Jul 19, 2016 City Council on 2016-07-19 1:00 PM

Council Tuesday July 19th 2016 it is 103. We do have a quorum. We got four members here so we'll go ahead and conduct business. Our first item is a couple of things. I believe one of the items on, I'm just going to switch the order of the clarifications because I think one of them is going to get pulled but we have speakers who want to speak on that which I'm going to allow them to do that. But so I want to go to citizens agenda item number two request for clarifications of agenda items on the agenda. Yes, Council Member Briggs. >> Yes, I would like to request a pull 4C. >> Okay. >> ID 16822 for individual consideration. >> Okay. >> Okay, yes, Council Member Wasney. >> Well, I'd like to take it one step further and just pull the whole thing and put it back into a work session. And the reasons are multiple. I think we need to revisit the number of speakers, the category of speakers, and the time allowed. But also, there is a section in there about citizens speaking at a work session. And it's not defined clearly enough in terms of what is the method of, we have lots of rules for speaking in the evening. We have basically no rules for speaking in front of a work session. How is a citizen recognized by the mayor? Do they fill out a card? How much time do they have? I think we need to revisit that and kind of fine tune that. So in light of all of that, I would just like to pull that entire item and put it back into a work session. >> Okay, comments for council? Council Member Gregory, yes. >> I wouldn't think that there would be anything that would prohibit us from going ahead with considering 4C as an item for individual consideration and we could either vote on it, maybe after a discussion, move to postpone and do that. I think that there are people that are wanting to speak on that, citizens that are wanting to speak on that, that would be planning and to be here this evening. And I think we ought to be able to give them a chance to voice their concerns. And we could also act on, for example, some of these sections such as ending, I mean quite frankly I would love to end the citizen reports at the end of the meeting. We only have one citizen that uses it and each time he complains about being there. So if we had more citizen reports at the beginning of the meeting, make sure that he would have a chance to speak at the beginning of the meeting. And then if we want to amend during our discussion or postp one, we could do that. But since there are people that have been discussing this in the community and want to speak on it tonight, I'd like to give them a chance to do that if they've arranged their schedule in order to do that. >> For the two, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Member Gary, I switched around agenda item two. That's what we're taking first, request for clarification, simply because we have two individuals who wanted to speak on item 4C and then one for 4H. But on 4C, if it was pulled for individual consideration, then they'd have to speak out there. But I'm going to go ahead and let them speak now. But then Council Member Wasney is saying she desires to pull the whole thing off of the agenda entirely to have a work session on it to consider the aforementioned issues that she just brought up. So wanted to give you an, did you have a comment on that, Mayor Pro Tem? >> Yeah, I mean, it seems like this has been discussed at length before with everyone on council with the exception of Council Member Gary, I believe. It seems like even the part of work session that you were talking about when I walked in was discussed in the citizen engagement committee at some point, which we got clarification on how that process worked. But I agree with Council Member Gregory. I think there's things that even if we decide to hold off some particular changes to it, or if we decide we want to make additional changes, we have some things that we can act on tonight. And there was nothing that would preclude council from revisiting this in the future if the direction was to do that. So I'm fine with keeping it on the agenda and having that discussion at the dice tonight. >> Okay. >> Okay, all right. Yes. >> Even though we're talking about moving it as an item for individual consideration, I hope that that doesn't preclude folks who have made an attempt to get here for this meeting to have an opportunity to speak on it now if they wish to. >> No, yeah, we've already determined that, yes. >> So just clarification, if they do speak now, can they speak out there? >> No. >> No, so it would be up to them if they decide to. >> That's correct. >> So I just wanted to let them know if they're here to speak on it now. >> Yes, I'll let them know that before the meeting. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Okay, so it sounds like we'll go ahead and proceed with an item for individual consideration. Any of the issues that you have a concern with, we can bring that up. And if we want to pass some of it, none of it, all of it, we can do that and we'll work that out up there on the desk . And we also do have another card to speak on consent agenda item 4H as well. So any other requests for clarification on this evening's agenda? Any other questions? Okay, seeing none, then we will circle back around to agenda item number one. And so for the two speakers on agenda item 4C, I will certainly give you the election of speaking now. And if so, then you'd be prohibited from speaking at the item of individual consideration during the regular work session. David Zoltner. >> Okay, good night. >> Okay, all right. Mr. Gold. Okay, fantastic. And so then we have Mr. Carter speaking on agenda item H, if you'd come forward and state your- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> No, up here at the microphone. Thank you, sir. And then once you state your name and address, your time will begin. And Jennifer, how much? It's three minutes? Okay, three minutes. >> Thank you, Mayor. My name is Jim Carter. I reside at 1005 Roadrunner Road, Bartonville, Texas. I'm here today to ask you for your vote for DENCO 911 representative. I've been on the board now for a couple of years. I've given you my background and resume and a letter to you . Also, there's a letter attached that's from DENCO 911, showing that there are 18 nominees, excuse me, 18 municipalities presented a nominee. I was fortunate enough to get 15 of those. Only one from each of the other towns where the gentleman lived. Sure, they're good people. I've got the experience and background. DENCO is about business. It's not about response necessarily. It relates to that, but down the road a bit. Also want to thank you, and I'll also put a PowerPoint presentation together, but it looks like you've got lots on your agenda. I'd just like to refer to you to the last page of that PowerPoint. It's the last page in there. And I think it's remarked by one of the more intelligent mayors in Denton County. >> What's that? I missed, what's that? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay, yeah, great, thank you. >> Thank you. We appreciate your support and that was also used in our annual report. >> Yes, thank you. >> I'll be glad to answer any questions. I also want to thank you in another role that I have as president of ESD number one. Thank you very much for your participation and your ability to be able to cover the ropes and range. >> You understand, Mr. Carter, that sometimes people are judged by the people that they quote. >> Yes. >> Thank you, I appreciate that. >> You think that's a good thing, Mr. Grieber? >> Yes, sir. >> All right, any questions? >> No, and I certainly want to echo the sentiment on your work on the ESD, because I think that was a great partnership and appreciated all your advocacy in that regard. >> Thank you. Let me just say it's the kind of partnership that needs to happen in government all the time. >> Yes, sir, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Carter. >> Do we vote now or later? >> We vote this evening, yes. >> Thank you. >> You bet. All right, those are all the comments that I see for consent agenda items. So therefore, we will now convene in closed session at 1.12 PM on Tuesday, July 19th, 2016. We will consider the following items, consultation with attorneys under text government code section 551.071. Deliberations regarding real property under text government code section 551.072. Deliberations regarding certain public power utility competitive matters under text government code section 551. 086. And deliberations regarding economic development negotiations under text government code section 551.087. [MUSIC] >> Good evening, wanted to welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council. On Tuesday, July 19th, 2016, our first item on the agenda is our Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flag. And would you join and stand with me if you're able, thank you. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible. >> We don't have any proclamations or presentations at this time and agenda item three is presentation from members of the public. We do not have anyone signed up. And then we also don't have any cards for the open mic. So we'll move on to our, let me double check that, yeah, consent agenda. Any, chair would entertain either a motion or some activity on the consent agenda? Council Member Briggs. >> A motion to approve the consent agenda except for item 4 C, which has been pulled for individual consideration. >> All right, thank you. Council Member Gregory. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Save item 4C, which will be an item for individual consideration. Council Member Gregory, did you? >> Just want to call to attention that item N is a change order, where the city is not spending $94,886. It's my favorite kind of change order. Thank you, staff. Let's do that some more. >> All right, thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 6-0. Moving on to agenda item 5, items for individual consideration. Consideration of the use of eminent domain to condemn real property interests. Did I miss one? I'm sorry, items of individual consideration, yes, 4C. I'm sorry, yep. I was thinking that was going to go under the other one. Okay, we will now take up item 4C, which is an item for individual consideration. Do we have a staff presentation on that or? >> No, I believe our city attorney was going to handle that particular item. >> Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, Mayor and members of the council, Mr. City Manager. This item before you relates to a change in the city council rules of procedure. And I would point out that last February, the city council held a work session regarding these rules. And did reach a consensus, at least as to one item. Reading from the official minutes from that particular meeting is provided to me by Madam City Secretary. The council determined by consensus that they would allow five speakers, three minutes to speak at the beginning of the meetings. They would have until noon the Thursday before the Tuesday meeting to sign up. A citizen report would not be allowed for an item already on the agenda. And no open mic portion of the agenda would be allowed into the future. I do realize that we've had the addition of one member of the council since then. And so this item has been placed on your agenda consistent with the consensus that was reached back in February. And we do present it for your consideration tonight. >> All right, Councilmember Wasning. >> I'd like to see some modifications to the ordinance as it stands right now. I understand that council wants to have speakers register ahead of time with the city secretary. I understand that. I'd like to have three of those. But I would also like to preserve the open mic with three speakers. Because there are occasions that something comes up at the last minute that a citizen is compelled to come and speak to council. They may not have that at the top of mind Thursday noon prior to the Tuesday. There's another issue in the ordinance and it has to do with citizens speaking at work sessions. And having been a citizen for several years sitting in the audience of a work session, having been either the leader or one of the leaders of a citizen initiated movement, where that movement was initiating the discussion now in front of council. I felt that I was muzzled in the audience, that I wasn't able to come up and address council in that work session environment. And so much of what this council discusses, so much of what this council agrees to takes place in that work session room. It doesn't take place in this big chamber. So I feel that what's in the ordinance right now is inadequate in terms of process. So that citizens have an absolute black and white system that you're allowed to speak for how long? That's not in there. It says at the invitation of the mayor. Well, how does all of that work? So if we're going to be so precise at what goes on in this chamber in terms of rules or procedure for a citizen to get up and speak, then we also need to be precise about how and when a citizen is allowed to get up and speak in front of the council during a work session. So my request would be to table this until a further work session at council can pound this out unless we're able to do so tonight. >> And Councilmember Gregory, I want to go ahead and recognize you. We also have some speakers. So I didn't know if you wanted to, we'll go ahead and hear your comment, and then I'm going to go ahead and take public comment if that's okay. >> I don't have a comment at this time. I have a couple of questions. >> Sure, I'm sorry. >> Need a refresher, and I'm trying to go through the red line version. Currently, our registered speakers at this time, they have to register by 5 o'clock on Wednesday according to the revisions. They can register until 12 PM on Thursday. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir, that is correct, reading of the revision. >> And I'm not finding, currently we're limiting at the first part of the meeting, speakers who registered to speak to how many? >> Three speakers at the first of the meeting. >> And then how many at the end? >> Three speakers, I believe, at the end of the meeting. >> And the revised version calls for a total of how many speakers? >> Five speakers at the beginning of the meeting for three minutes each. >> Okay. All right, I'm just trying to get that information as I'm working on thinking about the notion of making slight rev isions or tweaks to this. I'll reserve other comments for later, Mayor. >> Okay. See if you know more requests to speak. We'll go ahead and take the public comment. If you want to call your name, if you'll come down, state your name and address, your time will begin. David Zoltner. >> Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. My name is David Zoltner. I live at 2501 Timber Trail in Denton. First of all, I want to say thank you for voluntarily pulling this item earlier in the day. It gives me an opportunity to say a couple things. When I first saw this agenda last week, immediately I'm asking myself, where in the world are all these redlined versions coming from and new ordinances? Well, thank you for that explanation because now I understand I may have missed a workshop last February, which kind of goes to the point here of this isn't my first public opportunity to respond to this consensus direction for five and three and all these other things. So this is kind of a problem in itself in that this is the first opportunity that we've had to interact with you on this very important matter. So anyway, whatever that may be, my comments tonight are only going to address this amended ordinance before you right now, while we realize how many still important issues are left to resolve. From my perspective, this amended ordinance before you tonight breaks down in at least three important areas. First, on the subject of open mic speakers. While I do agree that open mics can often be repetitious and often off topic, I believe going from four to none demonstrates a complete lack of respect for citizens and open government in Denton. Everyone knows there are important issues that often arise after agendas get posted on Thursday. So whether you realize it or not, it's in your best interest to allow at least one open mic opportunity per meeting just to remain timely on the issues, if nothing else. Secondly, about speaker time limits. I know from personal experience how difficult it can be to unpack a complicated issue before counsel during a brief four minute citizen report. So reducing that time to three minutes is uncalled for and in my opinion, a giant step backwards in terms of citizen participation any way you look at it. Thinking about the actual history of this citizen reports, three speakers for five minutes would make considerably more sense to me than this latest five for three proposal before you. So please preserve the four minute limit at the very least. Lastly, time limits and number of speakers allowed are perfectly justified local options. No argument. But what is not your at your discretion is to somehow try to control the subject matter or topic once speakers have been given the floor under the rules. You have no statutory or constitutional authority to prevent speaker number three, for example, from readd ressing the same issue as speaker number one or number two before them. Frankly, I would have thought that freedom attorney Joe L arson's letter on free speech last year should have clarified this matter, but apparently Joe's message did not sink in. Accordingly, in my opinion, the complete sentence beginning at six dot four dot four, no person shall fill out a request to speak hard, should be permanently struck from this ordinance forever. So in summary, please keep at least one open mic opportunity per meeting to keep the four minute time limit for all citizen reports and three, please dump this censorship attitude that keeps coming to the surface once and for all. Thank you. I have a question, Mr. Zoltner. On the last observation you had about the. You can't speak on something. Someone else has spoke on it. Where is that in here? It was six points. Yeah, the last point that you made six point four, he said, is the first sentence. It says if you fill out a citizen, you can't speak to the you can't speak to the same subject that another speaker. OK, that's that's a serious problem. OK, I mean, no, I just yes, I've read through it. So I'm still just trying to find that's Councilmember Gregory came here. I think I have found it. It's on page 10 of the red line copy and it's after the. Read the strikeout of the open microphone and what it says is no person may fill out a request to speak for him in order to speak or comment on another person's report. In other words, I'm gathering that that means to rebut or to to argue what another against what another person has said, which is given at the same council meeting. Is that is that what it means, Madam Attorney, or am I mis interpreting what what the what the what the intent is in that sentence? Let me we've got some stand to put are there any more questions for Mr. Zoltner? I didn't want to have you standing up there during a discussion of staff and counselors. Did you have a question? No, am I do I have the right sentence that you're talking about? That's exactly the sentence right there. And the and not just in my opinion, but the opinion of many , that is a serious constitutional issue right there when you try to regulate the topics and who may or may not address if it's within if it's within the rules and within that time limit. That is censorship. OK, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. So could she answer the question? Yes, of course. I might park company just to just perhaps a touch with regard to that particular sentence. If you if you read the sentence in total, it is clear that the limitation relates to speaking at the same council meeting. I would believe that would be more of a time place in in manner type of regulation, not a deterrent to otherwise allowing speakers to speak their mind with regard to whatsoever they might choose to address. So I would look at this as a time place and manner restriction, not as a prohibition. I guess to my maybe observations, this wasn't something that was being changed. So in other words, this is in black, which means it's been part of the ordinance for, I guess, however long it's been around before it was amended. So this wasn't a change that anybody had requested. This is this is just moving forward with the ordinance as it was before this February meeting. Is that correct? Correct. This provision has been in our rules to my recollection, at least since I've been with the city. All right. Councilmember Rhoad. We've got some other cars. So do you want to. It's on this topic. Yes, sir. OK, go ahead. Thank you. So Mayor Pro Tem, I'm sorry. That answers it because it seems like a little bit connected to what would have been an open mic type of request to speak for. I don't know what a request to speak form is. It talks about prior registration for the citizen reports. And so I'm imagining how this functions, how somebody could fill out a request to speak form to rebut somebody at a meeting who is saying something else if there's no option to do that in the context of a live meeting outside of prior registration. So there seems to be ambiguity, at least in my mind, as to how that would how we never enforce that to begin with or what sort of situation would result in us pointing to this as a result. And that's the reason why somebody couldn't speak. OK. Any more questions or comments on the first speaker's comments? Not. We'll move on. Next speaker will be Deborah Armantar. You'll come down, state your name and number, your name and address. Your time will begin. My name is Deborah Armantar, 2003 Mistywood Lane. I completely support Council Member Wasney's suggestions and the suggestion just made by David Zoltner about striking that part of the original document while we're already in the process of revisiting these procedures. I'm just going to read from a letter that I wrote to you. You all received it, but I don't know if you had the chance to read it. It seems obvious to me that the ideal solution to managing non-agenda speaking opportunities at open meetings is to move the registered speakers to the beginning of the meeting so they don't have to wait till the end and to schedule the open mic speakers immediately after the registered speakers so that both speaker groups are permitted to speak at the beginning of the meeting with neither group forced to wait around until the very end. That solves one problem, i.e. the problem of registered speakers stuck at the end of the meeting late at night without causing another, the problem of denying citizens a space to address council and the public on an issue not on the agenda without pre-registering a week ahead of time before the agenda has even been posted and before the he ctic week of work, school and activities is over. Our registered and non-registered speaker slots serve two different kinds of citizen needs and two different kinds of citizens. Open registration primarily serves adults with lifestyles that grant them both the time and flexibility to sign up the previous week such as adults without young children and also retirees. Open mic serves people like myself, full time working parents of young children, also adults with multiple jobs and/or unpredictable weekly work schedules. Both groups include people who might not have even planned to attend an open meeting if it weren't for a pressing new issue that arose between a Thursday and a Tuesday. By bringing to the table issues that your three-man agenda committee have not and by doing so publicly and on camera at open meetings, open mic and pre-registration enable these different and diverse categories of citizens to bring together, to bring non-agenda issues to the table in public , thereby helping our representative democracy function regardless of whether or not you like or act on what they say. By cutting open mic, you would be eliminating a wide contingent of citizens' ability to at least try to publicly influence your agenda, disabling not only me but the large and socioeconomically diverse city-wise segment of the community to which I belong. And you would be robbing us all of the opportunity to publicly raise time-sensitive issues that have arisen between Thursday and Tuesday or that are discovered missing from the posted agenda. Some of you have called the open mic a failed experiment because as you see it, nothing has come of it. And because you can't recall anything having been said in open mic that the speaker couldn't have pre-registered for in advance, that fails to acknowledge the diverse needs, weekly schedules, issues and time limitations of our diverse community of citizens. And assumes a wrong-headed and unrealistic definition of failure while setting poorly thought out standards for success. I assure you every time, every single time open mic is used , it is a success. And I also want to say that I happen to use open mic to talk about the planned fracking of Lake Louisville. I couldn't have done that at any other opportunity and I really appreciated that time. So thank you very much. >> Councilmember Gregory. >> Ms. Armator, are you aware that the change in the rules eliminates the registered comments, citizen reports at the end and moves all of those to the beginning as you had requested? >> Yeah, and so yes. And so my point was that what I would like to see, and I think that's a wonderful change. >> I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that. >> Yes, and what I would like to see is for the pre-reg istered speakers and the open mic speakers to all be at the beginning of the meeting. Because I agree that it's a problem to have people waiting around till midnight. I think that's ridiculous. So, and I was present at that February 23rd work session and I didn't even see it even considered that we could have everything at the beginning of the meeting. So I don't see it as an either or. >> Any other questions? Thank you, appreciate it. Next speaker will be Ken Gold. If you come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. >> Mayor, members of the council, my name is Ken Gold. I live at 2512 Natchez Trace here in town. I'm really speaking to save the open mic. I want to challenge the basic premise that we have too much communication with the council. This is simply a move to reduce that amount and try to streamline the meetings. That's what the justification was. I just want to give you one hypothetical. I can't see a work session agenda until it's posted. I can't speak on a work session item and if it's not on the regular session, I'm going to have to wait for two weeks unless there's a special meeting to be able to address that. That's not a timely communication. I wouldn't even know it was a topic until the agenda is posted. So the open mic at least allows me to engage in a conversation with the council in a timely manner when the topic is hot and I don't have to spend my time at another meeting two weeks later. Refreshing everybody's memory about the facts or the points brought up in that discussion. So I urge that we keep in some form the open mic. