Aug 09, 2016 City Council on 2016-08-09 1:00 PM

Good afternoon. Wanted to welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, August the 9th, 2016 at 1.03 p.m. We will now proceed to our work session item. On work session item 1A, we had a request to postpone that to when Councilmember Wasney would be here, I understand Mayor Potem is out as well. That's correct. And I don't think he's going to, I think we're still not going to have a full council to around the 23rd or something like that. That's right, the 23rd is our... So that's when we want to maybe look at putting that discussion of the internal auditor at that time. Is that okay with Councilmembers? We will have a full council at that time. That's correct. Yes, at least... This meeting I believe Councilmember Briggs is out and Rod en is out. On the 23rd everybody will be here. Please so, at least as far as what I know at least. Okay then we'll move on to agenda item 1B which is receive a report, hold discussion, provide staff with direction concerning the extension of R oodale Street at Mingo Road and the potential joint stormwater project with the Meadows Oaks development. Thank you Mayor. John Davis our Director of Engineering Services will be presenting this item. Thank you Mr. Manager, Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. I had a 30 minute presentation to give you but John Fortune and Mr. Martin said make it three minutes so let's see if we can do that. It hasn't happened yet. We were only going to spend 30 minutes on our auditor discussion. That's right so we're way ahead of the game. The purpose of this presentation to you this afternoon is to give you an up brief to update you on the Russell Street extension project and to advise you of a potential development agreement with an adjacent development for a joint storm water facility project there and to get your feedback and see if you're interested in pursuing that. Just as this map here will show you the overall project for Roodale Street. I'm sorry I think I said Russell Street, Roodale Street extension. The service center lies in this area here. Mingo Road and the railroad tracks just northeast of us here at the City Hall and the service center lies in this area here. Currently Roodale Street dead ends on the north side of the railroad tracks at Mingo Road and then on the south side it changes to Willis Street there through the area of the City Service Center. The project is a to the Roodale Street extension project is a 2014 bond program project budgeted at approximately $5.78 million and the purpose of the project is to extend Roodale Street southerly along this line here across the railroad tracks with a new railroad crossing southerly and then back to the west and south to intersect then and reconnect with Roodale Street near the Texas Street intersection on the east side of the service center there. What happens currently is that the service center has some very poor access points. We have an access point from the south of Frame Street I believe it is here and to Texas Street through some neighborhoods here where often when I go home in the evenings there are children playing the streets there. We have another access currently across the railroad tracks into Willis Street here or at Willis Street from Mingo Road . That's a very high and peaked railroad crossing there and some of our low boy equipment the trailers that carry the equipment have gotten caught on those railroad tracks. Thank goodness none have ever been hit by any of the railroad the trains coming through there. And then another one from the east along Roodale Street through the Texas Street access here. The city also owns the property on the east side of Willis Street and Roodale South of the railroad tracks here. Basically the city service center is outlined in the blue dashed line here that you can see in this area here. The new traffic operations building which is also a 2014 bond program project is being designed to go in at this location here in the northeast corner of the city's property here on the side of Mingo Road and the railroad tracks there. But this new crossing here in connection with Roodale Street will allow some much improved access to the service center. Very much improved crossing for the railroad tracks and then back to the east side to access the service center on the east side at Texas Street there. And the crossing would be designed such that there wouldn't be any problem for low slung trailers to cross that crossing there. In order to acquire that new crossing the Union Pacific will require us to close two railroad crossings. One we propose to close is the existing pertain street crossing in the northeast area of the map here. And the other is the existing Willis Street crossing here that we use now. That's a very poor crossing. This new crossing would provide continued good access to the neighborhoods in the east of the new extension here back to Mingo Road and also south to McKinney Street. Roodale Street is a straight street that goes down south and connects to McKinney Street at the south area there. So there would be no, actually we will be holding community meetings to advise them of this and get their input. But in my way of thinking it would be an improved area there because traffic would be going through their neighborhood to get to the current crossing there. And they could then access directly McKinney Street to the south instead of having to go through the circuitous route they currently go through. I had a question. Yes, I'm sorry, Councilmember. Thank you, Mayor. You said that when that new Roodale Street crossing is designed that it will be lower so that lower built vehicles would not get hung up on the pitch. Yes, sir. Is it also going to go, will we go ahead and design it and build it to specifications for the silent, no train whistle crossing? Yes, sir. At the same time. That would be coordinated with Mark Nelson and the, I can't think of the terminology either. Quiet zone. Quiet zone. There, yes, sir. OK. Joey, do you have a question? No, I'm good. OK, I'm sorry. Question? OK, keep it going. Do you have any idea when the community meetings will be held? Probably within the next two to three months. We will start with some meetings there. We currently have about, we have preliminary 30% plans. They're not at 30% now. They're very preliminary that we're reviewing. We're also reviewing drainage plans for this. The preliminary plans call for a large stormwater facility that would be down on the existing service center project or property there where we currently use a lot of our users there. Materials, services, parks and recreation, streets, drainage, and the other people. So it would take some area that they're currently using plus some area we're not using. We're looking at that to see if there's other opportunities to relocate that drainage in some way before we have the community meetings there. Yes, go ahead, Chair. Will those meetings include the neighborhoods below and above all of those? Yes. OK, thank you. And the ones west there also. Thank you. We anticipate due to the drainage evaluation and the railroad negotiations here for the crossing, the new crossing, that it's going to take us another 18 months or so to complete the plans for it. And that we would not probably, probably would not begin construction until the beginning of early 2018 on the project there. So we're 18 months to almost two years away from beginning construction on it there. Now-- No, no, no, go ahead, yeah. Now as part of this, as we were beginning this project, the design on the project, a developer has come in with this new proposed subdivision of Meadowhoek subdivision that you see in the east side or the right hand side of your drawing there, which is uphill from the city's property there. And of course, the drainage from that property would have to go through our property and get into the large ditch that's on the west side of the service center in this area here. They had asked the city, approached the city, and asked the city to consider a joint stormwater facility there some way so that their drainage could connect to our drainage for the Roodale Street extension there. You see how close the Roodale extension would come to the corner of their subdivision there. We've looked at that, and it looks very feasible for both them and for the city. For them, the advantages are they would not have to have a stormwater pond on site there, and they could then develop an additional six lots for their property there. For us, and the developer has agreed to do this, to pay any additional cost that the city would incur to handle their water through that, whether it be through a stormwater pond or larger pipes to get it from the development here to the ditch, to the major channel here. So we think it's a very feasible type of an agreement and project between the two parties. And we'd like to get any feedback that you might have as far as if you feel like we should pursue that and bring an agreement back to you, or if that's something that we're not interested in. >> Comments? Direction? Yes, Council Member Hawkins. >> I think that we should move forward with this. If you can go back to where you were there, John. >> Okay. There's a little chunk that is, I don't have my bearings right, but there's kind of that awkward piece that the developer, can you speak a little bit on that? They're going to swap that or trade that or something? >> I'm sorry, I didn't give you a lot of details. We've been working on the details of how that development agreement would work. One of the parts there in addition to paying the cost there is that they would transfer this 60 foot wide strip of property, which they're planting into a long lot, to the city. There are some large oak trees along that strip of property there. The city could then use that property as buffer, vegetative buffer between its uses here and the residential neighborhood to the south there. And we wouldn't have to construct a concrete block wall or a large wooden or other opaque fence there. In addition to that, that would provide us a setback area that we, an area we could use for setback for future development of our property there. So it would be sort of a win-win for both parties there. >> Okay. >> And so you're saying that we don't know yet whether there would be a retention pond or whether it would just simply be a larger drainage? >> That's correct, yes, sir. >> If there's a retention pond, where would it be located, on city property or? >> It would be located on city property, yes, sir. That's our current thinking. >> And then our compensation for that would be what? >> The developer would pay for the additional land cost for the additional size of the pond and for the additional design and the additional construction cost to enlarge it, to handle that. >> And do we know if that will, did we have any pressing use for that part of the property that we have for the service center? It seems in a way it's almost sort of disconnected from the rest of the service center by the new design for Riddell Street. So where would the pond be if there was a retention pond? >> Well, currently, the current preliminary design for the pond is in the area where I'm showing the cursor there. >> Okay. >> We're not sure if we have to have a pond. We're not sure that's the best location. We might be able to move it further over closer to the main channel there or something. We're just not sure. Right now we're trying to determine if we could do without a pond at all. >> So the pond would not impact that piece of property on the southeast corner, the southeast segment of the property ? >> No, so this is quite a bit higher in terrain than the area here. This is the lowest areas, of course, near the channel here. And as you go back up, it's fairly flat until you get to Texas Street. I'm sorry, Riddell Street here. And then it steepens up as it goes up the hill there. >> And then the Riddell Street and then Lewis Street or whatever that is, it sort of goes off to the northwest. Will that continue to be a street or will that simply be abandoned as a street and become part of the city service center complex? >> Yes, sir. With the closing of this crossing here, which the railroad would require us to close to to get one new one. And we would anticipate this being a closure because of the poor crossing there. And with that and the Riddell Street connection here, there would be no real need for this section of current public roadway here. >> So that'll probably be closed off by a fence or something? >> We would at some time in the future, as we get this constructed, return to you and request that this be abandoned. And then it would revert to abuse. It basically would become a driveway into the service center here, probably for visitors in this way. We're not sure yet on that. >> Which is going to make it a whole lot harder for me to get the pecans off that pecan tree there where the road. >> Well, sir, it doesn't work for everyone exactly. >> I understand. I'll sacrifice my pecans. