as to how that can occur. We have to put it out to bed. Because it's a city property. That's right. Yeah. OK. And we've had inquiry by the mayor about putting to date restrict the property to a certain use. But then you run into the highest and best use of the property and get the best value for it. So it's not give them a right of first refusal. Meaning if we get a bid and they're willing to go out to bid. So if it goes to bid higher bidder wins and it's done. They couldn't beat the bid. Now there's a couple of exceptions. We can. There's a provision that allows us to post it with the broker for a certain period of time. And there's I can give you those exceptions and we can look at that. But I don't know that we want to do that in our lease right now. I would assume we want to get this accomplished and then we can circle back on it. Thank you. I'm sympathetic to the conversation. I guess my question is did Mr. Metzler who signed this sign it with a lot of reservations and that you all are now kind of expressing the reservations that he had or or was he was he happy to sign it the way it is. The last counter offer that we got from them was they were wanting us to extend it to three years to cover the 100 percent recoup of their investment. But then he was OK as far as the deeper he understood the depreciation model that we were going to recommend to counsel. So that was the last counter offer that he had made with us . In the last conversation I had with him today he apparently had already had this conversation with the board and they seemed amenable to the depreciation schedule. Let me sort of add to that. I've talked with Mr. Metzler on a couple of occasions about this process and about you know the lease and terms and such as that. And I can't answer your question as far as what's in his mind what his intent was. But I can tell you the report was they first of all want to get this thing moving so they can get in there and get get it ready for the winter. Right. So anybody that's under a time gun negotiating something is going to feel a little bit more pressure to maybe take a little bit less than what they want. So I think I think the answer to that is yes and no. I think they did have a counter offer. I mean they they were concerned with the 10 year option at the end of the 10 years that the city could say well you know see you later. So I think if they could have their druthers obviously they 'd want some other things in here but that's just the art of the deal. I shouldn't even say that. That's the negotiation. That's the negotiation process. So yes but I don't know if there were some other terms that could have been available without the time crunch. Would they be more amenable to that. Sure. So I don't know if I'm going to just because they signed it means that they really don't need anything else. I think what would help me and I didn't see it in here because I read the first draft but in this lease if we were to sell the building. Of course when you sell a building be a bid or whatever. Sometimes you take it subject to a current lease or these kinds of things where people still have to honor the lease that's in effect. Is there something in this lease that gives us the right to maybe do that but also protects the lessee from someone coming in and say in other words the interest the subsequent interest is bound to the lease terms as if they were the original landlord. Is it is that in here. No. Okay. I would really like to, or, or at least give that option because then that gives flexibility. It gives flexibility to the city that if if it comes up to where there's an opportunity to sell it. You could do it and the, the, the new owner may not necessarily need to remove them at that time they may, there may be some time for that so I think it would provide some some flexibility with the, with the city that if we need to do something from a per cell perspective doesn't mean if we use it for something else, but from a cell perspective. Doesn't automatically mean that they're kicked out. And let 's face it. You could get together, have a meeting of the minds, negotiate some other thing that may be outside the lease, and everybody, everybody agrees to it. You know, if we wanted to terminate within the five years let's say, and they were okay with that because we came to an agreement of what that fee was based upon our legal parameters. And we're not going to comply their written agreement because they're able to come to an agreement outside the written agreement. So let's ease. Well, I was, it was, it was interesting that they've agreed to the deal. And now we're trying to to provide them more guarantees, and I'm not, I'm not opposed to that. I'm just curious as to. It's an interesting conversation that we don't normally have. It may be a part of our demonstration of our commitment to the effort that they're trying to accomplish. Or, I was curious if they signed it but they didn't like it . My impression is that we did make several changes from the original draft that Roy had asked us to do and we tried to accommodate all those things and the depreciation schedule was one way to try to accommodate most of that. And I'm not sure exactly where you're going. My impression was that this pretty much met original request for changes to the original draft, and that they are pretty happy with this. I don't have a problem saying let's put this back on the agenda next week and try to, these are things we hadn't talked about, or heard about prior to this so I'd be a little reluctant to try to draft this on the dais tonight, and then have something agreed upon and might be better to put off until next week although I'll say they were anxious to get contractors. I understand that. I have one other question and this is a totally different track so if there's somebody else that wants to talk to this particular issue. Let's have that and then I have another different kind of question. Well I certainly don't have any issue with giving it a week and running some of these things by them, as far as if we come to a consensus on five years and those kind of things I don't have an issue with that. I think they would be happy with a week and I think that my opinion, based on variety conversations is, you know, they 're coming to us saying help us, help us help you. It's not a typical negotiation. Right. And I think that the you know the folks who have been looking at this, saying the last thing we want to do is to look a gift horse in the mouth. There are absolutely things in here that they would rather not be in here, but at the same time, you're leasing it to me for a dollar a year so I'm not going to get too cocky. You know, my comments in here are I'm trying to look out for for them and do what's right and best for the whole city and them and I'm just saying, you know, in the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish, I get it. It's nice to have an out, but we're not. It's not like we 're doing a deal with somebody that's a corporate. Sure deal where a lot of money changing hands here so I think we're both showing commitment to this. I don't want to speak for for Roy or for the board but I would be of the opinion that we take a week. Because, you know, I just gave some comments earlier from we just got it this weekend. You know we have a renewal option, it's not really a renewal option, because it says if both parties agree. Well then it's not really a renewal option. It's no different than saying hey let's get together in 10 years and decide whether we both want to do this again. Whereas what I had proposed was a 10 year lease with a 10 year renewal option, the option is that the option of the tenant. We certainly have termination rights and stuff other stuff we put in here but you know my point is we got our. We got it over the weekend. I don't think the way to approach this is just because they 've, they're willing to sign it is that means that we should say, good, let's take what we can get. This is a little different than a typical negotiation in my opinion. So you're taking a week, everybody else okay with taking a week. Well I just want to make sure I think I heard you say something about over here, they want to get it done. That's going to affect them any with I have no idea. I know that we've talked, Roy wanted to get this done even sooner than now. And one point I want to bring up to address something Councilmember Gregory said is that they represent by Council on this. We got comments back from their attorney, so it's not like they're going in this. You know, without any type of assistance so so let me ask you a question and answer it honestly. If we if Roy comes up here tonight, and he comes before us tonight, and we say, Roy, we'd like to give you a five year fixed lease for five years that we can't terminate but it's going to take us a week to iron some of these things out. You want to go ahead and sign you want to go with what you got. I think we can get that question answered, probably tonight I would think yeah, and that's your product. Yeah, I just wanted to inform you where it was the status of they just weren't going in this blind. No, no, no, no. Yes, but my comment was that I would much rather prefer giving them a five year than a two year as we were talking. Sure. Okay. All right. Yes. Well, and I agree with that but I do want us to try to look at, even if we give them that money when they've tried to find a new home, they're not going to find a dollar a year. So I, we need to look take a week and take a step back from this because that's that's kind of where the real giving their money back, but running this campaign, raising money that's hard work that's really hard work. So it's kind of like here you go. Now go find another home. So I just want us to really think about that I want them to feel like they have a home, not just a building for a little bit. So, and I had suggested once when we didn't get it incorporated up here, but some language that said nothing here would prohibit the city after we paid them their investment back from making a contribution to them from some source in order to allow them to continue doing sure. That's not a guarantee. Right, but it would be acknowledging that your service is valuable to the community and nothing here is intended to preclude us from providing a grant of some kind to continue providing the service now that's not in here. Sure, so, so, Mayor, if you're if we're going to go back and read craft with some ideas. Here's an idea that again this isn't in the municipal world so I don't know if this is allowed. In the private world if you have a tenant for a long term deal and you say I want the right to terminate your lease if I sell the property, then the tenant could say, I'll totally give you the right to terminate if you sell your property, you just give me half of what you sell it for and I'll go away. So, in other words, if we sell the property one way to solve it would be if we sell the property at any time during their lease, they get half the proceeds. I'm just saying, if they're in default for some reason or they're doing something that's out of bounds or whatever else that's one whole thing. If we're going to make them go away for the purposes of selling the property to gain money , then I think the right thing to do is to, because there's no way we can define what it's going to cost them to reset up their operation somewhere else. There's no way to know. So now, fast forward six years from now, and we don't have homeless people on the square. We don't have homeless people at the overpasses and at the mall parking lot and wherever they are because they've got a place. And we go, county said you know what we love it so much we 'll give you $5 million, whatever. So, you guys go, we're going to sell the property because this council did the deal and the new council doesn't have any connection to it at all. Is that right? So, just throwing it out there, because it seems to me like what we're really talking about here is if we want to sell the property we need to have the right to terminate and get them out because what the heck else we're ever going to do with that building. So, I'm just throwing out, we're going to go redraft or we 're going to go consider changes. That's one. Rather than tying it to what they spent or amortization schedule or whatever you go it's a flat amount of money, or it's some percentage of the proceeds, not to be greater than X, whatever. And I mean, if we have this is a consent agenda item. And so, if the representatives of the border here had to be nice to hear from them. I mean we've all sort of been thinking about what are their thoughts you know did they sign it, are they okay with this but if they have other alternatives. Is a week okay with I mean, I'd sort of also like to hear what they have to say about this so I hope I'm back. I'll probably say we probably just need to pull this for individual consideration. As far as the week or that seems to be where we're going and we'll hear from them, but you said you had a totally different track so I want to make sure we're through this conversation and you can take off. Okay. So the other question I have is, and I don't mean to be throwing cold water on this whole field, but there are occasions when we've had folks that that have wanted to do good things for the homeless. And it ends up that in the process of doing that, they, they actually do more harm because they provide a facility or they are using it in a way that that actually puts, puts the folks that are saying they're more danger. So, what I, what I'm nervous about, and I want to make sure that that that the homeless folks that are there are protected and that the city would be protected also is, is there are there provisions so that that if their housing folks in a way that's actually not that safe. Or using the facilities in a way that are not providing optimal safety for the for the for the folks that are there that we have a chance to see that we have a chance to correct that, or that that if they are somehow not using the best practices that are out there that the city's protected in case someone is seriously injured. How are, how are, what are we doing in this lease that's protecting the folks that are being served and protecting the, the, the landlord. It's been addressed by first by insurance what you need to understand here is the city is a landlord on this and that said, and it was drafted, so we remain the landlord we don 't need to serve any control over the operation of this homeless shelter. The city said go forth and lease this to the senior King Outreach Center, and that's what we've done we've got insurance on that protect us in our interest in it. And then write the operation that homeless shelter. If you all want to get the business of running homeless shelter that's a whole different thing I talked to people that in Austin and Fort Worth and in Dallas cities don't run these the run by nonprofits. They lease space. And so I've tried to separate the liability of the city from being involved in the day to day operation that's left up to the monsignor King outreach center, and trust me these are discussions we have had a lot internally. Salvation Army, they have people there three days, and they 're gone. They have trained professionals they're paid to deal with this. And then the type of folks that will be there. You're dealing with volunteers at Martin Luther King outreach, the senior King Outreach Center. They're retired people that are going to be there. I don't know what kind of background they've got in dealing with registered sex offenders. Somebody on drugs my mental health issues, somebody that's drunk. Name it. That's what they're going to be dealing with. We don't want associated as the city with any of that liability. It's up to them. That's what's drafted like this. So, so we and we have requirements for example, when we lease city space like the Civic Center building that for certain kinds of activities you have to have a police officer. Are we requiring that kind of a thing or that's that's just up to them because they're operating. And we discussed that as well because that was something that Mr. Metzler talked about wanting to have police presence is when that happens, the city then at that point started to exert more control over that operation by having the presence of a police officer there. 24/7. It's in the best interest of the city to have them call in when there's an instant like everybody else. We're not treating them differently. I'm not explaining myself clearly. If somebody's having a wedding at the Civic Center. The lease requirements say you have to have a police officer, and you're paying for the police officer the city 's not providing it you're not preventing from paying the city you're providing. This is an off duty officer that's getting some extra money by being there and supervising the event. Or, do we need to have something like that, or are we covered enough by simply saying, you guys are operating the center. The latter. Okay, and that's why we have the insurance and that's what I want to make sure everybody understands here because I'm hearing this kind of circular discussion about wanting to address a problem. And how was conveyed to me about this lease, the city wants to address the problem by leasing this space to the Moc Senior King Outreach Center. One thing you need to also realize is their operations going from an inclement weather shelter to a full blown 24 seven homeless shelter offerings offering services. They've never done this before. That's part of the reason I put the years that I did in there about the reimbursement is, you know, I don't know, I don't know how successful it's going to be the people I've talked to Austin said there are a lot of nonprofits and churches that get into this with people that are volunteers, and they quickly get in over their head it's what you said about doing more danger possibly than good. I've known Roy for 25 years, I knew Moc Senior King, I know what they're wanting to do but this is, they're going from, you know, rookie league to major league baseball. You've answered my question. I just, I don't, again, I don't want to cast cold water on this, I just want to make sure that we're doing what we can in partnership with them for the benefit of the people that they're trying to serve. But in a way that that's protecting the city's interest and protecting the people that we're trying to serve. So thanks . Well just on the last thing you said, though I know they're going from an emergency shelter to a full blown shelter, but we have given them direction that we're behind them, and we like that direction. So my only issue is, you kind of can't say one thing, but we have these provisions in our lease because we're anticipating failure. So I think all we're saying is, it's a little bit too short of a term, that two years possibly, just in our opinion. And that's what it feels like to me. I mean, yeah, they might fail, but I think that they need to feel like at least we're behind them if the face of council changes, that their lease is still their warm blanket, that they can kind of, you know, that's my take on it. Council Member, oh, sorry. Okay, Council Member. Yeah, I just don't want us to lose sight of that they're offering a service that we need desperately in the city. I mean, so I just, it's got to happen one way or the other and I think we've got to start somewhere. Madam City Attorney. So, Mayor, just in summation here, we hear you, we hear you indicating that you want to consider a five year type arrangement on the termination for any reason. We hear the comment about the naming rights, and we can certainly drop some language in there as it concerns naming the facility, I assume, in conjunction and agreement between the landlord and the tenant. And then some language about the subsequent purchase or purchaser being subject to the lease. We can look at all of those issues, we'll be also glad to look at that option, that issue that was raised, and then refine all of those additional issues in light of what everywhere else might come up tonight and we can look at that and bring that back to you then next week. I do have a question that relates to Mayor Pro Tem's observation, and that is in section A of paragraph 35 which is the termination for cause. Do we have a definition in the lease having not what that really, because let's say for instance if there's a tremendous amount of quote unquote criminal activity and people being harmed or if they're not following fire mars hal procedures. What is it, I mean, because I think Mayor Pro Tem that's really what you're saying is how will we, if there's something going on there that is in violation of either our codes or a nuisance, where do we define that? We have defined that. We've addressed that on the first page. It's really essentially a common law nuisance. And then violation number two that's one B to here is after law regulations, zoning ordinance, etc, etc. And then hazardous activities. So we've tried to address that in that language you see on that first page. And I guess the question for me is on that first point of nuisance. So not understanding the city codes on nuisance that we think someone's a nuisance. Obviously, they're innocent until proven guilty so to speak . And so in a regular nuisance action. Is that a municipal court proceeding if the city comes out and issues a citation and finds. I mean, how do you shore up the elements of a nuisance I mean not a common law nu isance or private party nuisance action but a municipal nu isance, instead of just being able to go out there and say what your nuisance we give you 30 days to cure. And then if you don't, well then we may terminate will, I guess, help me understand in that, is there a due process element component and if so what is it and if not there is what I want you to go back to is what Mr. Burgess said about the definition of landlord if you look at 35 a this all comes back to counsel it comes back to the policymakers. Okay, if you have staff, you let's just county judge horn thinks that there's a problem with the people around the homeless center, and she comes knocking on Mr. Campbell's door. He addresses y'all, we've got a problem. And then the landlord being the city council. She thinks it's a nuisance that y'all make that decision whether or not to send out that letter to them, it all comes through here. Before anything happens and, you know, what she would consider you know she can it can be a civil nuisance. I mean she can think that it's, you know, these just having vagrants around there, and they're attracted because of the homeless center. I don't know I mean it's, it's gonna be an objective, it really is subjective standard but y'all have the ability to make the call on whether that letter goes out and it's also it says in breach of any term of the lease so it's anything they're violating in here. It 's not just that first portion. I understand. Okay. And I think, Mr. Collister is exactly right as it concerns this lease. Let me just also in the interest of complet eness and comment that we do have in our code of ordinances as enforced by the community improvement department, certain provisions that are embedded in ordinance relating to nuisance, and that would have application throughout the city. And so there is also that piece of the puzzle in addition to this leases. Well, and I guess that brings up the question because you 're absolutely correct so if, if CIS goes out to my property and issues me a nuisance citation. That's a citation. And that means I have the ability to go before the municipal court and ask for either a jury trial or trial by the judge and present evidence and, and those kind of things. But what I'm hearing is that does that mean that what I'm hearing is that this, the council whoever it is gets to determine, you know, obviously it's got to meet some criteria of a nuisance we just can't call something nu isance that's not a nuisance. But once we do that, we're issuing a termination letter, but that's not synonymous with some with CIS issuing us a citation because then we have the right to unilaterally terminate that lease and so it may just be the nuance between lease termination and it just, it seems like if we 're going to be able to issue, if we're going to be able to say what's what is not a nuisance. Is there some new process element that's missing as a normal citizen would have to go before the municipal court to determine that there's two different tracks going on here. In this instance the City Council is acting as a landlord and leasing his property. Okay. And so then the City Council would act pursuant to the terms of the lease in any subsequent action. And so there's that piece of it. On the other side of the equation, the council has enacted certain ordinances, deeming certain things in the city to be a nuisance. And so we would then look, if there is a question, if it concerns CIS, we would look to the code of ordinances and determine whether or not the conduct on the table meets the definition in the code of ordinances as it concerns a nu isance. Okay. All right. Two different tracks. Yes. The only discussion I'm not comfortable with was the half the sales price goes to the tenant. I think that's something that over the course of the years that they're there and they're successful that the council could come back to to re-examine in the event that we do decide to sell the building. But for right now, I think that's premature. And I just want to, you know, make sure I'm not in agreement right now with that. Okay. I don't expect anybody to really be in agreement. Yeah. And I, you know, I understand the concept. So if you're looking for recommendations, recommendation is a five-year solid that we can't terminate before five for non-cause reasons. Secondly, I would say if this nuisance offensive and nausea are dangerous, you got to be able to prove those things up. So we'd be issuing a default notice anyway, then they would come back and say, what am I done? And, you know, blah, blah, blah. On the termination, I think to make it simple is we just need to come up with a number. If we terminate after five years, come up with a number, whatever that number is. So it's not going to be half the price. But I'm filling that out because I think we need to, you know, say what I mean, what's the real reason? The real reason that we would terminate for some reason other than for cause would be because we're going to sell the property. So it just needs to be we need to think about what is a large enough sum of money that if they had to go recreate that center somewhere else in another building and provide temporary shelter and, you know, whatever else they had to do, then we're both entering into this as a this is this is something we both agree is a good thing or we wouldn't do it. So then if we want to terminate them because of some benefit to the city, but they don't want to, we need to it 's only right to do the right to do right by them is what I 'm saying. So I'm going to throw out two hundred thousand bucks as a number and then whatever I have no idea what the right number is. But they'll spend that at least probably to retrofit the building over time if you had to really pay for it all. Okay. In this, John, if you could, because we're, you know, we're not our meetings not till six thirty. If you're able to get in contact with Roy and just brief him on some of these discussions, and if there's some communication that he is able to communicate with you that avoids us having to spend a lot of time in an open session. Like if he says, yeah, weeks fine, then we can adjust accordingly. So if you could maybe run some traps ahead of time to see how he what their temperature is on on that. Yes, sir. And also, if they're really anxious to get a lease signed, you know, it may be they want that lease signed. Yeah, that's part of what I want to try to determine. Absolutely. And one last question. Is there any indemnification in this lease should we get a drug into a legal battle? Absolutely. Okay. Any other questions on this? We sort of. Yes, we did. Yeah. Okay, good deal. All right. Thank you. All right. We'll move on then to our go back to work session items three and move on to work session item three. He received a report and hold a discussion regarding various types of municipal debt procedures for debt issu ance. So what happened? Oh, oh, yeah. And so just and I say this and I'm part of the problem, but let's you know, we've got some closed session items we still need to move through and we're going to we're going to start at six thirty or shortly thereafter out in the open public session. So anything we don't cover will come back. We have one closed session item that has has a public hearing associated with the other items. But we do need to do E and F if we can. Okay. All right. So Chuck's got two minutes. This is bonds 101. Yeah, just briefly to give counsel a little bit of background. This came out of the audit finance committee where they kind of requested a briefing on basics of municipal bonds. We decided to bring it to the whole city council. I'm going to turn it over to Laura Alexander with First Southwest, the city's financial advisor to go over this item. Thanks. I totally understand. Rush her like I could rush. I'll be quick. I'll be quick. We'll have we'll have some good questions. This is where advances besides hitting next cheat and just go up and down. Thank you very much. And I know you've had these slides ahead of time, so I will try to be brief, but definitely interrupt with questions as we go. So we'll stay high level and we'll dip down only as needed. Just just quickly, the, the city tends to sell, you know, tax exempt bonds and that's because the proceeds are used for governmental mission driven sort of purposes of the city public use. On occasion we've talked about selling taxable bonds, and it's really driven by private use potentially of part of the project, or that you're actually receiving private lease payments for associated with a project and that's when we fall into maybe having to deal with taxable if you have specific questions on taxable tax exempt that's definitely McCall Parker and Greg checkers here so we can bring him up if you want to get into that. The only other point really here on this slide is that you have to have specific authorization under state law to enter into debt. And we're going to go through some of those specific kinds of securities a lot of them you guys use some of them you don't use. You have to, like for example, the city really can't use a line of credit to think Oh, wouldn't it be nice to just go take a line of credit out of the next three or five years we'll pay it down as we will draw it as we need it will pay it down as we get money in. That's not an authorized debt instrument so I sort of say that you have to you have to go with what the state allows you to use and if it's not one of those specific instruments then it's not really available. There are five types of obligations, property tax obligations, which is a pledge of property taxes not necessarily. That's not necessarily how you pay for it. It 's just the pledge so the bondholder knows they have a property tax as the security that they can fall back on but the city may have, you know, the latitude to pay for from property taxes or sales tax or utility revenues and lots of other things you can actually use to pay the debt, but we still call those property tax obligations. So, that's generally your best credit your lowest cost of funds, revenue bonds are really anything that is secured by and paid from any other revenue source so again it can be utility system revenues it could be a TERS revenue bond it could be sales tax, hotel tax, lots of other revenue sources and so those all fall into the revenue bond category, and generally are not as credit worthy. So geo bonds you're pretty familiar with call an election is the key there. Generally, I would say that geo bonds are are secured by property taxes and paid from property taxes, so you tend to levy attacks for those projects. I, you know, been doing this 19 years and I can't think of maybe one example and Greg and I were putting our heads together of all the cities that we're aware of that have geo elections, where they're not actually levying the tax for the project. So, just some background on that. A lot more information there that you don't need. The, the current guys have two different authorizations that are still outstanding some 2012 bonds that were voted then and then 2014 and this is really a list by proposition, and how much is left outstanding civil over 87 million still on issued of your last two elections. So certificates of obligation in the city has a history of using these for, I'd say it's kind of supplemental projects that weren't in the last election and then also for utility projects, electric water and wastewater. The key here is you have to have a notice of intent. So as opposed to having to have an election, you can use it for similar projects but you have to have a notice of intent issued at least 31 days before you're going to consider the item to sell the bonds. And then you're subject to a potential petition so 5% of the registered voters can sign a petition and come to you and say we want you to put this out for election. If you wanted to move forward with it you would need to call the election. Otherwise CEOs and Geo's are pretty similar like said what you can use them for and how they trade in the markets or the interest rates and that sort of thing. So actual obligations, again, property tax obligations. The thing here is this personal property, and they don't require an election they don't acquire a notice of intent so they can be issued very easily and efficiently, but they have to be used for personal property so it has to be something you can take with you, basically. Similar characteristics in terms of how they trade and the bond ratings and all that sort of thing. Revenue notes again, same characteristics of property tax bonds so good credit. The key here is that you can only go out seven years for a mature, final maturity so you tend to sell bonds like your Geo bonds tend to be 20 year bonds are paid over 20 years. These can only be repaid over a maximum of seven years. But again the authorization process is very efficient. There's no notice of intent there's no election. It's just that seven years that's sort of the magic number. Revenue bonds so those are all property tax pledged again you could use other revenue sources to pay them. And a revenue bond, you pretty much are using the revenues that you're pledging to pay them. Again you have utility system revenue bonds outstanding we haven't sold those since 2008 but you still have about 64 million I believe outstanding. We've talked about maybe doing some hotel motel tax revenue bonds, and some terms things have come up from time to time. But right now the only other only revenue debt you have outstanding is utility system revenue bonds. They tend to trade a little bit lower in terms of the credit rating so not quite as credit worthy. And so slightly higher interest rate associated with them. Also the market tends to demand almost a reserve fund, so that's funding one year's payment that you hold in reserve it's a restricted fund on the city's books that can only be used to pay debt service. And it's really meant, you know, in a situation where you couldn't raise rates or you couldn 't impact the revenue source fast enough to make the payments because you had some sort of crisis and so the reserve fund would kick in and you'd be able to draw on that in the meantime and then raise rates and accumulate enough funds. I have a real quick question and I don't know if you can answer this or our bond council but one of the questions I had was, we've been refinancing a lot of revenue bonds with CEOs and revenue bonds have the reserve fund component associated with them. So, what you, I just want to make sure that what you said that you can't use reserve funds so let's say we got $5 million in reserve, we owe $30 million in revenue bonds. And what we've been doing is saying we're going to issue $ 25 million of CEOs take the reserve fund, combine it together to pay that off is are those reserve funds. Is that the, the totality of the restriction you have to use those to pay off either that debt or some other debt. There's no other use for those funds that you can that you can use those reserve funds for. I think that's correct only Kevin I would say is once all the revenue bonds are are gone. You have that last little bit of reserve fund, you may have some flexibility and what you use that for but while you have revenue bonds outstanding. You're not by that surplus and that's really what this slide hits on. I just skipped ahead real quick we'll go back. So, the key is here is when we do a geo we're funding of revenue bonds. We've got the amount of the reserve fund that was associated with all of that revenue bond if you think about it. When we do a revenue refunding of a refunding of revenue bonds so revenue bonds, replacing revenue bonds, and there's only a little bit of savings maybe associated that amount down by that little bit of savings the incremental savings associated with that. When we refund them into geo bonds we get a big windfall because we've actually pulled a bunch of revenue bonds out of that pledge and made them geo bonds and we no longer need a reserve fund associated with those bonds. So there's more. We've been able to pull down the reserve fund a lot by using geo refunding bonds to refund revenue bonds, but we're still taking that amount that we've pulled the reserve fund down including it including it in the geo refunding exactly right. Exactly right. All right. Good. Thank you. So, the only thing about revenue bonds is they have things like rate covenants where you have to agree to levy rates and charges sufficient to pay the bonds sometimes they have additional bonds to us so you have to prove up that you have a revenue stream in place to be able to sell more bonds. The bondholders can't become diluted, necessarily and those kinds of things don't really exist in a property tax transaction, you're obligated to levy attacks, you know , maybe, generally we try not to increase your debt service tax right here. But in the event that you had to the bondholders could come in and force you to raise a property tax on those situations and here. It's a similar situation where they could, you know, you're agreeing to basically set rates and charges sufficient or that you would put that in place before you sold additional bonds. So, we talked about this before, because we are always comparing your CEOs for utility bonds versus free utility projects versus revenue bonds for utility projects is that even if we the revenue bond rating was the same as the geo bond rating we'll talk about your ratings here in just a minute. Revenue bonds tend to not trade quite as well in the market so they tend to have slightly higher interest rates even for the exact same ratings. The perception that a property tax pledges is slightly better so a little bit more desirable there so I just say that because your revenue bond ratings are still pretty, pretty high. So, people involved in the deal for Southwest where your financial advisor. We're kind of the quarterback on the deal I would say we help figure out what the goals are the financing and then implement it all you know kind of start to finish. Definitely have a fiduciary responsibility to the city. We 've worked for the city for a long long time I've worked on the account I think for at least 15 years so for Southwest history goes way back before me. Similarly as work to the city for long longer than that. And they're, they not only do that way and on the tax exempt and taxable issues. They render the legal opinion that that the obligations are legal and valid in the state of Texas and incontestable so that gives the bondholders a lot of comfort some states don't have an attorney general process or a law counsel process that sort of validates the bonds at that level of sort of comfort and that's part of what McC all purpose does as well. The underwriters essentially the purchaser the primary purchaser the bond I say primary like initial purchaser of the bonds. It could be, whether we sell competitively or negotiated we kind of do seal bid sometimes and sometimes we have a pre selected group of underwriters that goes out and markets the bonds on your behalf, but they're the JP Morgan's the Wells Fargo's I mean I'm not going to give commercials to everybody but you know the big underwriting firms you think of as being broker dealers is who the underwriters are some of them, Raymond James or you know Sam Co or some of the more, more regional ones around here but there's probably 30 plus active underwriting firms in the state of Texas right now that would like to do business with the city so it's a very competitive space. Paying agent is essentially a bank and there's only a few banks that like specialize in this, and they keep up with who owns the bonds and they essentially are the middleman for wiring so the city would wire the money to the paying agent the paying agent would put the bond payments the interest and principal payments onto the bondholders and keep track of those records rating agencies their standard and pours Moody's and fits are the main three. So as soon as they're starting to enter into that space. They assign independent you know rating analysis which bond holders tend to look at to determine the credit worthiness. The city maintains ratings with Moody's or has a historical rating with Moody's and SMP on the revenue bonds, but we haven't had that looked out again since 2008 and fits and S MP on the geo side and we'll talk about those levels in a second. So bond insurance was a lot more common, probably before the financial crisis in 2008. Essentially, they were most of those companies