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gold. All right. We have some cards that have registered comments that wishing not to speak. But if if I call your name and you were wanting to speak, but we've just got the wrong card, just please let me know and we'll let you come on down. Christina Harris is in opposition. This will comment is this will further hinder relations between council and their constituents. Kim McKibbin and opposition continue speakers. And then Michael Hinnan in opposition. So those are the cards we have count Mayor Pro Tem. Well, I've clarified my ambiguity about this request to speak after looking through the entirety of the ordinance, just in case anyone else is following this discussion and is interested. For each of the topics, this is going through the agenda of your regular meeting and for each of the topics, it addresses whether or not there's the ability to fill out a request to speak card in order to speak on that particular comment and talks about the rules. So as I understand this, and Madam Attorney, please let me know if I read this correct, that what it's saying is if we have a posted pre and advanced registered citizen report that we have according to the red line version that would continue to be allowed under this. What it's saying is for that portion of the meeting, no one sitting in the audience is able to fill out a request to speak in order to respond to that particular section of the of the agenda. Is that correct? At that council meeting. At that council meeting. There's no limitation on the subsequent council meeting. Right. So in similar ways where we do that for consent agenda, same way, at least during the regular session, we don't allow for request to speak. So I understand that better. Just speaking, thinking out loud. Thanks. Council Member Briggs. I have a few questions. So just overall, I want to remember when when did we add open mic to the agenda? But just for the audience, I asked for this to be pulled out because I have an issue with with removing open mic from rules and from the rules and procedures. We added the open mic provision to the city council rules on August the fourth, 2015. So we've had it just just a touch short of a year. Well, when I rewatched the work session that we did, it was only around six or seven months, I think, that we and there was consensus at that time by a few to to pull it off. And I don't know that that is enough time for us to actually gauge that to see if it's it's working or not. And I I'm just trying to figure out why exactly it is that we did pull it off, because I couldn't figure out by rewatching that why it's missing today. It was it was it. Why it came back up in the work session to be removed so soon. Can somebody. There have been there is a reason, right? Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Gregory. I'm sorry. Well, I was on the board to ask the attorney a question, but I can answer Council Member Briggs question. OK. All right. But ask it again. So I'm I'm sure I'm why was the consensus to remove open mic? As I recall, the conversation there was frustration about the limitations of open mic regarding the Texas Open Meet ings Law, because the Texas Open Meetings Law says that we cannot engage in any kind of a discussion on an item unless that specific item is posted. And if a citizen registers, pre-registers to speak on an item, then we are able to engage that citizen and have more of a discussion. Otherwise, to abide by the Texas Open Meetings Law, we must remain silent. We can't enter into any discussion. We can't ask any staff person to respond or give any kind of clarification or illumination, because we would be in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Law. That's my memory of the discussion. You were there, but that's that was and that was my concern about the rule. I believe Madam City Attorney would like to address that as well. Right. As I mentioned earlier, I do have the minutes, the official minutes from that meeting where this item was discussed. And I think consistent with what Councilmember Gregory is talking, speaking to, that would be consistent with what I 'm seeing here in the minutes. There was discussion at that point in time about it being difficult to comply with the Open Meetings Act because the item was not posted with particularity. And so that was part and parcel, I think, of the discussion related to the open mic issue. I feel like that could be handled with education and we have enough we have rules and procedures in place for that. So for that one reason, I don't I don't necessarily think it applies to pull off open mic entirely. And I also wanted clarification on how many spots right now registered and open mic. Do we have total for the citizens to speak? And because I do know right now in the red line version to be approved, there's just five registered. So I wondering we're going from how many total to five? Right. I think I can answer that question. As your rules are currently written for the open microphone period, we would allow four speakers for up to four minutes per speaker. And then additionally, for the prior registration process, we're limiting those speakers to three at the early part of the meeting. And I did not see a limit on the number of speakers at the back, but I believe I believe we did not put a limit. I don't know that I've ever seen more than one, but I don't think we put a limit on it. Those would also be limited to four minutes per speaker at the prior registration period. Now, if we went to the draft, which is before the council at this point in time, it would eliminate the open microphone period. There would be a prior registration period of open speech, including up to five speakers at the first of the meeting who would be allowed to speak for three minutes each. So we're going from between seven and ten, possibly to five opportunities. We're going for our citizens to speak to us. Actually, again, four speakers for open mic now, three for the early period. And then we did not limit the number for the late period. So that would be seven plus to just five. OK, I see there's other people so I can help. My question. Yeah, good for now. That Councilmember Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. A question for our attorney. Do our current rules or the red lines rules? Do they limit a citizen report? Does it do they restrict a citizen report from commenting on an item that's on the agenda of that meeting? No, sir. We would allow them at the open mic to speak to that. They could also sign up to speak if they chose to. I'm sorry. I believe that the open mic restricts them from commenting on an agenda on that night. Correct. It's for other items. But does the registered speaking are they restricted from speaking on an item that's on the agenda? I don't believe I recall that in your rules, Mr. Tim, unless you're saying something different. I don't think that it does. So I think a person could could speak during the registered section on an item on the agenda. They could also fill out a blue card or speak when the agenda item comes before Council. Correct. Councilmember Wasney. I don't think it's fair to ask a citizen to wait till the end of a meeting to speak. So whatever it is that we do, everything should be at the beginning of a meeting so they can come in, speak. People have lives and they may not want to be here till midnight or one o'clock, two o'clock in the morning just to have their say. So whatever it is that we agree on, I would ask Council to have all of those speakers at the beginning of a meeting. And whether we do five people for three minutes or we do six people for four, we're talking about 15 or 20 minutes out of a meeting that often lasts for six or eight hours. How many hours do we spend as council members a week? 30, 40, 50 hours a week. How how many minutes are citizens given to come and address Council? Three minutes, four minutes. So I think it's important that we recognize that we are a democracy and that citizens have a right to come and speak before their elected officials. Democracy is messy. I've said that several times in this past year and let's put the rules down. And if we can't ask a question of someone at Open Mic, so be it. I think it's important to protect that time slot to allow a citizen to come in and speak to us. We get emails, we get phone calls, but there's something very impactful about somebody coming down in front of an elected body and speaking. They're also on television, so they're speaking to the entire city for those people who tune in and watch on television or online. So it's an important time slot to allow a citizen to come and speak before us, and I feel strongly about that. Councilmember Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I think the rules do exactly what Councilmember Wozni is suggesting because it's eliminating the registered speakers at the end of the meeting. It's doing away with that and it's adding more slots for registered speakers at the start of the meeting so that they don't have to wait around to the end. And I, too, agree that we need to have an opportunity for our citizens to make comments that can be heard publicly, that can be heard by all of us, that can be accompanied by a video or audio visual presentation, and that they can have their comments then become a part of the official minutes of our meetings. I think that that's very important. And that's why there's no attempt to eliminate that. There is an attempt to somehow control that and control it in a way by eliminating the open mic such that we have more of an opportunity to have an exchange. One of the reasons that we provided an opportunity for citizens to ask questions during our work session on consent agenda items is because we would have spent, in a lot of our work sessions, 30 minutes to an hour and 30 minutes asking for clarifications on consent agenda items. And we might have asked five or six questions based on emails that we had received. And that information would be fully vetted and explained and thoroughly reviewed during that time period. And then we would have a citizen come up at the open meeting, at the regularly scheduled meeting, and ask a question on the same consent agenda item that we might have spent 30 or 40 minutes delving into. It was awkward because we had already covered all of that. Everybody on the dais had examined the questions and had become satisfied so that they could answer it. So we wanted to give those folks to ask that question and a chance when all of the staff that we have sitting over there on the south side of the room and are available, well, they would leave. And then they couldn't answer those questions. So this was the opportunity. That's why we made that adjustment in our rules several years ago so that if folks had questions, that they could be fully vetted and that the staff that was responsible for those items would be there to provide the kind of detailed answers that our citizens would want and that we would want to have before we were making our decision. So I don't see this as an attempt to limit in any way. Now, some people are going to frame it that way. But this is an attempt to provide plenty of opportunity for people to speak. But for us to be able to respond to them so that we're not limited in that conversation and that engagement that we want to be having with our citizens. Council member Begari. I just wanted to add to one question and one comment. Comment is that I would like to see all of the open mic people be at the very beginning of the meetings. So I'm definitely in agreement with that. Question was for legal. I'm not following the open meetings portion of the discussion. So if let's say person A gets up and speaks, person B then rebuts person A's comments. We are not allowed to engage in the open mic discussion in any way. So where was the concern about open meetings? And again, I wasn't there when consensus was reached and these things were brought up. So I need to be caught up. Right, I think this is in February before you were elected in May. So the discussion is, as I recall it, had to do with the fact that as council knows, in order to have a legal discussion under the Open Meetings Act, there has to be a prior posting with enough specificity to give notice to the general public so that they can understand the topic which is placed on the table for discussion. With an open microphone type of presentation, there is no posting at all. And so consequently, any action with the speaker with some limited exceptions under the Open Meetings Act become very problematic. As I recall the discussion back in February, it had to do with on the prior registration part of the speaker's agenda , allowing or requiring the speakers to actually set forth some detail with regard to the items they desire to put forth to the council, such that the council, if they chose, could then freely have some interaction and some dialogue and discussion with the speakers without having the Open Meetings Act issue become an impediment. So that was the discussion, as I recall it, back in February. So I see two things that could remedy that, perhaps. One would be that we do not engage citizens during open mic time, and the second would be that perhaps since they have to, maybe we keep the Wednesday deadline to submit your comments, and can we include that in the posting, because we don't actually post until 72 hours, so we usually post on Friday. I don't know how feasible that is, but that could be a work around to it. That's all. That's my entire comment. Council Member Briggs? Do you have comments? I do have a few. OK. Yeah. I want to address first the issue of citizens speaking at work sessions. I don't have an issue with the way it's presented, because it gives basically full latitude to the mayor. I think, and well, I'm just saying, the mayor's the one that's running the meeting. And I know that when this happened about a year ago, when some people requested to speak during the work session on a topic other than Consent Agenda item, I've been on council six years. I don't know if I remember that happening unless it was a formal, you know, somebody's there for a presentation or something. So that could get out of hand really quickly as far as time and people coming up. And so if we need to put in there that if the mayor does, you know, agree to let someone speak, is there a time limit on that? OK, I can handle that. But I think to provide a way where people can just come and speak at the work session would really impede the flow of the work session, because especially if it's because if it 's number one being considered on an agenda item, that council meeting, there's time to speak on that. If it's not being considered on that agenda