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, in the agreement, there's 1.04.3.1, it doesn't matter. Developers shall pay for the cost associated with the additional city property required to enlarge the RSS to accommodate the developers during a cost of 350 per square foot. Where did that 350 come from? >> Our real estate office looked at values, land values around there. They've determined that the highest and best use for this property here, if the city were not going to use it, would be for apartment complexes. Then that was the 350, that's where they came up with the value of 350. >> Okay, and two, I know that this project started in spring of last year. Would this fall under the old road impact fees? Or I would, I know that they had kind of done the economics kind on that. And I know Mr. Shelton's in the room too, and he even had, during the road impact fee public hearings, he had spoke a couple times on that, and I just want to get your thoughts on that. >> I'll defer to the attorney for a specific answer to that , but I don't think it would since it has not been platted at this time. >> That's the kicker there is platting. >> The trigger, sorry. >> I think that's right, and I can look at it and give you a more definitive answer, but I think that's right. >> Jennifer, do you have a comment as far as the effect of the street impact fees on this project, whether or not the street impact fees would apply? >> I think it would apply. >> Jennifer, come to the microphone please. >> Yes, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, council. The street impact fees would apply in this situation because it has not been platted yet. They'll be assessed at the time of the final plat, and then they'll be collected prior to building permit, or with the building permit. >> The only reason I bring that up, if I can. >> Sure. >> Just, if there was, I mean, everybody's been doing their best to kind of make this project happen, but if there was anything that helped and maybe on the city side where we were trying to figure something out that possibly delayed it, that's my only reason to bring that up, is just to be fair of when this project started, we have certain economics that they're trying to work with, and then during that time it changed. And I know what the trigger is, platting, I understand that . But if we could just really take an honest look that if this got delayed for any reason on our end, to just look at that. But I guess if we can't do that, I understand. >> Just as a matter of interest, if they do donate or give money towards any of the street projects, those can be used as credits also toward the impact fee. >> Okay. >> So that's something we might also look into. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Do it, it seems that I remember that we carved out some exceptions for some of the road fees for infill development. Is that correct or am I- >> We did. >> It was, I believe it was ten units, up to ten units. Anything over ten units would not fall under the exception. >> Okay, and this is larger than ten. >> Correct. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Question, I'm just looking over here because that's where. John, if you could go back to the map that shows the top ographical map, just because that's got the streets on it. Of course, the bond package has been approved and this project has been approved. But I just want to make sure I understand because the main reason that my understanding was that the city requested this Roodale Street extension was to resolve the railroad crossing there at Willow Street. And to prevent most of the traffic going down through quote unquote neighborhoods to get to East McKinney. So two questions. One is, is the Rose Street entrance to the service center, which is running down a neighborhood street. You gotta come down Frame Street, which is neighborhoods. I mean, is that still gonna stay open? >> It's our current plan to leave that open, but it would probably, it would not be a primary entrance the way it is now. >> Okay. >> As with the Roodale Street extension here, and all you could connect, come in from McKinney Street on the south end, come up Roodale Street to this main entrance here, or from Mingo Street, the northeast, and come into the entrance there. >> So then what you're saying is there's gonna be two entr ances, Rose Street slash that entrance there on the west side. And then the other one's gonna be at the corner of Texas and Roodale. And most people, if they're heading south, as a service center will take Roodale down to East McKinney. Roodale still is a, I mean, are there still residential structures on that? I mean, that's still sort of a neighborhood kind of thing. Area, I guess. >> Yes, sir. >> So we're spending $6 million to really, in essence, change a crossing. I mean, it seems like. I mean, there's more involved in that, but yet when you look at the traffic pattern, outside of going out Wilson Street to Mingo, people are still gonna be either going through Rose or they were gonna be coming out of this entrance down here at the service center that's there currently and doing the same thing. >> In essence, okay. >> Yes, sir, you're correct. >> Okay. >> However, the area, the neighborhood to the south there, I travel that quite a bit also along South Roodale. I've never seen any currently any children playing in the street. It is a wide street, in very good condition. And it does involve a number of turns the way the one, Rose Street, Paisley Street, and Texas Street there does. >> Yes. >> I think you may find when you talk to the folks in that neighborhood that if those folks living over there on Lat imore want to go south, a lot of them go east and get on Woodrow because Woodrow is four lanes and it's very easy and it connects all the way for a long way. And I know that neighborhood very well because for 15 years that was in my elementary school's attendance zone. >> Right. >> So I spent a lot of time there. So I think that most of those folks if they're heading south for any distance at all, they're going to build- >> I'm not talking about the neighbors. I'm not talking about the actual residents in the neighborhood. I'm saying that the primary purpose of this was to reduce the traffic from the service center through neighborhoods. I mean, that's what I remember as far as and give a connection to it. >> I got you. >> And the poor crossing of the railroad. >> That was the primary. That was the primary purpose. So I would say then I would really encourage staff to look at, you might not can close down that Rose Street entrance. But I mean, if we're spending $6 million to try to direct all these big heavy pieces of equipment down a road where there's less children running around, then we need to figure out a way to mitigate that there as much as possible. Maybe even having some type of load limit or axle limit coming down through because that's a pretty heavily neighborhood when you go down Rose, you get on Paisley and then come back down frame heading towards East McKinney. There's probably a lot of kids playing there. So I would say we really need to look at hard how we can truly limit traffic coming through Rose Street. >> Very good point. >> Yep. So as far as the joint, the meeting's primarily to discuss the joint agreement or at least to move forward with that concept. This isn't an action item tonight, I don't believe. >> No, sir. >> Oh, sorry, so you had more slides. >> Just one quick one. This shows the proposed development on the right hand side here. The proposed Roodale Street alignment back down to Texas Street in the left hand side in this area here. And you can see their outfall would be very close to our proposed street alignment and our storm drainage would run down along the street there. So there'd be a short connection there to it. >> Who is the developer on the Meadow Oaks? Do we know? I mean, you mentioned Mr. Shelton. >> I thought it was Mr. Shelton. >> That's not your development. >> I could have been wrong there, sorry. >> Okay. Okay, you guys just curious? Okay, all right. >> Engineer. >> Yeah, engineer. Well, when you said that, because we have something coming up on the agenda for him. >> No, I just saw him and it triggered me. >> Okay. >> I apologize. >> You're a triggering effect, Mr. Shelton. >> Apologize about that. >> I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Jesslyn Land Develop. >> No, no, that's fine. He just mentioned this. I wanted to make sure I understood the part of the ball. >> But basically, that's the end of my presentation. That's the end of my three minute presentation, sir. I'm sorry. >> That's good, yeah, about 30 minutes. That's what you said it would be. >> That's good. No, it's fine. So direction? >> Direction, well, for me, I had a meeting. I think the biggest thing was they want to move forward. >> Who is they? >> Well, I know I had a meeting with the engineer on the project. >> Mr. Allison? >> Mr. Allison. And I think a big thing that was talked about was they would just really like to get all the parties at a meeting and like to really move forward on this project. So if we are for this, get everybody to sit down together and really move forward. >> All right. Everybody okay? QDI? All right. >> Thank you. >> I believe we're okay with moving forward on this. >> Thank you. All right, agenda item C is receive report. The discussion provides staff direction regarding a pre- annexation development agreement between the city of Denton and Ryan Capital Partners. >> Thank you, Mayor. Manal Malhandad, our Deputy Director of Development Services, will be presenting this item. >> Okay, I believe the city, Madam City Attorney has a couple of comments as well. >> Mayor, I just wanted to point out that we do have a closed session also which is associated with this particular agenda item. So if the council desires after this presentation and needs information, and we do have something we do need to relate to the council. If the council desires, we could call that closed meeting or if you desire to wait until later, it's certainly your call. But we do have a closed session. >> So in my understanding that notwithstanding, if we have any questions in closed session, you do have something that you need to present in closed session. >> I do have an item I need to present to the council and we do need direction on one small piece of this issue. >> All right, thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Members of the Council, Howard Martin, City Manager. What we have before you this afternoon is a report that was provided in your backup and have a discussion and seek direction regarding a pre-annex ation development agreement. It's anonymous to a pre-annexation agreement between the city and Ryan Capital Partners. We're talking approximately of 81 acres of property located on the south side of Ryan with a piece to the north. If you look at the location map that's before you on the screen tonight, this afternoon, you get a semblance of the configuration of this site and the aerial image also provides some details as to the top ography or the lay of the land. We also wanted through this discussion in terms of location and bearings is provide some idea of what surrounds this subject property in terms of the residential aspects or components as well as other development. Again, the existing conditions are key to this site and just to bring everybody up to speed on the council, if you recall, since September we've had two annexation agreement extensions in terms of the NAAS, non-annexation agreements expiring. Through that time, I believe Councilperson Baguerre, you were not present at the time. There was discussion on perhaps looking at this property co hesively, comprehensively, and creating or authoring a development agreement as it relates to development standards that would benefit the city of Denton as it relates to the types of development conditions or criteria. The existing conditions on the property which were a great value add to this site and we can see that we have an environmentally sensitive area that travis is pretty much north and south of this property . And that's highlighted on the screen as well. In addition, there is an existing gas well on this site as well. And I'm pointing out the physical conditions of this site deliberately because as we dive into the discussion of the development agreement, all this will come to light as well. There is a very dense tree population on the site as well. Property is currently within a non-annexation agreement, therefore it's ETJ property. As a result, the city does not have authority over the development criteria as it relates to lot sizes, setbacks, and other massing requirements, the density, the environmental areas, the city's tree preservation requirements, or the gas wells. The only authority at this point as it relates to the ETJ or the NAA is the planning and infrastructure elements associated with this site. Property owners had approached the city in regard to developing the site and that was through a pre-annexation agreement or a pre-annex ation development agreement. And of course, this obviously delayed the annexation into the city. But that was in exchange for development regulations or creating specific development regulations, the density aspects, the environmental protection element, and again, the plugging or removal of that existing gas well that I pointed out. There are three tracts that are under consideration before you. We have tract 1A, that's in yellow, 1B in red, and 1C. 1A is an expansion of the Good Samaritan facility. It's an elderly housing concept. 