May 23, 2017 City Council on 2017-05-23 2:00 PM

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] First time ever that I've changed council and I put the name in. >> Mm-hm. >> The changes, but it's gone through a little problem. >> Yeah, well, you would. [BLANK_AUDIO] Talking to me? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes, I'm going home. All right, I'll be back. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Good afternoon everyone, wanted to welcome you to this meeting of the Denton City Council. It is Tuesday, May the 23rd, 2007. We're gonna go down our agenda, citizen comments on consent agenda items. We have one card, Mr. Willie Hutsmith. You'll come forward, state your name and address, your time will begin. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mayor and council members, my name is Willie Hutsmith, I live at 623 Newton. My son mouthed off to me, so I put him in my trunk. He won't be here today. >> [LAUGH] >> I'm sorry, did I say that? >> [LAUGH] >> Watch it when he comes in. >> Please. >> He's gonna look funny. >> Okay, all right, one, D, who are we renting the vans from? I think that needs to be discussed. Maybe it's another backup, I need to start looking at that. Who are we renting the vans from? E, when and where are these payment markers going to be placed? I think you need to talk about that. F, are there any blacks or Hispanics being considered for the position that are open here? [SOUND] >> This guy. >> [LAUGH] >> We got another trouble. >> [LAUGH] >> I didn't know that. Anyway, G, blacks, Hispanics, or any of them, named here, that be it. H, let's see, what? I don't know what, just discussion, openly. And that's it. How about that, Mayor? >> Thank you for your efficiency. We will get these questions answered. Yes, Councilmember Gregory. >> Thank you, Mayor. On consent agenda item G, we're amending a contract for janitorial services, but only to September 30th. And so my question was, are we looking at opening that up for another request for proposals at that time? Did we just run out of funds before the contract was up? What's the deal? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Hello, my name's Karen Smith. I'm the interim purchasing manager. We're extending the contract to allow us to go back out to the market for an RFP. >> Okay. >> Mm-hm. >> That's what I needed to know. >> All right. >> Mayor, on item H, I understand that several have asked for that to be pulled for individual consideration. >> Which one? >> H. >> H, yes. >> I would ask that the staff, when we do that for individual consideration at the meeting, that we get a presentation from the staff explaining a little bit of the history, it's all in the back out. But especially what the consequences may be if we try to appeal to the commission. What the experience has shown in the past on that. >> Okay. >> That's all from me, Mayor. >> All right. >> I was just gonna remind about H. >> Okay. >> Any others? Yes, Council member Ryan. >> I have a question on item C on the consent agenda. We're given an hourly rate and a total for three years. Is there any kind of breakdown as to when we expect to use that? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> This is for fleet services? >> Yes. >> Terry Cater, the fleet services superintendent. >> Basically, this gives us spending authority as needed. We don't have any equipment down right now, but it will allow us to have that vendor provide the service for us in cases. We have quite a few pieces of Komatsu construction equipment at this point. And we don't have the authority to spend that kind of money , so. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yes, Council member Hatsbett. >> Thank you, Mayor. While he's there, on that particular item, there is not a breakout for what their hours are. It lists the, well, two things. On the proposal, I think it reads maximum 120 hours. >> Yes, sir. >> And then the pricing sheet is different. >> Well, it's maximum $120 per hour. I'm sorry. >> Right. And so when they list 140 after hours and those sort of things? >> Yeah, the after hour rate is not on the buy board sheet. The buy board is what they bid their normal hourly rate at. So that's in addition to the buy board sheet. If we were to call them out after hours, which normally we wouldn't do that, it would be during their normal service hours. So we would get that 120 rate. On the rate sheet, they quoted everything that they do, even though we may not have a need for those services. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> I do have one, a couple questions on the agenda item D on the park vans, the rental vans. >> Hello, I'm Delia Williams from Parks and Recreation. >> Yep, and mine's more along just the economic side of it. And that is, this is something we do ongoing. We do these summer camps and things every summer. >> Yes, sir. >> So I'm sure somewhere down the line we've run the analysis of if we were to buy vans, and I know we only use them during the summer. Maybe there's some other opportunity to partner with some other agencies or something like that. Has that been ever considered? >> Yes, sir. We have the operation and maintenance that it would take to have that van in fleet for the year. Does it make sense fiscally? >> Yeah, okay, good. All right. Thank you. >> And to answer Mr. Hutzpeth's question, it's CAPS truck and it's CAPS rental car, Inc. >> Right. Is this a, because I know when I read the backup, because of the under age, the under 25 driver, that's what really precluded a larger number of submissions? >> That is correct. >> Is the price that we're paying for the CAPS contract similar to the other ones or is it a little bit higher because of the under 25? >> We actually got a better deal this year with CAPS. Last year we were not able, they refused to go into a contract with us, so we just, a three year contract. >> Right. >> So we actually were surprised that they were willing to do a three year contract or up to a three year contract this year and they gave us a better price. >> Okay, good. Council Member Briggs. >> On this, is this the same as last year or the time before when we renewed, there wasn't an RFP issue, this was just who we were working with? >> Mm-hm. They, like I said, they would not go into a three year contract with us, so they were a sole source provider last year. The hit that we took, Enterprise used to rent our van, be our van vendor from 2013 through 2015. They had a couple of lawsuits, not anything due to us, and so nationally they changed their policy to where if you're between the ages of 21 through 24, you can only rent an economy car through a full size vehicle, no vans. >> Okay, great. Yes. >> I'm curious, how do we stagger the drivers or the camps? Is there not a way to stagger it such that all the vans are not being used simultaneously? And is there not a number of people older than 25 that can be tasked with being drivers? >> So 90 to 95% of our staff, summer staff, are under the age of 25. We get a lot of college kiddos that come in and work our summer camps. And then in regards to the camps, it's a high volume. We have camps at Dena, MLK, McMath, and then over at the Civic Center. Last year there were over 3,100 registrants, so it's a very big program. We do actually use a charter bus one time a week for one of the camps for their field trips, because there's just no way we could get all of those kids. We would need even more vans than what we already have. >> I have a question about what you just mentioned in response to Councilwoman Briggs. You said last year it was a sole source contract? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And so it was Enterprise last year? >> No, ma'am. It was still CAHPS. >> Okay. >> So from 2013 through '15, Enterprise was the vendor that we awarded the contract to. >> So there was an RFP in 2013? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> We just did it for one year. >> All right, I understand. And then this year there wasn't an RFP because you were renewing essentially the CAHPS? >> No, ma'am. Last year we put out an RFP and I actually have it queued up if anybody -- I have the presentation ready if you want to see that, if that would help. >> I won't, yeah. >> But the RFP went out. Nobody bid on that. So then we reached back out to the different vendors. CAHPS was willing to enter into just a contract for just that summer season and not do the three years. And so we went with CAHPS last year as a sole source provider. >> Okay. That helps me. >> Okay. >> Any other questions on the agenda? Clarifications on the agenda? Yes. >> This is on items for individual consideration 6A. I had noticed in the exhibit A there is a -- the word "feet " is missing after the 8.05. And I had sent out an email and I was wondering if staff had prepared a replacement for us to use. >> Which item is it? 6A? >> 6A. >> 6A. >> Paragraph 4 of exhibit A. >> Mayor, councilman Ryan, we did receive that email. We'll make sure that the ordinance that's going to be presented to you will have that correction. >> Okay. All right. Anything else? We will then move on to our work session items. Work session reports 3A. Receive a funding recommendation report from the community development advisory committee and the human services advisory committee. >> Mayor and members of the council, as stated, this -- the community development advisory committee and the human services advisory committee are going to present their recommendations for 2017-18 funding programs. I do want to comment these -- these recommendations will be part of the city's 2017 action plan for housing and community development. This is basically our application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the community development block grant, better known as CDBG, and the home investment partnerships program grants. The problem this year is although Congress and the administration have passed a budget, which does include funding for both these programs at last year's level, we still have not received information from HUD regarding what our exact allocation will be. It may be a little bit higher. It may be a little bit lower, depending on communities that meet the 50,000 population threshold and join in or drop out for one reason or another . So what we've included in our documents and in our advertisements is if there is a small percentage decrease or increase, that we would decrease or increase the programs by that amount so that we can go ahead and submit it. We will provide that information to council in an informal staff report, and if there is any concern regarding those percentages, then we will come back to council with some additional recommendations. Yes. Real quick question. Just a general question before we get on to the specific recommendations. Real briefly, probably just in a couple sentences, when we have these recommendations for the specific organizations, at what point do those funds, for better lack of a word, I'm going to say become vested in that, or if something happens during the course of the year with that organization or the city determine, how do we handle changes in circumstances and things like that, especially if it's what we're submitting as a sort of a hard copy and a plan to the federal government? Is there any flexibility with that, or how does that work? Yes, there is, and Danny Schar, Human Services Coordinator, is here as well as we have staff that work with homeowners on the housing projects and things like that. If it appears, we're working with them very closely, and if it appears that funds are not going to be spent, then we will work with them to give the city those funds back and reallocate them to another organization or another program. We do track it. They do have funding agreements if they're outside organizations, and so we work with them very closely. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, I think it's, if you have a nonprofit that's allocated funding, and let's say there's a material change of circumstances in that nonprofit during this funding year that makes that funding allocation seem inefficient or just not pal atable, what happens in that case? And we have done that before. It would vary on the source, so if the two funding sources for a Human Services Advisory grant are specifically your CDBG and General Fund, so if it 's CDBG, then we would review that situation, ask them to provide a written documentation back to us about expenditures or how they might plan to spend those funds, and if we need to reallocate, then we would have to make a presentation to you and you would have to approve those. But if it's General Fund, we typically take it back to the Human Services Advisory Committee, and then they make recommendations for reallocation of those funds, because we've taken them back in a couple of situations in my tenure in five years, just small amounts where... Sure, okay. So there's a process? Yeah, there's a process that goes through the Advisory Committee to make recommendations for reallocation. Okay. And if there's a small amount, we would definitely just move that over to an organization that needs it. Okay. Having served on the Human Services Advisory Committee for four years, let me share with you a little more in depth about that. The committee gets an enormous packet that makes our packets look rather paltry, because they're looking at each one of the applicants and all of their information, including a statement that it has to be updated each year from an accountant regarding their review, the financial review that's done. And there have been times when some of the organizations that have been applying for money have been in conditions of concern. Challenging conditions. They've had challenges. And those are all... You would be delighted to see the depth into which those are vetted by that committee and the considerations that are made as to whether or not this is worthy of continuing funding or not. Well, and I appreciate that. I think what I'm saying is if you've gone through the funding recommendation process, in other words, you've vetted it all, and let's say six months from now, something happens. And one of the organizations is we go, "Oh, wait a minute. Are we going to write this check? And is it going to be money well spent?" That's what I'm really saying. Is there some flexibility in that? And is... Yeah. And just as a clarifying on that point, we're actually a reimbursement grant. So the organization has to implement the services before they're even reimbursed for the funding. And we monitor that monthly to make sure they're meeting the performance requirements. So we see how frequently they're not requesting funds or they're not spending funds and all kinds of different nuances, including reporting their performances related to their governance. So we receive board minutes and all those kinds of things almost monthly for every organization. That's very helpful. Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. And I would also... Go ahead. I would also point out that the action plan, approval of the action plan will be presented to council on June 6th. That does not include the general fund dollars that will be going to human services. That will be reviewed during the regular budgetary process. So the action plan is just for the federal funds. And so I would like to thank our committee chairs for being here today. Larry Varns with the Community Development Advisory Committee will present those recommendations. And Cheryl English with the Chair of the Human Services Advisory Committee will present their recommendations. Larry, let's see. Let's see if I can get this. I'm obviously not Cheryl. We actually flipped the coins to who was going to go first. And we're going to have to do that. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And I'm going to go ahead and, you know, somehow I lost. You know, here I am. And I can't get the... Look here. Okay. You're right. I don't know why I'm looking at the screen. There you go. This is my fourth year on the committee, having served as chair for three of those years. But as any of you know, the chairman sometimes gets the credit, but all the work is done by the committee. So I'd like to recognize, well, I don't think anybody is here today, recognize Saketra Chambers, Mary Beth Cunningham, Barbara Gailey, Valda Morgan, Ann Patterson, Kayla Stewart, Jody Vickers-Nance, Randy Skinner, my co-chairman, for all of the help that they've given over the process to come to the recommendations that you'll see here today. Also Barbara and her staff is so helpful to us and is absolutely the queen of minute takers. If you've read her minutes, they are 100% accurate, 100% complete. And if I had a decent memory, I would tell you that indeed she captured everything. We were... This year, we kind of came together not knowing a lot of things. We didn't know what our budget was going to be. I think that the community itself, despite our tremendous outreach for public forums, for advertising, for everything else, the applications were actually