Jul 26, 2016 City Council on 2016-07-26 3:00 PM

>> In the absence of our mayor and our mayor pro tem, the council rules say that it falls to the duty of the city secretary to preside over the meeting until a temporary presiding officer is chosen. Now we may just take a long time doing this because this is my day in the sun. But our esteemed city attorney will read us the actual ver biage out of the council rules. >> Right, thank you, Madam City Secretary. The council rules provide that in the absence of the mayor and the mayor pro tem, the council shall elect a temporary presiding officer. And in that respect, the council would need to go ahead and make that election. I am told that our mayor pro tem is inbound, but he may be having some traffic difficulties. So we would need to elect a temporary presiding officer and then when our mayor pro tem arrives, then he will become the presiding officer at this meeting. So at your pleasure, we can elect a temporary presiding officer. >> Do I have any nominations? >> Yes, council member Briggs. >> I would elect council member Gregory, since he has done it before and is here, if he would like. >> He's here. >> I know he has. >> He's here, yeah. >> Was there a second? >> Seconded by council member Begheri. And so we have a motion and a second to have a temporary presiding officer of council member Gregory. All in favor, please raise your right hand. >> Motion carries unanimously. And my five minutes in the sun is over. >> Good job, Jennifer. >> Hey, good job. >> Let's give our city secretary a big hand. >> [APPLAUSE] >> So the meeting was called to order, I think. What time did you call it to order? >> It was about 3.02. >> All right, and a quorum is present. Our first order of business on the work session, actually, let me ask the council members indulgence. We've received an email from a citizen asking that one of the items in our closed meeting regarding consultation, discussion, and deliberation about the duties and responsibilities of the position of city manager. In other words, discussing the city manager's job description be done in the work session rather than in closed session. If there is a preference for the members, we could add that as item C of the work session report. Is that correct? >> Mayor Pro Tem, I did provide, or I guess you're the acting presiding officer, I'm sorry. I did provide some advice this afternoon to the mayor Pro Tem with regard to that closed session item. So I'm going to provide that to you as well. >> Certainly with regard to item number A. >> 1A. >> In the individual consideration. If the council desires to have a bit of discussion with regard to their desires for this candidate, I think that would be an appropriate forum in tandem with the approval of this resolution, making an appointment of a search firm. Is there a desire on the part of the members to discuss the city manager's duties or the city manager's job description in a public setting? I see two hands, three hands. That's enough to do that. I would then say that we'll do that following work session item B. And I would give caution to the members that as we make our comments, that we should, as politicians, we get to say most anything that we want to, but as employers, we can't. And so if any of our comments about the job description of the city manager cause you to feel like that you need to reference our former city manager, we would need to do that in closed session. Also, the part of the job description of the city manager is dictated by the city charter. And it's typically our desire that when we ask for the city attorney's legal opinion that we hear that in private. Because she is loathe to tell us our ideas are illegal publicly. And if we're making a proposal that is in opposition to the city charter, according to her opinion, that would be better handled in the closed session part of the meeting. We may end up not needing to have this section in the closed session at all, because we have everything handled, but those are my two ca utions as an old guy who's been on council for a while. So item 1A, Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion Regarding the Adoption of the Proposed City of Denton Public Art Master Plan. Mr. Interim City Manager. Thank you. Emerson Burrell, our Director of Parks and Recreation, will be presenting this item to council today. Emerson. >> Thank you, and first, Mr. Gregory, congratulations on a well-fought campaign. >> I'm going to try to keep it from going to my head. >> As Director of Parks and Recreation, one of my duties is a staff liaison to the Public Art Committee, which is why I get to be here today and present this to you all. Public Art Committee, just to give you a little bit of history before we get to the Public Art Master Plan. The Public Art Committee was created by ordinance by council in 2006. When that committee was formed, the Public Art Committee actually reported directly to the Parks, Recreation, and Beautification Board. Public Art Committee was created to promote the cultural environment, tourism, economic vitality, enhance the community aesthetics, to expand opportunities for citizens to experience art in public places, to showcase our cultural diversity, and to prove quality of life for citizens and create a distinctive city identity. The Public Art Committee, the role of that group, is commissioning and placing and installation of art pieces, implementing funding mechanisms , management and maintenance recommendations, and purchasing, commissioning pieces of art, disposing of, although we've never disposed of any art, throughout the city. The Public Art Committee was changed a bit in 2013. At that time, again, by ordinance, the committee was changed so that it was a direct report to the council instead of to the park board. And the funding for public art changed a little bit at that time as well. Prior to that date, 2 to 4% of all citizen approved bonds, CIP bonds, were dedicated to public art. In 2013, the decision was made to exclude those bonds that were used for streets, drainage, traffic control, and other related infrastructure. That means that we still have the opportunity to do public art, any funds that are related to public safety, police and fire, the parks department, or facilities management. In addition, and this has not changed, 2.4% of all hotel occupancy funds are dedicated to public art in the city of Denton. We're here to the point now with our hot funds that that equates to just north of $50,000 a year. So the Public Art Committee commissions and purchases or accepts donations of art, the inventory, the city inventory . >> Question. >> I'm sorry. >> Sorry, Emerson. Is that money allowed to accrue or does it need to be spent every year? >> The preference is that it be spent every year. >> Okay. >> Now, I'm going to qualify that by saying after having put Brian in the headlock and worked extensively with him. He has allowed us that if there is a large project, a specific project where we would like to, the Public Art Committee would like to accumulate funds for two or three years and do a large monumental type project. That if a project fund, project account were set up, that we could let those funds roll over and accumulate for multiple years. >> Okay, thank you. >> The inventory, the city art now exceeds 150 pieces. That's everything from the carved brick history of Quaker Town Park that's literally carved into the walls of Quaker, I'm sorry, of Civic Center Park. I'm sorry, the Civic Center. >> Bob Carter in Quaker Town Park. We have herons and frogs in the parks. We have the man of integrity, the bronze at City Hall East. November Devil up on the square. We have divers at the Natatorium, another bronze sculpture. Festival in motion right outside the doors as well as Obe Joyful a little bit further down the path. We have paintings and pictures throughout all of the city buildings. The back wall of this room is a prime example. Even this book, which is full of pieces that were created to illustrate 25 poems. The pieces of art were created by Denton community artists to illustrate 25 poems that were written by another Denton artist, Carla Morton, who just happened to have been the 2010 Texas Poet Laureate . And this book was published by our public art committee. Copies are available, all right, never mind. So next up, we have three big projects that are in design right at the moment. Two of these three are actually come directly out of the public art master plan. We're working on design right now for the 9/11 Firefighters Memorial Bell Tower that will be constructed on the front of Central Fire. That's in design at the moment with the Kirkpatrick Studio. We have purchased with council's approval a Jesus Morales granite sculpture, which will be installed out in the courtyard out here. Mr. Morales taught at UNT. He is an internationally known sculptor. One of those very sad turns of event, the public art committee had just concluded a conversation about using some of the funding to acquire one of his pieces when he was killed in a vehicle accident two weeks after that. We were fortunate through some diligent work of some of the public art committee members to locate a piece of his art. It's an eight foot tall piece of granite, carved granite. That's actually a fountain. And purchased that. It's insecure storage at this point. And while the engineer's designing a base for it, and then we're going to install it here in the courtyard at City Hall. >> There's a question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Will it maintain its original form as a fountain? