Apr 11, 2017 City Council on 2017-04-11 2:00 PM

Good afternoon. Wanted to welcome everybody to this meeting of the Dent City Council. Tuesday April 11, 2017. It is 2 p.m. and we do have a quorum. We'll move through our work session reports and this is a special, I'm sorry, this is a second Tuesday work session. And we will go into a special call meeting, I believe, at the end of this work session and the closed meeting. Work session report A is receive report, hold discussion, provide direction on the design schedule for the proposed reconstruction of fire station number three. All right, good afternoon. Brian Langley, Deputy City Manager. Excuse me, I almost went back to Assistant City Manager. I want to spend a few minutes with you today talking about fire station number three and the design and construction of that facility. Just in terms of background on this particular station, this station is basically located at the intersection McCormick and I-35. If you can see on the map here, this is McCormick Street, becomes Avenue A as you go to this direction. This is the current station three and this is the site of new station three, which is really just adjacent to that facility. This land has already been purchased, so we're talking about the design and construction of that facility at this point. So as you may recall, when we brought forward the design and construction of station four, we were over budget on station four. We ran into some cost overruns on that particular station. I think through that process, we determined that the council really wanted some more options to be presented to them through that process. And so what we'd like today to do is to talk about how we can bring forward a different design process to get the council on the front end of that process to understand the options that are available and the cost elements that are associated with each of those options. And we'd like to bring it forward to you in three specific phases. The first of these is called the schematic design. We would have this available about four weeks after a design contract was awarded. This would be about 15% of the construction documents and this would really give you options at this point for different types of roof options, different types of foundations, and for each one of those, we would be able to provide you with the cost associated with each of those areas. So you could have some options and try to understand for the options that are presented, what are the costs that are related to it. And then in eight weeks, excuse me, we would also have some exterior facade and masonry options that we'd show you at that point, too, at 15%. And then at 45% of drawings for the design development phase, about eight weeks later, we'd lay out all the mechanical, electrical, structural elements and give you a detailed construction estimate of what we think that facility would cost and then provide any kind of direction or changes that the council wanted to have through that. And then later on in the process, about 14 weeks through the design process, 95% of the design drawings would be completed, we'd finalize the drawings, and provide an updated construction cost for you. Yes, go ahead. So my assumption from this is that we're not going to use the basic design that we did for the station on McKinney Street and the station on Sherman Drive. I think it would have some of the same design elements, but because of this station, the layout is different. It won't be exactly the same. So some of those elements would be brought forward and we'd have some options to give to you to consider. We do have David Robinson here with Kirkpatrick and he could discuss that with more detail with you, but that's kind of the process at that point. You'd be able to see some of those options. So we still have a set of programming needs for that station in terms of number of bays, number of people, projected growth that we would be working from. Yes, sir. On the station. But we're talking about designing basically a new design because of the footprint of the property and not being able to accommodate the same type of footprint that we did on the other two stations. Yes, sir. That's my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So here is a proposed project schedule for you. What we'd like to do is bring back a design contract on April 18th, so at your next meeting, to start the design. We'd be working in the month of May to complete the schematic design that I mentioned to you. That's the 15% of drawings. Come back and present that to the council on June 6th. And then assuming that that was satisfactory to the council , we would start proceeding through the other parts of the process. We'd come back to present the design development to the council in August, August 8th, and hopefully conclude all the construction documents in November and present the final construction materials to the council in December. And then we'd initiate the construction of the actual facility. So that's kind of the process that we've outlined. And the intent behind this is to keep the council in tune with what's happening through the design, give you options to consider for construction so you can kind of know what those different elements are through the process so that we don't get to the end and anyone is surprised with the cost. Now, is this schedule similar to the other schedules? I mean, even though it's coming to council with the dates, does this kind of mirror the same timeline? For station two and four, as an example. It's close. It's a little bit longer. We think the design schedule on this is slightly longer, but it's similar. Construction is also going to be a little longer. I think it was 13 months on the other facilities. About 18 months is what we're estimating for this one. So council, with that, that is my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. If there's any revisions to that process or changes that you'd like us to make, we're happy to do so. That's my presentation. So if you could, Brian, go back to your slide where it talked about the three phases or the three 15%, 45%, and 95%. So let's say 95%. We get down to this third, these construction documents. And all along the way, we've been giving direction based upon the costs associated with certain design criteria on the station, like roofs or whatever. So by the time we get to construction documents, we'll have a pretty good idea, at least from our estimators. I mean, obviously, it hadn't been put out to bid by that time. But we'll feel confident, hopefully, in the numbers that, and then as it gets constructed, if there's some wide variance, there's going to be some extraordinary reason for that instead of, well, we'll know what we're getting as far as from a design perspective. Yes, sir. That's the intent is that as early as 45% of the design, you'd have a construction estimate. We would update that in the phase three of the process for you to refine that even further. And then shortly right after that, bid that. And that's the intent is to try to have the very best estimate that we can for you going into construction. Based upon if you want this component or this component, you can-- Right. And so obviously, as we go through these decisions, as we look at those options, if the budget's not there for some of those and we want to look at how do we reduce some of the costs, we can have some of those discussions. Or we can make a decision that it's worth it to us to pursue those. And we want to find the dollar. OK. Great. We know that one of the big cost is what type of foundation we need to have. So I'm guessing that we do soil testing on that property in that schematic design phase. Or when do we do that so that we have a good notion as to what type of foundation? I believe the geotechnical is going to be done in that first part of the process. That's correct. I'm hearing that. So we'll know in that time period if it's going to be a structural slab or a slab on the ground. Yes, sir. And that's-- we'd hope to have that for you in the schematic design, that first part of the process have at least two options for you to consider. And there may need to be others, too. Yeah. And that's where you'll have the costs associated with each one and-- Yes, sir. --estimated length of life and pros and cons and those kind of things. Yes, sir. I think that was one of the ones we had for station four is the depth of the piers and types of costs that are associated with those. If we can bring you back at that information early in the process, hopefully that'll alleviate a lot of the concerns at the end. Great. Any other questions? OK. Fantastic. We'll proceed in that direction. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Work session report 1B is receive report and hold discussion regarding activities of council committees and council liaisons. Who's handling that? Yeah, you're on. OK. Thank you, council. This item is on your agenda today as a request from the council to be able to give an update from your chairs of your committees and your council liaison assignments. And so in your backup, staff has provided a brief summary of the major discussions and tasks that the council committees have reviewed in the past month or so. Staff contacts for those committees are here to give additional information if you'd like it or the chairs of those committees can provide additional reports. OK. Questions, comments from council? Yes, Council Member McGarry. Yeah, this was my request. What I thought would happen was just at the beginning of our meetings when we do clarifications, we would just go around and whoever is on the committees could give an update about what's happening on the committee. That was kind of what I was going for as opposed to taking up staff time. OK. So, all right. So we can discuss if that's a procedure that--so what you 're saying is not--this isn't what you were really looking for. It's like if this were the beginning of a meeting with clar ifications on agenda items, if I were chair of, let's say, the TMPA board, I'd say, " Well, I have a report or really don't have anything different." Just give an opportunity. You're saying take a time where if people want to share an update, they can? Or are you saying they should share an update? I mean, I don't know how else anybody would know. For instance, I'm on the RTC. How anybody would know what happens on the regional transportation council if I don't give a report? Sure. So-- OK. All right. So, council is far--yes. Does the agenda posting allow for you to give a report on R TC today? We would have to modify the clarification posting to incorporate an update on council subcommittee reports. He said today. Today. If she were to give one today as a posting, allow her to do it today. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question again, Mayor? Go ahead. We have an agenda item on the work session today. Say, "Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding activities of council committees and council liaisons." So council member Begarry is our liaison for the RTC. Correct. So, based on the posting today, can she give us an update on what's going on at the RTC? Yes, she can. Does council member Begarry wish to do that? I'm happy to do it. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that this was more of a procedural request that I made as opposed to a one item on this work session. Sure. I was making a request about how we do our procedure. But if you want a RTC report, I'm happy to get it. What I'm suggesting is we could try that right now and see if we need to do it on a monthly basis or every meeting basis. So-- Sure. RTC. There's a VW settlement. It's going to be a bunch of money. We can get a lot of money from it. It's about $60 million. The Volkswagen settlement from the emissions. So we should be coming up with projects right now to submit for the Volkswagen settlement monies. So when you say we-- The city staff and council-- No, no, but when you say there's a 60-- did you say $60 million? Oh, no. It's more than that. Hold on. I'll get the exact amount for you. I didn't realize we were going to do reports. I thought we were going to decide to do reports today. There's a little bit more matter. And I agree with that. So let's talk about that. So what-- if I'm incorrect in sort of summarizing what you 're requesting, feel free to correct me. What I'm hearing her say is she wants an agenda item. Like if we had this agenda, we could have an agenda that says council committee and council liaison reports. And it's either on a-- every agenda, it's on every third agenda or some kind of regularly scheduled interval where if someone has an update on some committee that they're on, whether it be a city council committee or another committee outside extra jurisdictional committee, that they have an opportunity to give their report. Is that what my understanding is on that, council member? That's correct. It can be during work session or regular session. It really doesn't matter when. I just thought-- and it doesn't even have to be an item. I think it could just be a little bit more clarifying language to allow the reports. Oh, OK. Yeah. I think that we're-- I mean, I don't have any-- I personally don't have an issue