down this year. Why that occurred, we really don't know because we are very actively looking for outreach to make sure that all of the needs of the community are covered and that any organization who needs help gets the assistance to fill out the applications and that they meet the deadlines and so that the committee can oversee the alloc ations of funds. As Barbara said, our 2017-18 funding request was basically the same as it was last year because we didn't know, you know, what to expect. As usual, we came up short. We came up short of about $284,000 as to what was requested . So when we enter this process, we have each of the committees who apply for funds come and present to the committee, present their program, what they need, a little bit about their structure, give us the assurance that indeed that they will be there all year long and that indeed we are comfortable that indeed that this is a valid request. Also it gives us information as to what the funds are going to be used for. Now while these funds come to this community, you know, through the federal government, we still have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that they're spent correctly. So that is what we spend about three different meetings going over. The people for this year, as you can see on the screen, that applied on a timely basis was the Denton Affordable Housing Corporation, which is a return applicant, Fair Oaks Senior Housing Complex, Habitat for Humanity, Home Improvement Program, Home Buyer Assistance Program, a new one this year for us, but I guess a program that was in existence several years ago and has now come back that I'll talk about in a little bit more detail in a moment, and the Minor Repair Program. In total, they requested $1,279,288. What you see then is that we were able to fund $995,000 of those dollars in terms of what was available. The way that we budget is zero-based. We basically are going to spend all of the money. There are programs that we can either fund on a 100% basis or we can fund partially. As part of the interview, the committee actually gets into as to how you're going to spend those dollars, and if we are not able to allocate 100% to your organization, where would you cut and how would those dollars be spent, so that we have an ability to determine how those dollars get allocated. As you can see from the chart that's up here, a number of those allocations are at 100% of the request. Others are less than 100% of the request. When you look at going down the list of Denton Affordable Housing Corporation, we believe that indeed that they are a very needy organization. We believe that the $56,950 that they are requesting is a valid expenditure, so we said, "Okay, we're going to fund that one totally." We're also going to fund what Fair Oaks Senior Housing Complex asked for, 105,338. That is primarily around fire safety. This was an issue that indeed we thought was quite important. Sometimes if you're going to enhance your kitchen just because it'll look better cosmetically, that takes less of a priority than if indeed you have a situation where you're actually replacing fire pumps and plumbing that will enhance the fire safety of the complex. We felt that Fair Oaks Senior Housing Complex was deserving of complete funding. Habitat for Humanity Housing Project, as you see, they requested 190,000. We're recommending out of the home project funds that we fund 56,726. That's less than one house. We tried to fund a whole house rather than just part of it. In our discussions around Habitat for Humanity, we determined that indeed of all of these programs they had the greatest capacity to raise funds on their own. Yet indeed that they were not totally reliant upon this program. While we felt that it was a very admirable program, it feels a need of the community in terms of prioritization because we had to somehow get our $1,279,000 down to $995,582. I wonder why we came up with $1,279,238, not $237 or $236. But there's a degree of implied accuracy here that I don't think really exists because how do you break up and make sure you're going to spend $1 here or $1 there? But we felt that Habitat for Humanity had the capacity to raise their own funds. The Home Improvement Program, we could fund partially out of the home project or bucket I guess, bucket of dollars and part of it out of CDB G funds. We split that up and it was therefore then totally funded at the, well except for $382 and again that was a last minute balancing act. The Home Buyers Assistance Program at $69,000, we felt there again. There was a deed, it's a good program. It has been one that we've funded over the years and so we funded that in its entirety. The Infill New Construction Housing is a program as I understand it and I was not involved in the committee when it was around. But this is basically going out finding land and building a house. And this was predicated upon and the reason that this program was re-initiated and Barbara step up if I say this incorrectly. But was there is a real dearth of affordable housing, affordable being affordable for the city programs to go out and buy. And so therefore the inventory available to us for housing support programs is somewhat limited. And therefore we're looking for lots, fill it in and build a couple of houses. Well basically $300,000 was going to build two houses. We wanted to fund one house to see if indeed this program was going to work again. And so in priorities of things and one of the ways that we do prioritize how many families is the allocation of the dollars going to impact. In this case it was only two. But by the same token we realized from the presentation that was given to us that this may be a very important program in the future. And so this $150,000 is a little bit of an investment to see how this program works. The minor repair program we funded in its entirety. And as you can see then we spent the $995,562. A lot of our discussion and we had long discussions. This is a very hard working committee. Jared, you and I worked on this committee what, two years ago? >> It all runs together but thereabouts, yes. >> [LAUGH] >> We really do have a spirited discussion over allocation of these monies. We take it very seriously and we feel that indeed that the recommendation that we have for you today is the right recommendation. As Barbara said, if indeed we get more money, the committee has agreed that we will then allocate that proportionally on a percentage basis as we have outlined it here. If we get less money, we'll take on a proportionate basis back as we've outlined it here. >> Councilmember Briggs had a question. >> On the infill new construction, so the $150,000, that is just for the home, not for the land as well, right? >> My understanding is that's for the whole property, the land and the home. >> And the home. >> And the problem being is that if we went out to buy that property for home buyer assistance, for example, we can't find very many $150,000 homes. >> Right. >> I mean, for the reality of the marketplace. That's my understanding as to why this was re-initiated. Is that correct, Barbara? >> I think it's great. So I was just trying to understand. >> Yes. >> So for $300,000, that included two homes. >> Two homes. >> And the land that they sit on. >> Two homes, yes. >> Okay. >> And my understanding is the property has already been purchased . Is that correct? >> No, that's not correct. >> We're still looking for it? >> Yes, we would look for vacant lots that are more affordable. Actually, in the past, we've even looked at foreclosed lots and contacted city, county, school district to see about wa iving the taxes that we're doing on those lots in order to build affordable housing and have someone in it who will be in paying taxes again. So we will be looking for lots that will fit the program. >> I'm glad to see it come back. >> Mayor Pro Tem, you had a question for- >> For Barbara, yes. Sorry. >> Don't go away. >> [LAUGH] >> Don't go away. >> I figured Chairman Barnes would rather you answer these questions. >> [LAUGH] >> Okay, so regarding the two questions. The home buyer assistance program. So I was looking at the rules for the home buyer assistance program and it's for purchases of homes up to $180,000. Is that correct? >> Yes, we've had to increase it in the last few years. >> Well, that was gonna be kind of the direction that I'm headed in, which is I don't think there are homes really available for that price anymore. I mean, I just did a quick search and I saw four in the whole city. So I'm