Jan 05, 2016 City Council on 2016-01-05 2:00 PM

I wanted to welcome everyone to the Denton City Council meeting, Tuesday January 5th, 2016. I trust everybody had a relaxful and enjoyable holiday and a happy new year. This is our second council meeting for the year. It is now 2.02 and we do have a quorum. We'll go through our first agenda item. Is my mic on? I can't tell if it's on. Okay, first agenda item is citizen comment on consent agenda items. Are there any citizen comment on consent agenda items? Second is request for clarification of agenda items listed on agenda for January 5th, 2016. Any clarifications? You know? Yes, go ahead, Mr. City Manager. >> Well, I've just got a couple that I wanted to mention. One is you have two items on the agenda. One in closed session to talk about discuss some lease property and then there's an action item on your agenda item 4B associated with that closed session discussion. We want to go ahead and have the closed session discussion about it. But I would ask that you delete for today, action item 4B regarding that, because we don't have the contracts ready for your review yet. We also have item 4C, which is a contingency fund issue. And we have provided to you at your seat a revised agreement, service agreement with the Denton African American Scholars hip Foundation. That increases the amount with another donation from a council member. So when that's approved, you need to approve it hopefully with the new ordinance rather than the one that was in your backup or the new agreement rather than the one that was in your original backup. And then we sent out to you yesterday regarding item 5C, which has to do with property for an airport runway extension project. We sent out the wrong backup material and we have now provided you with the accurate backup material for that item. So I just point out that you have new information on that one item as well. Other than that, Mayor, thank you. >> Okay, any other questions? I think I noted one and but for some reason the notes didn 't show up on there. But if I find it, I'll. Any other questions for clarification? Dalton, did you? >> He covered it before she. >> Okay, all right. Seeing none, all right. We'll move on to agenda item 3A, receive report and hold discussion, give staff direction regarding policies related to economic development investment fund and the downtown reinvestment grant. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to ask Amy Bissett, our director of development services, if she would present this work session item for your consideration. Thank you, Ms. Bissett. >> Thank you, Mayor and council members. What we are discussing today is looking at two separate economic development funds that exist in the city of Denton today. Our agenda today is, I'll give you an overview of why we're talking about this right now. And we will discuss the history of these two economic development funds. We will talk about policies for administering both of the funds moving forward. After direction from you, then we will take that policy direction back into future discussions where we'll be looking at our overall incentive policy, which is a policy that speaks to more than just what we're talking about today. But every incentive tool that we have in Denton is under an umbrella policy that is updated every two years. And we will be updating that in spring of this year, starting in March and April. And so the conversation that we have today will inform draft policies that will be integrated into that umbrella policy moving forward. So we will talk about two separate funds, the Downtown Re investment Grant Fund, which was established in 2007. And the Economic Development Investment Fund, which as you know, it was established in 2015. I'm going to start with the Economic Development Investment Fund. And we'll walk through the history of that, we'll post some questions to you for discussion. And then I will hand it over to Caroline Booth, who will walk you through the Downtown Reinvestment Grant Fund history, and we'll have a similar discussion there. So where does our authority come from to have economic development and funds in the city of Denton? It comes from the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 380 states that a municipality may establish and provide for the administration of one or more programs for making loans and grants of public money. To promote state and local economic development and to stimulate business activity. And in order to meet a criteria for public funds for use in economic development it has to constitute a public purpose. And several of these are listed here from diversification of the economy to eliminating unemployment, attraction of major investment, and several others. The Economic Development Investment Fund will be the first one that we talk about today. Its purpose is to create a cash grant program to increase the city's ability to compete for large economic development projects. The reason that we need this fund is because we operate in a competitive environment. Many cities in Texas have a 4A or 4B sales tax corporation, which is essentially a mechanism by which they set aside a percentage of their local sales tax revenue every year for economic development purposes. So they have a fund available to them in order to help incentivize and recruit businesses to their communities. And we're in a position where we're often competing against other Texas and North Texas communities without a similar mechanism in place. >> Real quick question on just very quick historical context for that. When we had an election on, first of all, which one was the election on? Was it the 4A? >> 4B. >> And because I never have got this straight. It's 4B, the one where the, because the difference is who appoints those members is my understanding. But anyway, do we know when the election was for that? Anybody recall historically? >> I think it was in the mid 90s. >> Okay, all right. Okay, sorry, go ahead. >> So that election failed in Denton, and so we do not have that sales tax corporation as a mechanism for economic development. Additionally, we also compete with other states and specifically statewide incentive programs. Many states are in a competitive disadvantage to Texas, and they know that. And have therefore created incentive programs to help directly compete with Texas and other major markets in the US that are doing well economically. Those incentive programs often offer one or more million dollars in cash grants up front in order for a company to base in the state, and it's typically based on the creation of a number of new jobs. So I want to talk about a couple of case studies, real life examples of projects that we've seen or contemplated here in Denton, because they are the two probably that we've most seriously considered giving a cash grant for. And they didn't come to fruition for one reason or another. And so I want to talk about these case studies because then when we talk about potential policies in a few minutes, we'll be able to look back at the case studies and see how they apply to those. So Project Adams, many of you may remember this specific project because we did award an incentive to them. It was an aviation aerospace manufacturer. They made airplane seats essentially, and their major customers were aircraft manufacturers and airlines all over the world. Their German based company is 150 years old. They had 25 manufacturing facilities worldwide. It came down to Denton, Texas or Asheville, North Carolina. North Carolina immediately, right out of the box, offered a million dollars cash up front for them to locate there. The reason that it came down to Denton or Asheville was because they were being driven by where their customer base was. Two of their three largest customers were near Denton, and the third of their largest customers was near Asheville, so they wanted to locate near one of their major customers. That was their single decision for location up until the point that it came time to discuss incentives. North Carolina offered a million dollars up front. We did something that we'd never done before, which was first we applied for a Texas Enterprise Fund grant and got it, which would have been $750,000 over three years. It was job based, so they had to provide a certain number of jobs per year in order for them to receive that cash grant. We had our local incentive, which we set here and contempl ated a way to turn at least some of that into a cash grant up front and came up with a way to do that that was also job based, and then we worked with the state on a skills development grant . Putting all those puzzle pieces together, we got to about a million dollars, but it took us about nine months to do it. And the reason that this particular project hung with us through that was because they really did want to be in Dent on for quality of life reasons for the fact that two of their customers were here. But in many other instances, the amount of time that it took us to get through that process, to be able to come close to matching it, and it would still be spread out over several years, put us at a significant competitive disadvantage. And just to close the loop on that story in case you have question marks over your head, they actually operate in Denton today, and were operating in Denton at the time, a very small office. They essentially had to put all of their relocation plans on hold for a certain amount of time. They're still based in Germany. I still keep in touch with them. They still want to expand in Denton at some point in the future. But they didn't go anywhere. Essentially, something happened operationally that slowed down their process. Project Aspen is a project that we submitted a proposal on several months ago. And it's a really unique project. We don't see them like this very often. It was a $10 billion capital investment. To put that in a little bit of perspective, that would have been $68 million of ad valorem revenue to the city of Dent on, if that was the value of that project at completion. By far the biggest project. It would have been the biggest project in the country for that given year. And if they build it, it will be. They haven't built yet. It was starting out at 1,500 high tech, high wage jobs in the first year and building up to 4,000 jobs over the next few years. We looked at the RFP and we were it. It was where they belonged. We were recruiting tech based companies. We have a young agile workforce. We have two universities, plenty of educated workforce for them to pull from. We had the research park at UNT where they could partner with them. Everything that they had on their list for the ideal community, we had it. And that almost never happens. But when you look at the level of capital investment, it is certain that every major metropolitan area in the country that could qualify was competing for that. It is a massive project. And the only way, when it all comes down to it, they're going to look at all their criteria and they're going to narrow it down to the communities that meet all those criteria. And then it's going to come down to the bottom line. Who's going to get my bottom line down the most? Who's going to offer the most in terms of an incentive, whatever that looks like? And we had some intense conversations here about how do we, it is inevitable that if we could, we would offer a cash grant here. If we knew we could get them, we knew they were going to do that type of capital investment, it would be worth multiple millions of dollars in order to recruit them to Denton. But we had no ability to do that, essentially. We put together a proposal that included a cash grant offer based on the fact that we knew that if this project came to fruition, we would come to the city council and say, we've made this proposal to them, here's why we think we should do it. We're going to have to find some funding sources to make it happen. This project came to us earlier in 2015. I don't know if they've made a final site selection or not. I know we didn't make it into the final rounds. So a little bit, going into a little bit more detail about chapter 380 incentives specifically. Chapter 380 is the part of the Texas local government code that gives us the most broad opportunity for incentive tools in the state of Texas. There are several other tools that we have. We have tax abatements. We have TIFFs and TURs. Those aren't what we're really contemplating today. But these chapter 380 incentives, we've been utilizing them for several years. But we've always used them in a performance based manner, which means it is reimbursement for revenue that we've already received, a property tax reimbursement or a sales tax reimbursement. A cash grant would fall under chapter 380 as well. It would be the same kind of grant agreement. But it would obviously be based on a different set of criteria. For example, the state of Texas uses number of jobs created at a certain wage. And they pay a dollar amount per job per year for a certain number of years. And it's a very simple mathematical formula to figure out what they're willing to offer in terms of a cash grant. And it is our job in economic development to show a good return on investment for any economic development dollars. So we're contemplating a policy for administering cash grants. Cash grants are going to be the incentive tool that we'll want to be the most diligent with and the most scrutinizing of because there's an opportunity there to provide a cash grant and not get back in return what you would expect to get back in return or what you were promised. And so that's why it's important that we develop a good policy here that has clawbacks and has a lot of due diligence. One of the things that the state of Texas does is they do a full financial analysis. They have to have three years of financials and they have audited financial statements. They do a full forensic analysis of the company to make sure that they are who they say they are. That they have the financial backing to deliver on the project that they intend to deliver on. And they really are very scrutinizing before they're willing to give a cash grant like that. And that's one of the protections and then there are also clawbacks written into the agreement. So you're given a little bit each year, but you have to prove that you've accomplished what you said you were going to before you would get the next amount the following year. So our policy, the way it's written today means that we do have a mechanism in place. We have a policy that says we can give cash grants. So when the two previous cases came up, Project Adams and Project Aspen, we were able to at least have a conversation about how could we possibly fund a cash grant if we wanted to. But it would be a situation where we'd have to go try to find a source of funding on the fly, if you will. So with this fiscal year budget allocation, you all have allocated $150,000 annually from mixed beverage taxes to go into that fund. So we have the seed, if you will, of a revenue source. So in 2014, the Economic Development Partnership Board created a strategic action agenda. They worked with the city council and with other stakeholders in the community. And we created a two to three year plan. At the time, we felt like the economy was in a really strong and growing place. And we didn't have 18 months to create a 100 page strategic plan. We needed to be active three months later in accomplishing some specific objectives. So we did create that plan, and in the beginning of 2015, just right out a year ago, we created five action teams to help implement that plan. They're interdisciplinary stakeholders that are on each of those teams. One of the teams is called the Investment Action Team. And that team is in charge of finding investment for economic development and creating opportunities for investment in economic development. And they made the recommendation over the summer for the city council to create a fund. And then more recently, they have made recommendations for a policy framework for what criteria we might create for eligibility. Their recommendation is that a company must meet two of the following three criteria to be eligible for a cash grant. Number one, they have to be producing high wage or knowledge based jobs. Two, substantial capital investment. And three, that they address a specific recruitment target or supplier target. And there's a lot of room for interpretation here, and there may be some more clear definitions that we would like to put on these specific criteria. But one of the things that I want to share is that the way that our policy is written today gives us the flexibility to provide a cash grant. It doesn't tell us how we can do it or what criteria specifically someone would have to meet. In some ways, that's a positive thing because every incentive comes through EDP and through this city council and is considered on a case by case basis. And so you make the policy every time you approve an incentive. And so to put some very specific criteria on this incentive could potentially put us in a position where we would want to be able to make a cash grant and couldn't. And so I would just share that as we look back on the case studies that we just discussed. So- >> In that light, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is we don't have that. But I was wondering, because there had been discussion in the past about what we considered a high wage job. And I'm guessing the comment that you just made prior to my butting in says we didn't want to be specific because we wanted to have more flexibility. >> Well, we have not been specific at this point in time. We look at it and we bring it to EDP and bring it to the council and say, here's their average wage. Here's Denton's average wage. It's improving that. I believe our policy says that it has to increase the average wage in Denton in order to be eligible or be considered high wage. >> Okay, thank you. >> So looking back at our two case studies, Project Adams would have met number one and number three. But they were not making a substantial capital investment. They were coming into the market slowly. They were going to lease space. They were going to add a few employees at a time. But they were high wages. And they addressed a very specific recruitment target, which is the aviation and aerospace industry. If you look at Project Aspen, the larger high tech company, they would have qualified under all three of these criteria . So additional policy considerations for you to contemplate. What other eligibility requirements would we need to have? How clearly do we need to define high wage jobs or significant capital investment? I do think there needs to be some definition on there. What about expansion projects if they're competitive for relocation? Should the fund have geographic targets or restrictions? Should the fund accumulate to a certain amount before it can be used? That is what I have on the economic development investment fund. We can go through the downtown fund and then talk about both of them together or we can contemplate them separately . >> Can you email us that? >> Yes, absolutely. >> And are you wanting the feedback to all these questions now or is that something we could give some thought to and email you? >> You can definitely give some thought. I think, I assumed we would have some discussion today but not necessarily come to decisions today. >> Okay. >> Any discussion? >> Well, I mean, on the eligibility, on the one hand, you want to leave it a little bit vague in terms of, in my opinion, on the wage because you want to be able to modify that wage as time goes on. What you define as a high paying job, because what we'd hope would happen is our average wage continues to increase over time. So you don't have to go back and modify your ordinance. I'm wondering if we could tie it to some percentage over the median or something like that where you don't put an amount. But we definitely tie it to something because otherwise each time there's an application, you're going to have somebody selling on why this is good and somebody saying, I don't consider that to be high paying. So that would be a thought is find something to tie it to that we could all agree is a good benchmark. But it wouldn't be a specific number on the wage. >> I mean, I would agree that, I mean, if I remember correctly in the discussions of this particular fund, it was a fund that was meant to be able to go above and beyond what our normal incentive package could offer. And it was intended to really try to attract and be sort of the, hopefully the missing tool that we needed to really get some, like Plano. I mean, Plano, I think their check was for $6 million to get Toyota. Of course, they don't have an economic 4A or 4B either. I think they have a dedicated, I think it's a cent. It's either a penny or something of their property tax that goes to the economic development fund. So I think there are, we probably need to have even a dedicated work session either through this strategy team or I don't know if EDP does this kind of thing, but to where we do try to hash out some policies. Because there's nothing in there now really of any consequence that is going to be used to attract the kinds of things this needs to attract. But there will be. And it will be good, we will, I think, need some guidelines to differentiate it, if that's what the policy makers desire. To between this and the other incentive packages that we have. But so yeah, I agree that if it's above and beyond, then we 're not there to remain the status quo, I guess. >> Well, I'll just offer up this, to me, this might be a good session on the retreat, right? Where it's not, we don't feel like we got a bunch of agenda items behind it. And the brainstorming kind of things, we're doing a retreat where you're getting up and you're writing on the boards. And I felt like when we did that last year, a lot of good came out of that. And this is one where you got one shot to define it. Kind of the best you can out of the gate. So just a thought. >> Yes, Councilman Hawkins. >> That's a good point. And two, I'd be curious how tax abatements kind of worked prior to 1989. And how did we encourage business in our city? Just, I know that I'm not asking you to tell me that right now. Just curious about that before we kind of got real aggressive about trying to get business. So. >> I can find out. >> I have a question on this particular portion of the presentation. >> Just so to be clear then, you're gonna email us this. And you're good if we email directly to Amy our thoughts. And then you're gonna come back to us and tell us how we're gonna talk about it again? >> Yes, sure. >> Is that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right, I'll have Caroline Booth come up and present the other piece of this work session. >> Good afternoon. I'm gonna be speaking with y'all about the downtown rein vestment grant program. The purpose of this program is to provide cash reimburse ment grants for capital improvements to buildings in the downtown area. These grants can range from $5,000 to $25,000 and they're made in the form of a single payment reimbursement after the project is completed. I think it's important to reiterate that these grants are strictly for capital improvements, not for operating costs. Some of the types of projects that are eligible under the program are facade rehabilitations, new awnings and signs, impact fee reimbursements, and utility upgrades. Just so you have a visual of the area in which businesses are eligible to apply under this grant program. You can see the boundaries here, they follow roughly Park way and McKinney in the north. Sycamore Street along the south, Carroll to the west, and Exposition in the east. In 2002 and 2003, the city of Denton along with community stakeholders and a consulting firm developed a strategic plan that identified the downtown area as a key focus area. For strategic efforts going forward, there was a task force that was developed as part of that effort to do strategic planning. And it recommended a grant program to assist building owners with project costs and also to offer some control over the design of rehabil itations and new construction because there aren't regulations around that in the downtown area. In 2007, the council adopted the downtown incentive reimbursement grant program and allocated $50,000 for each fiscal year through 2011, 2012 to the program. In 2012, there were some changes made to the program including renaming it to its current name and lowering the maximum grant amount from $50,000 to $25,000. And the review and approval process was also updated and it was changed to grants under $10,000 are reviewed by the downtown task force and approved by the city manager. If they're over $10,000, the downtown task force reviews them, then the EDP board and they're brought to council for approval. In 2013, the fund was increased from 50,000 to 100,000 per year. To kind of summarize what the grant program has done to date, there have been 41 grants awarded since October 1st, 2007. Seven of those expired without payments due to issues with the project. In total, the city has spent $361,695 under the grant program. But program projects have actually invested about $18.5 million over the life of the program. I want to call out a couple of specific examples that were in your backup. The Hickory Street Lofts project converted an empty lot to mixed use development that includes wine burgers and the campus barbershop. They received a $15,000 grant in fiscal year 2008, 2009. And the increase in the property value from 2005 to 2015, it was an increase of 2,361% in that property value. Mellow Mushroom took a warehouse and converted it to a restaurant. They received a $7,235 grant in fiscal year 2010, 11. And that led to a 406% increase in their property value from 2005 to 2015. So we've noticed some changes recently in the number of applications that we've been receiving for downtown rein vestment fund grants. They've slowed a little bit, though we still have two that were submitted before the end of the fiscal year that are pending. And as you recall, you asked us to put a moratorium on accepting new grant applications until we had a chance to have this discussion. Another thing that has shifted on the square in terms of economic activity is we're seeing the activity spread out from the face of the square. When the grant fund was first implemented, it was a lot of facade rehabilitation on the face of the square, but we're seeing it move outward. We're seeing more transit oriented redevelopment and we're seeing more entrepreneurship and innovation based businesses locating downtown. At this time, the staff recommends that we continue the downtown reinvestment grant program. But we'd like to get some direction from you on if we should continue it as is or if we could broaden the purpose of it to incentivize rede velopment of the industrial area. Or incentivize entrepreneurial and startup businesses. So at this point, if you guys have questions or want to have some discussion, we could do that before we review what the next steps are. >> Yes, Councilmember. >> Thank you, Mayor. You had said that the applications had slowed down. >> Mm-hm. >> And that was prior to our putting a moratorium on that. >> Yes, sir. >> Could you give us a little more data about the slow down ? >> Sure, I'd like to ask Julie Glover, our downtown guru, to come up and join me at the podium, help out with that question. >> She had called her up cute up already. She just loved passing that on. >> You were? >> That's why I was on the front row. >> Do you need a stool? >> In the last year, there for a while, I might need a stool. >> In the last year, there for a while, we were using like every dime and towards the end of the year we were going how many more projects are coming up. When we lowered the amount to 25,000, the reason for that was we only had 50,000 a year. Everybody that applied was asking for 50,000. So the grants were really falling in that 7 to $10,000 range, which for some of these big projects is just kind of a little pat on the head. So about when we lowered it, we also got more money, so it was kind of, I wish we'd known that before. I think in the last year, we've seen bigger and bigger projects, some multimillion dollar projects, to where $25,000 is not a lot of money to them. And some of the smaller projects that we've been seeing, normally the downtown task force likes to see a bigger return on investment than 50/50. So if you're going to put in a new awning for $10,000 and you ask for 5,000 of that, they're going to say, well, are you creating jobs? Are you creating more traffic downtown? So I think some of those kind of fell by the wayside, some of the smaller ones because we were trying to focus more on the big ones. We do have two right now that came in mid-September. One is for a brewery that's been looking for a downtown location for a while and has found it, a local beer brewery. The other one is still kind of in the planning stages and have asked us not to share who they are yet. But those both came in mid-September. They will be big projects, they'll probably both ask for 25 ,000. And I think they both probably would qualify for that amount. I think everything kind of goes up and down. I think 2010 and 11 were really big years for investment. I think properties are harder to come by now. Greg might be able to attest to that, that there's fewer and far opportunities coming along. >> So in 2014, 2015, we had 100,000 in the, >> Fund. >> Yes, sir. >> We spent how much? >> I knew he was gonna ask me that. I wanna say that we spent 20. >> Really? >> If I remember right. Now there were some things from the previous year that rolled into that year because they didn't finish the project until after October the 1st. >> And that was 20,000 and that doesn't count the two $25, 000 applications. >> That does not count them because they have not completed their applications yet. What they do is they get just the basic form in to us and then we give them some time. They can go ahead and start the work because we don't wanna slow anything down. If they're gonna do the work anyway, go ahead and start. But they still haven't gotten other budget numbers to me yet. >> Thank you. >> So I'm looking at the grant report and I'm just curious, there's sometimes the amount requested and the amount granted are equal. And sometimes it's less and sometimes it's significantly less. How is that determined, the final amount? >> They have a scoring system that they go by. One is like, does it increase traffic downtown, either daytime, nighttime, or around the clock if it's a housing, does it improve? I should have brought it with me, shouldn't I? It's based on proximity to the courthouse square or to the transit oriented development down at the transit station. If you're closer to one of those things, that gives you more points. If you're increasing walkability and pedestrian activity, that gives you some points. If you're improving the water and sewer, and that doesn't mean you're putting in extra bathrooms. That means you're going from a one inch pipe to a four inch pipe. You're replacing a phase one electric with a three phase electric. So you're improving the entire area's ability to grow. The other one, they have like an other category where they can just give points that they think it's a good project. If it's something that is on our wish list, if it's a grocery store, if it's a transit oriented development, those sorts of things, they also get points for that. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, I was just going to add, and you just brought it up, Julie. I think I was on that task for a long time, and I think part of what you're seeing is the convergence or the timing of two things happening. So you had a lot of activity, because there really wasn't much activity before 2008, 2009. Excuse me. And then we went from a subjective system to a points based scoring system. Sorry. And so then those smaller projects weren't scoring, because they weren't creating jobs, and they weren't bringing new people downtown. So you saw less and less people qualify based on the point system. >> Sorry I checked you out. >> You always do. >> That is true. So if somebody, and before we started the point system, if somebody was redoing their awning, and everybody felt good about it and thought, they're right on the face of the square, that's going to make it look good. They would just say, let's give them the money. And then we had some people that weren't happy with the way it was being done, that it was too subjective. So we came up with the point system, which really did, I think, hurt the smaller projects. Like if they were just painting or doing an awning or doing some signage, they couldn't meet some of that criteria about where they weren't increasing employees, they weren't increasing their business, etc. >> Go ahead. >> The one thing that I would, if we decide to move ahead with continuing this or if we modify it in some way, it would seem to me that the idea of added points if you're closer to the courthouse or you're closer to the transit center, as opposed to fewer points if you're further away, is just the opposite of what it needs to be. If we want to really expand the definition of downtown, because having had some close personal contact with folks who had businesses off the square, they felt like that they were already at a disadvantage in terms of traffic and in terms of publicity. And even in terms of events happening, so that I've heard several of them feel like that they had to work even harder for marketing and for attention on big event nights to get folks to leave the proximity of the courthouse. >> I think this is a great example of a program that was put in place as has been with the square over its life cycle of the last 20 or 25 years. Where people started out with a vision and that vision was stuck with, it was persistence and we have what we have today. I think this did its job in the beginning. We changed the name of it because we weren't really incentivizing anybody to do the projects because they were such a minute portion of the project cost. It was just sort of a, hey, we want you to do this. Personally, I would be in favor of expanding this either throughout the whole city or moving some of this into the economic development fund. I think the downtown has, it's arriving to a different level, a different stage. And we're now giving incentives out of the TIF. We're giving incentives from the general fund for these major projects that are two, three, four million dollars. Not saying that smaller projects don't need some help. I'm just simply saying that I think for it to be just now localized and isolated to the downtown area, I think it's time to think bigger and to look at other parts of our city that could benefit from this small amount of investment that may be something that would be helpful to people. So I would struggle to support this continuing as it is today and staying localized to just the downtown area. I think it's either time to expand it to other parts of the city or if we really want to use it for economic development, help us increase that economic development fund balance so that when we have big projects that come in that really can provide a really powerful punch above and beyond what we already can provide for, that we have the opportunity to do that. In no way is it taking away from the downtown. In no way, as some have characterized me in the past, as being anti-downtown. On the contrary, I mean, look at it. I mean, all you have to do is do the analysis of it. Even as the TIF, which is in place, which is a $24 million over 20 years quote unquote incentive, it has developed in spite of there not being much money in that and we've not used much money out of the TIF except for the rail yard and some other things. So it's an organic creation. It's happening because it's the market. People want to be down there. Prices are the highest probably anywhere in the city and I just think it's time to see if we can maybe maximize those funds somewhere else to provide the same bang for the buck, either around the city or in a different fund. So that's where I am and I don't think that's any secret. But again, when you look at the early stages with the Mell or Rush Moon, the Weisberg Deli, those were the catalysts and industrial, those were the ones that started out first that took the risk. And we've seen how that's grown and evolved. So I think it's worked and it may just be time for, I think somebody said, actually I think it's you, Mayor Pro Tem, a couple years back. My memory is not very good in some ways, but you know, well , when it's time to take the training wheels off, it's time to take and by golly, I think the downtown is not just doesn't have training wheels. It's doing, you know, the Tour de France, so to speak. So the power of metaphor. Yes. In helping a memory. Yes. That's exactly right. Anyway, that's very good. I just learned. So that's where I am on it. Not in a, you know, against staff or anything. I just think we can use that money if we're really wanting to rehab some areas in town or provide some incentive on some other strip centers. The one I remember as an example is the one at the corner of Carroll and University Drive where the Starbucks is and the Radio Shack. That used to just look horrific and they went in and they redid that entire facade and good heavens, you can't find a parking spot in there because everybody's at the coffee shop. But those are my thoughts on it. I mean, if it stays the way it is, am I going to? But I would like to see it expanded and help us maybe maximize its use because we all know that money's tight these days and we want to make sure we use it as efficiently as possible. Those are my thoughts. Yes. I thank you for that, but I want it to be more focused on some certain areas, maybe not just citywide. I don't know if we'll get a bigger bang for our buck. I mean, if we just open it up to the city limits, is that possibly what you're saying? Well, I mean, if we can identify areas, if we want to say, well, we targeted this area for many years. So is there another area? Is there an area outside of the D tip area, maybe in the southeast portion of Denton or somewhere on the outskirts or somewhere north? Just I mean, that's certainly some good input. I agree. That'd be interesting to see. For five years, we picked a section. What would happen there? Because it's obviously been very effective here in helping some of the small businesses and startups. But as we've heard, number one, because of the lack of property, number two, because of the price, number three, most of the projects now are large. I mean, they're large projects. And you're right. I mean, 25,000, I mean, it's 25,000, nobody's going to turn down $25,000. I mean, come on. But I think it may be an opportunity to find some other areas that could use that. So yes. Along those lines, what you all have been saying, the question that occurs to me is, and there may be somebody from your office that could answer this. We have some areas in town that are maybe underserved in terms of groceries. And I'm wondering if 50,000 or 100,000 would make a difference in moving a grocery chain forward and locating if we set boundaries for it. Would you all have any notion as to what that is, or would you need to take some time to at least-- I think we need to take some time. OK. We can definitely do that. It seems like most of them have some kind of formula for-- Right. And they have their own people that go out and look for spots. That's what I was-- Yeah. I was aware of that, but I was just wondering if this might be a tipping point in some situations. And I might just add that the way this downtown grant is structured, it's tied specifically to saving historic buildings. So if we expand it, it's probably going to have to be completely rewritten, because the historic value of the buildings downtown are what we're really trying to save with this program. Yeah, so that's really where I was going to go with this. I think-- I don't disagree with anything you said. I think we have to decide what is it that we're trying to accomplish, right? So this was kind of a hybrid model. This was promote economic development downtown to bring more pedestrian friendly businesses downtown, because it's walkable, et cetera. But it was also to-- because vacant buildings deteriorate much faster than occupied buildings. So it was part and parcel to how do we save these old buildings? Well, you get them occupied with a business, and renovating an old building is a whole lot more expensive, as Joey can tell you, than if you just went into a brand new strip center to open your coffee shop or your retail shop or whatever. So I do think that it's done its job for sure. And I don't think that $10,000 or $20,000 makes one of these big projects happen or not. So the question you have to ask yourself is really, what are you trying to accomplish with it? I don't think it's going to be impactful at all to say, well, let's take this $100,000 and let's open it up to the whole city. Because if that project that you mentioned on university, $ 10,000, $20,000 doesn't make that rehab happen or not. But I do think what you're saying makes a ton of sense, which is if there's a specific area of town that we say we want to revitalize for economic development reasons, for a lack of services reasons, for aesthetic reasons, what are they? I think first you have to define what are you trying to accomplish before you can just say how we set the criteria on the money. I don't think that -- I think right now you could take this $100,000, put it in the economic development fund, and say downtown projects are available out of the economic development fund. But you're just going to have to wrap criteria around it. Maybe you put the money in it and say if it's a project within the DTIP, these same criteria apply instead of having two different funds. But I think unless you start with what are you trying to accomplish to say we're just going to open up this $100,000 for the whole city, you're just going to get a bunch of applications. Somebody wants to paint their building or put it on. And how impactful is that really going to be? But I think what we did prove is that it worked. A concerted effort with a focus and a task force. Because honestly, I think the energy created by the downtown task force and the attention given and all the work did more than the money. It was all those people working under Julie's leadership and getting people to come in and talk about their projects and sharing ideas amongst the group. That's what made this happen. It wasn't the 10 grand or the 20 grand. Now, I will tell you though, I think it's also a mistake to say $25,000 doesn't make a difference in a $2 million project. It does. That can be as a part of their net income that makes it their go, no go. So it can be impactful. Even though it seems small, it can be impactful to where somebody says I'm going to do the project or not. If it's that tight, they're probably not your guy anyway. So I would support that, Mayor. I wouldn't support eliminating it and having the money go off into the abyss. But I think putting the money into the larger fund and allowing downtown projects to be able to tap into that economic development fund would make sense. >> Well, just to add to that, that five grand isn't going to make or break a business, you're right. But when you are trying to rehab an old building, the chances of hidden costs are so much higher. And I know, even personally when I did hoochies, being able to put the awnings up at the end when we went way over budget. So just kind of adding to what you said there, it didn't make or break us, but definitely gave us more curb appeal at the end. So. >> Well, I tell you, based upon what you just shared, which I appreciate that about its original goal or its intent was to help with the preservation of a historic building. And if you need to rattle your paper, rattle your paper at me, okay? Because if it was up to me, because we will be considering later on in another couple weeks or next week, I guess, or the next time we meet on what do we do with people in City Hall West? What do we do? If it empties out, what do we do with it? And I think that if we wanted to do something really creative with that building, historically, because it has represented many different facets in the life of our city. It's been very, sort of very different functions. This could be an opportunity with the grant money to, >> Hold them here. >> Based upon the economic development grant money. So anyway, but I'm open to it being put in the fund. If, again, we have to decide what that fund is really used for, as we discussed earlier that first presentation. So I guess we have to give you direction. So, I'm sorry, go ahead, Mayor Pro Tem. >> One of the questions that I would have as far as direction is, if the staff has been approached, or if any council members have been approached about an area to target. I think this has been a great conversation because Julie was talking about a different area. So if we know of an area that we might need to address for the reasons that you talked about, Mr. Johnson, of blight or lack of services. Let's get some information on that, if there's some of those out there. >> Mayor, can I? >> Yes, go ahead. >> So I was just going to tell you guys that, so on the scoring system, just so everybody understands. Because I think what we might be able to do, if everybody was in agreement, if it goes into the larger economic development fund. If it's in the D tip, these same criteria could be in place . The scoring system, you had the categories, economic impact , historical accuracy of the building, utility upgrades and impact fees, increases population and location. It's proximity to the courthouse. So it's hitting all those different categories. So to me, the D tip area is a much larger area than what we historically kind of looked at the downtown reinvestment grant for. There's, as we work on our drainage projects south of the square, is prime for redevelopment. And it's certainly blighted. There's going to be needs and opportunities for redevelop ment south of the square. So might we consider as we, however we're going to address this overall fund. What if we said we're going to, as a part of that work session, address how the downtown funding rolls in, if it's going to roll in. Meaning, if you're going to take that 100 grand and put it in here, do you want downtown projects to be able to apply? And if so, what will the criteria be? Because I don't think we want to lose historical accuracy as a part of this. Because you want to incent people to respect the historical accuracy of the buildings, even if they don't have a historical marker on them. So I'm just saying, if we're going to roll it in and not let the money float away, do we want to treat downtown projects a little bit differently than we would just a general economic development incentive application? >> Well, and these are all good questions. And I think it's indicative that there's another work session for this that needs to be scheduled with incorporating the ideas of the DTIP areas, some other areas in town. If it's in the one big fund, how do we segregate it? If we do, do we want it to have two different functions? So it'll be good, because we can sort of make those a combination. Because if it's going to be in that one fund, then that's sort of the conversation about that fund would hit, I think , all the topics we've been talking about. >> Can I ask for some guidance on one particular thing that 's more time sensitive? >> Sure. >> That is the two pending grants that are there today. When and if they're ready to proceed, can we consider those ? >> I don't have an issue with that. I mean, they're- >> You have excess funding sitting there. That wasn't spent. >> Yeah, so no, I mean, obviously, sure. I mean, is that the direction council's, okay. >> I think I heard enough ideas and direction for us to come back with some ideas for a future work session. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody, do you have enough to take a break? What do you take? That's only been an hour. No, we don't need to. >> Okay. All right, we're going to go on to the, I think my hand's broken from the city attorney trying to get me to get back in compliance. We're going to go on to work session 3B, which is receive report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on the DENT renewable plan and activities related to the future, excuse me. The future power supply plans to meet the city's growth and needs. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to call Phil Williams, our general manager for D MA, to present this item. >> Thank you, Mr. Williams. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> So I wanted to come back today and respond to some of the questions that have been raised by council past meetings on renewable DENT plan. But also, well, I'll go through some of this. Council direction, as we've said before, is renewable rates for liability. We've proposed a 70% renewable energy, give us options to be able to replace the coal generation that we existing have. Also provides rate decreases beginning in 2020 and provides a 74% emission reduction. Today I'm going to talk about utility scale batteries. The size of the units that we're having, the size of the facilities, the emissions impact. And in answering other questions that council may have, we 'll say that during the holidays that staff has met with two or three different individual groups. And have entertained questions from these groups and hopefully answered them to their satisfaction. We're finding ourselves now that as we have different citizens entering into the discussion that some of those citizens are asking some of the questions that were asked by other citizens early on. And so we look to expand our question and answers that we have on our website. And we'll be doing that later this week with some of those commonly asked questions that we're getting. That information as well as these presentations on our website. Also in response to council direction we received yesterday , we went ahead and arranged for question and answer meeting that we'd have with the public on Saturday, January 23rd at 930 in the morning to follow the same format or similar format to what was done for the gas well discussion that happened last year. So to make that aware of them. >> What's the location? >> Council chambers. >> Okay. >> Like the past one was done with the gas wells. >> Will that be videotaped? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, great. >> But if I could, Phil, we need to, we'll probably poll council members. If you attend that meeting, we need to affect whether or not we post it, sir. >> Okay. Very good. So going into the discussion, first item we have here is on utility scale batteries. So far, the battery cost of the installations have been out there. The capital cost is three to four times higher than what these plants are. >> There's a question. >> Can you clarify utility scale? When you're talking about that, what exactly do you mean? >> So by utility scale, I would mean the sizes of the units that were quick start units, we're talking about turning 20 megawatts. And so we're talking about that size of battery technology. >> Divided up or just complete, because each one is 110 meg awatts. But you're talking total utility scale, okay. >> Okay. >> The life span has been half a salon or less than what these plants are. More of the life span of certain types of batteries is more determined by the number of cycles that you're putting that battery through. The way we're talking about operating these plants with cycling them on and off many times during the day sometimes, each one of those cycles will count against the battery technology and would shorten the life of the batteries. The technology hasn't been in place or proven over a number of years. So far, the uses that we've seen from people utilizing the batteries has been for what I would call ancillary services, for voltage support, for regulation up and down for governing the renewable energy like solar and wind. Not to meet long term load requirements. For our operation here, we're talking about a source of energy that would come on in the summertime in August, come on at 9 o'clock in the morning and go until 10 o'clock at night. So you're talking about 16 hour days, 8 hours to recharge, and the battery technology doesn't seem to be there yet to be able to perform in that way. >> Phil, well, Mary can I ask a question? >> Yeah, go ahead. I can barely hear you, so. >> Okay, sorry. >> So, Phil, our total megawatt load, annual estimated load is what? >> So our total load for right now is peak that we set this past summer was 347 megawatts. Deanticipated load in 2019. I have a graph here that shows that. It'd be, I mean, we're going to be growing up, growing past that, going up to 370, 380. >> Is there any city, any municipal owned utility, any utility, anywhere in the United States that's using battery storage to the level that we would have to have? >> No, sir. >> Is there anybody? >> There's some people that are talking about coming out with like 200 megawatts of batteries, but I don't think there's anybody using on that size. >> Okay, thank you. >> What is the highest battery storage right now? >> Texas right now, I believe Duke Energy has a battery technology that's used in connection with their wind project out in No Trees, Texas, which is appropriately named. I believe it's 37 megawatts, is that right, Jim? 37 megawatts that they use to provide ancillary services, not to provide generation, but to provide support for their wind project. >> Phil, got a question. >> I don't know, if I ask a question that you think is more appropriate for a closed session than just, and then we can talk about it. Because you stated that the peak for at least megawatt is 347 is what we had. Do you know what the, maybe a range would be helpful. From total megawatt hour usage, from January to December, do you have an idea of what that, just a range? I mean, are we at- >> The total number of megawatt hour sales that we have? >> Yes, of our load, our load. Total medical, when we look at what our load was over the 365 days is, I mean, I think- >> About one and a half, from where you're making, one and a half million megawatt hours. >> Okay. >> So the megawatts is a measure of in one hour. >> Right. >> And then one megawatt hours is over a period of time. So then in, when we talk about the peak times of 347, as we got up to needing 347 megawatts. But that's, how many hours in a range, I mean, are we talking, you need that capacity for 16 hours out of the day during June and July or- >> If I could have two more slides. >> You got it. >> I'll get to your- >> Okay, fantastic. >> I think I have a picture that answers that question more significantly. >> Fantastic, thank you. >> Okay. And so the other issue of ERCOT with batteries is, is ERCOT has not really set up their rules yet to deal with this. This was an issue that Encore had. Encore tried to introduce battery technology into their grid. And it was one of the questions that ERCOT had, or one of the issues they have of, this kind of crosses a line between somebody that's a transmission service provider, like ERCOT is. And it was protested by some of the generation companies because it could, battery technology could also be used as a generator, as a supply, a power supply. And so you're kind of crossing lines between somebody that has an asset that can be used in the transmission business, but also has an asset that can be used in the generation business. And so the ERCOT rules aren't yet clarified as far as how that will be treated in the future. I think it will be, I think a lot of these issues will be addressed. It's just issues that are open right now. We're not, we don't have a timeframe of when they will be addressed. And then lastly, the Citibank financial analyst issued a statement that they expect battery storage to start to be cost-effective around the year 2030. And so they see this, and this is a statement I've made before the council, is to me battery technology is where solar was in the past. I think battery technology will evolve. It will be a resource. It will be something that's usable within the market. But it will evolve and come in to play as solar has over time. >> So when you say capital cost is three to four times higher than the quick start plans. So let's say for instance, I mean I think we've floated, I think there's been floated a cost for the proposed plan. >> 220 million. >> And if it's 220 megawatt, then you're looking at a million dollars a megawatt hour of capacity. So are you saying that then sort of battery storage then is what you're saying. >> Three to four times that. >> Is three to four million. >> Plus I still gotta buy the energy to put in there in the first place. >> Okay. >> And so that becomes the other issue, especially in Texas is, if you're doing this to be more emissions reduction, then you gotta look at where's the power gonna come from to put in those in the place. And if you're talking about in Texas, you're gonna be using all the solar power you can get during the day to repeat your load. And if you, during summer months, and so it doesn't leave any power at night to put in these batteries except wind power, it's unpredictable. >> All right, I've done some high quality internet research on No Trees Texas. It's in Nectar County. Near the- >> Squared off from New Mexico. >> Yeah, thank you. It's an unincorporated town. The battery storage, it's a lead acid battery capable of 36 megawatts, capable of delivering full effect for 40 minutes. So now this is Wikipedia. Would you guys give us a little bit more research on that and verify if that's accurate or not? >> From our research, it is accurate. >> We're not going to the same Wikipedia page, are we? >> No. >> Okay. >> We talked to actual battery vendors. >> Okay. >> People who had invested interest in wanting to promote and sell batteries and come tell us, hey, I've got the solution to all your problems. And one of those entities we talked to from California was saying, no, my batteries aren't the answer to your problems. His batteries are the answer for the ancillary service problems. If you need a short term fix for sagging voltage, these can fire up and provide you 30 minutes, 40 minutes of power to help until you get another generator on. But as far as being a long term provider of energy over several hours during the day, they're not there yet to do that. They provide the ancillary services that you need for voltage support and regulation up and down. But at the companies we've talked to of, like I said, California vendor and other battery vendors of where are you guys going and how far are you away from having a solution to these issues . Where the market seems to be going is focusing on using these to provide these ancillary services. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, do you have one more question? >> Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> So I have an email from someone saying that Southern California Edison procured 250 megawatts of storage. >> Southern California Edison, so- >> Is that not utility scale or? >> Yes, that is utility scale. And so what they're using that for is for these ancillary services. >> Okay. >> And so it's for a short term need. California many years ago really became prohibitive to building a new generation projects within California. And so they import a tremendous amount of power. And in importing that power, they have a problem with voltage support because they don't have the generation local. They're having to bring it over long transmission lines. And so they're finding these batteries as an answer for that to provide voltage support. I'm going to look at my staff. I mean, they looked at that provider. >> Right. Now instead of building two new gas peakers, they procured the, okay, so that's just kind of what they chose to do? >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. >> So why do we come up with turning 20 megawatts? Why this size? And in round numbers, part of it is to give us an option to replace the 100 megawatts we have presently out of Gibbons Creek. Gibbons Creek, whether it goes away in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2024, somewhere it's going away in some period of time. And so we need to replace those megawatt hours we're getting presently out of Gibbons Creek. If we go to the market, there it is, there's my cursor. So if we go to the market, the market megawatts have higher emissions and they have more volatile pricing. And so we're looking for somewhere to short this up that would give us also more flexible generation than what we're getting right now at Gibbons Creek. Gibbons Creek was built as a base load unit. It wasn't built to go up and down countering against wind renewable generation. And so it wasn't built to do this. And so these plants would be. The other 100 megawatts would be to back up wind energy. Again, wind energy, this mitigates the risk for when the wind doesn't blow. It allows more favorable contract terms. In other words, we can go buy this wind energy at the best contract terms and also have backup for that that's less volatile to pricing than market energy. And then the other 20 megawatts is to back up our solar contracts. Again, same thing as the wind to mitigate risk, but also what we see is is solar will come into play more as we grow . We anticipate meeting our future growth with future solar contracts. We think solar pricing is still has some possibility to go down. And this allows us to meet that and again, buy the solar energy at the most favorable pricing. >> Couple questions. I'm just going to take a sort of bullet point at a time. On the 100 megawatts to replace Gibbons Creek. And I was going to try to get these because I know we get weekly updates on Gibbons Creek, its output. Well right now, Gibbons Creek, I can't speak for the summer . Sure, Gibbons Creek was up and running more in the summer. But we're not getting near 100 megawatts. I mean, if we did that times 8,760, we're not getting 900, 000 megawatt hours from Gibbons Creek. In fact, I think the last report I saw was 80. >> What's the, is it 150 or when it's just running just to stay on? >> 150. >> 150. >> They, depending on the plan, they're either 180 minimum or 150. >> Okay. So I understand that and I want to go more into some of the specific numbers on some of the, but we'll do that in close session. Because I know that I think if I'm understanding the increased renewables are meant to absorb some of that generation as well, in other words, if we're going to go from 40 to 70. >> It'd be virtuous. >> Some of that will be. Okay, so let's go to the second one, the 100 megawatt backup wind energy. When we're talking about renewable contracts under the new paradigm, the proposed plan or just the way we're trying to buy renew ables now from what I understand. The current wind contract we have is, and I'm just going to , what is it, is it 80 megawatts, 60? What is it? >> That may be conflict to our price. >> Okay, sorry, sorry, that's fine. Yeah, but anyway, let's just say 50. I don't know what it is, but let's say 50. But it doesn't, wind contracts, what is it, about a 40% capacity or 50% capacity? So what their capacity is, you're probably actually going to get close to half of what the actual, of that in actual generation. So, and this may be for closed session, so if I get too specific, just, and that's cool, I don't have a problem with it. But it's my understanding, the reason why we want these, some type of backup generation is so that when we go out and talk to renewables, they don't have to back it up. I think we've talked about that. We can just say, hey, we'll just buy what you generate. You don't have to worry about it. If it's down, we're going to take care of that on our end. You're not going to have to take care of that. So when we see projections of renewable energy moving forward with the proposed plan, that's really what I'm saying is the assumption is if we have the proposed plan moving forward are the things that I 've seen. Those megawatt hours represent the actual generation, represent what we're anticipating actually purchasing, which is actual energy. So my question is, how does, when I see 100 megawatts for backup wind energy, if we're buying just as an example, and I'm going to use a number and I don't know what the projection, but let's say it's 500,000 megawatt hours of renewable energy. That we're thinking we're going to be able to purchase actual energy, not backup, not, when it's not going, they back it up, but that's what we're going to get. So how are we calculating how much we're going to need to back that up if we're already got into the equation? This is what we think we will actually be purchasing. We're not going to have to back, by some unforeseen thing, if a storm comes through and knocks down some turbines or you lose a transmission line or something that's sort of, I don't want to say out of the ordinary, but not really associated with the wind not blowing because we've already sort of factored in. If we execute this number of contracts for this amount of megawatt hours, we believe we're going to be able to get actual this generation and that's what's already forecasted in. And I'll be able to go more in detail on that in the closed session. >> So. >> How are we calculating that we need 100 megawatts to back it up if we're backing up what we think we're already going to be purchasing? >> So as we've discussed, we talk about our wind and solar. We're talking about multiple contracts from multiple sources. >> Sure. >> We're trying to bank on that somewhere the wind will be blowing. >> Right. >> That the wind will stop blowing everywhere. But as you noted, different wind farms have different profiles. Some will blow as much as 50 and have 50% capacity factor. Some will be as low as 30. The ones with 30 blow more on peak. But so they