1B, which where you saw when we went back to, and I'm going to point this out to you, where you see the ESA component, that heavy dense tree stand as well, is capped at three single family lots. No more than three single family homes can be developed on that site, as proposed. And tract 1C. >> We have a question. >> Did, I've slept a few days since then, but it seems like we've had a rather long discussion on section 1B. And I thought that we had settled on that, or had we not? >> We did have a long discussion as it relates from when we came forward to discuss extending the non-annexation agreement. And we talked about the aspects of a pre-annexation agreement and why would it behoove us as a city to proceed with this. We talked about the ESA impacts. And through that and collaboration with the property owners slash developers, we looked at the area, the topography, and the physical constraints and conditions of the site, and thus the cap. So when we're looking at this actually, tract 1A, 1B, and 1 C, we're looking at it comprehensively to create development criteria, to have associated site plans and detailed plans to bring it all together. So that any development within these tracts is tied to those components that is in the pre-annexation agreement. >> Okay, thank you. >> And that will come before you should you choose to move forward at a subsequent city council meeting. >> If you notice and you see on the screen, there is a number two on a mustard shaded tract, which is tract two. This tract, when we look at 1C, 1B, 1A, and 2, is all part of the existing non-annexation agreement and is not included as part of the development conditions or criteria associated with the property to the south, the 80 acres. >> Question. >> I haven't slept that many days since then, but the same days have passed. I don't ever remember seeing tract two when we've talked about this outline. It always seemed to be south of Ryan Road. This, am I remembering that correctly or did I just not see it? >> It was lightly highlighted in red and that's why you did not, but we did point out that the entire NAA encompassed that northern tract as well. And those are some of the questions that will come out of this discussion that we will pose to yourselves regarding next steps for tract two. >> But okay, but during our discussions about this, I don't recall tract two coming up as any kind of special. It seemed like it just was sort of out there, it was there, but our conversations and discussion really didn't pertain to that. >> You're absolutely right. The discussion that took place over the course of quite a few months was that we know that the NAA also encapsulates or encompasses tract two, it is already developed with a single family home. The property to the south is undeveloped and that's where the development conditions would come into play. >> Okay. >> Is tract two the, I think it's five or seven acres that was the old Wayne and Melvigene Ryan's home site? >> I don't know past ownership but. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Seems we have confirmation of that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So what we want you to do to this afternoon as well, and if I'm going too slowly, please let me know and I'll speed up. I've been told I speak too fast, so I wanted to be cautious of that. Let's talk a little bit about tract 1A. It's approximately 14.4 acres. Adjacent to tract 1A to the east is the existing Good Sam facility and they would like to expand their facility. As part of this NAA and their expansion program, they have provided us a concept plan that reflects an elderly housing complex, which is an assisted living facility. It would have single family homes, duplexes, and pretty much is characterized as an institutional use as well. It would be comparable to the NRMU 12 zoning district, which is the adjacent zoning district to this property. But this piece of property is currently in the existing NAA . Why is this then you ask part of this whole non-annexation agreement? Because what we are trying to do in terms of the linear visual frontage of these properties is to have consistency in their screening mechanisms. And as I dive into talking about tract 1C, I will show you and the developers present to how we're going to have some consistency in terms of their exterior screening mechanisms . Annexation is proposed as part of this non-annexation agreement for each tract and it is upon the submittal of a final plot where they would go through the annexation process and be absorbed and eventually rezoned into the city. Tract 1B, this is the tract that raised several questions as it relates to the environmentally sensitive area. Approximately 20.5 acres. And looking at the topography of the site, the acreage, and the physical constraints, no more than three single family homes would be permitted on the site. Annexation would be upon final plotting. The most comparable zoning in this instance, if you look at it, would be RD5X, which caps your minimum home size, lot size, I'm sorry, to five acres. The majority of this tract is within the ESA. And as a result, if that ESA is disturbed, it would be subject to all the regulations and requirements for an alternative ESA. However, I do want to highlight that with this exercise that we've conducted with the owners and future developers of these properties or these tracts is to look and see on how we can use the natural lay of the land. And to protect the ESAs to the greatest extent possible and not compromise those. As a result, you see the maximum number of homes presented or proposed on that lot at three. So that there is no impact on the trees or on the alternative ESA. >> Tract 1C, this of course is a single family subdivision that's being proposed. There is a lot more detail associated with it. They are proposing 137 units, which equates to about three dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size would be 7,200 square feet. That is the, sorry. >> Yeah, I mean, I may be thinking about a totally different one, so if I am, correct me. I thought we were looking at larger lots, larger homes originally. And I mean, 54 to, I thought it was 80, 50 to 80. Am I thinking about something different over here in this same area? >> I know there's been extensive discussion in the past prior to us coming to this point. My discussions with looking at the lay of the land and trying to assure this physical constraints of the cider absorbed. We were looking at a 7,200 square foot minimum, looking at the surrounding land use pattern as well. So what I'll do is I'll go through some of the development conditions that are proposed and then we'll go back to this question that you have and it might shed some more light on it. >> Well, and I appreciate that, but I want to make sure though that I'm not remembering that incorrectly. That as we talked about this, one of the big pushes for this sort of pre-annexation agreement was we've been wanting bigger homes on larger lots, so that's why we need to make this happen. Well, this isn't what we talked about. >> And you have jogged my memory. One of the discussions was lot sizes and we had an analysis on lot size discussion. And the discussion that stemmed around it was, what are we looking at in terms of the trends, industry trends? What are the industry trends in terms of lot sizes? And that's why we've capped them at this minimum. So some home lot sizes will be larger, but nothing can be lower than 7,200 square feet. >> Okay, and I appreciate that. Am I remembering that incorrectly, Mr. Shelton? And you can come up to the mic. I just want to make sure that I'm remembering that correctly because this is a big change for me. And so I'm going to let you finish so I understand how you all came to that. >> Sure. >> But this is a major change from what I remember we were talking about. >> So what I'll do is I'll go through some of the primary development conditions that we're proposing as part of this development agreement. And we'll talk about not just the lot sizes, but the minimums associated. So some are minimums and some are maxes, and I'll walk you through them so that we're all on the same page. And then we can go back to that. >> Well, again, let me clarify. I'm not focused on the lot size. What I'm focused on is that the issue was bigger homes, larger lots, because we've said we have a shortage of homes and a certain price point. So I'm not- >> I understand. >> Michael focused on the lot size, but it's what that represents in our previous discussion. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So as part of this pre-annexation agreement- >> I think Sarah had a- >> I'm sorry. >> One acre is 44,000 square feet, I think. So I'm a little bit unclear on this, not to go back to the lot size issue. But if it's three per acre, we're talking about 21,000, that's about a half acre. So is it easements and other right of way that's being taken up the rest of the half acre? >> Absolutely, and we're also factoring in some open space. So as we go through this detailed plan, we'll shed some light on exactly what the siding and massing is, which will give you some semblance on the 7200 square feet. >> Okay, thank you. >> So what are the enhancements associated with this? These enhancements are not typical of our development code. They are not part of our development code as it currently stands. And this is why staff was keen to create or author a development agreement that would enable us to effectively utilize our tree preservation ordinance. In the sense that we are making the requirements in this development agreement more restrictive. So the enhancements are related to the tree preservation criteria as it relates to percentage of preservation. The DDC does not require trail systems and we have required them as part of the development agreement that will be part of this development. I'm sorry. I'm going to show those to you. >> The community center, proposing expanded amenity center, entry monumentation, landscaping, the abandonment or plugging of a gas well, specific fencing and screening requirements, internal and perimeter screening, and a variety in housing type. And now I'll dive into what we're talking about. You have all these exhibits in your packet, but what we wanted to do was highlight the enhancements. This is the frontage of the site and you can see through this depiction, this detailed plan, this detailed site plan which would be attached to the development agreement and it would have to comply with this . It shows you the entry features. It shows you the amenity center. It shows you the ESA and flood plain. And it also shows you the relationship of the trail system that traverses the perimeter of the site as well as internally, I'll go to another slide, that provides you the visual corridor. To your ESA and into the tree stand. If we were to look at a visual description of this, there's an entry sign, entry monument feature, open air amenity center, a swimming pool, an open air cabana, the trail system that stems out of there and goes southbound. A multi-use lawn or open space, this is active open space. And a playground, also active open space. If you look to the left