wondering, in the past, when I was on Human Services Committee, we always had the five year, ten year past history of funding. So do we know how the home buyer assistance program has been able to perform regarding the price points that we're talking about? >> Well, I think you probably know Louisa Rodriguez Garcia and she manages that program for us. And she's the one who moved it up to a 180,000. It was previously 150,000 over the past year. And she works with the realtors. She works with the families and the individuals that are looking for housing. So that was her suggested range where we would be able to assist some people. And she's very knowledgeable in that area. >> So it's not a CDBG, like federal HUD requirement or something. It's something that we handle internally as kind of just a strategic matter. >> Correct, and if it happened that the funds could not be used, we would go back to the committee and either try to increase that amount or recommend allocation of the funds to another program. >> And then last year, were all of the home buyer assistance funds utilized? >> No, that's why the request is small this year, because we still have funds from previous years. >> So do those prior funds go into reserve with y'all or do they get rolled into these funds? How does that work? >> They are still under the home buyer assistance program and will be rolled in with these funds. >> And then we have a time specific that indeed the funds needed to be spent by, as I understand it, the funds need to be gotten back. But Barbara and her staff really manage that very closely. >> So then what is the, I guess what is the total amount of money that's available in the home buyer assistance program at this time? If we approve the 69,000 recommendation. >> I don't have that number, but my guess would be it's probably around 80,000 that we have. So 140,000, 150,000. >> Okay, and you don't know how much we used last year, but you'll find out. >> It was not a lot last year because of the housing, the price of housing going up in our limit was. >> I imagine nobody qualified because of those limits. >> The application was talking about helping home ownership opportunities with closing costs, down payment with incomes of less than 80% of the area medium. So this money, this specific money is not for the house. >> No, I understand, but there's program guidelines. So one of the guidelines is that the house can't be over $ 180,000. So that's what I was kind of getting at is are we too narrowly focused in terms of the program to actually get the money out there? >> Well, and again, that's an increase based on the experience in the program and what people are looking at and what they can afford. >> Understood, sorry, I have a second, that was one question. Second question. >> No problem. >> No, that's three questions. >> Okay, so I have the same kind of line of questioning as it relates to the infill new construction housing. So that is a new or a revive program. >> New program, yes. >> A new program. And we've never done this before. >> No, I'm sorry, we did do it. You said several years ago, I should probably say many years ago. We had an infill housing program, yes. >> Okay, and obviously the home improvement program that's been ongoing for some time and the minor repair program has also been ongoing for some time. >> Very long time, yes. >> My only request would be if in the future or maybe when this comes up again, if we can get something in the backup that shows some historical amounts and what the total funds available for these programs are, I think that would help put it in context. >> We can provide that information to you along with the action plan information for review and approval. >> Okay, thank you. >> The committee actually does get that data. We get past monies that have been allocated to each of these organizations. So that's part of our consideration as well. >> Question, have we done an analysis on, because on the home buyer assistance program, I think one of the qualifications was 80% of median household income. >> 80% or below, yes. >> Well, have we done an analysis where by, because what's happening is our home prices are going up. Our median income isn't necessarily going up as quickly. And when you take 80% of, is it the county median or is it the Dallas Fort Worth region median income? And if so, do we know what that is? >> No, it's the Denton area median income, yes. Because if someone's at 80%, forget lower than that, if they're at 80%, could they even qualify from an underwriting perspective on a mortgage for $180,000 home? That's the, because you're looking at maybe 80% is $40,000 a year or something like that and could- >> One minute. >> Ms. Garcia has had people who've qualified and who've actually bid on a housing unit, but someone else has put in a higher bid. >> It's crazy market right now. >> So they have qualified and they have evidently, they do have to go to a mortgage lender and be qualified. But unfortunately they haven't been able to, because the cap was 150,000, they couldn't bid. >> Right, right, and plus they're gone by the time you get around to it. Okay, good, that's good to know. Thank you. >> Any two other questions? You said you had three? >> No, no, she had three. She had four basically. Councilmember Briggs. >> Following up on something you said earlier, you said the ones with the lower amounts more than likely have money left over that have been rolled in. So on the minor repair program, and especially the home improvement program, where that amount is so much more, is it likely that those funds were completely used up? >> I believe we are currently, I believe we have two or three housing projects ongoing right now. And there will be almost nothing left from the home improvement program budget, yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I would add to that, that those are the two programs that our committee feel, over my tenure, provide the greatest impact to the community on dollars spent for the number of people. Because both of those programs impact the entire community. There are neighborhoods that are impacted by these two programs. And that a dollar spent here might impact somebody down here who's not even in the program, in terms of improving the looks and the feel of our community. >> Did you have another question? >> Just a follow up to that. So would replacing a roof be part of a home improvement program part or, and then, okay. >> As long as, the cap is $5,000, so as long as it was, the repairs were $5,000 or less. >> And like a minor repair would be replacing an AC unit or something like that? >> AC unit, hot water heater. >> Okay. >> Those kinds of things. >> Great, thank you. >> Any other questions? Thank you so much for y'all's hard work because these are great programs and they do help a lot of people in our community. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Let's see if I can do this right this time. Miss Cheryl English, Danny, excuse me, Miss Shaw. >> Hello, my name is Cheryl English and I'm the chair of the Human Service Advisory Committee. And I don't see any of our other board members here, but I 'd like to thank them for their service. Most of you all have a packet. You already have a packet in front of you for our recommendations. So let me just start by saying that the most vulnerable people in our community are families and individuals with low income, children, domestic violence, sexual assault victims, homeless people, seniors, and persons without access to basic healthcare to need help providing basic needs for themselves and their families. The number of citizens seeking assistance from our community organization continues to increase. As available funding sources have been dramatically reduced or risk of being eliminated altogether. Our city social service agencies are facing a greater number of citizens in need with fewer available resources. The Human Services Advisory Committee was appointed by you, the city council, to encourage an understanding of the needs of our vulnerable neighbors and recommend actions including funding to help our community serve those in the greatest need. Our priorities of service needs were obtained from the United Way, Denton County's community needs assessments, results of public hearings and caucus groups during the development of Denton's consolidated plan for housing and community development for 2015 through 19 community. So our priorities are housing, homelessness, shelters, assisted living, affordable utilities, education, and