item, then there's all kinds of communication avenues, email, phone calls, citizens report during the next meeting. Or if we keep this open mic and an open mic situation. So I think the work sessions need to be able to flow freely , because as we've seen, they do encompass a lot of time and a lot of sort of discovery, if you will, on the certain issues. So I'm not really in favor of changing that unless it's to provide a little bit more specificity to, as you would say, maybe the process as regards to the time. As far as the open mic and the I mean, it's funny because first of all, when I got elected, I was the one that asked for more speaker time. I asked for five minutes. We got four. OK, so I think the council has certainly been open to providing more opportunity for citizens to speak. And the open mic was an opportunity. Oh, well, you know, if if somebody's got something to say, then then let's hear it. But it goes to the old adage, when you give something, it's much more difficult to take it away. I don't think it's limiting people's free speech. I certainly can understand about the time constraints, the different types of people and their work habits and things that might be that they may need. So I don't have an issue with keeping some form of that. I don't want it to be four. I don't want it to be three. Quite honestly, you had proposed three regular speakers and three open mic speakers. And I think the time was kept at four minutes, I believe, or three, whatever the time is. I think I could be on board for four registered speakers and two open mics, only because I think that would give some kind of avenue for people to come and and share something that is not on the agenda. Now, what is not in the ordinance and has been sort of our practice is and it's been the practice of the community, actually, that people would fill out a blue card to speak on the open mic portion. And I would like to memorialize that in this current code, that if we keep the open mic, that a blue card would be required. And the rules, at least as far as I know, so correct me, Madam City Attorney, if I'm wrong, that once an agenda item has been called, that is the time deadline that ends the time deadline for blue cards to be turned in. Is that is that my understanding as far as in the rules? That is correct. So I don't have an issue with with keeping some of the the open mic and put it at the beginning. And if it were four to two, I'm OK with that time wise. I could go either way. Because I think if people are registering to talk about something specifically, they're really coming with with an idea to share something with the council where they can have an interaction to maybe help resolve an issue. Whereas open mic is coming up and reporting something we cannot say a word, we cannot explore it. And maybe later on we can contact those individuals or instruct staff to contact them to discover what concerns or issues or solutions that they may be offering. So I'm OK with that. And I don't really I think we can work this out tonight. I don't know if I want to keep batting this around, because we're only talking about really two things as far as those red line versions. The rest of the ordinance has been around for for a long time. Councilmember Gregory. You know, one of the other concerns I've had with the open mic is that our rules are that we don't engage. We're already trying to follow open meetings law, but not engaging. But our rules say that that the speakers should not be commenting or making comments on items that are on the agenda for that night. Yet we've had several occasions fairly recently where our speakers get up and say during open mic, I'm not going to be speaking directly to an item on the agenda tonight. And then they go right ahead and do so, which, again, puts them in the position of being able to make comments and us not be able to ask questions because of the rules that we have in place. So I'm really concerned about the open mic because of the fact that that there are rules there that we're not asking the citizens to follow. And I suppose it's because we we don't want to appear to be infringing upon their freedom of speech. Yet yet it yet it creates awkward situations for for the rest of us when comments are made. They're probably, you know, need to have some clarification and we're not able to do it. That's why I have a lot of difficulty with the open mic and why I would prefer to have people either use their comment time when they're addressing the item, when it comes up on the agenda or use the time during by registering and putting on their topic so that we could ask questions, so that we could engage, we could ask staff. I think that that's the real problem with the open mic. The open mic is not to try to streamline the meeting, making that go away, because we could add six or seven speakers and we could let them all speak for ten minutes each if we wanted. That's, you know, nobody, you know, it's just a question of how many speakers and for how long. But but it's the idea of registering to speak so that we can comply with the open meetings law and engage them. Whereas with open mic, we can't. Mayor Pro Tem. I had a similar concern as it relates to, first of all, can somebody point to me in these rule in this ordinance where it even points to even in stuff that's been redlined out about that somebody cannot speak on a topic that's not on the agenda. What section is that? And while we're looking that up, I did I did run some data just to kind of see I was one of the ones who asked for this. I mean, I'd seen it in other sorts of public meetings. I saw the school board seems to have a version of the open mic and I thought it could lead to a lot of interesting options for folks who, again, if there was something that came about late breaking, I didn't see any of that on any of our schedule. In fact, 14 out of the 24 speakers spoke about renewable debt and plan, which in one form or another was probably on the agenda at the time they were speaking on it and certainly had a lot of opportunity to speak publicly in front of the entire council on that topic. So I do have some questions as to how this works. If somebody doesn't have to register in advance or even at they start speaking, if they don't give a clear thesis statement on the front, a do we even have a rule that hits on that they can't speak on something on the agenda? And I can't find it. And B, if we did have that rule, how in the world is that enforced, practically speaking? I too am not finding that provision in the rules, which may just be that my eyes are not hitting it tonight and I don't recall it. And as I'm sitting here next to Councilmember Gregory, he's indicating that he's not seeing it either. So I'm sorry I don't pin that tonight. >> And the reason because when I've seen it used for like renewable debt and plan, and I get, and it's a crowd of folks who have done it. Again, we've had 24 folks, six representing 16 speakers, so a lot of repeat folks. They end up getting, and this is fine, it's a good strategy , some nice front of the meeting, set aside time to focus on their particular point of view on the topic that's going to be later addressed. And everyone else is filling out a card to speak during the normal time during that session. So again, I can see how it can be abused, and I can see how it can sidetrack meetings. And I think there's a lot of wisdom. This is a business meeting that we're trying to run to get to the business of the city. There are numerous avenues for people to speak to us live in the context of this meeting. And frankly, numerous avenues of people to speak to us outside of this meeting, which tends to be, in my opinion, some of the most effective time is they can get us on the phone or get us in a meeting or email us or whatever. There's numerous examples, and not everyone is courageous enough to come down here and speak to us. And to say that that has more value than somebody who sends me an email or picks up the phone and gives me a call, I just don't think that's the case. So absent that rule, and absent a clear sense of rules of how to enforce that sort of rule, I do continue to have some reservations of the open mic section. Again, speaking from somebody who suggested it a year ago. >> If I may take a little bit of license here, Mayor Pro Tem, when you say absent that rule, are you saying that you may could get more comfortable with some open mic procedure process, if there were a rule limiting it to items that are not on the agenda, or are you just saying it doesn't? >> I can see even if there was a rule, how difficult that would become in your position in the chair. >> Sure. >> Of every sentence going through, sorry, you're waiting into this particular, so give me a minute, I'm waiting out of that pretty quickly. Well, you got a short, that's going to become very difficult to enforce, whereas every other aspect of, we're either going to let them say whatever they want and not have that rule in place, which I think is perhaps not the best way to go, or you have that rule, it becomes very difficult for us to enforce , so. >> Okay, all right. Councilmember Gregory. >> I'm going to go on record as saying I was wrong about that part of the rule. I thought it was there, it's not there. >> Councilmember Riggs. >> So I have another question for clarification. Someone mentioned open mic is not on the record, is that true? I believe that when people come to open mic and speak to all of us, it is to get on the record. So I think that's a good opportunity to do so, when they call us or email us or write a letter, that's not necessarily the same way they can come and address us all at the same time. And Mayor Pro Tem, to your comment, I think in the past six or seven months before council decided to remove this in the consistent work section, we have had a lot of very big topics, a lot of emotional subjects. And I don't know that we have given it enough time for all those ideas and hopes and expectations for open mic to come to us. I think we're pulling the plug way too early. >> All right, any other comments? Councilmember Briggs, I see you have indicated as a mover. So I'm recognizing you as a mover. >> Okay. So for me, open mic expanded our opportunity for citizen engagement and then expanded an existing platform for free speech. To me, if we eliminate this, we are casting a vote as representatives of this community to reduce citizen engagement and the opportunity for free speech. And it just doesn't feel right to me. So I'm going to make a motion to approve this, but I guess amend it. To four regular speakers and two open mic speakers at the beginning at four minutes apiece. >> Councilmember Wasney. >> I second the motion. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Mayor Pro Tem. >> Clarification of the motion, that doesn't include any additional language as it relates to whether or not the topic of that open mic speaker speech can be about an agenda item on that night's agenda. >> I was under the impression that that was a Texas meetings, an open meetings rule. Is that just something we had that was just our rule? Would that make you feel more comfortable? >> Well, like I mentioned before in my hesitations, I think there's a lot of flushing out as to what that means . I think there's a lot of wisdom to have that on there. I think for someone to get front of the meeting, discussion of a topic that there might be 40 people here that are waiting in line to speak to that they have the chance to speak. I'm not sure that that's the best order of procedure for this. And I think flushing that out, not just what that means, but how that is possibly regulated as it's going on in a way that's not creating a lot of awkwardness for everyone involved, I think is difficult. >> Well, I'm okay with that considering that's the way I felt it was before and the citizens were okay with it. So open mic, something not on the agenda for the night, right? Is that what you're saying? >> Was that a friendly amendment you were requesting, Councilmember Rhoads? >> Well, I guess my concern is two parts on that issue. I mean, as it relates to the motion tonight, personally, I'm in favor of certainly changing the pre-registered speakers as mentioned in this red line ordinance and pushing those up to the beginning of the meeting and changing the number. I think my concern is not just simply adding that language of what that rule would be, as to whether or not you can speak on an agenda item, but also how that gets. A discussion of how that plays out practically, because I think that's easier said than done. >> My motion stands. >> Okay, what's- >> My motion stands. >> Without that rule? >> Well, I will add that rule. My motion to amend for the pre-registered speakers, two open mic, four minutes a piece, open mic speaking on something not on the current agenda. At the start of the meeting, all at the beginning of the meeting. >> I would like to, can I ask for a friendly amendment? You so severely restrict me on my parliamentary procedure, so I can't make a motion. I can't second, so can I? >> You're about to make a strong suggestion there. >> Well, call it what you will. I did mention earlier that our rules are a little soft on what are the requirements for open mic. And so, I would like to see that they have to be turned in a request to speak prior to the meeting. I mean, they can walk in a minute before, so that we have a good idea of who that's going to be, and so we can know the number. And then once the agenda item gets called, then that closes the time for people to turn in their cards for public comment. I think we already have that rule, but I just want to make sure that that rule's in there. So it's primarily to retain the open mic that there's a requirement to fill out a blue card prior to the beginning of the meeting. >> Okay. Would you like to summarize your motion again? >> Okay. Four registered speakers, two open mic, all four minutes ap iece at the beginning. Do not speak on anything on the agenda for the night that's