have different levels of production. So we can't predict which day exactly they're going to blow . But over a year, you can get pretty close on prediction of how many megawatt hours you're going to get out of each wind farm. What you can't predict is which hours they're not going to produce. And so to meet that demand for those hours that they don't produce to back that up. So we don't need megawatt for megawatt. In other words, if I go buy 200 megawatts of wind, I don't have to have 200 megawatts of backup. Because the wind will blow somewhere. But I have to have some backup for the amount of wind I'm buying. >> And I guess that's my question. And again, I'll have to rely on you on the confidential proprietary information. You mentioned if I go out and buy 200 megawatts of wind. That was sort of your example. I don't have to have 100 megawatts backed up. So let's say if I'm going to go out and buy 200 megawatts of wind and I ask for an RFP and I say, you back it up, wind contractor. I'm going to be paying for 200 megawatts of capacity. The wind's either going to provide it or their backup source is going to provide it. But let's say I want to say, well, I want to buy 200 meg awatts, but we're going to buy what you produce. Which may be 100 megawatts in actuality. We may only get 100 megawatts. So if we shift to a different paradigm or if we have a different paradigm, because when I look at 100. And the reason I'm asking these questions, you and I have talked about this. My thought is, do we need the 220? And I know you've got another slide on that. And so that's why I'm asking. Yeah, two more. But what I'm trying to get to is how are we calculating, because 100 megawatt capacity of backup is 876,000 megawatt hours, if it's running all the time. Which is, that's a lot. I mean, so those are some of my questions that will probably be a little bit more refined in closed session. But those are my thoughts, because when I saw those two in your slide, I thought, well, we're not really getting 100 megawatt. I mean, when we rolled this out, it was presented as backing up renewables and things such as that. This is the first time, at least in a public setting that I 've seen where we have to replace Gibbons Creek generation capacity. Whereas I thought the increase in renewables was part of that equation. Because when you look at our current usage, I mean, we're not getting, I mean, Gibbons Creek is, I mean, you know. >> And it's because the market's cheaper. >> Yeah, the market's cheaper. Exactly, the market's cheaper. And it's been that way for two or three years. >> And we've been that way for two or three more at least. >> So then I guess, so then go down to the next bullet point, the 20 megawatt is sort of a similar question to the second bullet point. That is, if we're buying it with them already backing it up , or if we're buying it with us backing it up, there's going to be a cost difference. And so if we're just purchasing what they make, it's like an inputs contract or an outputs contract. We'll just buy what you generate, and we'll be responsible for when a cloud comes over or something like that. Those are sort of the questions I have, how do we factor that? And you go ahead, I'm sorry. >> So kind of multiple questions there. But let me come back and respond to one of those. And that is, for one thing, the market has evolved from when we did our original wind contract. >> Right. >> As far as the bidders on a renewable energy contract on wind or solar, as far as the number of entities that have, in addition to their portfolio, their own fossil fuel generation to back it up, those have become fewer. More entities are out there that specialize in their wind energy contractor or their solar contractor. And so as far as the number of people they could bid to provide us the renewable energy with their own backup, those have gotten much fewer. So the number of people who sell energy in this way, as far as you're going to buy whatever I produce, whenever I produce it. Then that's become the most economical way to buy the power , and the market's adjusted to that. And just to the point that most purchasers recognize that, hey, I've got to provide the backup on my side. That the cheaper way for me to buy that renewable energy is to me take care of buying that renewable. I can take care of buying that renewable backup through another contract from another entity to back that up, a lot of what Georgetown has done, or I can procure it, have my own generation, such as what Austin's proposing. >> But it sounds like that, if that's the way the paradigm is now, in other words, they say, look, we're not guaranteeing a generation amount, we're just saying you take what we generate. Because of where it would be located, it sounds like there 's a pretty good predictability with, like you've talked about, West Texas wind, coastal wind, all these kind of things. There's a predictability to that that I guess gives some confidence in, well, we think if we execute this contract, we'll get X number of megawatt hours out of it, and that's factoring in that it's only a 40 or 50% capacity, or the wind, or something like that. >> Right. >> Okay, all right. >> So it gives you a low profile that you- >> Can depend on- >> There's enough history now in these projects that they can feel more confident in their low profile. >> Okay, that's the term, low profile, okay. I'm sorry, what? >> What is the total megawatt hours of the 70% renewables is going to make up? Do we know that? Like the- >> Now let me look at my staff and see if I can pull out that number. >> Is that on the sheet? >> It'd be 70% of the one and a half million. >> Yeah, so one and a half million. >> Yeah, it's about 1.1 million or something. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yes, I'm sorry, go ahead. >> So Phil, I'm going to try to be real simple with my question, because this is what seems pretty simple to me. The ideal situation would be that you build this and you never turn it on. That means that you were able to, because what I see is leverage, right? So if I'm negotiating wind or solar, and the people selling to me know that I have the ability to produce my own, and they want the business, then they're going to go. In other words, if I'm just in the market, I don't make anything, I just buy. Well, now I'm limited to whatever the best deal I can negotiate versus everybody else that's out there buying in the market that has no ability to produce it themselves. If you can produce it for less, you have leverage. >> Right, so. >> It gives you a back stop. >> Right, so, because what I see here is I'm thinking about , when I think about wind and solar, and I understand there's a lot of different wind sources, types of wind and hours of the day and all that stuff. And for solar, of course, you're limited. It seems like, If you say I'm going to go 100% renewable, which means I'm only going to buy on the market unless I own my own wind and solar farms. We're competing with everybody else in the market that's buying wind and solar at any given time. And if supply is down and demand is high, prices are going to go up. So it seems like to me, I mean, the math would have to work , obviously, but I can see a situation where, and I don't know that we need two of them, maybe one of them. You're going to get to that. But to where the greatest investment we could make would be to build it and never use it. Because that would mean that the contracts that we were able to leverage were more beneficial. It allowed us to accomplish the reliability, the rate control, and the renewables, all three. All right, so I guess that's my, I get where you're going with the previous slide, which is I've got 100 here and I've got 100 here and 20 here. I may not be using all of that in any one time. >> Correct. >> That gives me the capacity to meet my peak load. But ideally, if I could buy all of that, cheaper than what I could make it for, then I'd buy it. But I knew I had the leverage that I could make it if the demand was higher, the supply was down. Sun wasn't shining in West Texas or whatever. Is that really where you're going with all that, is I've got the backup ability? I've got the backup ability and that puts me in the most favorable position to buy the renewable contracts is with that backup capability that I can just buy the raw power at the cheapest price possible . >> Right, because it seems to me like if I'm selling you something and I know you don't have many options, I'm going to be a lot less aggressive. >> Or if you know my options are limited, my option is to market. >> Correct. >> Okay, all right, thanks. >> Councilmember Wasney. >> And I'm losing my voice, so I'll just speak. >> I can identify with that. >> Speak as little as I can. To Councilman Johnson's point, the plants are not just for backup. We're at the mercy of ERCOT, and when they say turn your plants on, those plants get turned on. So I think that is the huge shift there in the purpose of these plants. It'd be a great thing if these were just backup, but that's not the purpose of these plants. That is a small part of these plants. These plants are going to be turned on when ERCOT says we need power. These plants are going to be turned on when we want to sell power. So that's when those plants are going to run. So to shift gears, I have a real problem with the whole math and the timing for the power plants. If we pulled the trigger today and said yes, we're going to build these plants, what year would they be up and running? Is that 2019? >> By at least 2019. >> So 2019. This council, as a group, has agreed that we will be 100% renewable by 2030. So instead of looking at a 20 to 30 year energy plan, we really need to be looking at an 11 year power plan that bridges the gap from 2019 to 2030. How do we do that? How do we get there? I'm not sure that I want to jump off the cliff and incur a 20 year debt of 220 million to build two power plants when we're really only looking at a decade of generation to back up renewables. So I don't have an answer for that, and I haven't heard an answer for that. >> If I could respectfully disagree, Council Member Wasney, these plants do have value even if you're at 100% renewable . Because even at 100% renewable, as I've stated, as in Georgetown, there are instances where even if you're purchasing all the renewable megawatt hours that you need to be renewable, you can't look at what the time is you're going to get those megawatt hours. Sometimes you'll be getting those megawatt hours when you don't need them, and you'll be selling them into the market . And for those hours where the sun didn't shine, the wind didn't blow, you would still need some kind of backup generation. So these units would have value and would be productive in those period of times, even at a point where we're 100% renewable, where we are purchasing enough renewable energy that we would be 100%, we'd be, as Georgetown is, saying we 're 100% renewable. But even Georgetown, at 100% renewable, is also purchasing, has a contract with a third party entity that has gas power generation that will provide the backup for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. >> So to be clear, even if we're 100% renewable, we'll need power generation to back up that 100%. >> Correct. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Phil just answered it all. Thank you, Councilmember. >> Well, even in 2030 when you said battery technology would be where it needs to be, and that's when our goal is. >> Yes, even in 2030. When battery technology starts, and when it gets to that point, it will start to become into the market. But it will not be there to replace all the generating capacity in ERCOT, 68,000 megawatts of capability at one time. >> We were just looking for our city, Denton, not everything ERCOT serves, just for our city, not- >> So even serving the city of Denton, battery technology will be a start, but it won't be the place where it can replace all the generation. I guess the point is, is will these units have value in ERC OT, even if we're 100% renewable? The answer to that is yes, they'll still have value because all of ERCOT will not have replaced all their generation. And this would be our way to support the rest of the market to get to more renewable, is to have this kind of quick start generation to back up wind and solar. >> So you're talking about selling to ERCOT? >> Talking about backing up Denton's need and the market needs. >> And that's a question I have, and I don't need you to go back to the last slide, but you'd sort of parsed out three, the 100, the 100, and the 20. because I know there's some, because there's that question if ERCOT can ask us to turn on the engines to run if there's a critical need, if there's a shortfall. So within those three figures, there has to be some accounting for generation to ERCOT. Generation, because I know that in the projections of serving load and then ERCOT, there's different types of generation hours. So in those three, are they just embedded in there somewhere? Or if ERCOT says you gotta turn those on, well then we're not getting 100 megawatt, 100 or 20 for our benefit because ERCOT is sort of either, I don't want to say hijacked, but has forced us to turn those on. >> So if I could, let me use this graph and explain how the units will be dispatched. And so this is an average of the load in Denton in 2019. Average summer load day. And so- >> Phil, what do you define as a summer day from- >> Well, this graph is for August. >> August, okay, I'm sorry, I missed that. >> This is for August. >> So for the 24 hour day, average day in August, here's the usual load shape, right? You get one o'clock in the morning, goes down to a minimum load about five, six o'clock in the morning, and then starts rising during the day and reaches a peak around six, seven o'clock in the evening. And as the sun goes down, the load goes back down, comes back down again and start over. So during that day, during the summer, you'd have the average wind production, which during the summer day, that wind production usually goes down during the peak hours. During that time, the average market prices in the early morning hours are low and we'd buy off the market. We'd have the solar contracts, our solar production would pick up during the day, during the daylight hours and run, but our load would exceed those needs. And during this time, you see a crossover going from market to these units. What's happening is the whole thing, this whole load ship's happening all across Texas. Demand's going up, the market prices go up. When the market prices go up, our first choice will always be to serve our load, we'll be to use renewable energy first. Market, if it's cheaper, the market prices will go up during the day. During that time, these units will be dispatched as market prices go up past our dispatch rate, our dispatch cost. And it would run that many hours of the day for that much generation. And this is about 220 megawatts. And so, during the evening hours, sun goes down, we pick it up at the market, it picks up in the evening hours out in West Texas and picks up some. But we'd replace that with market where we could. So, when we talk about turning 20 megawatts, this is where we get that number. What happens if you have less than 20 megawatts is, is I'm having to fill that in with market energy. And that's higher price market energy during the highest prices of the year, is during the August time frame. And so, that's why we're looking at being not only an average day, but then drawn in the peak day also. And so, to meet that additional market, we'd have to buy in the market, which we're doing for our energy management organization. But also use these units to offset the highest price. >> So, are you saying every day in August, basically, the gas plants will be running from like 10 in the morning till 8 at night? >> Yes. >> Constant? >> Yes. So, we look at running these units on the average, we've said these units will run around 38% over a year. And so, that depends on the weather. If you have a 2011 heat wave summer, it's going to run even more. If you have a mild summer, it'll run less. But during the summer months, you expect them to run most of the daylight hours. >> Well, so it's also been said that 69% of the rice energy will go to aircott, that these are going to run for that. Does that account for this? >> Yes. >> And is that just on assumption that it's an emergency, or is that on the assumption that we're just going to sell it? >> That's based on the assumption that we'll participate in aircott according to the aircott protocols and according to the aircott generation rules, which says you have to bid in your units, you cannot withhold your units from the market. So, we would determine the price to bid those in, and they would get struck. If you look at a bid curve of all the units in aircott, these units would be ones that would be dispatched early on because of their efficiency. >> Okay, so now I'm just a little confused because I thought that they would tell us only in an emergency, but now you're saying that if we have them, we have to participate and run them. >> Yes. >> Okay, so that's new information to me. >> Okay. >> Mayor. >> I'm trying to look up the aircott generation mix. Is there anything similar to what we're proposing already existing anywhere? >> By other utilities? >> By other utilities. >> Different utilities have a different portfolio mix. You take Austin and San Antonio, they have nuclear power in their mix, nuclear coal, gas generation, and renewable. >> But any like quick start gas generation? >> So the South Texas Electric Co-op, is golden spread in aircott? >> Well, just if there is, is there data? >> No. >> Is it showing kind of how often those are turned on or is it different, totally different situation? >> I guess the run time of those units would be competitive information. It's not something that would be posted somewhere as far as what they run. We can see, and through our energy management organization, when they're running after they've run. >> So question then, Phil. So I'm assuming then if ERCOT says I need you to turn it on , it's because that is the most economical power available at that time? >> Yes. >> So then if we didn't have them, if we don't have these, assuming the demand is going to be the same and we don't build these plants. ERCOT couldn't then tell us to turn ours on, we wouldn't have them. They would have to generate that power from somewhere else. >> They would generate that power from another unit and from what ERCOT does post as far as the emissions of the market. It would be a unit that would have more emissions to it. >> Right, so. >> A less efficient, more emissions unit. >> Because I guess what I'm trying to get at is I want to make sure, obviously we need to be good stewards of our own backyard as best we can, right? So, because I think one could say, well, the coal plant generates emissions somewhere else, so that's not our problem. Well, it's our plant, right? But secondly, the air that we're breathing here is, whatever we're breathing here is coming from a couple days south of here. Right, based on what Dr. Banks showed us. So whatever we're generating here, somebody's breathing north of us. What we're breathing here has been generated south of us. So I want to just make sure that I'm understanding it right . Because I think we have three different conversations at play, right? One is fossil fuels. Philosophically, form against them in between, whatever. And one is a cost. Should we spend the money to do this or should we just go in the market? And the third is if we don't, then what? So I guess for me, I don't think, I don't want to engage in a debate by the way, but I don't think the purpose of building these is so we can sell power to ERCOT. I think our stated purpose has always been to back up. If we're going to go 70% renewables, we have to have control of our backup. Now, if we build them, do we have to participate in ERCOT? Yes. But the purpose of building these would not be so that we could sell power to ERCOT. Correct. You have to. If you build them and you're part of ERCOT, you don't have a choice. You have to be willing to sell it. Am I right? Correct. And the majority of savings, when we talk about that over the 20-year time frame, that we'll spend $2 billion, if business as usual, on purchase power. With these units, including paying the principal interest on these units, we're talking about spending $1.5 billion. So $500 million of savings. The majority of those savings are as a result of us serving our load, meeting Friday night our ancillary services and serving our load. It's not the majority of those savings are not from selling to ERCOT. The majority of the savings are results from serving our load. Correct. This is also interesting to learn. We have these discussions about the environmental impact. We talk about the economic impacts. And we're learning all of the technology of how ERCOT works and how generation happens. So let's say that it's 1,700 hours. No, let's say 1,900 hours. I think that's 7 PM. We're at the highest area. We're generating the most electricity we can generate to back up our needs. ERCOT, I don't know how they do it. They call Mike Grimm. >> Call the back line. >> And they say, we need you to turn on your quick start plants. And Mike says, sorry, they're already on. What happens then? >> So each entity is responsible for providing the power supply for their anticipated load, and usually plan that the day ahead . And you plan that months ahead, but you get down to it for the difference in weather. You're planning a day ahead in real time, you're planning to meet your load. If you don't plan enough generation to meet your load, our lights aren't going to go out. ERCOT's going to meet that load and will be settled at wherever the market price is to meet our generation. Vice versa, if we're generating more than our load, then we just sold to ERCOT at whatever the market price is. And so second by second, every four seconds, ERCOT is monitoring what's the load compared to the generation. They have a fleet of generators, and this would be another plant site located within that fleet of generators. And they go through that stacking order of determining which generators they want to own to meet the total generation for that day, and they're looking at ERCOT as total. As far as the financial security, to make sure you're meeting your load requirements in the most economical fashion, that's each load's responsibility to do that. What these units do is provide us a way to do that that's more fixed and not variable. Doesn't leave us to the market prices. That can be very volatile. >> Question on this graph. And that's a good question. So, and this is a general question based upon the spreadsheet. It's not actual. All right. Because we've sort of busted up into serving dent and load and the other. ERCOT, they're forcing us to turn it on, those kind of things. So what I heard you just say is, let's say this is August the 1st, this graph we're looking at. So on July the 31st, if there's 31 days in July, I guess there are. The group's going to be sitting around thinking, okay, how do we meet our load for tomorrow? How do we do it? And you've got all these things, and so one of them is we 're going to start the plants at 9 o'clock. We're going to have them run a full board. That's going to be accounted to our load, okay? Sort of similar to what he asked, but you're making that decision the day before is sort of what my question is. So we've got this happening. This is what's happening. But we had decided earlier the day before that we don't have enough. In fact, from what I'm hearing you say, every day in August , and an average day, this is an average day in August, that we will need this proposed, these 12 units or these gas plants to meet just our load is what I'm seeing here. Is that- >> Correct, I mean, months ahead. >> Okay, well- >> Months ahead we'll be looking at what we anticipate our load to be. That can be plus or minus what the weather's going to be. >> Sure, sure. >> And so you get within a certain percentage of it. But then as you get to week ahead, day ahead, look at the weather forecast- >> Sure, you get to refine it and you get to- >> You get to refine it and say, okay, I now have, it looks like it's going to be cloudy and rainy, so I'm not going to have the load I thought it was. So I've already bought enough, I don't need to buy anymore. Man, it's a heat wave of the century, it's going to be 110 degrees. >> So the question goes to sort of the crux of Mayor Pro Tem's question, that is, so we've got all these contracts in place, average wind, average solar, average market purchase. We know what those are. And we know we're going to have a gap. So we know that we're anticipating, we're saying we're building these things to help with this gap. Part of it's to back up, part of it's to meet this differential so that we don't have to go out to the market. So these things are fired up and they're running because we know we've needed them, we're going to need them to meet our load. So the phone does ring. They're already running. And they are, I guess the crux of my question is, how do we fix our plants running, representative of this graph, that says, Urquhart, you can give us a call. We've already elected that we're generating this much from our power plants to meet our load. So unlike the contracts, we have contracts that everybody knows, okay, DME has, you know. So how do they know that this load is for Denton? Because if it's already on and it's meeting our load, then Urquhart sales will not occur in here unless somehow there 's that four second spike where our load doesn't need that much. And so that's, to me, how do we differentiate between when these are running, they're to our credit or somebody else's credit? >> I'm going to let you take a shot at this while you drink . >> Did you say take a shot? Never mind, I want some. Why he's drinking, is that what you said? >> It's kind of a hammer problem. >> Okay. >> We, Mr. Mayor and Council, we offer into Urquhart with a price. We give them an offer curve. So if it's in DME's best interest, going back to Council Johnson's question, if it's in the city's best interest to purchase off of the market, we naturally have that capability because we own the generation. If it's cheaper to generate it ourselves because market prices are higher, then we generate it ourselves. So we have kind of a free option because we own this physical capacity. You don't have that option if you don't have the capacity. And that's what's going on in this graph right here. There's on average this much when, maybe on 1900, this much solar and the rest of it's being met by generation. That is presuming that the market price is higher than the generation. If for that particular day the market price is not higher, if the market price is lower than our generation, then we 'll just buy it off the market. >> Okay. >> Because that's our profitability. >> No, and I understand that. And so it's probably, I'm making it more difficult than what the question really is. So then that leads to one question. Let's say the market's cheaper. >> Okay. >> Market's cheaper. Will those still be running if we're buying off the market? >> No, sir. >> Okay. >> If the market is cheaper, they will not be running. >> Unless our COD calls and says, you gotta run them. >> That would only happen in an emergency condition. >> Okay. >> And what would generally go along with that emergency condition would be a high price period. >> Okay. >> Which would mean that, again, it would be profitable for , we've made the investment. If I have an investment sitting on the ground that I've already made, why would I not run and make more money if I'm getting more than what it cost me to produce? >> So then if we're purchasing from the market in this particular scenario, then that light blue would be the dark blue. In other words, some portion of that. Not all of it, but some portion. >> Yes, sir. That is correct. >> So my question goes back to when we are running it. When let's say the market is not cheaper. >> Okay. >> And we are generating to meet our delta. >> Yes, sir. >> From what our contract energy is and what our peak is. >> Yes, sir. >> That those hours generated accrue to the credit, I say credit. I don't mean from a monetary perspective. They accrue to the credit for our load. In other words, if we need 200 megawatts of power, it's 1900 hours. And those things are running. ERCOT's not coming back and saying, well, that really, you 're selling that into the market. Even though we've elected it, this is how we're meeting our load. Because ERCOT's saying, you're short 200 megawatts. No, we're not. We've got it. We're running right now. And so they don't say you're generating money for ERCOT. This is your load. They move on. Is that? >> That is correct. It's all done financially. It's all done electronically as well. There was a question earlier, what happens if ERCOT calls? We said they're already on. It's all done electronically. It's all electronically hooked up. ERCOT sends you a signal, and that unit moves. >> That's good, because Grim doesn't answer his phone in four seconds. >> So when you say it's financial, because I think where some of the questions are is in the end that we're buying it, we're using these to back up. Now you did say if you got an investment on the ground and prices are outrageous and we don't need it, we're going to run it to help offset some of the cost for, to help the rate payers. I get that. >> Yes sir. >> But when it comes to the point of actually, and that probably is a little, probably not as often when you have that kind of emergency situation. It seems like there's a question on, well, outside of emergency situations, why would we be, if we're generating more power to accrue to the benefit of the market, instead of to meet our load, why would we have a capacity of a plant that would do that? And I can go more into that in close, because you've got generation for load, generation for ERCOT. There's a difference. And so that's going to be the crux of my question, but I just wanted to make sure that when this light blue is on, that that's accruing, when I'm looking at my chart. >> Yes sir. >> These megawatt hours are accruing to the top part that says to meet load. Instead of down here at the bottom, you don't have to, we 'll go into that probably in a little bit more detail. But that's where I'm really confused, is when I see there's a projection of what it is we need these for to meet our load only, and what we need these to meet other situations. Then what numbers does that blue accrue to if they're running for our benefit? I'm assuming it's to meet our load, because that's what I 've heard. This is to meet our load. >> That is correct. This graph is accurate for us to meet our load. What you're not seeing is what the price is at each hour. So it's presumed in the darker blue area that the ERCOT market price is cheaper. >> Sure. >> Than what we would generate for. In the light blue area, the ERCOT price is above what we would generate for. >> Okay, well, I hear that. We'll talk about it in more detail, because I don't want there to be kind of, because what I'm understanding is what you're saying is, hey, it doesn't, really doesn't matter who this is running for the benefit of, we're selling it at this price. I mean, it's costing us this much. Do we put in an offer curve, this offer number? >> Yes, sir. >> They say run it. We get paid this amount. It's costing us this amount. Whether it's theirs or ours, we still get credit for it. So that's where I'm getting confused, especially when we parse out what it takes to meet our load. >> Right. >> And then other words. So I'll go more into that, because I don't want to be confusing. That's very cryptic. >> Mayor. >> Yes. >> But doesn't it stand to reason though, so if we're buying in the market, if we're buying in the market at any given moment, because it's cheaper for us to buy than make. >> Yeah, no. >> And it's unlikely, because we get to say what we're offering the power for that we generate here, right? >> Correct. >> So if we can buy in the market for cheaper than we can make it, then I would think it'd be unlikely that ERCOT was going to call and say crank it up. Because we want you to sell it to us, to sell to somebody else, because those same people are buying off the open market just like we are, right? >> Then I want to ask you a question. If I go into specific megawatt hour generations on the spreadsheet, you have a problem with that? >> I'm really going to close this. >> Okay. I think this will become more clear. >> Yeah. >> In. >> Because it's just, what I'm saying, I guess I'm getting back to what Council Member Wasney said . If ERCOT calls and says turn it on. >> Right. >> We have to, and we have to sell into the market, and we're going to sell in the market and make money. Well, if we're not generating because we can buy in the market cheaper. >> Well, yes. >> Why would anybody be buying our power for more? It's going to stay off. Unless there's a situation where the load is so high that they have to be turned on because the load can't be met at those lower prices. In which case, wouldn't we stop buying and produce our own? Because the market prices are going to go up if the load goes up. >> I get that. That's not the thrust of my question. I can do it in general terms. Council Member Briggs said that she asked you, is 69% of the generation from these plans going to be going to ERCOT the market? And I think you said yes. >> I don't know if it's 69%. >> That was the last number that you guys gave us. >> Okay. >> Is that of the total capacity? >> No, no, it's just of the generation that is being proposed. So none of that 69% that we're saying is going to ERCOT is in this blue number if it's running. Because it's cheaper for us to run it than it is for them to. >> Correct. >> Okay, so, all right, good. So keep in mind, the ERCOT market is built for a dereg ulated market. 