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Will it continue to be a fountain? >> Yep. The third large project that's in design at the moment, a couple of medallions, 13 foot circles that will be installed along the walls of I -35 on either side of the North Texas Boulevard overpass. Those will be lighted and the central piece in the middle of that will be a representation of the courthouse dome. And then Denton, Texas, and the year that Denton was founded underneath it. Those are in design and we're headed toward fabrication pretty quickly with those. So when we finish those three projects up, then what? Well, that's where the public art master plan comes into play. I want to be very specific about the public art master plan . It's a tool, it's not the Bible. It doesn't say thou shalt, it says you can. It offers direction. That direction was based on a lot of community input. Margaret Shelfant, who is the former director of GDAC, we contracted with Margaret to prepare this report. Margaret had a real good finger on the pulse of art here in our community. We felt she was eminently qualified to produce this report for us and help us with direction. Once again, Denton was ahead of the curve. A lot of the public art master plans that we reviewed and we had seen started at zero. They defined what a public art committee would be, what the structure would be, what the funding sources would be. We had a lot of that work already done. A lot of that was already in place. So Margaret met with groups and stakeholders and businesses . She prepared a survey that over the course of three months online received 1,672 responses. That's a pretty big number for almost any survey that we do , but especially one that involves what might be perceived as a narrow focus of public art. So out of all that came recommendations. Some of the recommendations that Margaret talked about, some of the cities in our area have gone to pre-vetting artists. And they may be artists who are about to arrive on the scene, up and coming artists. We're fortunate to have on the public art committee currently one of the gentlemen works in public art at the Love Field for the city of Dallas. And he's talked to us quite a bit about how Dallas has done this and actually identified a pool of artists that can then be pre- selected. >> Yes, sorry. >> So I read that and I have a few questions. I'm looking for my questions cuz I made notes on that one page. But it's a little concerning cuz I'm not sure how they would be chosen, how many, how frequently the names would change on that list. Because there's a lot of artists, so. >> I don't think any of the particulars have really been fleshed out yet. >> Okay. >> But what I will tell you in response to that is that the last couple of pieces that we've put out on the streets for commissions, we've had very few responses to. And now we're talking about a commission in the $35,000 to $45,000 price range. We're not talking about small, simple pieces that might not attract an artist's attention or that an artist might not feel was worthwhile. >> Why do you think that is? Do you think that they just don't know? Because I did read in here where a lot of people aren't really aware of the public art per se, or is it the process? Is it? >> We're not sure. >> Okay. >> We have worked to expand the circle of folks who are aware, or at least have the opportunity to be aware. We've worked with the folks at the Greater Denton Arts Council. We've posted, when we've done commissioning commissions, we've posted them on a number of websites. It seems like word should be out there. I just, I'm not quite sure, we're not quite sure. I'm far from an art expert. >> Right, okay. >> Nothing like picking a guy who's spent his entire career , professional career in grounds maintenance to lead public art. I'm here to tell you. >> We're all looking at your tie, we understand. >> Thank you, thank you. And I take back what I said earlier about your relation. So we're trying to expand that, and we see this pre-se lection as a possible way to help with that issue. And I don't think it would be entirely exclusive, but it might get us into, the hope is that it will get us into a different pool of artists, and we can see some new original work and some exciting projects. One of the recommendations that Margaret made, of course, was we're a full-time public art administrator. Of course, I think that's a wonderful addition. I'm also very cognizant of budgets and what we can afford and priorities. We did not bring that forward, Parks Department did not bring that forward as a recommendation or a request in our budget this year. Just, we're being wise about it. We know limited funds that are available. But I think that's something that when the time is right and funding might be available, that that's something that would truly benefit the city. There's an awful lot involved with the public art and the commissions, the maintenance, the marketing. I think we have the opportunity to get even more bang for our buck. From a tourism standpoint, as Council Member Briggs pointed out, one of the things that came out of the survey was that there are folks out there, a fairly high percentage of folks who aren't even aware that we have a public art collection. And of course, some of that's walking past it daily and not realizing what you're seeing for folks that are in our facilities because you really, truly can't go into a city facility that there isn't some public art there. But a public art administrator, I think, at some time in the future will be a great addition, as well as adding a line item to the budget, whether that's for acquiring more art or maintenance of that art or marketing of that art. But we understand. >> Yes, question. >> On that position, is there any rules regulating any kind of capital campaign or getting any kind of fundraising outside of how we fund public art right now? >> To fund the position? >> Yeah, well, no, I'm saying when we, like Molly Tamke's position, to me that obviously paid for itself. We finally had somebody who really worked, went out in the community, really hit it hard. And I'm just wondering if this could be a similar type position or are there any rules against that when it comes to public art? >> Now I'm going to defer to, I don't think so, but. >> Okay. >> Brian, do you want to add anything? >> There is none. >> Okay. >> No, no, apparently is our consensus at the moment. >> So the possibility would be that a person in that position could either solicit funds that would go to the Parks Foundation under a designated category for public art or for a specific project and then also work with the public art committee. >> Mm-hm. >> To make sure that whatever public art, if somebody wanted to buy and donate a piece, that it was appropriate for public consumption. >> One of the other recommendations that Margaret made, and this goes directly to what we just talked about, that to upgrade the website to make our public art collection more accessible, more easily accessible. I know the city is right smack dab in the middle of working on our website at the moment. So hopefully we'll achieve that along with working on the city website. So Margaret also went through and made some five year suggestions, some recommendations. Not only on locations for pieces of art, but partners that the public art committee in the city can pair up with. Even departments within the city. She went as far as some proposed budgets. And the only other point that I would make is that we asked her just to look at a five year window. Because we know that the budgets change, the financial situation changes, growth of the city. All those are factors, we just didn't want to get too far out and come up with pie in the sky options that would change or would not be affordable as we move forward. So with that, I'll take questions. >> Are there other questions? Yes, Council Member Riggs. >> Go ahead, last one, just a comment. >> Well, on here, more specific, there was an area where it was talked about benches, like a collaboration with the CTA and maybe decorating ben ches or wrapping. >> Traffic control boxes. >> Traffic control boxes. >> Not DME boxes, traffic control. >> So I know there's been an issue with dumpsters downtown. Just not being in sightly or being in the way. Would there be a possibility that we could commission artists to paint the back of them? >> Your question's real interesting because the Public Art Committee has wrestled with this at the last two meetings. And they're not done yet. They're actually, the Public Art Committee is in the process of writing a temporary art policy. What we don't want to get into is that what gets painted on a dumpster becomes a part of the permanent collection. Okay, that's a bad pun almost, but we don't want to have to maintain it. We don't want to have to keep going back and repainting it. Should it get vandalized? Should it get worn out? I mean, you're talking about painting on dumpsters. They may get damaged, get picked up and hauled away. >> Right. >> So we're trying to avoid that aspect of it and still maintain a certain level of review of the art. So that we don't wind up with them becoming billboards. And so that we don't wind up with anything that you all might feel is offensive on those. We're working with KDB. They're really spearheading exactly this. They've done some great work on a couple of retaining walls in some neighborhoods. One of them over on Bonnie Bray and one of them up on Bell. In just the last few months that they've worked, that KDB has paid to have those murals repainted. Worked with the artists and worked with the neighborhoods to help raise funds to do that. That's a similar project or similar methodology that we're going to try to apply or try to use with exactly that with the dumpsters. >> Okay. >> We're working on it fast and furious. We just haven't gotten there yet. >> That could be interesting. >> Other questions? >> Yes, sir. >> Just wanted to publicly thank Margaret for doing this. She did a great job in collecting that much data. I mean, that many surveys, that is a big deal. And this was a very well rounded report, especially, I love the traffic calming art. I've never really thought of that before and I could see that being part of our city. So to the attention to putting art in the gateways into our city, I think that is a very well needed thing that we need to look into. So just wanted to say that and it was a great job done. So. >> This is a item for discussion. It had been on a consent agenda item and we'd ask to pull it off to have a discussion about it so that the public would be more aware of it. A question I have for you is, has this plan, this gone before the public art committee, have they endorsed it? >> Yes, they have. >> So they acted on it? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And a question also, do we need to modify in any way our official council charge to the public art committee? I don't recall what it says, but maybe staff could look at that to see because it would seem to me that as we approve this that we may want to make sure that we designate that the public art committee is responsible for reviewing this and making periodic reports back to council on what kind of progress is being made. And if they want to make modifications as time goes on, if they want to add a year six and add a mural project or looking at those kinds of things, that they could do that at that time. >> Sir. >> Is there any further discussion? Would it be to the council's pleasure to then bring this back on a consent agenda item at one of our next meetings? >> Yes. >> Okay, so we will do that. Thank you, Mr. Voral. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And you should have said when I made the smart aleck comment about your tie that it was your late father's favorite tie and that he'd given it to you as one of his last requests. >> Which is all true. >> Okay, to make me feel appropriately bad. >> I am convinced your tie was popular when Miami Vice was popular. >> I so much deserve that. >> That's why I bought you a tie. >> And if you see the whole thing, you can really agree. >> It's got to be Dr. Huxtable. >> Now that guy turned out to be a bad guy. I don't want to be like him. >> Okay, work session item B, receiver report, hold the discussion, give staff direction regarding an ordinance to adopt the 2015 international energy code, the IECC, as amended by the city. >> Thank you. Rodney Patterson, our building official, will be addressing this item. >> I'll say that this came before the committee on the environment yesterday. It was a scintillating discussion. And I promise you I cut back the PowerPoint presentation to fewer slides than yesterday. >> To two more slides. >> Fewer slides than yesterday. >> So you did not get training from Brian Langley. >> Mr. Special Presiding Officer, Mr. City Manager and Council, my name is Rodney Patterson. I am the building official for the city of Denton. As the Special Presiding Officer said, the item that's before us today is the adoption of the 2015 international energy conservation code, just a brief kind of history. As you know, most of you know, the International Code Council publishes codes on a three year code cycle. We look at these codes periodically to determine what needs to be adopted, what doesn't need to be adopted. They go through the North Central Texas Council of Govern ments. They propose amendments. We look at those amendments as to whether we wish to adopt those or not adopt those. On this particular item, the state of Texas has specifically mandated that this code be adopted by municipalities. A history of the code back in 2001. Excuse me. The objective today is to provide information and receive direction from council on the proposed adoption of the 2015 international energy conservation code with the proposed amendments as well as whether to continue our current above code program. Now to the history. Back on September 1st of 2001, the state of Texas adopted the first statewide energy code in the state of Texas. That adopted the 2000 version of the international residential code as well as the 2000 version of the international energy conservation code as the statewide code. That legislation is fondly known as Senate Bill 5 bias in the industry. As part of that Senate bill, they also put a caveat in there. Which stated that any municipality located within a non-att ainment area, and by that they meant an EPA air quality non-attainment area, must adopt a code which was at least as stringent as the current code adopted by the state of Texas. The city of Denton is in Denton County, which is also a part of an EPA non-attainment area. That way, therefore, the city of Denton falls in that category. On April 1st of 2011, they updated the code to the 2009 IRC and IECC respectively. Also in May of 2015, the state legislature adopted the 2015 IRC and the 2015 IECC as state energy codes effective September 1st , 2016 for residential structures and November 1st, 2016 for commercial structures. And actually as part of that House bill, what the House did , they gave the State Energy Conservation Office the authority to promulgate energy codes for commercial, industrial, and all other residential as they put it. They mandated the adoption of the IRC, Chapter 11 of the IR C on September 1st, 2016. But they left it up to SECO, the State Energy Conservation Office, to mandate or not mandate updating the other codes to the 2015 version. As part of the Texas Register published January of this year, SECO made the 2015 energy code, the statewide code, IECC, the statewide energy code for the state of Texas for all residential excluding one and two families, commercial and industrial structures. That code goes into effect November 1st per the state of Texas. That's where the two different dates come from. Is there any official transfer duties that needs to take place before I go on? >> It just happened automatically and I'm terribly disappointed because I understand that unless I'm the special presiding officer for more than one hour, it never goes on my resume. So. Mayor Pro Tem, it's back to you, man. >> I've been like this the whole time. >> How many out are here? >> I apologize. >> Stuck on a delayed flight in Houston, but I apologize for the constitutional crisis that I have caused here in my absence. I did watch it. Did somebody have a question that they were? Okay, keep on going on. >> All right. Basically, here's the history of the codes in the city of Denton. On November 27th, 2001, the city adopted the 2000 IECC with no above code requirement. Just a straight code. On February 7th of 2006, we adopted the 2003 IECC with a minimum 10% above code requirement for one and two family dwellings. We continued that on February 3rd, 2009. We adopted the 2006 version with a 10% caveat above code for one and two family dwellings. And then on September 11th of 2012, we adopted the 2009 IEC C with the minimum 10% above code requirement. However, on April 1st of 2014, we adopted the 2012 IECC with a 4% above code requirement for one and two family dwellings. At that time, council analyzed the changes from the 2009 to the 2012 code. They were fairly significant. So the code had finally caught up with our city ordinances at 10% above. So they chose at that time to drop it back to a 4% above code requirement. Council Member Bakes. >> And so now, since there's no above code requirement, you 're basically saying that code has caught up completely. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And as we go through the presentation, I'll kind of point out those areas. >> Okay. >> Major changes on the residential side. As I mentioned earlier, the changes from the 2009 to the 2012 code were significant. It's approximately a 30% change if you look at the straight code, the straight 2009 to the straight 2012. However, in looking at those codes, cog when they met, they thought that was way too big a jump for one code cycle . What they did was they amended the code back to where only about 10 to 12% of that code difference came into play on the 2012 code cycle. With the cog amendments, which the city had didn't adopt it . Council looked at that and said, okay, we have a 10 to 12% increase. If we add 4% on top of that, that'll be a 14 to 16% quote unquote increase in the straight code. It would have been approximately a 2 to 6% increase over our adopted code at the time. Some of the major changes in the residential side come about not as far as moving to the 2015 codes. As a result of those cog amendments becoming illegal because the state updated their version of the code to the 2015. As I said earlier, Denton as a municipality in a non-famen ary cannot adopt a code that's less stringent than the state code. Therefore, there were two cog amendments that cog reviewed or sent to Energy Systems Laboratory. They reviewed and they came back that those two amendments would make the code less stringent than the code adopted by the state. Those two amendments had to do with wall insulation and the maximum air leakage of the building envelope. As part of the cog amendments, the wall insulation was set at R13. As part of the straight code, the minimum wall insulation was R20 or R13 plus an R5 continuous foam board on the outside of the framing members. Those were your options. The maximum air leakage to the outdoors under the cog amendments was set at five air changes per hour. But the straight code mandated three air changes per hour. So losing those two amendments made the code approximately 19 to 20% more stringent before you even add the 2015 requirements. The 2015 requirements, there's some difference of opinion as to how much more stringent they are. One to 4% is the consensus. Most of the consensus is on the lower end at 1%. However, having to absorb that two thirds or 20% of that 30 % increase from the 2009 to the 2012, is what's impacting all the builders in our area, in the north central Texas area. If you saw the DOE report that I included in your backup, it had some cost benefits analysis. As far as the move from the straight 2012 code to the 2015 code, they estimated it was a cost of about $33. Which is very minuscule. If you look further, it shows the total cost of the change from the 2009 to the 2015 is about $2,500. So if you look at that, about a third of that was absorbed when we adopted the 2012 code. So about $850 of that was absorbed at that time. So the other $1,650 would be absorbed as we move to the 2015 code. >> Councilmember Harkins. >> I don't recall this being in the presentation yesterday, was it? >> No, it was not. >> I appreciate you. >> As far as the cost analysis. >> I appreciate you putting that in there. >> Yes. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Councilmember Dalton. >> Dalton Gregor. >> Dalton Gregor is my name. There was also in the backup to the Committee on the Environment, an estimated payback, a return on the investment. >> Correct. >> Do you recall that? Do you have that slide in here? >> I don't have that slide in here, but it is part of your backup. It was a commission done by the Department of Energy that was commissioned by the state. And they did the analysis. Again, industry varies on what the significance of the code changes are, but the DOE is what we're relying on as to the 1% and the cost. So what they did, they figured not only the cost to the builder that they pass on to the home buyer, but also the savings that the home buyer gets that they get a payback according to the size of the home. >> Correct. >> In three to five years. >> There was a ROI calculator as far as that. >> Right. >> And this chart is a little bit different than the one that was in your backup as a result of the input from the Committee on the Environment. We made some changes to this to clarify exactly what we're showing here. Basically, we did a study on two homes that were built in the city of Ditton during the last two years. These were actual homes that were built. One of them was a single story home and one was a two story home. The 2012 IECC without cog amendments required a 16% increase over our current ordinance. In other words, to get that home to comply with the energy code, you had to increase the energy performance of that building by 16%. Just to get to the 2012 level. That's that extra 20% that didn't come in with the cog amendments. There was an additional 1 to 4% increase with the 2015 IECC for a total difference of 17 to 20%, depending on where you are in that sliding scale on the 2015 code. Same thing on the two story home. Builders would be required to increase the energy efficiency of that home by 15% with the additional 1 to 4% from the 2015 for a total difference of 16 to 19%. The net change from our current ordinance, our current ordinance is 4% minimum above code. So the net change would be 16 to 20% depending on which home you looked at and which figure, the 1 to 4%. That means the home built to the 2015 IECC with our proposed amendments would be 16 to 20% more energy efficient than a home built under our current ordinance. Before we move on to the commercial, any questions on the residential side? We're spending an inordinate amount of time on residential just to make sure you understand because of our percentage above code requirement. We want to make sure everybody has a good picture because we will be asking for some- >> Councilmember Wasney. >> Have we heard from the home builders who were building a residential? What is their input on all of this? What are we hearing from the boots on the ground? >> Yes, ma'am. We had a builders and developers luncheon on June the 26th. It was attended by 62, approximately 62 individuals. I asked them at that time to provide me some input on their thoughts on our current above code program. We sent out an email through our project doc system, a system wide email to all of those individuals as well, asking for their input to every individual that submitted to us in the last four years. We got a total of 29 responses back. Of those four stated that they felt we should continue with our current above code program. Two were neutral. They didn't care one way or the other. Two of those responses stated we shouldn't even consider the 2015 code. We shouldn't even adopt it. And then 21 of those responses stated that we needed to go with straight code. That the 2015 IECC was stringent enough that we had met our goal of being a green city by just simply adopting that code. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> I just wanted you to go back to the last slide just for clarification for those. So the last sentence, the 16 to 20% more energy efficient, that is with no above code requirement. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Councilmember Huggins. >> Yeah, and to clarify, those two that said they didn't want to adopt the 2015, we have to adopt the 2015. >> Correct. >> Or above. >> Or above. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> Just to also add, we also took this ordinance to the Health and Building Standards Commission. They voted 6-0 as their recommendation to adopt the 2015 straight code, no above code requirement. Also the COE voted 3-0 to adopt the code as it exists with no above code requirement. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> We did learn yesterday that there's a separate policy or ordinance for rules for existing versus new. >> Correct. As part of the 2015 IECC, there's always been requirements for existing structures. However, those were moved to an individual chapter on their own, so they're much easier to read through, determine what 's required. And those types of things for retrofits, window change outs , HVAC change out, things of that nature. On the commercial side, I don't want to make lightly of the commercial. You're only going to see a couple of slides on the commercial side, but there were significant changes made from the 2012 version of the IECC to the 2015 version of the IECC on the commercial side. I'm talking extremely significant. If you want to look at the full presentation that we gave to the builders and developers, it's in your backup. It contains a lot of good information. The major portions of that were there were new energy efficiency requirements for several things, including motors, commercial refrigeration and freezer units, including walk-ins, warehouses, elevators, escalators, moving sidewalks. All of those have minimum efficiency requirements now. As well as numerous new standards for commercial kitchen ventilation systems. That's going to be probably the biggest impact on the commercial side is the new ventilation requirements for commercial kitchen exhausts. And we went over those, had a pretty good discussion yesterday at the COE, as you might imagine, but those are some significant changes. They also set new commissioning and testing requirements before final inspection. Now, before you even call for your final inspection, you have to have your mechanical contractor or an independent third party go through and do a commissioning on your HVAC system, do a balancing check. You have to provide that report to the building owner and the building owner has to provide that report to the building official before you can call for a final inspection. >> Question, when you're in the commercial realm of things, somebody had asked the question, I think it was Council member Briggs, about the distinction between new and I guess old remodels as it relates to residential. What's that distinction like in the commercial world? All these get triggered at the point of a new CO, is that the trigger point? >> No, sir. Basically, if you change a piece of equipment, that triggers, you have to meet the new standards for that specific piece of equipment. However, if you change the use of a building, not just changing your CO, if you go to a more intense energy use, say for instance, I'm going from an office to a restaurant or from a warehouse to a restaurant. The code states that you shall meet all of the requirements of the energy code at that time. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Used restaurant equipment business just took a big hit. >> Yeah, I think. >> Yeah. >> So. >> Which is probably a way for certain businesses to kind of get in a bit cheaper as well. Yeah. Thanks. >> It will have an impact. Also on the commercial side, it added mandatory requirements for automatic lighting controls, including occupancy sensors and/or time switch controls in all areas. No longer can you just have a manual switch in certain areas. There are five exceptions. It also added requirements for daylight responsive controls . For instance, this room, if you can take advantage of the daylight that's coming in from the outside, those light fi xtures closest to that window would automatically dim as the light brightens from the outside. Those are all requirements of the new code. Key points. Residential requirements of the 2015 IECC increased between 16 and 20% over the currently adopted code, which is our 2012 with the cock amendments plus 4%. Numerous changes for commercial structures relative to lighting, equipment efficiency, commissioning of equipment, and lighting systems. What we're asking today is your direction on whether to continue with our current above code requirement of 4% for one and two family dwellings. As well as seeking input as to whether to move forward with adoption of the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code as amended by state law with local amendments. And I'll stand for any questions. >> Councilmember Gregory. >> Thank you, Mayor. Just as a note, the committee on the environment recommended to the council that we approve the changes without adding any additional requirements. And that is consistent with the recommendation made by what other group? >> By the Health and Building Standards Commission as well as all the contractors that we received input from. >> Councilmember Gregory, I apologize. I was being briefed by the city attorney. Could you please repeat that? >> The committee on the environment recommended to council that we approve the 2015 code as presented without adding any additional requirements. That's the same as was recommended by the Health and Building Standards Committee. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> And to add to that, there are no other cities that you know of in the non-attainment area that are going above the state code. >> That is correct. We did have staff do a survey. Seco has a list of cities that they show as having above code requirements in the Metroplex. There were seven cities listed on that list besides the city of Denton. They were Carrollton, Louisville, Frisco, McKinney, Farmers Branch, Plano, and Richardson. So we had staff survey those cities to determine what they were doing with their energy codes. We got no response from Plano and a partial response from McKinney. But all the information that we got back, no one is continuing any of the programs that they currently have. >> I think Councilmember Wasney. >> Well, it's mandated by state law that we move forward with the adoption of the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code. So that's a no-brainer. I mean, that's just- >> Yes, ma'am. >> So, but I agree with not raising an additional 4%. If we feel compelled in the future to increase and tighten these things up, we always have that option. But for right now, I see a real additional expense to contractors in both residential and commercial to stretch to get up to this new IECC code. And so taking that into consideration, I say let's stick with what the state has mandated. If we want to come back in the future and add an additional requirement, we always have that option, but I don't support that now. >> Any other thoughts or direction as we close out and reach consensus on this? Councilmember Briggs. >> On that same note, on changing it, would we wait another three years and then reevaluate? Or is it possible to, if- >> Council can choose to reeval uate at any time. We are very open to your direction on anything. One of the things that the state mandated was that CECO, building the State Energy Conservation Office, could not look at updating the state code more than once every six years. But municipalities do not have that restriction. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> Just one more question. You said that the other cities that you looked to were not going above code requirement this time. Had they in the past, as we had? >> Most of these cities had in the past. >> Okay. >> I was surprised to learn that most of them discontinued it with the 2012 version of the code. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Councilmember Traylor. >> Because I've been on the council for a while and approved and lobbied for and was anxious to do the 10% and then I was agreeable to go back to the, I think it was 4%. And that's simply because we felt like that the amendments being made by the North Central Texas Council of Govern ments were slowing down what was inevitable and that we were concerned about energy conservation, better energy conservation, getting those things into place . But now that the standards for the code itself have come up so much that I'm comfortable with keeping it at the level that the code has done. Because it's very, very high standards now in terms of the air exchange rate and the amount of insulation in the walls and in the roof. Those are much higher standards than we've seen just five years ago. >> So to summarize what I'm hearing in terms of the direction on number one, seeking direction on whether to continue with current above code requirement 4% for one and two family dwellings, it sounds like we're saying no to that. And on number two, seeking input as to whether to move forward with the adoption of the energy conservation code. It doesn't sound like there's any local amendments, correct ? >> There are some local amendments, but most of the local amendments were even part of House Bill 1736. There were changes that the state actually made to the code as part of that code adoption. >> So they're not tied to that 4%? >> Correct. >> Okay, great. >> Not at all. >> So it sounds like we have consensus on that. When does this come back to us? >> It's coming back to you next week at your regularly scheduled meeting. Anybody that has any questions, concerns, issues, you want to sit down and discuss, I would be happy to meet with you between now and then. >> Councilmember Braetz. >> Will this be on an item for individual consideration or will it be at a regular meeting where the public can come and ask questions? >> Currently it's on the consent agenda, but at your pleasure you can pull it and make it open to the public. We did post on the website, we're required to give a notice to people if they want to make comments or request a public hearing, they have that opportunity and they have until August the 1st to request a public hearing. To date we haven't gotten any requests for public hearing. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, thank you so much for your presentation. And as I understand it, before I got here, I believe you had a discussion about this closed session item in that the determination of the council was to bring that into public session as a public work session discussion. Is that correct? >> To the extent that we were going to talk about the job description. >> Right. >> And reminded that not to make comments about our previous city manager or to ask for our city attorney to give us advice if we make any changes to the job description about if it complies with the charter. >> And so we still have the ability to go in the closed session as necessary. Is that correct? >> If necessary and if it fits within the provisions of the Open Meetings Act. >> But with regard to your discussion, I believe that posting that we do have at 1A will be adequate for any discussion you desire to have with regard to this item. >> Great, well I'll go ahead and call that then. 1A consultation discussion and deliberation about the duties and responsibilities of the position of the city manager. And of course you all know that later on in the agenda there's an opportunity for us to pass a resolution relating to the search firm. So this is all kind of related to that discussion as part of that process. Certainly we will all be part of the discussion of talking about what sort of city manager we're looking for. And it sounds like the search form is going to work overtime to get our consensus on that individually and as a group. So I guess this is open up for discussion if there's anything you guys want to discuss as we're really at the beginning of this process assuming we pass this resolution later today. Council member Briggs. >> I wanted to see if council would be able to meet with a firm after it's selected. Is that the intention to do so? >> Yeah, and I think we're going to have more full discussion on that posting. I guess are we allowed to talk about this with this posting as it relates to? >> Okay. >> Well, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. So as far as the discussion with the search firm, I think I'll defer to the city manager on that with regard to how that would be handled. >> Well, and I believe if council, if that's the desires of council, we certainly can make that happen. I think it was the intent to have the search firm that was selected to receive input from the council. I mention that because I would like to reach out to my constituents and citizens too, and see what they desire in qualities for the city manager, and then hopefully bring those back in that meeting. >> Great, thank you. Council member Wozni. >> My question is on the process. And so it's partially under this heading and partially under the heading below it because it seems like we already have a job description that is in this. Yet council hasn't had a discussion thus far about what it is that we want included in that job description. So for me it's a little bit cart before the horse that I think as a council and as a city because I welcome this citizenry of Denton. This isn't a city manager for city council. This is a city manager for our city. So it's really important that we do have input from the people who call Denton home. And so that's my question on the process. Number one, how can we pass a job description when we haven 't really talked about it? And number two, how do we include the citizens? What process do we have in place? And if we don't have one in place, let's figure out what that process is. Whether it's a spot on the website where they can come to the website and put their input. I think that probably would be easier than emailing all of council. So I'd like us to consider a user friendly methodology that allows people to weigh in. And when you say, what would be things that the citizens would weigh in on? Everybody has a view of the city and what's important to them. Whether it's police and fire, historic preservation, economic development, road maintenance and new construction . There are a lot of issues that they need to weigh in on. So that, and you say, well, how can that be in a job description? Because it depends on, the search firm is going to be as effective as we give them tools to be effective. And those tools are as specific as we can about what are we looking for on a resume to allow Waters or whoever the company is to give them those tools to really hone in. To bring us their recommendations. Because when you look at this list of job description, I think it's pretty, pretty bland. I think you could take this job description and throw it around all 50 states and the cities and make it applicable. But Denton has things that are important to them. It makes us a little bit different than some of the other cities. So we need to give that list to the search firm so that they can really step up. And so we make their job easier because we tell them what we're looking for. So to Councilwoman Briggs's point, for us to be able to speak directly with whoever it is who comes here, so that they can interact with us, I think is positive and extremely important. So they're not just reading something in an email or directive that they actually interact with us because they can get from this council. And from by then we'll have interaction with our