listed, and fill out a card before the item is called. A blue card, correct color? Blue card. >> Yes. >> Yeah, whatever we call them, request to speak card. Madam City Attorney, do you feel you have? >> Right, and just clarifying the motion, if I might. The not speaking as to an item on the current agenda, that applies to the open microphone. >> Yes, we are correct. >> Correct. >> All right. >> That way the people that come to speak on those agenda items, as Mayor Pro Tem suggested, >> Yeah. >> Have right. >> Okay, any other questions on this particular amendment? This motion with the corresponding amendments? We have a motion and a second. I guess I need to ask the seconder, are you in agreement with those amendments? >> Yes. >> All right. Okay, we have a motion and a second, and then corresponding amendments that have been approved by the movement and the seconder, so let's vote on the board, please. Any time now. Motion carries five to one. All right, moving on then, so that concludes our items for individual consideration that were pulled from the consent agenda. So we'll now move on to agenda items number five, which are , if you get to that. Items for individual consideration, consideration of the use of eminent domain to cadimrial property interests, we'll call the item agenda item 5A, considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton determining the public use and necessity for the acquisition of fee simple title to the surface of state and related property interests as further defined herein. >> Thank you, Mayor. Galen Gillum, our executive manager of administrative services, will address this item. >> Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mayor, city council, the item you have before you 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 Energy Center as part of the renewable Denton plan. After a favorable motion, I'll proceed to display the effective property tract on the overhead screens. >> I have one question of procedure. I do have one card to speak. When do we take that public comment on eminent domain cases , Madam City Attorney? >> We should take the item prior to the motion so that the information can be in front of the council before they consider the item. >> All right, so that's when we call the public opinion, public comment right now. >> Yes. >> All right, all right. We do have, this is six, I'm sorry, I might have the wrong one. This is six, six, eight, yeah, I've got the wrong one, I'm sorry. My fault. Come on back up. My fault, I misread the card. We're back on track. Council member Gregory. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move that the city of Denton, after having made the offer required by state law, to use of the power of eminent domain if needed to acquire fee simple title to the surface estate and related real property interest as further defined in the ordinance, including a waiver of surface use to the mineral estate of 117.145 acres, which consists of two separate tracks located in Denton, Denton County, Texas, generally south of Jim Crystal Road between the 900 block and the 9,000 block and the 9,300 block. And being more particularly described on exhibit A to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screen now being displayed to the audience. All of which is for a valid public use necessary to provide the location for the Denton Energy Center component of the city's renewable Denton plan approved by resolution of the city council on June 21, 2016 . >> I'm now displaying the legal description of the two tracks of property. >> Okay, Mayor Pro Tem. >> I second that. >> Has there been sufficient time, Madam City Attorney? Posting the legal description, so we have a motion and a second for agenda item 5A. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries five to one. Excuse me. >> Thank you. >> All right, agenda item six. Six A, hold a public hearing and consider approval of an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan for the villages of Carmel, phase four B. >> Okay. All right, we're just waiting on staff. >> Thank you, Mayor. Amy Bessett will provide the staff presentation on this. Amy is our Director of Development Services. >> And this is a public hearing, so I will go ahead and open the public hearing. >> I apologize, that last item went more quickly than I expected. So what you're considering tonight is an alternative development plan for an environmentally sensitive area in the village of Carmel, phase four. This is located on the north side of Pokras Page Road, east of Monte Verde Way and to the west of Swisher Road. This is a 45 acre tract of land that was rezoned in 2015 from NRMU to NR6 for a single family development. Give you a little background here. There are two areas in this tract of land that are of potential environmental importance. Sorry, I gotta catch my breath for a second. I ran all the way down the hall. >> No, you're good, just to get a big deep breath. >> Okay, the first one is the northwest corner that is former upland habitat ESA. This particular area was removed in 2008, in terms of the E SA was removed in 2008. After a field assessment determined at the time that it didn't meet the qualifications to be an ESA. Specifically, the upland habitat ESA is defined by the remnants of the eastern cross timbers forest. That's at least ten acres in size. And this particular area was less than ten acres, so the E SA was removed at that time. The second area of environmental concern is on the southeast corner. And it's the remnant of a stream that was designated as a riparian buffer ESA. This particular ESA restricts development within either 50 or 100 feet of the center line of the stream bed. And that depends on the size of the basin that is drained from that stream bed. In this case, the stream drains a basin less than one square mile, so a 50 foot restriction applies. In 2015, a field survey was done on this particular ESA and it was determined at that time that the stream bed does exist today, so the ESA remains in place. Here are a couple of photos. This is the former upland habitat ESA. You can see that a lot of the forest and the trees there still remain today. And here's a photo of the riparian buffer ESA, just to give you a visual of both of these. Because the applicant is proposing an alternative ESA that takes into account both of these areas. The proposal here is to, they're requesting to remove the riparian buffer ESA on the southeast corner in order to allow for an additional nine single family homes. They're proposing to preserve trees in the upland habitat on the northwest corner at a one to one ratio for those that would be removed in the riparian buffer. This is their mitigation plan in order to provide an alternative ESA. Additionally, the remainder of the trees in the tree preserve area in the northwest corner would be used to meet the requirements of the tree code. Due to drainage and storm water improvements that we are requiring as a result of platting, staff believes that the riparian buffer will eventually go dry and the ESA would be removed in the future regardless of what happens tonight. Under the existing conditions, assuming that the riparian buffer ESA that is in place today eventually dried up and went away and that ESA was removed. The preservation requirements under the tree code today would result in a total 270 caliper inches being preserved in this area. The proposal is to essentially mitigate for the riparian buffer one to one. In other words, you get to keep the same number of caliper inches. Actually, it puts an additional layer of protection because it protects the upland habitat area into the future. Whereas the riparian buffer we believe would be in jeopardy due to the drainage improvements that are being required. Amy, we got a real quick question. Council Member Begayar. So when you say that the riparian buffer will eventually go dry due to drainage improvements, what's the timeline that we're talking about? I would have to defer to a staff member on that. I don't know how long that would take. That was a determination that would have been made. Deborah here. Deborah. Yes. Thank you. Good evening, Council. Deborah Begayar, Environmental Services. The time that species take depends on the species that you have and our rainy season. If we get a lot of rain, they might survive longer because they will depend on whatever water they can capture. If we get into a dry spell, that might accelerate a little bit more their decline. So it is hard to predict and establish a hard, fast time for those species to die. Eventually, when you start rerouting the drainage, the natural goes through it, through a set of pipes. So some water pipes, then eventually that water will not be going through that point. Therefore, the decline is expected. And then do we know what the caliber is of trees that is just in the riparian area? We have a... Do you have that slide for me to see? That show? Okay. That's not what I thought it was. Okay. Well, we have a set of combination of species found on the riparian buffer right now. If I remember correctly, it's a little bit over 800 caliber inches of trees that would be removed from the riparian buffer itself. The... That amount of caliber inches would be recovered through the mitigation. Just keep in mind, the tree preserve area, it is an open habitat, a true open habitat. The designation of protection that that area had at one point was removed because the minimum acre size was not met. However, the habitat exists. So by mitigating through this proposal, we're going to keep the habitat intact as it is. Even though right now it doesn't have the protection that might have under the open habitat designation. It is a little bit over five acres total. Okay. Thank you. You may continue with the presentation. Okay. So under the existing conditions and assuming that the rip arian buffer would eventually go away, the minimum preservation requirement today would be 270 caliber inches. The proposed ESA plan would actually preserve 925 caliber inches and preserve the upland habitat that exists. The further benefits here that the developer is likely to use the tree preserve to meet the tree code requirements for the future phases of development. Phase two being another 997 caliber inches. Phase four A another 790. And then four B under the proposed ESA is 925 caliber inches for a total preservation of 2700 caliber inches which is 10 times what would be required under the basic tree code. So the request is to mitigate the early removal of a rip arian buffer ESA designation with the reestablishment of a former upland habitat ESA with the benefits being to protect an important environmental resource created the creation of a tree park in the villages of Carmel and preservation of a greater amount of trees overall. And the cost is the loss of a riparian buffer ESA that would be likely to be removed in the future. Couple questions. Councilmember Wasney. Looking at this picture below the riparian buffer. Can you go back one slide? Okay. The riparian buffer below that is red. Is that flood plain? I would have to ask Deborah to come up and speak to what that specific red is. Sorry, Deborah. You should. No, that is the continuation of that riparian buffer. That area was zone PD plan development for the preserve. That plan development was actually established before the adoption of the development code and the adoption of the environmental sensitive area regulations. Therefore, that area was actually grandfathering and they didn't have to comply. Villages of Carmel purchased that land from the owners of the preserve and developed that area and were able to channelize, put all that drainage in pipes and not having to preserve the riparian buffer. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. So I want to clarify that in the upland habitat, the ESA, there's no way that that can be developed anyway regardless, correct? Where the tree park is going to go? That is no longer protected by an ESA. So it could be developed as long as they met the minimum preservation requirements, which is 12.5%. Okay. To comply with public hearing notice requirements, 60 property owners were notified within 200 feet and 347 additional courtesy notices were sent out. We received two responses in favor and three speakers presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission in favor of this as well. The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval seven to zero and I'm happy to answer any additional questions. Any questions before we take public comment? Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. Amy, this may be out of your jurisdiction, but maybe you know or someone else in the room might be able to help. I do know we've talked with parks about park development in this area as well and I think in conjunction with I think this next phase of development. Are you aware of where that is? I can't recall. I am not aware. Somebody's got a couple people. Somebody here may. This is Mike Bell. So the tree park that the council has agreed to purchase is this area up here which is also upland habitat ESA. Post oak will eventually extend up through here and everything between post oak and swisher will be the city tree park. When you say tree park and that would be under the management of the parks department? Correct. Okay. I bring this up, this whole area, this is in my district and this whole area has been a lot of issues over the time since I've been in office and one of which has been development that just stalled out there which ended up in a lot of the amenities that were promised to some of the early home buyers had kind of gone by the wayside. Of course this was all right on the back end of the recession building installed and so there has been great excitement from a lot of the folks living in the earlier phases that this continued to develop and then they get some of these amenities because right now that area all around there is used by a bunch of people going to dump things and take their trucks back there and it's just it's not a great neighbor to have and so I'm just trying to contextualize all the work that's been going on in addition to what we're having with this tree park and then the city park and what not is really being ultimately a good thing as I'm hearing from a lot of the neighbors so as we move forward in this discussion. Councilmember Briggs. So on the map where it says nine houses will that whole spot be filled in with houses except for up in the the corner it's at the plan are the houses going to extend all the way up to to the tree park or to the ditten parks? Yes everything within the yellow line is phase four of the village of Carmel so basically everything that's on the west side of what will be post oak will be houses except for the tree park and then to the north of the yellow area this is phase five of the villages of Carmel so roughly all this area will be houses as well. Except for the green space that the city's except for the green space the tree roughly yes okay. And the tree park here wouldn't would go away and they would build there if they couldn't build down here in the ESA is that correct basically it's kind of either or correct okay thank you. Councilmember Waschne. I just have a real problem with putting houses in a repair and buffer ESA zone those areas are protected for a reason and I'm just not comfortable saying well we're going to change the drainage but we don't know when we can't show you the plan how in a dry year it's dry in a wet year it's wet it remains repairing buffer ESA tonight as we vote and I do want to respect that environmentally sensitive area. All right seeing no more comments or requests for speak we'll go ahead and take public comment because this is a public hearing and we are in a public hearing we have one card wishing to speak and you don't have to have a card to speak at a public hearing but we do have one card it's Justin Bon o I believe and it's designated as the applicant if you'll come down and state your name and address your time will begin. Thank you mayor and council so would be glad to answer any questions oh name and address I'm sorry Justin Bono manager Astra Carmel LLC owner and developer of the property 9219 Arbor Trail Dallas Texas 75243. So a few points of clarification so the the reason why and not to put words in Ms. Fierre's mouth but the reason why the drainage would be diverted we have a a final plat and construction plans on file and that is following this item for phase 4B. The phase 4A which is essentially right you know kind of almost oops that wasn't good which essentially is along this white line this area is under development and almost complete so this is you know we'll be selling houses here within you know a month or so so 4B is essentially this section over here those plans are in in front of staff currently and will be will be coming to you guys shortly so so the drainage will be directed as part of it even if we don't develop houses there we will have you know curb in front of those vacant lots and a storm sewer system in that street that will be accepting drainage flow from the rest of the subdivision so so just to clarify that point. We have I wanted to try to get to another slide so the tree park I think it's important to understand what we've done there so phase two has already been developed phase 4A is almost finished with development so those two phases have already been preserved as a tree park and have been platted in the final plat of those two phases as open space lots either to be controlled by the HOA or to be owned by the city if the city so chooses to take that to acquire those as a park down the road so really the only place we would consider development into a portion of that tree preserve is the remaining 925 inch area we're going to need some portion of that to comply with the tree code anyway so really this question comes down to us either developing these lots down here and therefore enlarging the tree preserve and and preserving all of these trees in one consolidated area here or keeping the riparian buffer here which would ultimately have a dry stream because we're going to have a drainage system adjacent to it and therefore having fewer trees in the tree preserve and this outflow of trees which is ultimately going to be down at the corner of post oak and pockers page so we felt it made sense to consolidate all that area into the tree park make the tree park larger and therefore not have this out lier down there at the corner we have several people requesting to speak i'm going to ask council members if you want to go ahead and ask a question now if you want to wait those presentations council member gary okay so i just wanted to clarify mr bono the drainage area on the riparian buffer you said is adjacent to it right that is that where that riparian buffer sits is essentially the eastern boundary of our to be developed phase so there are lots platted to the north of that and to the west of that in a street running alongside of north south street that is proposed to be platted alongside it and there are nine houses that are proposed to be built in the riparian buffer if this buffer e.s.a. were to remain intact what is the number of houses that you would be building in the preserve well we'd have to we'd have to recalculate another plat but i mean we would obviously try to recapture as many of those nine as we could in the preserve while still comp lying with the tree code and then to the extent that you can answer this what type of market value are we talking about in terms of nine houses i think right now average sales price in there is probably 250 to 275 so um so what's that math three and a half four million okay and i have three million dollars thank you council member briggs that was kind of similar to my question you mentioned riparian buffer and then you said concrete drainage and so i wanted to clarify you weren't talking about filling the riparian buffer with concrete when you said that it it would be adjacent right there's a street oh yeah sorry down right yes there's a street running to the west of it to the left of it if you're looking at it that would have a drainage system in it so um and now we would be obviously required to comply with that 50 foot 50 foot offset that uh that came up in the presentation and so would it would it be possible to put the tree preserve the ones that if you had to eat into it down you could you plant more trees down here in this in this area where you're not building houses i mean because you said you were going to to um do the best you can to fill our tree code i've driven by there and i mean it's clear cut i know a lot of trees went away so you 've got to find a place to put them is that yeah so i think um in the picture at the beginning was was helpful okay how do i get back so that tree park is really the only place you have right now to put so yeah so those trees there are what have already been preserved as a result of phases um two yeah so that's what you're looking at as far as what's already on the ground that's the current tree park right and you're saying you would extend that out or add more trees to maintain more of that we would maintain more of that than we would otherwise okay so some of that's even going to go away some of that may go well yeah some of that will go away on the far eastern side okay thank you councilmember greg green thank you there was a slide that showed the tree park phase one phase two and you could move back to that one there you go all together phase two tree preserve 925 inches and phase four a 790 inches all of that together is what type of area how many acres it's about well according to this it's about five acres so i think that's i would agree that that's that's pretty close thank you all right any other questions for the applicant and of course you do you have any comments i don't think your time is up yet but any other comments you 'd like to make or no i mean to answer councilman rodin's comments and he knows we've worked very hard to we're almost finished with a community pool in this community so we've done a lot to bring this community which was stagnant during the downturn and and try to complete complete this development out there so so we've formed a great relationship with the with the homeowners you know reignited the homeowners association we're almost complete with a new community pool out there so so this is the last phase there's another developer that actually owns the piece of the north this is the last phase that i'm developing but you know we're looking forward to hopefully moving this forward and you know ask that ask for your support and supporting staff's recommendation as well as the 7-0 approval through through pnc so so let me just make sure for myself i can summarize what i what i've heard at least in the presentation in your comments so phase 4a has basically already been built out in essence for all intensive purposes is that right it is almost the lots are almost it has not been built with homes okay but the lots are the lots are almost complete with development we have a little bit of one last little pavement section and final erosion control so then the drawing we're seeing here you're saying that if you don't get the riparian buffer omitted or waved or whatever the term is that you're going to have to in in phase 4a or in 4b you'll have to move into that tree preserve a little bit is it 4b in conjunction with 4b we would you know develop some portion of this we don't have a plan drafted that demonstrates that yet because we've presented the one that assumes passage of of this but if this stays then we would come over here and and capture some of that in a manner that we were we still complied with the tree code it allowed us to hopefully make up make up some of those lots and so from the from in in phase 4b you said you've already got a plat and construction plans i think moving sort of in a parallel track with this rezoning request is that correct it's behind to be there they have been they have been submitted submitted okay so what would be your time estimate from the time because the drainage goes in at the time of putting the lots in so if you were to get approval on something when you're ready to pull your permit and start developing the land to to develop the lots what kind of time frame are you talking about between that start time and when everything's in place are you ready to start selling houses all the drainage is in place and it's ready to go um the phase 4a took us about 12 months to develop okay we would start 4b as soon as possible frankly we're behind the builder demand so you know as soon as we could get final plat and plan approval we would be bidding out starting the process of developing 5b and then you know add 12 months to that so 12 months basically next next fall okay thank you i have a couple questions for staff do you have any other comments or any more questions for the applicant councilman wasney so for the nine houses in the riparian what is the size lot are they quarter acre they all lots are 50 foot by 110 foot lots typical i mean some of some of them are larger but that's the typical lot size this is owned in r6 so in our six so you're looking at what one and a half acres approximately uh that's probably i don't know exactly but generally i think it's yeah a little a little over an acre probably maybe one and a half yeah really it's really if you got a 5,500 foot lots you got nine lots that's about 45 it's about 50,000 square feet it's a little over an acre yeah i think a couple of those down in the corner are a little bigger so it may be an acre and a quarter but between an acre and acre and a half i think it's a fair time you have five acres up in that northwest corner so it would be taking an acre approximately and a little bit off of the five acres is that correct again we haven't finalized the plan there but it would certainly mean taking some reducing that five acres by some amount and leaving the acre at the bottom i don't know if it's if it would end up being you know as we try to lay out lots up there versus down here the plan gets a little different and so we might be more efficient or less efficient up there so i can't speak to exactly what that acre trade- off would be but there would definitely be some trade-off in that tree preserve so that's probably a pretty pretty fair assumption thank you thank you appreciate that i do have a question for stat well uh i'm going to go ahead and save that for after i close the public hearing so this is a public hearing uh don't have any more cards for speaking but does anyone wishing to speak and come down state your name and address and your time will begin okay i thought mr tomlowe's coming down here okay anybody wishing to speak this agenda item one more time anybody else wishing to speak all right we will now close the public hearing if i could just get a very uh sort of cliff note description of the esa and what its purpose is because what i'm hearing is that if this thing if the drainage is fixed so that this thing goes dry and that you talked about species that will eventually may die off so i i hear that a lot repairing buffer esa what are we actually preserving if we preserve this is i guess is it just a a drainage dish with some trees growing around it and therefore uh i mean why can we say it's important now but if we change the drainage it's not important repairing buffers develop where water is okay and pretty much what we're looking in south of land adjacent to a creek or channel or a water body who actually the makeup species of it it is very related to the presence of water okay what it does it only it provides uh an ear to control how much pollutants sediments goes into the creek when all that gets into the creek it gets waterborne and they end up being at the lake it also provides pathways for wildlife to go from point a to point b it allows to regulate the hydrology of the site okay and also provides uh food and um place for the wildlife to actually stay there so it is important