early childhood development, health and mental health care. Driven by the needs of residents, funding considerations for the committee included targeted support of childcare programs and healthcare services and the collective impact the efforts around homelessness and housing through the impressive work of the Denton County Homelessness Leadership Team. We also evaluate the impact of a program versus dollar committed, the number of city of Denton residents served, and the rate of duplication of services. So our process and tools submitted applications were reviewed by staff for completeness and accuracy and the Human Services Advisory Committee members then individually reviewed each application. We have a scoring system and each applicant made a brief presentation before the committee and one of four scheduled presentation hearings. After request of the committee, staff provided additional data, reports, and in some cases additional information was collected from all applicants. After this comprehensive review process was completed, the committee met to finalize recommendations for funding based on the agency's ability to address identified needs in the community. So our recommendations, we had 19 agencies submitted applications to fund 23 programs. And 17 agencies and 21 of the programs are being recommended for funding. That is 623,085 in total request, recommending 439,300 in funding. We had six serve children youth applications that we funded . Two volunteer programs that support the needs of other non- profits. One senior program, three healthcare programs, one disability program, and six housing, homelessness, emergency service, housing, and homelessness prevention. We had one new agency for funding. We had nine agencies receive increases in funding. One currently funded agency was not recommended. We had six receive level funding, four receive decreases, and we had one special recommendation and the requesting agency , Giving Hope Inc, not met the demands of HMIS service provision in the prior two funding years. So HMIS application request from the agency was not funded, but the Human Services Advisory Committee does see the vital importance of HMIS for coordinated entry and it recommends that $18,000 of funding be allocated so that HMIS and coordinated entry is supported in alignment with the Denton County homelessness leadership's team's strategic plan. The Human Services Advisory Committee is recommending the $ 18,000 be set aside to be used at the discretion of the Denton County Homeless Leadership Team to award under the following conditions. The funds be awarded to enhance community collaboration around coordinated entry implementation in the community. Specifically, funds are to be used to produce the outcome of better HMIS data quality and data that supports identifying vital information about our community's homeless housing and housing stability needs. Our final consideration, the committee holds itself accountable to generate reasonable recommendations that demonstrate responsible stewardship while assisting as many of Denton's most vulnerable to help them gain independence and success. In 2003, 2004, more than a decade ago, general funding for human services was at its highest level at $290,295. Over the following two years, that funding was reduced to just $100,000 in 2005, 2006. There has been an annual consensus among the Human Services Advisory Committee members to recommend a path to restore funding to human services in order to meet the social service needs of our growing community. In 2016, we finally reached the level of funding with city council approving $280,000 of general funds. We are recommending that general funds increase be in alignment with the overall community need as well as with responsible annual increases will adjust for population growth. The 2017-18 recommendation for funding of just over 307,000 funding from the general fund represents an estimated $2.26 per capita based on a simple estimation of 3% population growth annually since the last census. Thank you for your consideration. Yes, sir. Quick question. City of Denton Parks and Recreation, what is that funding? That is our after school program, their summer program. That funds 56 kids to go to summer camp for free and their summer camp program. So if we didn't do it out of CDBG, we just do it out of the general fund or that would be that would be a budgetary question. Then it would necessarily need to come through the Human Services Advisory Committee at that point. We do allocate the CDBG funds on purpose to that program because otherwise it's general fund neutral, but just be the program asking you for that. Right. Okay. I have a question about the way the general fund is. Is that, does that come to us as a supplemental in the budget or is that already in there? It's already. So if they want, if the request is to increase it, would that. You just got to come on up. Don't stand back there and be shy. So typically what we've done is we've brought forward an overall recommendation from the committee to the council and the council has either endorsed that or made some modifications to it. And then we would bring that forward through the budget process. Two to three years ago, we had a discussion with the council about the level of funding that we had as Cheryl was pointing out, it was a hundred thousand a few years ago and we've been trying to increase that over time. And so we had a policy discussion with the council about increasing that typically not been shown as a supplemental to answer your question. It's been more of a global conversation about the committee 's work. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Anybody else? Any other questions? Yes. Do we have a plan for who is going to take over the function that had been done by hope? The H M I S. Do we have a candidate to do that? Yes. Utilizing the Denton County homeless leadership team structure with the back home support of the United way, we're looking to see that go through a process of funding allocated to the appropriate organization. So there's still be additional process of determining who it would go to specifically, but we're setting aside the funds because that can get done. Right. The, the data work group and then the human services advisory committee looked at all those different recommendations and really said H M I S was important to the community, making sure we address this problem of homelessness. So making sure it was still funded, but trying to find a mechanism that would fund it, that would be supportive of the entire collaboration and then we'll hear back later on your recommendation about that. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And if it could, Danny, just real briefly, because the H M I S is really critical in, and the path that we're trying to achieve from a federal funding and state funding perspective. In other words, that's one of the key factors that they're looking at and they're wanting everybody to sort of migrate to for the data collection. And is that correct? The federal government, anyone who receives federal funding , so for our CDBG grant or for any of our ESG grants, if we receive those again, H M I S is required, so we have to have it for those organizations. But the work we've been able to accomplish with the homeless leadership team recently has really helped us bring more organizations to the table. So we're getting richer data around what's happening in the community than we ever have because more of those people are embracing that. So it would be great to continue to see that funding support that so we could get all of those agencies serving homelessness reporting into that. So we have good data, which then improves our efficiency, which then improves that we're spending our money in a much more efficient manner. Right. Right. It's going to improve our system and how we deliver programs and services significantly if we can get everybody getting that data back to us. And it'll also give us really rich gap analysis to know what's the real housing need in the community, which we haven't been able to provide yet. Great. All right. Yes, ma'am. Pro Tem. I just wanted to tell Cheryl, thank you, because how many years have you been on the human services? We were trying not to even go there. Well, I was trying to compliment you. It's over six. I'll just say that. I was trying to tell you and tell everybody how much work Cheryl has put into this particular committee. I mean, it's a ton of work and the knowledge that she has about all of these organizations at this point is a tremendous asset to the city. So thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else have a question? Comment? Cheryl, thank you very much. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you. Is it, is that it? That's presentation. Okay. All right. Any other questions on that? And thank you all so much for your leadership. I know those are tough decisions. Uh, we've got a lot of needs in the community and appreciate you stepping up and really helping us out and figuring out how to best spend those funds that we get. Thank you so much. And thank all the committee members. Agenda item three B, receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the use of the Prescott property at US 380 and Virginia street, which is currently owned by Denton municipal elect. Okay. Good afternoon. Mark Nelson, director of transportation. Appreciate the opportunity to come before you this afternoon. Um, staff has presented this particular item. Um, let's get this pulled up. Has a presented this particular items a couple of three times to, uh, full council and then, uh, as well as to the mobility committee, at least with DCTA. So, um, this is a location, uh, there on the northeast corner of loop 288 and us 380, uh, dent municipal electric bought the property, um, in 2016, uh, for their, uh, for transmission line. And so, um, had to buy, uh, the entire 10.9 acre. They're, uh, not utilizing the entire location. Um, they had a, they had a proposal brought to them in terms of, uh, maybe selling, uh, the property or remainder of the track, which they're not using. Um, and prior to engaging in those discussions, staff wanted to bring that forward to, to council, uh, as there's some other strategic or long term potential for that, uh, not only, uh, with a couple of different city departments, but, uh, potentially, um, DCTA. So essentially that a staff is bringing this, uh, this item back, uh, for direction, um, and we've outlined a number of, uh, different scenarios that council may, uh, want to consider, uh, and advance. So, um, where the fire department came, came in, uh, to this, they wanted to see if they could reserve, uh, approximately two to two and a half acres, essentially for strategic planning, uh, future need of, uh, uh, reducing the response time in Northeast Denton and, uh, reducing some of the service gaps that currently exist as well as then addressing, uh, future, future growth in the area as part of that, uh, staff had outlined, uh, the opportunity that, um, with that particular proposed station , uh, there might be a, uh, a secondary office in there for police, for the police department, where, whereby, uh, officers might be able to, uh, fill out routine reports, uh, download their, um, body cameras, those sorts of things. So they did not have to come all the way back to, um, the main police station. The parks department had identified that as a potential opportunity to, uh, further advance the, uh, 2009 trail master plan and just, uh, was looking at a small portion of that, roughly about a quarter acre, um, sliver of that particular, uh, tract on the north, generally north, north central, uh, portion of the track, again, placing a trailhead, um, as you see here, um, it would compliment, uh, not only the, uh, the trail master plan, but also the existing, uh, bike plan. We've got bike route on old north and that would connect to the Windsor road bike lane that then could, uh, circle out to the north, uh, northwest part of town. I think there was some questions early on whether what the schedule was on that particular, uh, project again, it's, uh, it's unfunded and, uh, we do not necessarily have a schedule for that as it is unfunded, but , uh, again, just as strategic planning opportunity. DCTA, uh, approached, uh, city staff and, um, has indicated a desire or a potential for that particular, uh, track, uh, to work and partner with, uh, the city if, if, if conditions are right. Uh, essentially looking at a three mile, uh, extension of their existing, uh, a train commuter service that, uh, currently stops in downtown Denton, uh, noting that the particular tract is on the correct side of the track in terms of if there was an extension where they would have their particular or where they would have their infrastructure, their station, their rail platform. Again, they were looking at it as a potential to address future growth, not only here in the city, uh, but as well as, uh, uh, to the north and, uh, east of, of our community and essentially looking at it as a potential, um, move of the end of line station out of downtown, uh, to, um, maybe to a less congested area, to, uh, the Northeast. Again, what they were referencing is it, it, um, might be able to assist them with some of the parking constraints in the downtown area, uh, as well as working with, uh, TWU as an interim, uh, location for future or expanded service to that, uh, to that agency. So what we've done, uh, kind of try to break it up into smaller, um, bites here and take a look at the different options. So scenario one, as we've outlined here is, is simply selling the entire, uh, property or, or a majority thereof, uh, some of the issues there might be, uh, utilities, uh, uh, the utility constraints in terms of the, uh, encumbrances with the, uh, uh, the easements through that. Not only do we have some overhead, we also have some, uh, underground water utilities, water, wastewater, uh, but then the floodplain generally on the north and the easterly side of the tract, and then simply the access to 380, though it's right there, uh, does not have direct access to 380. So looking at this, we had worked with a, uh, local, uh, D ASTA, local real estate, um, uh, expert to come in and take a look at that. So we're looking at the upland and floodplain area, maybe a blended at three and a half dollars a square foot. If it was just really the upland area, uh, which would be the more desirable area, you might, uh, might see a larger value per square foot and then just pulling out a really the, uh, tax, uh, city of Denton tax revenue would be roughly right at 8,900, uh, that did not go in and take into account, uh, any of the other taxing jurisdictions. Scenario two would really be maintaining the entire, uh, track for, uh, for future use again, back to the use for, uh, public safety, uh, parks and recreation as a trailhead and then working with DCTA on the use of that particular site. Um, a sale of that, uh, or exchange of property, however that may play out. Scenario three, uh, maintaining two to two and a half, I'm sorry, um, would be, uh, selling off the frontage area, the front portion of the, or the southerly portion of the property, uh, roughly about two and a half acre to the fronts, uh, closer to us three 80. Um, and then, uh, maintaining roughly two, two and a half acres for the fire department and then the trailhead. And then scenario four would just be to delay the discussion at this point in time, um, and take a look at what the market or what the, uh, what the public needs may be, uh, 18 to 24 months out. So again, uh, really what, um, wanted to bring this particular item back. There was quite a few questions. We've tried to present, uh, most of that, uh, information, uh, in the backup. And, um, you know, at the end of the day, it's really a, uh , strategic planning discussion as to, uh, what course the council may wish to take on this. Um, I would like to say that we have, um, representatives from DCTA here that may be able to answer any detailed questions you have. And certainly we have representatives from, um, the, uh, the other departments, fire department, uh, planning, uh, as well as the, uh, parks department. Questions. Oh, we'll start here and then we'll go to mayor protein. Would you bring up the final it's in the backup? It's the floodplain map. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Mark, can you go to full screen on that? Is that possible? Don't worry. I don't know it any, my apologies. And we do have a representative from Tignall and Perkins here as well. That may be able to answer more detailed question. I had pressed hard for an engineering study, so I really appreciate their engineering study and pictures worth a thousand words . The pink is a hundred year floodplain so that if you move the picture up, just, other way. Okay. So it's a huge portion of the piece of property that we're talking about. And the engineering study talked about, well, we could come in and change the floodplain. We could bring it in a lot of fill, try to make it usable, but it also is going to fly in the face of FEMA rules and core of engineer , um, guidelines. And floodplains are there for a reason. And so my caution to council is to really study the map and you have a clear copy on your desk right now where the colors are brilliant in terms of what's pink and what isn't pink. And I think you'll see when you study that piece of property, that there is a much smaller portion of the property that I would consider prime real estate or usable property. So with that, um, in mind, priority for me is public safety . Priority for me would be two acres for, uh, land banking for the fire department because as the city grows, you're going to have to add to the fire and ambulance services that we have in this city. And if you wait until you need it, the cost can be astronomical to try to purchase not just a piece of land, but a piece of land that is adjacent to major, um, arteries of transportation, which means those fire trucks can be out in seconds and beyond at major artery. And of course, this, this piece of property is on three 80 so you can pull out and be east or west. And then from there, hook onto other, uh, arterial roadways to get you where you need to be. My point is I strongly believe that we need to land bank for the fire department because our police department now has the body cams. Of course, they have to download the body cams at the end of their shift, which means that currently they have to come back to the police station and download that body cam. So as we grow and as we expand the discussion that we've had in this room is that as we add fire stations, that we also have a hub, um, a satellite for the police department for one of a hundred public safety reasons, but also for them to download those body cams. It also means that we have a police station in that part of town. As we build that fire station, um, based on population need , it means we're going to have a population need for the police department as well. We also have a responsibility to our citizens in terms of our parks and our, our, this trailhead location, I think is ideal and there, it's not a big ask. It's 0.2 acres. So it's a small ask, but I think it's important. Ask same thing. Is it funded? No, but it can be land banked again for future planning for the parks department. I know that DCTA very much wants to have, um, also land bank some, some property, but the last presentation that we saw from DCTA had an ocean of asphalt, um, that would cover this floodplain. My personal opinion is that bringing that much asphalt onto a floodplain, um, is just not the way the city should plan. I understand DCTA's passion and expansion. I also understand that you work with what you have and what you have is this map. And to take all of this and just fill it in, um, I think is not the wisest thing for the city to do, especially when it's the city. Aren't we the people who establish the rules and encourage developers to play by the rules? Of course we are. So when a developer comes and they have an ETJ and they make an ask to put in a bunch of fill and make a swap. You know, we take long and hard look at that to, to grant some kind of exception. So as a city, I think it sets the wrong example. I think it sends the wrong message to say, let's take this huge floodplain and just fill it in so that we can have five acres for DCTA and additional parking. I also think it's a stretch to say this is going to help parking in downtown. I'm sorry. I just can't get from A to B on that one. People are going to park downtown so they can walk to a restaurant. They can walk to the square and all the activities that go on downtown. So that is not an argument that's in my book. Um, so to summarize, I don't approve of filling that whole huge area marked in yellow. I totally approve of land banking for the fire department and I totally approve for land banking for the trailhead. Thank you. Council member Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. I would support scenario two, which is for us to hold onto the property for all three purposes. We can work out the details of how that all fits later. Um, there is, I think that we would get more people parking to use DCTA A train at that location than we are at Med Park simply because people know where 380 is. They know where Luke 288 is. That's at the intersection. People will be driving down the road and they can see that parking lot. And they'll know that that's where they can get on. And, uh, that's a, that's a very valuable piece of property for that reason that it's in the right spot for DCTA. If they decide not to use it, then we can use it for other purposes or we could sell it at a later time. You know, it is easy for the city to sell a piece of property. Uh, it is hard. It's quite difficult for us to buy a piece of property. And, uh, while we have it, I think that we should hold on to it. And I think that the staff has come up with some great options for how to use that. And I agree with Mrs. Wasney about the issue of public safety and having that available for a future fire station. Thanks. Mayor Putnam. I have a question, two questions, which one is kind of an cillary, but related to council member Wasney's statement about the PD satellite office. Can, can we get just an informal staff report about why we 're not able to like upload body cam videos into the cloud or why we can't do it remotely or if somebody knows the answer to that. Cause it's really, I'm having trouble grasping why someone would have to go to a physical location to upload digital data. I can certainly have something put together for you. Okay. Thank you. And then regarding this in particular, have a question. So on scenario two, it says public safety is two acres, DC TA is five acres, parks and rec is 0.2 acres, that's 7.2 acres. The entire site is 10.6 acres. What, what am I missing here in terms of why we can't sell the frontage and have our public purposes on the site? Depending on the total, the total size of the track and then the floodplain encumbrances on that. So if the theory was is the front two, two and a half acres would be for the fire station and the front two. Correct. Okay. So if we have the Southern most, the kind of fronts more closely to a three 80. So essentially the fire station is incompatible with having any type of sale of the frontage is what you're saying. No, ma'am. No, it wouldn't. So that would be scenario three. If, if we sold the front two and a half to three acres up front, then it would push the fire station towards a little bit further on the backside for public use as well as maintain use for the trailhead. What it would do is it would not allow them the requisite four to five acres that, that DCTA would prefer in terms of their model parking area. So is the four or five acres required or, I mean, can DCTA function with a smaller amount of acreage or let me put it another way. Do we have to sell the front 2.5 acres? Can't we sell the front 1.5 acres or the front one acre? We can certainly, we can certainly carve up that property and sell frontage however the council would like. What we're trying to do is basically respond to your engineering questions, mixed use questions. We knew that you had a question about putting in a tax roll . I think what Mark is trying to say is that any of those options are possible. Okay. So I guess I'm, I'm angling for a scenario, what four, five , a scenario five. Sure. Because it seems like we can put some of the frontage back on the tax rolls, which will have a tremendous value for us. That's probably going to be about two, two million on the tax rolls of taxable value if it's just the front one acre. And that can fund public safety and other improvements later on through taxes. And we can also have a trailhead. We could have public safety needs met. We could have perhaps some DCTA needs met. I guess I'm just not seeing why we can't have it all. Yes. Thank you, mayor. I have a series of questions across all departments. So you, you know, I'll let you guide me, but first I guess foremost, the trail pathing, I don't know if it's already set, but my, the fact that it doesn't include the natatorium or kind of go anywhere closer to that is concerning for me just because I want to promote that area as, as often as possible, just because I think it's a great area. We have the skate park there, the natatorium, this, I mean, so I think anything that doesn't loop that in, in that area is going to, I'm going to ask that question, to how realistic