citizens on what it is that we're looking for in terms of what's on that resume. >> Thank you. Councilmember Gregory. Are you suggesting right now that we postpone the action on the search firm or are you just talking about what you would want us to do? Because generally speaking, the search firm, most of them have a very similar protocol. And that protocol is where once they're hired, they come in and they schedule meetings with each council member to get information about what it is you're looking for and what it is I'm looking for. What it is each of us are looking for so that they understand what are important qualities, what are important background and experiences that we think would be beneficial to the city of Denton at this particular time. And that's part of the regular protocol that they do so that they have a chance to start their screening process. So is that what you're talking about or are you talking about changing the job description? >> I absolutely do not want to delay this. I want to move forward on the selection of the search firm. My question is, passing a job description that we've been presented and without augmenting, I just don't want to go ahead. >> No, and I think that's a great point. And the intent of including that wasn't, we have no action on the job description as part of today's discussion or even our action item later on. All this is presented is to say, here's what the current job description is. Of course, we need to have this conversation that you're talking about. I think one thing we probably should clarify, and maybe Carla can help us out, is I think as we're thinking about what we're looking for as a city manager and whether or not that gets reflected on a job description. There may be some things that we want to tweak about this, but there may be some other kind of softer things that we 're looking for, a particular edge of a candidate or a certain type of experience, that there might be good wisdom not including it in an official job description. because this has an HR function in terms of which candidates could possibly pass through a pool selection. Not as much of, at the end of the day, we're the hiring committee. They're going to get input from us as to what sort of things we're looking for. And we're going to all have a chance to weigh in on all of those possible candidates and then have some consensus as to who we hire. So Carla, am I right on that as it relates to the job description? So as you look at this, this is from 2001. Obviously, I think it's, my guess is from an HR perspective , it's probably been made generic, probably with a lot of intention, because the idea is if you put too much specificity in there, I want somebody who likes locally grown food and values that in the city. Well, how would you reflect that on a resume? How would that get through the HR process? Because these are essentially reasons to deny an application through the process. But your point is very well taken in terms of thinking through the process of how they're getting not only our own thoughts on what are we looking for. That's going to be the whole part of this process. Even if there's some interest on the part of the council in saying, how do we expand that into the public and getting further input from folks beyond just folks kind of talking to us individually. I think that's well taken. Councilmember Begheri. >> Thank you. So I have another comment to add onto that regarding the actual job description. And it's under items for individual consideration 1A, we're technically under 1A closed meeting. Are we kind of putting these together? How are we discussing this? >> I think at this point in time we are discussing only that posting relating to the resolution approving the selection of the search firm. So that's the item that we're discussing at this point in time. >> Okay, so only the search firm. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Later date. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I thought we were under closed meeting 1A. >> I did too. >> Yeah. >> So I guess that's a little bit overlap between- >> Didn't you call that 1A? >> I called- >> You called the item. What did you call? >> I read the caption on the closed session. >> You did, okay. >> Yes, where it talks about talking about the duties of the city manager. So I think on that point we're well within- >> Okay, so I want to talk about the job description because I think it's a part of the duties, but it's under the following. I'm getting into ways. Lawyer problems. Anyway. >> Proceed. >> Okay. >> With the job description, one thing that really concerned me was the lack of any, I guess it seems like a very narrow description. So I'd like to open that up to having candidates that have private sector experience, executive level private sector experience, and particularly the commonly accepted markers of efficient managerial experience. And the private sector would be like Six Sigma Black Belt or one of those things, it doesn't have to be Six Sigma, it can be anything. But one of the commonly accepted forms of private sector managerial expertise is what I would like to see in our posting as well. And not that it's a requirement, but it could be elicited as a preference, perhaps, that we can take into consideration. So if we have a candidate that, for instance, doesn't have as much of a public sector experience that we 're looking for, they could make up for it with private sector experience or with Black Belt or something of that nature. >> Just for some clarification on what you're saying, so there's different sections of this qualifications. Job description. And there's a whole section that talks about minimum qualifications where it specifically calls out master's degree in public administration, business administration or related field. Five years of experience as a city manager, assistant city manager, and deputy city manager. Or any combination of training and experience that provides the knowledge, skills, and abilities required. Would that be sufficiently broad enough to capture the type of potential candidate that you are suggesting? >> I don't think it'll have the right signal words to draw the type of candidates that would be even more outside of the public sector. I think this is going to attract people that are exclusively in the public sector and might not attract like C-suite. >> So I think this is a good discussion, which is why we need to have this. And we need to probably continue to kind of have this throughout the process to the extent that we're able in working with the search form. But this is a key question. Is it council's interest that we go as this description seems to lean towards, as somebody with typical city manager type of experience? Or is it the preference of council to move in the direction as Council Member Begarry is suggesting? Although I think she's just simply saying allow the candidates through the process. Not necessarily that would be the final decision. But that there is an interest in seeking candidates or targeting candidates from the private sector, any thoughts on that? >> Council Member Hawkins. >> I'm definitely open to private sector people applying for this position. In fact, I'd encourage that, but I didn't know that. Maybe we do need to add some wording in that to attract that, but I didn't think that we were not attracting that position either. So I don't know. I would be okay with adding something like that to try to attract that as an applicant. >> Council Member Wasney. >> Yeah, the private sector, and again, is it on the resume ? Because you can have somebody with an MBA who has private sector experience, managerial experience, but who has been now in the public sector for five or ten years. But for us, and again, this is the discussion with the search firm. And I would really like to lean on them because this is what they do. I'd like them to look at this job description that goes back to 2001, because it's very possible that they could say this is pretty much a dinosaur in terms of a job description. And here is a job description that is more up to date, relevant to come forward to say this is something that other cities and counties and state offices have used in terms of. And so that not that we accept 100% verbatim of what they say, but to say, let's look at their recommendation and their checklist to see what it is that they would recommend to augment this job description list, to delete from this job description list, and use them as a resource in terms of this job description. But back to your point and your question, yes, I would like to see so that it's on the resume. I will add a caveat, however, that to really understand government, I think you have to really be in government, it is different than the private sector. It is different. So the private sector experience, I think, is going to be very important in terms of manager ial experience, budget and finance experience, the allocation of efficient employee assignment. But to just open it up and to the private, I still come back to government is run, differently and everybody who's been with government for any length of time is going to say government is different than the private sector. So to just pull somebody out of the private sector and say, hey, welcome to being a city manager is a bit of a stretch. But I think having that on their resume is going to be a real strong and that's where talking to waters and leaning on their expertise, I think is going to be really important. >> So I think our HR director is hearing some of these comments as we kind of take a relook at this again. I think, and I think Waters will help advise us on this. My thought is that a line or two absent or included in the job description isn't what's attracting or detracting somebody from a position job. What we want with the job description is making sure if we want to open it up, make sure that they're able to come through given this description. But I imagine Waters is going to go