of your screen, you will see a trail system that meanders through. It's not a typical sidewalk that's been installed. But we asked or requested for an enhanced meandering sidewalk to basically enhance the visual appeal of residents within the site. Some more depictions of the amenity center as well as the entry feature and the signage is reflected there for your purview. This is another depiction. This is the southern portion of that detail plan. We couldn't put it on one slide, but we wanted to point out some other elements which are very exciting as it relates to this detail plan. A linear park has been provided where the existing gas well is that I pointed out to you regarding the existing conditions of the property. The gas well will be abandoned and plugged. And there is also a trail system that goes through there. So there is pedestrian connectivity throughout this development. >> I'm not familiar with the term linear park, sorry. >> A linear park basically is a smaller area in scale that is set aside within the development that allows your visual corridor and allows for some passive open space. >> Okay. >> There will be decorative lighting that will be installed within this linear park. And again, I'll go back, move forward and explain the perimeter screening elements associated with this. The site, again, when we authored this or looked at this development agreement in terms of what the requirements are , this was an effort that was conducted with all our external stakeholders. We looked at the planning elements. We looked at the engineering and infrastructure requirements. We consulted with our mobility plan or our thoroughfare plan to ensure this connectivity. And this reflects connectivity to the south, to Creekdale Drive as well. We wanted to point that out to you, which is a component of the mobility plan. In essence, I'm sorry. >> And will the street that goes down to connect to Creek dale have sidewalks on both sides? >> No, one side. >> Which side? >> I think it shows on there, Mike, was it on the west side or the east side? I don't recall. I can't see that. >> Is there not enough room for both sides? >> I believe the requirement is only for one side. That's because if you look at this connectivity, there is- >> Requirement from who? >> I believe the city requirements, but I can verify that Mike's going to pull that up. So I'll pause on that question and give you a response to that. We'll just double check that. >> The reason I'm asking this is because Creekdale is going to end up going right by, connect all the way in to go right by Ryan Elementary School. >> Yes. >> And so I would want to make sure that there's- >> Okay. >> Active transportation lanes for people to, especially for kids that are living there to be able to walk that back route to get to the school. >> I will double check that and get you an answer before we close on our presentation. Let's talk a little bit about the design enhancements. The proposal is, or the recommendation is for 90% minimum m asonry requirement on the front facade and 75 on side and rear facades. That's a masonry requirement. 25% of homes shall be 2400 square feet or greater, minimum dwelling unit size. 25% of homes shall have a swing drive, a j drive, or a three car garage. These are minimums. So a minimum of 25% of the homes shall be greater than 2400 square feet and greater. And 25% of homes shall have a three car garage or a swing drive, which automatically increases that lot area. There will also be variation in the setback so that it's not a linear front where it's a bland linear flat facade. Because the setbacks will deviate along the street frontage . Broad iron fencing shall be adjacent to all open spaces. And what we have before are some elevations that we wanted to show you in terms of these minimum masonry requirements, what they would look like. What we found useful was to do a comparison based on our current Denton development code, the proposed pre-annexation agreement, and the ETJ. When we look at the maximum dwelling units, under this pre- annexation agreement, 137 units is what the development would max out as. When we look at the surrounding zoning and land use pattern , the most comparable zoning designation for this site would be an NR3 or an NR4 designation. I understand the properties to the north are NR2, but in this instance, given the NRMU to the east, and given the adjacency of the NR3s and the 4s, this would be the most comparable zoning district had it gone, been annexed straight into the city. Yes, sir. >> The zoning to the west is NR3 or 4? >> The zoning to the west is NR3 and NR2. >> And NR2? >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. >> NR4, I'm sorry, my mistake. >> NR3 and 4? >> 2 and 4. >> 2 and 4, okay. >> So based on the NR3 and 4, the site would basically be able to accommodate 162 or 185 units respectively, dwelling units. Again, the ETJ would have no requirements. The minimum lot size is 7200 square feet proposed as part of this development agreement. The DDC and then the ETJ has no requirements in terms of what the minimum lot sizes would be. The front yard setbacks, again we talked about the 20 foot front entry setbacks and then if you were a J swing drive or a J drive, 25 feet. The DDC and the ETJ have none. The minimum floor area, the minimum dwelling unit size proposed, floor area proposed is 1800 square feet. With a minimum of 25% of the homes to be at 2400 square feet. The minimum dwelling unit area that is required by our Dent on Development Code is 900 square feet. And again, the ETJ has none. We already discussed the three car garage and the J swing component. The minimum masonry requirements, I visited with you regarding those. The DDC has no requirements, nor does the ETJ. Parameter screening, masonry screening wall elements or parameter screening elements are not required by the DDC. However, we are requiring this as I discussed talking about a masonry wall along Ryan Road and then having the wrought iron fencing adjacent to all the open space. We are, yes sir? >> Before you leave this slide, thank you. I think it would be helpful on the very top road going across to not only compare the PAA of 137 homes with NR3 and NR4, but also to compare it with NR2. Since it is adjacent, it looks like over 90% of it is adjacent to NR2, which is directly to the west. >> Definitely, and we have some of that data in the subsequent slide, but I think for comparison purposes, you 're right. It makes more sense to have it there. Thank you for pointing that out. >> Because this is the thing that gets a little tricky. We're looking at this track 1C. >> Yes. >> But when we look at tree preservation, which is tree canopy, when we look at density, my understanding is, so correct me if I'm wrong, if you have a track that has some constraints like a flood plain or something, that if you get an NR3 zoning or NR4 and you can put so many on that entire track, that if you only can use let's say half of that track because a floodplain or in this case a big ESA area of 20 acres. >> Yes. >> You're still allowed to squeeze that density in to the remaining parts of that land that can be used. So like on tree preservation, we see 65% existing tree canopy and the required on NR3 or NR4 is 12.5 to 25%. >> Correct. >> But most of that tree canopy is in the ESA. I mean, when I look at this track, I don't see a whole lot of trees on track 1C. Most of that is in track 1B. >> Correct. >> Which can be used. >> Are you using track 1B to calculate the tree canopy and tree preservation? >> They've been isolated in terms of these calculations. >> What about the density? >> The density is isolated as well. >> Okay, all right. So you didn't use that to- >> No, we did not use or offset in that matter. The open space requirements is a key element as well. In fact, our Denton Development Code does require it to at 5%. However, we're at approximately 30% with this track. >> Going back to the question about incorporating the NR2 into the study and comparison table, absolutely agree with you. If you look to where the subject property is, I'm going to preface my next conversation with you regarding why we looked at NR4 and NR3. And that was because of the adjacencies with the exception of, if you look at Thistle Hills phase one, which is a small component, which is the NR2 zoning district, and those, the minimum lot size requirements for NR2 is 16,000 square feet. Am I correct, Mike? 16? No, it's two acres, correct. My mistake there. That being said, when we look at Ryan Ranch phase two, which is an NR4 zoning, Thistle Hills phase two, which is a larger component NR4 zoning, and then the adjacency of the surrounding uses to the east. That was where our calculation came from. But definitely what we will do for the next agenda item when we move forward to present this to you, or fully vet the development agreement, we will provide that analysis associated with NR2 as well. Track 1A, this is the extension of the GoodSAM facility. Instead of utilizing the tree code, this was the isolation component I was talking about. They will be preserving approximately 60% of their tree canopy, which equates to about four acres. And it's shown on the tree preservation plan that's been provided. The standard tree code, again, as discussed, is 25% to 12.5 %. Track 1B would comply with the tree code. However, as it relates to the developability of track 1B in isolation, there is area that is developable which will not impact the existing tree stands or minimally impact those. Again, there is an extensive ESA there. So any type of disturbance to that would warrant approval of an alternative ESA. And that's why we've limited the number of homes on that to three. It is approximately 21 acres in area. Track 1C, instead of utilizing the tree code, the site is required to preserve, as we've proposed, 65% of the existing tree canopy. And it's reflected on the tree preservation plan and the attachments in your backup. One of the issues that came up in our discussions when we were talking about what are the benefits of a pre-annex ation agreement. What are the benefits of those? One of the questions that came up was Ryan Road and its variable width right of way as it's developed over the years. As part of this agreement, all properties will be required to improve the perimeter streets along their frontage. And I say that, there's a caveat to my statement. If you look at the frontage areas for these sites, the most impacted is track 1B. But track 1C has the lowest impact, but the greatest amount of frontage and creek access to it. All properties, as I said, would have to improve their street frontages. As part of this pre-annexation development agreement, each tract would have to pay a perimeter street improvement contribution based upon their anticipated impact rather than their linear frontage. The total contribution associated with this segment, I believe it's 2,000 linear feet if I'm not mistaken, would be approximately $900,000 and these monies would be used towards the improvements of Ryan Road. And they would be deposited with the city. >> Given the increased traffic that will occur on Ryan Road . >> Yes. >> And given the already interesting configuration of Ryan Road with wide sections, narrow sections, and narrower sections, would we anticipate that that $900,800 would be sufficient to go ahead and widen the road and we would be able to do that? >> This would be a participation cost, but it would not, I don't believe in, forgive me, I'm not an engineer, so I'm going to speak as an engineer, so that could be dangerous. But no, I believe these monies would go towards an overall monies to improve Ryan Road. >> Do we know if there is a timeline, a plan for the Ryan Road improvements? >> I'm not privy to the timelines for Ryan Road. >> I think maybe somebody might be. I think John knows the answer. >> I don't necessarily have a timeline per se for Ryan Road , but I know it's a project that we're looking at trying to have available for the next bond committee. >> Well, I know when Thistle Hill was done, the portion right in front was widened simply to have a turnout lane and an acceleration lane. Is that going to be provided immediately? >> That I don't know. I'm sorry. I would have to get with engineering. I'm sorry I don't have anybody here to answer that question . We can certainly find that out. >> And while I'm grousing, go back to your section 1A. I believe that you referred to that as elderly housing. Is that the term that we use in our guide books? >> The true planning term is senior housing with the cave ats of what the caps are associated