were rated AAA so you could pay them a premium just like you think of an insurance premium, your bonds would get wrapped by that AAA rated insurance company so that the bondholders would get a AAA piece of paper now instead of whatever your underlying credit rating might have been. And you pay them a premium for that they agree to make the payments in the event you defaulted or didn't make the payments. Yeah, so it was a good it was a good deal I mean the folks that bought the bond insurance that cities and school districts all that use bond insurance I mean they. It's a pretty small premium for the benefit of them and improvement rates and you wouldn't do it if it wasn't cost effective I mean from the city's perspective you would only buy bond insurance if there's actually a benefit to you. So the bond insurers felt like the likelihood default was pretty low for most municipalities, which is, I think, probably the case. But again, since a lot of those bond ins urers credit ratings dropped significantly, not so much from the muni exposure that they had but from exposures and other insurers. Those bond insurers kind of start falling by the wayside and some of them got downgraded well below the ratings of underlying ratings of a lot of the holdings that were they were insuring. So you've seen a few a resurgence a little bit lately, but none of them are rated AAA really right now except for Berkshire Hathaway has a small insurer that's AAA. So you don't see it as much and certainly your credit ratings are higher than most of the insurers now so monitoring says are really coming to play for you guys at this point but. So, this is the fiction S&P scale. And, as I said, the city's rated just by the two of those on the geo side so tax on the taxback side so double a plus from both of those entities and really the important thing here is the higher your rating, the lower your borrowing costs and so you have this inverse relationship. And, again, we don't carry a moody's rating right now. And really the market really only dictates that you have to , and there's not a preference really for which to. So, mo ody's used to be kind of one of the favored ones I'd say you know going back 10 years or so but fits is really stepped up their game and. So there's no market penalty to have whichever to you want. And in some cases, you only see one these days and bond holders are doing more of their own independent research just in light of the whole credit crisis too so you see that less reliance on credit ratings but still a necessary part of the process. Rating factors is kind of what you would expect that the rating agencies would look at when they're trying to come up with your credit assessment. Some of its objective some of its subjective. You've got the stability of the revenue source you've got the reliability of the revenue source you've got the legal covenants in place on the revenue bonds you know source the protection they have to reserve reserve fund on the revenue bond side. What other capital needs are coming what other borrowing needs are out there so for a fast growing city like Denton, double A plus maybe as high as you could be and I say that. You can't aspire to be AAA but because there's so much growth still happening a lot of capital investment that the rating agencies realize double A plus is you may be sort of maxed out just because of kind of where you are ironically. Once you become more. Once you sort of brought in most of that growth, you have less needs, you know it's probably when you become trouble AAA and then you have less need for the benefit of the higher rate so is that similar to debt to income ratio kind of in. So there's some we have a lot of debt right now because we 're just not that you have so much leverage it's just they recognize that you have more debt to sell. Because there's so much growth left I mean there's so much infrastructure needs I mean, the city is not, I don't know what how built out the city is right now but it's not 90% built out like so for the city of Plano for example which is mostly coming redeveloped. It's, there's a lot of a lot of growth and like some infrastructure needs that are still out there, even though you haven't necessarily called an election you don't have anything on the plate they just recognize that you're in a high growth area and the economy is good and it's none of those things are bad per se. They realize that there's more to come. So it's not so much the debt burden today. And then there's the management side of the rating also. You guys always get really high marks on the on the financial policies and management and that sort of thing so not to say you should be complacent with your double a plus rating but it's really those are, those are great ratings. Quick rating history. You guys can look at that on your own . So public private sales most of your sales are public, so we put together an offering document that is put out to the whole marketplace essentially. They can be done competitively or negotiated so competitive is like the seal bid process we've done competitive sales. I don't know the last four or five sales at least I think the last time we did a negotiated sale here was in 2013. Sometimes for more complex transactions we recommend negotiated sales and otherwise competitive sales seems to be the preference and certainly there's no better outcome one way over the other there's no evidence that one is better than the other in terms of the way to approach it but story credits tend to be done on a negotiated basis more because you actually have underw riters out there telling your story specifically competitive sale you put the deal out there and people just kind of show up and bid on an all or none basis is how that works and I'll be happy to get into that more if you'd like . Private placements tend to be smaller transactions I would say banks tend to be the buyers. Water Development Board transactions though they are also buyers would be considered private placement just because it's a direct purchase by them without going out into the public market and then Water Development Board would buy and hold those those bonds, as do the banks they tend to buy and hold for their own account. So we talked a little briefly about refunding refunding is just a refinancing so it's the same as refinancing your mortgage. You sell new bonds, take the proceeds from the new bonds to pay off the old bonds. Typically for you guys they're always for savings and it's hard for me to think back of a deal that we did as a refund ing that didn't actually have savings associated with it. So it's meant to be you know an economic benefit, so you're producing your debt payments with a refunding a current refunding means that you're within 90 days of the call date of the old bonds and really what drives savings is the call date on the bonds that you're looking at. So what a call option is and it's the city's option is allows you to basically forego any interest after that date so generally we sell bonds with a 10 year call option. So roughly on the 10th anniversary of the bonds. You can say I want to, you know, bring that debt in and you don't have to you pay the principal on that last date of all that 's outstanding the last 10 years of principal but you don't know any interest on the last 10 years. So what you do is replace that with new bonds, and you pay interest on the new bonds. That's really where the savings comes from largely in the refinancing. So if you're within 90 days it's a current funding of the call date if it's more than 90 days we call it advanced for funding and IRS says you can only do one of those basically per bond issue they don't. Unlike your mortgage that you could refinance as often as you want here, an advanced for funding you can only do one time so we'd like to make sure you get a good bang for the buck on those and you talk us here's talk about present value savings or talk about present value savings and that's how we measure the efficiency of those refundings to make sure that it's worthwhile, so you haven't sort of wasted your one opportunity. Cash defusions is like a refunding you're paying off old bonds but you're not selling new bonds are taking cash on hand and just calling them in essentially we use some utility systems electric cash when we just paid off some of the TMPA debt recently. Talked about the reserve fund so bond pricing. Chuck or Brian specifically asked me to include this. So, bonds are sold in $5,000 denominations, just industry standard. You hear the terms par premium and discount associated with bond pricing and what that really is is the relationship between the coupon, so the actual interest rate that you're going to pay the investor the city pays investor, and what the actual market yield is the market yield is, you know, determined by supply and demand and lots of other economic factors but an example I have here, the market yield for a 10 year bond is roughly two and a half percent. So that's what you would expect to get, depending on how they get priced, you know if we have a coupon where you're going to pay them actually that same two and a half percent that would be a bond priced at par, and you would receive 100 cents on the dollar if you sold them a hundred thousand dollar bond you'd receive $100 ,000. If it was a premium bond you're going to pay them an above market rate. So you're going to pay them 4% when they should really only be getting two and a half, but they're going to pay you 113,000 roughly up front. And what that does is they've, you know, sort of, you know, pre funded that 4% and you're going to pay it back over time. And the discount bond would be something that you're paying less than the current market yield so I just two and a quarter for example and then the price turns out to be about $97,000. In this low interest rate environment premium bonds are desirable, generally, the idea is that the investor gets their money back sooner, because you're getting above market rate and getting their money back sooner means they can invest it potentially in higher rates, as rates move up . So that's kind of why you see more premium bonds, because you're getting the 113,000 say in this example and you only , you know, we're going to sell 100,000, you're going to sell fewer bonds when you sell premium bonds so we're going to reduce the amount you sell, because you're going to get the proceeds through the premium. But then you're going to pay back at a higher than market rate. So you get pretty indifferent it's almost a wash I mean it really is a wash and the idea is that you're going to sell, like I said, you're going to have a debt payment structure at the end of the day that's going to look the total payments principal and interest will look about the same whether you sold, you know, discount bonds or par bonds, because you'll just adjust the principal amount to make sure you get the proceeds that you need to cover the project cost. Does that make sense. So how does the money flow. It's a little bit crude but basically you have all these bondholders out there people want to buy your bonds and they said, you know, count me in, they said their money into a broker, the underwriter essentially if it's a primary offering or bank, the bank pays the city. The city then takes the money and can either put it in a project fund or they can put it in an escrow to pay off the old bonds and escrow is just tends to be held by a bank and then in the event that the bonds are not callable yet so there's advanced for funding scenario where you have time. The bank will hold the bonds and then pay them off when the call date comes around. So it's like a kind of a simple flow. Then you take you know money over time and you're paying back those bondholders and that would flow back through the paying agent again to the bondholders get their money back but kind of how it works. So the fees that are charged by you got your broker bank you've got the, the, the, that's when I didn't realize is that we pay somebody that paying agent. So all those fees are included typically in this it's like a commission you know your fear. You might need $100,000 worth of bonds but everybody's. So we might get 102,000 or, I mean we're not paying for those fees out of our pocket they're usually included in that. Yes, generally we, if you need $100,000, we might need to sell $102,000 to get you the hundred thousand but we're always going to sort of build that in. Gotcha. So it's covered. Okay. So post issuance process I think kind of cover this in bits and pieces along the way I'll skip over that so post issu ance compliance this is what happens after you sell the bonds there's a lot actually that is going on that you probably never see the city has great written policies that govern all these points and then you 've seen the debt policy and some of that's more on the front end but some of that and deals with post issuance compliance as well. These tend to be IRS requirements for the most part as a sort of a condition of selling tax exempt bonds, you have to make sure you don't change the use of the project. You can't say you're going to go use the money for what would have been a tax exempt use and then all of a sudden decide to go sell the project or converted over to a private parking garage or something like that there would be a change of use that would that would be an issue so you want to track what you've spent the money on and make sure that you don't have a change in use that would trigger an IRS audit for example. Arbitrage compliance has to do with the investments on the bond proceeds you can't generally you can't earn more than your borrowing cost so if you're borrowing costs these days is 3% you can't earn more than 3% on the bond proceeds while you're waiting to spend them down. That's very high level but that's kind of how that works anything above that, you would go back to the IRS they don 't really want you to be able to sell and make a profit. So, again, there's some a few exceptions but that's the gist of it. There's an SEC rule where after you sell the bonds you're agreeing to update the market for certain any changes and that would be considered material to the market. And you also agree to provide your audit and a lot of the operating data that's in your offering document on an annual basis. And again the city has got great procedures for that, and then record retention again IRS comes in and wants to audit something you need to make sure you can prove it up you know how fast you spent the money and what you spend it on those kinds of things. Now bondholders. This is a list of the largest bondholders that own your general obligation bonds and you hardly, you have only 64 I think like said million revenue bonds but you have about 604 million general obligation CEOs all that rolled up together. So these are the bondholders that own more than 2 million. Interestingly, the largest holder only holds $15 million so that's, I think, just under two and a half percent of the total geo debt that you have outstanding so your debt is, you know, well diversified and broadly held which I think is a good thing. I mean you don't have one investor that owns most of your most of your bonds. Go ahead. So you have 604 million general obligation in total and that includes all the utility debt that's sold with a property tax pledge. So I've got to break down it out here in just a second. Yes, Kevin. Is there any, you know, I guess as an individual investor you probably kind of type this. You've got a diversified portfolio and you maybe own some of these somewhere along the lines but is there anything that encourages investors or even a platform that allows for investors to say I'm interested in purchasing municipal bonds for my own city, because I want to invest in it I believe in the projects blah blah blah. Is that even, is there even a phenomenon like that that folks could do that. I know a couple of patriotic perspective. This is probably not going to like this answer but I know a couple of examples where it's done. Denton has a mini bond program and some place in South Carolina does on a fairly big scale I mean, it's nice in a sense because it feels like the right thing to do but it's not cost effective from the city's perspective, and I say that because you really want to get the lowest cost of funds I mean generally and and not to say that your citizens aren't capable of doing that, but it's not an efficient way for them because you know $5,000 denominations and it's a lot of effort to get another set of transaction costs to set up a mini, a mini program. Like I've seen it done a couple of times but it's a little bit more of a community outreach, you know feel good, sort of not so much necessarily the best financial outcome. So, my assessment. Could you explain the auditing process and how it's audited kind of along the way, and I respect it. Just how what are the checks and balances and who, who audits you, and, you know, who audits all of these large sums of bonds, you know , sold bought changed out all of that. So, I'm like Greg jump in on this because it really falls in the IRS audits fall more into there, but yeah, you go ahead Chuck. In terms of the city funds you're talking about when the city issues bonds and all that we have an external auditor that comes in every year, which you talked about the annual financial report we have an external auditor our current external auditors Weaver and Tidwell, and they come in every year and do an audit of all the city funds, and then we issue the annual financial report kind of our CAFR based on that audit, and they actually have to sign off the auditor sign off on the validity and what they 've checked in terms of the annual audit of the city. So those are in terms of, did we get these proceeds in did we deposit them. Are they, you know, are they in the city's investment portfolio, have we expended those funds, they do that and look at the purposes that they're expended for kind of matching with with what those requirements are. And how long have they been auditing the city books. I think it's been about seven years that we've had that audit for. And that's a discussion for another day on, you know how that process all takes place and, and is there any , any validity to bringing in a different auditing company just in terms of checks and balances That's I think a discussion for another day, and they come and meet regularly with the audit finance. And that's actually one of the discussions we'll have with the audit finance committee after their contract ends, how they want to move forward. So debt overview, this sort of may speak to your questions. This is all of the, again, tax supported I mean it's not tax supported it's bonds actually a property tax pledge. So you see it's broken out by tax supported in green the utility supported in blue. If you can read this number so the utilities about 425 million tax support is about 136 million airport was only 4 .7 million and solid waste is 39.2 million. All of that collectively makes up the 604 million, and how the repayment schedule works there is on the, on the far side. I will say note that 63% of your bonds are repaid within 10 years. So that's the principal retired so they're in 2025 you can see 63.6% is repaid. This is a very fast amort ization generally speaking and that sounds fast but if you think you've got 20 year bonds if you were selling at equal principle you would expect only have to be repaid. So, and you'll see a curve here in just a second so it to me it's a, you know, it's a good, good, fast repayment which is a credit positive, we do have a question. Yes, yes. Yeah, that all of these tie back to the use of solid waste is was solid waste project that's paid from solid waste, they allocated, and then the utilities then sub allocated between electric water and wastewater like I can break that down further. So, yeah. So here's the sort of payment curve so that on the left side here is the annual payment and millions and then over time. And again we broke it out by tax supported and all the funding sources and you can see the green tax support is actually relatively small and in very rapidly descending . You know, in and of itself and it all repays within 20 years on the tax support actually property tax supported and use revenue source for that. Through those all outstanding debt so this is just more generic the same 604 million and the repayment schedule the green is principal and the gray is interest on this. So this is the utility system revenue bonds, 63 million, like said, green is principal gray is interest. Some of this looks a little funny because we've been shifting some of that over to the geo side I mean the property tax side so I don't have a schedule here but if you combine the utility supported debt that's got a geo pledge and the revenue bond pledge it wouldn't necessarily have a hole in it like that a dip. So this is a market update so rates are really low as you guys know, and this is the bomb buyer index since 1981, which is a good proxy kind of for your, your borrowing cost . That's all I had. So back in 1981 it was 13 or 14%. Yes. It's a good time to buy bonds right. That's when you paid, you could pay 22% on a loan to buy a house back in 1981. And for those of us around who were buying homes in those days, car loans were were off the charts. It was, it was horrific. And with the head shaking around this table. We remember those. I had a house for sale with an assumption loan on it of a assumable loan, 11 and a half percent interest, people fought over that. And not only that Kathleen. I had to walk to school up hill both ways in the snow bare foot. Okay, any questions. Great presentation. Great presentation . Very good very important. Lots of good information. Our dinner is here. I think, Chuck, do you know how long your presentation is we're going to three minutes three slides. Okay, so let's grab a quick bite to eat, we'll get Chuck through here, and then we'll go in. Unless we wanted to finish Chuck first, but I'm a. You want to do Chuck first. No, that's okay. You got to wait think is about five 10 minutes maybe my part will be less than that. Okay, let's roll. Sorry, but then we can eat in close session. Yeah, as long as, depending on the questions that are asked . I may be the one asking. Oh Lord. Really what I wanted to talk about here was kind of tying on to this was the generation facility we've talked about the dead options. So in terms of tying on to this wanted to kind of go over the impacts of really the three different dead options for the potential generation facility and this is kind of to follow along with the other presentation. We talked about really three options revenue bonds. Again, that would be a pledge of the city utility system revenues only you can capitalize interest during construction one year after completion, what capitalize interest is you really sell debt in order to pay your interest payments during the construction of a facility, and up to one year afterwards reason. Really the reason you do that is it's a facility that generates revenue, you're not going to have revenue until the facilities completed. So you capitalize interest it's kind of similar if you're building a house and get interim financing, usually pay for the interest during that period of construction of the house, and then when your house completed you roll that into your note, per se, or a business that does that. Generally they have a little bit higher interest rates than what the property tax pledges mission, as mentioned, there's no notice or election required prior to sale, and there's no ability for the city to call a binding election under state law in terms of when election can be called for date debt under state law, there 's only certain circumstances so this is one where the city wouldn't have the ability to call it. In terms of certificates of obligation it's a pledge of property taxes and utility system revenues. The same as with revenue bonds you capitalize interest during construction and one year after completion, a little bit lower interest rates because of the property tax pledge, but currently the city transfers this savings and interest rates from the utility system to the street maintenance fund. So the net impact to the utility would be the same in terms of costs revenue bonds and certificates of obligation. Excuse me, regarding that first bullet, just one question. While you say pledge of property taxes and city utility system revenues, we can set it up so that it is only paid for out of the city utility system revenues, is that correct? That's correct. And that's how we've been doing it and some other CEOs. Correct, but in terms of the legal obligation, it's an obligation of both. I just wanted to clarify. That's correct. It requires publication of a notice of intent to issue the CEOs with the first publication at least 31 days prior to the sale. As Laura mentioned it's subject to referendum by a petition, signed by 5% or more of the registered voters. And again there's no ability for the city to call a binding election, unless they receive the petition. I understand that when I get to the third one, general obligation bonds. Now this is a pledge of property taxes only. But you can administratively pay the debt service from utility revenues. It's not a pledge but you can administratively do it. We've done some refundings of utility system bonds that are called general obligation refundings. So there's only a pledge of property taxes but we're administratively paying that from utility revenues. There are restrictions on capitalized interest. You can only capitalize interest until you levy a tax. So it's going to be a year or under depending on the time that you sell that you can capitalize interest. So there's restrictions on that with general obligation bonds. Lower interest rate than revenue bonds due to the property tax pledge. Same thing but again our practice has been to take that difference to the street maintenance fund. And it requires an election on uniform election date either November or May with a simple majority of voters to approve the bond sale. Couple questions. Interest rates compared to GOs to CEOs. That's similar? Pretty well the same. Same property tax pledge. Restrictions on capitalized interest. I think I heard you say that one more time. The maximum amount you can capitalize depending on the time of your sale is about a year. We levy property taxes in October when we passed the new budget and property taxes are levy beginning October 1. And they're collected, they're delinquent by the end of January. So depending on when you sell you can capitalize interest up to that date of the levy of the property taxes. So those are really the three options available in terms of the DME debt. Does that add to the cost? With a GO bond with the restriction on capitalized interest, would that add to the cost of the project? It really wouldn't add to the cost of the project. What it would do is you would have to start paying interest sooner. So for a utility system for DME for general, they would have to start paying the interest on those bonds within a year. So they're going to have to raise their rates to cover that cost before the facility is completed and generating any revenue. So, okay, so it, let me see if I can say that make sure. So if we did it through GO bonds, it would mean having to start paying it before the generating plan is generating. So there's no revenue to cover the cost. So that means simply an increase in the rate payers. Maybe. Maybe. Yeah, I mean, it just depends on how you structure your, the budget and things such as that. I mean, yeah, it's a cash flow. Yeah, it'd be coming out of revenue. So whether you have to raise rates to cover that would just be the budget item for the system. I mean, I don't think it's an automatic. Okay. I mean, depending on how it would be set up. There'll be additional costs sooner on that debt with general obligation. Yeah. Yeah. But it doesn't necessarily translate into you'd have to rate. Yeah. Every bit of your money is accounted for. Then yes, you'd have to do that. But what I'm hearing though, too, though, is when you capitalize interest, that can add to the overall cost of the project because you're paying interest upon capitalized interest. Correct. Correct. You sell to cover that capitalized interest. Yeah. Okay. What else? Anything else? Once, twice, three times. Good deal. Thank you, Chuck. Very , very informative. All right. Let me go ahead and call the closed session and we'll have my little. No, no. Oh, okay. I'll just do it. Whatever. All right. We will now convene in closed session at five thirty. Pursuant to I'll just pick some. Just go through them. No, that's good. That's my fault. I've got it misplaced. Yeah. Consultation or Texas Government Code section five five one point oh seven one with attorneys deliberations under Texas Government Code section five five one point oh seven two. Consultation under Texas Government Code section five five one point oh eight seven, which is deliberations regarding economic development negotiations. Let's grab some dinner. Good evening. I wanted to welcome everybody to this. I don 't even know what the date is. October 20th, 2015. Denton City Council meeting. It is six forty three. Apolog ize for being a little late. We had some closed session items we needed to take care of. We'll proceed on to our first item on the agenda, which is the pledge to the U.S. and to the Texas flag. So if you're able to stand, please join me. To the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state under God, one indivis ible. We've got a couple of proclamations and presentations we'll be doing at this time. Okay, the first one we have is a proclamation for support our troops if Chuck you would come up and all the members of the club that want to come down and stand and support Chuck or if you want to at least people here from Robeson Ranch support our troops if y'all could stand please. All right, thank you. Thank you very much. Well Chuck if you wouldn't mind just telling us a little bit before I read the proclamation about your club and, and what you guys do I want to thank Kathleen was need district three representative for she really spearheaded this and I've attended numerous of y'all's organizations events out there ropes and ranching you into quite a group so why don't you share a little bit about your group. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mayor. We are an all volunteer charity organization, based out of ropes and ranch veterans are special people, they have to sacrifice quite a bit for their country, and, and their families also sacrifice quite a bit so that's where our focus is. We have about 256 members this year what started out in 2004 with just a small group meeting in a living room to figure out how to support troops that were related to them overseas is growing to this size organization are giving budget this year is $58,000. We take about 60% of that and focus that on supporting the troops overseas. We have 75 relatives of ropes and ranch residents, 15 of those are deployed to Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe. Some are in combat zones. Those in combat zones we support monthly. We also support the their units with what we call substantial unit shipments which is enough to share with quite a few people were currently supporting the morale welfare Recreation Association at Canada our base in Afghanistan, and the resolute support command which is the one largest military command out there right now, and they are tearing down things and relocating things based on our, our government policies. So the first arm of division, and another couple of special units. We sent out, as I said the monthly shipments, we send cards to them birthday cards and correspondence, the cards are made by another club at our ropes and ranch call the sassy stampers their handmade and they're gorgeous. And then there's another group of ladies call the ropes around sweeties they bake cookies, which we sent out to the units overseas on special occasions, and the material girls which is a very large sewing and quilting organization at our at our ranch. They make special items for special requests for hospitals, and they also provide us with things for Christmas. So we find ourselves quite busy we have to fundraising events a year, a golf tournament in the spring, this past tournament. We had, we hosted 36 Fort Hood soldiers and their families so soldiers by the way I just recently returned from deployment, and we put them in our houses we treat them for three days, like royalty and earlier they are, they are. And then in November 11 we have our annual selling auction starts at 10 in the morning goes until 9pm at night. Last year's auction we had $52,000 worth of donated items, and we made 29,000 off of that so that's what we do we really love our work. Well I'll tell you what let's give them a hand for supporting our veterans. Before I read the proclamation I've attended several of those and the silent auction is wonderful there's actually wonderful items there for auction, and I'm going to give a shameless plug what she didn't expect this but Council member was nice husband is an excellent man and what he does is he makes tables bowls all kinds of things that he donates to this to these organizations and others so I really thank you and thank you and and Ray for doing that so much for supporting them in that way, thank you for implementing this and initiating this and this proclamation. This proclamation and, and with honor and a lot of pride proclamation by the mayor of the city of didn't Texas, whereas Robeson ranch support our troops organization is made up of over 255 residents living at Robeson ranch, where it is, it is of the greatest importance that our troops serving abroad and at home are supported by the people they protect, whereas it is the privilege and duty of all Americans to commemorate Veterans Day November the 11th now therefore I Chris Watts, mayor of the city of didn't Texas do hereby proclaim Veterans Day as a data on our veterans and to thank ropes and ranch support our troops for what they do for our troops serving overseas so thank you very much. Thank you, Chuck. Thank you very much. There are organizations like this that we have all around didn't for all kinds of needs for our citizens that really make this community a very very special community. We have a fire prevention week. And if Jeff Miller is Mr Miller here would come down and tell us a little bit about fire prevention week and encourage us to be safe and to check our smoke detectors most likely. I can do that check your smoke detectors. Fire prevention week commemorates the Great Fire Chicago in the late 1870s that burn for three days, and the National Fire Protection Association declared a week that the October 8th falls on each year to observe fire prevention here at the city of Denton, our fire department, we stretch out to a month. So we call it fire prevention month, and we give gives our clown show plenty of time to get out to all the schools and do their education so it's been a blessing to have a whole month to get these guys out there if you ever have any children or grandchildren in elementary school, this time of year check to see when that programs coming through, and they come through and put on a program and emphasize fire safety so it's a it's a blessing to have a proclamation. Thank you. And so the fire prevention month begins when it started when October 1st and goes through the month of October. All right. One is very important to to take these things into consideration because there's nothing worse than having a fire. People can lose their lives they lose their property they lose their memories so anything that we can do to help prevent that for ourselves or our businesses is something that we really need to do. So, first, proclamation by the mayor of the city of didn't, whereas didn't is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our city. And whereas fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are the locations where people are at greatest risk from fire. Whereas home fires kill more than 2755 people in the United States in 2013, according to the National Fire Protection Association and fire departments in the United States responded to more than this is remarkable more than 369,500 home fires, almost 370,000 home fires, whereas working smoke alarms cut the risk of dying and reported home fires in half. And whereas three out of five home fire deaths result from fires and properties without working smoke alarms. And whereas didn't residents should install smoke alarms in every sleeping room outside each separate sleeping area, and on every level of the home and install smoke alarms and alert devices that meet the needs of people who are deaf or hard of hearing. And whereas didn't residents who have planned and practice a home fire escape plan are more prepared and will therefore be more likely to survive a fire. Whereas didn't firefighters responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires and home fire injuries through prevention and protection education. And whereas the 2015. It says fire prevention week but I'm going to say fire prevention month I'm going to take a little bit of license here. The fire prevention month theme is here the beep where you sleep. Every bedroom needs a working smoke alarm effectively serves to remind us that we need working smoke alarms to give us the time to get out safely. I, as the mayor of the city didn't do hereby proclaim the month of October to be fire prevention month and I urge all the citizens of didn't to test their smoke alarms, at least every month, by pushing the test button and to support the many public safety activities and efforts of Denton and fire emergency services during fire prevention month 2015. Thank you very much for what you guys do for our community. Thank you. The Denton City Council has adopted rules of procedure including a code of conduct which applies to citizens as well as council members. These rules were enacted to promote an orderly process and to preserve decorum. Here is a brief review of the rules that apply to citizens reports. Citizens will have four minutes to give a report. There will be an electronic beep when time has expired. If the remarks are not concluded by that time the citizen will be asked to stop speaking. If the citizen does not cease and a second request is made, the mayor will request to have the citizen removed from the council chambers. Citizens are asked to not approach the da is. If a citizen has papers or other materials to hand out to the council, please let the city secretary know and she will have a staff member distribute the materials to the council. The attorney general has ruled that council members may listen to citizens speak and may ask questions of citizens for clarification of the issue. Council members will not engage citizens in discussion of a topic because to do so could potentially be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. When speaking to the council, citizens are to direct all remarks and questions to the council as a whole and not to any individual member. Please refrain from making abusive, personal, impertinent, profane or slanderous remarks. Anyone who violates this rule will immediately be removed from the council chambers. Citizens' adherence to these rules will help make an effective presentation and will preserve the order and decorum of our proceedings. Copies of the rules of procedure are available from the city secretary. Item 3, but before I do that, I wanted to recognize in the back of the room, I believe this is a University of North Texas film class. So I want to wait and I'm wearing my North Texas tie. So I thought that was very apropos, very coincidental. So welcome. This is a presentation from members of the public and under this agenda item, we do have three speakers and then one wishing to speak under agenda item 3C. I believe if I'm not mistaken that we also have public speakers who are scheduled to speak at agenda item number seven, which is at the end of the city council meeting. I believe some of them are present here right now. So if we were to move those up, that would need to be sort of a consensus of the council. So I'm just asking if they're present and you want to move them forward to this particular agenda item as well, are we okay with that? Okay, well then we'll do that and we'll just take them after the originally scheduled agenda items under agenda item three. So our first speaker is agenda item three one which is Naomi would regarding paid parental leave for the city of Denton employees going beyond FMLA. And if you would state your name and address, and your time will begin. My name is Naomi would my address is 2222 West Oak Street, Denton Texas 76201. Thank you, Mayor, Mayor Watts and city council members for listening to me speak today about an issue that is at the forefront of many new parents, and especially women's minds . It is encouraging to hear this topic being discussed frequently, even as of recently as the democratic debates last week. Paid parental leave is a topic of discussion that our city should be addressing now, because we've gone too long without doing so. Now, I could get up here and go on about the economic strengths paid leave, and how it nearly pays for itself by decreasing costly employee turnover and retra ining. And today I want to appeal to your humanity and to your ethics. As many of you know, paid parental leave is a core value and a labor right of many industrialized societies, except for our own. We do not invest in it, we do not budget for it and we do not talk about it. As of until recently, research indicates that paid parental leave is good for working families and has little to no effect on a company's overall bottom line. In fact, research now supports that paid parental leave increases employee retention, especially among women, and contributes to a positive morale like many other wellness plans like gym memberships, paid sick and vacation leave. Paid parental leave should not be left off the table anymore. It is not a fringe benefit. It is essential in assuring that our new parents are guaranteed time with their new babies without fear of losing paychecks, or in many women's cases, several paychecks. On average, women take eight weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn. Denton families are often faced with tough decisions on what they will do to bring a new child into the world. There are people in this room with infants that have had to make some tough choices about how they will stay afloat financially after bringing a baby into the world. We need to do better as a city to alleviate those unnecessary financial strains for city employees. We all know that the average working class family now needs two incomes to stay afloat. And any unpaid leave increases the chance of families going on welfare, which is happening, and perhaps being reduced to poverty in some cases. The United States recognized that we needed to make our policies more fair and family friendly and passed FMLA in 1993 with bipartisan support. However, these policies are sorely lacking and there is a need to expand and grow these policies to ensure that equality and support for our families in the workforce. FMLA only guarantees that an employee cannot be terminated for an illness or pregnancy for up to 12 weeks. This is not paid leave. This is merely job security. We now have parents that are struggling to make ends meet and are often asked to make hard choices that pit their family against their employer. Many fear retribution if they take too long to care for a new baby. Many mothers have to go to work for fear of not being able to make ends meet with unpaid leave. These mothers are often still injured from childbirth and are still breastfeeding. What does it say as a society that we do not take into consideration these life events? What does it say when our policies indicate that getting back on the job is more important than bonding with a new baby? I am requesting as a citizen that we look into expanding our current policies to include a paid leave policy that makes sense for our city and our budget. Cities like San Francisco, Boston, Austin, Chicago and Seattle have all passed ordinances between four to six weeks paid leave for new parents. I believe we can also come up with a system that works best for our city of Denton employees. Research also suggests that paid leave policies incentivize other corporations and companies to provide similar benefits in order to stay competitive. I am requesting that as many cities have done for city council to come together to decide -- No, you can finish your sentence. I am requesting that as many cities have done for city council to come together to decide who wants to sponsor this ordinance or amendment, whatever it is, and come up with a plan for next year's budget. Let us know what we can do as citizens to help in this endeavor. If you need signatures, we can come up with that. If you need a survey, we can come up with that. But we need to follow the model that many cities have taken the initiative on in providing own paid leave policies. All right. You about? Yes. Okay, complete. Well, we have a question. Sure, sure, sure. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, congratulations, city manager. We are already starting to talk about next year's budget. That's right. A couple of questions for you. You mentioned four different cities, only one of them was in Texas. Right. Do you know much about cities within the metropolitan area, if any of those cities already have paid leave? You mean the DFW? This metropolitan area or other -- This metropolitan area. No, we don't. As far as I know, we don't. Austin was the only one I could find that had a paid leave policy. Okay. And when you're talking about that, your subject is paid parental leave, you mainly were talking about women, but -- No, we're talking about both parents. Okay. Right. Very good. Thank you very much. Yes. Councilmember Rodin. Thank you for this presentation. It's something you do here as you referenced at the national level, but it oftentimes is applied locally. Right. And so it's important to raise this question. But to be clear, your suggestion is just something over which we have jurisdiction, which is the city of Denton. Correct. It's not making some policy for every other private employee. No, we can't do that. And I work for the state. I work for the University of North Texas, and I have asked them and sort of lobbied them, and they are bound by state law and bound by state municipal code. So we really can only affect the change at the city level. That's good. And in some cases, cities have provided an example for private employers as a result. Right. My question is, given that your suggestion is that to start with the city, have you heard or talked to any parents that work for the city who are like, yeah, it's hard for me to lobby for myself, but talk to me about that. Yes. And you might not see them here today. I don't know if anybody in the audience is here today who I 've spoken to, but they're at home taking care of their kids , much like I have to do. I had to get a babysitter tonight. They're often not able to advocate for themselves. But yes, I spoke recently to a gentleman, and I have spoken to other people who adopted a child, and he wanted to stay at home with that child and bond. His wife was a stay at home mother, and he happens to work for the city. And he was, he quoted and said, I felt like a second class citizen. I felt like I had to go through a bunch of red tape because of the legal parameters around adopting a child and getting that child's name on a birth certificate in order for him to be able to take adequate unpaid leave. And let's be clear, everybody can take their vacation time, their sick time, their comp time. That is a well-known fact, but that's subjective. And if you don't have that, you can't take it. So he said that would have made all the difference in the world for his morale and feeling like he was ready to come back to work. He only got to take one or two weeks with his brand new adopted child, and he needed he needed to get back. He felt like he needed to get back quickly. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I want to thank you for taking up this cause. And I think it's awesome to hear somebody out promoting the family. So I want to thank you for that. Obviously, you're passionate about it. Can you tell me what Austin adopted? Sure. I have their ordinance here, and I could also send this to you. Austin, if I'm not mistaken, decided to go with a six-week paid leave policy. And sorry, I have so many ordinances here. But so cities do it differently. And I believe the way that the city of Austin did is they said we're going to pay full two weeks, the first two weeks , the second two weeks. We're going to pay 75% of that person's salary. The last two weeks, we're going to pay 50%. So they sort of staggered it, but that was based on the way that they chose to do it. But then there's examples like Seattle, who said you can take your entire salary all six weeks as long as you take it right after the baby's born. And then there's policies like Boston that said you have a whole year to take your paid leave. We'll give you six weeks fully paid. You have a whole year. So if you don't want to take all six weeks right when the baby's born, because there's going to be doctors visits and appointments and sickness, and you know how it goes with new children, they give them a whole year to take that six weeks of paid leave. So really, we can do it any way we want. They adopted it based on what they felt like was best for their city employees. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for doing this. I was really glad that you brought up turnover and training , you know, and retraining. That's a great point. That is the businesses that I have. That's the most expensive thing that we do, it seems like. Absolutely. We're constantly training. What made you start to champion this? I'm just curious. Well, I don't know if many of you know me, but I did not mean it to come across like that, but I started a group called Women Do Local Politics in the community about a year ago. And really, it was just at first me and my friends just wanting to sort of champion women and family issues and, you know, just create a space for women to come together and talk about what we want to see in the community happen. And it's evolved from that. I'm really just trying to understand what women, what mothers, what families need in our community and how to advocate for them, because often they cannot advocate for themselves. I've been in that position the last eight years. I have a young daughter who's going to be eight next week. And it's very hard to come to these meetings. It's hard to get involved. So I created an online platform where people can come together on social media. We're now hosting events. We have a coffee event this Saturday where we're saying, and Keely and Kathleen are coming to that, we're coffee with our lady leaders. Come find out what it takes to be a woman in elected office . So that's really my passion, and it evolved from that. If you need a coffee shop to meet at, I know of one. You know of one? Okay, great. Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Also, I want to just say one more thing. Rutgers study -- We just have one more question. Sure, sure. Hi. Thanks for coming and speaking on behalf of a majority of women who can't come to speak for themselves. When you contacted us and asked us about this, I was surprised in my research that there wasn't anything already for our employees. So my question is really for staff, if this has ever been researched before, anything like this has ever come up, maternity leave for parents, parental leave? Keely, I don't know that we've done any research on it recently, but we can certainly address -- I know we've sent some information to you and/or counsel about what our current policies are. Right, yeah. But we can follow up on that and provide some more detailed information. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Wasney. As a working mom and my two daughters work, I feel your pain. It is an issue and is something I think this city could seriously take a look at. And women are in the workforce. And I know we talked about leave for men, but ultimately it really falls on our shoulders. You know, we keep a million balls in the air seven days a week, 24/7. So thank you for championing this cause. Thank you. So Rutgers did a study and they -- go ahead. If you had that in written form, if you could -- I do. Okay, if you could just maybe get it to the city secretary and she'll get it to us because -- sure. Yeah, time has expired and we have -- I'm sorry. All right, thank you. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Gregory, Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Yes. You're aware that generally according to our -- are you aware that according to our -- see, I have to put this in the form of a question and I never did well in jeopardy. Are you aware that generally speaking, according to our council rules, we don't give staff directives or ask for things to come up until the end of the meeting, the very end of the meeting? Sure. Are you aware of that? No. You might, if you go home, tune in in here because that'll probably happen. Okay. And I can't put it in the form of a question. I don't know what else to do. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wood. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Dawn Carlin regarding necessary improvements on McKinney between Loop 288 and Ryan High School, and if you could state your name and address, your time will begin. Dawn Carlin, 191 Detges Drive, Apartment 1028. The time has come to address the necessary expansion to McK inney Street between Loop 288 and Ryan High School. We have a responsibility to confront ourselves and to confront each other with hard and inconvenient truths. My daughter, Faith Carlin, was struck by a vehicle on August 31, 2015, as she walked in the ditch on the south side of McKinney just east of May Hill Road. It is less than a mile from the front door of my apartment to the front door of Ryan High School. She was the second child in less than 12 months to be hit by a vehicle. In several news and television articles, children began to come forward with similar stories of being clipped by vehicles in the coming days. This is a civil wrong. When injury is done to another person, this has been on record as a proof for expansion programs not for years but for decades. The high school was established in 1996 with concern from the school board about the safety of children walking this very path. This is an ongoing elevating concern for both parents and those who live in the area around Ryan High School. Reliable transportation is necessary for students in Denton Independent School District. Discussion needs to be held around changes in policy for students who live in the areas where there is not a safe path for students to travel to and from schools. A bus now provides a temporary solution for those who live within this area, but this should be considered one of many possible solutions. Those within the area should support changes introduced by council members as they work with TxDOT to attempt to resolve this issue. Plans for the city to purchase the street with tax dollars previously dedicated for this purpose would allow for local businesses to be competitive with their bids and allow for improvements like sidewalks to occur faster. This makes sense when it comes to having a safe path to go and a safe place when they get there. Until this expansion and the necessary sidewalks are in place, it will take action on the part of all of those concerned individuals who are willing to walk that same path. Those who stand in the gap for those who are young. Task forces, parent groups, church, youth groups, all who will do their part. In conclusion, I'd like to quote the principal of Ryan High School in a recent interview with the Denton Record Chronicle. Vernon Reeves stated, "We need to find a way to get this project off high center and stop putting our students at risk." Thank you. >> We have a couple questions. >> Yes. >> Council Member Briggs. >> Hi, Ms. Carlin. >> Hi. >> We've talked before and I'm supposed to ask things in forms of a question. So have you heard, do you know of an update? Have you been informed on that? >> No. >> If anything. >> No, I haven't. >> Okay. Well, you did mention the busing and there is a partnership between DISD and DCTA to offer transportation services to those that reside in a no- busing zone. And that is something that they're looking into for January . And we are still looking at intermittent pathways to that. And the expansion of the street is still in progress. There are a lot of council members up here that aren't going to let that go. So we understand the significance of this. >> Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. >> I was wondering if you were aware that in the council mobility committee that we've directed staff to start talking with TxDOT about transferring the money that's been earmarked for that project to the city and let the city just take over the project and move it forward rather than dealing with the other bureaucracy. Were you aware that that discussion is going on? >> I am. >> Okay, good. >> Councilmember Rodin. >> Thanks for coming. How's your daughter? >> She's doing better. I'm really proud of her and all her progress and her hard work. >> Great to hear. Thanks. Thanks for coming today. >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The next speaker will be John Goodman regarding Quaker Town Park. If you state your name and address, your time will begin. >> John Goodman, 424 Bernard Street, Apartment 210. I recently walked to Quaker Town Park after learning of the ethnic cleansing that went on there, looking for some kind of information or some kind of clue as to what happened in the past. I finally walked around for a couple hours and I couldn't find any placards or any kind of anything. Recently, I thought that was an issue. I scheduled the talk I'm having now with the city. I was finally contacted by the fellow in charge of Quaker Town Park and he told me where the monument or the placard was and I finally got to go see it. That's a good thing, but I think it's a single problem and a bigger issue of lack of representation for African American history in Denton. For instance, the courthouse on the square, which is under county jurisdiction but still in the city of Denton, has very little representation of African Americans. For instance, slaves lack, Zach Rawlings was a janitor at the Denton County Courthouse, yet there's no statue or very visible representation of him . Much of the African American history in Denton is in the Bayless Selby House Museum on Mulberry, which is very nice. But some of the African American history, much more than is present, should also be in the courthouse museum on the square. So what can we do? This is a Denton County issue, right? Jurisdictionally, that's correct. However, the museum on the square, since it's in the city of Denton and lacks African American representation, reflects on us as such in the city of Dent on. We can ensure the city of Denton is representing African American history fairly and set an example, the museum on the square will hopefully follow. A lot of people don't know the historical significance of Quaker Town Park. In the past few months, I've actually been protesting the Confederate monument on this square. I've also made it a point to ask people if they've ever been to Quaker Town Park and if they know its history. A lot tell me they visited Quaker Town Park, but few actually knew the history behind what happened there and the significance of it. This is a problem since the park was named after Quaker Town as a kind of memorial itself to remind people of its history. Two things are clear. It's failed to reach its goal and we now know that just the name and poorly placed placard aren't enough to teach people the history of Quaker Town Park. Until we make every effort to right the wrongs of the past, healing cannot happen and we can't move into the future. The existence of the very prominently placed Confederate monument in the city of Denton's town square makes the lack of representation for Quaker Town even more egregious. Until we properly memorialize and pay tribute to the ethnic cleansing that happened right here in our city, true healing cannot happen. The lack of representation is divisive in and of itself. If we want to move forward towards a brighter future, we must first confront the utterly deplorable race relations of our past. Try and move forward without admitting our mistakes. The past is not an option. Moving to the future while memorializing the atrocities of Quaker Town by placing a single placard that most people never get a chance to see is not an option. It's doing the bare minimum necessary to cover our bases and absolve ourselves of blame. So there are a few solutions. Most are that the city of Denton should lead by example. The first solution is figuring out the most heavily traff icked areas of Quaker Town Park and placing an additional placard there. The second solution is placing a monument similar to the Confederate monument in the most heavily trafficked area of Quaker Town Park. And a third and final option would be to create multiple monuments of families and business owners who lost their homes and businesses in Quaker Town as a monument to them. That's all. Okay. We have a question. Council Member Rodin. Thanks for your presentation. Those are actually some great suggestions. My kids, we live a block from Quaker Town. They're familiar with the story because I tell them. They're at the park almost every day. I'm glad you finally found that sign. That was a great community event and pushed forward by a lot of folks in our community to make sure that there is a story told. Can we tell that story better? I think you're right. I was going to ask you whether or not you had seen the new historical markers. There's 10 of them along the DCTA rail trail in Southeast Denton, which is where historically the Quaker Town neighborhood was moved to. Have you seen those historical, pointing to a lot of the great African American history of Denton? I have not. Where are those located? Along the rail trail, DCTA rail trail. So if you start walking at the downtown train station, all the way to where it ends, there's 10 signs. All right. Just a suggestion. Cool. I'll definitely check those out. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. You might also consider, or have you considered, talking with Margaret Chalafant, who's coordinating the art master plan for the city. That would be an opportunity for you to maybe suggest to her a public art in the park that represented the families that you were talking about or some of the individuals that had lived in that area. Public art is in a way a monument. Also there's, are you familiar, in some states they have what they call the museum on the street, and it uses placards like on the A train trail around with photos of what that area looked like at a different time in history, also telling the story. It's a different way of communicating other than the bronze plaque, but with photos of people in front of their homes or in front of their businesses, that's also a way to do that. Mr. Goodman, I do appreciate you coming and speaking to this. I was fortunate and honored enough to be part of, at least to attend the ceremony of that dedication, and I've been in Dent my whole life. I grew up here my whole life, and some aspects of that story I hadn't heard, and it was quite eye opening. I really appreciate you coming forward and shedding some more light on that and to request these things. I think those are some very good ideas, so I really do appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. You bet. All right, we're going to go on to the agenda item 3C, which is additional citizen reports, and we have one card, and that is from Tammy Morrill. If you'll come and state your name and address, and your time will begin. My name is Tammy Morrill. I reside at 208 Pennsylvania Drive here in Denton. I want to tell you a little bit about who I am because it's going to be important, my credentials as I tell you what has been going on on this journey of mine for the last year. What has happened to me could happen to any citizen in Dent on, and I really need your help. I'm a retired CEO of Valley Center Fence Company in San Diego, California. Our fence company fenced the Wild Animal Park. We had the police districts, the fire districts, the school districts, the water districts. We did partial of the zoo. I also have been a horse trainer for over 30 years, American Quarter Horses, Youth World Show Horses. I know animals. Ten years ago I had a career changing accident. I'm disabled. Been for ten years. I've had eight major surgeries to learn to walk again, eight minor surgeries. So I'm a lot more fragile than I used to be. I'm widowed. I've raised two boys, one in the Navy, discharged honorably , and another graduate of UNT in the music program. I had a studio down in Dallas. All of this is very, very important. I'm also a jurid artist on scholarship at TWU. I've been involved in some aspect with Texas Christian University, Texas A&M, UNT, North Central Texas College, and of course, TWU. This is all very important, and what I'm going to ask of you is, I moved to Denton a year ago. Now I've been involved, I've been horse country for the last ten years with Denton because of my children. But I moved here to take advantage of the medical facilities and to be closer to doctors and try and get on my own. I've had a nightmare living in the city of Denton. I thought I'd be protected. I'm not. I live next door to a neighbor who has just been a nightmare for me. I've been house bound for over a year, and I listen to these dogs. This is a zoning ordinance violation, and I need to have the peace and safety in the neighborhood restored. I also have to have a police report that happened on Labor Day weekend where I was assaulted and trespassed because this woman cannot contain her dogs. The police report was incorrect. It was misinterpreted. The witnesses were not questioned thoroughly. I have so much documentation. It's here if you want to see it, and it's been an effort less collection over the year. This is just a month of just my journal. The animal control, I tried talking to this woman. She came to me and said she's got an animal rescue when she moved in a year ago. Seven dogs, she's going to bring three more in. Okay, fine. I'm an animal person. These dogs cry day in and day out. I have migraines documented. I have spinal cord injuries. I cannot rest in my house. I cannot have peace. I just put $1,900 down on soundproof windows. My biggest complaint is what happened to me. If it can happen to me, a disabled widow, I am not someone someone should come break into my gate, closed gate four days before I have back surgery, fabricate a story that I stole her dog because she cannot control these animals. They come in. She has half pit bulls. These are not happy animals. They cry day in and day out. They should not be in this neighborhood. I have police reports here, but the police report I'm talking about needs to be gone over. I've talked with Lieutenant Summers. I've tried to call Miss Anita Burgess three times. I talked to Stephanie in May. I never got any response. I've tried and tried. I've been misquoted, misrepresented, and I'm just -- I'm here, and I'm hoping that you can help me because, again, if this can happen to me, it can happen to anybody. I want to be safe. I want peace, and I need to heal because I can be a productive member of society. If you want just a little bit of who I am and what I can do , I have a lot. I was a former member of the board of -- Chamber of Commerce and Valley Center Planning Group also. So I have a lot to offer. I need to heal. >> All right. Yeah, that was your time. Anything else in closing? >> No. Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Is there anything that this board can do for me? >> We had a question from Councilmember Riggs. Have you tried to send an email to other Councilmembers? >> No. No, I haven't. I've tried, you know, I've tried with this woman to talk to her. I've sent neighbors over there. I've had the animal control, the police, you know. And then this is my next step. As a disabled person, it's hard for me to compile this stuff and try to heal. You know, I tried to tell her I haven't had sleep for 10 months. So no, I have not. I'm sorry. >> Well, there's a -- we have emails, each individual emails. And so I suggest that you do that and we may be able to talk more on a personal one-to-one basis. >> I would appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Wasney. >> Local government is here to help you. So please reach out to us. Send us an email so we have contact information. Our job is to find the people who can help remedy this. We have laws on the books about dogs. We have laws on the books about noise. And -- >> How about assault and trespassing? I really need this police report. It needs to be reopened. >> And we sit down and talk to the police department. They're good people. So -- but we don't know if we don't know how to contact you . So please contact us. And go to the City of Denton's website. We're all there. Reach out to us and we will help you. >> Cityofdenton.com? >> Yes. >> All right. >> And thank you for coming here tonight. Pain is something that unless you've been in horrific accidents, you don't know how hard it is to sleep, to walk, to sit, to get through your day. I understand that. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> I look forward to hearing from you. >> Thank you very much, Kathleen. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Well, and just to echo that, I'm your councilperson, I think. If you said you were on Pennsylvania Drive, so, you know, definitely send me an email and let's just start. We'll try. >> I really need help with this. >> Sure. >> And I'm not the only one. I mean, I have neighbors all around. It's a beautiful neighborhood. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. We're going to move now to our agenda item number seven, which is the remainder of the presentation from members of the public. So we'll start down there. And if some who are listed there are not here, then if they show up at the end of the meeting, we'll obviously take them at that time as well. So agenda item seven, I guess that's B1, is Willie Hutsmith regarding City Hall. >> Is there still a requirement for those who haven't spoken in the six-month period to go to the meeting? >> Well, it's a requirement, yes, but we also have the ability to move them to the front and that's what we've done tonight. So if you want to speak now, you're welcome to. If you want to wait until the end of the meeting, you're welcome to do that as well. Yes, sir. You betcha. >> All right, our next speaker will be, I believe they wanted to change the order, so I'm going to go by what I was given. So Judy Smith regarding the City Engineering Department's transparency when handling drainage ditch related projects. And if you could state your name and address and your time will begin. >> I'm asking Carrie Burnside to assist me with PowerPoint. My name is Judy Smith. I wear many hats, as you know. But tonight I want to speak to you as a long-time member of the Denton Unitarian Universalist Church at 1111 Cordell Street. I'd like to tell you how the City of Denton in the last few months has chosen to trample on our sacred ground. Our building was designed over 50 years ago to overlook Pe can Creek. The whole south side of our church is made of glass walls, incorporating the creek and its trees as part of our religious education rooms and sanctuary. On Sunday in June, we came to church to see strips of plastic tied around 19 trees bordering our side of the creek. The president then, Devon Taylor, went to the city to ask what was happening. We were shocked to learn that the whole section of creek behind our building was being bulldozed, replaced with a concrete ditch, and enclosed with a six- foot-high chain link fence. This was the first we had heard of this project. Our members gathered for several discussions to decide what to do. As you can see by a timeline, in mid-July, the City Engineering Department agreed to hold an informational meeting at Fire Station 1 to explain their plans and offer options. Our members showed up prepared to make suggestions, only to be told that the contracts for this job had been signed and money paid more than a year ago. There was no turning back. There was no chance for optional plans to be considered. And so we realized the meeting was a sham. As you saw by our before and after pictures, the damage was devastating. And the thought that our city did this without any warning left us flabbergasted. To further the injury, our Minister Pam Watt and President Tessa Morin were told we would have no help to replace the 19 trees that were leveled. Not only was our church impacted aesthetically and financially, more importantly, part of our spiritual inspiration was destroyed. I was in a group who three years ago distributed the ashes of a beloved member here. For 50 years, other celebrations and dedications have been held in this area just off our sanctuary. Basically, the City Engineering Department has paved over what our members consider to be holy ground. After the city meeting in mid-July, our Minister Pam called the members of our fellowship to write on a small piece of cloth a thought or prayer about this destruction. We did this in church that Sunday. I collected these pieces of fabric and sewed them into long chains so they could be hung across the gaping wound that was now our view out the window behind our altar on Sunday morning. As I was sewing these prayer flags, I had the privilege of reading everyone's words. There was one, I think written by one of our children, that I thought particularly poignant. I have reproduced it here so you can all see it. Goodbye fish, goodbye turtles, goodbye lizards, goodbye trees, goodbye. City Council, we understand there was a need for flood and erosion control. Our plea to you is not about that. Our plea is for changes in how this was handled, how there should have been input from the parties involved before it was too late, just in case there could have been a better way. Thank you. There are two more speakers which may answer questions. Yes, yes. I haven't, I don't see any requests for speakers right now. Okay. I believe the next one is Carrie Burnside. Yes. Is that, yes, state your name and address and your time will begin. Yes. I am Carrie Burnside and bear with us, we aren't seeing the timer here with the slideshow up. No, that's okay. You bet, no problem. And I'm also a member of DOOF as we call it at 1111 Cordell Street. What do you call it, I'm sorry? DOOF, Denton Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. We're hoping to start a dialogue about what might be done differently in the future to avoid what happened to us. One thing we could do is notify those that are going to be impacted by projects and seek their input. Now, engineering admits that they could have contacted those in the area, told them about this project and shown them the different design options. They explained that they didn't do that because they aren't required to, because this project was so small in their words. Well, I beg to differ from where we sit on Sunday mornings. This project was huge and it will impact our fellowship for a long time. I don't believe Denton wants to be the kind of city that does the bare minimum required. I think we want to be a city that does the right thing and that seeks public input and informing their citizens of what's going on. But I think one of our bigger concerns about what's going on is that it just doesn't seem to us that the engineering department truly embraces the Denton 2030 plan, which I quote, Denton is consciously green. Throughout Denton, we see natural resources integrating into the fabric of the community and contributing to healthy lifestyles with environmental stewardship through water conservation, sustainable development practices, and green infrastructure . Now, we as a community have mandated for these principles and it's time for the city to start embracing them in their own designs the same way that they require of the private sector. We have a double standard going on here and we shouldn't. The city should be leading the way, not letting itself off the hook. I admit this isn't all engineering's fault. Even if and when they ever come up with a greener design for drainage, the bean counters that have to approve that project would also have to be on board. There are more factors to consider than just initial cost in developing a project. I know that as public servants, it's hard for them sometimes to justify and explain that additional upfront expense. I understand that they're under a lot of pressure to count every tax dollar that they can when they're designing a project. So what we're proposing is oversight of the engineering department. We'd like to see a citizen board that reviews projects, judges the balance between initial cost and the long-term effects, and makes a recommendation based on maintaining that balance. We could create a new board or commission to do that. I'd like to call it the Kermit board. It'd be an advisory board because it's not easy to be green . So I think we should call it the Kermit board. But we could also use our existing planning and zoning commission. They certainly have the expertise. They could review the engineering projects the same as they do with private sector projects, holding them to the same standards and criteria that we hold the private sector to. Now I know there are some that say that that would be very unusual. Well, I say gosh darn it, let's be unusual. We're Denton and we're unique and we've never shied from an innovative idea just because nobody's ever tried it before. I think if we really believe in the Denton 2030 plan, that we should be using every resource that we have to ensure that we're moving in that direction. And my final suggestion is mitigation by the city for those that are impacted by city projects. There were 43 substantial trees that were lost in this project. If a developer had done that, they would be required to replace those trees on site or pay $21,000 in mitigation. The city, of course, has to do neither. Not much incentive for them to go green with their projects . I think that we should be holding the city to the same standard that we do our developers. And this isn't even factoring in the cost that Doof is having to bear to re-green our area to pay the additional electric bills now that we've lost our tree canopy and things like that. In short, our case shows that there's a real need for greater citizen oversight of the engineering projects and we hope that council will consider some concrete steps towards making this happen. Thank you. We have a couple of questions. Okay. Council Member Briggs. Hi. That flag broke my heart. We do have one third person who's presenting part of this. Okay. Well, I can wait for my questions. But was there any part of the city that was helpful for you ? I was part of it because I attend this church and it was tragic and it still is. Was there any part of the city that was helpful or any department reached out to help you? Keep It Beautiful has been very helpful. The only recourse that we've gotten officially from the city is a list of the programs that are already in place for every citizen and every group to help us with our recovery, but nothing specifically from the city to mitigate what they've done. What they've done. Okay. And just another note. I have an appointment Monday the 26th at 3 o'clock in regards to the engineering department. Just so you know, you guys aren't the only ones that are calling for a board to oversee their projects. So just so you know, you're not alone. We have one more question. Yes. Council Member Wasney. So I think that was my question. Have you come to the city to ask for help in replanting these trees? Yes. And my understanding is there's no help available to us through the city. There's no help available. We are on our own to find our own resources. And since developers are required to mitigate, the city should be expected to do no less. If that's in the form of a question, I agree. So that's a standard that I think the city really needs to look at and to look at this specific situation as well in terms of replacing those trees. It underscores the problem of people finding out after the fact, people finding out after something is already in place and rolling and underscores the need to reach out to the public and not just within a 500 square feet radius of a project, but who is going to be impacted by a project and to bring them to a meeting or meetings where that information cannot only be disseminated, but to gather public information and input because that's the time that you make projects better. Those are the times you make projects user friendly for all the people that are going to be impacted by it. So, I've championed that for a long time and helped put that stop work order on that project, but it was too little too late. In this case. Maybe next time it will be better. Let us learn from our mistakes and move forward and fix it. Thank you. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. So, I'll see if I can do this in the form of a question. So, are you aware of the Tree Mitigation Fund that the city has? It's a big bucket of money. There's probably about $3 million in it now that is paid in by developers when they have to take trees down and they can't replace enough of them on the site. They pay in lieu of, they pay into that. That money can only be used for the planting of trees. Up until we change the ordinance, it can only be planted on public property, but we changed the ordinance and KDB is running a pretty substantial program now that allows private businesses, private property, residential and businesses to make a request and they'll actually come out and plant the trees. So I would encourage, and I don't know, maybe this is a question for staff. I don't know if you're aware of that, but my request would be to staff maybe we could get with you or whoever would be the right person at the church and look at some way that we could provide some trees and have those trees planted. Because we have the trees mean business, which is for businesses, and we can also give them to residential. Maybe a church is falling somewhere in the middle. They're getting lost, but I would say this would be a situation where I would think staff could work with you guys and get creative and get some trees to you. I believe, and Amber can correct me if I'm wrong because she's the co-chair of our restoration committee, but I believe we're working with KDB through that. They do only replace trees and because of the power lines that we have and the lessened green space that we have to plant in, we're going to be pretty much limited to understory and large shrubs and things at this point because a lot of that green was now, it's concrete now, so the taller trees can't be planted now or they would just get topped off by the power line trimmings later on. But I believe we're working with them to a degree to get what trees we can. Okay. Well, yeah, my request would be that staff contact you guys and figure out a way that we can do whatever we can do utilizing those funds. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And then we've got Gary Cook regarding engineering projects in the community and following Mr. Cook will be Alissa Jordan regarding water bills. State your name and address please and your time will begin . Hello, my name is Gary Cook. I'm a member of the Denton Unitarian Universalist Fellows hip located at 1111 Cordell Street, Denton. In the Environmental Handbook for Building and Civil Engineering Projects, Volume 1, the authors state, and I quote, "In developing any site, the immediate local community will have a legitimate interest and concern in the size, shape, and form of what is to be constructed, the working practices to be employed, and who it is intended to serve. Authors should take great care to ensure that local communities are fully informed of plans and proposals irrespective of scale." All right. I bounced past my slide. Good communications is cost effective and early involvement of community representatives has the advantage that local knowledge can be brought into play. Concerns of all parties are more readily understood and solutions accepted. And as contact builds up between the relevant parties, greater trust and confidence can result, close quotes. As Unitarian Universalists, we have seven core principles that guide our religion. Our fifth principle states our proud belief in the democratic process within our congregations and in society as a whole. Our seventh principle calls on us to show respect for the interdependent web of life of all existence, of which we are but one part. We are, by faith, environmentalists. Our congregation has suffered a shock due to this engineering project. The foundation principles of our religion have been violated. And we have outlined to you the costs we will endure in recovering from this blow. We do not, however, approach the council with strident calls for reimbursement. Instead, we call on city council to review our case as an important example of where the lack of communication between the city and its citizens leads to unintended injury. It is an opportunity for the city to examine its responsibilities and change its ways. In that spirit, we call on the council to take action. First, to request a report from city staff, specifically the engineering department, to be delivered within 60 days detailing to the council how this project was handled with regards to planning, their communication with those members of the community affected, and ultimately the impact of construction on landowners. Second, we call on council to request from the same staff a report also to be delivered within 60 days detailing how the department can and will reduce the negative impact of engineering projects on the goodwill of its citizens through improved oversight and community outreach. Thirdly, the city should, in good conscience, provide mitigation to those impacted by their projects and provide in-kind restoration of lost green space. The requirement to do so can be a positive force in the design and implementation of future city projects. Denton has the means, but it must develop the practices needed to become a municipality of exemplary qualities dedicated to the stewardship of its environment and of its community's goodwill. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alissa Jordan. Do we, any questions? I see none. Thank you. Thank you. Alissa Jordan, regarding water bills, and if she's not, oh, you are here. Okay. Yes. If you could state your name and address, your time will begin. My name is Alessia Jordan, and I live at 2120, 2721 Hollow Ridge Drive. I just moved here not long ago in March. Before I start, I want to ask God to help lead me in my words and continue the meeting that we're all having. I kind of feel like what I'm going to talk about is not that big of a deal now after hearing the trees and the babies and all of those wonderful things. We have some neat people in Denton. We have a little problem in our neighborhood. I kind of feel guilty a little bit about even talking about water. We are so blessed to have clean running water, but in our neighborhood, we have had an increase in our bills. I've heard some things on news and in other areas, and we 're like, "That's Frisco. Who cares?" But when it happens to you, we kind of take a little more notice. I have several bills from neighbors that I now know on how compared to last year to currently, drastic changes. I want to kind of start with mine. I'm going to be a little selfish here. It says that I have used over 23,000 gallons. My pool holds 16,000 gallons. I would have had to empty my pool up and refilled it. I do have a teenage son, and I promise you, he does not bat he that much. He's a stinky football player, and that does not happen. It's kind of a joke in our house now that we ... I'm like, "If it doesn't float, don't flush it." That's just a little ridiculous, but some of these neighbors have gone from having bills of $100 all the way up to $1,200. One lady had a bill of $1,400. I don't know about you, but I know that in our community, there are families that live there, some people that have children in college, some like myself, some young children, some people, older retirement people, that this may truly affect them. I know I spoke to a couple of people that they had to go into their savings to pay these bills. We have contacted the city. We have been hung up on, said, "You need to pay your bill or it's going to be cut off." Some of the things that have happened hasn't necessarily been handled properly, and that's, I guess, a different situation. I do have a lady that is here tonight, and her water usage was 99,000, even more than myself, and she has no pool. She said that her family was traveling over the summer and was gone. We've asked for the city to come out to see if we've had leaks. They did say that I had a leak and would return to verify. They've never come back out for that, so I had my brother come over as a plumbing company. He did all the leak detector things and did not find anything. We are kind of at a standstill as far as where we're at. We just, in partnership, we choose to live in Denton. We could live anywhere, but we choose to live here. Kids run down the street and play on bicycles, and we've got people decorating for Halloween and stuff. We want to partner with you guys and ask that you help us with this, because it's not just hit or miss. My neighbor across the street, his bill's $50. I'm like, "Ugh." Mine on the other hand is like $1,000. That's a huge difference. Something's wrong. We've gone through all of these different scenarios and questions of what could it be? Could it be water, air in the lines, a leak, maybe due to construction? We don't know. I just know that I have tons of people on next door speaking on this. We want to see if you guys can help us. - Council Member Briggs. - Are all the high water bills on one side of the street? Is that ... Or is it just ... - It's in our neighborhood, Sundown Ranch, and the near to us subdivision. I can't think of the name now. I'm so sorry. It's just sporadic. It's maybe three or four people in our street, and then a whole another side of the street. It's just ... There's no rhyme and reason. I don't know if it's the actual equipment that has failed. We don't know. - Well, I only asked. I don't know about any other council members up here, but I have had some emails from constituents in District 2 with the same issue. Being gone for two weeks in extremely high water bills with no leak. I don't know how to answer. Yeah. - Mayor Pro Tem. Greg. - If you would give your name and contact information to the city secretary so that the city manager could get the customer service staff to contact you again. I think that would help. I've had several residents contact me also, and the utility department has gone out to do a couple of things. Number one, check and see if the meter is accurately reading the water flow. They will check to see if there's water flowing. You think that everything's turned off and they still see the dial turning, then something, there's a leak somewhere. They can't go into your property and find your leak for you , but they can help indicate whether there is or not by doing that. So what's happened this year is because of all of the rain that we had early in the spring, lots of folks have been watering their yard more heavily after it stopped raining again. We had either flood or drought. Our water rates are set such, I don't know if you're aware of this, but they're set such that after you hit a certain level of usage, the rate goes up. That was designed to try to encourage conservation of water rates. So what'll happen is after 15,000 gallons, it goes up from $3.70 a gallon to $5.35. So if you hit over that limit, then all of a sudden it really does jump up. But if you'll give your information to them, they can follow up on that. Thank you. Couple more questions. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. So I'm going to ask a question. Is that like the rule y'all have to ask? Yeah, we're supposed to ask you a question. Guess who game? Yeah. We're only supposed to ask you questions for care. So are you aware that Council Member Hawkins is your district council member? No. He is. That's you. You're everyone's, it looks like. That's right. Okay. But I also live in District 4 and I'd be happy to help too. My question for you is I'm troubled by the, we got hung up on, so are you, you've been dealing with customer service? My husband has and he's from England so he gets really British and he's like, "What in the bloody hell is going on? Bloody water bill." And so I don't know what he's got resolved. The whole bloody part might have scared him and they hung up. Yeah. So you're saying that you've been dealing with customer service to this point? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Hawkins. Since we're doing this game, are you aware that this water bill thing happened to me too? So it really did. Are you wearing glasses? Yeah. And I hang up on most English people too. It's just a thing that we do here. No, but that concerns me. So anyway, do email me please and we can try to figure out what's going on. Well, my daddy said he's always say that the squeakiest wheel gets the oil. So hopefully we'll get some oil. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That ends at least this portion of the presentation for members of the public. We do have Mr. Husband that will be later on in the meeting . So we'll move on now to agenda item number four. And I guess, Jennifer, if you need a break, just sort of wave your hand at me or anything like that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Agenda item number four, which is the consent agenda. Council Member Hawkins. All right. Let's see if I can get this right. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of items A through AA, but we are substit uting J for what we got in work session and then we are pulling Q and S. Is that correct? Woohoo. Okay. All right. Council Member Rodin. I second that. We have a motion and a second for the consent agenda item with I believe it was pulling items S and Q and substituting the ordinance as presented during the staff meeting. Let's vote on the board. Passes unanimously. We will now consider the items that were pulled under individual items for individual consideration. Item Q, which is considered option of ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the city manager to execute lease agreement between the City of Denton and Rail Yard Partners LTD. Thank you, Mayor. You had indicated you had some questions about this item and Lauren Barker with KDB is here and we will attempt to answer any questions that you have. Sure. Sure. Sorry to keep you so late. Good evening, Mayor and Council. No worries. Just a couple of questions I have on this and I don't know if they're concerns, but I guess I was surprised when I saw that there was a lease. I was when I noticed that it was for some primetime downtown denton space, one that we already have an incentive for, and also that it was pred icated upon y'all having to move out of a park and recreation building, but there was nothing in the backup that said when that's supposed to occur, when they're supposed to rep urpose it. The price, how we got the brokers involved, really just sort of everything surrounding this transaction sort of seems to be, I mean, we didn't talk about it in any closed session or anything just about this is sort of a surprise. So just trying to get some ideas on that and probably the biggest concern is just where it is and how much it is and why there seems to be such a sense of urgency. Yes, sir. Well, I apologize that you were surprised by it. No, no, no. It's not your deal. I just, yes. There's actually been a lot of work that's gone on on this item in good faith since probably June of last year. I went back and pulled records to be sure of that. I've been looking for space and really to start at the beginning, my understanding over the last several years has been that parks had other plans for the building that we were in. So we had already determined the need to seek out new space . The timeline was really not clear to us. And so I think the KDB Board of Directors, which is a volunteer board of directors that oversees the programs and nonprofit side of KDB had indicated that they wanted to go ahead and just search for space and start to try to find something that fit our needs, which are rather unique due to the public-private partnership nature of the work we do. Let me ask you. So you're saying that this process began back in the summer of 2014? Yes, sir. The search and sort of starting to figure out where we could potentially move to. So for about a year and four months, y'all haven't been able to find a place that would be suitable? We've been just sort of looking and taking our time, not thinking that we have a little bit of time to find the right fit. And if somebody from the city can answer, do you know or does somebody know when Parks is scheduled, quote unquote, to take over that building? And in essence? Yeah. Mayor, if I could, let me ask John Cabrales to come and address that question because I think if I understand what Lauren is saying, they began this search for space so we wouldn't run up against the timeline. But I think it would be sometime before Parks actually needs KDB to move out but could certainly use the space. But John, if you would talk about Parks needs for the current space. Yes, sir, certainly. Mayor, I guess the question is when do we actually need that facility for the tennis center or when could we use a facility for our Parks needs? And my question is pretty simple. I mean, I don't necessarily need a big, long explanation like some of my colleagues do. In essence, this was predicated, this decision back in the summer of 2014 was predicated on some kind of communication that, hey, you guys need to start. We're going to need this building at some point. So could you guys start looking? Yes, sir. And is there any not -- it's one thing to say we need it for the tennis center, which is way down the road. I mean, that's probably a couple years down the road, two or three years down the road. It's another to say, well, if you guys get out, we can use it for something. So what's the -- It's actually a combination of both. We are going to need to have access to that building when we start moving forward with our converting that whole area for our new tennis center. But we're also crutched for space right now at our different facilities. So we could certainly use that facility sooner rather than later. And KDB has also mentioned to us that they were trying to find another location as well because they know eventually they are going to have to move out. So we can certainly take over that space for programming or other needs as soon as they move out. But at some point in the near -- in the future, we are going to need them to move out so we can start construction of our tennis center. Okay. All right. Thanks. You bet. Okay. So to address your other questions in terms of the process that we undertook, we started looking for space kind of on our own, viewed a few spaces with a broker, and then it was determined after a little while of seeing a couple of different properties with that same broker that we should engage their services just in good faith to pay them for what they were doing for us. I think that over time we were looking at the needs. I was consulting with the Keep Denton Beautiful Board of Directors about what the needs would be for our space. We visited with several different city departments through this process. Tech services we talked with about relocation costs since our staff or city staff, there could potentially -- would definitely be costs to relocate or to run services for us to access email and files and that sort of thing. So we were looking at that, hidden costs in addition to the lease payment that we would have to pay on the front end. Real estate and legal, we're involved in the process in vet ting the lease agreement once we had something a little more final and looking at the terms. So we did go through a process in examining all of this. Nothing about -- I mean, it's going to be difficult for me to support this measure, not because it's anything about KDB, but this sort of represents when we have this hybrid which has worked well and is going to continue to work well . But it seems like we've got -- you guys are operating sort of as a nonprofit, which you are, so you can go out there and solicit brokers or things for that kind of space. And so to hear that it was also started a year and a half ago, I just -- anyway, that's just where I am. Nothing about the program, nothing about the space. I'm not so sure that I feel comfortable with it being in sort of downtown prime space, but I mean, if that's what the agreement is, then that's what the agreement is and that's what's before us for a vote tonight. So Councilmember Rodin. Thank you, Mayor. A question about -- so you're currently in a city-owned spot. So I'm not sure kind of how financially that works. You're not paying rent in the same sense that you're about to be. And so as your board or the city side of y'all were looking at this, how did you guys determine your parameters of what was an acceptable rent structure? And then I guess secondary to that question, where does that money come from? If it's not being expended in the same way now, where do we get that to be able to pay for this? Right. Well, as part of the contract agreement with the city, keep it in beautiful staff, salaries are paid, and then we also have a building space that's provided for the organization to run its nonprofit programs. And that is the nature of the partnership to allow us to dedicate all of the money that we raise through private donations, sponsorships, any sort of fundraising that we do, grant writing, completely to our programs. It's a major benefit to us partnering with the city in that way, and then in return we provide benefits to the city, which you all are familiar with to a great extent. So I think when we started looking for space, we talked with the solid waste department, which is where our staff are housed on the city side, to talk about capacity for paying a lease payment, what that might look like, if we wanted to purchase or build, and we kind of vetted all those different options before landing on the lease as a solution to kind of get us in a temporary situation since there's very little city space available, which everyone's aware of as well. We have three full-time staff and two part-time positions that we're about to fill and need the space probably more than what an existing city building could provide. Okay. So the payments for this are coming out of solid waste, I'm assuming? Yes, sir. So they've agreed to- Keep it in beautiful on the city side as a- As an operating expense moving forward. Yes. And so you've explored all those other options. Which is 100% operating costs, no program costs coming out of that budget. Right. So talk to me then about, so this space for you, where it's located, what interests you about that space in terms of what you guys do and your vision and kind of where you guys are heading as a organization. Sure. That's a fun question to answer. There's a lot of great things about this particular space, and we looked at many different spaces actually in the range of probably 15 different lease spaces that were available over the last year and a half we've been looking. And this particular space is adjacent to an existing city facility, which was a major advantage for running the fiber services and everything. We visited with tech services about that. So that was a big check mark in the plus column for us to save that cost for the city of having to run fiber, which really per mile is charged to run that fiber. I would say also just the neighborhood area of this particular project would be advantageous for us to be in an area where there's a lot of innovation and new things coming down the road. We work with a lot of these technology firms that could potentially locate their partners of ours. They volunteer with us. So the synergistic possibilities are really pretty tremendous for us to have space that's next to them. Also the central location, accessibility by the public transportation, and just walkability of the area would all be major pluses for us. If we can be more accessible to the public where people can come and visit us and talk to us about programs, we host a lot of trainings and committee and board meetings of volunteer citizens. And so that's a major advantageous thing for us as well. Yeah, and I'll just reflect upon that because there's a lot of interesting things going on in that corridor. I mean, you didn't hit on it, but we've been talking about the community market and their connection to keep that beautiful. A million possibilities of what that could be. And our need for event space is another thing that I had considered. Which is going to be in the, potentially in the new co- working space as well. So yeah, I mean, I don't know enough to think about what would be the more acceptable parameters of price or rent or whatnot. But I think if we're thinking about that area kind of developing into an innovation district, and I think about all the entities at the city level that are on the forefront of innovation, keep that beautiful is always there in my mind. So it's, and it's not tech, which is interesting, but yet it kind of adds to that interdisciplinary aspect of what's happening in that area. So I think this is interesting. I think you raised some really good questions because you 're right, this is prime space. That's a high dollar area, which is why I asked some of those questions to try and understand the finances of this. And actually the rate that we received was at a probably below market rate for what a similar space would be. Great. Okay. Thank you very much. Council Member Roden. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. Lauren, I don't know if you're the one to address this question or not, but specifically there's an incentive, right? There's an incentive that the city has put in place for this overall project and probably Amy would be the right one to address it. Clarification if you would on the incentive and how I think it'd be good for the public to know and I would like to know because there certainly could be a perception that there's an incentive on the building. The city is leasing 8,000 feet for the incubator space and I'm a big fan of that whole idea. With another city department going into that building, there's certainly some questions that I've received, maybe others about, well, wait a minute , that's kind of weird. There's an incentive on the property and now a city department's going to lease a space in there. So maybe for clarification, Amy, if you could address that, that'd be great. When we first started looking for a lease space for the tech incubator program and coworking space, the original concept was let's see what we can lease and we were looking frankly at probably similar options as Keep Denton Beautiful was looking at and then we had a unique opportunity to rather than just leasing space in an existing building as is, we had an opportunity to partner in a public-private partnership in order to create a catalyst project for redevelopment and a transit-oriented development which is a very high priority from an economic development standpoint. And so at that point we began to look at rather than just a straight lease rate, we have the tax increment financing district which exists today. It's a restricted fund and it is there to be a catalyst for economic development projects downtown. And so the approach that we took from there was rather than doing a straight lease, let's buy down our lease rate so that we're using less general fund dollars and instead we're using the TIF fund to supplement that lease rate which it is technically an incentive grant but it's really to make the lease payment whole. What worked about that project is that this is rather than just leasing space, this is a $15 million redevelopment project that's mixed use, high- end loft apartments, transit-oriented, public transit-oriented development that happens to be in an area of town that is prime for redevelopment and so it was a perfect use of TIF fund for that purpose in order to make that project viable and successful. I don't see it being a conflict with Keep Denton Beautiful moving in there. I think that they worked hard to just really evaluate what all their options were and pick a space that was priced right for them and had the most amenities that they could get and met the most things on their checklist. Lauren and I talked early on about whether it was an appropriate place for KDB and I felt like for some of the reasons that Council Member Rodin and Lauren have already spoken to it was a great place because what we're trying to do with that incentive piece is spark redevelopment and Keep Denton Beautiful is an iconic part of our community. They make up the brand of who Denton is largely and they drive thousands of volunteers into the community each year and so we felt like having them in that area would be synergistic and would help with the redevelopment. It certainly is in line with the community market going down there as well and a lot of the tech-oriented companies in Denton are very philanthropic and they get involved with Keep Denton Beautiful already so we really saw it as a good partnership. Did that answer your question? Okay. Council Member Wozni. Yeah, I see this lease and this Keep Denton Beautiful in this building as a long-term lease, long-term anchor that, you know, they're going to be in a lease situation where other tenants may be, you know, in and out because it's an incub ator. This will be a long-term anchor with a really nice face on it to anchor that building and that's kind of how I see this as well. Absolutely. And to your point, the building itself that's being rede veloped is 28,000 square feet. The incubator program will occupy about 9,000 feet of that. Keep Denton Beautiful will take about 2,700 feet of that. So it's going to be a mix of tenants in the end including some restaurant tenants so that it's a true mixed-use development and then they're constructing new apartments around it. We haven't seen it recently, it's well under construction today and it looks beautiful. Council Member Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I think I'm okay with this. So it ultimately seems like this is going to be part of trying to spark that whole redevelopment in that area and I guess the only concern I had was is this a below market rate, renting this possibly? What are your feelings on that? The rate that Keep Denton Beautiful is getting, they're getting a very good deal, very good in my opinion and it's a good opportunity for them to get in on a project that's going to really revitalize an area. I know I'm not going to ask this right. I'm ultimately okay with this but it threw up a flag with me too. As you've explained it and Lauren, you're awesome. I'm nothing against anything like that. We did have a conversation about potentially combining the leases at some point while we were both working on leases and we felt like Keep Denton Beautiful needed to select their space independently and that they would get a better rate because they're a non-profit organization than if we tried to roll it into one sort of package. It just didn't seem to work out that way. We felt like it would be better served and justified to be completely independent process. I think putting it that way makes it a little bit easier to swallow they're a non-profit rather than they're a city entity. So thanks, I'm good. Council Member Briggs. I will also bring up that I was a little surprised by seeing it on the agenda because usually when things come you've heard about them at least once or twice and I hadn't so I sent Lauren an email this morning and she responded quickly to explain it. So I'm glad that you pulled it off because it gives me a little bit more time to understand what's going on. So I just wanted to say that. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you Mayor. Two reactions. Number one, great negotiations I thought for the rate. Whoever did that we need to get them working on some other deals. The other thing is this certainly indicates to me that we 're overdue for a space study for all of our city office needs. Final word and I understand what you're saying Mayor Pro Tem. One of my concerns was this is a tenant, this is a developer that we've been dealing with and given a $200,000 incentive per year for five years for the incubation. As far as, well, incentive for the space and then we're hiring someone to help. So when I saw two brokers involved I was sort of surprised that we have a whole real estate department and we know the developers directly so I didn't understand the need for that. I think that we had engaged a broker prior to selecting that space and it was in an effort to actually look at all available spaces. Okay. Alright. Okay. Great. Any other questions? Fantastic. Council Member Roden. Thank you Mayor. I move approval of agenda item Q. Council Member Wasney. I second the motion. We have a vote. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board please. Motion carries six to one. We'll now move on to item S which was pulled but I think we were going to pull that all together. I think we need to pull it or get a motion to table it until next week, 12/27. Council Member Hawkins. Oh, you were on there. Greg? What's up? You removed yourself. Sorry, I removed myself. Okay. Council Member Johnson. Thank you Mayor. I was afraid Joey was going to have to apologize to somebody and tell him how much he loved them before he spoke again so I just thought I would jump in there. I do that every night. I'm so sorry. I'm just trying to lighten the mood up here buddy. I would move that we postpone item S, right? Is that the item S and to date certain next Tuesday. Yeah. Date certain the 27th. Okay. We have a motion. Council Member Wasney. I second the motion. We have a motion and second. Let's vote please. Agenda item S or the motion for agenda item S passes unanimously. We'll now go on to agenda item five which is items for individual consideration. First is agenda item 5A consider nominations appointment to the City Boards and Commissions, Parks and Recreation Beautification Board, Public Art Committee and Traffic Safety Commission. And Jennifer you got my name for the Parks Board. Is that correct? Or she filled out her application and got it. Uh oh. Well. I think we discussed it Mayor but I don't have it with me. Okay. If somebody else has anything or we may I think I can pull it up in an email. So if we want to maybe come back to this agenda item. Council Member Briggs. I have a nomination for the Public Art Committee. George Neal. I'm sorry. George Neal. Council Member Hawkins. Mine was on the Traffic Safety Commission. Do we need to deal with Keely's motion first? I thought we were just going to do them all at once I believe. Well mainly I wanted to make a comment. My appointee for Traffic Safety Commission I don't know a ton about it but Mr. Hudson is having some health issues and that's why he had to resign. And I just wanted to publicly tell him thank you and I don 't have anybody as of now but I'll be working on it. Okay. Council Member Johnson did you have something? For my guy who moved? Yeah I don't have anyone yet. I've asked a few people and nobody's jumped up yet. Well for some reason my email is not coming up on my iPad. So did you not receive an application from Francis? Okay. We'll figure it out. We'll get it on next week. I've been out of the office. No, no. We'll get it next week. Council Member Rogan. So I'm going to try and get this right as I understand it. The only one we're putting forward is Council Member Briggs ' recommendation of George Neal for Public Art Committee. So I'll move approval of that nomination. Council Member Wasney. I second the motion. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board please. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Agenda number five, item five B, consider approval of a resolution by the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City Manager to sign and submit an amendment to the 2013 and 2014 action plans for housing and community development. Thank you Mayor. I'm going to ask Barbara Rosso, Community Development Manager, if she would present this item for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you Mayor and members of the council. I'll actually go ahead and talk about this item and the next item which both relate to the use of funds by the Denton Affordable Housing Corporation. Let me just go ahead and call that item too so you can just talk about them seamlessly. Agenda item five C, which is considered option of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas approving the first amendment to the 2014-15 agreement between the City of Denton and Denton Affordable Housing Corporation. Thank you. The first item is the amendments to the 2013 and 2014 action plans. As you may recall, the City of Denton is required to submit action plans to the Department of Housing and Urban Development explaining how we're going to use the Community Development Block Grant Funds and the Home Investment Partnership Program Funds. In 2013 and 2014, Denton Affordable Housing Corporation was set up to use funding for their Affordable Housing Opportunity Program in both years. This is a program where they buy homes, renovate them, and then sell them to eligible low and moderate income households. They began to have a problem in that housing costs went up and they were unable to find affordable units. So they have requested to use approximately, well, they have requested to use $83,000 in . . . $42,000 from 2013 and $41,000 from 2014 funds to rehabilitate the apartments, the sixplex that they've recently purchased on Bolivar Street, and it will be used for affordable housing purposes. So the first item is the revisions to those two action plans. We did have a 30-day comment period and did not receive any comments on the suggested appropriation of the funds. The Community Development Advisory Committee met. They were presented with the request for the revision and the use of funds and they approved recommending to council that we use the funds, the $83,000 for renovation of the Bolivar sixplex. The second item is an amendment to our agreement with debt and affordable housing, which includes the funding for the Bolivar complex. Confusing? I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for staff? And we'll take these votes individually, both items 5B and C. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, Council Member Rhoad, this is for agenda item 5B. May I move approval of agenda item 5B? Council Member Briggs? Second. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries unanimously. This will be for agenda item 5C. Council Member Rodin? May I move approval of agenda item 5C? Mayor Pro Tem Gregory? Second. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries unanimously. That ends our agenda for items of individual consideration. We now will move on to public hearing. We do have a request to move agenda item -- which one is it ? C. We move agenda item 6C to the first position since it seems that might be the most public input we have. Just seeing if -- Council Member Rodin? I think we've been in this spot before and we've made these changes. What we've found sometimes is A and B might go relatively quick. So there might be folks that -- one person here to speak to that that have to wait for two hours. Okay. Because we've got a lot of folks. I don't know how to gauge that in terms of who's here for these, but that would be my concern. Okay. Well, then why don't we -- well, what's -- any other comments from council on that? I think he's right. Council Member Hawkins? I think that's well put and I -- Okay. So we'll just keep it in the original order. Is that correct? Okay. All right. Fantastic. We'll move on to agenda item 6A. I'm going to be recusing myself from this. Do I need to call it or does the -- Mayor Pro Tem need to call it? Let the mayor pro tem call it. I will stand down then. Then item 6A, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas regarding a specific use permit for a drive-through facility in a downtown commercial general DCG, zoning district, and use classification. We're going to start with the public hearing and so we should open the public hearing at this time for the staffer report. Correct. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. And I'd like to ask Amy Bissett if she would come in and begin the presentation on the public hearing. Thank you, Amy. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem and council members. Let me get that PowerPoint up real quick. What you're considering this evening is a specific use permit for a proposed drive-through. It is a remote ATM for Access Bank of Texas, which is located on Carroll Boulevard. You can see here it is a .3 acre site. It is directly across from the bank property, which is to the southeast of it, and it borders Carroll. It is currently zoned downtown commercial general and in this zoning district, a specific use permit is required for any drive-through facility. In the comprehensive plan, this area is considered the downtown compatibility area. It is a transition area between downtown and the University of North Texas. And within that transition area, we expect to see a mix of uses, commercial, retail, residential. And we would encourage infill in this area, and we would encourage a mix of uses that provide retail and services to both of the areas. I want to talk to you a little bit about the site plan. That's really at the crux of the conversation this evening. This is the layout of the proposed drive-through. As you can see, the circulation goes from south to north. I'm going to zoom in on it a little bit closer here. This use is generally compatible with the area that it's going in. The bank has an existing ATM right across the street. The applicant is looking to make the structure architect urally similar to the bank and to provide enhanced landscaping so that it has a minimal visual impact. And generally speaking, it is compatible with the area. With one minor exception, I wouldn't say minor, with one exception that I want you to be aware of, there's one residential single-family home that sits directly at the exit of that drive-through facility. It is a rental today. The property owner has indicated an interest in redevelop ing that property to be commercial in the future. However, at the moment, it's zoned residential and it's an occupied single-family home. When we consider the issuance of an SUP, we look to see if it's compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property and that it doesn't significantly diminish or impair property values. We saw that this was generally compatible with the one concern of this occupied home, and we made a recommendation that they reverse the traffic pattern. That's not ideal for the applicant, and if the applicant is here, we'll have an opportunity to hear from them on that. But I do want you all to be aware that we felt like if the traffic pattern were reversed, it would mitigate the one concern that we had. Other considerations are that the design, location, and arrangement of driveways and parking spaces provide for safe and convenient movement. Access to the site will be one-way and there's adequate vehicle stacking. And that it be architecturally compatible with the area, and it is. They are proposing building materials in a color palette that's similar to the bank and native landscaping that is similar to what's there today. And a monument sign with an enhanced landscape feature. The consideration that is of concern is that the generation of noise, light, and glare, specifically headlights of exiting vehicles at nighttime would basically go right in the front window of that single-family home. So we do recommend reversing the traffic pattern. The planning, I'm sorry, the consideration as envisioned in the Denton Plan 2030, the proposal of an ATM, we do consider it to be necessary inf ill development. And it does take care of a small narrow lot in our core urban area. And we do think that the building materials and landscaping will complement the existing development. We sent nine 200-foot required public notices and eight courtesy notices. As of this presentation, we've received one response in opposition. We do recommend approval of this SUP with the following conditions, that it's substantially conformed to the proposed site plan, and we recommend the reversal of the traffic pattern, and that it's substantially conformed to the proposed landscape plan. That the exterior of the ATM kiosk and monument sign be constructed of similar building materials and a similar color palette to the bank facility. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this as well with the same conditions, except for the reversal of the traffic pattern. When it went before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant indicated that the property owner was interested in redeveloping it for commercial, and that satisfied the Planning and Zoning Commission. And with that, I will ask if the applicant is here and would like to speak. Hi, my name is Kelly Morgan. I'm the architect for this project, and I live in, or my office is in Denton, Texas, at 2717 Wind River Lane. We spoke with the Planning and Zoning back a few weeks ago, and the staff recommendation was to change the driving pattern. The property that is in question is actually, he owns 50% of the bank. If you notice from the last opposition, it's not from the person that's for the rental house. They're actually for the pattern of the, of the direction of the pattern. If we reverse the pattern, there's a tendency that we will lose the large tree that's in that area, plus the bank would have to, or the ATM would have to be on the east side of the road, reversing the pattern so it wouldn't be as close to Carroll. We feel like the bank wants it closer to Carroll for visibility, the flow in and out of the traffic from the bank just works better for the bank. To reverse the pattern, there's more streets that T-Bone with headlights going into residences than this ATM, and there was a small amount of people that actually use the ATM after dark. Of course, with daylight savings time, that's even less that people use that. They just felt like that wouldn't be a nuisance to that property. Plus, they're eventually going to develop that property into commercial property, so it won't be residential anyway. Is that your presentation? Yes. We have a question from Council Member Briggs. Did you say the person that is currently in that home was not against the way that it is now? We actually sent out, the person that lives in the home didn't make it to the, in fact, no one made it to the neighborhood meeting that we had. The person who owns the property is in favor of where we have the pattern, the directional pattern. Okay. Thank you. They are not in opposition because they didn't show up to the neighborhood meeting. Just curious about the people that actually live in the home. There was no ... Okay. Are there other questions for staff or for the applicant? Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Do we have any cards? We have no cards, but because it's a public hearing, anyone can speak. If you wish to speak, you can come up to the microphone, state your name and your address, and your time will begin. Anyone wishing to speak on the public hearing regarding item, oh my goodness, 6A? One last time for people wishing to speak on this item. Substation? If you want to speak to the item, you need to come to the microphone. No, it's not the substation. This is not the substation. This is on item 6A. We're ready to talk about substation. Okay. Okay. Then there's no more citizens wishing to speak. Councilmember Briggs. Your name's still on the ... Oh, no. I probably asked my question. Councilmember Rodin. This might be a question for staff. Maybe it's for the applicant. I don't know. I'm trying to remember the history of that area even prior to Access Bank coming online. I think there were other single family homes in the area, which as I recall, Pacific Street, it's a strange situation because it either originates or dead ends into a parking lot. What have we heard about the future redevelopment of that site or that block with single family homes is the idea that Pacific Street goes offline as a city street and becomes just an access street for businesses in the area. Does anyone? My understanding is that it's really not functioning as a public street today. It's just in and out of the bank, the bank parking lot, and it would remain that way. In the home that is there, I'm trying to look on Google Earth and it's covered by trees, so I can't tell the orientation of the home. Is the home fronting Pacific Street? That is my understanding, yes, that it's fronting Pacific Street. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Are there any more questions? Any more comments? Then I will close the public hearing. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. You're doing a fine job, by the way. Thank you so much. I am going to move approval without the condition of the reversal of the flow and for this reason. If we reverse the flow, we're going to force them to move their ATM to the east side, which means instead of having a ... Because that bank is a beautiful building and they're going to build this out of the same kind of architecture. If you move to the east side, then those people driving down the street, what your view is going to be is of basically the inside, the user side of the ATM structure. You're going to have a screen and bollards and all the stuff that you get there. To me, if the logic behind reversing the flow was headlights that would hit one house at night and the owner of that house is not in opposition and they've already indicated they intend to redevelop the property, to me, I don't think it would make sense to reverse the flow. I'm going to move approval without the condition of the reversal of the flow from north to south but to allow the flow from south to north. For clarification purposes, there are two different sets of conditions, one recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and one recommended by staff. Which set of conditions are you recommending approval of? Exactly what P&Z recommended, which was the not to require them to reverse the flow. I want the flow to go south to north and I believe that's what P&Z recommended. Because that does not have the conditions about the direction of the flow? Correct. Okay. We're clear then. Moving approval of the proposal with the Planning and Z oning Committee's recommendations for conditions. Council Member Hawkins. I second P&Z's recommendation. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Then let's vote on the board. And there's an approval unanimous vote, 6 to 0. And that we move to the next item. Or do we want to take a break? How are you doing, Jennifer? Are you ready for a break? What? Okay. Then we're going to take a 10 minute recess. We'll convene back at 5 till 9. Thank you. . , . . . . . . . . . >> Thank you, Amy. I'm Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group representing the project. And thanks for not being put later on the agenda and respect everybody here waiting. I'll just answer questions or respond to any concerns. Otherwise, let's move on with the show. Thank you. >> Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, this is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this item, feel free to come down, state your name and address. Your time will begin. Anybody wishing to speak on this agenda item? Anybody wishing to speak? Seeing none, we will now close the public hearing. Councilmember Johnson. >> Thank you, Mayor. I think this is another one of those that -- I mean, this is consistent with what's been going on there. I think the RCCD zoning was one of those that was done when the whole city overlay was done. It's all industrial properties up there for the most part anyway, so I think it fits. We've recently rezoned some others, so I think it fits with everything that's out there now. So for those reasons, I will move approval of item 6B. >> Councilmember Rodin. >> I second that. >> We have a motion and a second on agenda item 6B. Let's vote on the board, please. Agenda item passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 6C, hold the public hearing and consider approval of the resolution by the City of Denton regarding four proposed sites for construction, expansion, and use of an electric power transmission distribution substation located along the both the east and west side of Bernard Street between Eagle Drive to the north and Collins Street to the south and the City of Denton, Texas. >> You can open it. >> Oh, yes. We will now open the public hearing. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to ask Mr. Phil Williams, our general manager of DME, and he will present this case for consideration. Thank you, Phil. >> Thank you, City Manager, City Attorney, and Council. I come to that to talk about the Eagle substation project. To give the concluding slide first and what I'll end up with, as we stated before in talking about many of our substation and transmission projects, we have an issue in Denton of having growth in electric kilowatt hour sales, but also aging infrastructure. Much of the inner loop in Denton was built in the early '60 s. It's over 50 years old and it's in need of replacement. We have a responsibility to respond to that. Your expectation, as the community's expectation, is that DME respond to that and provide a plan to how to deal with the growth in the aging infrastructure. We've had a public involvement process that produced multiple options. We've reviewed those options. We've reviewed those options to the public and provided public opportunities for input, provide input, and the recommendation that staff has recommended to the PUB and the PUB has recommended has been 9/11 Bernard. And I'll talk more about that in detail in a minute. The property area that we have an interest in is between the Hickory substation at Bonnie Bray and Hickory and Loc ust substation, which is located on South Locust. Halfway between those in this area, we need additional substation. Not only furnished to meet the growth of UNT, but the area around UNT and also provide backup to Locust and Hickory substation in the areas they serve, which includes the downtown area. The options after looking at multiple options, the options we've ended up and have before you tonight is one at Collins and Bernard, the blue option, green option, which includes an apartment complex that has come to us as a willing seller. During the time of this project and proposal of it, of course, things have changed. The willing seller for these apartment complex is something that just came forward in the past few weeks as far as being a willing seller. Also received word last night of the possibility that this commercial property that we previously talked about also possibly being a willing seller. And so we'll talk about these options a little more detail, but we have an orange, which is just this commercial site and then yellow option that includes that commercial site and the two apartment buildings next to it. The blue option has 14 lots, 13 structures, and has been discussed as far as taking this lot. It is a little bit on the smaller side of what we usually consider for our substation, but in this urban area we need to conserve the space and this would, after meeting with planning and zoning and having a pre application process to them. We've worked through how we could provide a SUP or get to an SUP process to get approval for this site in the future. Yellow side includes a commercial property. And to apartment complexes. After our first initial meeting. We were directed to look at this commercial property, looking at that commercial property. It wasn't big enough to put a regular substation site on. So we looked at these two apartment complexes to bring those into it. So it'd be big enough to put a regular substation on. We didn't go back and look at the commercial property only. There would be an option where we could put a substation just on that lot. It's using a technology of a gas insulated substation. A gas insulated substation is insulated instead of separating the conductors by air and insulating them from air. It would be insulated by SF6 gas. SF6 gas has to be treated somewhat like Freon does in your air conditioning system. It's something that's not friendly to the environment, but it can be handled. It has to be handled with caution and can be handled just like it does Freon in an air conditioning system. It can work. It's not a technology that we've used in the past. It's not a technology that's frequently used in the electric business. Probably about 2 to 3% of the subst ations in the United States use this, usually in areas that are high priced urban developments. In the Northeast or the West Coast have used these kind of insulated substations to conserve space. Austin Energy has a couple of them and I understand Centerpoint in Houston has one. So there is some use of these. Again, there are some additional costs, not only for the equipment, but also additional operating considerations as far as going forward of extra training for staff, extra contracts for contractor to deal with this specific technology. The technology, as I said before, one of the downsides is the equipment cost. While you conserve land space, the equipment cost is 2, 2.5 times more for the extra equipment to be inside of it. And it can be housed inside a simple building after that. This is one that's on the University of Texas at Austin's campus. As I said, we had a willing seller in the apartment complex come forward and we have that option. We'll discuss more. It is a little bit larger site. It would be a little bit easier for us to meet code requirements on this site. It has less frontage roads. The other site is surrounded by streets. This one just has a limited amount of street frontage. Phil, I think we have a couple of questions unless they want to wait. I think you can finish for this presentation. All right, just check it. Sorry. Public involvement steps so far. We started talking about this in March. We had online survey forums. We had an open house in May. The first one held at the Civic Center. We had discussions with the PUB and City Council to discuss those open house results. We're directed to develop additional options. We had a second open house at Calhoun Middle School. Then we had the PUB public hearing for the green option and public hearing tonight. The first open house, this is the amount of mailers that were sent out, the dates that were held, number of attendees, and then about 40 comment forms filled out. Talking about the cost of the different options. The Collins and Menard option is one of the smaller sites and has a total acquisition cost and demo cost of $5,350, 000. The cost for all these options except the GIS, the equipment is about the same, so $8.4 million, which gets you to a total project cost. There are 14 units there and only three of the 14 are owner occupied. One of those 14 is indicated to be a willing seller. There may be more in the future, but so far that's all that's responded back to being a willing seller so far. The Eagle Drive and Menard yellow option, which includes commercial property and two apartment complexes next door, has a higher cost of acquiring the land and demo costs for the apartment buildings. Same equipment cost, but it's a higher cost. Previously, it indicated not to be a willing seller. The 9/11 Menard, a little bit bigger site, this is where it 's different than what was presented in the past to the public and to the public utility board. When the recommendation was made in the past, this cost was $9 million for the cost to acquire and the demo cost. We have received other information to indicate that cost would be higher, so we reflected that here, the cost being $10.3 million, which makes this a higher priced site, but it is a willing seller. The Eagle Drive Menard GIS option is just looking at that commercial property. Again, it has a less expensive land cost because it's less land, but it does have a double cost in equipment cost in the GIS equipment. And of course, there's the additional operational issues with operating in the future as far as additional training for staff and additional contracts to operate and maintain it. As indicated here, I've indicated that a parent willing seller until last night had that changed and indications are we may have an apparent seller there too. In conclusion, again, restate the issue, we had a problem, we've addressed it, we've had public input and recommendation based on the past cost that was presented was from the staff and from the PUB was $9 million Menard. Since that time, to be fair, the cost of the Menard site has gone up to $9.3 million. Any questions? Yes, Councilmember Briggs. So I've had people ask, why do we even need this one anyway ? Is there a possibility of dividing up the 138 kv system into the two on either side, one at Locust and one at Hick ory? And I asked you this earlier, can you explain to us and the public why that's not possible? It would be, well first of all, the Hickory site is very limited already in size, it's a small site and really not possible to expand at that site. The Locust site, the existing site is already three transformers, usually most of our substation sites are two transformers, as will be this site in the future. Really not, even though we bought additional space, there's no additional space at that Locust substation in the land we bought. It's been configured for three transformers there already, so it's one of our larger substations already. We have a lot of load on that Locust substation. The Hick ory and Locust substations, as I said before, were put in in 1960s. We're talking about the growth that's happened just in this area in that time frame, and so what we really need is an additional substation to back these substations up. To ship, to spread the load and increase the reliability in that area, and that's what we're concerned about is that if something happens at this Locust substation, there's not another one close enough that has the capability to pick up load from adjoining substations. That 's why we need an additional substation in this area. That's why we developed initially a constraints map that showed the constrained area that we need to build one in, and this site is on the edge of that constraints map. Is that constrained map available to the public? Yes. Okay. It's on the website. On the website. And there it is right there. Okay. So this is a constraints map, and it shows here's the one we're proposing. They're in the very southeast corner of the constraints area. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Wasney. Would you put the picture up again that's the aerial that shows the map so we could see the trees in the blue? So this, in a nutshell, the blue originally was the DME selected site, if you would correct me on that, when we went to our first public meeting. And because I was there as well, I also went to the second public meeting, and I've been in touch with these residents of that blue site for seven months, and I do want to compliment DME on finding an alternative location for this transmission substation. So the big project, did we get a total cost on that? So for in the five-year plan, the total capital improvement plan that was just approved by the council last month is now at about $403 million. $403 million to upgrade the transmission lines around Dent on and also replace or build new substations. Yes, that's for the transmission line and distribution system all in total. And the substations, because one of the concerns, and it's a good concern, is that the blue site is more expensive than the green site. So I want to address this right off the bat. So we're $4 or $5 million higher on the green site than we are the blue site. When you take that context into over $400 million of the entire project, would you say this is the most sensitive location in terms of knocking down an entire city block with single-family homes and a large canopy of trees? Would you say this is the most sensitive location for a substation out of that entire $4 million project? Certainly this is a more wooded lot than we've utilized in the past. We've certainly had some other lots, but the lot on Hickory was open land. McKinney was more open. Keynes Row had some trees to it, but not as wooded, not as densely wooded as this lot. So this is truly classified as a neighborhood. You would agree with that? Yes. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you. Phil, can you go back to -- I don't know which one it is. It had the prices and how much things cost, you know, how many residents. Right there. One could argue the most sensitive one is how many displaced residential units there could be, how many people would be displaced. So it possibly could be the green one, could be the most sensitive one. Just throwing that out there as an argument. I mean, that's not my question, though. The lifespan of one of those GIS units, how long is that lifespan compared to just a typical substation? I believe it's similar. I'm going to look back at my engineering. Close to the same? 50 years. And just operating that just from a cost perspective? I mean, it's considerable more or just a little bit more? Well, it's a little bit unknown for us. In some ways it does have operational advantages in that because everything's enclosed, you don't have the opportunity for wildlife to get involved in the lines. And so in some cases they've seen a higher reliability. It's kind of like putting lines underground. They're more reliable because wildlife can't get to them. But when there's a problem, it's out longer. And it's more substantial to address the issue. In this case, it would be the same thing. When it is out, it's going to be out until we can bring in vendors or contractors from out of town to work on it. And so that's the operational issue we have. As far as the additional cost, like I said, there would be additional training for staff and there would be just the additional contract costs for a vendor that we'd have to back that up. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. I think it would be just appropriate for the public. Obviously we can't get into the details of what goes into the estimated costs. But I want to make sure that the public understands that these are all estimates. Right? And from what we heard from you in the closed session, there's a methodology to get to these estimates that you guys go through. But we're not talking about that these are the exact numbers or anywhere with plus or minus some percent or whatever. These are all estimates at this point. So they could go up or down? Yes, sir. On each one of those, right? Yes, sir. And I think one of the things we can mention is included in these estimates are we're trying to capture all the costs. It's not just the land acquisition. It's also the demolition of the buildings and their structures there and making the site ready to put a subst ation on. But also the relocation costs that were required to pay by law to any tenants that are there at the time we make an offer. And so those costs are all included in these estimates. Okay. Thank you, Phil. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you. Could you go a little bit more into the relocation costs? You know, I don't know if you can put specific amounts, but ranges or how that works or just speak a little bit more to that. So the relocation costs are at the time we make an offer that any tenant of record at that time is eligible for that relocation program. And they're entitled to 42 months of rent differential. And so the difference in cost difference in rent for them for what they're paying now and what they would have to be relocated to for a light property that they bring us their first rent payment of where they have to move to. And as long as it's a comparable property, then they get paid 42 months of rent differential. So just to make sure we're clear. So let's say I'm paying $500 rent. I can't find a similar place in the closest things. $1000 a month. So I would take 1000 minus 500, which is $500. And I would multiply that by 42. And that and I would get a one time check for that. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Wasney. And I know that you've done your due diligence on the apartments that we're talking about and the average tenant occupant is that average tenant occupant a student. The 9/11 Bernard. My understanding is they do cater to students that that's indicated by their rentals are usually by semester. And so that would indicate to me that they're mainly cater ing to students by semester. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. The the relocation cost. How did we come up with those numbers? Is that a city policy or is that a policy that's that's established by some other agency? That policy is biased is a state requirement. I'm going to turn to my real estate person. If you could come stand up what the statue is. Last one. The permit is that bill is through Senate bill 18. Okay, I'm sorry. It isn't bill 18. Thank you. It requires that. Any other questions for staff for we have public comment. Seeing none. Thank you. We'll now go on to our cards. Then after that, anybody else wishing to speak will be welcome to come down. We've got first speaker is Kyle Goodman. If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin . My name is Kyle Goodman. I have nine fifteen Collins. And I would like to contend that again, just reiterating that the apartment complex is a willing seller. There's only one that I know of and the the the blue housing area that is willing to is willing to sell. I would contend also that the blue area single it's single family homes. The green area is called University Place Apartments. You would one would think that they're mostly transient people. One would also think that the city would want to have a direction where they have people that are rooted within the city. And one would also think that one would choose a single family residence to make roots in the city. I would like to know how many apartment complex startups have occurred versus single family home startups. The city has banked itself on the university as an anchor, but hasn't really diversified. And, you know, here we are talking about the destruction of a neighborhood. It's not only just the green area, it's the value of the surrounding area that decreases. And it's a domino effect. You know, you've got developers coming in and the whole neighborhood goes. Now, if the green area gets destroyed, which willingly they 've accepted, and I would ask that you honor the system that has been put in place with the public utility board recommending that the green area be taken. And along with, you know, the process has worked properly. So I'd ask that you would honor that. I think Phil Williams at the DME did a great job in doing his due diligence. And I would ask why would the city council go anywhere, you know, other than what is recommended by the public utility board? You know, the question is, do they want home? Does the city want homeowners? Do they want a town of apartment complexes with midtown and just, I mean, continued monster apartment complexes? Do they want to grow beyond being known for school? I went to school. Lastly, you know, this is my son Jackson. He's had to endure, talks about, you know, leaking pools and dogs and. So, I mean, this is what we've been talking about in the last discussion is here is about destruction of people's homes. This house is that that I have will be faced that it's going to be his will be used to fund his college education at UNT. You know, if you kind of compare and contrast that against the green area and people having, you know, just moving out of their apartment after their semester, we're talking about people's lives, their livelihood. This is my only job as a landlord. This is all I do. I don't have any other job. I'm a, you know, I'm a stay at home dad as well. You know, and so we've touched on really issues like FMLA. We've also touched on trees, you know, the tree pulp. So we're willing to cut down 100 year old trees. Mike, I guess what I'm trying to say here is please respect the process. Please respect what has occurred and respect that the public utility board has recommended this. The DME is on board with this. And really, that's about it. And please vote for, you know, my son's future. We have a question. Councilmember Rhoad. Thanks for coming out tonight. Just to clarify, you own that house and but you live there too or you don't live there? I don't live there, but it shouldn't matter because I think the difference is a family lives there. Sure. And that's what matters, you know, is that they're not, you know, we're talking about a neighborhood of non transient people that want to build. And I went out through this the neighborhood this week and I talked to many people who who have talked to their landlords and are wanting to purchase their home. You know, wanting to purchase the home. And so it's a really boils down to, you know, people wanting to make roots here or people that want to make roots somewhere, you know, wherever they want to, whatever the house job is after school, Denver, you know, wherever. No, you're right. It doesn't matter the status. I was just curious about your particular interest. Yeah, I mean, it is college education. That's OK. Thank you . Councilmember Hawkins has a question. Sure. And thank you for staying up. How old Jackson? He's four. Four. I got a six year old. My six year old could not do this break dancing. But I'm just trying to be honest. What I'm struggling with between the green and the blue side, I know that, you know, everybody's trying to spin it from. What they want or think is best. There's a lot of people that are displaced to and granted, I know where you're coming from. Their students, you know, but I'm just trying to grab a hold of there's a hundred and thirty people that would be displaced, you know, and relocated. And I want Jackson, no matter what decision we make, to grow up in Denton and love Denton and that sort of thing. And, you know, there would be above fair market value if we ended up going to the blue, too. So I don't want to I just want to speak to you kind of like just telling you we man, we're really trying to figure out the best thing to do. And especially for I think the person I think the city has done a great job at cater actually done more than a great job at catering to students. I don't think they need any the city needs to do anything more to cater to students. I think they really need to cater to people who live here and want to live here. Sure. And really, that's the struggle is does a city want to anchor themselves in a solid foundation or do they want to cater to transients? But part of what I'm struggling with is if if you own the house, but you don't even live there, you know, part of me was thinking, I've lived in this home for 50 years, something like that. I have roots here. Well, yeah, I'm a Jean Coffey who couldn't stay here. She was here in the audience. You only could say she walked here. Actually, she couldn't stay. She left. Sure. And her house is right. It would be right across the street. She's been there 50 years. OK. Well, that's that's the kind of people. Yeah. And those people don't have a voice because, you know , you got kids, you got elderly people. Sure. We've chosen to, you know, talk about water leaks and other things and choose this as the last people losing their homes as the last topic discussion. Councilman, I may have heard of Gregory. So you said, do we want to cater to college students or homeowners or do we want to cater to renters or homeowners? So the house that you have there at Collins Street that you read out, you you won't rent to a college student, is that I will rent to a college student. But I would say generally speaking, these are categorized as single family homes. So, you know, logic would, you know, most people would think that people, whether they be rent, you know, renters, would choose to would choose to live in these single family homes much longer than the transient university placed apartments. OK. And and would likely make roots here in Denton and continue to want to grow and prosper here. And, you know, of course, you know, I'm sure the universal ist would if they were here, they would want to talk about like all these trees to 100 year old trees being torn down. Since we have a tree canopy here, then they had they lost their tree canopy. I'm sure they would be more than happy. But, you know, this is here we are. You know, nine thirty. So all right. I see no more questions. Any other questions for this speaker? Thank you very much. I appreciate that. The next speaker is is it Varun? Siro Lux, if you could come and state your name and address and your time will begin. I'm sorry because my English is not pretty good. I try to understand not my wording from my mouth, but listen from the top of my heart to speak with you. And what's your address, sir? I am Karun and I live in the blue area, 9-1-1, Fennington. In front of my house, I take a look at that. I found some of the single line or mono line they still have that they're not utilized. Actually, did you use for the tree cable line or when they saw that some is not something is not right. I make sure the wanted actually my background engineer daytime, nighttime and plant time. I don't see any wanted. I don't know. Do we need to expand like that or not to set up the new substation? Even when I saw your map, my background is a whole child committee too. I never see any country or any state like they put the power plant substation in the middle of the community. More than they put outside because we risky for explosion of the transformer capacitor. Or even you put a gas selection, if I try to export for the gas selection too. Not really risky. If I do that, I don't do. When I take a look on that map that you showed to us, I found at some free space, for example, the second safe area . It's a lot of empty spot. No people live there and they still start building a little bit. 30% or 25% only. This is empty land. That is the land or the place should be set up the subst ation over there, not inside there. Even you take a look on the map on the blue area, I mean the green area, the 911 Bernard apartment. Four or five years ago, it had the water flood. Half of apartment downstairs, water flood. To put the station over there, at least 10 feet, you need to fill up to high level. This area when I saw is bottom of the boat, the pan, we are at the bottom. When they have the rain a lot, the water flood over there because they not enough flow or drain the water out. It's not good idea to pick up on this. If you want to do that, I suggest the yellow area is pretty good too. But for me, those three area, I recommend you study again about the cost of investment or how to return of investment . If you move to the second safe area, it should be better. That's my opinion. Thank you. We have a couple of questions, sir. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Do you reside at 911 Fanon or do you just own that property and lease it out? That's my house. We working hard to pay off that house. I work two jobs. I have three hours, four hours sleep working really hard to get pay off that house. So you're living there now. I live in the same building. Some year we pay the tax like 27 grand for the tax only because we need the house. But when I found out you need to planning to pick up this area, I don't know why. For me, if I add a little bit. We have one more question for you. Councilmember Briggs. I wanted to confirm that you live in the blue area and are you for the green area, the one that we're talking about tonight, that PUB? No, I live in the blue area. But you don't want that torn down? You like the green? If you need to pick up the green, I suggest you need to fill up the additional higher than normal level, 10 feet or something like that to protect the waterfront. But like I said, if I prefer, if you need me to suggest you go to compare with the second safe area, how to investment compared to the three locations that we have right now. Oh, the other three. Because that one more. Better because nobody live over there. Okay. Oh, okay. I see what you're saying. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Danny Brown, if you'll state your name and address, your time will begin. Danny Brown. I'm talking about 1011 Peak and 1013, which is in the blue area. My father has bought this property, started buying this property about 30, almost 30 years ago to retire there. He retired this year. My mother passed away there last year. And as soon as, right after my mother passed, we find out now the city wants to come and take our home. Behind that, I own also what it is 1013 Peak, which I have a structure there, which I was going to build a home for me and my wife so we could be there by my father, take care of my father. I've had to put that on hold. I can't do that. I happen to live across town at 1209 Broadway, and every time I call my father, he can't hear. So I'm driving over to his house three or four times a day because I've done called him eight times, he can't hear the phone. Okay. I'm worried about him. My dad has no other place to go. He finally retired. He has his budget set to be in that home. We only owe a minimum amount of money left on that property , you know, and we did not expect for them to come in and just say, hey, we're going to take your house. Now, as you see on the map, that is a heavy wooded area. We have a great big tree that grows right in the middle of our home at our back door. Okay. I mean, it's squared off like this, and this huge tree goes over and covers our whole house. And I just couldn't see how they would want to come in there and tear that property down. I mean, it's crazy. The green area, they want to sell it. Okay. It's going to cost them four more, five more million dollars out of the budget that they have. I mean, and does that make sense to you guys to come in and uproot a family that's been there almost 30 years? And the people next door to me, you know, the proofs. I grew up there with them, you know, those people passed away. There's people there living now. There are five children that are next door to us with their families. You know, they can't be here tonight. The husband works nights. She's home with the children. She asked me to please tell you guys, you know, there's another family right there that doesn't -- nobody wants the blue area to leave. I mean, that is our home. And my father has -- where are you going to put him? What are you going to do with him? You're all just going to say, oh, here, there's no sentimental value to this house. It's just right above market value. No, it's not true. You know, I have a business. I run a remodel business. I have a shop behind that house that I want to build, and I can't do that. Now I'm sitting here running my business out of my place that I want to build my home. You know, I have -- that's why I keep on building materials , because y'all have stopped me from trying to build my home . >> We have a question. Councilmember Briggs. >> Well, he just -- he basically answered it for me. I was just going to say that. So you're planning on building another structure to be close to your dad so you can stay in the area? >> Exactly. I have a large -- behind 1011 Peak is 1013. When we bought the property, there were two mailboxes, 1011 and 1013. Well, we bought the whole thing, so we threw a mailbox away . We only need to get mail in one place. I have an electric -- its own meter box already is on 1013. So at the city of Denton, it should show that we have a meter base there. Okay? Yeah, now that my mother's passed, I want to build that up to a two-story so I can take my wife and my three kids who have been going to Newton Razor, Calhoun, now one of them is in Denton High. Okay? They're going to go to UNT. It's not like we're -- we've been in this community. I was born here in 1969 in Floorville Hospital. This is my hometown, and I just cannot believe you guys are going to take our home. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Thank you. So there are 14 lots that DME told us that were in that, and you own two of them? You own two lots? You have two addresses? >> No, they're considering my two lots one, I guess, because actually if you count them, there's 15. Because 1011 and 1013, they're considering that one lot. But somewhere in the math there, they've made a mistake. Because 1013 exists, just because the mailbox isn't up no more doesn't mean that lot doesn't exist. >> Okay. We'll try to get staff to figure that out, too. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? I didn't see -- I think you may still have some time. Jennifer, I haven't seen any. >> I'm good. I just -- >> I just didn't want to -- I wanted to make sure that -- >> No, I just wanted to state my opinion on -- please. And if you want to build in the green, I'm fine with it. I mean, you know, I've seen -- I've drove around, I've looked at what they look like. You know, it's not that bad. People are complaining. I don't want that. Hey, if they're willing to sell -- I ran a property management company for 10 years in this town. Okay? I know that the college kids are moving in and out of those . They're not going to have to pay them 48 months. Those kids' lease are going to go up and they're going to move back to Iowa, Chicago, or wherever they came from to go back home after going to school at UNT. So we're not going to have to sit here and spend 48 months of money to each one of these kids that are going home after the semester is over. Yeah, there is going to be some people that have been living in those apartment complexes for a while, but it's not going to be 130 like they're proposing. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions for the speaker? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is it Vincent Falsetta? Come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. >> Yes, it is Vincent Falsetta. Thank you, all of you. I think you're doing a great job. And thank you, all of you, for sharing your observations. I moved to Denton in 1977 as a faculty member to College of Visual Arts. It used to be the art department at that time. Can you hear me? Am I speaking? >> No, yes, sir. >> Okay. We bought the property on 1115 Norman Street in 1979. I lived there with my wife and had my first child there. We lived there at that property, which is just a few -- like one block. You can see Norman on the map. We lived there for seven or eight years. In 1987, we purchased another property because of a growing family. I love Denton. I love that neighborhood. I continue feeling -- I think -- well, Denton has been ranked one of the top 10 small cities in the United States. I'm proud of that. You know, obviously, downtown, the new train station, all of the beautiful things that hold onto the past and modernize it is a lot of the reason why Denton is valued so high publicly. I feel that part of that reason is because of embracing the old. And I'm happy that you all have been referring to the blue area. And that's -- in summary, I'm in favor of keeping the blue area. Do not destroy the blue area. That's the summary of my point. I feel that the city of Denton benefits by neighborhoods like this. Eventually, as the years go by, different areas will become important. The area that -- the blue area in that whole neighborhood is important in my opinion. I think it brings character. I also -- the concept of students, I do not feel it's a negative thing. I think Denton -- the fabric of Denton includes students at UNT and TWU. Right now, with the property, we're renting to some students -- or actually graduated, but native Denton people. When remodeling is necessary on my property, I go the extra effort to hire John Howington, who will come and refabricate the windows to look like from the 1940s. I will choose to like just keep the look of the beautiful quality building. Also, I do feel that the strength of Denton has to do with the alumni and what was referred to as transient. I didn't really like that word. It felt a little derogatory about students. I think people who go to school in Denton, it becomes part of their experience, and part of the love of the city has to do with the love they take away from this when they move away and talk about Denton positively. I think the neighborhoods, they get an apartment with a backyard. That's something that's meaningful to them instead of the typical apartment complex. I think I am finished. Any questions? Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Rhoads. I'm just curious to pick your brain for just a second, given your longstanding relationship to that neighborhood. You see throughout the town, over the years, you have neighborhoods that were vibrant, became all rentals, all student properties, looked like they're going down, but then you've seen some of those come back to life. You think of the Congress Street area or something like that. It's a good example of that. What do you see in this area that gives you hope that this isn't just on a decline, but that there's something that could be sparked back to life here? Just by driving up and down the streets and the grid, you'll see some properties that seem kind of let go. But then you'll see other properties that kind of keep that pride, the green grass, the trees, the bushes, pride in the houses . And you do get a sense of pride in the neighborhood, not 100%, not like house by house by house. And over the years, I've noticed some houses that look really great, seven, eight, 10 years later, kind of look ignored. And then on the other hand, different things will blossom, in my opinion. I don't have the magic answer of the future. I don't know. But I believe in it, and that's why I bought into it. That's why I never sold it. I just think it's a great neighborhood. Was that good enough? Thank you. Thank you very much. Michael, is it Swanky or Swonk? Swonk. Swonk, okay, yes sir. Come on up and state your name and address, and your time will begin. My name is Michael Swonk. I live at 1220 Peak up the hill there. I'm not directly in the line of fire, fortunately, but these people are my neighbors. If they don't want to be displaced unwillingly, well, I'd stand with them. I've lived in that home for 35 years. I've owned it for 20 years. And when it comes to -- I heard something of a green issue with the trees and all, and the land over there where the apartments are and all the other land besides that neighborhood is devoid of trees. So you don't have to worry about violating any issues with the trees over there. And that fellow right there, he got a garden in his front yard. I stopped and talked to him. I wouldn't have otherwise done it. And I've got a garden. I've got 50 tomatoes hanging right now. I enjoy pollinating. A home is a home. It's part of the American dream, is owning a home. It's encouraging. It brings about part of the redeeming qualities of life, pride in the neighborhood. We encourage that, okay? And if we really violate individual rights, the sanctity of individual rights, if a guy doesn't want to be displaced unwillingly, he should have to be, especially when you have the option right across the street . Right across the street. What do you want? It's going to be the answer to everybody's problems right there, to me. Now, I'm sure there are other issues involved, but it's that right there. It seems cut and dry. I don't even know why. It's up for debate. I really don't. Now, I've lived on Fenton Street. I rented there. I live with the owner of the house. And like I said, it's part of the American dream. And you invest in property when you own it. I mean, are you not proud of the place? It may not look like much to y'all. You all probably live in brick homes, nice places. I live in a wood frame house up there. I've remodeled it. I've got a garden. I've lived there a long time. And I love my neighbors. I met them. I live next to them. And they're there. They're dug in. They've got an investment. And if at all possible, their rights, their right to live, to pursue happiness, rights, guaranteed rights shouldn't be messed with. They just shouldn't be at all. Now, when it comes to redeeming quality of the homeowners hip, pride, self-esteem, I mean, you're invested in the neighborhood. I don't want to knock renters, operated. It's a necessity a lot of times, especially college kids. They come and go. I've been a college kid. I got two college degrees because I'm still doing my summer job. I mean, I'm not educated. Okay. And I keep in touch with the issues. And this right here, it just seems to be one of the worst things about this happening at this time that goes against it also is it comes right on the heels of this vote about the fracking that we voted out and then it got overridden. What happened to democracy? What happened to the Constitution? What happened to one man, one vote? That's as close as we're ever going to get to all men are created equal in this society. And then what happened? We all raised to believe that, understand that, raised on that. That's the foundation. What happened to that? What happened to it? And here you're, it's unconstitutional. If you ask me, when there's an option, I realize the tax base and all that kind of stuff is going to go on and the kind of apartments, five stories now , the ones over there on Carroll, they bought my beautiful view on Cotton Street of the square when I drive that street. So yeah, they're playing apartments. I'm sure the developers just died to build another bunch of apartments. And those ones over there, you're talking about replacing or destroying, my good friends, daughter moved into one of those. I've caught baseboards because the bugs were coming in and you don't want to see the roaches that I saw over there. Okay. So it would hurt for them to go and there's nothing appealing about those apartments. Whoever, I'll say it, there's nothing appealing about those apartments. And the neighborhood gets compared to the neighborhood. There's no comparison. It's obvious to me. Like I say, bring back democracy with that fracking of all, I know it's a slight tangent thing, but Jesus, that's so bad taste in my mouth. Stand up, whatever happens to that. Anyway, and thank you for your efforts. We're finding other options to the neighborhood over there. I've got a close with my neighborhood. I've never found an apartment. I'm in apartments. It's just, I don't see how you all can debate the differences. I really don't. Any questions? Ask me some. I've carried a stick. Speaking of green, I'm holding off 65 apartments. Council Member Riggs. So how many tomato plants do you have? I only have three, but they're over 10 foot tall. How do you do that? I can't grow a tomato. And cayenne peppers, you need something I've got way too many. And you said this gentleman has a really nice garden. Yes, I'll stop asking how they do it every year. So they've got a piece of plum tree in the yard and all. Is it a vegetable garden? Nice. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I've got a couple of white cards, and I know that we had a different procedure where white cards were typically indicative of not wishing to speak. But I just want to make sure that -- because I'll call the names out, and if they wish to speak, they can obviously come. You may have some speakers who have blue cards. Okay, sure. Okay. Sam Alexander, come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. Can I have a minute with you? Okay. All right. I'm just going to put you at the end of blue cards, and however that falls is how it falls. Thank you. Dr. Ara Minassian -- I know I didn't say that correctly, but I apologize. State your name and address, and your time will begin. My name is Dr. Ara Minassian. I represent 1015 Peak Street. It is not my physical address, but I did go to UNT, graduate from UNT. I did live a block away from that property and another property that I still own. It is a neighborhood. The people that live in the house that I own -- I am an investor. They are a family. They have a garden as well. They've got kids that they're raising up in that property. They are a more settled, rooted population than what you typically see in an apartment building. The one key thing that I think Kevin was asking about is what makes this property, this area, special? It's really simple. It's scarcity. There are not additional single-family homes being built within a block or two of campus. There are plenty of apartments being built, and that's fine . They're building them. I hate that the new one blocks the view of the north from my property, but so be it. That's been built. These apartments in the green area, when they're relieved from the area, would not cause a detriment, because another apartment building will go up. That's the nature of things. We don't need to destroy a nice subdivision. We don't need to cause damage to the properties adjacent to it. You put a substation in front of housing, in front of single-family houses, it is going to hurt the value. It's going to hurt their enjoyment of their house. It's taking away a little bit of their freedom, and they're not getting compensated for it. I will be compensated if you take my property. You'll probably think you'll be compensating me well. I doubt unless if you're giving me a million. I did state if you're willing to give me a million dollars for my property, I would consider maybe, maybe selling. But other than that, we have consulted attorneys on this, several of us. We will continue to fight this. We've been fighting this for a year. We've been going to meetings and discussing this. We're not going to lay down and let our properties go. It has a lot of sentimental value. It adds a lot to the culture of Denton. It is a very diverse group of people that live there, as you've seen so far. There are even other segments of the population that didn't feel comfortable coming up and speaking in front of you today because of their language difficulties. But they are true residents of the area. They are a family amongst themselves. You see a lot of these guys really know each other. If you sat at the end of the street and watched it for about an hour, you would see all these different interactions going across the street with other neighbors, people sharing in their bounties of their gardens, in the b ounties of their cooking, just a time together. These are real families having real interactions. I'm not saying people in apartments can't do that, but apartments are still growing, still coming into play. It's not something new. The way the displacement program that the state provides is a difference in rent. We're talking 130 units in the apartments. The majority of those are probably in non-renewals. They won't have that. Like people said before, they will be moving out. A lot of those won't come to play in that program. The other thing is because of the great amount of apartments available, the chances that they're not going to be able to find another apartment that's at the same rate that they're paying now is pretty slim. It's going to be very, very marginal, times 48, that you're going to have to pay for those people. The amount that you're going to pay for these others is going to be greater, and you might think, "Hey, we're giving them a great thing. We're giving them some money." But good luck for them to find another property within two blocks of campus. I don't think I'll be able to easily find another property that could replace mine within two blocks of campus. I'd like to continue speaking. We have a question. Councilmember Briggs. It has been said or known that this neighborhood isn't extremely a nice one. Have you made updates to your property, or do you plan to do so? All of the properties I own, I do extensive updating to bring them up to code. I'm a realtor by trade, and so I make a greater effort to bring my properties up to code, make sure they follow the proper guidelines. This particular property has granite inside, it has nice appliances. It's been done up very nicely. All my properties have central heat and air, have upgraded electrical. So every one of my properties, I try to bring it up or above what the average property is, because I want to give something back. When I went to UNT here, I lived in not such great housing, and that was one of the reasons I got into owning houses and being able to offer, not just to families, but also to students. I've had plenty of students that are long-term tenants, because they like the freedom that having a single-family home provides. I don't know where you guys live. I'm assuming most of you all live in a home, because you choose and prefer to be in a home. So if you live in a home, you might understand that these people want to live in a home as well. And I don't know what you have in mind to paying for these people, the ones that are actually living in these homes, but they're going to have a very difficult time to find something else to buy that's going to be within reason to this area, that they're going to be as good or better than where they 're living now, because the prices of homes are so high, and there's so much competition with investors. So someone trying to buy a single-family home right now is going to have a great difficulty, and they might not qualify to get a loan. A lot of these houses were purchased using owner financing, and these people have kept up and paid, but they might still not have the credit to be able to purchase another home, even with excess funds that you guys might give. So you might be actually making some people homeless. -I'm going to ask you a similar question that I ask another gentleman. I'm a fan of distressed neighborhoods that have promise. I moved into one. I bought a second house in my neighborhood that a lot of people would look at and say similar things that they'd say about this, but I believe there's a lot of promise, and I have a lot of reason to think that. But my question is, as I look at this on an aerial map and I think about kind of where this is heading as a neighborhood, it's completely surrounded, for better or for worse, by apartments, what, in your perspective, as I think about a neighborhood that can turn from a distressed neighborhood to maintaining some stability, when I see the amount of rental properties versus owner- occupied, I get nervous about this area, because they could easily sell to the highest bidder to create another high-rise apartment. What, in your opinion, is anchoring this neighborhood that allows it to be something that I should say, this has got some promise that it can be turned around into a vibrant single-family neighborhood where we start seeing more folks by purchasing homes and living in them versus just turning them into rental property? Any thoughts on that? -Yeah, definitely. First of all, the fact that it is still a neighborhood, and it's one of the few that remain around campus. A lot of, I own just in that area about 10 properties that either I own or manage. And most of the tenants there are long-term tenants, they're college professors, they're graduate students, they're people who want to be there. So maybe they can't afford to buy a home, and they're still tenants, but they treat it as their primary residence, they treat it as their main home as if they own it. They might not take as good a care of it as I would, but that's their intent is to live in this house as if it was their own. And having that yard and having that personal space gives them that feeling. I think the scarcity is what's going to really push this into a more vibrant neighborhood. The number of apartments is just increasing. We need to protect homes, and as we protect those homes, the value of those homes is going to rise, not just economic value, but the value to those people who want to have that freedom of living in a home. And so to protect that, they will take better care of those homes. -Okay, thank you. -Councilmember Johnson. -Thank you, Mayor. Thanks for coming out tonight. Just a point of clarification because I was very confused too about the whole relocation thing and how that works. So that is a state statute. We don't have a choice. So that's paid regardless of whether somebody's lease is going to be up in May or whatever else. -Well, the way it works-- -So this is anyway what the experts told us. You may know different, but that's what I understand it to be. But what's interesting about the relocation, and I'm going to ask you a question about this, because you hit on a very interesting point that a lot of the people in this area have been able to purchase their home through seller financing because they couldn't get a loan. What I find interesting about this piece, when we look at what's owner occupied and what is rental, and some other areas where people have been displaced from a single-family residence as a renter, we've gotten emails, we've been told that the amount of money that they got gave them the money they needed to put as a down payment so they could own a home, something they could never otherwise have done. So it's--and I think Councilmember Rodin is hitting on something that-- that's really the question I want to ask. You don't want to go do something that if you looked at an area and said, "Here's this big neighborhood," but what I see up next to the campus, like it or not, as the university grows, these apartments continue to encroach. And so as a property owner, you said you were a tenant before, and I get it, as a landlord. If you had the ability for somebody to have enough money and a lump sum payment to go buy their own home as the landlord, where would you land on that? You've got to be able to find a home to buy it. Correct. Most of the other sites that you're referring to are completely worlds apart, even though they're in the city of Denton, they're worlds apart. Those properties are in areas where you've got more common homes that are similar homes that regularly come up for sale, and there's a little bit less demand for. So there's a greater probability of a person being able to purchase those homes, but put them out on Loop 288 or put them out outside of university and take them away from this area, because properties in this area are scarce. Thank you. I'm sorry. No, I get where you're coming from. I own single-family homes around the university as well, so I totally know they're hard to find. They are on the market, but just in terms of the challenge that I think -- one of the challenges is you look at this on the one hand as a property owner, you may or may not want to sell the property, and I get it. I don't think anybody up here is championing, "Let's go take somebody's house that doesn't want to sell it." But if you vote for the area, that's what you're champion ing. You're championing taking somebody's home away from them, whether they live there or not. But what we're trying to balance is that we have to answer to all of the citizens of the city, right? So I guess the point I was trying to get at is on the reloc ation, that's not something that we can control. We have to follow the state statute. Sometimes it can be a very positive thing for somebody who 's running a single-family home. Potentially it could be in a different situation. I don't necessarily believe it would be here unless if somebody was willing to relocate to a different part of Denton or to a different city. If they want to try to stay in this area, number one, you're going to have complications of whether they qualify to get a loan or not. So you're giving them down payment, but you're not giving them a loan. And those owner finance properties are few and far between. I don't know how many of you all have had success getting a property owner financed. The other aspect of... We have a couple more questions for you. Yeah. Yeah. Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Thank you. So if I understand, you're opposed to the city using the blue site for the substation? Correct. And you favor what site? I would favor the green site because it gives the least amount of road frontage to such an ugly view, whereas the blue site is completely surrounded by roads. So you'd be giving it a lot of frontage, making it a greater eyesore than it would be at the green site. You said... You mentioned that you might sell that property for a million. So I'm curious, if you don't mind, and if you do, I understand, what kind of rent are you charging for that property? I'd rather not discuss what I charge for rent. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. May I answer the second part of his question? Just real quick? Well, I just wanted to say on the... I'm going to answer it anyway. I'm sorry. Well, I'm going to let you answer it, but we do have a procedure. I understand. Yes. I'm on town council in my town. I've been on town council for six years, so I do understand what your rules are. Well, then you understand the rules. Yes, sir. And that if the time is up, the time is up, and if you... Right. But I'm going to let you answer it. I appreciate that. Yeah. But let's try to wrap it up if you wouldn't mind. And we can double check with your real estate advisor. If somebody...they would have to actually rent another place in Denton in order to qualify for that deal. So if those people have graduated and they move outside of Denton, then they no longer qualify for that incentive. So that's what we're referring to. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. The next speaker will be Theron Palmer. Oh, you wanted to... Come on down. Yeah. Just state your name and address for the record, please. I'm Theron Palmer. I live at 1700 Willowwood Street in Den ia neighborhood. And thank you, Mayor Watts and council members, for listening to me tonight. I'm going to cut it short because I'm just echoing a lot of these, what a lot of the people have already said. I'm interested in this because I know about the neighborhood. I know about the quality neighborhood. It's a special neighborhood. I dare say that if I went over to the apartments on the green block that we're talking about and offered everybody a free ride over here, that none of them would have been willing to stay around here long enough to say that I want to keep my apartment. But you have about 50% of the owners of those properties over there who have come here tonight and sat here long enough to have their say about how important their homes are to them. I'm a landlord. I have five properties. I am priced out of the market now and what I can afford to pay. And I dare say that the relocation value, the relocation cost for these people is going to exceed the relocation cost for everybody in those apartments. Because the people in the apartments are going on the semester by semester leases. They're going to change apartments and fail to renew their leases anyway as their situation changes, their boyfriend and girlfriend changes, and they want to go moving closer to them. And that a lot of these people, you're not going to have to address relocation fees at all. Another point is that if we can put this site options map back up again. If we could have the site map up, please. Thank you. You notice to the north, the west, south, two blocks to the south, all of those will front on the site. I know that if I owned one of those properties, I would be running down to have my tax appraisal adjusted immediately because my consideration would be that the values of every single one of those adjoining properties, even though they're not being built on by the substation, the property values would be significantly less to me. They would be significantly less rentable, less desirable properties. And so we have not only the 14 residences that you're going to displace, but you also have everybody in the surrounding area that is going to be affected as far as the quality of life that they have in their homes. So I think we're significantly undercounting the number of residents who have been considered as being affected by removing the trees and the properties on the blue location. Since you have a willing seller at the green site with a somewhat more transient population, and I question the relocation fees for them, whether or not they would all have to be paid, I would highly favor the green site over the blue site. Also, one thing that I don't know if it made it into the valuation is that the trees that we're talking about typically have insurance values of $10,000 to $15,000 to $20,000. And if you add in the insurance values of those trees as well, they do have a real price for those trees. The valuations of the properties for the city and for the residents who live there need to be something that's considered. Trees are a very valuable commodity. And if you take them out of that spot, I do see the type of domino effect that you were suggesting that, you know, one person with rental housing starts selling, and then the next one and the next one and the next one in the neighborhood just goes to pot. You have a nice neighborhood. It has character. It has people who value where they live who can't afford to move anywhere else. May I approach Tim Gregory? You've made some arguments for the green site based on the economics. Yes. So looking at the proximity of the green site to the blue site, granted one goes to the east, one goes to the west, one's a little more to the north, one's a little -- but there's one corner where they're just about 50 feet apart. Yes. So if you think about the economics of it, at what point would the cost differential between the cost of the green site, all of the cost involved in developing it, the cost of the blue site, at what point would you say that it would probably be a smarter move for the city, for the rate payers, for us to consider the blue site over the green site? How much difference in value would it be before you would say we ought to go with the blue site? Because you're making some arguments about the cost. I'm making some arguments that whatever the appraisal values are on the blue site, you also lose desirability appraisal value on the surrounding neighborhood. And that the apartment you're replacing is essentially a commercial structure with another commercial structure. So I don't think that the -- not something that's not as aesthetic as a neighborhood, perhaps, but I don't see it tremendously at that location, tremendously altering the values of the properties to the north, let's say, and perhaps -- and I don't remember exactly what's to the south of the green site, but it looks like it's already a commercial area. So I think the impact of that site would be considerably less as far as the quality of the people who have to live next to it. What I'm hearing you say is that the cost difference, if the blue site costs less, that's not really important. It's the impact. It's the impact, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We've got about six or seven more cards, and then there may be other people wishing to speak. Does counsel want to take a five-minute break or no, you want to move on? Jennifer, you need a break? Okay. All right. I'm just checking. Okay. Next one is Asif Reza. Sorry if I mispronounced that. If you could just state your name and address, and your time will begin. I'm Asif Reza, and I represent 866 West Collins, which is Muscat Ridge townhomes. That is not in any of these that you are considering, but my back fence, I share the same fence with 911, but not that you guys are considering seriously. To my surprise, I was never notified that this thing is happening. So to make my conversation short, I oppose that being on the 911 that was proposed in the last meeting, because that will lower my property value, and I was never notified. Other people said about the 911 being for the students, lease their property for semester basis. I believe they don't do by semester basis. They go by 12-month lease, and if you have to relocate those 130 tenants, and if you pay like $100 each, if you have to pay, that's half million dollars. I just wanted to consider, and if it is $500 you have to pay to relocate those students, it will be $2.5 million just to consider these. And just like I was not notified, and I'm pretty sure none of those 130 tenants were notified, and they will just probably get out of the blue that they have to be out. Sure. Thank you. We have a question. Councilmember Briggs. Can you point to where, or show me where, what property you own? Or where it is? Can we have the overhead, please? With the blue area? That's north of, I mean, the south of the 911. I can point my right here. Yeah, the condominiums are just south of 911 Bernard Mesqu ite Ridge Town Homes. Yes, and mine is like very like adjacent to the 911. I share the same fence with them. Right. And so a majority of your, is it the side of your property would be right next to the substation if we built it in the blue spot? Yes. It would be right next door? So it's going... Either way, it'll be next to the, either way it'll be next to the, to my property. Either blue or green. Right. It's going to be right in the middle and in fact, you one way or the other. Yes. Yeah. May I approach him, Gregory? So are you opposed to all of the sites? Opposed to which sites? I oppose the, this one and the green and the blue. You oppose both of those sites? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Especially the green. Okay. All right. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, she just cleared it. The next speaker is, I'm going to say Faisal Reza. Okay. Thank you. And if you could state your name and address, your time will begin. My name is Faisal Reza and I live 750 West Collins. That is right under the green area. And I've been living here since 1998 and I, it's a town home, small town home. And I have, I'm living one of them and I have two other unit. And I was really surprised that I never received any notification that this thing is coming. Even though the area showing that, can you put the overhead in that way? It's showing like my property is right here, but I never notified through the mail that this thing is coming. And my leasing office, I contacted with them this morning just to verify that if they received anything and they said they didn't either. None of them, I mean, never even knows that it's coming. We have about 94 units in this area. 94 is it? About 94, about close to 100 town homes. And if we have those kind of big construction coming the next door, the value of our property will go down right away what we build up over the year. And that's why I oppose the green area and at the same with the blue area because of that thing. I just want to make it short that way. Okay. Any questions? All right. Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. I don't have the numbers anymore. The difference between the green area and the blue area is about $5 million. The difference between the blue area and the yellow area, I think that's probably another $5 or $10 million. So what you're saying is that in order to provide a subst ation there, we ought to spend another $10 million? I don't have the numbers. I don't know exactly. And I don't either. I'm just kind of rounding. But you think that that would be a better decision on the part of the city? Well, since we have about 94 units right here and the blue area has -- we already talked about it, like, you know, there is 14, 15 houses over there. So, I mean, if the 9/11 whatever proposed right now, I think a lot of people will be affected. Okay. And when you say we have those units, do you mean that you 're the owner, that you represent the owner, that you are a resident there? No, I am the owner. You're the owner. I'm the owner. I'm living there. I'm never notified. I never get a mail. None of my neighbors get a mail. I talk to my neighbors. I didn't talk to all of them, but I talked to a few of my neighbors. They didn't get any mail either. And then I went to my property management office. We have a -- and they didn't know that either, that, like, this thing is coming. And I was really surprised that they sent us email mail to 894 persons, but I have -- I own three of the property. I didn't get it, so I don't know. I mean, it could have been missed one of them, but how it missed three of them, you know. Okay. Thank you. All right. I see no other questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. We've got a white card from Tanya Litman. If you're wishing to speak, come down and state your name and address, but -- okay. It says in opposition -- Yeah, because I didn't know what it was. I said greenside. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. And then we have another card, Sylvia Perez. If you'd like to come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. Or we can just register your opposition and you can share which one if you don't -- is Sylvia here? Okay. Doesn't really say what is in opposition, but is it 1115 Ne ff Street? So the way it's been going tonight -- well, I'm not going to take any editorial license. I think we can probably guess what that is. So -- Mayor White, I have one more minute. No, sir. Unfortunately, our rules don't provide for that. I'm sorry. Yes. I understand, but it'd have to be -- let me get through the cards first, but let me get through the cards first if you don't mind. John Reed. If you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. My name is John Reed. I own a property with my wife at 910 West Collins. We don't live there. Could you state your address? Is your address 910 West Collins? I live at 1500 Kindalf. Okay. And we own a property at 910 West Collins. It's in the blue option. And it's the option with a bunch of houses. DME has it listed as the only upland wooded site of the ones that you're taking a look at here. And it's also got a truckload of landowners unwilling to sell. I think that's no small matter. We bought this house a while back because we liked it. It has ambiance, more so than any of these other areas you might be considering by far. We would have purchased it even if it was sitting right next to an apartment. We're good stewards of that land. We're good stewards of the house. The house has upgraded electric. It has updated HVAC. It has new insulation. It has argon filled windows. It has hardwired smoke detectors. With battery backup, it has hardwired CO detectors in it. And we have some tenants in there that are students. One of them is on the football team, bless his heart. And they have told us, actually, we get picked at the litter when this house comes available to rent. When the students pack up their laundry basket and move on to some other place in the country, we get picked at the litter and we can actually get a stack of applications for this house to rent it. The ones that are in it now have explicitly said that they do not want to rent an apartment. Okay? This is a big lot. We intended to improve the house, maybe even put an addition on it. Then comes this condemnation issue. Out of the blue. We didn't expect it. And this idea of a just compensation, I believe, is a sham. I really do. A just compensation, as it's called in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, is not going to help folks like this. It's not going to help any of these landowners on the blue option. I think what you're looking at is the residential zoning, and that's why you're interested in it. There are other options here. DME has made an effort to put more options on the table. The Public Utility Board has voted on one of them, and it's not the blue option. I have three friends back here, all three of which are old enough to be my father and they're smart. And they have some really good ideas, and you'll hear about them tonight. If your idea of good stewardship is to steal land from unwilling sellers based on the price, I have a big problem with that. Preserving a neighborhood of old houses, I would argue, might be in the best interest of this town. Minimizing an eyesore with technology might be in the best interest of this town. Minimizing the footprint of this substation to save a non- renewable resource, i.e. land, might be in the best interest of this town. That's a money issue. It increases the tax base. If you minimize your use of land for a substation, you get to do other things with what's remaining. Land also appreciates over time, and we shouldn't squander it. This is close to the end of the city. The core issue here that I believe is the core issue is that of the rights of the landowners. And I don't hear a lot about that. I hear about tenants. I hear about pandering isn't the right word. But I hear about renters as opposed to residents. And I brought with me seven quotes from seven different people that are our predecessors in this government that we live under, which is the greatest on this earth. And what they have to say about this, I believe, really does get to the heart of this issue. And it really puts into context this idea of condemnation and just compensation referenced in the Fifth Amendment. This situation is very dire according to these predecessors that we have that have framed our government. The situation we have here in Denton is not a dire situation. It has options on the table. And I think, if anything, this has been a hasty situation that we're trying to accomplish something. This needs to be tabled, if anything, and taken a closer look at. So in conclusion, I'd like to say if I was to take any four of these counselors here that I have given you a copy of with the references on the back for accuracy, and put any of these four counselors in any four of these seats, I have no idea, I have no doubt that I could go home tonight knowing that I would not be forced to be separated from my land. So I ask you, with humility, to take a look at what they have to say and slow this thing down and reconsider a few things. All right. Any questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. No questions? Can I ask a question? Part of it may be just because of time. $3.33 per year for rate payer for 30 years. I got that from Phil. We'll take care of a $5 million difference. $3.33 per year for rate payer. Thank you. You bet. Mr. Alexander, you're up. You've got two other cards. Just state your name and address and your time will begin. My name is Samuel Alexander. I live at 3219 McClellan's Road in Sanger, Texas. I am not a taxpayer in this town. I don't live in this town . But I get asked a lot of times by people that do live in this town to give my hand with some of this stuff. First of all, I mean, you know, you've got this eagle situation. You've got all these homeowners don't wanting to sell. You got somebody that does want to sell. You know, you need to listen to people that don't want to sell and listen to the people that do want to go ahead and go along with this thing, first of all. But, you know, and then the people from the church came here tonight and talked about their destruction of their property and stuff. You know, this is not the first time that I've been down this trail. I mean, you know, the church thing happening, this whole mess started out with this 138 upgrade over in the northeast side of town. Those poor people up there never even got a notification that this thing was fixing to happen to them. I mean, that whole neighborhood didn't get a notification. I had to go over and notify those people myself. I took it upon myself to go notify those people. Then we started the whole fight over this whole project. And, you know, it's just a continuing thing that everybody has to come in and fight over this power line business. It's a continuous thing and it's a shame. Then you take the Bonnie Bray process. They came in and put those big old steel poles up in those people's yards, didn't bother to pay them a dime. They just came in and they didn't bother to tell them it was coming. They just came in and put those poles in their yard. And then eventually it cost the city of Denton $1.2 million to correct that little situation. And I'm proud that I was part of that whole ordeal. But it took two and a half years to straighten that out. And so what I'm trying to say is there's just a long record of this kind of thing keeps going on and on and on. And I think the council needs to listen to their citizens instead of, you know, how much this dollar is and stuff. And bringing up the dollar amount, when I first kind of got started in this big part of this 138 upgrade, this project was $301 million, $301 million in 2011. Then it went up to, I believe it was, I don't remember the exact inclination, the rise of this thing, but it went up to $351 million. Three or four months ago, it was at $386 million. Now, Mr. Williams quoted this tonight, the number $403 million. I asked this council, where does this stop? How many millions of dollars are you going to let DME just run rampant and do what they want to the people? Not sending out notifications. I mean, it's just, it's a mess. And now it's gone from $300 million from 2011 to $403 million, $102 million since 2011. That is crazy money. And I just, I don't even see an end of it. I mean, it's not even done yet, and it's still just going on and on. And these people, you know, in this neighborhood, I mean, I 'm not saying it's the greatest neighborhood in the world. I'm not saying it's the worst. I'm not saying whatever. But these people, this is their home. And I am so sick of DME and their little power struggle thing they got going on here, walking in and taking people 's property just because they can. And then just like this property, when this thing first got started on these houses, y'all were just going to do this one place. And then it took Kathleen Wasney to come in and say, we need to look at different options. Again, if somebody hadn't helped, we would have been in a mess. Thank you. No, we got a couple of questions. Mayor Procham Gregory. So I'm hearing you say, I think, two different things. On one hand, I'm hearing you say we need to listen to the to the citizens who don't want us to go with a blue option that we should go with the green option, even though it's going to cost us five million more. And then I'm hearing you say we need to stop having the price escalate. Do you see the contradiction there? Yeah, I see plenty of contradiction. And matter of fact, I didn't say, you know, any particular other option besides the blue option. I just said, so you know, another option, another option would be the GIS process. You can buy a lot less land. The blue option is the least expensive of those options. I agree. So but you say we shouldn't go with the blue option. We should go with one of the more expensive options. And at the same time, you're criticizing the overall expansion because it's going over budget. You folks have spent a hundred million dollars from 2011 until today. And so now all of a sudden you want to criticize me. No, I'm not criticizing. I'm trying to understand. Just trying to understand. Yeah, I'm trying to to let you know that sometimes money is not the main thing in this thing. OK. And, you know, even though it has gone a hundred million dollars more, what I'm saying is your citizens have a right to some of this stuff. And that's the bottom line. These people pay taxes in this town and, you know, it's part of their hundred million dollars, too. Right. So that's my point. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. OK. All right. OK. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. You bet. Mr. Richard Cooper, come down state your name and address and your time will begin. I do have some handouts I'd like to pass along. Yeah, you just hand them to the city secretary and she'll pass them out. Thank you. Let's see, can we put the site option map back up? OK. My name is Richard Cooper. I live at 201 Royal Oaks Court. I'm an engineer and a real estate investor here in Denton. I've lived here many years. I've seen the growth that we've experienced and I can certainly appreciate the challenges that DME is trying to meet and face in our growing power needs. I have a vested interest in this substation project for a couple of reasons. One, I own two properties in the blue side up there. One of them happens to be a double lot with a house on the corner, southeast corner, 902 Collins. The other one next door to it is 1022 Bernard. I have those rental properties. I have tenants living there. One of the houses has a young newly married couple that are already out of college. She's a school teacher. They love the location. They love the house. The other one is another couple that are still in school. They want to stay there another couple years while they're going to school. I'll say I don't want to sell my property. The other aspect that I'm looking at is I also own property across the street from the green side and the yellow side. If a substation goes into either one of those sites or any of those three sites, I'm going to possibly lose the ones in the blue side, but I'll have devalued property across the street from either of the other sites. I'll say this. No one, I think including all of you, wants to live next door to a substation. They're an eyesore and they're especially not suitable in a residential area as far as I'm concerned. I attended both of the open houses previously this summer. I first started looking at this back in March, I guess, when I found out what was going on. I have a friend who's an engineer that's worked many years in the electrical power industry. When I described to him what was happening, he asked me, " What are they wanting to do?" I said, "They're wanting to put a substation in the block where I own some property." He said, "What kind of substation?" I explained it to him. He said, "Oh, that's a rural substation." I said, "What do you mean by rural substation?" He says, "That's the type of substation we build when there 's relatively inexpensive land and it's a sparsely populated area around it." Well, you look at all the substations in Denton, nearly every one of these substations that are described as, say, a rural substation are out in areas where you don't have a lot of houses around them. They're not right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Then he proceeded to ask me, he says, "Why aren't they looking at a gas-insulated substation?" I said, "Well, I don't know. I'll find out." That prompted me to start doing a little research. I looked into these gas-insulated substations and I found that there's a great deal of information available about them. Basically, there are two types of substations. I think you all may have seen a little bit of that from DME presentations. There are gas-insulated substations and there's air-ins ulated substations. Those are two basic kinds. The main difference in those two is the gas-insulated subst ation is a technology that hasn't been -- it's been around for years. The first ones I found about it back in 1967 or something like that. It's not a real new technology, but the biggest disadvantage of that type of substation is the cost. I think you've heard that. The main advantage of a gas-insulated substation is it takes a very small footprint. It takes anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of the space that a conventional aeroincellated substation takes. These factors, I think, are very important. There's a lot of other advantages. If you all care to look at that report I put out, it's just a part of the one I've done. But what it came from -- That was the time, so if you could just go to concluding remarks and if you have any questions. That came from a report that I found the most valid information. It was entitled "The 21st Century Substation Design," and they are advocating GIS substations. And they're comparing them to aeroincellated substations. I think if you all look at some of that information in there, you'll see why. The main factor that I saw is the fact that there needs to be a life-cycle cost analysis made of this, not just the first cost. I see where there is a first cost, but comparing those is not a really valid analysis. Mr. Johnson mentioned earlier before the matrix that these are just estimated costs. I would suggest to you that we need to do a more detailed analysis, maybe even by an independent third party. And take a look at this gas-insulated substation. I'm not in favor of the blue, I'm not in favor of the green , I'm not in favor of the yellow. I'm not necessarily opposed to the gas-insulated substation on that corner, but I think no more sites need to be evaluated, considering we could probably do it on an acre or less instead of two to three acres. We do have a question for you, Council Member Briggs. You kind of just answered my question there at the end. Out of all of those options, you said you didn't prefer any of them, but is there one over any of them that you would prefer? Well, the only one I would even be in favor of would be the orange option with a gas-insulated substation. But I also want to point out that I don't know that these costs that we're seeing are really accurate. I heard a number, something like two and a half times the cost. I think you could put a gas-insulated substation on half of that orange side if you really looked at it more closely. Well, thank you for this information. I do think that we need to research the GAS. Well, for that reason, my request is that you table this for further analysis, and you ask DME to do a little more detailed study, and maybe even want to consider going out with some RFPs from companies that do these kind of substations. Fantastic. Anything else? Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper. Thank you. The last card at least I have at this moment, bring it on. The next card I have is Mr. John Littman. If you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. My name is John Littman. I live at 111 Allen and Dale Circle. I've got three properties in the blue zone, and they are on the corner of Fannin and Bernard. And I've got a picture here of a GIS substation in Anaheim, California, and I've got some other pictures of substations that I would like to put up periodically. But I wanted to say first that it needs to be noted that notification was not sent out properly by DME. And I think they've been a little remiss in getting it done properly. My approach is a little different than Mr. Cooper's. I'm not a technical person like he is. But I purchased this property to develop it. The corner property is a vacant lot, and I was going to develop this into a 12-unit apartment building for students . I am leasing the property that I've got now to students, and they've been long-term tenants, and I appreciate the fact that they're there. And we're just trying to, my wife and I, purchase these properties to provide for a nice retirement for me. I'm now retired from the dental technology field, and that 's the whole purpose of my purchasing the property where it is. And the property no longer is available, two blocks from the University of North Texas. That was an advantage for me. Location, location, location is all about real estate, and that's one of the reasons why I've purchased what I have. The alternate sites are available, and I'm in favor of the one that's on the corner of Bernard and Eagle, because we feel like that these other sites, if done with GIS, can be made very attractive. And that's one that's also out in California. This one is done in Japan, and I think this one is done in Austin, Texas. So, GIS can be used effectively. It might cost a little bit more. But, I mean, it doesn't start to look like a pincushion. We've got these things all around town, and they're definitely an eyesore. And to have one of these in the midst of a neighborhood, even though the neighborhood is the neighborhood of the type that it is, you know, it still makes for an eyesore, and it's difficult to look at. So, I am definitely opposed to them placing it in the blue site. And as Mr. Cooper said, the GIS can be placed on a third of the land used for a regular AIS site. So, that's what I have to provide. We've got a couple of questions. Okay. Councilmember Wozni. Were you aware that this council has had a discussion about the GIS technology? Well, I wasn't aware of it until Mr. Cooper did some research, and so I've become more familiar with it. Now, I'm not a very technical person when it comes to electricity. I don't know that much about electricity, but I've gained more information as time has gone on. And the council has had a discussion about it, and I believe the cost is two and a half times the cost of the alternative substation. The other issue is that it would be the only one in the city of Denton, and if it went down, none of our people would be trained to fix it. So, that one of the issues here would be, is when your power goes out, you're on the phone, you're watching the clock, because you want your power to come back up. And that the issue with the GIS at this stage in the game is that people may be waiting for a couple of days for technology, people to come in. Well, according to some of the briefs that Mr. Cooper has sent me, GIS is very, very reliable. It's not susceptible to lightning strikes like AIS is, and I don't know how to compare them for reliability without having read. They do go down. My point is, one of the points that DME made was that if a substation that is traditional goes down, we have a lot of people in Denton on the DME staff who can go and get it fixed, get it fixed right away. Because the GIS would be a standalone and all by itself, because trust me, we really have scrubbed hard to look at all the options for this substation. And we scrubbed hard to consider a GIS for that corner, but based on the two and a half times with the cost, but then the reliability in bringing in technicians to fix it if it went down. And to be able to provide the neighborhood with power in a reasonable amount of time, those were the two issues with that GIS technology. So we have batted this around at length. Well, I think if you're going to have a GIS substation built, there's going to be technicians in place building it for one, but also knowing how to monitor it and maintain it . Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Thank you. So I understood you say that you had three properties in the block that's the blue area. Yes. Okay. And did I also understand you to say that your plan was that you were going to now are these all empty lots now or they. The one on the corner is empty. The one on the south side has two units. Okay. And then one on the west side has one unit. So did I understand you to say that your plan has been to take those the empty lot plus the two that have dwellings not the two just the one on the west side. I had I had started the project and had met with the city on twice and planning before any of this was divulged that this project was in the works. So the city was moving forward with me to build this project. I've got plans and so on. And then I had to stop because I was how many how many units were you going to put all units 12 units. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember breaks. I was going to ask how many minutes it will it be fairly small. It's going to be efficiency efficiency apartments for basically geared toward college students. I mean two blocks from the campus is perfect. Right. Maybe we can relocate some of those other guys in there. Thank you. Okay. I see no other questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next card is Steve Stone. State your name and address and your time will begin. Steve Stone. I'm a real estate broker. I have commercial land services on the principal broker. I live at 6827 Freeman Road in Crump. And I come here because kind of an interesting situation. I actually come here for supporting two sites tonight. That's kind of an interesting precept. But I represented John Lickman that just spoke. He bought one of the properties through me through my services before he started his development plan. But also tonight I bring another kind of an interesting concept and that is that the owners that own the site, which is designated tonight as red, I'm assuming, have gone into consultation. You mean orange? Well, I'm looking at this map and you're looking at mine. Take that off. Run the other one up please. It's up there. Yeah. The red site, which I can't point to. So the owners have decided that they originally were not willing to sell and now they have come and talked with me. We've had an extensive discussion that they will consider providing their property as an available property. Now, my understanding is that GIS seemed to be the only consideration given to that site. I don't understand why a traditional air insulated system is not being given consideration to that site. And the engineer that I spoke with, to me, seemed to think that there was adequate space that would be available. If you just look at it on the map, now of course you include the apartment complex behind, or if you went with the GIS system, of course, which doesn 't seem to get very good press tonight, there's lots of room for that. One other, well, many other, when you use the corner site, you take that site and you redevelop it. You're not redeveloping in the center of the neighborhood. And we've all talked about living in neighborhoods and we all know that none of us want to live across the street from what's being proposed to be built. No, I wouldn't. Now, there was an interesting point brought up earlier and I made a note about it. If the substation is put on the blue site, I call it a casc ading of decay is going to take place on the surrounding properties. Now, when I say that, that means that we're going to see a tax base change dramatically. If you put it on the green site, look what's going to happen to Mesquite Ridge next door. Anybody who has any sense at all is not going to be willing to lease abutting that station. So by putting it out on Eagle Drive in that other location, it is much more conducive, especially if it's screened properly. If it's screened properly, Eagle Drive is just Eagle and Bernard are ideal. Let's talk about one thing real quick while I have a little time left. We're talking about specialty training, specialty needs. Are we not going to have specialty needs and specialty training in this gas-fired supplemental stations we're talking about? The DME and the city is going to gear up for the new gas-f ired stations if they become a reality just the way you would any other facility. If we have to gear up for a possible GIS, it's nothing different other than it's just the first one we have. Why not consider a GSI here and then say, wait a minute, can we do this on Hickory Street? We actually look at that option unless Hickory Street is already designed and already in the letting process. I've got a couple of questions. Councilmember Briggs. So you're here representing or speaking for the people in the orange area? That is correct. And they're willing to sell? They are willing to listen, entertain a conversation about that site, yes. And you have spoken with someone who believes that? I have a little trouble hearing you. You've spoken with an engineer who believes that the subst ation will fit on that lot, a regular one or no, just the GIS? Well, we discussed whether or not a regular air insulated could go on that. With certain needs, yes, the indication is yes, it could go there. A GIS could go on the orange site and from my understanding of what I've been told. Just a GIS? No. Air insulated? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Is there anyone to relocate in that area or is it just all? You have three businesses, I believe. You also have a tenant that is preparing to occupy the corner. Currently, they would have to be worked out of their lease and also you have a snow cone stand leaser that's an outside leaser. And how many trees? And you have a drive-in, an easy check, convenience store on the west side of the building and then you have three other tenants that are a bar, a dance hall or something to that nature. And not many trees, I don't think. Not very many trees. Not very many trees. No, you have great pecans on the corner that could actually be preserved as accent landsca ping trees. They'd be beautiful. They're in the right place. Okay. Thank you. There's a dance hall in Ditten? I've heard. I've never been there myself, of course. Mayor Pro Tem Gregor. So you have an engineer, you have an electrical engineer that has experience with substations that says that we could do an air insulated substation on the orange site. There's a possibility of such. Now, what I'm suggesting is that if I understood the conversation correctly, however, I'm going to lead us down a dead-end trail here. I'm not free to divulge the person I've talked to about that. However, you've got plenty of experts here. Yeah, and they've said that only a GIS site would fit there . Only a GIS. Okay. Well, I haven't been in your closed session, so I'm not privy to. Well, since you're negotiating the property right now, I'm curious if your owner, since that site would... Well, if you saw... ...GIS would be about two and a half times as expensive. So he'd be willing to negotiate considering that it's going to cost us a whole lot more. That's going to affect how much money we have to spend on the property. So he'd go down on the property. Well, obviously, since I represent him, I'm sure that he would be glad to listen. All right. That sounds great. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. So, Steve, just to make sure I got this right. At the beginning, you said, "I represent the people on the corner," and at first they weren't willing to sell, and now they are. That's correct. But then later you said he would be willing to have a conversation. That's correct. Is he a willing seller? Yes. At some number that is... Well, I think it would be unfair to all parties to discuss numbers here, but yes. You know what I'm saying, right? There's the, "I'm a willing seller at a reasonable price," and there's a, "Sure, I'll sell it to you if you're dumb enough to pay me some crazy money." We are not addressing the matter on the latter statement, not the dumb enough to pay. We are at a reasonable price. Okay. Thank you, Steve. Thank you. Councilmember Wasney. And if we look at the map, you represent the seller for the red box, but not the additional two apartment buildings. That is correct. I made an attempt to contact them because it was included with the red box. I wound up going to four different states, and then an attorney called me back when it was too late to return their call because they had left the office. And the reason... Fire alarm, maybe. The reason it's in the yellow box is that that's the space required for a traditional substation. I can't make that assumption. If you're telling me that, then yes, I would agree with that. So that's why you've got the red box inside the yellow box. So it would not only be the seller that you represent, but it would also be two apartment buildings that are in that yellow box to accommodate the substation. Councilmember Wasney, if I understood correctly, and again, I want to express my understanding. If I understand correctly, there was the statement that was made to me that you can put an air insulated system inside the red box. I'm just telling you that's what I was told. Okay. Councilmember Briggs. Well, I would like to have a DME come down and address that since we... Is that possible? Well, let's wait until after the public hearing is closed. Okay. Can we readdress that statement? Sure. Because we would like to know also. I mean, the whole purpose of what we're suggesting here is that the red option is the less invasive on all parties. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. Thank you. That is all the cards that I have. Anybody wishing to speak, come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Okay. My name is Joe Bauer. I live at 1107 Peak Street, which is just off the corner of the blue area. And everybody's worried about relocation costs and trees being torn down and people having to see their houses bull dozed. I got a solution for that. See up there at the top where you see the O and the word options and see right below it where you see a vacant parking lot? Okay. I think the real problem is that, you know, in our neighborhood, we're being bullied around by basically the university. And I think that like everyone, I mean, and I know this isn 't your fault directly because I realize that this is a bigger thing than just, you know, all of you individually and even the DME. But I think the problem here is that we're not standing up to the bigger bully, which is the University of North Texas . Because there's a vacant parking lot just a few blocks away right there in the line of your transmission lines. And it could just go there. You don't have to move anyone. There's maybe like two trees total. Maybe there's that one house. It's not shown here, but I know where it is. There's that one house like back there. If it's even in the way, you know, it just doesn't make any sense for this to be brought over to our neighborhood. When we know that most of this is for the university because they are the ones adding on all the way around to where Sac and Save used to be. And even if they weren't using that, that's still just a vacant spot like right in line with this whole thing. It just doesn't make any sense for this whole thing to be shoved off on our neighborhood over here, you know. And, you know, those are houses that we want to keep, you know, and I nearly wish that my house was in the purple area because mine is two houses back from the purple area, which means that I won't get paid for it. I'll just get a diminished property value if you guys, you know, choose that spot. But really, we need to stand up to the bigger bully, which is the University of North Texas, and take that spot right below the O in the word options. We have a couple of questions. Mayor Pro Tem. You know, the University of North Texas is actually the state of Texas. Oh, carefully are. There's a vacant spot right there. Well, I understand. Okay. Well, that's right. And our history of standing up to the state of Texas hasn't been so good lately. Maybe that needs to change, you know. I agree with you there. And that's why that's exactly why I'm not blaming any of you personally or the, you know, the utility people either. But, I mean, you know, you're looking at this map for about four hours now, five. And I'm going, you know, our heads. I know what I'm just trying to be concise and get down to it because I know everybody. We want to go home question for you as well. Okay. Council member Briggs. So I'm just going to say, you know, that it's not going to happen. You and T is and we're not going to keep asking them and they're not going to do anything. Well, we know it's for them. Right. We. Yes. I am not disagreeing with you at all. Okay. So my question is, you know, if anyone is watching at home, I want them to know, too, that this is for the University of North Texas. I just want them to tag that in their mind right now. Okay. So do you have an option that you are for? Well, of course. For a second. The green one, you know, because also in the blue one, if you ever wanted to expand, you would have to go jump over a street to do that. You know, I mean, in that area, there's all kinds of like, you know, there's not a street that runs through that. Whereas, you know, you have you have Bernard, Pete Collins fan and block if you ever wanted to move beyond that any, I don't know. I guess you'd have to take out a street, but that's that's usually not done. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for coming down and staying with us tonight and giving us your input. Thank you. Yes. Thank you . Thanks. Thanks. Okay. This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak, come down, state your name and address and your time will begin. This is what you get for making me stay here late at night. My name is Willie Hatsbeth. I live in 623 Newton. I look at you counsel people. Some of you are having a real hard time. You're like me. I go to bed at nine o'clock and I'm up here. I get up at four thirty. So I'm here with you tonight and I look at some of you and you try. Bless your hearts. You're trying your best to hang in here with us. Some of you losing that battle. I'm a tree hugger. I just like trees. I think they're they need to be here and we don't need to get rid of them for things like this substation if at all possible. But I like money. It's green too. I don't really like you spinning it either. So there you have it. Now what are you going to do? You can 't spin it. You want to keep the tree. Not my problem. I'm just stating what I prefer. Now this all my involvement with city council begin over trees. I had one hundred year tree on Bonnie Bray in front of my house and the city. Knocked it down because they needed more sidewalks and I guess we need. So I'm just arguing with myself right now. But the second one where I now live is the one that really hurt me. Seven one hundred plus year old pecan trees were destroyed. The excuse was given by the engineers and said a straight line is better for the water flow. I had an engineer company who also liked trees to volunteer ten thousand dollars worth of their engineering design to move the tree. The creek flow seven feet to the north and save all my trees. And this city council of that city council said no and took out every one of those trees that started what you see here tonight as you try to stay awake. I say save the trees. Why do I say that? Because I can. I have the right to say it. But what I found that you do is you're going with the money . You're going to sit there and try your best to stay awake. But that that those figures that I hear about so many million dollars more if we do this and so many million if you do that's it. Now it's going to be interesting. There's some of you on this council now starting to pull away from the pack and you're saying I'm going to vote my conscience. I think this is what we should do. Thank God for you. You vote your conscience because sometimes it's the best thing that you can do. We can't put those trees back up there again. Choose the option that leaves that that keeps more trees. That's my suggestion. Councilmember Briggs. We got a question. You're not going to get out that easy. I just have a question about your pecan trees. We heard earlier that engineering tore down quite a few trees behind the Unitarian Church to put in 50 feet of concrete. Did they did they put concrete in when they replaced your trees or did they just cut your trees down? They they didn't put anything in. They left the dirt banks. And now it's filling right back up. It's it's it's moving back to where it was. So they did not. And bless those people's hearts at that church. I wonder if any of you heard them say that you've affected their belief that what they thought God was doing in their lives and what he stood for. That just it just needs to be heard. But bless your hearts. You have to just make decisions. I talked to this gentleman here and my heart just goes out for him. There is nothing he can do. And you're going to just like the church and just like my trees, you're going to make decisions that's going to affect people. And you know it. And I'm not saying you're bad for the heck . You got to do something. But at least this council seems to feel for the people. You seem to do that. So that's that's something. Yeah. OK. Thank you very much. No more questions. Thank you, Mr. Any else. Anybody else wishing to speak. This is a public hearing. If I'm sounding a little loopy, that's because I am. Anybody else wishing to speak. No, sir. I'm sorry. We're limited to one comment per person. I apologize for that. That's just the rules. I'm not trying to be hard headed. Anybody else wishing to speak who hasn't spoken on this agenda item says public hearing one more going one more time. OK. All right. We will now close the public hearing. I want to take a five minute break before we start our deliberations. . We're going to reconvene our public meeting. It is 1135. We are on Agenda Item 6C. We have closed the public hearing. We have a mover and a seconder that have been -- that have punched in, but we also have three requests to speak. So I'm going to go through the requests to speak before we entertain the motion, if that's okay, Council Member Wasney. All right. Council Member Rodin. They've waited so patiently so far. But this has been a great discussion tonight. And you know, coming into this, I think purely financially, there's a lot of reasons to go with the blue spots, purely financially. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a sucker a bit for these kind of neighborhoods of potential promise. I have serious concerns as to whether or not this neighborhood can go in that direction or whether or not it's going to continue to dwindle through the pressure of student housing. I mean, the narrative tonight was actually quite beautiful. As I heard the community, people sharing tomatoes, talking about knowing their neighbors. I mean, you don't see that a lot. And this is one of the few remaining single-family housing stocks really in the core of town and certainly on that side of the university. But that narrative was going all the way through the night until one of the gentlemen came up and said, "Well, I own property there, and I'm going to turn that into 12-student apartment units." I thought, that's not taking it in the right direction if we're trying to preserve a single-family neighborhood. So all that to say, I struggle as I think through this because I think there ... I hope there's potential for that neighborhood. Obviously, there's nothing we can do to make that happen one way or the other up here tonight with this decision. But as I look at the boundaries, Greenlea, Bernard, all the way up to Fannin Street, kind of maybe if you want to go all the way to Avenue A, clearly a distinct neighborhood. But you have over in these other options with green, yellow , and the orange, it's clearly outside of that neighborhood and different. So just to kind of let the council know where I'm thinking about this philosophically, again, I have concerns. I think if we really want to see that neighborhood turn into something and preserve itself in some former fashion single-family character neighborhood, it's going to need more than a change of location of this substation. There's got to be something that anchors it, something that stabilizes it, something that preserves it. Some of it's going to have to be the owners not continuing to sell the property to apartment owners. I don't know, but part of me wants to give it a chance. But I'm stuck still with this financial question of the significant increase between the green and the blue. What gives me a comfort, a bit of comfort in that financial question is the fact that DME at one point at least recommended the green spot. So the folks looking at the finances felt comfortable that that increase was doable. And then of course we had last week the Public Utility Board who recommended the green spot. So I guess as I'm just kind of signaling where I stand in this conversation to my council members, we're going to have to discuss this and make a decision. I'm leaning on green at this point. Okay, I was fixing to ask you what the signal was. Councilmember Wasney. I've been fighting for this neighborhood for seven months. Congratulations to DME that when we asked DME to find some alternative sites, alternative technology options, so we have really, really looked at this and I do want to say thank you Phil Williams and DME for really taking a look at some options because I personally appreciate that. And I know the homeowners in this room who call this neighborhood home appreciate this as well. It's about people's lives. It's about their neighborhood and that has to have value. It is not just a $400 million upgrade for our transmission and substations. It is about a neighborhood. It is about bulldozing an entire city block with mature trees and single family homes and calling that progress. So my plea to this council as I have been in front of you for weeks on this is to do the right thing here tonight and I think that's what we've heard from the citizens that have come forward. We're asking you to do the right thing and I'm going to stand on that. I'm going to stand on recommending that green option so that we can preserve this neighborhood of single family homes and of trees. It's important and we need to do the right thing. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Thank you mayor. I didn't know what to expect tonight. Given this whole definition of what a neighborhood is, I wasn't convinced if this was a neighborhood. I thought this was just a row of houses. There's a difference to me. But what I was very surprised by were people that are in the investment side of business, landlords are showing up and speaking of their homes, they still care about them even though possibly they've had kids and they've moved on. I did not expect that at all. I am concerned, you know, it's $5 million more to go to the green site. And I know that there's a lot of students there but we are going to be displacing 130 people on that site. But I just really feel in my gut the right thing to do is I 'm going to be voting for the green site myself to just too many trees. You guys just made a very compelling argument. And the one time I did get concerned, it was towards the end and I'm not trying to pick you out, sir, I didn't write down your name. But you know, you're in fight for the neighborhood but yet you want to put apartments on it. That was the only time where I was, you know, I just got a little bit skewed there but -- >> Honest with you. >> Very honest. Yes, you were, sir. And I'm going to be voting the way you want me to probably here. So anyway, thank you. >> Councilmember Johnson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Well I will just say that I've been completely surprised tonight. And so my wife tells me often you need to admit when you're wrong. I still haven't ever admitted that to her. We're only 25 years in this deal so maybe there's a chance. But in all the conversations that I've had about this, because I am in the real estate business and I do deal with investors and honestly I really just felt like the owners were just jock in. And then when you guys that do own -- your landlords who don't live in the property came up and talked about your properties the way you have. And when Mr. Cooper said I'm not selling, I do business with him and he's very hard headed. So he's going to probably do what he says. So I'll just tell you I was really, really -- not to get all emotional but really touched by -- you don't often hear a landlord of a single family rent house talk about the properties the way that you guys have. And John, I came and met you afterwards because these quotes were -- that was a great touch. So I'm struggling. I'm struggling because we hear from a large subset of the population. Some guys come up and say you guys are spending too damn much money and then you need to care about this neighborhood so go spend some more extra across the street. I mean, sometimes it's -- at least Mr. Hutsmith admitted I 'm going to toss both sides of it to you and I'm not going to tell you whether I'm picking a side. That's your problem. So we've been told before and it's absolutely true when you sit up here that no matter how you vote, you upset somebody. Coming in here tonight I was 100% in my mind, blue sight no matter what anybody had to say and I'm not there anymore. And I think it's pretty cool, honestly, to have people as passionate about their neighborhood, whatever size it is, as we've heard from some of you all tonight. So for all you guys that are landlords, if this goes green and there's a stinking apartment complex on that block in the next two years, we're going to find you and we're going to say you lied. >> Except for one. >> Except for -- not that apartment. I'm talking about a big one where the rest of them all band together and sell it. So I just wanted to say that, that I really appreciate the way that everybody spoke and the honesty and it's a difficult situation when we went through the budget and yelled and screamed and fought over 100,000 bucks. Right, Kathleen? So to go say we're going to spend another 5 or 6 million, it's hard to swallow and I don't know how it's going to go, but it's -- I just want to thank everybody for the time you spent and what you said. And I know Mr. Cooper, so I believe him. Thanks. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> I, too, want to thank everyone for staying and speaking and telling us your story and speaking up for the home that you own and your tenants. You're obviously really good tenants and you like the neighborhood and those of you who have built your lives there in your homes and have lost lives in your homes. And so I want to thank you for staying tonight. And I also have been advocating for this neighborhood and just for homes in general, single family homes for our city, affordable homes. And I'm just glad that I'm seeing council turn around. I'm getting a little teary-eyed because, you know, we do care. We do care about our people and it's not just about money all the time. And so it's really refreshing. And to Mr. Roden's comment earlier, I recall several people coming up saying that they're going to build or they have plans to remodel and they have -- you know, there's a lot of things that have been on hold. So maybe our dream for this neighborhood is going to happen , you know. If things like that, you know, you're talking about it turning around and there's a lot of programs the city has that can help with neighborhoods. And anyway, so I just wanted to make that comment. And I understand that you guys didn't want the green option because it's going to be in your backyard. But I have to go towards the -- I have to save the blue for all the neighborhoods. I apologize. Everybody's not going to be happy. But I'm going to be voting for the green side tonight. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Could I get DME to put the chart back up that showed all of the different options and the costs? What? You can go ahead and say it, man. Okay. You know, I came in also thinking blue side for sure because of the savings. I was not expecting to hear people arguing for the -- and I think a lot of the men out here are really colorblind. You're calling purple blue or blue purple and you're calling orange red and you were confusing the heck out of me. But I was really stunned that people were arguing for the most expensive options. But I suppose maybe those were people that are not DME customers and they don't care how much DME rate payers have to pay for it. You know, I like to maintain that I'm militantly moderate, that I try to avoid the extremes. And while the blue is certainly the best option for the DME rate payers, it may not be the best option, you know, given all of the factors concerning that. So I'm much more sympathetic to the green choice than I was how many hours ago? Several hours ago. Councilmember Briggs, are you still requesting the speaker? I just wanted to make one more comment to the DME rate pay ers. Sure. I mean, these -- it really looks very, very significant, but there are a lot of variables in all of these prices and many things can change. So these are worst case scenarios, correct? So I mean, I just kind of wanted to throw that out there in the difference in price. It's so nice being the chair. I get the last word. It's so wonderful. I'm sorry. It's also almost 12 o'clock. You know what I like about Council and about public service and about the public process is I truly believe in the process. I, too, came in with thinking, you know, from a financial perspective, and I have to say -- and this is acknowledging maybe a little immaturity -- but I know when we talk about an amount in conjunction with a large amount that it seems insignificant when we hassled over a couple hundred thousand dollars over the budget, that seems inconsistent to me. And so sometimes I tend to, in my, you know, sometimes childish ways, resist that. But as I listened to what everybody was saying, as I listened to the neighborhood, I'm not voting for the green side because I'm going to challenge this Council to do exactly what -- if we want to do the right thing, because if we're worried about -- I mean, if we're not worried about cost in a sense, if we really want to do the right thing, which means we want to be an innovative public utility company, if that's what we choose to do, that we're going to be growing leaps and bounds and there's going to be many other discussions about substations in close proximity to homes, then we have to get on with this GIS technology. And it's expensive, but when -- if we had that technology, if that was an option with the Hickory Street, it may be a little bit more expensive, but we're not going to have to build a 12-foot facade. You look at some of these pictures. So when I look at these costs, if we're going to do this incrementally, when I look at these costs, the GIS is basically $2.5 million more than the site that we've selected. All right? And we've said that $4 million is not enough to worry about -- $4 million is worth preserving a neighborhood. Well, you have 90 condominiums on the south side of that, which I know some people don't think of condominiums as homes, but those are people's homes as well. So if this council really wants to be innovative, if we really want to send a true statement, we will explore the -- we're not under a time constraint here that I'm aware of, okay? So we can explore an option that is taking advantage of all the technology. We can explore an option that is innovative. Some of the pictures that were shown about those type of power plants, who wants an air-insulated substation? I wouldn't even want it on the green side, quite frankly, because they still look ugly and they still will damage not just -- they'll still damage the blue site, folks. I mean, it's right across the street. So I'm going to stand for the orange site or the red site or -- I don't know what color it is, because in the long run, I think if we're looking in the long term of how we begin to move into a different -- as far as people being trained and having to get people, look, we can hire probably a technician full-time to handle that for probably $100,000 a year, and in the grand scheme of things, in the grand scheme of DME's budget, that's minimal. So that's why I like the process, because I thought we've taken that option off the table, but when you really look at the issues that have been -- and you look at all of the issues, not just the blue site, you look at the people who came forward on the green side and said -- south of the green side and said, "Well, wait a minute. What about us? We might not even be -- " Because I'm not so sure that that neighborhood's going to do what everybody here would like it to do, but that's not really -- it's not that it's not my concern, but what I can do is try to meet as many interests as I can, but if I've got to just make this vote on money, I'm having a difficult time with paying an extra $4 million, but if I can say, "You know, why don't we try looking at something that is innovative? Why don't we try looking at something that will solve a major problem here, but will also give us an experience later on when we have other substations that may be put in that place?" So when we have people who are complaining about the escal ation and preserving neighborhoods, that's okay. I mean, that's all right. We all have our sort of juxtaposed contradictions, but they have interests behind them. So I want to make it very clear that the reason I'm not voting for the green side is because I don't think it goes far enough, because I don't think it really sends the message of what this council and what this city and what our public utility is really trying to stand for, and that's not just put cookie -- I really appreciate Mr. Cooper's testimony about rural subdivisions and things such as that. And when I can see on that corner of Eagle and Bernard a GIS station that doesn't even look like a power plant, I mean, some of those pictures look totally different, and it may be that if we pursue that option, we may hit a dead end on costs. We may hit a dead end on negotiating with the landowner. I don't know. But I'm willing to take that risk to be able to really do this right. So Councilmember Wozni, you said let's do the right thing, in my opinion. The right thing would be let's pursue the orange option and see how far it gets us. And by golly, if we hit a dead end, as much as people wouldn't want to hear this, then we can come back and revisit the green option. But I think it sends a clear message of what kind of spirit and what kind of innovation. Good Lord, we throw that term around. We're spending a million dollars or we're spending economic development incentive grants for an innovation district. So where more can we be innovative than in our electric utility company? So that's where I stand. So if you see a red on there, I want to make it very clear why I am saying that, because for me, it's taking a stand saying, okay, if it's not about money, well, then let's really see if we can't look at this technology. Let's see if we can't figure out who to hire. Let's see if we can't figure out how to move into something that is cutting edge. So those are my thoughts and the whole board just lit up. So I guess I don't have the last word. Councilmember Briggs. I just want to say, as you were saying that, I looked back at my notes and the gentleman here that had the garden, he said, I didn't really get to hear a lot of what he said, but what I did make out was that no other country puts a substation right in the middle of a community. And I was able to make that out and I wrote it down. It really affected me. And so as you're saying that, I can see where you're coming from. And it is the future. And we have to do it sometime or we're never going to get it done. It makes a smaller footprint. And I'm glad that you said it. All right. I'm with you. Councilmember Waschne. I agree with you, Mr. Mayor, to pursue the GIS, the smaller footprint and the corner of Eagle and Bernard. And that's how I'm going to structure my motion tonight. Okay. Councilmember Johnson. Well, I kind of agree with you, Mayor. So a little twist. So far, I think what we're considering is a site. Right? But what we're not making a motion or voting on is what type of substation will go on that site. Am I correct in that? What the item we're considering is a, we're giving, we're making a recommendation on a site. Well, I think it's all going to be dependent on how the motion's structured because the option up there specifically says GIS option. So I think it's just going to depend on, I mean, I agree that it could be a site, but council could also give direction. And somebody correct me if I'm wrong, either legal or someone that, because what we've heard is that the regular air insulated site would not really, it may fit, but I personally wouldn't be in favor of an air insulated site at the corner of Eagle and Bernard. So that's why I sort of agree with you. So I am, after looking at Mr. Cooper's information that he provided and hearing some of these comments, and I almost feel like we kind of dismissed the GIS system after one conversation. However, I would not think that the right and best thing to do would be to put it on the corner of Bernard and Eagle because that is prime future commercial property that makes a big difference in our tax base. I think what we heard tonight over and over was 9/11 Bernard, those apartments are tired, they're dead, they're full of road users. Well, if you drive by them, they're not real appealing. So I guess one thought is, the thought that I have is if the direction we gave, no matter whether we have a GIS or a air insulated system with a screen wall like we're doing on Hickory, or we have a traditional, as much as you try to dress up a substation, it's still a substation. So I would not be in favor of taking that corner and utilizing that corner for a substation when we have the option, and it sounds like everybody's agreed, you got an eye sore of an old apartment complex there. And if ultimately we bought 3.25 acres and only needed 1.75 of it to put a GIS system, you got all kinds of options with that. It's a park, it's a, you know, you sell it, whatever, right , all kinds of uses. So what I'm thinking is that it makes sense to pursue the green site, but not necessarily give up on the idea of a GIS substation on the green site. I would not be in favor of the orange site. Councilmember Hawkins. I don't know enough about this GIS, you know, to, it's not that I don't feel comfortable about it. I didn't do enough studying about it. I mean, I'm excited about it. I didn't know if it was a new thing or if it was just kind of old technology that hadn't been utilized a lot. I think the way that it's been spun, you know, it was kind of a doesn't happen a lot, so we don't really know a lot about it kind of thing. And I still think, you know, the green site, Greg definitely makes a good point about that corner and just knowing about real estate and that sort of thing. I'm sure Phil and DME, they're just freaking out right now, like what's going on with Council. But anyway, it's almost Wednesday, so that's pretty funny. Can you have a shout out? No, no, no. Let us finish our deliberations if you don't mind, please. So anyway, I think I would still be for the green site, and I'm very intrigued by us pursuing that GIS option. Councilmember Rodin. Well, after my comments, I'd like to get some DME feedback from this. I mean, to be clear, we never really were seriously thinking about GIS as an option. I mean, I think in all the deliberation up to this point, site-wise, it was between the green and the blue. So we never really seriously considered the or in terms of where obviously we were coming down as we were getting closer to this decision. So I'd like to kind of just get your feedback as we head in this direction. I do agree with Greg's concern, I think, from a potential commercial redevelopment site for UNT students. Eagle Drive is where it's going to be, and it's got to extend beyond just what Fry Street is for serving that campus, and Eagle is going to be the option to do that. So I'd be a little bit concerned from just a value perspective in what we can get there. The other thing I'm concerned with is this isn't the first time we've met with neighborhoods who are concerned with the visual aesthetic problem of open -air insulated substations. So what I'm concerned with is if I were to say, "Let's pick a spot in the city to pilot this new option," I'm not sure this is going to be the spot I would say pick out of all the options that we've looked at for a variety of reasons. About too long ago we met with the West Oak Hickory Hist oric District, which we know is an established neighborhood full of promise, and property values are increasing. People are building significant single-family homes in there, and they're going to say, "Why didn't we get that option?" And some of them brought some of these examples to us. So I think as we deliberate on this GIS option, to understand that a decision on this is going to mean backtracking to some of these other decisions to say, "What are our options to go back on whatever we were planning on there because we just opened up a can of worms?" So it may be good to open up, but I think that's something we've got to consider. So at that, I'm interested in your thoughts, Phil, feedback . So certainly there are some of my staff that's very excited about the possibility of a GIS option. It's a very innovative technology and something that we'd be excited to explore. This certainly has been an evolution of going through this process, looking for a substation site. I've gone from landowners had all told me to go away, and no, it's not for sale, to I have two willing landowners. And so one option would be to let me bid those two land owners against each other, and let me bring you back more information about GIS option at this site, and possibly another site. And if we're going to do it once, if I'm going to have to add staff to do it one place, I could do it at another. And so I would suggest that you let us bring back more information about GIS option. Let us authorize us to talk to the willing landowners that are wanting to sell now, and start getting bids from them and firm these up from estimates that we've done now to prices that they would offer to sell at. And that gives us options for some real numbers behind it. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. What I'm particularly interested in, getting more information from you about, because I was thinking the same thing that Mr. Roden said about if there's a site where a GIS substation would seem to be the most fitting, it would be Oak, Hickory , and Bonnie Bray. Bonnie Bray, thank you. And so the thought also occurred to me, more information that I would like to get from you would be, is there some economy if we did two of them? If you're doing two, then you're doing them at the same time. Does that bring down the price per substation to any significant degree whatsoever? You know, I've been wondering the whole time that we've been, for months now, I've been wondering why I don't see these air-cooled substations in the big city areas in the downtown. And it must be because they're using something similar to this? No, I mean, I checked with Encore, which serves the majority of Texas. They don't have one in their whole grid. And so, I mean, they serve Dallas, Fort Worth, Tyler, out to Middletown, Desa, Wistful Falls. I mean, they serve a lot of major cities, and they serve with, they don't have any of these in their system. As I said, Houston Centerpoint, which is the old Houston lighting and power, is very large, serves a large metropolitan area. They have one. So, certainly, Austin's made some progress. And when I talked to the Chief Operating Officer of Austin Energy, and asked what she thought about these, she said, "My engineers love them. My operations guys hate them." And when I asked why they hate them, it's because if it breaks, they don't know how to fix it. They don't feel as comfortable, because it's not traditional technology for them. But things, I mean, that was put in six years ago. And so, it's served them, and she says, "It's been very reliable." So, certainly, it's a new technology we'd be glad to look into. Well, I think that, I think probably if there's this much conversation about them, that it might warrant a little deeper dig into getting some more information and sharing back. Certainly. We'd be glad to do that. Council Member Briggs. So, with the GIS, the experience that you've heard is that they've had one in place for six years and not an issue to this date with the one unit? Correct. Okay. At that location. At that location, right? Just the one. Okay. So, in regarding the GIS, and I know that other decisions have been made in the past that didn't incorporate this, but there's never a wrong time to make a right decision when we're talking about the future of the way that our town looks and the way our people feel about their neighborhoods. So I just kind of, with all of this discussion, I want to put to rest that the blue option is off the table for the people here so they can move on with their lives. That's kind of where I want to be regardless of GIS or not, or green, orange, whatever, that the blue option is off the table. Thank you. This is a question for Mayor. Could I ask a question? You can. She's in a trance. So I hear what Councilman Johnson is saying about the corner location of Eagle, that it's prime commercial. Councilman Rodenton said the same thing that it's--so in that light, because I do agree with that, I'm still going to stick to the green option and we can have the discussion about what kind of technology is going to go on that green option at a later time. So my question to the City Attorney is with the wording that we have, is that site specific? Because it talks about electric power transmission distribution substation, could that lend itself to also incorporate GIS technology if we opt for that? If that's the direction the Council desires to go, then I would say what you would do is make a motion to approve the green site but provide direction to DME to gather data about the GIS system and bring that back and leave that determination to be made in light of what good information they may bring forward for you to consider. So you can make the determination on the GIS at a later date. And make that part of the motion? It would be direction, I think, not necessarily part of the motion. Your motion would be site specific with direction to DME. Councilmember Hawkins. And to add to that, I think I want to go with the green site too, but just I love that the mayor brought up, he was still concerned about those other homes because that's, to them that's a neighborhood. So if we could, you know, as we go after this GIS technology and figure out what that is, try to position that site far enough away to where it doesn 't affect them too, that would be a really good thing and I'd feel comfortable with that vote. Mayor Pro Tem. Holy cow. I think what I just heard is that maybe we're going to go with the green site, which is, they're thinking it could cost 10 million for the property and then put a GIS, which is 16.4 million and now all of a sudden we have a hybrid that is more expensive than anything we've discussed so far. That gives me significant pause. I couldn't agree to that. I think that maybe our best move right now is to postpone. And I think if we're leaning towards the green site or the orange site, that gives, and we have two willing sellers, that gives the city a better position than maybe we've had in terms of looking at the cost and getting a better price on the properties and based on the property that we, the offers, then we could look at which type of technology to use. The green site and a GIS, no. No. I would be really violently opposed to that given how much out of the budget that is. I don't care if it's a $400 million budget. There comes a point when, as they say, five million here, five million there, after a while you're talking about some real money. And part of doing the right thing is being concerned about the ratepayers. Council Member Watkins. So I still want to structure my motion around 9/11 Bernard with that option and direction that we can explore alternatives and the council will still have final decision on what that electric substation will look like and examine all those costs. But if we're looking at strictly location, I still want to go with the 9/11 Bernard. Council Member Briggs. So what I think I heard Councilman, Mayor Pro Tem Gregory say is that if it does come back with GIS technology that he would be completely against that on the green site. So if GIS technology, and he may not be alone on council if someone else feels that way, we may lose out on the GIS technology if both of the green and the orange options aren't left for discussion. Is that that might be something that I don't want to have happen. Council Member Rodin. Right. And I think as I heard Phil reflect, I mean it sounds like he's even willing to look at previous sites already approved for this GIS technology to see what this looks like in a package or maybe if we were piloting this, if we pilot ed it here versus somewhere else. So it sounds like we don't have to give that specific of direction relating to that, but still might be able to kind of move forward with some option along those lines. So just how are people going to structure their motion, but just those thoughts. Kat, did you have another comment or, okay go ahead. But on behalf of the homeowners in this blue site who've had this hanging over their heads for seven or eight, nine months, then I would like to structure the motion to remove the blue site from consideration and restrict it to the green, the yellow, dash, orange, red, which is that corner. Because it depends on what kind of technology goes on the corner. If it's traditional technology, it's going to be the yellow . And if it's a GIS, it's going to be the smaller footprint. Sure. And I guess I, I mean Council Member Johnson, I understand what you're saying about develop a site. The city owns prime real estate all over this city. Some in downtown, we're looking at other things in downtown . So I understand that. But from a cost perspective, I totally agree with Mayor Pro Tem in that for me, the question isn't about, for me it's about going GIS. Now I'm not going to say that some neighborhood is more deserving of GIS than this neighborhood. That you know, if this isn't, I mean Council Member Rhoad, you said this might not be the place to try it. We can try it over. This was not presented at the Oak Hickory presentation. This came about, quite honestly, to give credit where credit is due, because of Council Member Wasney and Council Member Briggs insisting on different alternatives, different ideas, different technologies. I don't ever remember this being an option at the Oak Hick ory. And that's not to anybody's discredit. It just, we just weren't at that place. So I'm not saying whether it's, one site's better to try it than this site. I mean this is, as you said, Council Member Briggs, we've got to make the decision sometimes. So I can't vote for the green site if that means we could have the green site with the GIS on it, which pumps this thing up to $26 million. And that's okay. I mean if that's the motion, that's fine. And if that's the way we need to go, I understand that and I'll just have to vote my conscience on that. So that's where I land on that. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. So it's interesting, I mean a little of the democratic process, right? But it's interesting how we go from, I mean, we go from it 's not about the money to it is about the money to it's kind of about the money. I mean, you know, we're jumping all over the place, right? So what I don't want to do, right, is what I would prefer at this point after hearing the discussion is to say pretty simply tonight, elimination of the blue site, give DME direction to go pursue green and orange, come back to Council with a whole package of here's, I mean they may go talk to ten people that own, I don't think there are ten people that have a GIS system in this state. Sounds like there's about three. But they may go talk to them, three or four more, and come back and say, heck no, we're not building one of those. Here's the problem with those or whatever, right? So I think it's a good idea. I mean, what we don't know, I mean we'll take Steve's word for it because he's an honorable gentleman but we've never talked to the person that owns the orange. He may say I've never met Steve Stone. I'm just kidding, Steve. Steve would never lie. But I think we pursue them both and let DME come, I think what all these people are concerned about is most of these people, right? I don't want to rule out the green thinking we're going to have a GIS system and then we determine that GIS isn't the way we're going to go either, right? Meaning we haven't really, this is all kind of new, but I love where you're going with it which is if we're going to be innovative, let's be innovative, step up to the plate. We may find all kinds of ways to get the cost down and I don't think it costs ten million dollars for the green site. I think there's some creative things you can do in terms of when you buy it, when you put it in contract and all kinds of things. So I don't want to rule out the green site because we're thinking GIS and say we don't need 3.25 acres or it's going to cost us ten million dollars because we don't know that either. So I would propose that the direction we should give is eliminate the blue, pursue the others, come back to us with a package. As you said, Mayor, this isn't time sensitive. If we've got to replace some poles, we've got to replace some poles. I'll be fast. Councilmember Hawkins. Well, you know, we've been at this since noon and it's funny how I'm not, play the tape and I just said put a GIS on the most expensive or second most, I'm not, I don't want to do that either. So I'm just, maybe I'm just kind of tired right now but I definitely know, very tired right now, but I definitely just want to, you know, give comfort to the people in that neighborhood that we're not going to go there and just pursue the GIS technology and to me in my mind it's either the green or the orange site. Kind of sounds like it's going to be a green, if we go to the green site it's going to be more traditional substation. If we go to the orange it's going to be GIS. I don't know how to put that into a motion or, but if we can walk out of here at least eliminating blue site, I'd be okay with that. Councilmember Rodin. Legal question relating to this, what seems to be the motion or how it seems to be shaping up. In that, we're not following any state laws in how we're doing our public involvement process as I understand it, this has been a council directed policy relating to how we were going to site these transmission lines and am I correct on that? That's correct. This process tonight is not mandated by state law, this is a council initiated process. Right so I guess my question is, is the policy was kind of meant to kind of get council to have a process by which it picks a site or a line or whatever it is that's in front of us. If this motion is only to do away with one of those options but there's still multiple options, there may be some options we don't know yet to be determined, does our policy dictate that at the end of this discovery period we have to trigger this public involvement process again, at least from the point of view of a public hearing or at the end of this motion does that exhaust the requirements of our policy and now the council can just make a decision between these three things unilaterally. In my opinion we have worked through the processes that the council put into play for the citizens and the public to be able to view all of these possibilities. So I think you are at the end of those requirements so I think you've got the council has free reign at this point in time if for example there was a motion to eliminate the blue site and to advance consideration or the possibility of consideration of the other three sites in tandem with the GIS type of processes. That makes me more comfortable, thank you. Okay seeing no other request to speak, Council Member Was ney. I'd like to make a motion that we remove the blue option for the substation known as the Eagle substation, leaving on the table for future consideration by this council the yellow, green and orange option to be determined at a later date based on cost and technology. Council Member Riggs. I will second. Okay we have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board. Dalton did you want to say? And Carrie 7-0. No you have to stay till the end. It is the end. Well no we've got we've we've still got many many things. But they don't have to. Yeah we'll go on to our agenda item number seven which is presentation from members of the public and the first and only speaker in this group is Mr. Willie Hutzpeth regarding City Hall. And if you want a moment for people to clear out or you can start whenever you like. And I want to this is not my turn. I really appreciate what you all did. I really did. This is unusual. For a city council to not only portend like you are helping . Take this take write this down because I'm not going to say this again. You're doing you seem to be doing a good job. That's just what you do. You talk you work things out. That was great. It was worth staying up and putting up with this. All right here we go. My name is Willie Hutzpeth I live at 623 Newton. Now I was going to present this Mr. Johnson and Mr. Roden in my normal way. But since you made that comment about a general person I'm still presenting information but I won't be doing it like I normally do. There are three things that I want to talk about. The consent agenda is growing and I think what's happening is you're doing take this off so I can look at the time. You're doing public business behind closed doors and I don 't think that's the way you should do it. So I'm going to start looking at the consent agenda a little bit more and give you some situations that I think need to be addressed. The agenda item I still don't have the time on this. It's got this. Right up there. Well I can't read here. Look up there. My time is going to be gone. Shoot. Okay. Oh boy I don't have my glasses. You put me at the end, me, and the reasons that you put me at the end I read while you do that. And here's some things that I want to read as your reasons for putting me, those who have come up here regularly, at the end. The council meeting at which, okay now let me see, in light of the length of the agenda and the anticipation of time needed for the agenda items under consideration, that is why you put people at the end. My point is, well I don't have any consideration. You don't consider me? That statement again, in light of the length of the agenda and the anticipation of time needed for the agenda items under consideration. That is why you put people at the end. That means me. And the last statement talking about that, it is intent of the rules of rotation to better manage the time of the city council members, the chief staff and so forth. So your time would be better managed by putting me at the end. I don't get that. So one of the questions that the forums that we're going to have, so be ready those of you thinking you're going to run again, is it going to be this one. Why are you running for public office? Are you willing to be, let's see, are you, let's see, let's see, willing to run for public office? For the citizens, or are you just running for yourself? That's going to be one of the agenda items that we at the NAACP will definitely ask, we're going to ask it every year because I wonder, well I did before tonight, but that's going to be here and there. Got that, got the agenda. And the last thing, how much time do I have? Okay. Just so you know, I was going to say this a whole lot different now, but the paper I gave you, this thing about where black people can be buried is something that you, it's on the books. It's unbelievable. It says that at IAOF, if you're African American, let me just read it. Let's see, I can't, let's see, let's see. The cemetery shall be used for the burial of white patrons and that no Negro or person of African descent or of other race than those generally recognized as white persons shall be buried in the, and the rest goes on to say the IAOF cemetery. If they are, then it reverts back to the people that gave it to you. What kind of nonsense is that? I can't even be buried over there? Look that up. Check it out for me. There shall be a request and open meeting request looking for that. And it does, that's, this is a deed that belongs to the city right now. That's just something for you to sleep on. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Question. Oh, question. I'm sorry. We got a couple of questions, Mr. Hesbeth. Mayor Pro Tem. Hey, Mr. Hedsbeth. Yes. Remember back in October 20th of 2015? October 20th. As yesterday. Oh, okay. About, about, about 730 in the evening. Right. When the mayor invited you to come up and speak. Oh, I know. Remember that? Yes, I do. Remember when you said, no, I'll wait till the end? I'm going to speak to that. Remember? Yeah, but I'm going to address that as soon as you finish. If it's on the books that you can move me around, I want to address it. But if you take that off where you're going to let all the citizens speak in the beginning, there's no issue. But if you're still saying you're going to move people to the end, then it's an issue I want to address. Okay. Thanks. That's down the front. Councilmember Johnson. So, Willie, normally I don't engage you. But as we spoke earlier, we really like late night Willie. I know. Because you're a lot more laid back. So I have to ask you a question. Did you know that the document you just read was written in 1950? No. But it's still on the books. It's still a deed. It's still enforced. Correct. No, it's not enforced. So for an example, did you know that there are properties all over this city that have deed restrictions on them, privately owned properties? And the first item on the deed restriction says this lot can be for the purpose of a residential home for white persons only. The city cannot remove a deed restriction. Deed restrictions can be removed two ways. I'm playing attorney now. I just happen to know this because there's one property I would love to get that taken off of. Two ways. A judge, and I believe it's a county judge, a district judge, whatever ship in this, or by a unanimous vote of all the residents of the neighborhood that those deed restrictions apply in. So a judge has to receive them? So my point to you is if this is a deed restriction on this property, the city cannot remove it. But you could take it upon yourself to go try to find a judge who would take this case to get it removed. What would happen if you buried me in that cemetery? Now, don't get any ideas. That's saying buried someone of color. How soon? So what, and again, I'm not playing attorney here, but I believe what the case is, is in the event that someone attempted to enforce that deed restriction, the judge would step in and say all other portions of that deed restrictions are valid, but that one is not valid because that's not lawful in this country, which is a federal case. So here's my point to you. I asked you a question. Did you know that this was written in 1950? No. You didn't. So given that you got a newfound love for all these people up here tonight and you've given us some compliments earlier. Yes, some. I wonder if you would be so kind as to think about researching the item of which you're going to make a subject of an accusation, because I'm going to assume the best in you. I just want you to assume the best in me. All right. Fair enough. I'll take that into consideration. Thank you, sir. And very nicely put, by the way, Mr. Johnson. Councilmember Briggs. Briggs, yes. Thanks, Tim. My condolences to you on your loss of your sister. Well, that is unusual, but that is very helpful for me. It's my youngest sister that passed away, the reason I wasn 't here the last time. And you know if you've lost somebody, it's hard on you. It's hard on you. So that's very thankful and I appreciate that. I really do. Thank you, Mr. Hesb. Any other questions, comments? Thank you, sir, very much for staying with us this late tonight. Okay, we'll move on to agenda item. I think it's number eight, which is concluding items. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. About three things. I would ask the city manager to direct the Human Resources Department to start working on a report for us as we start contemplation of the 2016-17 budget to start collecting some data on issues about the number of our personnel who are availing themselves of unpaid parental leave or who might take advantage of paid parental leave, checking out other cities in the state, particularly any other cities in this region that might do that. Not a rush. And it may be something that we would want to have as part of our discussion if we have any kind of budget discussions, early preliminary discussions at some time. I'd also like to hear back at some point down the road about on engineering projects, about any lessons that we've learned through the issue with the universalist, or Unitarian Universalist, or DOOF, what we've learned and if we've come up with any notions about a different kind of communication plan. Item three is October 20th, yesterday, was World Statistics Day. I bet nobody knew that. World Statistics Day was yesterday, which is probably important for us because in a world that's rich with data and when we are trying to make rational decisions based on data, it's important to know that statistics and accurately reflecting data and clearly and fairly communicating it. And I wonder if you also know that about 23 percent of all statistics are made up right on the spot. Finally, an observation, I know that a while back we thought that maybe the council had a moment. I think we actually had a moment tonight because I've been reflecting because I know some of us came in pretty dead set on the green site and some of us came in pretty dead set on the blue site. Because of the fact that we're not stuck in political camps and because we're open to listening to each other, that we've come out with a whole different notion as to where to go. I think that's because we're not stuck in these political polarizations. I think that's a really good thing. Even though I'm tired and it's late and it took a long time , I feel awfully good about the work that the group of people sitting at this dais did this evening. Thank you, Mayor Rotem. Thank you. Council Member Hawkins. I'm still for the pink site though, or maybe the brown site , but whatever. I was hoping in an informal staff report we could get just something that compiles data of how much water we've sold or people have used July, August, and September. I know that the population is different right now, but it just keeps coming up. It really did happen to me a couple times on my water bill. I opened that envelope and I was freaked out. It's on the news and that sort of thing. Just as a city, I think that that would be good information to have. Then two, everybody out there, as of right now, the Day of the Dead Festival is still on. There are still 60 coffins that are going to race down Hick ory come Saturday afternoon. Unless it floods or we just get the worst weather, it is on . For the two people watching still, tell your friends. Tonight was a cool night, Dalton. I agree with you. I think so. Councilmember Briggs. I just wanted to say I'm wearing purple. October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I don't know that many people do know that. It's almost nearing an end. I just wanted to say thank you to friends of the family. They do really great work for us. I just wanted to acknowledge that. Also, ask if I can wear a Halloween costume next Tuesday. Sure. This is the new innovative and creative council. I'll come as the mayor. No, that's fine. You bet. Councilmember Wasney. I have two things. One is an announcement that I'm hosting another community meeting on November 3rd, 630 here City Hall in council chambers. The topic will be Coal Ranch, which is a 3,000 acre master plan community with a 20 year build out. Planning has been submitted to planning at this point in time, but in light of transparency and bringing information to our citizens from developers to see what their input is and for them to learn. I've booked this chamber on November 3rd. Planning will be here. The developer has agreed to come and present. I would ask the planning help me like they did last time. They did a great job. Thank you, Amy, to your staff because they did a wonderful job on the fry street project when we brought the developer here. We had a good turnout. The other option is that we're short on Eureka 2 South Lakes Park funding. And I would like staff to just take a look at what might be some options for us to help bridge, to help get that park funded with these improvements. Don't know what's available. Don't know how we do that. But I would like staff to bring forth some options so we can get that park project funded. Thank you. Okay. All right. Anyone else? That brings us to the conclusion. I just want to acknowledge. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, for staying and the information provided again. Thank you, sir. There you go. Absolutely. All right. We will now adjourn. Yes. We're going to now adjourn and move into closed session back in our work session room pursuant to Texas Government Code section 551.072, deliberations regarding real property and section, Texas Government Code section 551.071, consultation with attorneys and Texas Government Section Code, Texas Government Code section 551.087, economic development negotiations. So we will now.