with it being an agenda. I'd rather have it in work session than out in the council session because that's valuable real estate out there. Sure. And we can adjust the times accordingly in the work session . I don't have an issue with it being an agenda. We have that in our TNPA board. We have personnel and finance committees that we pass those reports. Yes. I think we should shy away from first and third Tuesdays because they're already really long. So second or fourth-- and occasionally we don't meet on the fourth. So maybe the second Tuesday, once a month, would be a logical time for city council committee updates and/or liaison reports and just do it once a month so that each council meeting were not-- Sure. So that might be a recommendation. OK. And most of the outside committees that people are on, council members are on, like RTC, COG, they only meet really once a month. So that sort of makes sense there. I'm OK with that. I mean, I like the idea of-- yes, council member-- or Mayor Pro Tem. Sure. I don't have any issue with it. A couple thoughts would be I think we'd want to clarify what-- do we get into discussions then on the basis of somebody brings up an issue like that and the question's asked, how much money? OK, what are we able to spend it on? It seems like it would end up becoming a work session item that we might not want to-- we want to be clear about what the scope of that is. And maybe also to clarify the other means of getting information out to council. I know when I was on RTC or even times as chair of various committees, we've tasked staff with saying put a report together and get it out in the next week's packet for council to brief them on this issue so that they're aware of this particular thing. So just to make clear that there's other means too of getting that stuff out into the council's consciousness. Yes. Council member Gregory and council member Briggs. I've already spoken. OK. Council member Briggs. Well, I would also say to that point, though, there's also people who listen in public that listens to work session items and they're recorded. And so if it's in a staff report, they may not see the update. So this is-- I agree that it's a good way to get committee information out to the public once a month if there's an item-- if someone has something. You're not necessarily always going to have something. Council member Hawkins. Yeah, I think I'd be OK with this if it's an important big item. If it's kind of more just smaller stuff, informal staff report, I still think would be better. So yeah. I guess my thought is what I would not want to do is by-- do this in a way that it does not make those committees not necessary. The whole point of having those various council committees is to go much deeper into the weeds and deal with the details of things. And if each month we have a detailed report from every committee and then we all have a discussion on it, then there's no point in having the committees because then we're becoming a committee of the whole. And I know we had a mobility committee meeting today and we had updates on reports that we have monthly on progress on system projects and our quarterly update from DCTA and things like that. And occasionally at meetings like that we say this is particularly important. As Mr. Roden said, please send that out to all of the council members or we think that we need to get some time for the whole council to hear this particular thing, this particular item. But what I would not want is for us to end up doing the business of the committees. Otherwise we don't need the committees. We will need to schedule some more meetings during our month in order to get all of the business done. Just my copy of that. Yes. Council Member Wasno. And just in terms of time management and the wise use of time, not just for council but also for citizens who watch these meetings, I wouldn't want to see a whole hour go by with council committee reports that just bogs down the whole process. Maybe consider putting a time limit on it that if you're going to give a report, three minutes in and out done and anything that requires longer than that put it in writing, put it in a Friday packet. But it at least touches whatever it is that a council member deems important to share with council, three minutes done. And if a citizen wants more information, they can email the council member as well. And then again, if it's like mobility and there's a report that is lengthy, that can go in a Friday packet. But I think just to really be heads up on the time management so we don't get bogged down. Sure. Yes. I really don't see this specifically for, I mean, I guess a council committee could use it to give an update. I think that the things that need to come to the full council out of a committee typically come when it's time for them to come. I see this more as for those outside committees like RTC, COG, TNPA, some of these other things that there's only one council member there that's representing the city. And so, and there's really not any kind of information conduit between staff. So I think we can try it. And certainly it's, I don't think we're going to get into big discussion. If we do, we'll just call it for a work session because no, that's not going to be my point is to say, hey, I can ask some questions that can later be distributed in an informal staff report the answers. But I agree. It's an update only. And then if something comes out of that, then we can. It's probably primarily going to be used for those outside committees is what I would think. Unless the committee itself, I would really encourage, if we need to memorialize it in the rules, is that if a committee chair, and I would say the chairs of those committees are the ones to give those updates, I don't think that, you know, just a standing member, I think the chair is the chair. And so if they're going to give an update that needs to come through the chair, and I would hope to think that the chair and the rest of the committee would be on board with that update being given, that it's decided upon that somebody's not doing it unilaterally without the rest of the committee being informed and giving approval of that as well. So it'll be something that evolves, but I think on the agenda committee, we'll take a look at that and start putting that on the second Tuesday s. I think that's a good place to put it. Thank you, Councilmember Wasney. And we can just put a time limit on it. And if there's some things that seem to take a little bit longer, we'll schedule something else for it. All right. Councilmember Gary, anything else you would like to add to that? I think that's it. Okay. Thank you very much. Agenda item, moving on to agenda item 1D, which is receive, report, and hold discussion, give staff direction regarding prohibiting... Oh, see, have I missed something? Yes. Oh, yes. I saw committees, council committees, and I'm sorry about that. 1C, I thought I missed one. Receive, report, and hold discussion, give staff direction on potential changes to the scope of the City Council Employee Leave Ad Hoc Committee. I was just real anxious to just get through the work session. Sorry, guys. Thank you. Carla? Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the City Council. Carla Romine, Director of Human Resources. March 7th of this year, the council approved a resolution that created an Ad Hoc Council Committee to review policies related to employee sick leave and vacation benefits and advise the City Council with regard to these matters. The committee first met on March 24th. During that meeting, they had some discussions about it could be beneficial to expand the scope of this committee to be able to talk about other benefits aside from sick and vacation. That's the purpose of this specific item today. And Council Member Wasney was elected as chair of that committee, so I didn't know if she had anything she wanted to add. You want to give us an update, Council Member Wasney? You've got three minutes. Oh, three minutes. You know, if it's good enough for our citizens, it's good enough for a council member. That's right. So I want to thank staff for putting together this just excellent summary. A lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of effort went into this. And it's really all-encompassing. And so we had a productive meeting and then kind of ran up against a brick wall because our scope was limited to a certain lane, which was vacation time and sick leave. And all we'd like to ask, and the reason we have the ask before you today, is to broaden the scope a little bit so that we can take a look at everything that's in the book if we want to. But we couldn't because the scope was so limited. And again, I'll emphasize that it's an ad hoc committee, so it's not long-term. It was productive. It was informative. And I thank staff who was there. We were in. We were out. But we were finished because we couldn't take a look at what staff had worked on. We just had to set it aside. So that's our request today. Okay. And who else on that committee? I think it's Councilmember Gary yourself and Councilmember Briggs. We had our city manager, head of human resources, Brian Langley. And there's manager Scott Payne. Scott Payne. Okay. All right. Okay. Open. Yes, Councilmember Gregory. Well, I was looking at the resolution that authorized this ad hoc committee and it lists the three council members who had volunteered to serve. I'm guessing that by the time we get a new resolution with a revised scope for what they're to hear and the committee has time to meet, one of those council members will no longer be on the council or maybe in the city. So we probably need to think about revising the committee membership at the same time that we do this. And I would request that if the committee can meet sometime in the next five weeks, then there's some continuity from the first meeting to the second meeting at which point then I think council can do-- and we may be done after one more meeting. So, you know, but we needed to get permission today to be able to schedule because we have another five weeks when I'm still here. So that would be my request that we just continue, have one more meeting and then decide if we even need that ad hoc committee after that next meeting. Okay. All right. Anybody else? Comments? I think the only question and a comment. So I know the original scope was to-- and so correct me if I'm wrong-- to look at vacation time and sick leave under the current benefit definitions or benefits. And was there a desire to make any changes to that? There had been some that had talked about, do we need to do something different with vacation time or sick leave? So in y'all's meeting, did you talk about it to the point where there was any decision or direction on at least the original scope of the resolution, which was do you see any changes that you're either recommending or that you're-- or not? So let me back up. When we did the salary comparison, we compared it to nine other cities across North Texas. And so that's where this report came from because we extended looking at the scope of employee benefits also with nine other North Texas cities so that we could kind of take a look because we looked at salaries with the nine cities but we didn't look at benefits. This report then looked at the nine cities. So there were some recommendations, ideas, but there were about three different paths. And what I would ask is that we finish looking at this and then Carla will come and present, here are some options and ideas for the whole council. I think it would be premature right now to just chop it in half, take a look at part of it because I think we need to take a look at it as a whole. Okay. All right. As far as-- and my only observation on that is-- well, let me just say, I don't have an issue with the expansion of the scope. My observation is if you're saying we want to look at the entire benefits package and maybe make recommendations to change whatever benefits that we're offering to city employees, is that what I'm understanding you're asking? No. We're looking at comparing the city of Denton with nine other cities. One of the questions was on the health insurance, specifically deductibles and that kind of thing because it was-- if you read the book, it was a disparity from the other North Texas cities. But we couldn't really have an in-depth discussion on the balance of all of these because you can't just zoom in and look at one item because your salary and your benefits, it's a whole package. Right. So in answer to your question, no, we're not zeroing in and looking to change at all of these. It's just interesting to look at comparisons with the other nine cities. Some of them were right in line with the other nine cities so it's not even worth kind of taking a look at because it's part of the rhythm and flow. But the health insurance deductible and that was something that I think we could because it hasn't been looked at in a long time. And again, there isn't anything that this committee can do by itself. I understand. But it lets us really have an in-depth discussion with the people who look at the books, look at the numbers and are involved before it comes back to council to say it's worth the discussion. What