with. >> Well, as a person of a certain age, I'm 64 and a half now. I think that we need to change it in all of our books to be housing for persons of enhanced age. >> Absolutely, we'll look into that. And that is what we have before you this afternoon. Again, the pre-annexation agreement has been drafted. The development agreement, what I've presented to you are snippets or a synopsis of what is contained within that almost 100 page document which addresses your infrastructure. Not only just the implications, but the associated requirements, and which also addresses the annexation phasing plan that I've highlighted to you. We do have that one question that is, or that we do have a question mark on that one track two on what is the best way to proceed. And I think Anita had mentioned that we could dive into that with a subsequent item. >> Well, I'm going to go back to my original question. And if I'm confusing this with a different discussion. I mean, first of all, I appreciate all the work that's gone into this, whatever it's called, a pre-annexation agreement . It looks great, development looks great, but my concern is, my concern is we have a lot of land that's out in the ETJ. >> Yes. >> That if, in this whole discussion, I mean I think we've been talking about this for a year or two, if I'm not mistaken. Unless I'm thinking of a different track of land. If I'm thinking of a different track of land, then somebody please correct me, because I could swear part of the issue was dealing with the ESA track, but that this configuration of this overlay track was about 50 to 80 lots. And then the whole discussion about Ryan Road came up. So this seems very different than as it was presented before. So I'd like that question to be answered first. Am I thinking about the right track or am I totally off base on this? >> I'm going to preface with, when I picked up the NAA extension component, we talked about having a varied stock in housing, which we said the enhanced development conditions could improve or provide that high quality. As it relates to that other component, I think Amy has an answer to that. >> You're thinking of the correct tract, yes. And the general discussion was related to higher priced homes and larger lots. I can't recall exactly the number of lots we were originally discussing. The applicant or the property owner may be able to. >> There was a map on the screen with it mapped out as far as here are the lots. There was some right around the gas well. And that's fine. This is very different than what we were discussing and trying to resolve about, well, let's go ahead and see if we can't solve this issue for the developer because they were creating what we've been trying to get here instead of going through our normal process of annexation, zoning, any conditions associated with that zoning. So now we've got basically what to me before was a very unique, different neighborhood of about either half acre to acre lots or something like that, 50 to 60 homes. We've got a neighborhood that looks just like the ones to the south and to the west, which the original discussion was that's not what we were looking for and that's why we're trying to figure out a very creative way to do this. >> Sure. >> So I'm, I mean, this is a great project, but I'm hesitant to say, let's go ahead and carve out this exception because then everybody's going to be coming in and we're going to start having these. And if we need to up the standards in our zoning, then we just need to do that. So I'm just concerned that it's changed considerably from- >> Initial discussion. >> When we've talked about, well, the whole reason to even try to develop a pre-annexation agreement. The whole purpose was how can we get this development that was presented to where it doesn't necessarily, because there's a big question about the owners don't want to be annexed. So if we require them to be annexed, then they're going to walk away from the deal. And so therefore we're trying to figure out how to make everybody have a win-win. Great, but this is just very different and I really struggle with this quite honestly. If I can take you back to, I would say March when we presented what we did is we as a team from a planning perspective, sketched very conceptually the layout of the lots, the utilization of the ESA. And that was preliminary discussion which we talked about the lot sizes in terms of we're looking at approximately 77 ,000 square feet. That was the original, when I started talking about the pre -annexation agreement. The goal was how can we increase and provide a lasting and stable community and not have the typical build just the generic type. Well, housing product or housing stock, but to have that variation. And on top of that, look at some preservation elements. And that's why if you look at it, we split it up into specificity with those three lots. But as it relates to the previous discussions. >> Well, you just said it. You just said planning sketched out some lots. >> Yes. >> Based upon discussions with the developer of we had maybe 60 or 70 lots that planning sketched out to see how we could configure this. >> There were about 120 lots. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> I want to see that, send me that presentation if you would. >> Yeah, I'm going to pull that up. >> I'm not remembering it that way, so I could be totally wrong and if I am I will certainly be accountable to that. >> Right. >> I don't ever remember seeing this kind of density. Is there anybody, any other council members that are remembering it a different way than I did? I mean, I just, council member Briggs. >> I remember it the same as you and I also thought if I recall correctly that on that middle slot, it was going to be one large family home. >> Yes. >> And not three, if that's correct. >> Yes, I remember that. >> That is correct. We talked about maybe just developing that with one given the area. It can accommodate three. The development agreement can be reworded to reflect just the one. >> Well, I'm not. >> The main issue is let's worry about tract 1C, right? >> Yeah, and I don't know if I'm worried about that. I just, when something is that different than what the presentation came before, I just get a little cautious and I know you're furrowing your brow as if. >> I'm trying to recall exactly, and I think I know which, we had an exhibit up, I recall now we had an exhibit up that reflected potentially how do we utilize the open space and retain the tree canopy. That was the discussion I remember having. >> I'm having a hard time remembering what the density was in that. But I do recall the one resident on the B track, us talking a little bit about Ryan Road in regards with Good Sam and Right Away and that sort of thing. The northern property, I don't even remember us really. >> No, we didn't. >> We didn't discuss the northern property. >> My other question, I know it's, are there only, how many models of homes or is that way further along? I mean, is there going to be the rest of them are 1800 square feet and there's 25% of them are 2400 square feet or is that just kind of up to the developer and how that works down? >> Again, these percentages are numbers that we provided. Those numbers can be increased should the council choose. They can increase the minimum dwelling unit sizes or the percentages of those. They can also increase the lot size cap as well to increase the minimums and require a percentage of X amount, 10,000 to be not just these, not at 25%, but more than. >> And is a 2400 square foot home required to be on a bigger lot than an 1800 square foot home, obviously? >> No, not necessarily. >> Not necessarily? >> But then you- >> Let's go two story. >> Absolutely, but your three car garage would push you into having a larger home. >> That's okay. >> But what we can do is revisit those and- >> Before I give direction from my, I mean everybody else obviously is going to give theirs. I want to see the presentation we had about six or eight months ago. I want to see the difference between what we were looking at. because if I'm wrong, I will stand up and say it. But I just, and I'm not even saying I don't like this, but I just want to make sure that if we're making this big a change, am I comfortable with going outside our normal procedure to do this? Whereas before, I don't even know if I was that comfortable before, but I was getting a little more comfortable. But this, I struggle with what I perceive to be a radical change from as originally presented. But that's just me, so. >> Right, I do want to highlight that the NAA as it stands, I believe expires on September the 3rd. >> Well, that's not good because we didn't give ourselves much time to figure out what we need to do here. And unless we get another short term extension, I mean does that mean that if we either have to decide this by September 3rd or get another extension? >> Yeah. >> All right, and I thought that that's what the issue was last time. They didn't want to give an extension, or they didn't want an extension, so. Anyway, or they wanted one without something else. But I'd just like to see what we talked about before. >> I'll dig that up and I'll provide it to everybody. >> Yeah, of course. >> Well, and a reminder that I want to see the comparison to the NAA. >> And our two, yes, absolutely. Super. >> Yes, Council Member Geary. Hold on, stay on me. >> This is a matter of housekeeping again, it really does help to see a timeline of activity because I'll go back and watch the former videos and just to see kind of like a little register of actions, things that have happened to trace along. People come into these seats pretty regularly and we don't have the historical knowledge that Council Member Gregory does. >> I believe Mr. Shelton, who is part of this development, has requested to speak, is that, is Council okay with that? I mean, I just wanted to, everybody okay? Is that okay? Yeah. I'm assuming Dalton's shaking his head. Is that okay, Dalton? Yes. If you'll come to the, well, I know you have to come to the mic just to be able to, so that the people can hear you that are. >> Bob Shelton, 2308 Ranch-Astra. I just wanted to make a few comments on what you've been looking at and what we're presenting today. >> Right. >> We have been working on this about two years. I don't remember seeing a 50 or 60 lot program, and certainly we have an engineer here that drew ever one of those. But I do believe that initially we had probably 80 or 90 lots on that. We were showing the same size lot backing up to Thistle Hills for a distance there that they had. And then as we transitioned, as they transitioned into more density, we transitioned into more density. But we're leaving all of the trees all the way around this perimeter, not all the way around, basically on three sides of it. The creek side, the south side, and the west side. That is a large screening area between us and the Thistle Hills project. I have to say, Manala's worked on this thing very diligently for the last two or three months or longer. We felt like we were coming up with a pretty good compromise, especially having to make that well go away. We're spending, they've got a gun to their head on that well, and it doesn't even produce. They want $300,000 to make it go away. It's, you know, we have been, the Ryan family has been very good working with us on this thing. Good Sam is willing to come in and start their project right away. We're not trying to push the council for answers, but after about two and a half years, we'd kind of like to figure out where we're at. >> I understand that, absolutely. >> But a dramatic change in it. Chris, I don't think we ever had that 50 or 60 that you're talking about. But I do think we had 80 or 90, something like that. And that was when the well was there. >> Right. >> And we had about a two or three acre, maybe a four acre track right in the middle and leaving the well there. And that decreased the density. We picked some density back up when we did away with the well. >> Okay. >> But, you know, as Manala's worked on this thing, the restrictions that we're placing on this particular track, especially having to do the amenity center up front, having to do all these enhancements that we're talking about, trail systems and everything else, is adding a great deal of cost to this particular project. >> Sure. >> And we're not trying to look like every other subdiv ision. We're trying to, as you drive by, you're going to have that big amenity center. You're going to have all these enhancements out there. So yes, as you get interior wise, you start looking like every subdivision, with the exception of we're offsetting these lots. We're causing other things to happen interior wise that's in this program. >> Yeah, and it's not a criticism of this. I just needed to understand the guess. >> And there again, I don't think we ever showed you a 50 lot deal. >> No, but it's 70 or 80, but yeah, no, no. I just realized that it was a lot, I mean, this has gone about 50 to 60% more than what the 80 lots. Let's say if it was 80 lots. Now we're at, so that's 50. >> I think we picked up about 30 or 40 lots around that well site. >> Right. >> When that one was. >> Okay. Council Member Gregory. >> When you talk about the amenity center, is that something that the planning department worked with you on, or was that something that you were wanting to provide for the residents anyway? >> No, we worked together on it. Planning department had us. >> And is that, that whole subdivision then will have an HO A to cover the cost of that? >> Yes, sir. Has to. Yes, sir. >> You're going to set up that HOA similar to the one next door? >> Don't answer that. >> Don't answer that question. >> No, I saw that in the paper. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> I think we'll stay away from that question. >> Council Member Gary. >> How long has the well been out of production? >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. >> How long has the well been out of production? >> It's not out of production, it's out of commercially producing. In other words, they're holding the lease with some production out there. >> Okay. >> In other words, if they shut it in, they lose their lease. >> Correct. >> And so consequently, they are producing some out of it. >> Okay, thank you. >> Anyone else? Anyone else? Thank you. Thank you, Bob, for that clarification. I appreciate that. >> I hope it clears some of it up. >> Yeah, thank you. It does. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Any other questions, comments? I mean, I guess I'm trying to figure. So I said, and I think he helped me understand that I wasn 't losing my mind. Maybe on the lock count a little bit. >> I don't think he proved that point. >> Yeah, well, for me he did. So council's thought, so you're wanting to see the comparison on the NR2. >> And I'd like to see the other design. >> Okay, okay. >> Just to look. Because that's what we were basing our moving forward on before. >> Yes. >> It's helpful to see. And for me personally, if I see that there have been some, these preservations, the linear parks, things that have and the amount of trees that are being left, that may be a sufficient compensation for me to move forward with it. >> Sure. >> I just need the, I need the additional information like you do. >> Council member. >> Yeah, I'd like to see that too, but I think I'd be okay with moving forward with the pre-annunciation development agreement. I do appreciate you guys capping that well and some of the other amenities that are going to go into the project. And if those pictures up there of the homes are somewhat what these homes are going to look like, that looks like a pretty high quality housing unit to me too. So I think I'd be okay with moving forward, and especially good Sam gaining a little bit there too, so. >> Okay, council member. >> I would like to see the previous, and I think it would be fair for council member Begarry to also view the previous. >> Yeah, okay, fine. Yeah, because if you're capping wells and if you're adding amenity centers, which that's obviously going to increase costs, which in other words, you recoup those costs by increasing density in the number of houses. So I'd like to see those trade off as well. It could be that they make more than perfect sense. All right, fantastic. Any other questions on this? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> No, no, no, no, no. >> Well, if you're going to, yeah, basically what we're asking for is for planning to go back and do a comparison on that chart she gave of NR2 comparison zoning. And also to see the configuration that was presented earlier with the, let's say 80 lots or 85 lots and all the amenities. >> I'm not sure what it was Chris, but I think it was somewhere in that neighborhood. >> Yeah, amenities associated with that to see how the trade off of more density is providing maybe some more amenities than what were not provided in that first initial kind of request. That's what we're trying to see because, and so that's where we are. >> Yeah, and I thought you brought up a good point earlier in the fact that we could go into under just a normal zoning case. We could go into that creek area and that ESA area and gather density on this track. Which we don't want to do that. >> Sure. >> And so consequently, we're not doing that. >> Sure. >> So that's what we're asking for. Yeah, okay. And they're gonna get it back to us as quick as possible. I'm not sure if they're gonna get it back to us before, quite honestly, the expiration of the non-annexation agreement. >> Maybe tomorrow or the next day. >> Yeah. Well, if we can get it on the agenda for the 23rd and see that, that's fine. >> Well, we're up there again with- >> We're up against a time frame as well. >> Well, we are also with old Sam, or good Sam out there. >> Sure. >> They've contacted Brad and said, unless this thing goes forward, we're out. >> Okay. >> Cuz they've got other properties close by. >> Sure, okay. >> And they're saying, hey, we've fooled with it enough, we 're ready to do something else. >> Well, we'll get that back as quick as we can and get it processed as fast as we can. >> We appreciate it. >> Thank you very much, Tom. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Paul. >> I think I just made the NR2 question a very simple answer. >> Sure. >> If we get to the table here, the NR2 is a very simple answer. Every line from here down is exactly the same. The only line that changes here is the number of units permitted. So NR2, two units per acre on a 47 acre tract, that's 104 units that'd be permitted if it were NR2. >> Okay, all right. Dalton, is that? >> No. >> Okay, all right, thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions? Does that change any of our direction, any? As far as needing that information, that other additional information? >> I mean, I understand the council wanting that, but I'm ready to move forward with, as presented today, so. >> Okay, anybody else ready to move forward as presented today? Okay, we'll need to get that before we make the final, I think we can get that done in the next week or two. Right, Mr. City Manager? >> I believe we can. >> Okay, thank you, appreciate that. All right, we'll go on then to agenda item 1D. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Hilton. Agenda item 1D, receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the FY 2016-17 city manager's proposed budget. >> Call on Chuck Springer. >> I'm sorry, did I miss something? >> I thought we were going to go into the closed session on this item. >> We'll probably go in after the work session. >> Okay, I'm sorry. >> Yeah, you bet. Let me close this out. I know you'll be disappointed, but I don't have a PowerPoint presentation for you today. We did have discussions on the fourth, and we will be coming back preparing. We're preparing another memorandum with trying to answer as many of those questions as we can by the 16th. I wanted to open this up as another opportunity for the council to ask questions if they have some more questions and have some more discussion on the budget. I do have the prior presentation if there's any questions that relate to that that I can pull up. And Mayor, we had a discussion of one. >> Yeah, and I- >> And I have that available to pull up if you'd like to. >> Okay, and if I could, I have a real quick question that I had for Chuck, and I wanted him to present this to the rest of the council because I had to try to understand some things. Basically, my question to Chuck was, and Chuck, do you have the budget for the last year, the 108,000, what was it, 108 million for something that you and I looked at? >> Yeah, I believe that last year's budget is in with this year's budget. >> Yeah, I'm looking at the book, and I don't know if you all have your book, and I don't know where that is in any kind of electronic backup , but I'm looking on page 78 of the backup that we got entitled City of Denton Proposed Annual Budget Services 2016 through 2017. And basically the thrust of my question is when I look at the 2015-16 estimate, I just asked Chuck what was our budget, not so much what we think it's going to be, but what was our budget for 2015-16 ? It was 108,749,949. And I asked what the expenses were budgeted for, not the estimates. And the budgeted expenses were 108,690.43. And so Chuck had a slide, and so I thought, well, if I added the supplemental request to that budgeted amount, that still didn't get me to the 114.5 million, and so he was able to explain to me where that came from. So before we even start looking at supplemental packages or anything, the expenditures that were budgeted for in 2015-16 are now proposed to be, take it away. >> Yeah, kind of talking here, kind of the base budget in terms of that is how it's shown in the five year plan. So in 2015-16, the total budget was the 108.594 million. And the base budget for this year, as it's shown in the five year plan before the supplemental programs, is 110.886 million. So the difference is about 2.3 million. So I'll go through, this is kind of a reconciliation, so to speak. So let me go through these and stop me if you have any questions. As you remember, last year, 15-16, we just budgeted three months of the lease for the moving of the planning and development to the new building. This year, 16-17, we're budgeting the full 12 months of that, plus we have the operational expenses that we've budgeted. So we budgeted about an additional 100,000 for operational expenses. We're taking some of the money from the City Hall West, since it won't be as operational as before, there'll still be some maintenance and utilities that have to occur, but that will be lower. We're transferring that money plus 100,000 to cover utilities, cleaning, repairs, those type of things for the new facility, and the rest, 395 is the annualized lease payment, as well as taxes, insurance, and those expenses. In terms of, I'll go over the next two salary ones. I want to give a little bit of information how salary increases for civil service and for non-civil service. For civil service, all the salary increases are effective on April 1, so kind of mid-year, right at the mid-year. So they're effective April 1, so the other half of the year is kind of a catch up in the next year. So this civil service salary and benefits and non-civil service salary and benefits includes the second half of the 15-16 compensation package and the first half of this upcoming year. For non-civil service, it's based on everyone's anniversary date. When is their anniversary date of employment with the city? So it kind of averages out with everyone to about mid-year. In terms of, we've talked about the compensation study to bring individuals in the general fund up to the minimum. We also, as part of the meet and confer agreement that was entered into last year, there was a three-year implementation of some additional incentives. One of them was a wellness incentive. That incentive starts in 16-17. So about half of that 300,000 would go toward that wellness incentive. About the other half is the money we've budgeted to bring individuals up to the minimum of the new compensation plan. Health insurance, this is the city's 6% increase for both civil service and non-civil service in the general fund. ED economic development rebate increases. I think we've got about four new 380 agreements for property tax. And then there's some growth in the sales tax 380 agreements and a small one for the rail yard development for their retail there. Baseline adjustments and utilities, increase in utility cost, baseline adjustments. An example would be we've got money in for the new splash park to pay for water, electricity, maintenance, those type of things for new facilities. As well as just some minor adjustments for contracts and those type of things. The negatives there are one time operating expenses that we had in 15-16. A couple examples are we had one time funding in planning for some contractual services. We also had the website upgrade that was a majority of it was one time. And then we also had some one time capances. So what we do with those is those are backed out, those are taken out of the baseline