uh it's an important element of our preservation system it does a great job maintaining the water quality and it does a great job uh regulating the hydrology of the site in this case because downstream from it having already channelized we kind of will have that area isolated and not connected to otherwise will be if if the stretch downstream have been left intact so it sounds like i mean obviously the the sort of path of movement for wildlife and things such as that are important but it sounds like at least from what you said this particular buffer may be repairing buffers and e.s.a.s in general the water component of that is what is sort of paramount you know the filtration of pollutants that come into the water the the wildlife who can drink the water that the control of the hydrology so that in general then if you have something like this that eventually uh has something happen to it whether man-made or natural that doesn't really serve that function anymore then that's where you sort of get into that you can get into that question well is this is this still could be considered an e.s.a. or could we remove that designation correct eventually if we start the drainage pattern and water will not be reaching that location the makeup of the of that habitat is going to change is going to decline is a matter of time so in this case we um staff is always proponent of mitigation apples to apples in this case they didn't have any other repair and buffer on site that they could actually go and do some improvement in it so in this particular case the only option that they had was to look into an area that it is at open habitat by by the species makeup however the preservation the protection is not given because it's lacking the minimum 10 acre size okay all right okay thank you very much that's very helpful i appreciate that council member briggs so this may also be a question for you um but it when it rains it would still act as repairing buffer right yeah yes okay so my my issue my concern i guess i would say is that um we have a really bad coyote problem right now in our city um foxes we are taking away habitat for these creatures and um so i guess my question would be if this area is um what kind of wildlife are is in this one is in this area and if we take it away where are they going to go will they will they go up in the tree preserve and stay there i 'm just kind of curious about the wildlife aspect of it well wildlife they tend to to go through uh links or passages and repair and buffer meets that that's the water part yeah that's yeah but remember something when everything develops around let's play the scenario that that repair and buffer stays and everything else around that is developed right now is a vacant land where they can move freely from point a to point b if that area is developed completely surrounded then uh they will become a more the contact with humans will be more uh often than not um unfortunately the connections that they have to the south have been already eliminated for that matter because the repairing buffer was removed um in that area you still have some of the area that have been uh still undeveloped it's just a matter of one of when those parts will become available for development so um at this point i see the the possibility of of them to still be using that path but eventually as more development happen in that area that would probably be less and less more frequent and they will be pushed away or um the the the chances were humans would be coming in contact with um wildlife would be more prone thank you mayor pro tem i appreciate the mayor asking that question uh because i too had similar because i think we tend to think we hear the term environmentally sensitive area and we think of something like a national park that's preserved for some particular really i mean as i hear the rhetoric in other contexts being discussed on this but i will just say i think it's interesting when i search environmentally sensitive areas to do my own study during this presentation the first page of google came up with three dentin hits one of which was a presentation you did with dr kenny banks at texas a&m university where it goes into great detail about the ins and outs of repairing buffards their benefits why we need to educate municipalities on the value of them why we need to work with developers to be sensitive to that so i'm very confident that we have probably the best team in the nation thinking through these questions when i see deborah's name and dr bank's name as as regional and national authorities on this that i i think a lot of ins and outs on this issue but they seem to be guiding us in the right direction so i just wanted to point that out just to promote how great our team is here at denton but also to say i think we got the right people thinking through this and so i'm comfortable moving forward council member wasney question for staff question for staff is the natural water flow from the northern part of the map to the southern part of the map so it flows okay well bear with me pretty much the water starts here that this would be the the the waters of it eventually connects to the south and it loops around and gets into all the all the floodplain that you will see a lot like we will work on the east side of it so pretty much it curves around and joins that floodplain and eventually that gets in that floodplain go and reaches the lake louisville thank you all right any other questions i do want to say uh when we're talking about wildlife nothing maybe i don't know if we were there but when i was in somebody's office at planning and we looked out the window and there's this service station or garage across the window there were like three or four foxes on the roof of the building and of course we all got sort of i got sort of concerned and we made all these phone calls about you know what do we do and we were told by the texas parks and wildlife leave them alone there's probably nests around it was just fascinating to see it i thought how they're going to get down and they got down i mean it just it was it was quite interesting it's a good learning experience uh mayor pro tem there is a very famous family of downtown foxes for folks who hang out and see them especially in the evening it's it's pretty charming for our city i do want to say before making this motion i appreciate uh your continued investment uh in denton uh and for your work with the community and the neighborhoods there to to to bring that uh development to fruition and the amenities uh that so desperately needed there a lot of the discussion we have about uh the spike in property values especially as it relates to single-family homes is in part due to a limited supply and demand uh we need more single-family houses in the city of denton in order to help uh ease the prices that we're seeing on to get more families being able to be able to live in denton in houses that they want to so on that comment i will uh make a motion to approve agenda item 6a councilmember gregory i i second the motion but i do have one other question that i meant to ask earlier which is uh that that tree preserve area uh who retains ownership of it and who ret ains the responsibility for what limited maintenance there is of it so in this case that area would be planted as a common space lot and maintained by the homeowners association and um are there any restrictions on their on how they maintain it i mean do they leave the under uh understory uh alone or can they go in and manicure it and correct so in in this case the section for 4b should be roughly here they have to maintain it in its environmentally sensitive nature so okay with the understory in the phase two and phase four just the trees are protected they can clear out the under story okay thank you well i second councilmember riggs i just wanted to confirm that that the homes because i do i am sensitive to single-family homes being built here and even if um they're not built in this one acre they will be built somewhere so i'm just clarifying that okay we have a motion in a second is there any more discussion let's vote on the board please okay we have oh we got to go back um we had a tie vote and according to our rules of procedure it's my understanding madam city attorney correct me if i'm wrong that if we have a tie vote that the uh item will automatically be put on successive agendas until we have a full council is that correct all right so we will expect to see this back at our next regular meeting thank you all right we'll go on to agenda item 6b which is hold a public hearing consider adoption of an ordinance of the city council of the city of denton texas authorizing city's participation in texas enterprise zone pursuant to the texas enterprise zone act thank you mayor carolyn booth our executive director of economic development will present this item just to the council okay thank you mr martin mayor and members of the council the item before you is to consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the city's participation in the texas enterprise zone program and to that end i'm going to provide you with some information about the program itself by way of background the texas enterprise program tool for local communities to work with the state to promote job creation and investment in economically dist ressed areas a broad outline of how the process works is that the local community opts to participate in the enterprise zone program which is what you're considering right now then when a project is interested in participating in the program the local community will have to nominate the company as a member of the community as a project under the program the community must offer one or more forms of local tax incentives as part of the process then that allows the nominated project to apply to the state for refunds of sales and use tax on qualified expenditures only and those refunds can be up to $200 per job up to 20 up excuse me up to 500 jobs the applications are scored on criteria including distress of the area the state priority of the projects and local and private effort by which it means local and private capital investment projects can participate for up to five years and the employment and capital investment commitments have to be incurred in that time frame one of the stipulations of the program is that 25 of the new jobs created have to be filled by people who are economically disadvantaged or who are residents of an enterprise zone which in within the city's jurisdiction which indicates an economically disadvantaged area this is a short one the key points are participating in the program allows denton to assist local projects in receiving significant state tax refunds and participating in the program itself does not have a fiscal impact to the city of denton because the funds that are used in the program are state funds i am happy to answer any questions yes councilmember breaks this is basically the exact same thing that we have seen before correct correct there's not any changes or anything it's been approved by council once it's just come back to us because of the posting yes okay now there is a slight difference for bringing it to you okay we brought it to you before there was only one ordinance that allowed the city to participate in the program and it also nominated a project at the same time this time we've split the ordinances into two so this is the one that authorizes the participation and it it's if it's adopted it will be in effect for five years which means if we have another project in the future that requests to be a part of this program we'll only have to do the nomination ordinance and not the participation ordinance okay and this is a public hearing so i'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing i don't have any cards wishing to speak on this public hearing 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 one more time all right thank you seeing none we will close the public hearing i do have a question of clarification so you said before we had everything in one ordinance which was the participation in the nomination yes and in this one we have it in two ordinances and it's just okay got you all right so we can do it separately all right council member briggs a motion to approve the participation ordinance council member gary i'll second that motion we have a motion and second on agenda item 6 b let's vote on the board please motion carries six zero we'll move on to public hearing item agenda agenda item six c hold a public hearing on the voluntary petition for annexation and the corporate limits of the seat of dent under texas government code section four you you you you you you you you you you you the enterprise zone program items tonight the objective here is to give you some information about winco foods their distribution center and winco's nomination to the texas enterprise zone program as you are all familiar by this point the winco foods distribution center project is located on a 77 acre site in the west park business park that is inside the west park tours the building is more than 850 000 square feet and they made a capital investment or will by the time they're finished of 130 million dollars the project will provide 165 jobs with an annual payroll of about 7.2 million dollars an enterprise zone is determined by a formula that takes into account uh census tract data and some other things that are collected by the federal government but it's depicted on this map here in orange and you can see that the the address of the winco property 300 southwestern is located in the middle of the orange enterprise zone there as i mentioned during the public hearing uh prerequisite for a project to be nominated as an as an enterprise zone project is that the municipality must provide some form of tax incentives to the project so as a quick summary the chapter 380 agreement that the city entered into with winco contains 6.2 million dollars in reimbursement for their public infrastructure costs and an additional 