do you think? Right. Okay. So maybe I'm a little confused because I thought that the ad hoc committee originally was to look at the request was because there was a request made when we were talking about the benefits that should we not have as many rollover hours available either in sick time or vacation time. Or some cities do use it or lose it. And so then the direction of the council was okay, you all form this committee, go look at the data and form a recommendation which is fine. Don't have an issue with that. So if we're increasing that scope of looking at some of the benefits may not be something that you all are coming back with some recommendation. My whole point in saying this is if we're going to look at a comprehensive, if we're going to take a comprehensive review of employee benefits, not just sick leave and vacation, deductibles, I would hope to think that somewhere in that process we have an employee group that is also part of that discussion. And so that's why I'm asking if it's this overall kind of we're going to look at this and compare it to other cities and do we need to maybe bring some recommendations back to council. If that's the objective, which I don't have a problem with that, so let me just say that upfront, I think we might need to include some other people in the conversation from staff perspective to help try to provide that voice of the employee. Because if we're going to be making those decisions it's going to be impacting the employees. And somewhere down the line we're going to have to take into consideration some of their questions, concerns, observations. And so I'm just trying to figure out how that works into the process. So on its face, no problem with giving you extra time. I just don't think it could be done in one meeting unless there's really just, well, we don't see any changes that need to be made, but if there 's substantial changes, I would want to think that we have some conversation with whoever, staff. I don't know how this works, but you probably understand what I'm trying to say. So yeah, no problem with your request. So if I could, let the ad hoc committee meet one more time and take a look at this. And at that point, turn it over to human resources and our city manager and let them, you know, because yes, there were some ideas that came forward on the rolling hours and all of that with two or three different options. And so I still say I think to have kind of one report from human resources, here are some things to think about. And then at that point in time, you know, if there are some changes that we want to get employees involved in, I just embrace that completely. Sure. Sure. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem, did you have a question? I thought, okay, no. All right. So Carla, any input or? No, okay. You're just getting up. Okay. All right. Any other questions on the proposed resolution? Yes, I'm sorry, Councilman. So just to be clear, we're okay in one more meeting to just kind of broaden what you all talked about. I'd be okay with that. So the red, yes, Mayor Pro Tem. Is it, and just to get more clarity as to, again, I had, I voted against this and I had an issue with I didn't get a sense of what the goal was. We hadn't defined the goal or even defined the problem. So I'm always concerned with efficiency of our time and staff time when we're looking at goal-less issues, I guess, or problem-less issues. So in this case, are you saying when you identified a disc repancy in our employees' health insurance, what did you, what were you pointing out, the discrepancy? It's the deductible. Oh, the deductibles. Are they two, are they higher or lower? They're actually much lower and they haven't been changed for a long time. So I would look at that and say in the current health environment, that's a really good thing. But again, my question would be, I guess I'd want to know from the ad hoc committee, what is your goal? Is your goal to increase deductibles of our staff healthcare by looking into this? As a steward of the taxpayer dollar, if you look at the tot als in this book, and I would defer to human resources, I think it's 18 million for healthcare last year and it goes up 6% a year each year. So hearing that at budget time, 6% a year, 6% a year, 6% a year, 6% a year, that's when you stop and say, maybe we need to take a look at something . So staff, like I said, did an excellent job at compiling all the statistics, comparing it to nine other North Texas cities because we looked at salaries and adjusted those accordingly, but we didn't take a look at this side of the equation. Doesn't these sorts of things, sorry, is it okay if I ask you? No, it's not. Don't these sorts of things, it's probably a good idea. Don't these sorts of things get ferreted out as part of a normal course of budget inquiry every year? In other words, I feel like we hear from risk management every year around budget time for an update on what's the state of our health insurance, what are we doing to tweak things, what's the staff recommendation of this as part of that. Is that normal annual review of these sorts of issues that the full council is part of that discussion, is that not a sufficient approach to this or is there something else you guys are angling to try and solve with this ad hoc committee? Not trying to solve anything except government's job is to be a steward of the taxpayer dollars. I understand. I have never seen a comprehensive report like this one in my two years on council. This was excellent. So again, out of respect for staff, to be able to open this up and have a meaningful discussion, no decisions or policy established, it comes to council for council to review. That's what committees do. So that's the scope. You Mayor Pro Tem, and I understand what you're saying. I think though the genesis of this report was when we did our salary survey and we did our salary survey, our compensation study, and so we compared it to other municipalities. As we got into some discussions with new hires and things such as that, I think what sort of became not clear but sort of bubbled to the surface is that were we just comparing salaries, or were we comparing total compensation, all the benefits package, which does go into people's decision making process on what salary they will accept. We don't go into that level at budget time. We just go into here's what we're looking at, here's what it's going to cost the budget. So I think this report sort of was born out of that discussion of how do our total benefits compare to our peer cities and the salaries that we pay, not just looking at the salaries singularly. And so I think to review that and to see if there's things that whether or not you raise deductibles or lower, and that's a policy decision that the whole council will make, but to review it and to make sure that if we are making decisions on salaries, on vacation pay, on pension, on health insurance, that we have at least as much knowledge as we have as what's the marketplace. I mean that was really the whole genesis of this is where are we in the marketplace with salaries and I think what I'm understanding is why don't we look at this from the perspective of where are we from a total compensation package, benefits package, in the marketplace. It's more of just sort of a review and observation than I would say there's a problem we're trying to solve. It's just sort of a back check, which we do that quite often I think to make sure that we're in line with other municipalities. So I think that was really the genesis of this and I think the spirit of what the committee is asking for in that regard. Understanding you may still disagree, but that's okay. That's democracy. But that's the point is you may disagree with what you think is the goal, but yet that doesn't mean that that is the goal. It means there may be some other things that... Well I think it's pretty clear there's been no stated goal and no one wants to give one. So that's my point. No I just did. I just did state a goal. No I heard it. Okay. And I think again the entire council had the discussion when we reviewed salaries as it related to the marketplace. And again I wasn't clear why we were diving into this specific issue of it looked like rollover, vacation time, sick time and that sort of thing. Now we're wanting to broaden that. The whole council is going to be in budgets within a month on these issues and at any point can say we want to have an entire two hour discussion on these sorts of things. So again I'm just looking at efficiency of the process and so anyways. So I would much rather a subcommittee maybe do that than budget real estate time is pretty limited. But I understand it. I think I'm not hearing that you're opposed to the analysis . It just may be the timing of the analysis or the process of the analysis is what I'm hearing maybe is what you're talking about. So I'm okay with... Do we have an action item on this? Is this resolution an action item? No, what we'd have to do is work with legal and bring back a revised resolution. You just need direction? Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. So what I'm understanding at least from your summary Council Member Hawkins is that so if I'm not right Madam Chairman let me know that the committee is asking for just an expansion of the resolution to include the benefits as outlined in this report that the committee received so that you can discuss it at the committee meeting and that you're asking for one more meeting prior to Council terms expiring or the new elections to have a meeting and bring back any recommendations or observations. It may just be observations that the committee deems appropriate for Council. Is that it? That's correct and again it'll be human resources that brings back kind of a summary and discussion and it'll be Council that decides you know if they do anything and if they do what. So just want to emphasize that. So to my Council committee members I'll be sending out an email to try to look for a date because it gets so hard to find a window of time sometimes. So thank you. I think we... Council Member Briggs did you have a question or comment? I thought I saw you. Council Member Gary you're on the committee any comments? Any? I just want to be sure that we're not in the new resolution . We don't say that there's one more meeting because then we 'll have to come back for another resolution if there have to be two meetings. I mean the resolution will say one more meeting in the next five weeks but then beyond that it's not limited is it? Because that's not... When we have the committee meeting what I took away wasn't that we need one more meeting. It's that we needed an expanded scope because all of the benefits fit together like a little puzzle piece. All right. Okay any comments on that? Observations on Council Member Gary's observations? Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. This is just a legal question. Does the resolution specifically include the names of those on the committee? In other words are we going to have to come back for another resolution anyways in the event they want to go beyond that one meeting because they 've got you're going to have to put another person on it? Is that correct Mr. City Attorney? That's correct, we will have to come back and actually change the name if more meetings are required and we go into May and June. Yes. And I think that's appropriate in a sense because we'll have three new council members and then we can sort of revisit this policy discussion of whether this committee even moves forward. I mean that's sort of you have a whole different discussion about that. Yeah. And we may be finished after one meeting. So let's just do a simple resolution in and out done and cross the next bridge when we come to it if we need that bridge. Okay. So it sounds like that it will be limited to it doesn't even have to be if you all can get two meetings in May. So I would just say that maybe the committee resolution either expires or something by date certain. I mean because we don't want to if you can have two meetings within that amount of time I'd say go for it. So whatever the date is for the council elections and or the swearing in of new members I think that would be I think that'd be probably a better use of that. We'll put something on your next agenda. Okay great. Fantastic. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Now we'll go to item D. Receive report and hold discussion give staff direction regarding prohibiting parking on Denton Street from Oak Street to H ickory Street and Texas Street from Vine Street to Frame Street. Who's handling that. Oh there he is. I was hiding down here. There he is. It pops up. Gosh. Yeah that's great. All right. I'm almost there. I'm just pulling a couple of things. So good afternoon. My name is Preetan Deshmukh. I'm the traffic engineer for the city. Great. And this item originally came in for the last council meeting but it was actually two streets segments that we had within the city. One they were coincidentally one close to TW and the other one close to UNT and both are kind of combined in this report. We're asking for no prohibition along these two street segments. There are one block segments. One on Texas Street and the other on Denton Street. I'll pull up a little graphic. This is the first one. And the reason they were separate items the first one was came in from the fire department. They had some specific concerns and requirements to get their fire equipment and I'll briefly I'll leave this allows me. I'll briefly touch on why they requested that. And then the second one was request from several residents and concerns from people living in the neighborhood around Denton Street between Oak and H ickory. So the first one is a result of I think it all began with a lightning strike in this middle apartment building and that building completely burned down well it burned down 40 percent but it was destroyed to a point they had to reconstruct. And when they came back city started looking at the new fire code, started looking at the height requirements. Basically our code allows us anything under 30 feet is okay but anything about 30 feet we need aerial apparatus emergency equipment to be you know access that part of the building. So this building is planned to go 34 feet and for the aerial apparatus to be deployed it requires 26 feet clear width on any street or driveway or area around the building. See you can see there is an area in the backside. If you leave the parking area fire department looked at this particular drive aisle and they found it was only 24 feet it does not fit 26 feet so they can't really deploy the equipment here. The other issue was turnaround of the equipment in this area they can provide a turnaround it's more than 150 feet long it's about 245 feet. The other location they looked at was this street and I think they had some similar issues I think Laura can talk to that Fire Marshal Laura is here and she can talk to that. Then finally they settled on the only option they had was to get access off of Texas Street. They required 26 feet the current width of this street from curb to curb is about 30 feet. So if you allow parking even on one side then you according to fire code the parking requirement is 6 feet so you go down to 24 feet you still don't have 26 feet. So that's why parking restriction on both sides was recommended by staff and we've taken this to Traffic Safety Commission this item and the next item but both those were approved by Traffic Safety Commission. I can talk to and questions about this particular segment or I can explain the other one and then we can talk about both. I got a question for the Fire Marshal. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. So explain to me help me because I'm struggling with this I 'll be honest with you because of just it's really a code issue at least it's that's sort of what how it surfaced. So you've got your I guess it's the aerial apparatus correct which I think I actually saw it deployed today on a EMT call or something paramedic called it. So how wide are those they can still go down city streets I presume. Correct yes. How wide are they? So our new truck is actually 8 feet wide. And it deploys its outriggers it's a little over 17 feet wide. And the outriggers are the things that sort of brace it. They are the stabilizers to deploy the aerial apparatus yes sir to deploy the ladder. So you've got the 8 feet width and if it's let's say it pulls up on Texas Street let's say there's no cars there. Correct. All right well let's put let's just make the cars the way they are configured in the picture so it pulls up there and it's so it's taking up 8 feet and then it's got to set its outriggers out and when it sets its outriggers then from outrigger to outrigger on the other side is 17 feet. Correct just a little over 17 feet yes. So help me there's help me understand the 26 foot requirement. Okay absolutely. So a standard fire code you know fire lane fire apparatus access requires 20 feet and then we have the additional 26 foot requirement for aerial apparatus which again not only takes into consideration the deployment of the stabilizers but that additional space that additional footage also gives us a couple of other things. It gives us the space that we need to deploy our resources. It also gives us the space that we need for operations for actual you know operations of at the fire scene and the third thing that it does is it allows two emergency vehicles to be able to pass each other because not only is access coming in an issue but also the ability to exit is also an issue for us in public safety so it's not just about the width of the apparatus itself sure but it also allows us to deploy resources perform operations on the scene and also allows two emergency vehicles to pass each other getting in or out of an active scene. I thought the regular fire lane was 24 feet. It's 20 regular fire lane is 20 foot aerial apparatus is 26 . Okay that's interesting. So if you're if the top of your ridge cap is less than 30 feet or less then your fire lane like I say this parking lot here correct then that only has to be 20 feet. Any structure so it doesn't necessarily just have to be the building according to fire code. Yeah so if you've got a 25 foot structure but you've you also have let's say a mechanical room or you have HVAC systems that take it above 30 feet so anything above a 30 foot structure it not just including the building itself but anything above that then we do require a fire aerial access. Why did I think it was 24 feet? I sure I mean I'm not well I think I'm building a project and I think it was required of 24 feet so that's the only reason I asked. So I'll get some verification. It's always been either 20 or 26. Based upon the height. Based upon the height yes. Now this right here is 24 feet. We did I have had many conversations with the project manager on this and we looked at the possibility of trying to widen this but yeah that's gonna be impossible. Yeah it is. They're completely landlocked here and it's actually this building here that was struck by lightning. Right. The only thing that we have with this particular fire lane is as Preetam mentioned it exceeds 150 foot required. Yeah almost by 100 feet. So they can't okay. Dalton if you just allow me. So this is part of my question as well because I know under current fire code when these were built it was not required. Correct. Everything's got to be sprinkled. Correct. Anything above two units I believe has to be sprinkled. And so we certainly need to make sure that fire personnel can get in there and do their job but we also have so many other code requirements that are meant to really suppress a fire so that we don't have to call I don't even know how they measure it call two or three or four alarms or however they do that. So that's just an observation. That's why I think I struggle with this is we do have a lot of codes that are attempting to knock these things down so we don't have this kind of issue with something burning you know 40 percent. And that is correct. Anytime we have some additional fire suppression protections in place code does allow flexibility in certain areas. Now in this particular case though we still have these two buildings here that are unprotected. They do not have fire suppression systems. This is the only one that because of the percentage of construction the rebuild that they had to do it did require it to come up to not only fire code current fire code requirements but all code requirement. Yes. Yes sir. So at the time it was not. So really then the so the two buildings that are remaining. Yes. They're not really subject to quote unquote the fire code we're talking about because they they didn't have to be modified. It's just this building. So we're almost saying we're trying to knock off parking on either side to help for this one building that got destroyed. This now got to be up to code. Well it actually will help the other two buildings because again these two are not protected by a sprinkler system. So it would be even more important for us to access these two buildings. Well no I get that but if this building hadn't been burned we wouldn't be having this conversation. That is correct. I mean so the the access issue is still there when this before it was in this destroyed state. Correct. Councilmember Gregory. I'm sorry. Let me ask it a different way to make sure I'm understanding because I think I discovered new information. You need a wider area for your fire apparatus if a building is over a certain height. Correct. And the height is what? 30 feet. 30 feet. So if it's less than 30 feet for example a 26 foot wide roadway is sufficient because there's still room for six feet of parking and 20 feet for fire apparatus access. Yes sir. Thank you. So if the code does allow some flexibility. Would the fire department not feel comfortable with just having no parking on one side of the road? I don't know which how you pick the side. That's a whole nother issue and I get that. But I think what I'm struggling with is just saying all of a sudden there's no parking at all allowed on that road. So the equipment needed to get to the top the above 30 feet would 24 feet be sufficient to do that or you need the extra two feet? The flexibility that the code allows us is really about being able to reach points of a building. So another kind of common 150 foot standard is that we have to be able to reach all points of an exterior, all of the exterior of the building within 150 feet. When we have a protected building like fire sprinklers we can look at that project and determine whether or not we can exceed that 150 foot rule. So those are some of the flexibilities. In this particular case again we did the one block simply because that was the easiest to say from this street to this street. I mean we can certainly look at bringing that in. But with all three buildings exceed 30 feet and at this point only one of them is protected by sprinkler system. We have additional access to this particular building, you could get to it from Vine, but these two are the ones that we're concerned about. And so the buildings on the other side of the road, what height are those? Those are single family residential. See that's kind of what I'm struggling with. Just because somebody built something across the street from them now they can't have people over and have them park on the road and entertain. So that's why I'm just trying to figure this out. I feel like the most practical thing to do is just not allow parking on that side of the road if the fire department is okay with that, if the code is flexible enough for that. We do have some additional challenges here because of some overhead utility lines. We can definitely revisit it to look at access. Again, it's these two buildings, this one's protected, this one's on a corner, we can still access. This one's an issue, this one's a concern, but also these two not being protected. These types of issues, even in District 4, I'm not even going to say the neighborhood, this is a big deal doing this to some people. It's a huge deal. It is something that we're facing more and more because we 're having multifamily units development coming into areas that are traditionally single family residential. Now in this particular case, this one has been there since 2002 and the requirements were less restrictive at that time, but we do have more recent developments that this is the same challenge is something that we're having to address. We'll go to Mayor Pro Tem and then Councilmember Washington . You also have the compounded problem that this is a block away from a university, so anytime you restrict parking in a very parked place during the day, it's just pushing it off to other parts of the neighborhood as well, which is already pretty congested. I didn't notice in the backup, we usually do have a communication plan associated with these sorts of either staff or citizen initiated requests. Did we notice the property owners surrounding and what was the response on that? Because I imagine most, if not all of those on the north side of the street, I guess are rental, so what was our procedure for that? We went through the standard notification procedure on any parking restriction and I believe we received just one in opposition and it was a resident of the apartment complex. The apartment complex right now is currently being used as student housing by TWU. Let's see, Councilmember Wasney? So would you explain, I heard part of the discussion and explanation that the reason you want both sides of the street and need both sides is the width of the street. By the time you put the fire truck with the extenders, you need room to get around that by another emergency vehicle and not just an automobile. And so that explains the need across the street because it gives you the adequate footage to have the big fire truck with the extenders and get another emergency vehicle around it. I just see this, our number one responsibility is public safety. I will just hone in on that every single time. I get it that yes, there's parking, yes, there's student parking, but I would ask this Council, are you going to look yourself in the mirror if there's a fire in one of these multi-story apartment buildings? And our fire department is unable to service that fire and service those fire victims adequately because we weren't willing to give up some parking