budget. So the net of all those changes is about $2.3 million. >> So then if we went back up to your FY 2015-16 sort of GF total. And you're saying that within that figure of 108 million, 594 thousand, is this approximately million dollars of one time capital and one time. >> Correct. >> All right. And I had a question and it just left me. >> I've got. >> Go ahead. >> I think one more that the council's ask is in terms of the two salary and benefits how much is for 16-17 for the increases proposed in 16-17. And I've got those broken down at least by department between police and fire and the rest of the general fund departments. So let me get you that number. Of the 879 civil service about 541,000 is for police and fire. So that's increases for 16-17. And for the other category, non-civil service, about 375, 000 of the 396. When we looked at the non-civil service because of turnover we've had and new people coming in those positions, our salaries really didn't increase a great deal from 15-16 to 16-17. So the majority of that is the merit package for the upcoming year. >> The other question I have on this slide is on health insurance. So it's my understanding that, let's just say if that 640 0 18 was zero, the city's saying we're not going to, then that would get passed on to the employees, is that correct? I mean, if that's the amount that we're contributing to a premium increase that somehow we think we need. >> It's self insurance, that's the amount we're contributing. So if the council made a decision we're not going to increase the city's contribution. It'd have to be a combination of increased payments from the employees and benefit changes. We'd probably have to make some reduction in benefit changes to balance that. >> So with the city picking up the 640, is there still an increase to the employees? >> We're recommending 10% to the gold plan and I think 6% to the silver plan. And the other change that we were proposing, the other major change we were proposing is for spousal coverage. >> I remember that. >> When they have the option. >> I remember that. >> That we would have a surcharge to encourage spouses if they have an option for insurance at their employer that they at least take that for themselves. >> Well, I appreciate this because this is just one of the slides because when I was doing the math, I thought there's some other expenses in here other than just the supplemental. And so this shows the base increase with these particular categories. So that's all the questions I had for now. So, council member Briggs. >> Following up on the health insurance, you say an increase of 6%. Can we plan on that again next year? I mean, will it be consistently that much of an increase or is that just a- >> We usually budget it year to year based on, we have some outside consultants that assist us with the projections of our costs going forward. Not all the years have been 6%. I think one last year, two years ago, was about 2%. Now for the five year forecast, conservatively, we've estimated that 6% going forward. Historically, what the US is seeing in terms of increases is somewhere in the 7 to 9% range, is what we're seeing in medical inflation in terms of across the US for at least private plans. >> That's crazy. >> So one of the pressures that we're under really is for the government sponsored plans, Medicaid and Medicare, they 've tried to cap their cost. And so we're seeing the medical industry try to pass along their increases to the non US government portion of the insurance world, so to speak. So unfortunately, we're seeing those pressures. >> Thank you, Chuck. I appreciate it. Very good information. Appreciate the time you took to sort of explain this to me, bringing it back to council and form of my question. Okay, any other questions on the budget? Any other questions on the budget? Any more questions on the budget? Okay. All right. Fantastic. >> I would like to mention there's an item in open session just to call the public hearings on the tax rate and on the budget for council's consideration and I'll be available at that time to answer any questions. There's one item. >> I'm sorry, yes. Council Member Reed. >> On that item for the tax rate, that's just going to be set at what you said, but we can change that. >> It's just going to be. >> Yeah, for publication purposes, we were publishing a maximum tax rate, so to speak, at the current tax rate. This is 68975, but the council can adopt any tax rate at that level or below. But we have to advertise a maximum tax rate. So we're advertising that, but the actual tax rate that the council adopts can be anything at that rate or below. It can't be above that advertised rate. >> And is that with the half cent? >> The proposed tax rate in the budget is 0.68475. What we were advertising was simply last year's tax rate, 0 .68975. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay. Fantastic. I believe that concludes our public work session reports. I will now convene the closed session. We'll now go into closed session at 2.34 on August the 9th, 2016. We will consider the following items. Consultation with attorney under Texas Government Code section 551.071. Liberation regarding certain public power utility competitive matters under Texas Government section 551.086. And don't we have, didn't you want to go in closed session on that one item? >> This one, but it's posted. It's posted as item C. >> But that means I need to call it under Texas Government Code section. >> No, you're not. >> So they're all under attorneys. >> Right, this one. >> Okay, what about this one? >> You called that one and you called that one. You're good. >> Well, I only called, okay, I did call it. Okay, yes, all right, sorry, thanks. [ Silence ] [ Silence ] Okay, we are going to go back into open session for this meeting of the Dent City Council on Tuesday, August the 9th , 2016. We're going to bring back up work session item 1C to talk about some potential policy considerations or negotiation terms in that regard or see if there's any information from our last open session. >> Super. I have the previous presentation that should shed some light on how we got to where we are today. And then we also have some additional information. Let me see if I can get this. >> Is this your presentation or the original one from Amy? >> We have both. >> Good, fantastic. [ Silence ] Which one are we going to see first? [ Silence ] >> Do you want to start from the beginning? >> Yeah, and just briefly, we don't need to, just to say here are the high points and here's what it migrated to and here's where we are now. Is that, Council comfortable with that? >> Yeah, we don't want to spend, I told somebody we can go to lunch or dinner. [ Inaudible ] >> No, that's why I said nothing, just a very high level cliff note version. Even this picture might even work. >> That one and I am somewhere there too. I'm that one right there. >> And just the cliff notes. >> Okay, so the cliff notes are I began talking with the developer here in October of 2014 was my first conversation with them. So we've been at this for almost two years now. At the time they identified that they had some significant constraints with the site in order to be able to make it work. That included the expense with widening Ryan Road. The expense associated with providing an offsite sewer line . And the cost associated with preserving all of the trees as a part of the upland habitat here. >> How many lots are shown on that, do you know? >> This shows between 57 and 70 lots. >> Okay, so I'm not losing my mind. >> You're not losing your mind. Let me provide- >> No, no, I'm saying this. I got you. I'm just wanting to make sure that okay. >> I know I can't remember somebody's name from yesterday, but I can remember that. >> Right, so at the time what they were requesting, this is a work session that was done in June of 2015 with all of you. What they were asking for was some financial participation from the city in two forms. The first one was purchasing 28 acres of the tree area in the center for $1.1 ish million. And then providing financial participation for the offsite sewer at about half a million dollars. So at the time, the council was not interested in doing that. They went back to the drawing board and eventually came back with a different proposal where we don't participate financially in anything. But they're willing to enter into a pre-development agreement that would hold them to a higher standard than the straight zoning. And so at this proposal, it was 60 to 70 lots approximately . However, the challenge that they're having today and the reason that you've seen this change and the density increase as significantly as you have is because they've had to incur all those costs. And all those costs have to go into the price per home. And so they have to get more lots on there. For example, their participation in Ryan Road equates to $3 ,900 per home. That's higher than our roadway impact fee. And if they were to reduce the number of lots in half, that would double the cost of their participation in Ryan Road per lot. Which would essentially becomes economically unfeasible as they begin to add those costs. >> Quick question. When you say their participation, from the last open session today, we had a total of $900,000 for the full 2,000 linear feet of Ryan Road. That's what the quote unquote developer's contribution was going to be. Now some of the, so when you say that it's their contribution, you're talking about just this little, I mean the actual frontage of the subdivision on Ryan Road is not that much. The rest is that green space and the senior living. >> Correct. So if you recall, what we presented was three colors, red, green, and yellow. Granted that the residential subdivision, which is tract 1C , has a lesser frontage. But they're going to pick up 1C and 1B because of that. The most stringent point is where the ESA and the environmentally sensitive area. That equates to, so from here, if you look up on the screen , from here to here is what the 137 proposed lots, which would be $3,900 per lot. So that is a little over half of the 900, what of that is the 900,000? Is it 450, is it 500? >> Come to about $450,000 if I'm not mistaken, and I can pull that up as well. >> Okay, that's fine. All right. There was a slide after this that just showed the number of lots and all that, and I just was curious if there was a slide after that. >> Let me cover that real quick, and then we'll move on to the other discussion. So they had originally submitted a letter of request to us, which I have available for you to look at as well, where they were asking for the financial participation of the city. And in that proposal, this was essentially the summary of what they could provide with that financial participation, which was 57 to 70 lots with those home values of 350 to 500,000. And essentially the challenge that they have now is that they have to increase the density in order to accommodate the tree preservation and the other infrastructure without any financial participation from the city. because that has to be passed through to the homeowners and the- >> Ryan wrote it yet, but tree preservation, I mean, they 're saying they want to preserve 65% of the trees on this lot. That's what we're asking them to do. >> On the entire lot. >> Well, no, on one C. >> You'll have to clarify that. >> Track C, right, which, okay, I didn't think there were that many trees on track C, but I know there are on track 1 B, but go ahead. Okay, yep. So anybody have any more questions about this original one? Yes. >> It would be, you changed slides. >> Sorry, I can go back. >> You do? Okay, sorry. >> I would be curious now just to see the comparison. This assumption of 63 lots valued at 425,000 and then the 26.7 million in residential development and the ad valorem revenue. I would like to see that kind of projected out for this new scenario. >> Okay, we can do that. >> And, okay, that's all for right now. >> Council Member Geary. >> That was going to be my exact comment. I was also going to ask you if you could put this on the backup materials for today. I don't know if it's still possible to add it to the public materials. >> I don't know if we can add it afterwards or not, but we can certainly add it to the next discussion. >> Okay. >> And I think Manal may have a little bit more to cover regarding her previous closed session discussion with you all as well. >> Okay, then I guess we've got then Manal, then there was another interim presentation between Amy's and this one today. You had one. >> Right. >> And is that, do we have a presentation like that up here as well? >> If you recall, we reviewed that in closed session, so can I bring it forward tonight? >> Sure. >> I'm okay with it. I mean, are we okay with? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, because it's just going over the development points like this that we just saw. >> Correct, absolutely. >> Yeah, and then a Cliff Note version would be fine. >> We'll do a Cliff Note version. So basically, discussion was requested from staff to review the Ryan Ranch non-annexation agreement. And at that point, staff started looking at would it behove us as staff to have stricter development controls and regulations associated with if there were a development agreement. And through that, we went through the infrastructure requirements, if you're in NNA, if you're in ATJ, we did that comparison. We talked about the floodway areas, all these current conditions of the site. And as part of that discussion, what we tried to do was, in our minds, if we had a blank slate with the existing site conditions, what would we draw? We weren't looking at cost, we weren't looking at it from a developer perspective, but purely from a land use perspective. What would this look like? >> And this is how we charted it. We mirrored the good sign that you see there. >> Right. So, and I'm looking at it says NR2, low density single family. >> Yes, correct. >> Neighborhood park. The gas well is not showing up on that slide. >> We were anticipating the gas well would be plugged. That was through our discussion, is it would be nice if the gas well would be plugged. What would we realize with the existing topography? If you look at the dimensions and the lot configurations, the ESA split half and half between 1A, 1C and 1B. Those boundaries changed with what the developer provided us. But this was our first shot at just taking a blank piece of paper and charting out, just hand drawing what we thought would, if we were looking at the natural topography, without taking into consideration any of the infrastructure implications. >> Okay, all right. >> Question? >> No. >> I mean, honestly, I'm- >> Why don't you make that full screen? >> I'm sorry, yes. >> I'm real okay with, I mean, I've received the information I wanted. So, and if somebody has any more information, I know Council Member Gary, you weren't here. So, if you need to go a little bit more detailed into these sort of historical presentations, I certainly understand that, but- >> I do want to understand the valuation question that Dalton brought up, and particularly in the context of how much it costs for a single family home to receive all of the services that they come to expect from the city. My understanding is that that number is closer to $300,000. About like a new home should cost that much to cover everything. So I want to be sure that we're thinking about the financial aspect of this as well. >> As it relates to the - the - assuming of the home eventually? >> Exactly and it would relate to density as well so. >> Yes Councilmember Gregory. >> Well, he's first. >> Oh I'm sorry I didn't see. >> And just so I understand, from this plan here they were asking the city to financially participate in some way. >> Not in this one, not in the previous one, the one that Amy presented. That was June 2015. >> Okay. >> And from there it evolved to what could we achieve, would it behoove us, given that the standards right now will not let us achieve some of the interior amenities that we thought were pertinent to creating a lasting legacy. >> And then if you would go to the chart that you presented us today comparing this proposal that's currently before us . >> Yes. >> The development agreement. >> I wanted to do one thing really quickly. I wanted to provide the DDC requirements as it relates to NR2 zoning, NR1 and NR2. This caveat here, section 35-523 basically says the following regulations as it relates to development criteria applies to subdivisions of two acres or less. And those are the minimum lot sizes that are reflected there. NR2 would be at 16,000. However, if you're two acres or more, then you basically go to one unit per acre or two units per acre or three and a half units per acre. And now going back to the slide that you requested. Bear with me. There we go. What I'd like for staff to do is have some conversation with the developer. >> Yes. >> About a couple of adjustments. >> Okay. >> And what it would do to the development. And then bring it to us when we have our next meeting on this, when we get that other information that we requested. Going from a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet to something closer to the 10,000 square foot square feet that we would see in an NR3. Or looking at that in combination with maybe a certain percentage of those lots being that larger size. And looking at moving the percentage of homes with a minimum square foot size of 2400 to something higher than 25%. I think that that would, if we could increase those lot sizes or increase the size of the home some, we would be able to get closer to what we've been hoping to achieve. And then possibly run some of the numbers on the overall value of the development as presented here. And maybe as presented with the original and then something in between to get a better idea. I think that we would be, with that information I think I could be ready to vote. Any questions? Council Member Briggs? >> On the amenity center, was that in the presentation, the middle presentation with the bigger lot sizes? Was that? >> No, because that was just, clearly there was no conversation with the developer regarding that. That was just the urban planning team sitting down with a sheet of paper and charting that out. It's hand drawn. It was just to give you an idea of the existing physical conditions lay of the land and what could be done with it. >> So in the presentation we saw the bigger lot sizes that was absent. So that was that, it was staff that drew that in. >> Right, that was a staff exercise and the goal was then, go back, collaborate with the developer and discern what we can achieve with the existing 80 acres. How can the SPP split up and how can we use the tree canopy , not mitigate or compromise the existing ESA and what we can do with infrastructure. And that's how then we came up with a detail plan. That was merely conceptual, but the detail plan then that was in concert with discussing with the developer on, what are we talking about in terms of lot configuration, lot sizes, dwelling unit sizes, how are we going to then filter in the requirements for the citizens or the residents of the residential neighborhood in terms of sidewalks, passive and active open space, a plugging of the gas well. So all that then evolved to what we see today, what we presented today. >> Okay, and I appreciate this. I really do appreciate staff working during the closed session to bring this historical context back. Because that satisfies my request of information. I guess my comment is I still would like to see and maybe if changing the lot sizes and that Council Member Gregory had sort of suggested or talked about that might get the density down to something I feel more comfortable with. Truthfully, I mean when it comes to the amenity center, if the amenity center was creating some of this density because of the cost and all this. I mean the thing that was originally presented was a really nice quaint subdivision of larger lots, sort of larger houses, didn't have all the amenities, didn 't have the trails. And if those things are driving the cost up so much that it requires this density compaction, I would like to see how that factors in as well because that sort of sounds like that was something that was negotiated between staff and the developer. And I'd just like to see how that impacts the particular configurations there. >> So you're meaning for them to talk with him about if it would make much difference to take the amenities. >> Yeah, I mean if he's saying, well, gosh, if we didn't have the amenities center, we can decrease the density. So at least we can see, well, is that something we, because most of our neighborhoods don't have those and if we want to start moving in that direction, that's fair enough. But that's a pretty dramatic policy. I mean that's a policy discussion. But so I think this helps me tremendously. It gets me over the hurdle of realizing it's how it evolved from this to this. So I think if we get those pieces of information that were requested and then some of the things that we asked for in closed session regarding certain regulations to ensure the gas wells and things such as that are plugged, pursuant to whatever codes that they need to be pursuant to . I think that really moves us a long way in helping us to determine termination on this. And I really do appreciate staff's efforts to do that. I know it's important to the developer, it's important to the property owner, so I really do appreciate you going that extra mile to get us that information so it moves us that much further down the road. So thank you very much for that, absolutely. >> Thank you. Any other questions on this particular matter? We got dinner ordered yet? Okay, that concludes our work session items except for, I believe we got a concluding item. No we don't. Oh, we have an action item. Okay, I'm sorry. We've got a, yes, we've got a. Yes, we've got a call meeting. So having completed the work session both open and closed, the city council will now convene in a special called meeting at 4 0 5 on August the 9th, 2016. And I believe we have one item, two items under that. One is an item for individual consideration, the other is concluding item. So we will take up item 1A which is item for individual consideration. Consider approval of a resolution of the city of Denton, Texas placing a proposal on the September 20th, 2016. City council public meeting agenda to adopt a 2016 tax rate that will exceed the lower of the rollback rate or the effective tax rate. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to call on Chuck Springer, our director of finance . >> This is just a requirement of two things. State tax law as well as the local government code for the budget. So this would call two public hearings to consider the tax rate on the 23rd of August and the 13th of September and would also call a public hearing on the budget on the 13th of September. So recommend approval of this. It will go in the newspaper, meet all the requirements. There's certain requirements on number of days prior to these that they have to be published. >> Council member Gregory. >> Thank you, Mayor. Then I would move approval of the agenda item ID 16987. >> Council member Hawkins. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second for the resolution. Just for clarification, this is a tax rate that we're saying we're passing a resolution. We can't go above it, but if we want to go below it, we can . >> It's a maximum on the tax rate public hearings. The other part is simply a public hearing on the budget. >> Okay, all right. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign. Passes unanimously. Our last item on the agenda is concluding items. Any council members have any concluding items? Council member Briggs. >> I would just like to ask for another update of the Mingo Road Bridge. I know that we've, council member Hawkins brought it up before. And I know that there's been a meeting recently with the railroad, so I'm just wondering if council can have another update on that. >> Okay, all right. And also the quiet zones, an update on the quiet zones. >> Okay. >> Yeah, tomorrow my wife and I have an anniversary. We've been happily married 39 years. Tomorrow is our 42nd anniversary. So we can't quite agree on the three years that we're not so happy, but it's been good most of the time and I'm very grateful to the board. >> Congratulations. >> Yes sir, thank you. Yes, council member Hawkins. >> Dalton being married that long just gives me great hope. >> That's all I got. >> Great. >> Council member Gary. >> This Friday, August 12th, I'll be having a budget and tax town hall at North Branch Library starting at noon. It'll be from noon to 1, I think. Assistant City Manager Brian Langley will be there to answer questions. I don't know, he's giving me a deer in headlights look. [LAUGH] Anyway, I have a presentation prepared so if people have questions about the budget, there'll be another one on August 27th and that'll be here in City Hall and it'll hopefully be broadcast, so. >> Great, any others? Fantastic, seeing none. That concludes our meeting. We'll adjourn at 4.08 PM. >> [INAUDIBLE]