well above and beyond our job description once they hear our direction to find the candidates that we're saying go out and seek. So this is all good discussion because we're getting it on record as we're talking through it. I think, did you have a comment first real quick? >> Yeah. >> Councilmember Hockin. >> And I agree with what you're saying. I think the point was that we wanted to let as many people apply for the position to make that feel like it is more open than maybe just people who've worked in government only. That was at least my point. I don't know if that's what Sarah meant, so. >> And you may also have people who were government and they went into the private sector and now it's their wish to come back to government for one of 100 different reasons. >> And Mayor, may I add to that? >> Please. >> Which maybe I'm getting in the weeds and I'm about to get the paper waved at me, which is why I feel like so many staff that work on the city level do need to be compared to private sector positions. I just want to throw that in there. It's a very interesting conversation right now that we're having, so. >> Thank you. Councilmember Baguette. >> I'm going to turn my mic on this time. The other thing I wanted to mention was that I'd like to see or have a discussion about the type of experience we want to see in terms of perhaps being familiar with electricity operations. Because that is something very unique to our city that has a steep learning curve. So just open that up for discussion. >> Councilmember Briggs, did you have a comment? >> I wanted to clarify this is going to be a nationwide search. >> Yes. >> Correct? >> Yes. Just people in the city of- >> I'm curious. I didn't see it in specifics, so I didn't know. >> Yeah, I think that's what we put out when we were asking for proposals from the various firms. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, good question. Thank you, Councilmember Gregory. >> Thank you, Mayor. For our city attorney to address in closed session, Article 5 under our code of ordinances, section 5.01, currently says the city manager shall be chosen by the council solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications with special references to his actual experience in or his knowledge of accepted practices in respect to the duties of this office. And it includes, a little further down, provided that any person who is appointed to the city manager must have at least two years of experience as a city manager or assistant city manager or the equivalent thereof. I think that that's probably exactly in line with the job description as written. But this brings up a question to me that if we make significant changes to the job description, something for you to answer to us in the closed session would be, are we going to need to go ahead then and consider changes to the code or to the charter? So that's a question for you to ponder and talk to us in closed session about. Thank you. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> You keep saying closed session. I was under the impression, do you mean in a future time or do you mean, I didn't realize we were going into a closed session today. I thought that this was- >> We have a posting to go into closed session if we need to go into closed session. If we need advice from our attorney on the legality of our actions, I would be more comfortable with getting that advice in closed session than in open session. >> Councilmember Wasney. >> Well, I would challenge that, quite frankly. The Texas Open Meetings Act is very clear and very specific . But if you're going to go into closed session and you're going to talk personnel matters, it needs to be about a specific individual. You have to have a name in the blank to talk about Joe Smith. Whether he's being disciplined, whether his contract is being extended or ended. There is no name in this posting. It is only a discussion on the way it's posted. So I take exception to moving into closed session on any of this. >> Well, to be clear, what I'm asking for is legal advice regarding what would happen to us if we changed our job description and it was not conforming to our code or if it was not conform ing to our charter. I think that I would prefer to have a legal opinion from the attorney about the issues of that. And I believe that that is covered under our rules. In fact, we can go into a closed session anytime that we need a legal opinion from our attorney, because we're always covered under that. And I mean, if you want to ask our attorney to give us a legal opinion in open session, and you get four votes, then she's obligated to do that. >> I'd like to ask the city attorney to chime in on this. >> My understanding from the exchange here is that we would not be going into closed session on a personal matter. Rather, I think there is a request for the opinion of your attorney with regard to a question on the table. As it concerns that, I think there's a couple of ways we can handle it, I'll be glad to circle back in a status report and provide you that information. Or we do reserve the right in our rules and in our agenda postings to go into closed meeting with regard to attorney matters as necessary. So this is an issue I think is pretty clear in the law. Attorneys are not allowed to provide legal advice to their client, absent some sort of waiver of the attorney client privilege . And so therefore, our rules of professional conduct would require us to give you that information in a different fashion. And I'm certainly delighted to do that, stand ready to do that. And we'll be glad to give you an opinion to the effect that that would be a proper process. We can certainly figure out how to give this information to you and do it appropriately and in a legal fashion. >> And it sounds like the question that Councilmember Gregory asked is probably something that might take some time to research. The answer may not be available in the next few minutes. >> Typically, I will take these and roll them out in the next status report, as you all know. So we can certainly do that. >> Thank you, thank you for that. Any other thoughts on this topic while we're here? And again, as we talked about this in the CAPER committee, we wanted to put on this job description so we were all aware of what it said, but understanding that this is no way tying the hands of waters. No way ties them to specific things in that as it relates to getting additional feedback from us. And if at any point it's the direction of the council to augment this, take something away as part of that process, which may very well be the case, we have the opportunity to do that as we move forward in this. Councilmember Wasney. >> Can we answer the question and get consensus on what that process will be to get citizen input? Can I hear from some other council members in terms of what do you see? Do you see emails to council members? Do you see a link on the website that comes in? I'm totally open to your recommendations on this. Any thoughts on that? Councilmember Begarry. >> I'd say open the website up. We have a survey tool on the website and have it up there. And then if we have a list or something of people who have emailed us before, I don't know if that's assembled somewhere, we can send it out as a here's a new survey question. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> Those as well, and I will also host a meeting for public input as well. >> I'd like to call on Brian Langley. He wanted to- >> He was jumping up and down over there. >> He needs to say a few words, I can tell. >> Well, I just wanted to share something with you. What we've seen in some of these searches is that the recru iter will help prepare some type of survey instrument. They will do that with your input on what types of things that you're looking for, how you want that survey instrument to look like. It could be put on our website, it could be put on the recruiter's website, some way to send that out to the public. They've also had searches that I've seen have done surveys of the employees, what are the employees looking for. And so you get all of that information back. Then through the selection process, you can determine what else you might want to do to get community engagement. You could have some type of community event where you meet some of the candidates and have some of the vetting through that process before you make your selection. Again, I think that's all something that is to be determined based on what the council wants to do and your discussions with a recruiter. You can outline a process that fits your needs and the types of things that you're looking for. But just wanted to throw those out. Those are typically how you see these kinds of things done. This is not uncommon discussion. And so those are some avenues that may help you get there. So I just wanted to offer that. >> So it sounds like we'll get some more discussion as we kind of, if and when we do choose this. And it's an interesting thing as you think about a city manager. It's not like this person's running for mayor or something. Where they're going to provide to the public their list of their beliefs about what they think needs to be done in Denton. In fact, I would think a good candidate would be pretty agn ostic on a lot of those things. Understanding that he or she will take direction from the council on what things are good or bad or what needs to be done in Denton. So it becomes an interesting public outreach as to what are you looking for in this. Because I think most citizens tend to kind of gravitate towards, I do myself, what I'm looking for in Denton. And I would hope someone would conform to that. When in reality, that's the council's role. So I think it's going to be an interesting discussion for us internally and even externally as we involve the public. But I think this is good discussion. It sounds like we have a lot of comments to springboard on as we have those future conversations with whoever we choose to move forward with