spaces. The answer is, it's a tough trade-off, but if our fire department comes to us and says, based upon fighting a fire in this location, we had some real issues on fighting the fire, because of those issues, we are asking for a public safety decision here. So if and when another fire hits, we have the adequate space to position our fire equipment and we can fight a fire and save lives if that's what we're called upon to do. So that's my question. I think it's a tough one and it's always a tough one, but I support the fire department's recommendation and request. Council Member Gordy. Get back to what Mr. Hawkins was saying. So imagine somebody across the street, the house was built in the 40s or 50s, some elderly lady, imagine maybe 65 years old, lives across the street and she has a Wednesday Bible study at her house every week and her 65-year-old friends come over there. And now, because the apartment owner across the street wants to build a tall apartment building, she really can't have that anymore or she can't have friends over because they can't park in front of her house and there's not room in her driveway. So that's what we're saying, right? It is a unique situation and again, this has been there since 2002 and they are rebuilding, just to give you a little bit more, they are rebuilding the exact same building that they had before. So we're allowing them to rebuild the same height even though it's under a new code. That is what they've chosen to do. Now that's not something I would allow them to do. That's the development plan, that's the structure that has already been redeveloped there. They have essentially rebuilt what they had before and we 've given them the requirements needed for that. Do you have a building permit now to build there even though there's not the apparatus to -- I mean, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to understand. We've already given them the building permit. They have a building permit for that project. So do we have a choice of buying an apparatus that gets the same height that doesn't require 17-foot stabilizers? I mean, are there other apparatuses that we could have bought that would have provided the same safety for the people up there in the buckets that required less physical room for stabilizing? Well, certainly there are other apparatuses that are smaller that all have different capabilities. So their size will determine the capability of that apparatus. We do have another ladder truck, it's called a quint, that has a smaller ladder height on it. It's a 75-foot ladder, but it's also 16 feet 9 inches. So it's still right at that -- Not much less. Correct. So there's not a lot of -- We're still looking at about 17 feet in width with the outriggers. And again, as we would change specifications for a smaller vehicle or smaller fire apparatus, we would also be looking at possibly reducing the capacity of that engine. Reducing its capabilities. Okay, so it could go up as high -- We could be as -- We're reducing capabilities at that point as well. Okay. Thank you. I think -- Do you have a question? Yes, go ahead. So we're looking at this because the two buildings do not have fire sprinkler systems or fire suppression equipment. Is that what -- This issue came up specifically because of the building that is being rebuilt. At 34 feet, it triggered the aerial apparatus requirement for a 26-foot fire access lane. Okay, so it doesn't have anything to do with the two other buildings that are there? No, it's the new development that spurred the requirement. Okay. Council Member Gary. I have a process question. So when, for instance, the applicant came forward with this application for a 34-foot building, was PNZ or fire -- I'm sorry. Was the fire effects or the effects on the streetscape and the needs for fire control, was that a part of the discussion that was had when their permit was issued? They were told of the requirements at that time. I'm sorry. Who is they? The applicant? The applicant, yes, the developer. Okay, but were the surrounding -- you know, was PNZ informed or were the neighborhoods informed? Because it kind of seems like knowing what the effect on the streetscape is of a building height would be very helpful early in the process. This project would have gone through our normal DRC process . I do not believe that there is any notification to PNZ or to residents of what would be in our case, you know, a standard DRC process and requirements that are being communicated to a developer. Okay. Thank you. I think globally speaking, we're going to have to figure something out. I mean, our downtown core is filled with all sorts of streets that are much less wide than this. And we're going to get more and more dense. It's going to happen. And somehow there's big cities all over the country that have very thin streets that figure this out. I don't know if they have different codes. If we're adopting like a suburban code and there's an urban code or how we -- I mean, this hypothetically could have been a 24-foot wide street. In that case, what would we have done? We would have had to take property in order to widen the street in order to fulfill this. I mean, that would have been an absurd conclusion to this. So I don't know that this answer to this problem can be universalized in a way that I would feel comfortable with across our city. And so if it's causing a lot of other problems in a heavily parked area, it seems like maybe there's a compromise solution that you're still able to fit the truck there on that side of the street. You get the width you need to put the side rigors up. And somehow this cop fire -- and I'm assuming the fire department dealt with it with the current situation on the ground. Correct. Did they have to move cars? Did they -- I mean, how did they tackle the fire? So some of these are more kind of -- somehow I wonder if -- I get that there are global kind of recommendations to what would be the best case scenario. Unfortunately, our city is not built to those standards. And as we're encouraging infill -- so that's my concern. I'd encourage some sort of compromise that allowed parking on one side of the street. I'm just going to be straightforward. I don't pose the question as you did. I don't think opposing this is going to be putting people's lives or saying I don't care about fire safety or that I'm not concerned about people's lives. I mean, that's -- and it's certainly not saying that I'm not in support of the fire department. But this is what I read in the backup. It says the code allows for the -- the problem is -- and Mayor Pro Tem, you brought up a good point -- they fought this fire with the facts on the ground. This is really a code -- I know it's about -- but this is a code-driven issue. I mean, the code is if you have this height -- well, what version of the fire code is this? What year adopted did this new code come about? We're under international fire code 2012. Okay. So we're under 2012. And that's where this came -- I don't know. It might have been earlier than that. But that's the version we're under. So what the backup says is that currently the current configuration has a 24-foot wide fire lane within the property. I really think it's 24 feet. I need a very -- but you've got to have some fire lane, whether it's 20 or 24 feet. If you've got a parking lot, you have to have a fire lane for the very things you're describing. A 20-foot fire lane for anything less than 30 feet. Yes, sir. And that's -- but that requirement came in 2012? Or when did the -- anything under 30 feet, you have to have a 20-foot fire lane? Do we know when that -- never mind. We'll figure that out. Okay. Yeah, because I have done some research on that. We adopted the -- we changed from a uniform fire code to the international fire code in 2000. So there were some significant changes at that time. Sure. Okay. So they've got a 24-foot fire lane. At the time they built this was adequate. That's what the code was in 2002. Or it wouldn't have been built. So whatever they needed, they got. So then it says now they've run into this problem. Now they're rebuilding it. It's over 30 feet. The code allows for the use of a public street as a fire lane if the street remains unobstructed. Texas Street between Vine Street and Frame Street runs the length of the apartment complex on the north side. Measuring it at 30-foot width, Texas Street meets the width -- 30-foot width. So Texas Street is 30 feet wide? Yes. Okay. So Texas meets the width requirement of 26 feet to serve as the development's aerial access road. In other words -- so correct me if I'm wrong -- we're saying we're going to give the developer -- and, of course, I think this is under new ownership from who built it originally and when the fire even started. I think maybe. So we're saying, well, they can't meet the code within their development. So what we're going to do is the code allows for you to take a public street and make it your fire lane and therefore unobstructed. So we've got to tell people who are living there now that have been living there for who knows how long that you can't park because it's got to be for the benefit of this development, which we have this situation all throughout our city. So this isn't about opposing public safety. It's not about opposing the fire department. It's about saying sometimes we get codes and the facts on the ground, they don't always fit. And I feel 100% certain whatever the configuration is here now in the future somewhere else in the city that our fire department will find a way to provide the best public safety, the best preservation of property and human life that they can because you've always done that. But I really struggle with saying we're going to deny parking on a segment that includes more than this front -- because the two buildings, they've been there. So this conversation isn't even about them. But we're going to take this whole segment and say it's not parking because the developer chose to build up the height and now we've got this code issue that's popped up. Probably somebody didn't even know about it. I mean, it probably was something that -- have they started construction yet? Yes. Okay. So they've already started construction. And I'm just going to be very reluctant when we have this same situation all around the city to say because the developer is now building over 30 feet, our code that we passed back in 2012 requires a 26-foot fire lane and now we're going to basically -- what's the word I'm looking for? It's a fancy word so I don't know fancy words. We're going to take over the street for fire protection because of this developer and tell people who they are -- you can't park there anymore on the side of the street. Now, my fallback position would be which -- I don't really have a fallback position but if we just took the parking off the side where the development is, we're saying, okay, if you guys are parking there to go into your apartments, you 're not going to be able to -- that would at least have more of an impact on the specific development than it would everybody else who's going to be affected by this because of the code structure. So this isn't about anything about fire, you know, safe -- public safety or the loss of life. I'm very confident you guys did it before. I mean, you all fought that fire, I guess, when it was not sprinkled and probably preserved it to where it didn't burn at least 100% down and kept it from burning down the other buildings, most likely. So I'm sorry that in some ways you guys are put in this position because of this old city because that's really what it is. And I just struggle with this. So those are my comments. Anything about the fire department in that regard? Because it's really -- this is code driven based upon a guy deciding or a gal or a development trying to build above 30 feet. We got Councilmember Gregory and then I think we're going to go -- okay, we're going to go over here and Councilmember Wasney. Yes, go ahead. >> And I think the thing that I'm trying to -- what's the takeaway? What can we learn from this? And it would seem to me that maybe one of the things that we would learn is if a developer wants to come in and develop apartments that are too tall for what the street can handle with the street's current configuration, that maybe the developer is not allowed to do that. And I mean -- and if the developer has to rebuild, they have to build to the new code. When my hot water heater went out, we had to reconfigure the closet. It had to be built to the new code. So why in the world we're saying, yes, you can rebuild that building back just the way it was at the same height it was, even though it's not allowed now, seems like maybe that's where we could have addressed the problem rather than create a problem for other folks by saying, yes, you can build it just the way it was even though it doesn't meet the code and we're going to solve this problem by inconvenien cing the folks across the street. And it may be no more than an inconvenience, but for some folks, it may impact their entire lifestyle if they've been needing and depending on parking on the street in order to accommodate themselves or their guests or their caretakers or whoever. So I think that this could have been