1.7 million dollars as an economic development incentive benefits to winco will be a state sales and use tax refund of 412 thousand 500 dollars the benefit to the city of denton is that 25 of the new jobs created by the project which equates to 42 jobs must be filled by people who are either economically disadvantaged or are residents of an enterprise zone within the city's jurisdiction and to conclude the key points are nominating winco to this program enables denton to assist the company in receiving significant state tax refunds and that winco's participation in the program guarantees that 42 new full-time jobs that pay more than denton county's median wage of 39 thousand 400 dollars are going to be filled by economically disadvantaged residents and finally that nominating winco to the program has no fiscal impact to the city of denton happy to answer questions any questions for staff seeing none mayor protem thank you mayor i move approval of agenda item 7a i second oh sorry i'm just kidding we have a motion and a second let 's vote on the board please motion carries six zero moving on to agenda item seven b she's trying to get away on what happened she's trying to get away oh okay carolyn booth has this last item here considered appointing a nominating committee to recommend appointees to serve on the economic development partnership board thank you again mayor council members the economic development partnership board is an 11 member body that oversees the joint economic development efforts of the denton chamber of commerce and the city of denton and serves as a recommending body to the city council each year approximately half of the members of the economic development partnership board's terms expire so part of the process in the ordinance to nominate new members or to reappoint members who are eligible for reappointment is the council forming a nominating committee the nominating committee consists of two members of the council along with a nominee from the chamber mr larry parker has been chosen by the chamber to serve as their representative this year so what we're asking you to do tonight is nominate two council members to form that committee and then once that's done i'll contact the members of the nominating committee we'll discuss the potential eligibility of the folks who are on the board to be renominated and then the goal is to present the slate of nominees to the council on august 18th council member big gary i have a question for legal can we discuss the underlying ordinance uh the underlying ordinance is included in your backup and it does there set forth the procedure for appointing the nominating committee but in so far as taking action on the ordinance we could not take any action it's not posted to do that it's we're only posted to make the appointments to the nominating committee so we cannot discuss any part of the ordinance that doesn't have to do with the nominations um well i think it's in your backup i don't know where your question might be going but i have a broad comment about the ordinance to make and i want to make sure that i can make it without being violating open meetings well our posting right now is relates to the nominations to this committee i'll reserve my comment then that's the safe approach yes ma'am council member breaks well my comment was also about an ordinance the the one mentioned in our backup with a little star a sterisk beside it um so i will hold my comment about that one as well i guess it might be the same one okay okay mayor pro tem i i think i know what perhaps questions and concerns you have and i think there's a way of tackling this in a way that keeps this on on topic um and it relates to the the task before us is nominating uh a couple of council members to sit on a nominating committee to choose ultimately or help select some open seats on the uh nominate for approval of this council uh some seats on the edp board and so one one issue i just for clarification is as it relates to one of the council seats and we have a former council member who sits on that seat just so we all understand what whoever whatever we're going to be doing when two of us are going to be getting into that nominating committee is a former member council member greg johnson looking at the ordinance it seems clear that when this ordinance was created that both for people representing the council and representing the chamber as i understand it um they have to have been either a council member or a chamber board member in order to have gotten onto that board to begin with but if they were to go off of that council or board the rules seem pretty clear that they're able to stay on that is that is that what we're dealing with in terms of at least that one spot which council member johnson's on yes that's correct okay and so the the point in time in which i guess the clarifying question for legal i think again so that whoever's on this committee understands their full charge given that council member johnson's on there unless he were to resign and that's not an eligible spot due to its midterm that that's not an eligible spot to be nominated is that correct according to the ordinance yes his term is not up until 2017 his term is not up at this point yes okay and then in 2016 just like anyone else who's eligible who's ever on that nominating committee would have i guess the full ability to kind of nominate folks as they want for that open position correct yes so so why against the clarifying ordinance because the ordinance seems to make the case that they can stay on for the full three terms as long as it's consecutive but that's still upon uh approve or nomination of the committee and approval by the council so it's not like they get an automatic as all boards and commissions yes sir okay that that clarifies my questions thanks council member breaks so it would be this time next year our nomination for a new council member for a council member would take place i mean i guess what i'm saying is there not anywhere in the in the rules or the ordinance that two current council members have to be on this board or is that just the way that it works out okay so it has nothing to do with being a council member well i mean help me out here madam city attorney you want to provide some clarification please do you want me oh i think let's count on or can you answer the question yes um council member briggs it is correct that the composition of this board the ordinance specifies that two of the members must be city council members when they're nominated to the board that's essentially how that's the way that the ordinance actually works out because of the clause that says they can continue to serve as long as they were council members when they were first nominated so does that help you they they have to be council members when they're originally nominated but if there was a situation like we had where an election was held and someone was no longer a council member they can still serve out the term that they were in when they were put onto the board as a council member and could subsequently should the nominating committee put them forward as a nominee they could serve two more terms after that yeah and just for clarification we're not we're appointing the board to make the nominations we're not necessarily appoint ing the final board members which this question may be revisited later on once we get to that process but council member thank you okay council member graver thank you mayor so the the question tonight is for the the job for us tonight is to appoint two of our current council members to serve on a nominating committee and their job is to look at the list of current members of the economic development partnership board and look at those folks whose terms are up expire in 2016 part of their two-year term and if it says next to their name that they are eligible that means that they're eligible to be renominated they don't necessarily have to be renominated but they're eligible to renominated and so i would imagine what the duty of that nominating committee as i remember from last year it was a long time ago is to contact those folks to see if they're interested and then for the nominating committee to determine if they want to bring forward those names to the full council for consideration that's really what the job is it's up before us right now yes that's correct council member brings i followed the rules so um okay so that helps so we nominate two current council members right tonight okay gotcha who did this last year to serve on the nominating committee right dalton gregory kevin rodin and virgil strange okay um okay so open it up for the count my colleagues this is the time where we would pick two members to serve on this nominating board is that correct oh council member rodin i'm sorry go ahead i was going to make a make a motion of possible nominees for this and that would be dalton gregory and a volun-tooled of joey hawkins in his absence but i know dalton has served on this he served with me last year and also actually served on the board so has a good perspective to help guide that nominating committee okay great council member gregory second we have a motion and second to appoint council member gregory and council member hawkins as the council representatives to the economic development partnership board nominating committee i guess that's what they call uh council member breaks does the person in the nominating committee do they not have to approve of their position or their nomination is that i think in the great tradition of the city of denton it's a it's a nice gesture to allow them to be appointed in their absence so i don't think there's a problem with that okay all right thanks all right we have a motion and a second let's vote on the board please motion carries six zero we'll go on now to presentations from members of the public we have one speaker willy husbeth regarding the lack of african-american firefighters is mr husbeth here mr husbeth is not here so we'll then move on to concluding items i've got a couple or one so i'll go last council member breaks yes i have i have one um it's it's a concern about the impact of the global interest rates being at or near zero percent and how it might negatively affect expected returns for the city's pension fund i asked a long time ago for a staff report on pension funds and never really received anything and so now during budget talks and then there's some more items in the news going on right now i would um i'd like to see if council could receive a staff report regarding what steps should be taken in advance to mitigate any risk for the future okay great any others mayor pro tem one has to do with there's there's something in the nt daily recently as it relates to a landlord issue they did some concerned students were worried about their their condition of their rental unit that they were in and this isn't the first time this has hit dentin news we've seen some things under various news channels and it's been a while since we've kind of just broached this topic i know there's sensitive it's controversial but to just help me understand and for the council to understand what abilities we have already in our tool chest to be able to address issues as they come up as it relates to tenant concerns not just in terms of what are their legal routes because they certainly have a lot of those but what can the city do and can we not do and then perhaps a look at how are other cities perhaps tackling this issue we have so many rental units in town and particularly homes it seems to be where this tends to be the problem more so than multifamily units just to understand the landscape of our tool chest at this point sure anyone else including item the one i have uh oh i'm sorry council member gary a little slow on the buttons i would ask that at some point we have a discussion about the aforementioned ordinance regarding the economic development board we could be in a position where we have two city council seats that are not held by any city council members and i think given that we're the body that actually provides the funding for economic development incentives it would make sense for us to have a seat at the table two seats in fact great thank you i've only got one and if i could get an informal staff report or some kind of report helping me understand and my colleagues just some information we have parking requirements we have sort of maximum parking requirements or which tend to i think restrict some particular uses but you can extend those parking requirements with pervious parking i would really like to see the numbers on even if it's just a regular parking space which i think are 10 by 20 what's the what's the water savings between a pervious and non-pervious and the associated cost differential between concrete space and pavers and the maintenance because i hear a lot of concern that you know when when people need more parking they have to go to to to pervious but when i look at a pervious system i see most of it is still pavers now there are some grout in between some sand but i just would like to know what those numbers are as far as the water and the percolation but also the cost differential because i i've seen some pretty big hardships in that regard that didn't seem to justify the additional cost but i don't know so that's why i want to see that information council member gravery when we do that the mobility committee actually had a little report on that a while back because it had to do with not only parking but actual road construction where it it does not run off into the gutters or into that system but it actually percolates down so that when we get the report it might be interesting to see the video of of these different types of surfaces and how they can absorb the water and where it goes it was it was fascinating and and i think uh mr nelson would have the contact for us to help us with that fantastic thank you all right any others all right well that concludes our meeting and we will stand adjourned