this. So anything else on this topic before we move on? Okay, and it sounds like we are not retreating into a closed session on this item at the moment. Sounds like Council Member Gregory's questions are going to be addressed in a future manner, perhaps a status report. So on that note, we will move forward to the next agenda, item 1A. Consider approval of a resolution approving the selection of a firm to provide consulting services related to conducting an employment candidate search for the position of city manager, authorizing the expenditure of funds thereof, and providing for an effective date. So we don't have a staff proposal on this. >> No sir, we don't. >> But you all have seen the backup. And the process was that the CAPER committee tasked staff, particularly our HR director and the city manager with going out and looking for who were possible firms that have experience doing this. To come back with a list of recommendations of who they would recommend based on their experience of working with them in the past. We did hear some feedback from other council members as well. So a particular suggestion has come through the CAPER committee to move forward with the Waters firm. And you see from your backup the number of searches they've done just internal to Denton. And they're well respected in this area throughout the region in this regard as well. So that's what we have before us here today. It's simply a resolution because of the expenditure of funds doesn't reach, I believe it's the $100,000 threshold. The city manager is authorized to spend these funds on his own. But we figure given the public nature of this that we ought to confirm this in the form of a resolution, which is what we're doing today. So any discussion on this? Council member Begari? >> I'd like some clarification. So in the proposal, they talk about doing a search for a city manager and a city auditor. The resolution is just for the city manager. The cost will be just for a city manager, correct? But I guess the idea is that once we arrive at whatever decision we arrive at with the auditor, hopefully soon, that we'll actually go back to them perhaps because they've already examined the issue of the city auditor. And we will then hire them or somebody else for that position. Is that, am I getting this all right? >> Yeah, as we understood, I think you're the one who made this request when we kind of started this process as to, I think your specific question was whether or not there was any economies of scale and going after both of them. In hearing from these firms, it was determined that no, there really isn't any benefit to that from a cost perspective. So I think that answers your question. Practically speaking, we understand we haven't had that conversation yet. But we have had the conversation that we want to move forward with the city manager. So the thought was, let's move this one forward. And if and when we have a discussion, which we were planning to do soon, on a city auditor position, we would have to come back and look for an additional firm for that. So thanks. >> Okay, sorry, just a follow up. So in the proposal though, it does say for manager and auditor. So is that per position? Like for the fees? >> Is someone on staff able to clarify that? >> Carla, is that something that you can address? >> Yes, that was per position. What they said they would do though was give us a slight discount if we were to do the auditor concurrently. So instead of the 24,500 all inclusive fee, it would be 21, 500 for the city auditor and 24,500 for the city manager. Does that make sense? >> That's $3,000. Slight economy of scale. >> Thank you. Council member Briggs. >> So having that in there, it wouldn't save us on time by going back to this same company. We would have to start the process from the beginning on finding out. >> Yeah, I mean, given that that's a completely different position, completely different job description, completely different charge from the council depending on where we come down on that particular discussion. That would be a whole nother engagement as I understand it with that firm, correct? Even if we were to come and do this right now with the city auditor position, which we're not prepared to do. That's a completely different process for them, correct? >> Well, it'd be a similar- >> Well, it has similarities- >> Similar process, correct. >> Because they're going after different- >> Correct, and I think you could include it in one contract if you're ready to do both. But we already have some proposals on the city auditor, so I don't think it would take as long whenever you do make that decision. >> Council member Waske. >> I support the selection of Waters and Company, and so to your question on the resolution, you're looking for a motion, and I would like to fill in the blank under section one and add Waters and Company. And I make a motion to approve this resolution. >> Thank you, Council Member Waske. Council Member Hawkins. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Council Member Briggs? >> Yes, Council Member Begarry had her hand up before- >> I'm sorry, I'm sorry, thank you, Council Member Begarry. >> I was going to clarify, it seems that we get the discount if we hire them, even if it's not concurrently or simultaneously. It's just if we end up hiring them for the auditor, is that right? >> I would think it would depend on the timing. I mean, if we were to do it in a reasonable amount of time, we've had enough experience with Waters that I think they would honor that. >> Okay. >> But if it's a year from now- >> Right, of course, yeah. >> I just want to clarify, thank you. >> Question, any other discussion on that? Okay, we have a motion and a second on the table. All in favor, raise your right hand and say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. >> Yeah, raise your right hand. >> Sorry, aye. >> Aye. >> And none of you said aye until later. >> Aye. >> Aye, aye. Okay, great. Well, thank you very much for that. Moving on to the next item, and I guess I'll defer to our city attorney because I understand according to the rules, we all learned last time that this automatically needs to come back for the next council session, but can only be acted upon in the event we have a full council, is that correct? >> Right, yes, your council rules provide that if there is a tie vote, which there was at the last meeting, then this item is placed automatically on each subsequent council meeting agenda until there is a full council present. And I might mention that in the staff meeting this morning, we talked about putting it on Monday's agenda, but also putting it on Tuesday's agenda because we're not sure we'll have a full house on Monday. So it's possible that you might see it on both agendas, but if we happen to pass it on Monday because we do have a full house, then we just of course would need to act on it on Tuesday. So that's currently the staff's plan as far as how to handle this, but you could not act on this item tonight. You do not currently have a full house. >> Thank you. City manager, were you going to add something to that? >> Well, we did post it on the first and the second with the idea that the items that we have on the first are pretty lengthy. And so if the council were to even if you had a full council, you could choose to move that to the second. It's posted for the second. We could consider it on the second. >> Great, thank you. And then I guess our action is simply nothing on this, correct? I don't even call the item. >> Correct. If you had questions, we could try to answer those questions this evening, but you will be seeing it again on Monday. And then we'll be posting it for Tuesday as well. >> Okay, well on that note, we move to two concluding items . Any concluding items before we adjourn? Council member Gregory. >> Thank you, Mayor. I went out and did a site visit to the villages of Carmel, phase 4B. And so I just had a question for our city manager. That you could either present it in an informal staff report or put on a work session. I noted that on Pockers Page Road that it appears that there's no widening of the road because it's currently underway and they're doing a lot of dirt work right now. And so my question is, will they as a part of that development be widening Pockers Page Road on that section that is adjacent to this development and adding sidewalks? >> Okay, and we can certainly provide you an answer with that. >> Councilmember Hawkins. >> Thank you, Mayor, right now Mayor. I was hoping we could get a more detailed informal staff report on kind of what is going on with Mingo Road. I've had a few emails, just that's been closed down a while . And maybe other than just checking on the website that we 're scheduled to be finished at this time, just so I could share that with one person who keeps email ing me, but it would be good information. >> We'd be glad to provide an update. >> I appreciate that. >> It's not just your neck of the woods anymore. >> Yeah. >> Good, anything else? >> On a different bridge, we do have the Trinity Road Bridge open for, it opened yesterday. >> Okay, Councilmember Berry. >> I would just ask that we have an actual individual item for consideration regarding the auditor, because I think we need to have an up or down vote on it. We're kind of talking around the issue and the context of the budget and in different contexts, but I really do think we need to just decide that before the budget is passed. And then particularly with the timing that we have now with the city manager contract, I think we need to figure out if that's the direction we're going in. >> In city manager, is there a spot on the upcoming agenda for that item that you're aware of already slated? >> On an individual item for the auditor, we can add that there's not currently. There's been a lot of discussion on that in past agenda committee meetings, so that's noted. Thank you for that. Anything else? Well, thank you all for your time and we stand adjourned.