70% of the market is deregulated. And 15% of the municipalities and utilities, 15% are co-ops . The ERCOT market is built around a deregulated market that separates out the generation function from a transmission function from a distribution function. So to them, it's a separate market, it's a separate world of I have generation to match load. And that's all they're looking to do. And so ERCOT is looking at a generation stack that says, here's what everybody said they're going to provide generation for at this price to meet this total load. And then the settlement function as far as the didn't contractually arrange for all that in the most economical way is a market function they do. The operation function, they're looking at as far as what's the total ERCOT generation capacity and what's the total load. And here's most economical stacking order of what people have bid in their price for to run their unit at, and they just go up that stack chart until they meet all the load requirements. >> Yeah, this will become clear, I think, as I can get into details. >> Well, and to be clear in terms of generation, when we're talking about these two quick start plans generating X% for our needs and X% for the market's needs, we're still not talking about those plants running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, are we? >> No, sir. >> Because that's been a real source of confusion for folks . And where some folks have generated some numbers, I think very honestly, that ended up not being accurate numbers because the assumption was 24/7. And what we're really talking about is over the course of a year that these plants are going to be running 36 to 42% of the time, something like that? >> Correct. >> Okay, thank you. >> I raise and then Council Member Hawkins. >> So, but, okay, so that just really confused me. So we're going to run them 30% of the time, but 60% is going to be sold to ERCOT. So 60% of that 30%? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Council Member Hawkins. >> Sure, you touched a little bit on the stacking order on how ERCOT will call in people to turn on or find, can you speak a little bit more to that? I mean, I'm just trying to think of it simply, can Denton say that we're going to sell the most expensive power and they never want us to turn it on? Am I understanding that correctly? >> So ERCOT has an independent market monitor that audits those prices. And according to the protocol, you have to defend what you 're bidding in. >> Okay. >> So you can't, what they're looking for is in the competitive market, they 're looking for is somebody purposely withholding generation back from the market to drive up prices. So then they can get a higher profit at a later point in the day. And so, while you have some range of pricing you can have as far as where you're bidding in those units, you have to have a reasonable test to- >> That makes sense. >> What you're pricing in. And so you look at the list of units and where in that stacking order, you can go back and look. I think someone asked before how do these compare to like units running in the marketplace. You look at where those units are parasol Texas. And you look at where those units are today in the stacking order. And they're very low in the stacking orders when they get dispatched as compared to the rest of the market. >> Okay. >> Okay. So continuing on looking at the economics of what if we built only six units versus 12? You get some economy of scale from building 12 units as opposed to six. So just because you cut the number of units in half doesn't mean you cut the capital cost in half. It's more like 65%. And so you would still, the cost per unit would be several million dollars more per unit to build fewer units. Also, the emissions reductions would be much less. Because if you go back to that previous graph, if I don't have enough capacity on this day, if I have half of that capacity available to meet that, I'm having to meet the rest of it with market power. And as we discussed before, the market, our kind of market has much higher emissions per unit than what we're looking at with these units. The savings are reduced, as we talked about from 526 to 320 . The market risk is more because we're going to the market more often on a daily basis to meet our needs. And the rate decreases that we projected would be delayed because we wouldn't have the savings that we're projecting with building this number of units. And it gives us, we just feel like it gives us less option ality as far as replacing given screen. >> Phil, on the first one, the cost, do we have hard numbers on that or is that just sort of y'all's estimate? >> I believe that's indicative pricing that we've gotten from the vendors. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Well, I'm probably gonna wanna see a little more detail on that cuz I find that difficult to, I mean- >> So where that comes in is, if I'm gonna do the design build for putting in six units. >> Sure. >> So now I'm gonna use that design again at another site. Well, I get to use that design once again. >> So the- >> Second site. >> Okay, and yeah, that's fine. Again, I'll just need to see a little bit more shoring up of that. Cuz I understand there'll be some difference because of economies of scale. But if you were to put the 150 times 2, that's 300. You got a $75 million difference, which- >> So that's pricing again from the vendor. >> Yeah, okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So I have a few questions there. It says Gibbons Creek retiring. So I have a question. If it does not retire and we buy and run these engines as frequently as we say we're going to, what would the net emissions increase be? >> I don't know. >> Can we find that out? >> So the emissions from, and one of the things we'll put out on the question and answer is, we've never looked at the emissions of Gibbons Creek as compared to other Lignite coal units in the state. And I was amazed at the difference between the emissions between, I knew we've done a lot and made some investments at Gib bons Creek to clean up the emissions from it. But it's substantially different by thousands of tons of emissions a year. And so Gibbons Creek is compared to other units. What I would think would happen is if we, as we look at the future of Gibbons Creek and what will happen to that unit, I think you'll be looking at someone else replacing a older, even more higher emissions unit and keep Gibbons Creek on, rather than completely taking Gibbons Creek off. I think the market will, as we trade in our Gibbons Creek plant for the new model we're putting in, someone else will buy that plant and possibly operate it as opposed to older units they have in their fleet. So this is a summary of projected emissions and gas usage. We're looking at a 74% reduction in greenhouse gas. We're looking at the pollutants from there, the criteria pollutants decreasing 74% and natural gas decreasing 38%. I have detail worksheets here that go into more detail. I want to thank Dr. Banks and Jim Maynard for working on putting this together. This was a facilitated discussion we had with citizens last week. We will be taking these worksheets and posting on the website later this week. In summary, what it shows is a percentage reduction or emissions as usual of overall of the megawatt of the MMBTUs of 38%. And you can see the bottom line, the reduction in the different types of emissions that we'll be talking about from this as usual. The second page is showing, since there's been much discussion about what would the emissions be if you include the units running for ERCOT. So the second page of this shows if you compare to what these units will be offsetting in ERCOT, you'll be offsetting non-CC gas average, that is non-comb ined cycles. That means other picker units. And so when you look at that reduction, it means that these units run as opposed to what would run in their place. It'd be a 27% reduction in gas usage because these units are more efficient than what the average is of what we're running. Instead. >> Yes, Councilmember Briggs. >> So can we separate the 70% renewables from the gas plants for a minute? And I want to ask you a question. How much less gas would the 70% renewables portion of the plan create compared to our business as usual? And then how much gas does the rice engines add? >> So I don't have it with me. But we have run the scenario before of if you try to do 70% renewable without the quick start units. And you do it by buying the backup energy from the market. It actually uses more gas and have higher emissions. So it's the backup coming from the market as opposed to these units which are more efficient. I don't have the exact numbers, but we've run that before. We'll post that on the website and furnish that. Okay. That is all the presentation to answer the questions. As I said before, we'll have a question and answer meeting with the public on Saturday, January 23rd. Does that meet with the council's request of what you wanted as far as that kind of format? >> Thanks. Just a couple of things to follow up on some questions that I have received from citizens. And I don't know if we need these in another presentation. You might be prepared if you want to do them in an informal staff report. I would be curious regarding the storage capacity that Councilmember Briggs mentioned in Southern California. I'd like to know a little bit more about that, the 240 meg awatts in place of the peaker plants. And again, the thing I would like to know about is like what I read in the thing about no trees. What is the full delivery, I guess the full delivery capacity is 240 megawatts, but for how long? So I would be curious to get that information. >> So for the no trees is 37 megawatts and it's to back up just that, just the weight generation there. >> Yeah, so if you all could get that. The other two questions that I've had a lot of questions that have already been answered. And I'm glad that you're going to be putting a lot of the answers up on the website. Do you already have or will you be putting the white paper up on the website? That's already up, isn't it? >> Well, probably do is use the white paper as a source to answer. It'll be in the format of answering its reply to those questions. >> All right, I continue to hear some questions about demand side management, which I think is a conservation practice. So if you could make sure that we are addressing that and telling us what that would be capable of doing for us. In terms of reducing peak loads, peak demands. And the other question that I have that came up is regarding the proposed location on the west side of town. I'd like to get some information from either our airport staff or the FAA regarding the possibility of the, what do they call it? Hang on. Thermal pollution creating turbulence or problems for airport operations. So if you could just, I think we've spent enough time today . I don't need the answer today. >> Well, Councilmember Riggs had asked a question about the airport and we did get a letter from the FAA that I'll forward to the rest of the council. >> Okay, thank you. >> One follow up, and if you don't have it now, that's fine , if we could get that. It seems like based on what I've heard that the airport permits their emissions restrictions are sort of what controls what kind of generation we can have at certain places like whether it's at the airport. In other words, once you reach that threshold of generation that hits that maximum capacity of emissions, I mean you're in violation is what I understand. >> You're limited to a certain number of tons per year. >> Right, which could translate into megawatt hours per year. >> We're trying to find out what that number is. In other words, per those permits, what is that number? At least as the proposed plan, if there were six on one side, six on the other, per the air permit, what is the restriction of megawatt hours for each one of those sites, at least as proposed? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yes, Councilmember Hawkins. >> Yeah, I was going back through all the presentations you 'd done on the December 1st one. We talked a little bit about funding, and you could just send me an email. I was curious if we went a general obligation bond route, is that a special called election? And two, if we do that, what are the estimates in that difference between revenue bonds and GOs that would go to that street maintenance fund? I know that's a little off topic today, but just maybe in an email or something. >> I'll turn to finance and get that. >> Cool, thanks Phil. >> Yes, Councilmember Briggs. >> I have a few more things, just for your next presentation or maybe now. You had said in one of your presentations that it would be $14 million more a year to back up with market renewables, to back up the market. I would like to see some- >> Basis for that? >> Something for that, because there's a lot of numbers that are just up in the air. And there's not really any data that I've seen to go with those. >> Also, it has also been said in one of the last meetings that you guys had that this plan has already gone up 10 million, so it's now around 240 million. And I would like to know what that number is coming from, and is it because of the export ban that was lifted? Are you including for that volatility in gas? >> So the part of the increase or decrease in savings is from the interest rate rise. That would be over time. It would increase the immediate capital costs. The immediate capital costs would be affected by the exchange rate if we buy engines from the vendor that deals in Euros. So the exchange rate would affect that. As far as impacting what the gas export would have on the gas futures, yes, that has been considered for us in the gas forward market. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yes, Council Member Wiseman. >> Thank you for having the meeting on the 23rd with the public. Do we have a time? >> 930 in the morning. >> So 930, September 23rd in council chambers. >> January. >> I'm sorry. >> January 23rd. >> I'm on cold meds. >> So yes, I mean, I took, as council's direction was, followed a format that was done for the Guess Well Q&A for that. And that's the format they did, so I just followed the same thing. >> Any other- >> So on that due, are presentations allowed to be presented? Questions asked, how does that? I wasn't at the first format, so I'm just curious. How does the public get involved on that 930? Do they spill out cards to- >> No, if it was the same format, I thought you read the Guess Well Safety thing. >> I thought there was one before that I missed, like around 10. >> So yeah, it would be the same. I wouldn't anticipate, so I'm taking a little license here. I wouldn't anticipate staff presentations being as long as they were, not that they were too long, but they needed to get a lot of information out. We've already had a lot of information. Some of it may just be some of these frequently asked questions. And then yeah, they went around with a microphone. Do you have a question? I mean, so it's, and I didn't want, the council meeting format was, didn't really allow that kind of dialogue, question, answer , response type. And that's really what I think the goal was. So yeah. >> Can I ask Phil one more question? >> Well, can I ask for one more clarification in the meeting? So one of the issues that was brought up from the last meeting was, was pass the mic around for different questions. But once somebody had made a statement or asked a question, we had to make sure that all the rest of the audience get a chance to ask their questions before you come back around. In other words, once you've asked your question, before you get to ask the second one or a follow up question of what somebody else asked, then we make sure that everybody else in the audience had a chance to ask their question first. >> Yeah, I think that whoever's moderating that meeting can help facilitate that. So I don't know if that necessarily needs to be decided now , but I'm not sure who's going to be facilitating that moder ating it. I think that's something that can be discussed either before or even at the outset of the meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Joe was a great MC. >> Yes. >> So last thing, have you been approached by any storage vendors? >> Yes. >> Regarding this plan? >> Okay. >> I'm sorry, I asked the second part again. >> So you have that regarding the renewables and this plan? >> Well, yes, we've been approached by storage vendors before we came out with this plan and since then also. >> But specifically. Can you give us a quick update on Austin Energy's RFP for storage? That they issue? >> RFI. >> RFI. >> Jim, you want to speak to that? >> If you could come to the microphone and introduce yourself. Thank you, Jim. >> Jim Maynard's the development manager for us, working on this project. We spent many hours putting this all together, thank you. >> So as Phil stated earlier, it's an RFI. It's a request for information, not an RFP. It is based on me reading it. It's based on their desire to have ancillary services provided by storage. That RFI is asking for about 5% of their total load in storage. Do you know what that number would be, Jim? >> I believe the range was 10 to 170 megawatts. >> It's 5% of their- >> 170 megawatts is about 5%. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, thank you, Jim. Any other questions? Thank you, Phil, appreciate it. Good information. Thank you, Council, for your questions. That concludes our work session reports. We will now, what we'll do is go ahead and go into closed session, then we'll take a break. We will now, where's my cheat sheet? I will now convene the closed session at 4.15 PM. We will consider the following items. Consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code section 551.071. Deliberations regarding real property under Texas Government Code section 551.072. And deliberations regarding certain public power utilities competitive matters under Texas Government Code section 551 .086. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> We wanted to welcome you to the Denton City Council meeting for January the 5th, 2016. It is 634, if you would stand with us if you're able to pledge allegiance to the US and the Texas flag. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Before we get into our regular agenda, I just wanted to ask for a moment of silence to honor Sarah Mutschlickner. As we all know, she lost her life over New Year's Eve. And I just wanted to take some time, a moment of silence to honor her. So if you would join me, please, thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you all very much for that. And also, just want to send out a great sense of gratitude to our police department and police chief for their yeoman's work and really helping to move this tragedy forward. And they've at least found someone that alleged is in that sense. So I just really wanna thank the police force and Chief How ell for their due diligence in this. And just their commitment to making sure that they really tried to resolve this in as expeditious manner as possible. So we have a great police department. I really thank them for that and thank you all for that. [BLANK_AUDIO] I'm gonna come down, we've got a proclamation. So I'll come down and read that. [BLANK_AUDIO] And anyone here on behalf of that proclamation, please feel free to join me. [BLANK_AUDIO] Hello, okay, it's on. All right, we're gonna read a proclamation, Irma P Hall Day . And so if you would not mind introducing yourselves and tell us what this proclamation is about. >> Sure. My name is Harry Eady and I'm the festival director for the Denton Black Film Festival. It is sponsored by the Denton African American Scholarship Foundation. And we're a 31 year old organization, been around Denton for a long time. And Irma P Hall, some of you may or may not know, is an actress who's been performing for 40 years. If you've ever seen the movie Soul Food, she played Big Mama. If you've ever seen Lady Killers with Tom Hanks, she was the primary person that he was trying to kill in the movie. So we are giving her a lifetime achievement award. She's been in film over 40 years. And she lives in Dallas, which we didn't know. But she's going to be here to join us. And so those of you who would like to attend, we would love to have you for the festival, which is the 29th through the 31st of January . >> Okay, and when will she be here? When will you be giving her that award? >> The award will be the 29th of January, 8 o'clock. >> Okay, and where? >> At the campus theater. >> Great, great. Thank you very much, and you are? >> I'm Linda Eady. His better half. And also a very active volunteer in the organization. >> Fantastic, well thank you all very much for bringing this to our attention. And it's my pleasure to read this proclamation by the mayor of the city of Denton, Texas. Whereas Irma P Hall is our esteemed sister born in Beaumont , Texas. And known for her performances in film, stage, and television, through which she has sought to educate, entertain, and inspire others. Whereas Irma P Hall has educated and entertained the world through her inspired performances in films that have reached across the globe and touched and influenced the lives of millions. And whereas Irma P Hall as a multi-talented and passionate individual has served as an inspiration to the black community through her film and stage performances, poetry, paintings, activism, and advocacy. And whereas Irma P Hall dedicated her life to educating young minds in urban communities with 27 years service as a teacher of languages in the Denton, I'm sorry, Dallas Independent School District. Illuminating a path for countless children to realize their God given talents and potential. And whereas Irma P Hall has continued her commitment to education on a broader scale through her performances in film and stage. Along with her artistic expression through poetry, writings , and paintings. And whereas Irma P Hall has used her talents and indomitable spirit and wisdom to enrich and elevate the profile of the invisible. The underprivileged, the forgotten, and the disregarded. So that they aspire to live lives of optimism and greater possibilities. Now therefore, I, Chris Watts, Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas, do hereby proclaim January 29th, 2016 as Irma P Hall Day in the City of Denton. And urge all citizens to recognize and honor the many contributions of Irma P Hall. And again, January the 29th at 8 o'clock at the campus theater. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming. >> Thank you, sir. >> [APPLAUSE] >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> 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 dais. If a citizen has papers or other materials to hand out to the council, please let the city secretary know, and she will have a staff member distribute the materials to the council. The attorney general has ruled that council members may listen to citizens speak and may ask questions of citizens for clarification of the issue. Council members will not engage citizens in discussion of a topic, because to do so could potentially be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. When speaking to the council, citizens are to direct all remarks and questions to the council as a whole and not to any individual member. Please refrain from making abusive, personal, impertinent, profane, or slanderous remarks. Anyone who violates this rule will immediately be removed from the council chambers. Citizens' adherence to these rules will help make an effective presentation and will preserve the order and decorum of our proceedings. Copies of the rules of procedure are available from the city secretary. >> To our next agenda item, which is agenda item three, presentation from members of the public. We don't have any for agenda items A, B, and C, but we do have some for additional citizens' reports. And that's sort of an open mic, and we have four cards. And so if you would, when I call your name, come up and state your name and address and your time will begin and you have four minutes. The first speaker is Jennifer Lane. So if you could come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. >> Last to fill out the card first called. Hi, I'm Jennifer Lane and my address is 1526 Willowwood Street in Denton. And I have sent this in email to the council, but I'm going to reiterate it now so that the public can hear it as well. I was fortunate enough to have had as a student about ten years ago, a woman who was one of the negotiators in Paris. Her name is Anya Colmus. She was taking voice lessons from me. And I reached out to her to ask about how we could find the right sources of independent analysis, particularly on the renewable side for Denton, for the renewable plan. And she recommended that I contact someone who is in Seattle working with the Stockholm Environmental Institute and I was able to reach him and he got back to me. His name is Pete Erickson and I have sent his response. He was also a negotiator at COP 21 and he's co-authored a paper and writes others about the problem of carbon lock in. How investment trying to save money on the front end actually locks you into carbon producing problems for a longer period of time and which will be costly down the road. And the questions that he suggested and that I brought forward that we worked out together for all of you are, is it really possible to meet our 70% renewable goal and still build these plants, if so, exactly how? Question two, also if we are only buying solar and wind and not building solar and wind infrastructure, are we taking it from that which exists rather than adding to the sum? In other words, how is this not green washing? If we're planning, this is question three, if we're planning to be 100% renewable by 2030, are these plants that we're considering building going to be stranded assets? What will happen to them? Question four, why choose these specific projects? Why not lock in the purchase of 70% renewables or more for now and get going on building our own renewable infrastructure right away. Seattle, where he's working, where there's a Stockholm Environment Institute, divested from a coal plant, divested from coal in general. And Seattle also has a municipal utility. Seattle is huge compared to Denton. But he suggests that you all call Corrine Grand at Seattle City Lights. Seattle City Lights is Seattle's municipal utility company. They use Stockholm Environmental Institute to help them with analysis and consulting. Any decisions like this should be based on an analysis by an outside body. Any public utility should be held accountable and have a publicly available resource plan. Please feel free to share this with anyone that you're talking with, anyone on DME, anyone in the staff, anyone amongst yourselves, anyone who 's out there that you trust, who is helping you to get Denton where we want it to be. And please vote at least for the present time to hold off until you can bring this kind of expertise into the fold. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next speaker will be Zach Youngblood. If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin . >> Zach Youngblood, 836 Hawes Drive, Copper Canyon, 75077. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I understand that during today's working session, you all received a report from DME management regarding some of the things that were discussed in the public hearing of the 15th of December of last year. And reading through that presentation, which I believe you all received today, I saw that DME referenced a report by City Group that suggested that battery storage was not where it needs to be . And will not be any time in the near future. Now, I'm curious which city report that was, if it was Energy Darwinism 1 released in the fall of 2013, or if it was Energy Darwinism 2 released in August of 2015, which suggests that for outside investors, batteries will, excuse me, batteries will reach a break even point as of 2020 and a positive return on investment, that is for outside investors by 2030. I would also like to note that as of right now, the price for battery storage remains at $500 to $700 per kilowatt hour of installed storage. Although projections are for that to drop to 350 within the next few years. And from a report that was commissioned by Encore Utilities a couple of years ago, it found that at a price point of $ 350 per kilowatt hour installed, that the on the grid storage would become more, wow. That on the grid storage would become cost effective. I would also like to point out a request for offers that Southern California Edison placed in the fall of 2013, which was extremely open ended, anything goes. Which I know Council Member Briggs questioned the possibility of that during the public hearing. And they received everything from standard combined cycle plants, energy efficiency bids. They took it all, they're really looking forward. And they are a larger producer than DME, so of course they can leverage that in certain ways that DME can't. But I feel that DME's plan, they just keep going back to the well and coming up renewable debt over and over again, regardless of any discussion, any things that have been discovered by other parties previous at no cost to the city , which are available publicly. Additionally, there is also... I've heard it reported that because of the Fed rate hike and the city's delays in implementing these plants, that it has cost the city $10 million because of the 0.1% rate hike that occurred on December 16th. And I find that to be extremely ridiculous, the notion that the project would have moved ahead into requesting bids on any sort of financing for 20 years, and that the city would have to pay $10 million for that. And that the project would have moved ahead into requesting bids on any sort of financing for $200 million would exist in any form between December 15th, the day of the public hearing, and the next day when rates were raised . I would like to say one more thing, and that is I think that like many other people here, DME has not given you all the full picture. I know how reliant you are on staff reports, and you're rel iant on staff to be neutral observers, neutral parties, and to give the best information they can to give the best result for the citizens of the city. And I just don't feel that's what's happening here. Thank you. We have a question. Council Member Briggs. Yes, ma'am. Can you tell me the name of that article again, the 2015... what did you say? Energy Darwinism 2. Darwinism 2. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. The next speaker is Deborah Armentor. Please state your name and address, and your time will begin. Hi. I'm Deborah Armentor at 2003 Mistywood Lane. And I, too, am going to speak about the gas plants that DME is proposing. About a week ago, my friend Adam Briggle asked on a discussion group, "Do people live there?" We were talking about the gas plants. Do people live around there? And so a few of us decided we would go and check that out. Yesterday, several of us went to 2153 right off Shepherd, where the plant... roughly where the plant is going to be. I get one of them, the one on the other side of town. It's on... I'm sorry, off of... yeah, Shepherd Spencer, and it's off of Spencer and 2153. So you've got Shepherd here, 2153 over here. Anyway, that property, obviously, is in Denton, where the gas plant is going to be. But what I didn't realize until I had actually got to the area is that the people who live closest to that area are technically in Aubrey. And I realized this, because we had printed up these flyers , you know, citizens of Denton. Do you know that DME is proposing a gas plant right across the street from you? And as soon as we started talking to people, they said, " This is Aubrey." On the other side of the plant is Denton. Everybody we spoke to... I mention this because everybody we spoke to was in shock that they had no idea. They weren't following our little gas well saga in Denton. And they were upset that a gas plant was going to be right across the street from them that they weren't even going to receive any energy from. They get their energy from another provider. They were very upset by this. And not necessarily for environmental reasons. In fact, we didn't even really talk about the environment. These were people who were talking about property values. They were talking about... They were concerned about noise. They were concerned about the light and traffic. They wanted to know why did these random citizens notify them instead of DME. So I wanted to give you guys, and also DME, I hope this gets back to them, the heads up on that. I also wanted to tell you that after that, I called Aubrey. In fact, I didn't even know what kind of government structure Aubrey had. But I looked up Aubrey City Council. I called the mayor. I haven't heard back from her yet. And I called several members of Aubrey City Council. Just at the very end of the work session, I received a call on my phone. And it was from Calvin Tillman, whose name you probably know. And he's on Aubrey City Council. He was also the former mayor of Dish. He was in the "Gasland" movie. He's spoken here in the past. So I know him, but he didn't know me from Adam. And I asked him if he knew that Denton was going to put a gas well right across the street from an Aubrey neighborhood. There's a lovely little-- I forget what it's called-- Green view, something little churchless, lovely little old fashioned white church and a little cemetery right next to it. And he said no. He had no idea. And he was, he too, just like the citizens, he was in shock . And he was upset to hear about it. So anyway, you guys are going to be hearing from him. We're going to be going to over by the airport, the location by the airport, over in District 4, just letting people know. I just wanted to let you guys know that. And if you guys wanted to help us out and notify people, that would be wonderful. That was all. We have a question. Councilmember Briggs. About how many residents or how many homeowners did you speak to? Do you have an idea? I'm just curious. I should have been counting. Quite a few. 40 or 50. OK. Yeah. And none of them knew? None of them knew. None of them. And those were the ones-- I was surprised there were so many people home. We would have started over the weekend, but we all had out of town family or plans over the weekend. So we just-- on a Monday morning, there were a bunch of people home. This is a pretty well-to-do area. It's big houses. And anyway, yeah. I trust him. I'm not good with numbers. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Appreciate it. Next speaker is Jodi Ismert. Ismert, I'm sorry. I mess that up every time. I'm sorry, Jodi. And we've been playing telephone tag or email tags. I apologize for that as well. No worries at all. Jodi Ismert, 819 Anna Street. And I just wanted to let you guys know that I had met with Phil at DME. I believe Gillen-- I'm going to probably butcher his name. But I believe that we met with him as well. And Phil got to show us the PowerPoint slides, and I got to ask a lot of questions. That was very nice. One thing I kind of gathered-- and I just wanted to say it for public record-- I gathered-- I'm a data person, by the way. So I love data. I love looking at it. I love analyzing it. I was able to find out more information about energy data, which I didn't really know very much about going into the meeting. I still have lots to learn. I'm not an expert on energy, obviously. But one thing that kind of disturbed me as a data person-- and I'm looking at the graphs specifically-- is that you see one graph, which is on one of the PowerPoint slides. I think it was like slide three or something, but I can't remember exactly. And it's to the right of the page, and it was the original graph-- the same graph that was shown in their public meeting. And then they posted a new graph to the left of that one, which was done at a later time, I guess, after they got many questions. Well, anyhow, the graph on the left starts at 2016. The graph on the right starts at 2019. As a data person, the one thing that you know, if you're doing modeling, especially if you're doing any kind of modeling at all, number one rule is that if you are creating data, you always rerun the entire model, because the data shifts as you progress through time. So that wasn't done. It was just a data slide that was added on. And so that bothered me initially, and I asked about it. Phil kind of explained some of the details, but I don't want to say anything about Phil, because he's extremely smart and obviously he has a wealth of knowledge. But I'm not sure that he put this together. So that's something they really need to correct. They need to rerun that whole thing. They can't just add a graph without running the entire model again. It doesn't work like that. So that kind of bothered me. But anyways, so we continued on through the conversation. It was really lovely. I learned some things. One thing I definitely learned is that they're specifically looking at cost benefit analysis only, not emissions. Public is concerned about emissions, as well as cost benefit analysis. But they are strictly looking at cost benefit analysis. And it was a very circular presentation, since there was nothing else to compare it to except VAU, compared to what they believe the numbers might be. Secondarily, I also spoke with somebody who had a meeting with somebody at DME, which I'm not going to say who. And it was a citizen who specifically said that they heard from this person at DME that the one thing DME knows is that these numbers are not correct, but we need to make a decision and just go with it . And I believe that's true after seeing the information. And so I don't understand the numbers necessarily. And I'm not an energy expert. But the more and more I hear, and the more and more I see in the graphs, and the fact that they didn't rerun the entire model, it's quite clear, I think, that the data is not quite accurate. And to hear that somebody on DME actually said, we know the numbers are wrong, but we've got to make a decision and go with it, I would really like to put that on public record for everyone to hear. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. All right, any questions? All right, thank you. OK, those are our cards. And I believe that's also our limit. I think we limited to four speakers, yes. So now we'll go on to our next agenda item, which is the consent agenda. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. I would move approval of consent agenda items 4A through I, eliminating item 4B, and amending the agreement used for item 4C. OK, and 4B is-- we're just not considering it. So you're not pulling it as an item for individual consideration. We're just removing it from the consent agenda altogether. Right, that was removed altogether. Yes, OK. All right, Council Member Hawkins. Second. OK, so we have a motion on approval of consent agenda item from 4A through 4I, excluding 4B, with an amendment to item 4C as presented. Any questions? Let's vote on the board, please. [SIDE CONVERSATION] Motion carries. We'll go on to agenda-- oh, I skipped the page. I'm sorry. Agenda item 5A, which is-- agenda item 5 in general is captioned, items for individual consideration, consideration of the use of eminent domain to condemn real property interests. Agenda item 5A is considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton determining the public use, need, and necessity for the acquisition of fee simple title to the surface of state. You have a card. Billy has a card on every item including this one. OK, we'll do the staff presentation first. Yeah. Mayor, if you're ready, I'll ask Paul Williamson to make the presentation on item 5A. And I know you do have at least one card. Thank you, Paul. Mayor, city council members, before you tonight is an ordinance making findings of public use and necessity , authorizing staff to make offers to purchase, and if necessary, to use eminent domain to acquire the subject property tract for the fire station number three rebuild project. Upon a favorable motion, I will proceed to display the affected property tract on the overhead screens. Council member Johnson. So moved. Well, we got to-- You got to read it. I've got to read it. You got to read the-- Never mind, I'll let Joey do it. There is a recommended motion in your back. All right, so I'll then recognize council member Hawkins. I got it. I move that the city of Denton, after having made the offers required by state law, authorize the use of the power of eminent domain to acquire fee simple to the surface estate, including waiver of surface used to the mineral estate of a tract of land generally located in the 1200 block of North Interstate Highway 35 East and being a portion of lot one, block one, royal in addition. In addition to the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in cabinet D, page 329, plat records Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described on exhibit A, to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screen being now displayed to the audience, all of which is for a valid public use necessary to provide fire and emergency medical services to serve the public and the citizens of the city of Denton, Texas. OK, we do have a speaker that we'll take after we have a second before the vote. But is there a-- Chair would entertain a second. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, I'll second. There's no way to do it. We have on the board mover and second by Hawkins. All right, so we have a motion to second. But before we take a vote, we have a card. And does that conclude staff presentation? For this item. OK, all right, thank you. Mr. Willie Hutsmith, if you would come up and state your name and address and your time will begin. Mayor and council members, Willie Hutsmith, I live at 623 Newton. I want to speak to the portion about the eminent domain issue. I have property that soon will be in this situation, where I'm hoping to make a certain return on my investment. And I've had an investment in this property on Bonnie Bray for 20-- almost 30 years I've had this property. I know exactly what it's worth. I've already heard rumblings that this eminent domain that you're planning to do in this situation, or possibly do in this situation, is what's going to happen to me. And I just want to state for the record that I don't agree with you doing that. Let the market determine what a person can get for their property. Now, I'm not saying that if we need it for the fire station , I know it does fall within the preview of what you, the representative of the city, would want to do. And it's good for the whole city. I understand that. It's just-- I guess I don't have any rights. I don't have any way of making you do one thing or the other. I know that. I guess I'm just stating my frustration about the eminent domain situation. And I think part of it hinges on the fact that this ethics discussion that's what's supposed to take place, which I haven't heard much about, to help make sure that you are responding and doing what you're behaving like you're supposed to behave as citizen-- as representatives of us, that discussion needs to take place about-- I think that area needs to be covered, the area of ethics, so that I can be comfortable with you making a decision for me in this area of eminent domain. Again, my objection is not necessarily about the fire station. It's that policy of choosing to use-- let me just put it the way it comes to me in my mind-- taking my property at a price you told me that-- or you think is good for me, but it's not good for me. And that's my disagreement. I don't think that that should be used in situations like this at all. Now, unless the person is just not wanting to sell, then maybe in that situation it should be. Again, I think if we deal with the ethics of what the council is going to operate, the ethics rules, if we'll talk about some of those, I'd feel more comfortable with you using that form of purchase of property for those individuals. Couple of questions. Council Member Briggs. OK. Question. Did you know that on these items of use of eminent domain, one of the issues I have is that they're lumped in with a final offer. And if that doesn't work, then to use eminent domain. And for me, I have an issue with that. I would prefer to have final offers and then to know that the vote that I'm taking is for the eminent domain. I think it makes-- it holds us more accountable for the use of it. And so that is something I've mentioned to DME specifically , but not necessarily to the city. So let me understand what you're saying. This is just a general rule that is just-- this is what we might do in these situations. It's not for a particular property, as they've mentioned, the fire station. Well, yeah. When we vote on these, it's for a final offer. And if that final offer isn't accepted, it's for the use of eminent domain. It's not necessarily that it's going to be used. It's that it is allowed to happen if so be it. It's not a separate vote. I think that's even worse. What happened with the negotiation? How do you negotiate? Now, you're going to-- there's a potential for me to lose 30 plus years in my property. Just lose it, because the majority of you said it should go away. Now I'm hearing that it means you're voting on that as an option. You get to do it. And if you don't accept what we've given you, then this takes place. And you voted on that before you even get the final offer. Yeah, I don't agree with that. We do have a couple other questions. Councilmember Wasney. You didn't hug me. Because I have a cold. We have to ask a question, so I'll put this in question form. Were you aware that on January 12th, one week from today, the ethics question and ethics ordinance discussion will be back at council one week from today at the work session? Oh, work session. I'm speaking about that work session. And if you can't be there, it is televised and recorded. So you can watch that even after the fact. But one week from today. That is very encouraging. Very encouraging. I will be there. I will just take off work to make sure I'm there. 12, thank you. We have one other question. OK, Councilmember. Councilmember Johnson. Well, first question is, am I talking to nighttime Willie or daytime Willie? Night. Nighttime Willie. I like nighttime Willie. So have you ever sold property to a municipality, and state, or a city, or you've been through that process? No. So you might want to know. And I think Paul should maybe hang around and talk with you . The eminent domain-- I'm not going to get into the legality of it. But ultimately, this group here would not determine what your property is worth. So there's a process. There's going to be a negotiation any time that they're buying something. Because the last thing that anybody really wants to do is use eminent domain. But ultimately, if you can't reach resolution, then that doesn't get decided by us. It doesn't even get decided in the city. And that would ultimately-- eminent domain authority lies with a judge somewhere. But you will decide if you use that method of negotiation, despite a will. I think ultimately, what we would prefer to happen would be that you could reach an amicable agreement to purchase the property. Very seldom, in my experience in the real estate business, does it ever get to the eminent domain part. Because frankly, everybody's going to spend a lot of money on attorneys that could just be changed hands for the property. So I just think it'd be good if you talk to Paul afterwards and let him explain to you what that process is. What's Paul's last name? Williamson. Williamson, OK. Because I think it's not what you think. Well, I've heard-- and I read in the paper what our own mayor went through. He deserved it, though. Oh, I thought my mic was off. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. And I've heard rumblings about what I'm going to be offered for my property. There's nowhere near what my property's worth to me. So rumblings is rumors. For the record, I wouldn't want to buy anything from you or sell anything to you, because you'd be tough to negotiate with. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? I used to like him, but I don't now. All right. Thank you, Mr. Espinosa. Thank you. OK, we have a motion and a second on the board. Let's vote, please. Oh, do we need to do something different? I think we read the whole motion in the survey. Yeah, OK. All right, yes, we're ready to vote. Motion carries, 6-0. Move on to agenda item 5B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Dent, Texas, determining the public use need and necessity for the acquisition of fee simple title to the surface of state. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Williamson will also present this item. Thank you, Paul. Mayor, members of the city council, this involves a tract out for the Denton Enterprise Airport , the West Parallel Runway Project. And before you tonight is an ordinance making findings of public use and necessity, authorizing staff to make offers to purchase, and if necessary, to use eminent domain to acquire the subject property tract for the Denton Enterprise Airport West Parallel Runway Project. Upon a favorable motion, I will proceed to display the effective property tract on the overhead screens. And we do have a speaker card on this, and we will take those comments after we have the motion in the second. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the city of Denton, after having made the offers required by state law, use of the power of eminent domain, if needed, to acquire fee simple to the surface estate, including waivers of surface use to the mineral estate of a 29.444 acre tract generally located-- I think, Mayor Pro Tem, I'm getting some indication. Are we on the right one? Actually, that motion, the recommended motion, is in the digital backup. Oh, I'm sorry. You're reading the motion for the next item. You're reading, I think, the next item. I'm sorry. I'll start over. You're handing me the same number. You're handing me the same number. OK. It's technology. All right. I move that the city of Denton, after having made the offers required by state law, use the power of eminent domain, if needed, to acquire fee simple to the surface estate, including waiver of surface use to the mineral estate of a 25.63 acre tract generally located on the north side of Tom Cole Road and being west of and adjacent to the city of Denton Enterprise Airport property and being situated in the William Wilborn Estate, abstract 1519-- 1419, excuse me-- Denton, Texas, Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described on exhibit A to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screen being now displayed to the audience, all of which is for a valid public use necessary to provide the expansion of aviation infrastructure and facilities to serve the public and the citizens of the city of Denton, Texas. Council Member Hawkins? Second. Thank you. Is that the complete staff presentation? All right. We have a motion and a second. Now will Mr. Willie Hussbett has filled out a card? OK. All right. He has indicated his desire not to speak. Council Member Briggs? Is this just open land? There's no homes or anything on the property? It's just open land? That's correct. Yes, it's farmland right now. It's prop land. Any other questions? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Let's vote, please. Motion carries 6-0. Move on to agenda 5C. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the seat of Denton, Texas, determining the public use, need, and necessity for the acquisition of fee simple title to the surface state, including a waiver of surface use to the mineral states of a 29.44 acre tract. Yes, Mayor, city council members. Tonight, before you, is an ordinance to make findings of public use and necessity, authorizing staff to make offers to purchase, and if necessary, to use eminent domain to acquire the subject property tract for the Denton Enterprise Airport West Parallel Runway Project. Upon a favorable motion, I will proceed to display the affected property tract on the overhead screens. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the city of Denton, after having made the offers required by state law, use of the power of eminent domain, if needed, to acquire fee simple to the surface of state, including waiver of surface use to the mineral state of a 29.44 four acre tract generally located and adjacent to the southwest boundaries of the city of Denton Enterprise Airport property, and being situated in the J. McDonald Survey abstract 873 Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described on exhibit A, to the ordinance now under consideration on the overhead screen being now displayed to the audience, all of which is for a valid public use necessary to provide the expansion of aviation infrastructure and facilities to serve the public and the citizens of the city of Denton, Texas. And well, OK, once it's been displayed. Council Member-- or Mayor Pro Tem Gregory. Second. You know, seconding these motions is a lot easier than making them. We have a motion to second. Does that conclude staff's presentation? That's complete. We do have a card of Mr. Willie Hudspeth. Would you like to-- all right. Thank you, sir. He waves his desire to speak at this time. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote, please. Motion carries 6-0. Now moving on to agenda items for agenda item 6, items for individual consideration. We have agenda item 6A, which is received certification of recall petition from the city secretary and gives staff direction. Thank you, Mayor and Council. On December 14, 2015, Ms. Alita Thomas, representing a committee of electors, submitted a petition for the recall of Council Member Hawkins. I have reviewed the elements of the petition required by the city charter, found the petition to be sufficient, and hereby certified that the petition is in compliance with the provisions of the city charter. The charter provides for a seven-day period for Council Member Hawkins to resign after being notified of the sufficiency of the petition. That time period is passed with Council Member Hawkins not resigning. Per the charter, Council is now required to order and fix the date for holding a recall election. An ordinance will be placed on the February 2, 2016 city council agenda for council's consideration to order a recall election for Council Member Hawkins on May 7, 2016. And I'll stand for questions. Any questions? Seeing none, Council Member Johnson. I don't really have a question. Can we comment? Sure. Sure, the item is appropriate posted. Mr. Mayor, I might make a comment as well. Yes. If I could. There is a provision in our city charter with regard to a timeframe to call this election. And the city secretary and I this afternoon spoke with the elections division of the secretary of state to confirm what we already believe to be the case, which is that state law does in fact preempt our charter and that the election will be held on regular election dates. The next regular election date, of course, is in May. So this recall will be had in May. All right. Thank you. Well, I just wanted to say, Council Member Hawkins, you're a first class individual and you don't deserve this. And I think it's a joke that less than 20 people registered to vote in your district who actually voted, signed your recall petition. And one of the main stated reason on your recall petition was that you didn't vote to uphold the fracking ban, in which case six of the seven of us should be recalled. I think it's making a mockery of the democratic process. And I look forward to campaigning alongside you. And it's just a shame that you have to spend time away from your family and your businesses to go through what you just went through again last year, campaigning, unopposed. So I apologize on behalf of all the voters in district four , of which I'm one, that you're having to go through this because it's a cooked up reason, three reasons to recall you. And that's, I'm quite confident not what the recall petition was designed for. And you've been a fine, upstanding member of this community and this council. You do a ton of stuff for our city and you serve my district well. Thank you. Any other comments? And my understanding is there's really no action here today . No, this is no action is required by the council. It's a certification from the city secretary. All right. Any other comments? All right, thank you. Moving on to agenda item seven, public hearings. Seven A is hold a public hearing and consider approval of updates to the city of Denton's mobility plan and travel demand modal of the Denton Roadways. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry about that, Mr. Husspeth. I will back up. Now it's my turn to make a mistake. Mr. Husspeth, I'm sorry. You got an agenda item. I guess because we didn't have an action item. You know, Mayor, you're just-- I'm sick. I've taken some cold medicine. You didn't give me a hug either. I apologize, sir. I too, in 1981, I think it was, see there, our first term or the second term was faced with a recall of sorts. The vote was very close and the challenger decided to have the votes recounted. Mr. Hawkins, I know exactly how you feel as far as the agony you must be going through, the questions you have. Why and what about-- and all of those things. So I'm not going to speak to that. I know what that's like. And I want to speak to the fact that when you do citizens, you council members, the way you've done citizens, this is what you get. Now, what did you do? You took the vote that the citizens cast to ban fracking and changed it. They voted. We voted in that election. And you, on your own, took that vote away. Well, that's what you get when you do people like that. County commissioners, they're going through that with me. Don't try to silence Americans by saying, I am the law. And you had better do what I say or you're going to get what for if you don't. When you do that in America, I'm telling you, we've been free for a long time. That's just not going to be acceptable. You can't do people like that. You should honor what the vote has stated. You can't come up with rules that satisfy you and just ignore people. You're going to get this all the time. I know, Mr. Hawkins, I like him. But I understand the voters. You had better stop doing that. And I can tell you something else. If you don't do something to fix that IOOF cemetery and let African-Americans be buried there, then by golly, you need to get rid of that darn cemetery. Give it back to whomever that it came from. And that's the same issue-- not same-- similar to this issue. I want IOOF removed or let blacks be buried there. You have not spoken to that. You've got to get the same thing in that situation as well. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Question for you, Mr. Henson, but a couple of them. You're aware that the council only revoked the ban on fracking after state law was passed. It's referred to as House Bill 40 for three different specific times. It said that cities could not enact or enforce a ban on fracking within the city limits. Are you aware of that? No. It was after House Bill 40 passed. Are you aware that our mayor actually went down to Austin to speak against passing House Bill 40 and that most of the council members lobbied our representatives in Austin to not pass House Bill 40, to not tie the voters' hands, the citizens' hands, on a fracking ban within the city limits. Are you aware of that? No. Well, that happened also. Are you aware that several of the leaders of the vote to ban fracking and the lawyer that they had hired to be-- what was the term that we used? Intervener. An intervener on our behalf. Several of those leaders and their lawyer recommended that the city revoke that ordinance, that because of the way that House Bill 40 was stated, that it was going to be a losing cause and that they would rather have a fight against House Bill 40 on a battleground that was more favorable to winning. Are you aware that that happened also? No. OK, well, I think that that might help you understand the predicament that the council was in at the time that we made that vote. Let me get some clarification on what I do understand. Did you vote? Did you raise your hand or push that button and say, I agree to the motion that we do not ban fracking? Did you answer that question before you give me some more rhetoric? Well, let me say this. So you're not going to answer that question. I contributed money to the-- You answered that one question. Did you vote? I did vote. To reverse what the voters had-- I voted to revoke the ban. To what? To revoke the ban. That's what the citizens read, as I read. That's what you're getting. And I was asking you questions to help you understand the context of that vote. You still could have voted against it. I mean-- Sure could have. You could have done that, right? You bet. But I think what you're communicating to me is had you done that-- well, I'm not sure what you're-- had you done that, then what would have happened? Had you voted against the ban? Well, I'm supposed to ask you questions. OK. And I can't predict all of the possibilities, but there were a number of different possibilities. OK. Yes. That's it. Any other questions? Don't see anything, sir. I do-- now that I've got an opportunity. Again, I apologize, Mr. Hussbuss, for overlooking your card on that. I'll try to correct that mistake on the ones moving forward . I do want to say I did, as well, vote to repeal that ban. And I am a firm believer in the rule of law. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything that the law allows, but I do believe in the rule of law. And I've served with you, Councilmember Hawkins, for several-- or a year. You took my spot. So in February, or whenever that vote is taken, because I believe in the rule of law, my vote will reflect that. But in no way does that vote reflect a lack of support for you as a council member or as a person. But it does support our charter, and it supports the laws of this city and the laws of this state. So I wanted to make sure that I clarified that with you. Any other questions or comments? OK. We'll move on to agenda item number seven. And we do have a speaker, for sure, Mr. Huspice. So I want to make sure that I don't overlook that. Again, I apologize for that. Public hearing number seven A is hold a public hearing, consider approval of the updates to the city of Denton's mobility plan and the travel demand modal of the Denton Roadway system. And I will-- I think our process has been to open the public hearing prior to staff presentation . So I will now open the public hearing, and we will take staff presentation and then entertain speakers after that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to ask Mr. PS Arora of our utilities division to present this public hearing for your consideration. Thank you, PS. Thank you, sir. Mayor, members of council, we'll be talking about the update to the existing mobility plan. We do have an existing plan that depicts on a master planning level the road network in the city. All of the collector's streets, the secondary arterials, and primary arterials are included in the mobility plan. Why do we need to update it at this time? We have some very large developments that have gotten a master plan community zoning designation , MPC, one of them being Hills of Denton, which is north of Loop 288 and generally in this area, Coal Ranch and Hunter Ranch. Between three of them, they comprise about 9,000 acres. And the street layout for those developments was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the city council. That is not included in the current mobility plan. Also, the city had annexed close to 10,000 acres in the city limits. There is no current street layout for all those annexed areas. So they had to be master planned. So that was also added to the-- had to be added to the mobility plan to update it. Beside that, as you are aware, we are working on the road impact fees. So we wanted to know what is the current capacity of the existing streets that is already used up based on the current number of lanes they got, what is the current capacity, and what is used up. We also wanted to know, based on the future traffic generation, do we need to upgrade some roads or downgrade some roads based on the projected traffic volumes. We also gave a task to the consultant to realign some existing streets so it would improve the traffic movement and reduce possible future construction conflicts, et cetera. To do that, a computer model were used-- so I will go through quickly what process we used to update the mobility plan. The first thing we did was we prepared a computer model for the existing road network. And to do that, we went out and in about 111 locations in the city-- as you can see all the dots right here-- they represent a particular segment of the road where traffic was counted. And that traffic count was done for the entire city. That way, we had a basis to calibrate the existing condition model. So the model was run, and we made sure that the results of the model matched what we were seeing in the streets out there based on the actual traffic counts. And you can see, based on the numbers right here, if it says 0 to 2,000, that's so many vehicles per day in a green designation, and up to 40,000 plus, which is red , which will be some of the roads 35 and Dallas Drive and part of the 380. So those are the highly traveled streets in the city. So we calibrated the existing condition model, which was tied to the actual traffic counts we had done. Then we had to project what will be the future traffic generated for the built out condition. To do that, we used the WRT, our consultant for planning department, which did the comprehensive plan update. So they came up with this future land use plan, which you see right here. This future land use plan was used to generate traffic through the entire city for the built out condition. And that data was then used to run the built out condition computer model and determine what roads needed to be secondary arterials, needed to be primary arterials, or needed to be collective streets. So we see right here is the proposed additions we did to the existing mobility plan, which is the master plan community. And you can see right here in this color right here, these are the roads that were added in the hills of Denton and Coal Ranch and Hunter Ranch. So all those roads were added to the existing mobility plan . Beside that, we had all of the annexed areas. So in the annexed areas, we added the new roads, as you can see all along here. And we added some roads for connectivity, for the north-south connectivity on both sides of the city. So these are the new roads. So these new roads and the MPC designation roads, they were all added. And we ran the model. Once we ran the model, as I had discussed earlier, we were looking at what the upgrades are needed, which will be going from a secondary arterial to say a primary arterial, which is the airport road between Marsh Branch and 35W. So the traffic generation shows it to be between 25,000 to 40,000 vehicle trips in the built-out condition, which means that it needs to be a primary arterial. So it was upgraded from a secondary to a primary. And then we went through the whole-- all of the roads to look at the traffic. We looked at the need for connectivity. And there are 21 upgrades in the entire city. This is the table that you see right here. You have in your packet the actual map that shows all of the roads that have been upgraded. And there were some downgrades, because what we saw was that the future traffic generation did not justify a particular current designation for the street. So Bobcat Road has a secondary arterial designation. The traffic generation only shows it to be 2,000 trips at the most, which then we were looked at the current designation and downgraded to Collector Street. So we went through the entire city. And there are eight downgrades in the entire city from the current designation to a lower designation. The task that consultant had was to realign some of the roads, as I discussed earlier. This was to improve the traffic flow that we have currently . And it does not change the designation of the street from secondary to primary or primary to secondary. The designation is still the same. It is just a change in alignment, slight change in alignment based on floodplain. Or there may be some buildings out there that we need to stay away from or look at existing lot lines to see what is the least amount of disturbance we can create. So those are the things that we looked at realignment. So once we compiled all of that, the MPCs, the realignments , the newly annexed area streets, this is the proposed mobility plan that we have got right now. So it shows the existing roads as primary arterials, which are, as you can see right here, existing. The future primary arterial roads are shown with a dash yellow and red, which you can see right here. Along here, Post Oak Road, Mayhill Road, part of that. And secondary arterials are the future are the green with the small yellow in between them. And you will see those along here and in this area. Excuse me. So this was then the basis to run the future condition model. We had the floodplain, which was the WRT, future land use plan. So we determined all the traffic generation. And this road network was used to run the model. What we see here then is that in the green, if you see the green color, it shows that it has a level of service A or B, which is pretty much in the entire city. So the future traffic generation that we have, and with the road layout that we got, it meets our A or B condition for most of the city. There is some tolerable, because there's substantial traffic. We don't really need a primary arterial, say in this case, or it may be a Loop 288, which is a textile road. Same thing for University Drive. So several of those are textile roads, which whenever textile improves those roads, we may have a better traffic condition, which will be for 35W, and so on. This plan had, we had gone through a public hearing process at Planning and Zoning Commission. It was presented to the Mobility Committee and to the Traffic Safety Commission. In the public hearing at P&G, it was recommended for approval 620, and staff recommends approval. I stand for any questions. >> Okay, we have some questions for staff before we take public comment. Council Member Hawkins. >> Thank you, PS, for this. I know we're pretty much trying to just clean up. It seemed like the mobility plan include Hills of Denton, Coal Ranch, Hunter Ranch, but I just wanted to make sure, there's no significance, like with future repairs of a street or anything when a street gets downgraded. I mean, that has nothing to do with this. >> No, sir. All it is, if it is a secondary arterial and it went down to Collector Street, all that means is in the future, whenever that street is done, then it will be having right of way of a Collector Street and the pavement width of a Collector Street. >> Gotcha. Thank you. Council Member Briggs. >> Hi. I was at this P&Z meeting, and there were a few issues or things that came up during the meeting, and I just kind of want to see if they've been corrected, and this is what we're voting on or kind of ask you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Do you know what I'm talking about? >> Yes. >> About the road going through the nature area. >> The post-hoc alignment was redone. >> That was redone, so that is not in this. And also, the right of way that was taken, there was a gentleman that lived in the area and said that we have given up our right of way. Has that been solved? Do you know? >> I'm talking about the intersection of Bonnie Bray and the 380 in that area. >> I think it's in the same area in the Clear Creek. >> I'm sorry? >> In the Clear Creek. It's in the same area. >> Oh, yeah, yeah. We actually realigned. Let me go back to that. >> Okay. >> Okay. So in this area, and you will see that we did not go towards this area right here. We moved the road away. >> Okay. >> So it's not coming straight through, and it's not impacting any of these properties. >> Okay, good. And another thing that there were a lot of bikers concerned and that this plan did not include bike lanes or sidewalks. And I'm not, and it was brought up that that could be addressed later. Is there a way to do that or? >> Yeah, as we go through the impact free process, we will be presenting actual cross sections that we are using. And, you know, there is already a bike plan approved by the council. >> Okay. >> And that will be preserved, so those bike lanes will be done as part of the plan. >> Okay, so they'll go together. >> And also the right of way that we have for collector streets or primary or secondary arterials, if there is a desire to add a bike lane or actually to have bike facility, it can be done on the side path which can be expanded from a five foot to a eight foot or a ten foot, like it's being done on Bonnie Bray or Mehill Road, where the sidewalk is actually much wider than a five foot sidewalk. So the bikes, people riding a bike can actually use that. And there's enough right of way that would allow us to do that, whether it is a collector street or an arterial street. Any of those will have the real estate, if you will, that would allow us to do what we want to do. >> And last question, did I hear you say that you had a consultant on this project? >> I'm sorry? >> You had a consultant? >> Yes, we used Kimneyhorn. We had initially hired Kimneyhorn to do the road impact fees and we determined that our current mobility plan was woefully inadequate, so we added the computer model to be done as part of the project. >> Thank you. >> To update the mobility plan. >> Thanks. >> Councilmember Wozni. >> I just want to go on the record on behalf of my constituents in a neighborhood called The Vintage, which is down by Fire Station 7. And the current plan calls for Vintage Boulevard to be a six-lane expansion. Now that goes in between four lanes of 35W and two lanes of 377. So you've got six lanes connecting an interstate highway with four lanes and a county road with two lanes. But the neighborhood has objected to this in the past. I just want to carry their objections forward. And if there's something that the city can look at as we move forward, I know that this project is partially funded, but I know that those neighborhoods are not happy about a six-lane road coming right through the middle. >> Okay. And Vintage Boulevard, you know, is currently shown exactly as what is in the current mobility plan, which is a primary arterial. You do realize, Councilmember Wozni, that Fort Worth Drive, TextDOT is ready to expand that road. And we actually have a project already starting very soon to work on the utilities on Fort Worth Drive. And then TextDOT will go and upgrade that road to a six-lane highway. >> Well, I'm just saying the people who live in The Vintage are not happy about a six-lane road. And I just want to carry their voices forward. And make that as part of the record tonight. >> Okay. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> I just have one last question that I thought of. We were trying to do the McKinney Street with TextDOT. And I just wanted to make sure that anything in this plan was not going to hold that project up if we're -- or is it -- does it include that or is it -- >> This will not hold any projects. >> Hold anything -- okay. >> No, it will not. >> Just checking. Thank you. >> Councilmember Johnson. >> Yes, just for clarification for the citizens. A lot of the new streets that you're showing as a part of those master plan communities, if my understanding is correct, those will be built in many cases by the developer and not by the city. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff before we take public comment? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you, PS. We have a card. Mr. Willie Hussbuth, if you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. Thank you, sir. >> My name is Willie Hussbuth. I live at 623 Newton. Councilmember Wasney, I noticed you didn't get an answer, which the answer that you were seeking for is I thought, yes, we're going to change that and give the citizens what they need there or no, we're not going to change it. And it's tough. They can just make do. I think you should have said, yes, we could change that. I think. Look at this master plan that you're planning to do in our city. All of this stuff, well, I hope you guys can understand what he was talking about. I don't have a clue. Let me just give you some of my plans. Put something on the ground for the students at Ryan to be safe. Put dirt down there. Put gravel. Put something. You keep giving us excuses about how much time it's going to take to get the right sidewalks. Kids are being hurt. The next student that gets hurt on that road, you can bet I'll be down here. I promise you, I will be right here at this podium saying, what is wrong with you? Put something out there so that they can walk on in this master plan. I just thought about that as I saw all these lines going all over the place. Something else. You got planning and zoning looking at this. You got this impact study. You got all these plans that he's talking about. How about just somebody like me who drives these streets all day long? How about some of us talk to us about some things that we see? That would help you, I think. Maybe not. For example, how much time do I have? Two minutes. For example, you own Eagan going to bail, and you have to turn left going on bail. And you have, Lord help me, a white line. Say, do not cross the white line. And you want to go into Southeast Denton. Remember, Eagan, bail, white line, Dallas drivers, they're coming, and they're coming fast all the time. And you want to exit to go into Southeast Denton. There is no way. You're going to get a horn blown at you every time you try to do that. Put me on that study. I can tell you some other things that impact study so that I can tell you some other things. Jago. You're at Jago and Oak. Oak running into Jago. Drive it tomorrow, please. How do you know that if you're in the far right lane that you're supposed to go to the left lane? How do you know? How does the car in the left lane know it's supposed to go to the far left? There's no lines. Put that in impact study. Another one. Teasley Lane. You're on Teasley Lane, and you want to go-- you're trying to go on Dallas Drive. You get on Dallas Drive, and you go under the trestle. There is a white line that tells you, now, I'm one of the weirdos. I don't cross the white line. It's insane. You don't cross-- they won't let you over if you go the distance that that white line shows. And the last one-- I know you're not following this. I don't care. I just want to say it. I've been wanting to say it forever. Bail that one. Darn. Time's up. Well, those are my concerns. Put some citizens on that panel, and let them help you figure out that panel, but in this discussion, figure out what the city needs. We have a question. Councilmember Briggs. Do you know Mr. Davis? Davis. Wait. Davis. Yeah. He might be-- What is Davis, Mr. Davis? He's an engineer. He's very helpful. You may want to talk to him about your ideas sometimes. Good. I'm Willie Hadsbe. [LAUGHTER] As if you didn't know. Anything else? Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you, sir. Good. You got my number. This is a public hearing. We have no more cards. But if anybody else is wishing to speak, please come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. Talking about agenda item 7A. Zach Youngblood, 836 Hawes Drive, Copper Canyon, 75077. Mr. Mayor, council members, it's a well-established fact in traffic engineering that if you build capacity, it will fill. And I think that as the plans stand right now, there is poor integration between the mobility plan, which focuses on single passenger vehicular traffic, both for commercial-- all vehicular traffic, various transit options through DCTA , the bike plan, and any pedestrian issues. So I think that some of the best master plans I've seen for mobility do a great job of integrating all modes of transit, and not necessarily just saying, you know, it is Texas. We love our cars. We love our oil. But you do know that things like carbon pricing is on the way. Gas prices are going to go up. And these roads, I know this is a 2030 or 2050 plan. We're looking at 10, 20 years down the line, where the situation in Denton will change. Even now, it's moving from many plots that were single-family use are moving to multi-family units. And density in the city center is increasing. So the city's character is changing, but in a good way, I would think. Additionally, I would like to say that I think the downgrading of EGLE from a secondary arter ial to a collector is in major error. As a UNT student, I've driven that route many times in the last year. And I know that the counters were out during the same time that the resurfacing and utility work was going on. And myself and many other students who would normally go down EGLE all the way to North Texas Boulevard or further-- yeah, all the way to North Texas Boulevard from Carroll or Fort Worth Drive would instead get off at Bernard Welch in order to avoid the extensive construction which has been going on along that stretch of EGLE. I have a couple of questions for you. Councilmember Briggs. You're saying an integrated plan might be a better way to go to make sure it all gets incorporated into one? Yes, ma'am. I think that's a good idea. Mayor Pro Tem. So you're advocating for a road design that does more to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists? Absolutely. That's exactly what the change in status of EGLE is designed to do. Now, what I heard was that there was a possibility of a lane diet in order to move to adding the bicycle infrastructure. That's the plan. Is that the end goal of the resurfacing project? I beg your pardon? Is the adding of bicycle lanes part of the end goal of that resurfacing project? The mobility plan calls for a road diet on EGLE Drive for it to go to one lane in each direction, a continuous center lane, and a bicycle lane in each direction. See, that's what I'm thinking is that your counts that you 're reading right now are from the period of construction, and I don't think that's an accurate read. Well, there had been counts before that. So what I'm trying to tell you is we're trying to accommodate what I think I hear you asking for. Well, that's one street. I'm talking system-wide. OK. I understand. Councilmember Johnson. Yes, sir. Thank you. I was just going to say you might get John Davis, if you could get with him afterwards. And so we have invested in a bicycle and pedestrian coordinator at the city. On our mobility committee, every month that we meet, we're talking about roads, cars, bicycles, pedestrians, dealing with-- part of the challenge we have in the city is many of our roads are textile roads. But I think we could certainly get you hooked up with those folks so that you can understand, let them share with you, and they could answer your questions. But let them share with you the coordinated plan. I will agree with you that some years ago, I don't think it was well coordinated, but we have spent quite a bit of time, effort, and money to get that all coordinated, and invested in a person specifically to do that. I definitely understand what you're saying, but I would have to agree with Mr. Hudspeth regarding the lack of sidewalks over on Eath McKinney. That demonstrates that you're just not talking to Tex.dot in a loud enough voice. I was just trying to help you out. I understand. There's probably some good resources for you. Thanks. OK, any other questions? Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak, please come down and state your name and address, and your time in for agenda item 7A. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak? Seeing no movement, we will close the public hearing. Council Member Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of item 7A. Council Member Johnson. Second. OK, we got a second. Before we take a vote, Council Member Briggs. I just wanted to confirm that the other plans, the bike plan and the other, are all going to be integrated together, even though we're not seeing it visually. Question for staff? I think I just wanted to make sure that that's still all-- Yeah, the bike plan stands on its own. So that will be integrated with all the road work that will be done. Any rehab is done or any expansion is done of a road where there's a bike lane to be built. That will be part of it. There's no way to show that on this map here. Thank you. OK, we have a motion. I believe we recognize the second. So let's vote on the board, please. Seeing no more questions. Motion carries 6-0. We'll now move on to agenda item 7B, which is public hearing. Hold a public hearing and consider a specific use permit to allow basic utility, a Denton Municipal Electric substation on approximately 6.2 acres within a downtown commercial general DCG district. And we will now open the public hearing to hear staff presentation and then subsequent public comments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to ask Amy Bissett, our Director of Development Services, to present his public hearing. Thank you, Amy. Thank you, Mayor and council members. The first public hearing that I'll be presenting tonight is a consideration of a specific use permit for a subst ation. This project is a part of an overall transmission and distribution upgrade plan that's a part of Denton Municipal Electric's CIP program from 2013 to 2017. It includes one of 43 improvements to the CIP program. And it's a project that's been in the public hearing for a long time. It includes one of 43 improvement projects-- or this is one of 43 improvement projects, including multiple new substations, upgrades to existing substations, and other upgrades to lines as well. And this specific project is intended to replace an existing substation on Locust Street. You're considering tonight the approval of a specific use permit for a substation on approximately 6.2 acres. This is located on the southwest corner of South Locust Street and West Collins Street. Here's an aerial view of the property. You can notice I'm running north to south. On the east side is Locust. And then on the north, running east to west, is Collins. There are four tracts of land in this property. One of them has a body shop on it. One is partially developed with a small commercial building . And the other two are undeveloped today. Here are some site photos of the property. Here are some photos of nearby small neighborhood of single-family homes across Collins Street. This is an aerial of the zoning district. This is zone DCG, which is Downtown Commercial General. Basic utilities are allowed by right or by SUP in all zoning districts in the city of Denton. They're allowed by SUP and DCG. Here is a site plan. And this includes two access points on Collins and two access points on Locust Street. The applicant is designing a 10-foot masonry wall to screen the substation from the surrounding area. And they're providing for enhanced landscaping along Collins to provide a buffer between the substation and the residential homes. Here is an example of what the screening wall would look like. It screens the equipment itself. And 10-foot tall covers most of that that sits on the ground. Here's a rendering of what the area will look like along Collins Street. You'll notice on the left-hand side of the screen, the masonry wall. And then there is a three-foot landscaping buffer, followed by an eight-foot sidewalk, and then an 11 and 1/2-foot parkway with street trees that will all provide an enhanced buffer to the neighbors across the street. Considerations that we looked at-- substations are essential. We cannot provide the electric infrastructure we need to provide to the community without them. When it is necessary to put them in an urban area, it should be designed to create the least impact possible on surrounding properties. DME has worked with the neighborhood, held neighborhood meetings to provide opportunities for feedback so that they can create a design that minimized the impact. A 10-foot masonry wall will screen the interior components of the substation. And the enhanced landscaping that I showed in the previous depiction will be across from the existing single-family homes. Public notifications went out on November 18. 29 public notices were sent, and 79 courtesy notices were sent. To date, we've received zero in opposition, three in favor, and zero neutral. Staff recommends approval of S15-0011, subject to the following conditions-- one, that the substation be screened by a minimum 10-foot masonry wall, and two, that the substation comply with the attached site plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval as well, subject to the conditions above. The applicant is here if you have questions. Council Member Hawkins. Sure, it might be for the applicant or Amy, but I think this has come up before, even with the King's Row SUP. And we had talked about trying to collapse the timeline a little bit. And I just wondered if we have had any further conversation with that. I mean, the first meeting DME had was October of 2013. Then city council approves the site in August of 2014. And then we are deciding on the SUP now. And I just think that could create some problems, you know, if there's a different renter or somebody sells a home or something like that. We do recognize that long timeline. And Development Services has been working with DME and with the legal department to streamline some processes. And part of that's related to DDC requirements so that when we're going through the public hearing process , it is within an acceptable time frame, and conditions don't change. Glad we're working on it. Thank you. Any more questions from staff before we take public comment ? Seeing none, thank you. I want to give the applicant an opportunity to speak if they so desire. Is the applicant present? And do they wish to speak? All right, no. Then we'll move on to our cards. Mr. Willie Hespeth, you'll come down, state your name and address. Your time will begin. Mayor and council members, my name is Willie Hespeth. I live at 623 Newton. Would you put the slide up just before the rendering? OK. And then I'm going to ask that you move to the rendering after I make a couple of comments. If you look at the wall, 10 feet, notice that you can see right over it and see all the electrical wiring. So my question to you is, what good is the wall? You see all the work, all the stuff that's there. What good is the wall? If it's 10 feet tall and all of the-- much of the workings behind it can be seen. Now, go to the rendering right after that. This is the elephant in the room. OK, you got the site there. This thing is in Collins. As I can remember where that is, it's right by-- it's right in a neighborhood. I guess we need these things. I'm sure we do. But look at that drawing. Two people walking along holding hands as though it's a good thing that that thing is there. It's not. Now, this is the elephant in the room. It's unsightly. But I guess you're saying we need it. Couldn't we have done something better than that, that wall that's not really covering very much? That's my only concern. OK, any questions? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Esmeth. I have no more cards, at least, on this agenda item. But this is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. Anybody wishing to speak? Zach Youngblood, 836 Hawes Drive, Copper Canyon, 75077. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I am going to have to agree with Mr. Hudspeth in his assessment that having driven past the station that's on the south side of University of Nibani-Bray, that 10-foot stone wall is ugly. It doesn't really abate anything. And it seems like DME and development are going towards this really cookie cutter thing that is not exactly screening or adding any sort of character to what could be an area for public art. Instead, you have the rough surface to bricks, which I understand it's because it doesn't take paint well. But I personally am of the opinion that instead of anti-graffiti things like spikes and surfaces, this is a great place for public art, things of that nature. I would much rather see things like that mural that is set at the corner of Scripps and Bonnie Bray for, I don't know, as long as I've been alive. I don't know how many years before that. Something along those lines, beautifying the streets of Denton instead of just another 10-foot tall brick wall. That's all. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Appreciate that. Since it's a public hearing, anybody else wishing to speak? Anybody else wishing to speak? We will close the public hearing for agenda item 7B. Any Councilmember Briggs? I just wanted to go on record as Councilman Hawkins said that this was done a long time ago, and there's two Councilmem bers here that didn't take part in the site selection or approval of the site or anything, so I just kind of wanted to go in on record and say that. This was not something I saw from beginning to now. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Chair would entertain a motion if colleagues are so inclined. Councilmember Hawkins? Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of item 7B. Mayor Pro Tem? Second. We have a motion to second for agenda item 7B. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion passes 5 to 1. Moving on to agenda item 7C, is hold a public hearing and enable -- excuse me -- hold a public hearing and consider a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings on two properties on neighborhood residential mixed use 12 in our MU 12. The subject properties are approximately .24 and .33 acres. We will now open the public hearing and staff make the presentation and then we'll take public comments. Thank you, Mayor. Amy Bissett, our Director of Development Services, will also present this public hearing. Thank you, Mayor and Councilmembers. This public hearing is to consider a specific use permit for a multifamily project. Meadowview lofts is located at 609 and 612 Meadowview Court in an NRMU 12 designation. Here's an aerial view of the property. It is zoned NRMU 12. The background on this site is that it was originally a planned development that was approved in 1970 for apartments on the entire property that you see here. In 1972, Meadowview Court platted it into its current configuration. In 1984, PD 8, the planned development, amended -- was amended to permit four plexes on seven of the eight lots along Meadowview Court, including the two that we're contempl ating today. In 1985, five of the seven duplexes were constructed. In 2002, citywide rezoning initiative rezoned PD 8 into NRM U 12 in the rezoning, and four plexes, which are considered multifamily, require an SUP approval in NRMU 12. Site photos. The site plan shows existing four plexes on the remainder of this property. The development was intended to be multifamily four plexes from the beginning when the PD was created in 1970. Here's some elevations. The property has been intended for multifamily since 1970. The proposal is consistent in scale and density of the surrounding properties, and it does comply with the criteria for approval. Public notifications were mailed out on November 18th. Twenty-two were sent. Site mail and 65 courtesy notices were sent. To date, we've received one in opposition and one neutral. During the public engagement process, there was a neighbor, the neighbor to the west of this piece right here, as a single-family residence. He came out during the planning and zoning commission meeting and asked for a screening wall to be added as a condition. And so I'm going to share a little bit more detail about that. Staff does recommend approval of this with a maximum density of each lot being four units, and that each building shall be no greater than two stories in height, and that the development substantially comply with the attached site plan. The planning and zoning commission recommends approval as well with the same three conditions that staff had, but they've added additional condition, which was that the applicant construct a privacy fence along the western property line of 612 Me adowview Court. During the conversation with the planning and zoning commission, the applicant was not there. The applicant's representative was there, and the applicant 's representative indicated that they were uncomfortable committing at that time to constructing the privacy fence without the applicant knowing that that was going to be a condition that was placed. So at the time, the planning and zoning commission asked that we facilitate a conversation with the applicant to determine their willingness to construct a privacy fence. Planning and zoning commission said they'd also be willing to consider a landscape buffer instead. The applicant, however, has said that they are happy to construct a privacy fence. We would ask you all to provide a little more direction on what that would look like. The conversation that we have had with them is that it would be an eight-foot tall privacy fence, board-on-board construction, and the applicant is fine with that. I do believe they're here if you have any questions, and with that, I'm finished with the staff presentation. >> Let me go back to the chart. Okay. Staff has completed the presentation. Do we have any questions for staff prior to public comment? This is a public hearing. Seeing none, thank you. Is the applicant here, and would they like to speak? >> I'll answer this question. >> On answer this question, at least at this point, does council have any questions for applicants? There may be some that come up during the discussion, but any questions for applicants? Seeing none, thank you. We do have a card. Mr. Willie Hutsbeth, he desires not to speak at this time. Any other questions? Well, this is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to comment on this agenda item 7C, please come down and feel free to state your name, address, and your time will begin. >> Zach Youngblood, 836 Hawes Drive, Copper Canyon, 75077. Mr. Mayor, councilmembers, I would just like to say, as I mentioned earlier in the mobility plan discussion, the city is increasing in density. We have right here two lots moving from single family permit to the special use permit for the multifamily dwelling, even if it is just a fourplex instead of a oneplex or a twoplex. I think that's wonderful. I think that's -- I love density. I will admit, I lived in Austin for a few years, and that wasn't dense enough, but I think that this is a great thing. And that's a beautiful neighborhood up there, and I think fourplexes will be a good addition, and that will be eight happy families in that neighborhood. >> Any questions? All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak, please come down and state your name, address, and your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak? If not, we will close the public hearing. Councilmember Johnson? >> Thank you, Mayor. I would move approval with the added condition that the applicant build an eight-foot board-on-board privacy fence bordering the back of the 612 property. >> Okay. Councilmember Hawkins? >> I second. >> We have a motion and a second. Let's vote, please. >> It didn't show up on my screen. Sorry. Motion carries 6-0. Yeah, it didn't show up. So, I apologize for that delay. We'll move on to agenda item 7D, which is hold a public hearing, consider adoption, adopting a resolution regarding the proposed site for construction, expansion, and use of an electric power transmission distribution substation located along both the east and west side of South Mayhill Road between Spencer Road to the north and Parker's Page Road to the south. And prior to staff presentation, I will now open the public hearing. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I would like to ask Mr. Brett Smith, I'm sorry, Mr. Brett Heath, sorry, Brett, the DMA. It's been a long day, Brett, to make this public hearing presentation. Thank you, Brett. >> Mayor, Council, good evening. We're here tonight to talk about the new Mayhill substation and the transmission line that's going to run south from Mayhill substation to our existing Parker substation. The executive summary is that DMA does have a problem. We have great growth and agent infrastructure as the problem that we're trying to resolve. We have a responsibility to respond to that problem, both as an electric provider here in the city of Denton and also a regulatory responsibility from the filings that we have to do at the federal government. We have a public involvement process to allow for citizen input, and we do consider all of the practical options and would desire to move forward with the most sensible approach that has the least impact and the most support. DMA continues to perform analysis on our submitted FERC 715 studies. In April this past year, we submitted the fifth one. That's an annual requirement. We'll be doing the sixth FERC 715 study, which is mathematical modeling of our entire system and how it integrates with the state of Texas electrical grid. And so that's a NERC compliance requirement. We are looking at rebuilding the transmission line that exists along an electrical route, and rebuilding on the existing route is a feasible option. We also looked at some alternative options, and the original line is a Brazos electric power cooperative line that was built at 69 kV. This easement, which I'll show here in a moment, was actually dedicated by easements in the 1947-48 timeframe, and when Brazos left the city of Denton area, that was deeded over the city of Denton back in 1987. So rebuilding this transmission line to operate at 138 kV will address the two key factors that we have, which is system growth and agent infrastructure. The Mayhill substation project is a budgeted CIP project for the DME. It's shown as item number 12. It's part of the -- located in the east-southeast side of Denton right here for a new Mayhill substation to kind of give you a general graphical idea of where this is at. Besides the substation, rebuilding the transmission line is also an approved budgeted CIP project, and it's identified as budget project number three in this area. We used an engineering consultant named Power Engineers to look at a constraints map and put this together of what type of obstructions exist presently between the POCR substation down here in the bottom section. This is I-35 POCR substation along the existing transmission easement that we own that a line is not presently built on, and then the old Brazos line goes right through the Pecan Creek Mobile Home Park and goes across several properties here, the Nems Greb property, Haggard, and Jodoy. It then goes around the backside of the Rosa Cafe and comes back over to the Spencer Complex, the campus here. And so the orange areas that are shown here are the residential areas. This purple square down here is a small family cemetery. We held a open house on September 30th, 2013. We held this in the lobby of the Denton Regional Medical Center Professional Building. We sent out 610 notifications, and the public hearing did what it was intended to do. We had citizens that showed up, people that owned land out here. They got off to the side. They talked among themselves to see what would impact them the least, knowing that we needed to build this substation and transmission line. So that was good. The group actually did ask why are we showing possibly putting substations on the west side of Mayhill Road and south side of Spencer? We only needed to pick one of the sites, so only one was needed. And they said, "Why don't you move it over east of Mayhill? Put it on the city of Denton-owned property, the landfill, and why don't you give that a try?" So we thought, "That's a really good suggestion. Let's investigate that option." One of the other things that they also asked is instead of moving the substations here to the east side of the landfill, is at the same time, we might also want to look further south as we go through the Pecan Creek Mobile Home Park. Instead of cutting diagonally through the mobile home park or going down the drainage channel to go up Mayhill, why don't we investigate coming along the backside, along the golf course and stay on the city of Denton property? Once again, another great suggestion. So this map right here, this red line, this clouded area will show you the only areas that we're really talking about tonight from Parker subst ation along the existing easements that we own, going along the backside of the trailer park on city of Denton property landfill coming up Mayhill to the substation on the city of Denton property. This is the only area that we're talking about during this public hearing tonight. After we had these items to look at, we went ahead and met with Vance Kimmler, the director of solid waste and landfill, and we asked him, "Is this something that we could consider?" He said, "Actually, here by Foster Road, this is really a good place to build one because it does not impact any of the city of Denton landfill cells that are permitted." So he said that would be something that could be considered . We also had heard as we were talking with him that the city fire department was considering a fire station possibly here. They're investigating several sites and this was just one of the sites. So we wanted to see if we both went in this area, could that fit and co-locate? And the answer was yes. In further south, instead of going diagonally through the mobile home park or going down the drainage ditch to go up Mayhill, to go up the existing route, would this also work back here? And since this is a city of Denton property, Vance Kimmler said yes, that would also work as well. And then go along the backside of the trailer park along the golf course here, outside of the trailer park fence. So the public involvement steps that we've done today is September 30th, 2013. We did meet, as I mentioned, the professional building. After we had these suggestions, looked at them, we met with Mr. Donley on the property since that was his suggestion to go around the backside of the trailer park, told him that was something that we could actually do. He seemed very pleased about that. We also met and conversed with several of the affected land owners, the Nams Grubb family, the Haggard's family, and Mr. Joe Doy with RTS and M. And we then talked about the Mayhill Road Project, knowing it was going through there, would this also be a compatible use with that? So we met with the City Engineering, Real Estate, and Legal Departments at the City of Denton. And we also wanted to see if there's any other municipal area needs with the Fire Department, City Engineering, Solid Waste, and Legal and Real Estate. We then discovered by going on this yellow route on the backside of the trailer park that there were about a dozen homes that were not previously notified through the mail out because it exceeded and they were outside of the 500 foot courtesy boundary notice that we sent out. So we held a second open house May 28th, 2015, this year at the Center of the Visual Arts. At that second open house, we mailed out 405 notifications. 12 people attended and one comment card was turned in. And it did support, that one comment card did support the yellow route along the backside of the mobile home park. So the recommendation based on the citizen comments received from both open houses, September 30th, 2013, May 28th, 2015, and the Public Utilities Board December 14th public hearing, which was a unanimous 7-0 vote. Staff recommends moving forward with the yellow transmission line route and utilizing the city of Denton landfill property for the substation. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions now or after we hear from the public. Any questions for staff before public comment? Seeing none, thank you. Okay. We've got some cards that we'll process through and then it is a public hearing, so anybody wishing to come down can speak. Mr. Willie Hudspeth, please state your name and address and your time will begin. Mayor, Councilman, my name is Willie Hudspeth, I live at 6 23 Newton. Point of order, if I decide not to speak and then someone comes up and says something, can I come back and speak after that? If I hadn't spoken before. Madam City Attorney, I think there's some discretion with the Chair as far as allowing it. I don't have an issue with that. No, sir. I just wondered because after my new friend spoke, I had something to say. But I just want to know. Yes, sir. What is the general's name? What is your name? Ray. Now, he did it the way I think you should do it. He put forth the effort to ask the citizens what they thought, researched what they thought, realized he made a mistake, came back and said, well, we're going to resend it again because I sent out the notification again and that's the way it should be done. Used city property. I'm not saying used city property all the time. What he did in his group is what I keep advocating to you or saying to you, you do that sometime. I must say the City Council of all the other municipalities that I speak for, school district, county commissioner's court, you're very good at interacting and asking questions of me and I really do respect that. You're not supposed to be there just to do what I say or anyone else. There should be some give and take, some discussion about things that we're talking about. I think that's the way it's supposed to be. I shouldn't just be here and hate people like I do Mr. Johnson. That is not what I'm sorry. I'm just kidding. So this I'm just saying now mark this down because I'm not going to do this often. This is the way it was. This was done the way it should be done. The way that this young man did this time. That's all I was. Thank you. And the young man at that. Questions? Yes. I have a question. I'm sorry, Mr. Eskimos. We had a couple of questions. It's this interaction that you're desirous of. Mayor Pro Tem. Do you know how much I appreciate it when you balance those criticisms with praise? I appreciate it. And I think maybe we ought to do all of these sessions after eight o'clock. Late night. You're great. Late night willies wonderful man. Actually, I visited with you in the middle of the day and you and your pleasant. Yeah. Councilmember Johnson. Did you know that I'm really glad that nighttime Willie is here again passing out comments. See you used to hand out comments like they were manhole covers. Compliments. Not comments. Comments are plentiful. But the compliments. I just really want to thank you for doing that. And people are going to start to think you really hate me if you keep saying that. Oh, I. So we're going to do a public hug after this since these two would not. I know. But when you wave to me today, I didn't know how many fingers you were holding up. I heard the comment, but I couldn't see. OK. All right. Thank you. The next speaker will be Joe Doyle. Please come down. State your name and address and your time will begin. So you're wishing not to speak. OK. All right. Do you want your card read into the record as far as your position on this or are you just pulling your card altogether? OK. Joe Doyle, address 5956 Sherry, number 1000 Dallas is in opposition. And the next speaker on the card will be Bill Vaughn. If you come down, state your name and address. Your time will begin. My name is Bill Vaughn. I live at 401 Marshall Road in South Lake, Texas. And I'm actually speaking on behalf of the Spencer family. And Joe Doyle is a member of that family. That's affected by the Mayhill station. The Spencer family, as it was referenced earlier, dates back to the 1930s in the Denton area. So it's safe to say they were settlers of this community. There's a funny ad on television right now where there's a guy plowing his front yard and his son walks up and says, you know, he's unhappy with the cable service they have or something. He says, Dad, you know, what's up with this? Why do we do this kind of stuff? And he says, son, because we're settlers. We settle for stuff. And anyway, he laughed. He thought it was funny. The Spencer family settled for the dump going in across the street from their family farm. And you can imagine over the generations how difficult that has been to literally live across the street from the city dump. And we have had numerous meetings with the -- with the municipal -- Denton municipal electric. And we believe that a lot of our comments have really fallen on deaf ears. And I don't know the best way -- I don't know what procedure is, but I have a few exhibits I'd like to give. And I -- Well, you can either put them there and the overhead camera will project them onto the television screen or if you have copies for the city council members, you can hand them to the city secretary. Does that -- Yeah, the overhead will kick in here soon. Yes, sir. Okay. If you'll notice the lower -- the southernmost of these is the proposed station. And those topographic lines on there are not all that leg ible. But within this map, that particular location that they have proposed right here is the highest elevation on this entire map. So essentially what you will have is the Mayhill station sitting up there. And then beyond that it's going to go very, very, very high . The other problem that we believe this plan is a little bit half-baked is that they're planning on coming up here, so they've got heavy power lines coming in here. Then they're going to turn around and reverse their course and come back here, cut across the Spencer property. Now there is an existing right-of-way there, but it's for a much lower voltage power line. This is a massive power line that's going in there. We've been advised by legal counsel that that would constitute a different type of right-of-way taking in order to cut back across this property. So we tend to believe that that is in fact accurate because it's much, much different than the power lines that are there on that property. And the bigger, heavier lines require a wider path as well. But it's our understanding and all the conversations that we've heard where city council has reported on this and based upon some of the things they've done in other parts of the city that aesthetics truly are important in the way that this project goes in. Our proposal would be slightly different, which would be to move this Mayhill station about 1,000 feet north. This is the proposed station. It would be to move it up here 1,000 feet north. It's still on the dump side of the property. It keeps these heavy power lines off of what is going to be one of the more developable pieces of property in Denton. And I can speak with some authority on that. I'm the immediate past president of the North Texas Land Council, past three-term president, which is the top 50 land brokers and developers in the Metroplex. And if, in fact, this were allowed to go further up north here, then the property on this side of the road is also owned by the city. Then it would cut across an existing Atmos gas line as well as the back of the FEMA site across an existing self-storage facility and then across the Lowe's parking lot to reconnect with that. We've been in contact with the Lowe's people. We've also been in contact with the owners of the FEMA facility. And they seem to be in agreement with that. So we feel like that's a much, much, much better path for this to take. And we don't feel as if it's been fully explored. We've had numerous meetings with DME, but not very productive. We have a couple questions. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. He answered my question in his last comment. Okay. Councilmember Briggs. Well, yeah, I was just curious if you had presented this exact plan or talked about this thing that we are seeing right now with DME. Over the course of numerous meetings, yes, we have. Okay. Did they have a reason for you? Why not? Or? Well, their belief is that the existing right-of-way across the Spencer property gives them permission to go across that property without acquiring additional right-of-way. Our contention is that, and we've asked for copies of that easement agreement and have not been given that, but our contention is that that was for a much smaller right-of-way. Once again, not with the massive power lines overhead. And this proposal right here, once again, I didn't show you this picture, but, you know, that's just power lines going in one direction. What's going to happen, what we believe is probably going to happen here is that the power lines are going to come in here to the Mayhill station, once again, double back, reverse their course back down here, then cut up back across that property. So it's going to be, this area right in here is going to be a real mess just in terms of power lines going in every direction. Okay. I see what you're saying. Whereas this could be eliminated if they were to come up to here and there would just be one row of power lines up here, once again, going down a gas easement, a city property over here as well, and cutting back up into here to get to their location rather than coming up through what we hope someday will be a very nice real estate development for the city. Any other questions for the speaker? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. Well, he got a question for staff. You want to wait until the completion of the public comment or do you ask it now? Okay. We're going to close the public hearing. We have another card. Marilyn Haggard, if you'll come state your name and address and your time will begin. Hello. Marilyn Haggard. I live at 5300 Whiting Way. Our family land borders the Spencer land. There's this right here and there's the Spencer land. The existing line, again, is not the same voltage as what is going or wattage, whatever, not the same power line. We would like to see this line removed. If you're going to move a substation up here, go on up. Go on up to the north and across. Don't leave us trying to sell land where we've got a power line coming right here and then right here. That's a pretty adverse effect on your land when you've got two power lines going through it. We have been through the deal with the landfill and the fact that that's been and pipeline and all of that. We want a break. We want you to cut us some slack, please. Move it on up here, move it down and across and take out this weaker line. You said it's outdated. If it's outdated, get rid of it and get the lines that you need and take them on up and across. But don't leave us with major power lines in the front of our property and right through the middle of it. Please don't do that. Thank you. I have a question. Help me understand where your property is. There's a little white label there towards the corner. If you could ... This one? Yeah. Where's your property in relation to that? Property is right here. Okay. All right. See, it comes at the front of it and it comes right through the middle of it too. Okay. All right. I just don't think as property owners we should have to have any effect that much of our land. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you paying for that. We do have the land on the market and it affects what people are willing to do to pay and what they're willing to build when they're dealing with major power lines of this nature. Okay. Any questions or any further comments from you, ma'am? I just want you to think about it, if it were your land. Okay. All right. Thank you. Those are all the cards that I have, but this is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak, come on down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Hi. My name is Donna Sincere. I live at 3500 Oceanview Drive. We did receive something in the mail that we were sent and it is supposed to let us know. We're a little confused. We came tonight to really find out where this line was going through. Our home is the black dot that I kind of filled in and then they have these red lines that go around and kind of show the path of the power lines in the blue. Then it talked about they had to notify everybody within 500 feet, which obviously I'm not quite sure how big from one red line to the other red line. Is that a thousand feet? Obviously we're within the 500 feet and I tried to look up what were all the bad effects of having a power line other than it's unsightly going through. Some people worried about the electric voltage danger of lightning strikes because you're living within a close proximity to this. Are there thoughts that yes, it could be cancer causing? Other different things. I was reading and nothing is really proven. I'm just here I guess to state the opposition and wondering what would ... I understand this is necessary. I'm understanding that, but I kind of came to learn where am I really in relation to this line? How close is this line? We kind of live opposite of where the Flowers Baking Company is. I can see it out the back and it's on Edwards Road. So we talked to a number of our neighbors and some of them were not aware of this. We did not move in to this property. It's a whole area of history maker homes in the villages of Carmel until June of 2014. So this meeting in '13, none of those people that lived there were ever aware of that. I think a number of the people said they never even got this notice or maybe we all get so much junk mail. I'm sure all of you can attest to it. I almost hate to go to the mailbox. You've got to sort everything, shred everything. Could have just overlooked it. A number of them aren't here tonight, but certainly were either unaware and even the salesman for history maker homes said he hadn't even heard there was this meeting or wasn't even aware of all of this that was going on. So we bought our home looking to have a place where we thought we could retire, enjoy, and I'm not really looking forward to any buzzing lines overhead. So my question is I would like to know how closely are thinking this line is going to come through to the backs of our properties. Okay. >> Okay. Any questions? And we'll try to get some clarification on that when staff comes back up. Yes, ma'am. Oh, Council Member Briggs. Is this what you received in the mail? >> Yes. >> This right here. >> And I really had to look at it very, very closely to try and figure out where my property was and then I penciled it in. I colored it in, the little dot there. And it's like, well, if that is that blue line is supposed to be the power line, how close am I really going to be to it? >> Was there another explanation sheet that goes with it? >> Oh, on the back. Okay. >> Not much of an explanation, just that there was going to be this meeting. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. >> So I came to be informed. >> Right. >> So I'm an interested citizen. >> Right. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak, please come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Anybody wishing to speak? I see requests to speak from council members. Do you all want to wait until after the public hearing is closed or you want to wait? >> Yeah, for staff. >> Okay. For staff. Okay. All right. One more time. Anybody wishing to speak? This is a public hearing. Please come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Okay. We'll now close the public hearing. Council Member Hawkins. >> Yeah. I had a question for staff, please. You had shown the landfill site and there was cell permits or something. Can you speak on that? Is this can possibly go there? >> The cell permits is for the landfill cells. When we were asked by the citizen group if we could consider moving off of the private property that Mr. Jodoy and Bill Vaughn referenced earlier in this location, could we move the substation from this private property that they own and represent? Would it be possible to move it over to the city of Denton landfill property that the city of Denton presently owns? And it was a great suggestion. And it definitely does allow DME not to build a new subst ation on property that doesn't have a substation. The transmission line that Mr. Vaughn was discussing is not actually part of the public hearing tonight because we're not looking at doing anything at this area, but we can discuss that here in a moment. Moving the substation to the landfill property, after talking to Vance Kimmler, we wanted to make sure from the permits that he has to request and receive, can a landfill be fully developed? We didn't want to impact that and decrease the amount of landfill space in the city of Denton. And he said this would not affect those permits, that they were not planning to put a landfill at that particular spot. They are to the south, of course, that's where it presently is, and they do have some ability to move northward on property further back to the northeast here. Okay. So just to be clear, the transmission line that is going across the property, the diagonal one? This is not part of the public hearing tonight. And what does that mean? That we're not talking about should we rebuild in that location or not. There are still options that we're looking at. We've been talking about this since the September 2013 open house. We have had numerous conversations and we've met numerous times with affected people. So I understand that. If we did decide on the yellow route there, I mean, I'm trying to figure out what are we deciding on then tonight. Does that make that transmission line that route decided on tonight? Right. The previous person that spoke about the neighborhood here, the villages of Carmel, the Razis electric power transmission easement used to go diagonally through this entire property many, many years ago, a decade or so. We had met with the developer, I believe his name was Mr. Halligan, and he asked would it be possible to relocate that transmission line because he wanted to develop there. Once again, we worked with the developer and we said as a matter of fact, we have no plans now or ever to rebuild that line and use it in that capacity. However, we do need to get to this POCR substation and would he be willing to have us release this easement so he could then develop his property, build the homes that these good people have bought, and then allow us to be granted some easement also on the edge of his property so we could then get over here. So we worked with him and we worked with Flowers and we came to a mutual understanding before any of the subdivision was built and we do have an easement to get back through here. And it allows us to release these so the homes could be built. Okay. Thanks, Brent. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. So Brent, if you can stay with that slide for a second. Yes, sir. Because Mr. Vaughn. Vaughn? No, I just want to make sure I have it right. He made a suggestion about move the substation about 1,100 feet further to the north and get up closer to Spencer and then come across. So am I to understand the transmission line that's in existence today, ultimately we will have to rebuild the transmission line to update it, right? So does the location of the Mayhill substation that you're proposing today preclude us from having a different route for that transmission line that's going across that property on a diagonal? It does not. I mean, as far as if the transmission line is going to be rebuilt and reused in its existing location, the substation site as we've presented it tonight would allow us to do that. Moving the substation potentially further north, as was asked, we could still come back down, but that would increase the distance to get back down to an easement that the City of Denton presently owns without affecting new and other landowners. But we have not decided the best route to go from the subst ation site. We have options by utilizing and picking and selecting this site tonight during this public hearing. So next question then is the site that Mr. Vaughn had mentioned, 1,100 feet or so to the north that's still on the landfill side of the road, landfill property. Has that, I guess that's been brought up to us, to staff in meetings, have we investigated the concept of that? Would that be a viable location? From my recollection, the majority of it was about the transmission line going north, not about the substation being positioned there. We have not run that by Vance-Kindler to see if that would be one of the impacted cells that you're talking about. It very well may be because I've seen some drawings that they're looking at expanding northward there. This one place, Vance, seemed like, "Wow, this is a really pretty good place to have it if you're going to have one." And so that's why we presented this, recommended this. Okay. So to be clear then, if this site is chosen, the location of the transmission line is still yet to be determined if and when that transmission line is going to get rebuilt? From the substation, Mayhill substation, back north and to the west to get to Spencer. But it defines the area of the transmission line from the substation south along the east side of the old Mayhill Road and going around the backside of the Pecan Creek Mobile Home Park. Correct. So we would rectify that issue now as a part of this project? That is correct. Would that all get built before the decision was made on the future transmission line location? It could be, but it wouldn't have to be. One of the things that I would like to address to Ms. Hag gard, she came up and was talking about her property here in this area. If the substation site is picked as it's shown, we could come back down all the way to intersect the line and go back up, but that would not be our preference. We could do that. We would prefer not to. At the very least, if we had to reutilize this line, we would suggest working with Nelms, Grubb and Haggard that we try to then square this off to re intersect it so it would be less of a distance. This is 26 poles it would require to go up this direction. One of the solutions possibly we've suggested is to go with 10 poles just straight across here, which seems very viable. We hadn't had a lot of success in trying to work through that. We're still investigating options, but that is one option that we can cut the number of steel transmission poles by a third, or actually by two thirds. I bring it up because I'm very sensitive to impact to private property and private property rights. This is necessary. We have to do it. I just want to make sure that if this is the location that 's chosen that it would not preclude us because obviously the most logical thing to me would be go just north of the site and come straight across on Spencer. That's what we've been trying to get the landowner to work with us on to cut the number of poles down by two thirds from 26 poles down to 10. Again, I hear that. I'm not so worried about what we're going to spend as it is on impact. So if we could go straight across Spencer, now we're not impacting three people's property. That would be our preference as well. But that is not part of the public hearing for the subst ation site in the transmission line south tonight. That's for further discussion. Thank you. Council Member Briggs. I have just one follow-up about the poles. There was a question about easements. So I'm curious, is there or has there been a bigger eas ement needed or designated for these larger poles when you upgrade the poles from the regular smaller ones? One of the things with the 69KV transmission system, we had used typically a 60-foot wide transmission easement on the 138KV. We've been recommending moving forward with 75-foot wide because it does require a little additional easements. And so if we do need to go back and reutilize the transmission line in its existing location, we would be more than willing to work with the landowner to try to rectify any additional width that's required. Of course, that may not be desirable from their perspective . It's not desirable from our perspective, but we would do that. I have one more question. The gentleman showed the topographical map and that this is on an incline, a hill. Is it possible to dig down into the earth to flatten that a little to make the substation lower or does it have to go on the hill? The great elevation of where we're proposing to put this is not that much elevated from the existing Mayhill Road. The landfill site and the cells of the landfill are much taller than that. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. My questions tonight are on the process that if this all started in 2013 and this is 2016, that we need to be more efficient in our timeline when we begin a project and talk to citizens and then bring it forward. So my encouragement to staff would be to shrink that timeline so that things are, citizens get busy and things happen, they move in, they move out. So that's number one. Number two, it emphasizes what I brought up at the last council meeting to council, that our public notification system is lacking in terms and it's something I know planning which will spill into DME. We've used the same notification systems for years and I just honestly believe we can do a better job in notifying the public on events that are going to happen that will impact their property and their property values. So it emphasizes what we talked about at the last work session. So thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. So on the map, one of the persons speaking said that their understanding was that there was going to be actually two transmission lines going on Mayhill, one running up from old Edwards Road toward the Mayhill substation and another one running back down. Is that accurate? In the end, that could be accurate. That's not what we would recommend doing, but that could be done to utilize existing easements that are presently in place. We would much prefer to work with the landowner, have us absorb the cost, relocate the line into place, into a location that would be most appealing to them. So that might only be accurate if we were not able to, for example, go down Spencer Road? That's correct. Okay. Thanks. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you. And Brent, so just to be clear, if we do decide on this station, on this substation, the transmission route, that will also be a public hearing process that we could decide on. Is that correct? We would come back to you on a recommendation, how do we move forward from this substation, what would be the best option? Okay. But I think there's many more discussions to have before we come back to you on that because we do want to solicit citizen input and we do want to try to speed up that process, but we want to make sure we have an option to investigate all options. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Wasney. One of the citizens brought a map and showed an alternative site that was north of the site that DME has selected. What was DME's objection to the property owner's second location? I'd mentioned previously, I don't recall the substation site. We very well may have talked about that. We've had a lot of discussions. I do remember the transmission line going up north through there and over across the Lowe's and the FEMA property. I don't recall the substation. And I have not talked with Vance Kimmler about is that, would that affect the city landfill, permitted landfill cells as far as where can they bury the trash for the city of Denton because I don't want to decrease that. I have not had that conversation. So I think based on your comment, I'm more comfortable postponing this decision and this vote tonight until we get specifically that answer because that is an alternative site. I've heard a lot of maybe what ifs, possibles with all the transmission lines. We do know that it's a marriage between the substations and the transmission lines. So I'm more comfortable waiting until we have a little bit more information. I know it's been going on since 2013, but it's certainly new for Councilman Briggs and myself and I'd be more comfortable with some more information on this. Appreciate that. Councilmember Johnson. I think you said earlier when I asked about it would seem more logical to me if you're going to be here just to come up and go straight across Spencer. I think I picked up on what you're trying to say in your answer, but I want to maybe get more specific. Okay. Because what I think we've heard from the property owners is this diagonal transmission line is a real problem. We believe it is too. And so if this is a substation location, going straight across Spencer Road to the Spencer station would be the direct shot. It would seem to be. And Mr. Vaughn when he was up talking about the site higher up 1100 feet to the north, come across, go behind FEMA, go through the self storage, across Lowe's, etc., obviously that doesn't touch their property anywhere. So I get it, right, if I can get you to put it on somebody else's property instead of mine. But my question for you is a very direct one. Have we attempted to have any conversations about with the Spencer family and their representatives about coming straight down Spencer and eliminating the entire diagonal line? We have. And is there openness to that? Resistance to that? What would your stance be, Brent? As I mentioned earlier, that really wasn't something we're ready to move forward with tonight, but I did have a copy of something we have shown them. If you'd like for me to show that, I'd be happy to. This is a copy of one of the options. Go ahead. Well, I'm asking the question specifically because Council Member Wasney, I appreciate where you're coming from, which is here's something that's been brought up. We need to wait more time. But we've also said, hey, we're letting too much time pass between us, so we can't say to staff, in my opinion, you all need to pick up the pace. And then we keep saying, let's wait a while. So I think on this one, I'm just trying to get a very specific answer to help me decide. We have shown this coming down Spencer. We have not had a lot of acceptance to this possibility. Even though it does cut the number of poles down and then removes the line diagonally off of their property and their neighbor's property. Okay. Thank you. I have one more. Brent is correct that we've looked at multiple different options for this project. Thank you. Brent Heath is correct that we've looked at multiple options at the property owner's suggestion of different ones. We did look at a site to the north. We believe that the sites to the north get into the landfill's permitted area. And so that wouldn't be an area we could develop in. The reason this site was allowable for landfill because it 's not in a permitted area for the landfill. The sites to the north are. So that would preclude it. It's bought for landfill area and it would preclude them from using it for the landfill for their purpose that they got the land for in the first place. Gotcha. Thank you. I think you cleared it up for me. Okay. I just had a couple questions. One of the speakers had a map showing her home on the sort of in relation to the proposed line. Right. And she asked how wide or how far would that be from the line. That was the 500 foot boundary from the center line of the blue line of where the transmission line would sit. So it would be 500 foot. From the edge of the property line or from the house, from that property line, correct? Right. From the notification zone that was drawn in the red line on either side of the blue line is 500 foot either side of that center line. So make sure I understand because it's really not that late actually. You think it was but it's only nine o'clock comparatively. So from it say this transmission line goes in as proposed, at least this particular one on this subject of this public meeting. When the pole gets built, from the pole to the closest adjacent property line of the home that was sort of drawn in, you're saying that's 500 feet. As I saw it tonight, it's 37 and a half foot from the center line of the transmission pole to the edge of the easement. From the edge of the easement to this home would be an additional whatever it is under 500 foot, 450 something feet. Okay. That's good. So I guess and I know that the diagonal is not a part of this public hearing but I just have a couple questions. If you could put your proposal with the substation and the proposed route, at least that's the subject of this public hearing, if we could pull that up on the screen. It's back up. Oh, okay. We need to get, okay. There we go. So with the proposed site, which is up there at the top of the photo, and then the line coming down the green, the yellow going across, coming down the, that's what's the subject of this public hearing. And what I'm understanding, the reason why this diagonal has sort of come into play, at least as part of the conversation, is because to move from that substation to the, I guess it's the Spencer Road substation? Over the Spencer complex. How do you get from that substation over, I guess, west? And so part of what you said was the easiest way to do that would be to go up, cut across Spencer Road and up that way. If that option were taken, I'm trying to understand this so I can understand what's going on. If that option were decided in the future to be the more desirable option, would that then be the impetus to remove that diagonal line? In other words, if you put that thing going across Spencer, is that in lieu of us needing to go up through that diagonal easement? That would be very sounding, yes. Okay. Well, then I'm going to tell you that I'm going to support this plan. I'm going to tell you why, because number one, this is what 's on the board tonight and what's the proposal. But also, if - let me make one more clarifying question. Going across Spencer Road, is that on the Spencer family land? Would that be one of the options that we'd have to consider ? That's what we have approached them with to date. Okay. Well, then I've got to tell you, I don't have any problem with the substation where it is. I understand the bifurcation of the easement. The easement is already there with a line that is not what you eventually will need. But if we're going to remove that whole transmission eas ement and abandon it, the reverse is true. And that is the value of that property is going to dramatically increase from both the people who have spoken tonight. So I don't have any problem with, you know what, this is for a later conversation of saying, okay, y'all want that gone? Well, then we need some help as well. So I'm okay with your plan as proposed, at least for what's the subject of tonight's public hearing. Okay. Council Member Wasney. Yeah. Phil Williams brought up a very important piece of information, and that's that the property proposed by one of the landowners a thousand feet north is on permitted landfill property. And for people to understand what permitted landfill property means, it's controlled by statutes coming from the federal government, the state government, and anything that falls within that, because I know they're working on some new permits right now. It's expensive and complicated. And so that automatically rolls out that site if it's going to fall. So that answers my question. Excuse me. That is -- Sir. I'm sorry. Sir, you're out of order. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. But you're out of order. Thank you. So that's my understanding, Mr. Williams, that that is permitted landfill property. Correct. So item two, I agree with the mayor that if we can in the future remove that diagonal and go down Spencer, I think that's the solution right there. So if we're only voting on tonight the actual land -- landfill, the substation, then I can support this. Do you have the transmission line south? Yes. I want to ask for a clarification item, because one of the items that's been confusing at times was the proper representation of the property on Spencer Road. And so I want to confirm tonight that Mr. Vaughn is the representative for that property. Yes. May I speak again? Not unless -- let us get through this, and then I'll ask the council if they would allow that and let me get through the rest of the questions. Yes. I just want to clarify that. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. So the question before us tonight is actually in the resolution is two things. One of them is the approval of the Mayhill substation as indicated on the map and approval of the yellow option, the yellow line that basically goes around to the east and to the north of what appears to be old Edwards Road. Is that correct? If we could get the picture back on the screen, that would be great. That is correct. The yellow line is the option that extends from the existing green line that would remain in existing easements and the green line that would go up to the Mayhill substation. So yes, the yellow line is the option of versus diagonal or the purple line. And so that would be correct. Right. So the question is the yellow route and the Mayhill subst ation, and we don't have any question before us tonight about the line bisecting. That's the old Brazos? Yes. Brazos what? Brazos electric power cooperative easement. Are there currently poles and lines on there? There are. Some of those are some wood pole, two pole, H frame structures. Some of them have been replaced because of the age they've been replaced with a single -- In my understanding, the approval of this tonight would not necessarily affect that one way or the other. That is correct. But indeed it might impact and make it easier for us to move ahead and abandon that in some time future. If we abandon something like that, it's an easement that we own that somebody paid for at one point or another. Would we ask for payment back or do we just -- you know, I think there's some statutes about public property not being -- we cannot give it away. How does that work? Or is that legal counsel? There might be some mutual working out as far as the actual settlement of any land that might be needed at Spencer or some of the location on their property. That could be a value for that, a value that you'd be giving up and you'd net out the difference. There'd be some of those discussions. Maybe legal counsel could address that further. I think there's -- it appears to me from listening to this, there's a little bit of work to be done with regard to where this future transmission line is going and it appears that there is some ownership issues with regard to the existing line. So I think we've got some work to do. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Sir, I'm sorry. The public hearing is closed. I'm going to have to -- the public hearing is closed, so I apologize for that. Any staff would -- Councilmember Gregory, Mayor Pro Tem Gregory? Well, I would move approval of the recommendation as presented by staff. Councilmember Johnson. I will second that with a strong recommendation to staff that we work very hard to eliminate the diagonal existing transmission line so as to affect the multiple property owners in the least way possible. And I would echo that sentiment by Councilmember Johnson. Obviously some of our best alternative routes involve some of the same property owners, so I would encourage them to get together and continue to talk about this issue and I think we can come up with something that will be a win-win for everybody. Councilmember Hawkins? Before I vote, I'm going to vote yes for this, but I too want that diagonal line gone and I want City Council to see that again. It sounds like that's what's going to happen, so that's why I'm voting for it. Councilmember Briggs? I just wanted to say that I'm glad that we are putting the substation on our city property. I think that was a great compromise. And I echo the sentiments of the lines. Yeah, I also want to point out that we did move the subst ation off of some of the private property at their suggestion. So I certainly and I think it provides an opportunity. If the City needs something that's going to be helpful and it will be helpful to the private property owners, I think there's impetus and there's some ability there to collaborate to find a situation that meets everybody's interests. So we have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 6-0. That brings us to agenda item 8, which is presentation from members of the public. We have 8A. Mr. Hussbett, do you want us to take a break or do you want to just plow through? Y'all need a break? No, no, okay. Let's plow through. Motion to 8A. Mr. Hussbett, just state your name and address, please. Mayor and council members, my name is Willie Hussbett. I live at 623 Newton. I'm here saying again that I would like for that rule that you have of putting people at the end of the agenda that speak quite a bit, I'd like for that to be removed. Until so, my protest, which is, like I protest so much about everything, I can't keep up. But I'm here until that changes, probably won't change, so I'll just be here every night until it won't change. So I'll be here. Secondly, not being buried at IAOF and I cannot be buried there. And I'm paying for it as an African American. And it singles out everybody that you can't be buried there if you're not white. I'd like to know what is the definition of white? Do you measure it to know how white you have to be? What about my interracial grandchildren that, heck, I don't even know what color they are. Do you put something up to them and say, okay, you're not white enough, you don't walk a certain way? That's insane. Give them the property back. The deed says, or the restriction says, if an African American or non-white person is buried there, then the deed goes back to the owner. Give it back to them. That's my suggestion. I'm not paying for a legal attorney to go and be permitted to bury there. I'll tell you what, give me my money back over the years that you've had me to pay for that thing, and then we'll be, I'll call it quits, but until then I will be talking about it. The emissions vote, I thought that should have became up in this setting and not wherever you did it. If you meet in the daytime, let me tell you what you eliminate. People who work for a living. And that, doing that at the lunchtime is not a good thing. You shouldn't be having these kind of important discussions at lunchtime. I don't understand the emissions thing. I just know that if you're not doing what you're supposed to do, council members, then you're poisoning my great grandchildren with these decisions that you're making. And if that's the case, shame on you. Ethics. I don't see how in the world you can put up a, I was going to say porkies. Is that the name of that thing? That dates you, my friend, in the movies that you like. Whatever it is. And you're a real estate person. Don't tell me your company is not going to make money off of that deal. And I'm just telling you, council members, we should have let that one go. You didn't. Now, we and my team, which I told you now is at three, we 'll be looking into that for years. We're going to see if you're making money off of that. And if you do, we're going to call you. And first you got to prove it. So if you don't ever find out, then that's okay. Put some sidewalks out there for Geyer and Ryan. What is the problem? Well, again, if one other person gets hurt, I will be right here saying, I told you and I'll keep talking about that. Shame on you again. And the last one is, let's see, in something. Oh yeah, sorry. Okay. Good. All right. The last one is, I hate seeing this and doing it because it hurts my throat right here to say you've done a good job tonight. It makes me, I just can't, because I'm not used to that. School board, I don't. The county commissioners, I don't. I haven't yet because they're just, they don't want to act right. But you guys, I tell you, I'm just really impressed. And Hawkins, do you, you just got to hang in there, buddy. I think you're going, I think you're doing it. You're just hanging up, hanging there and the process will work itself out. But that's all you can do is just hang in there. Thank you. All right. Any questions? Mayor, can we get a group photo? Group hug and group photo. Nighttime Willie tonight. Mayor Pro Tem. It's like an alternate. Okay. We, we will now move on to concluding items. Council member Hawkins, did you have a comment? I saw your request to speak. Okay. Count concluding. Yes. Concluding items. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, council member Briggs, let's go. I got bumped. Yeah, you got bumped. I don't know what happened. Yeah. So I have a few in regards to, to, to Woody. Willie, I, Mayor Pro Tem called for a staff report on the cemetery a while ago when I was looking in our backup from the reading file and I didn 't see it on there listed. And so I just kind of wanted to see where that was on there and if that was coming. I'm not sure. We've talked about it and I'm just not sure what the status is, but we're working on some research on it. Okay. And next on the notifications, I'm wondering, because the, the lady said something about junk mail and so I'm wondering, is there a possibility for us as we're going through the notification process to put color, a color envelope, like a something that signifies this is from the city and it's really important when, when people are going through their mail and they see it just as an option maybe. And then another thing brought up tonight by this gentleman was that maybe to use public art or to see what else we can do besides a stone fence around the substation. Maybe just put it out there and see what other cities have done. If there's any creative, more pleasing visual things to see . And and last, I'm going to take this time to ask my fellow council members to keep in consideration for a third party independent consultant for the renewable plan. Okay, thank you. Mayor pro tem. Thank you, Mayor. A couple of months ago, I believe it was in early December, so that would be one month ago. I've gotten a couple of emails from citizens who live in a neighborhood. Pass this on. I haven't heard from it. I, when we heard, had a public hearing earlier, it was right next door to this neighborhood. So I want to bring it up tonight to ask for some staff to follow up on. It's a neighborhood off of North Elm Street or Highway 77. It's directly east of the UNT Discovery Park. The street that runs along the east side of it, the collector street is called Nicosia. N-I-C-O-S-I-A. There's over 100, there's over 350 homes in this neighborhood at this time. And there's only one way in and one way out. And it's on Nicosia. There, it appears that at some point, West Hercules Drive will connect to Locust Street, but it doesn't connect now. And I guess my concern is about this is twofold. Number one, we don't generally allow developments of that size to be constructed where there's only one way in and one way out. But we have, and so I guess I need some reassurance that my understanding is correct, that that would happen today. But I'd like to know what the solution is. This is a, this could be a serious situation if Nicosia was blocked off and emergency vehicles could not get in there to that neighborhood for some reason . It looks like an easy solution, probably not an inexpensive solution, to extend Hercules to connect it up to give a second egress and access route. So if y'all would look into that and give an informal staff report back answering the question, do we allow this today? And what are the some viable options to get this fixed? - Council Member Hawkins. - Thank you, Mayor. Next week it looks like we're gonna be talking about fiber access in Denton, and I wanted to invite Good Samaritan Lake Forest to definitely tune in. Hopefully that ends up being on there, 'cause that's been an issue out there for a long time. And two, I wanted to applaud Community Improvement Services . I brought up last December that those best in Denton b anners had been put up and people were possibly getting warnings or citations, and we kind of fixed that right away, and I'm just yay team, that was awesome. So anyway, happy new year. Yes. - Just to comment, Mr. Mayor, and Joey, if I could, we've talked today and may have a need to move that fiber access discussion to the 26th, so we'll give you a note. - Okay, thank you. - Council Member Wasney. - See, two things. I want to be the second person on this council to bring up the independent energy analyst. Council had talked about that after the public hearing that we would address that. Well, we've had the public hearing, and so I'd like council to come back to that and have a meaningful discussion. Item two, staff had promised me, and I still don't have it, for Mr. Heath from DME, and it is a cost summary on the transmission line substation project, and we're at 403 million now, and I wanted to see the projected budget and the cost to date so that we can take a look at where we are with that project. He said he had seen it, so I believe it's there. I think it got lost over the holidays. So if we could redirect back to that and get that to me, that'd be great. Thank you. - Council Member Johnson. - Thank you, Mayor. Well, my apologies that I will not be here for the meeting next Tuesday. I'm not quite going on a trip to Alaska like our mayor did a while back. I can't afford those kind, but I am going to spend a week at Willie's house just hanging out roasting marshmallows. I will be out of the country. I'll be in Argentina, so I don't think there's the ability to Skype in because I won't have phone service or anything. So I won't be here next week. You kids have fun. - Great. I've got a few. I've got about 10. I didn't hear anybody fall on the ground. The first one is I would like to have a work session. We've talked about revising or rewriting the DENT development code, and I had a citizen's give me an idea, sort of a suggestion that we're trying to figure out what works for the code right now and what doesn't, and it's very difficult to figure that out. I would really like for us to have a work session on how do we or can we give either the planning director or someone or some form of a committee or something some very wide latitude to make some decisions on some of the codes that seem to be pretty cut and dry that might be a little antiquated or outdated because I think in doing that, what will rise to the surface are the problem pieces of the code that seem to be the most prevalent. So I'd just like to be able to talk about are there some things we can do now prior to rewriting the code that might provide some flexibility, you know, with some checks and balances that it may not have right now, and in that way we might be able to also determine what are some of the major problems with that. Second, I had a conversation with Don Smith who's part of the Ditton Airshow Committee and based upon several circumstances they were a little short with their budget. They had some donations that didn't necessarily come through so I wanted to sort of, when I say short, about $6,000, $7,000 is what they're looking at as a deficit based upon some donations that didn't come through. So I wanted to just sort of encourage the city manager to see if there's some options. I mean, we've got hot funds or, you know, I don't know if there's some discretionary funds in the airport, but for council to think about that I 'll probably be sending a few of my contingency funds that way. But that's a good event. They bring in a lot of people. It's well attended. They bring in some class acts. So just wanted to try to see if we can encourage to find a way to help with that, being that it's pretty small and we've certainly done some things on a much larger scale to help meet some of those needs of the some of the shows and the events and festivals that have really made dent in what it is today. We talked about this in earlier work session. I do want to reiterate a work session on City Hall West and our vision for City Hall West and what we think we can do for that, what are our goals for funding it, and in concert with that either in the same discussion or one close thereafter revisiting our master plan and what are we planning to do with municipal facilities and things such as that. I've had several, several citizens comment both recently and in the past and probably I would suspect some of you have gotten some emails as well . Wind River, you know, and we've heard that wanting traffic calming, some type of traffic calming devices that the speed limits on Wind River are very often exceeded. In fact, recently one somebody ran into somebody's, of course they have those brick fences back there and didn't make the corner, didn't make the stop. So really want to explore that and I understand about war rants and I understand about all those kind of things but there's really a groundswell beginning to surface of people really concerned about their safety and their children's safety on that stretch of Wind River from Lillian Miller on out to the service road. So if we could take a look at that, let's see, is that, oh, this is going to maybe sound like an odd request and this is more for DME but Mr. C. Manager if you could pass it along. You know, one of the things that we're all concerned about are our utility rates. How do they compare to others in the area? We are a municipally owned utility so that provides some type of regulatory attention statewide. So I would just be curious because we've heard that our rates are higher because of the debt for TMPA and I would just like to see if it's possible and I know it would be proprietary because it would be competitive matters but a mock budget of if we didn't have that debt, if that debt was gone, you know, how would that impact even under the business as usual? I know we're considering the debt plan. We got rates on that that are proposed but I'm just saying if that debt were gone, how would our rates look or what would that do to the DME budget? Because I'm really just trying to get a handle on what is really impacting this and this was brought up in a meeting with a citizen yesterday who said that he calculated his per kilowatt hour rate at 12 cents or 10 cents but when you look at something else that, you know, you multiply that times, I think it's a thousand to convert it into a megawatt price, it was Ben who was in that meeting. And of course that covers all of our costs of operations so I'm just really trying to see what is impacting our rates, whether it be TMPA debt or the transmission, the transmission that we talked about, the transmission debt because we saw that we're netting $5 million right now but we also have a lot of debt, all right, and how does that translate into cash flow? So really just trying to see some different scenarios of how different decisions that are made impact those rates in a more specific way. So we'd like to see if we can develop something like that. And again, I want to say one more time that I really applaud the Denton Police Department and their work for the City of Denton in making sure that, you know, we're safe and that if something happens as tragically as it did this last weekend that they are on it because that really, I have to say a lot has happened since I've been on council but that really disturbed me and I really appreciate the dedication and the commitment to try to make sure that we do the right thing on that to ensure that all of us are safe and that if something were to happen where we're not that we can make sure that we try to find out the source of that. So I really do appreciate that. Mayor Pro Tem. Just to let you know, I got a text after I made my comment that concern about that neighborhood is on the agenda for the Mobility Committee next week. George, you work fast, man. Way to go. Okay, any other concluding items? Council Member Briggs. I don't really have a concluding item. You just brought up Don Smith and I wanted to let you guys know that he's volunteered and I'm going to go on a flight with him this week to see the City of Denton from above. It'll be my first time on a small airplane so there's that. Bring a big purse. He's a good guy. Any other questions? Observations? Okay, thank you. We will stand adjourned.