avoided had the developer not been allowed to build back the same way it was. And I'm puzzled as to why that was allowed to happen and maybe somebody, some staff person can tell me offline why we did that. >> Councilmember Wasner. >> Two things. Our development code is 30 years old and this council has funded and as we speak, a new development code is being written. And it won't be finished until 2018, but if the city manager could make sure that this discussion moves forward to have it addressed in the new development code, would it compromise be to only remove parking along the apartment side and still allow it in front of the single family homes across the street? If the apparatus is up, granted, another emergency vehicle can't get around it, but that might be a compromise situation to at least meet some of the fire department's requirement and request. >> Yes. And I think that we can do that. That certainly and you're correct, Mayor. We'll definitely in any situation, and let me be clear, any situation, we will respond. We will adapt to the environment on the ground. We will overcome any obstacles and we're going to get the job done. Fire code, though, helps us out in ensuring that there aren 't any obstacles up front, that we don't have to maybe utilize any additional resources or spend any time in overcoming those challenges and get right to work. But just restricting parking on one side will definitely give us some space to operate efficiently and effectively in this particular area. >> As I'm looking at this, and I struggle with that, but I 'm looking at this and I'm looking at this building and I'm looking at this lot layout . What you're saying is, first of all, and this might be for a bigger discussion, Mr. City Manager, but when I look at the building permitting process , you submit your plans and it goes out to all the departments and it comes back reviewed for code compliance. So when this reconstruction came up, a very vital question is, how did this get, because this got past something. I mean, this should have stopped this whole permitting process until a solution was found. So we're trying to go back and now back. So honestly, and I build stuff, so I understand. You look at the parking lot, you got about a three or four foot sidewalk in front of the parked cars there on that side where the street is. You've probably got about 10 or 12 feet from the roof line to the sidewalk. I don't know what the, you only need two feet. Am I right? In that fire lane, you got 24 feet on the fire lane and you want 26 in the parking lot. In the actual parking lot. And I know you want your 150 foot, but if you had your 26 foot backing out, I know it's difficult. I know it is. But I don't know why we can't say, well, you know what, guys, you got two feet in your parking lot if you go a little closer to the building, unless there's some offset that the sidewalk can't be a certain distance to the building. We did look at that. We looked at every- What was the result of pushing that parking line two feet forward? We have, we have, now on this side, it actually goes to the property line. So we had no space on this side. On this side, we have utilities here and utilities here. You can't see it very well. Is that an underground transformer box? I believe so here. And that's a dumpster? Yes. And that's the only location for those utilities. We had to accommodate for that. So one of the things that we were looking at is possibly doing inserts or inlets here to give us those additional, that additional space on the backside. But that's part of the problem that we were running into in addition to the length of it. We, if we tried to accommodate for the utilities on the ground, that would push us further in and way past that 150-foot dead end. How far is that? 254 feet, I believe. And when you say 150- 245. You're saying 150 feet, what's the significance? So you're saying you don't want to drive in more than 150 feet. Correct. And the reason is? For backing up. For safety reasons in being able to give us the appropriate exit strategy of any site, of any emergency operating site. Okay. So- So if we have 150-foot- Right. They have to give us some sort of turnaround. And there's different ways to achieve that. According to this code. So when this was built, that wasn't part of the code? Correct. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. This is- We looked at all the options on this one. No, no. I understand. Well- And again, in trying to work with the developer in the development in moving this particular project forward. Unfortunately, and what do they say? Hindsight is 20/20. Now, the requirement with the review of the plans, here's the building height. It's over 30 feet. Okay. Somehow that got- somehow, I don't know how to define it, but we're here now because that really wasn't discovered at the front end. And so we've got to find a way to do this. And if this is the solution, it's the solution. If it's not, then we got to- but as you said, y'all will- so anyway. Okay. I just want to make sure I understood what the obstacles were because the transformer blocks can be moved. Now, it's not cheap. But I mean, and this is my point. We're going to take a whole city block for the benefit- to adhere to the benefit of the developer, of course, so it can allow per code fire access, which will allow the developer to avoid expending certain monies to move the utilities. We can probably get- we can probably do something with that dumpster. I know we can do- I mean, if we even move it up or something. So that's my only thought is they're getting- I don't want to say the easy- everybody else is having to pay for what they- the circumstances that they 're experiencing by not- by them not understanding the code. And now they're trying to backtrack. And I'm not saying they did it intentionally. I don't know how it got there, but I just- it's very difficult for me to do that. I mean, I understand if I were building this, of course I'd be asking for that. Of course I would. And I understand why the fire department is because, hey, this is the code and this is the only way we can meet it. But in essence, at least if the backup's correct, we're saying that we're going to use this public street to satisfy their Fire Lane Code if it's unob structed. Correct. All right. And again, the code does allow for that. We've got developments that come in and that is sometimes the only option to advance that development and we try to work with them as much as we can in giving them those different options. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But if they're coming in on the front end, I don't think I 've ever seen, since I've been on council, a request to take parking off of a street because the developer needs the street as a fire lane on the front end. And so those streets are either wide enough or there's some accommodation made in that regard. Okay, good. Anybody else? Is this an action item? I believe it's an action item next week. Next week, yes. Okay. Well, yeah. Just for clarification and direction, limiting to one side is something that would provide another option that would still give us. Council direction. I would suggest that you be prepared with an alternative ordinance to limit it to one side so that we didn't have three, you know, if it's yes or no, that may not be the only choice. It might be good to have another choice. No parking on one side. Council Member Geary. So then my question is, you've got the whole block from what are those two side streets? Vine and Frame. Okay, so you've got that whole block kind of highlighted, at least on this presentation for no parking. But if somehow, if we were to say there's no parking on, is that the east side of Texas? What is that? This is Vine and this is Frame. But on the side where Texas is, we're saying on just only one side, is that the east side or the west side of Texas? It's the north side. North side. There you go. I don't know one direction. But could we also limit it to no parking? Because you do have that Vine Street. Is that Vine? This is Vine. This is Vine. Yeah, where you could back up and if you needed to turn in the street. Because I just don't want to take the whole street segment from block to block. And something that we did, if you'll recall, about a year and a half ago on I believe it was Mulberry maybe, we had again a multifamily residential building come in on a street that was much narrower. We had some adequate fire hydrant placement that allowed for us to give ourselves 150 foot inlets on each side of the street. And then what we did was we only restricted the middle. I mean if I were going to vote to take parking away, which I would say okay, on the north side of the street, from Vine Street to the edge of the property line where that new building is being built so that it's very restricted. Most likely the people parking there are going to be people in the apartment building. Some may be across the street, but it seems like that more impacts truly the development that is requesting it. Right. If we could do this or again we could do 150 feet on each side because at least on Vine we'll still have access to the building here on the corner. We can still access the building on the corner. We can go 150 feet in from Vine, 150 feet in from Frame, give ourselves that middle that is only restricted to one side. Okay, I thought you said to both sides. No. No, only one side. Yes, that so that little highlighted part he's got up there . One side, which is that north side on the south side of the apartments right there in front of the apartments. You know what I'm saying, Pre-Tim is go in 150 feet here, 150 feet here. And then restrict this. Yes. Okay, got you. So you're coming in from both sides. 150 feet in. So it'd be less. In the middle, restrict it to one side. Okay. All right. Yes. I'd ask for council direction to move forward with that next week so that it's clear from staff and see if we have council consensus. It sounds like we do. Well, we'll go. You all are conversing. So are we all on the same page? Yes, yes. We've done this before on another street. That was Wainwright. Wainwright, that's what it was. Between Sycamore and Prairie. Okay, so you're coming in 150 from there, 150 from the property line. And in the middle, restricting it to one side. Yes. So that's the south side that's in front of the apartments, that side that's right there. I think for us, we'll probably do the north side. I believe the hydrants are on the south side. Are you saying? But I will double check that. Are you saying in front of the houses? Yes. Yeah. I understand, but they would still have one side to park on . What I'm trying to do is get as close to the hydrants. So if the hydrants are on the, if the hydrants are on this side of the street, I'll restrict parking on this side of the street. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. What I'm trying to do is restrict parking on this side because that's going to allow us to get to these buildings without cars being parked in front of us. Right. But I do want to double check hydrant placement, but we'll allow parking, leave parking on the north side of Texas. They're on the south side. Yeah. The hydrants are? Okay. That's where I thought they were. Okay, good. Good. All right. Yes, sir. One more thing I do want to point out is enforcement wise, it's better to start at one location so if we start at Vine and say we have, we have signage that says 300 feet from here or 400 feet or end so we can place it properly. If we start in the middle, 150, 150, that gives us some error. People don't understand sometimes where the signage should start or end. So if we start at the Vine street and go here and say this is where it ends and this is all parking restricted, then we're better off doing that. Okay. So now you've got me confused. So now are you asking for no parking on from Vine street all the way to the over to the edge right there when what you're talking about before was coming 150 feet in. We need to do 150 feet on both sides. Oh signage, you're not talking about enforcement? So you don't need no parking on this side either. Yes. So it's the entire segment. No, it's just in the middle. I'll show you. I'll show you how it is because we've done it before. 150 feet. Can y'all sort of work that out behind the scenes and just bring bring to us a couple of alternatives one that Councilmember Wasney has asked for and if y'all need to do something else we'll consider it. Correct. Okay. Did you have a final question? Well, that was a clarification on the signage because I've seen somewhere it has an arrow and it says from this spot no parking and then from this spot no parking. So you have a complete zone. So the allowing parking here and allowing parking here wouldn't seem to be an issue if the signage was appropriate. I believe that's what we have on Wainwright. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Question. Talk loud so you can hear. We can hear. I'm going to point to the two spots because there's so much confusion and if you would say yes or no. Okay. From point A to point B. Here to here. No, no. What we're looking at what we're looking at is something similar to what we've done on another street. We'll restrict parking in the middle. So we're going to go 150 feet in from Vine. We're going to come in 150 feet in from Frame and then in the middle restrict parking on the south side of Texas. Okay. So. Yes, ma'am. In the center. Yes, ma'am. Got it. So we'll have just no parking in the center. You can still park on both sides on the end. We can access this building from the corner. We'll have access to the building in the middle which is un protected. We'll have access to the new building which is protected. And we'll be able to have unobstructed access to all of the buildings with restriction on the south side of Texas Street. Okay. What will be interesting is when you measure 100 and this isn't to scale so. Correct. There's 24 parking spaces along there and parking spaces I believe are 9 to 10 feet in width. So that whole lot width is close to probably a couple hundred feet. So it'll be interesting. Okay. So that's the direction. Correct. And then we'll look at it and see how it lays out on the street and if there's an issue we'll deal with it. Okay. Thank you all very much. Oh yes, sir. There's one more section. Yes. The other segment. And Laura needs to get back here. Okay. So now the next one is Denton Street between Oak and Hick ory. And this is a really small section of Denton Street which is less wider. It's really narrower than the rest of Denton Street north of Oak Street. So currently the street is 24 feet wide from curb to curb and there's parking allowed on either side of the street. And we've received in the past six to eight months we've received multiple complaints about being very difficult to pass especially if traffic is coming one direction the other one has to back into a driveway that is for one of these apartments or one of these houses for someone to clear and then clear a path. I can pull up an aerial that can give you a better option. But again going back to the fire code there are a couple things that we already discussed for a long time. The city requires a 20 foot fire lane. In this case we're not looking at any aerial apparatus and so we don't need the 26 feet but we need a minimum of 20 feet. The street is 24 feet wide and according to fire code we can allow six feet parking but we still do need 20 feet clear. If we allow parking on one side along this segment that will be a variance from the fire code. And I mean that's an option and we can look into it. It's just that it would be similar to the variance that we 'll be applying for this segment of Texas Street is let me go to that location. So if you look at it if you're a car or a vehicle approaching there's barely any space in between these two cars let alone a fire or emergency vehicle to approach. So based on this and we've received multiple complaints people have to back into this driveway when they're driving and this is an ongoing issue. I know we all know that this is the old city with narrow streets. So there were two this was also an item on the April 4th agenda and there were two options as to restrict parking on both sides. We did receive some concerns from citizens or residents next door. They wanted to only have restriction of parking on one side and that would be a variance from the code. We're open to looking at alternatives. I mean it'd be a similar discussion. Councilmember Riggs. So that's a lot of cars parking on that street. Do we know is it UNT parking or is it residential parking? It is what I've understood from residents as well as local businesses I think there's a business building back there is primarily it's used by UN T students and a lot of them actually use their bikes right to UNT campus but it's primarily used by UNT students and some of these residents do use this parking as well as the one in front of Oak but yeah it's completely packed during school time and once school is out this parking goes down. It looks like not even I mean a large size vehicle could not get through there you know or mid-size. That is true I mean they have to do extremely slow in the segment. I've spoken with one of the property owner one of the neighbors that lives in those houses with their family. What I'm hearing is that they understand this is impassable especially with two lane traffic but that the interest is can we can we kind of again similar to them can we compromise because they utilize that for parking for themselves and for guests given the short length of the driveway there so I guess my concern is again one another approach is just taking everything away. It's pretty disruptive for everyone there. I think Councilmember Wasney and Councilmember Begay. I had asked the police chief for an accident report in this area too and it's been a while I think there were seven accidents just because of restricted visibility because you're trying to weave your way through the cars trying to get to the stop sign and then trying to get visibility to be able to see before you pull out on one of the one ways either Oak or Hickory. So if Council doesn't want to restrict it on both sides we could restrict it on one side only but something to consider would be to enforce isn 't it 30 feet before a stop sign that you're not supposed to park? That's right and currently we are in this pilot program especially around certain streets in UNT area north of UNT that we've started installing and I think this was our first location this is where we install the sign that says do not park within 30 feet of the stop sign. Of the stop sign so that. So going southbound on Denton this stop sign currently has that plaque that says within 30 feet parking is not allowed and we have five more locations I think there's one on normal street and multiple locations around that area. And do you also paint the curb? We do not we just sign it so that people when they look at the stop sign they understand that you're not supposed to park within 30 feet. So maybe with the signage in the 30 feet 30 feet and remove parking on one side that would I think alleviate some of the issues. Okay. I have just kind of a broad suggestion I'm okay with removing parking on one side but I think the broader issue that we're going to have with all the core part of town is that I think we're going to have to go to neighborhood permit parking on some of the core areas. I don't really see any way around it other than every meeting will have to address one of these streets so if we could kind of do what we need to do to head in that direction as opposed to having people do it piecemeal I think it would be more effective. To that end I would like to respond there is currently a RF Q out for hiring a consultant and we're looking at the south neighborhood small area plan and within that plan we have an implementation strategy it's going to look at land use, zoning, everything that's associated with the issues that are you know this area is plagued with as well as access, street widths and parking. So it's going to do a parking supply study, parking demand study in this whole neighborhood as to what is the actual parking demand and that study will look at the bigger picture kind of address everything in one because this is not just a problem associated with you know how much is parking or what can we can do on these streets that are not wide enough there are narrower streets but this will look at what our circulation system can handle and what streets are major street that we need to keep clear, what streets would be good for parking, the whole big study. So I think we are moving forward in that direction and it will be a process that won't happen overnight but we are looking at the big picture and addressing that issue. Let's see did you have a question? You had mentioned I think in the mobility committee meeting last month about adding those some signs to the stop signs. Correct. Since enforcement didn't seem to be working in putting those signs up to try to educate people. I guess my question is why are we opting not to also do some yellow paint along the curb for that is it 20 feet or 30 feet? 30 feet. 30 feet because my guess is a lot of people would have a hard time judging 30 feet or they would they would if they got a ticket anyway they'd say oh but that wasn't but yet if their car was parking inside the yellow it would be pretty clear to everybody concerned. So are we not doing the yellow paint on the curb because of cost, because of the maintenance and upkeep? All of the above yes. The amount of labor force required, the amount of people that are required to upkeep it, the total cost of having you know all the curbs being painted yellow and red because what happens if we start at one intersection it slowly would percolate and translate to all driveways because citizens will come out and say now I need five feet for each side of my driveway to be painted because people are now parking too close to my driveway. And we've been in that I've been in that situation in my previous place and it gets to a point where how much paint are you going to maintain. It's more of an education process as opposed to signage and more signages people are going to keep on ignoring all the signs. So that's that's where we're coming in from. Let's see Joe, let's see did you have Joey and then yes. Just direction I'd be okay with restricting parking on one side and definitely doing the 30 back 30 feet back from the stop sign you know staff direction on which side that is I prefer so. I'm okay with the one side as well. Mayor Pro Tem, one side. Yeah. You know I'm going to agree reluctantly only because I think we need to look at this comprehensively because we're going to we're just going to be continuing to do this and there's going to be some point where we just say enough is enough and then we've got some people who have you know we've decided you can't park over there and it's just we're going to start trying to figure out how to do this on a case by case basis and and think about the and the parking neighborhood parking is a good plan thing there is especially in this neighborhood you start pushing people if the students can't park there you start pushing them out and so it's that's we've got to have a comprehensive approach in cooperation with the two universities because it's that's really the crux of when schools out we won't be having this conversation at all. Yes, Councilmember. And part of the comprehensive approach is what Councilman McGarry said about about looking at neighborhood permits. Right. Okay, staff had direction on that? We have the direction. Yeah. Okay. We'll put in the extra alternative of one side parking. So Mayor Pro Tem, your contacts didn't express a preference either side. I mean, I guess staff will look at it and see which has the most residential on that side and figure out which is the best. I think there are big driveways on this side so most likely we'll restrict parking and lose fewer spaces. Okay, great. Fantastic. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right, we'll go on to our next. Y'all need a break. We've been going for about an hour and a half. Y'all want to know? No. Okay, good. Jennifer, you need a break? Okay, just making sure. No. Well, I probably do. But we'll go on. I'll get up if I need one. Do you need a snicker, boy? What are y'all trying to say? Do I seem hangry or something? Or is that it? No, no. Agenda item one E is receive report hold discussion provide direction regarding the design and project schedule for the proposed parallel runway at the Denton Enterprise Airport. Mr. Nelson. Good afternoon. Mark Nelson, Director of Transportation. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you this afternoon on an important infrastructure project for our community. We've been at an airport. And we have a we've been working with TechStop for a number of years to establish a West parallel runway. In fact, it's been in multiple master plans going back for at least 20 years. And so again, what we have here is just a conversation this afternoon as we advance some design options with respect to some funding commitments that have been made by TechStop. So quick overview. I'll demonstrate a site plan of where the runway is or where the proposed runway will go operations overview there at the airfield why it's important for this West side runway, parallel runway, look at the design options, some of the benefits associated with that, and then confirm commitment to fund the proposed parallel runway and to what extent in terms of a local match and then outline that estimated project schedule. So quickly here you see the primary runway here. North would be to your left. So the terminal building, air traffic control tower here at midfield, existing runway, which is in place now. We've had a recent extension there to the north. This is the proposed parallel runway here in this blue, darker blue. The lighter blue demonstrates the proposed extension or a proposed extension of the scope as provided by TechStop. Then you see the hashed areas here on the north and south, which is property that was recently acquired for this proposed runway. So the Denton airport is designated as a reliever airport. What does that mean? Well, long or the short is it receives a little additional funding from FAA and TechStop. Its name essentially does supports both DFW and Love Field in terms of relieving recreational, private aircraft operations to include corporate as well as cargo operations from commercial service airfields. There's about 11 of those around the north Texas area and Denton airport is one of those. Runway 1835 is a 7,000 foot by 150 foot runway. It's got fairly heavy or substantial capability in terms of weight bearing capacity, single wheel, pretty simple. On the dual wheel you might see that on 737s, DC9s, some larger corporate jets as well. In this past FY we had about 137,000 operations. That still put us in the top 10 throughout the state in terms of overall operations. In 2015 we had over 165,000 operations that had us pegged at about the 7th busiest airport in the state. That's including DFW Intercontinental, some of the larger commercial service airports in our community and our state. In 2015 due to these high operations, understandably quite a few of these are light training aircraft utilized in our single runway configuration. The 2015 master plan did justify the parallel runway and primary purpose was to separate the lighter aircraft operations from the heavier, faster aircraft that utilize our airfield. So I'll go through a couple of the different design options . Next Hot has funded or committed essentially 90/10, in this case 85/15 funding for 45/75 design scope, 4,500 feet long by 75 feet wide with a 12,000 pound weight bearing capacity. As we move down the master plan, the approved master plan indicated a 5,000 by 100 foot wide with a 12,500 pound weight bearing capacity. Again that provides that additional 500 feet, so a longer takeoff run available provides heavier aircraft, faster aircraft, the ability to take off and/or land. And as part of that master plan scope it was suggested that the city or the local sponsor would cover 100% of the costs associated with that additional 500 feet as well as the 25 foot additional width. As we went through the design process we looked at and cross referenced the benefits associated with that additional 100 feet versus a heavier weight bearing capacity. So at 30,000 pounds and the 75 foot wide and 5,000 feet long it provides a little more variability in terms of type of aircraft that can utilize the runway at our airfield. So again the TxDOT scope at 4,500 by 75 and 12,500 pounds pretty much allows itself only for the lighter aircraft, training aircraft. Again does the purpose as requested by TxDOT which is separating the train traffic from the heavier. Again limited capacity due to the length of the pavement and the pavement strength. Right now we've got an estimated cost of roughly about 7.5 million on that. TxDOT would be about 5.9 and the city share would be approximately 1.6. So the master plan scope again a little bit more robust design in terms of both length and width. However, same 12,500 pound capacity. Again it's pretty much relegated to the lighter aircraft use. It does separate similar to the 4500 foot runway. It does have some increased capacity for some heavier aircraft because of the length. However the weight bearing capacity doesn't play out for that. So estimated cost on that is roughly about 8.4 million. TxDOT is 5.9 share on that and the city would be 2.5 million. And again this is essentially what was approved and laid out in our airport master plan. So the recommended scope is something that we've taken a look at now that we've got about 75% plans back from KSA, the consultant of record there at the airport who's been working with TxDOT aviation to facilitate design on this particular project. At 5000 feet with 75 foot wide width and the 30,000 pound capacity allows the light aircraft and heavier aircraft, turbine aircraft, you start getting into some turbo props, King Air type aircraft and some of your lighter jets. King Air is kind of like a suburban. It's the or an SUV on the road out there. It's kind of the general purpose private corporate type aircraft entry level if you will. Again increased capacity due to the length of pavement. And in terms of the weight bearing capacity, just because it's at 30,000 pounds doesn't mean that you can only land or operate a 30,000 pound aircraft on said facility. That's essentially life cycle of the pavement. So at 30,000 pounds that's designed to last roughly 20 year life cycle. On occasion you can utilize heavier aircraft, use that runway for heavier aircraft should your primary runway be down whether it's for maintenance. If there's an accident on that runway. And it just provides essentially a secondary landing surface for about 70% of the traffic that we experience out at the airport. You could probably get into the 50 to 60,000 pound weight bearing or pound aircraft on that runway. You might not want to do that in the middle of August. It's going to be an asphalt runway or at least that's what the design is. Due to just the pavement strength in mid summer. But nonetheless prior permission required, written approval , you can utilize a heavier aircraft on that runway. So that project design is estimated again with 75% plans in to date at 8.5 million. 5.9 million is the cap with which TechStat is willing to fund. And then the dent in shares about 2.6 million. Roughly about 100,000 more than the master plan scope at 2. 5 million in local. So in terms of the financial, we had 3.56 million set up in our FY 2017 18 CIP budget. TechStat is requesting or wanting this project to move a little bit quicker. We've been fighting for this runway to make this happen for a number of years. And quite frankly parallel runways or new runways just don 't come into play very often. So we would like to capitalize on that and move forward with this accelerator schedule. So basically what we would look at doing if the recommended scope is approved, we would look at our reimbursement ordinance and then bring back the city's portion project in terms of certificate of obligations in 2017-18. TechStat if that takes place, TechStat would essentially move forward with this notice to proceed. Looks like we've got about eight weeks until we get final design. So sometime the early/mid part of June we would have that design into TechStat. They would review it and then they would publish that or advertise the project in mid to late July timeframe requesting that we would have funding in place prior to advertising. This is a slide that outlines a little bit of some of the financials we talked about. In 2017-18 the West Runway Construction we had a 2016 estimated cost of $8.853 million with a TechStat share of about $5.87 and then the city share right at $2.9, almost $3 million. Now with the 75% plans in, again we're looking at about an $8.5 million, $5.9 million from TechStat and then the $2.6 million local share. We have here is just an excerpt from last year's budget demonstrating that we had these funds set up in the 27 or at least to be sold as part of the 2017-18 bond sale and then again this $435,000 is actually for another project on the primary runway which makes the parallel runway a little bit more important in terms of a reconstruction component of that primary runway in the 2018 to 2020 timeframe. But that $435,000 is demonstrating a 90/10 match so it would be about a $4.3 million project. So I wanted to walk through each of those components with you. That's the end of my presentation. What I was looking for was direction on the option that staff recommendation is to move forward with the 75 foot wide by 5,000 foot, 30,000 pound weight bearing capacity runway. Council Member Gregory? Do you have a question? I think we ought to proceed. Anybody have a question? Council Member Wasney. So belated thank you to Quentin Hex. Who worked so hard as our airport director to help secure that TexDOT funding. A lot of airports, a lot of cities are fighting for that money and so I hope this gets back to you Quentin. And I know he fought hard for that $5.9 million. And so just to clarify, if we don't build the second runway with the added weight capacity, if runway one is down, then all of the other larger aircraft cannot land out there because it's going to be light aircraft only if it's limited to the 12.5. It needs to have the 30 in order to hold the heavier aircraft. That's correct. The heavier weight bearing capacity provides more flexibility in terms of the users at the airfield. You'd be restricted to the lighter aircraft. So as North Texas grows and this airport continues to have demands on it, I think we'd be foolish to try to build to a lesser capacity, i.e., light aircraft only, and make that our new runway. The new runway needs to have the capability to hold these bigger aircraft that are coming in currently and with the growth in North Texas, I think we 're going to see more of it. So I support staff's position as well. Any other questions, comments? And we'll get a sort of analysis, I guess, in the airport committee about this being paid because I think if I remember correctly, the city was going to start paying for the debt service of the airport. So we just want to get an understanding of that, make sure that that's part of the budget process because the airport is an enterprise fund. So I just want to make sure that we get some clarity on that. Okay, direction to move forward on this? I'm seeing -- yep, okay, you bet. Thank you. With Council's indulgence, with sort of a request by the city manager, just an observation, instead of going into closed session right now and having everybody who's not in here leave, we're just going to go ahead and have the item for individual consideration. So I'm going to call that meeting to order. Following the completion of this work session, we will now go into -- convene in a special call session, which the following items will be considered. It is 4 o'clock straight up on April the 11th, 2017. So we will now move on to our still public meeting on agenda item one, which is items for individual consideration. Item 1A. Thank you, Mayor, members of council, members of staff. I don't have a presentation. I can pull it up of one that we've had before. This is the first reading of the annexation for the Andrus property. Part of the presentation is for the mayor to read the ordinance, and I believe -- I got to read it? Okay. I got to read it, I guess. At the conclusion of your presentation, the mayor, I have prepared for you the caption of the ordinance, which you'll read into the record and then close the item. Okay. All right. So that's the only action we take today? That is correct. Okay. Am I ready to read now? Yes. Just tell me what I'm supposed to read. This side right here. Okay. This is for agenda item 1A. An ordinance of the City of Denton annexing approximately 4 .7 acres of land generally located north of Ryan Road, west of Farm to Market Road 21 81, Teasley Lane, and Lake Forest, Good Samaritan Village, and east of Country Club Road, more specifically described in Exhibit A and illustrated in Exhibit B, providing for a correction to the city map to include the annex lands, providing for a savings clause and effective date. And that is the ordinance, I believe, is what I just read. Is that correct? Yes. The substantive part of the ordinance. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. So there's more action to be taken on this agenda item, so we will now just sort of close this agenda item and it will come forward for other consideration at some other meeting. The second meeting is scheduled for May 16th. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Now we will -- well, we've got concluding items. We'll go ahead and go through concluding items. Any concluding items? Yes. I have a question and follow-up to one of my original requests. We got a staff report in our backup about the gas well inspectors. I asked how many that we had, and so we just currently have one, but we have room for four. My question follow-up to that is do we have plans to hire more in the future? Yes. I'm currently meeting with our development services director on moving forward on that plan with the level of service needs to be. And I know that's also been a question, is should we expand the scope, keep it as it currently is? And so we will have a plan back to you very shortly. Thank you. But there's no intention to reduce the four. Okay. Anybody else? I've got one so -- anybody else? Joey, you got a concluding item? Councilmember Hawkins? I do not. Okay. All right. The only one -- I drove this because of a call from a constituent. The intersection of Granada and Ryan Road, there's -- and I don't know what our ordinances are as far as the trimming of hedges that may sort of prove to be a sort of a site issue. In other words, as you're trying to look around to see if someone's coming. So if somebody could just check out the intersection of Granada and Ryan Road. I think it says you're on Granada trying to turn -- there's a hill there, and it's just -- if there's something that can be done, great. If not, understand that. I just wanted to get that checked out because of a public safety issue. Any other questions on our concluding items? Seeing none, then we will -- I guess we can adjourn our open meeting. And then we will convene in closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.071. It is now 4.05 on Tuesday, April the 11th, 2017. So as we --