is it for that trail to go across the railroad tracks? I'm understanding that, right? The, the properties on one side and I mean, across that, that, that to me, be a huge cost. I mean, you're talking about a bridge that can, a train can go under. You either have to take a look at, either going either underneath, underneath the existing rail line or try to go over that. That would be a, that would be a, a determination made at a later date. I don't know and don't believe that the UP would allow an at grade crossing there. Right. So that to me is problematic, just general. And that was my understanding, but I wanted to confirm. And then for the fire department, I'm curious, one in and out on 380 at that close to the intersection to there's no, there's a median there. So if you needed to go never eat West, you're, you're okay. But you to go to go East, you've got to, you, you got to make the block, right? To come back around or am I missing something? There's a, it's a little ways up though. Why don't we ask our assistant chief to answer that question. And then there's a media there. Yeah. All right. Today, council member has, if there is a curb cut there, so we wouldn't be able to access the Eastern portion of 380 from Virginia and that was the intent. That's a perfect location because you do have the really four major directions. You can go East, West, North and South all within a private quarter of a mile. Okay. But so no concern. Maybe I leave intersections different than everybody else, but that close to the red light at 380, you're accelerating and a fire truck is coming out a block. I mean, it doesn't to me, it gives me concern, but maybe I 'm just off a bit. But so if you're stopped at underneath the, the, just the side of the bridge or the back end of the bridge, if you will, you're going straight towards that intersection that gives you not, it's not far. If, if a truck, if, if a fire trucks need to come out and you just left the red light, it just seems like it's pretty close that intersection for us being as, as busy as that, that's three lanes and there's a turn lane there as well. But that gives you no pause. You are, there's concerns, any type there's traffic, but we do have traffic mechanisms that can be installed. Some type of yellow warning light that can be activated when the units leave the station that will actually give a heads up to oncoming traffic. But I mean, big thing is line of sight. How far we have buildings set back on our exit out of the stations as well. So we can see them and they can see us as well. Okay. Thank you. If I may. Sure. Thank you, sir. Uh, and then lastly in my mind, I just think all that's developing around three 80 corridor, I don't know that that's the first thing I want someone to see when they really get into the city of Denton. I just, I think the value to council member, but Gary's point is, uh, I say three 80, but I think, um, it's, there's a lot of value in that spot being the first, as you're coming to university drive, that's, that's kind of the first place you'll see it coming under the bridge. And I don't know that we don't want to realize that value. Uh, and then you answered my question about the getting over the tracks. And I think, yeah, thank you council member one, one quick, um, comment on that. Again, these are conceptual with the, with the parks planning, um, document with the master plan. So, you know, oftentimes we use these to, to work with, uh, partnering agencies, maybe a council of government to seek, um, partnership funding. Okay. Thank you. Council member Briggs and council member Ryan. So I guess my greatest, um, I don't really want to fill in the floodplain with five acres of concrete. That's my biggest concern. Um, Med park, they, they built a giant parking lot there and overbuilt. It's too big. Now they want to break it up and sell it and trees were cut down and we can't really go back. Um, that's my, my biggest concern. I think it's great that DCTA wants to expand. I'd like having, um, that maybe in, in the future. Um, but the, the parking lot is a big concern, the size of it. Um, also to council member Hutzpeth, the person or the development that wanted to go into that area was a gas station. So I'm not sure the value that that place is on the, that we heard before. That was one of the, um, I guess, developments that wanted to go in. I don't know if that's like the face of the city that you want to go in that spot, but if it is development, there's not much we can do to control what goes there and, and what doesn't, um, as far as commercial goes. Um, I would like to hold onto it for now. Um, if we did want to sell the front part, I would like to hold on to the, to the back, to the flood plain. I don't want to make any exceptions for the, for the ESA. Currently I'm not, um, I haven't really studied this map so much, so I'm not prepared to do that right now. Kiss me. Right. Thank you. I'm going to kind of piggyback on councilman Husspeth's concerns. When I look at the map, it looks like most likely the only curb cut we will get would be on Virginia access in and out of the site would be from there. Uh, based on what I've seen throughout the city on text dot probably would never allow us to actually have a red light there. We might be able to caution light, but no red light. And if we're looking at DCTA as a parking facility, we're looking at this as a relatively high volume at certain hours plus emergency vehicles in and out. I don't necessarily see this as, as the best purpose for this. I think I would like to go with scenario four, uh, to hold onto it for future use. But at the same time, I would like, uh, staff to start working on putting together an actual map of what the city has in, you know, in property throughout the area so that we can see, okay, we've got 10 acres here, but maybe we've got seven acres here that would serve the purpose better when we're looking to try and decide on, on what might fit into what area. And that's basically why I'd want to go with scenario four until we have that information. I want to make this easy. Yes, sir. All right. What I'm hearing is there's a lot of different perspectives . You're wanting direction on what we do with this right now. We don't do anything with it. We keep it where we are. We've got questions about values. I've got questions about DCTA expansion and the costs associated that and the needs and all kinds of things. So, uh, I think it's, we keep it in our, in our wheelhouse for right now. I know that on the value as commercial real estate from a tax revenue perspective, mayor pro tem, you'd mentioned a $2 million value. Let's say if we sold the front and somehow we got a $2 million value. That's $13,600 tax revenue to the city. So while that is $13,600, we still have to go. Well, if we were to go out and buy land somewhere else to land bank for a fire station or for a police station or for whatever else use we may use this for, I think it's, it's going to probably cut. So I think it's whatever scenario it is, it's a delay and not delay in the sense of just forget about it, but a little bit more detailed information on what's available and certainly I think from my perspective with, uh, and I know DCTA had a presentation and I've talked with them on several occasions about, you know, my thoughts on this. So I think there's going to be a lot more detailed information that will be needed from that perspective. Um, uh, so yeah, I mean, sounds like scenario four is, uh, is the one we're looking at with some analysis of the different questions that have been raised here today. Yes. Uh, I appreciate the feedback. Um, I think we're getting closer, uh, in terms of understanding everyone's concerns. Council member Ryan, to your, to your question, we are actually starting to work on an inventory of all the city properties as well as what might be a, um, um, you know, another viable alternative out there. I know that you'd asked also for certain response time data . And so we're putting that together. It would seem to me that the, the way to kind of move this forward down the road, um, uh, would be to do at least do some preliminary engineering, uh, as combined with, uh, with the market analysis as well. And, and that can probably answer the questions. I think the floodplain and the parking issues are big ones. Um, we can certainly do that next time we bring it back and if the council's not comfortable with it, we'll remove it off as an option. Um, but if we can answer some of those questions, it's very difficult to have this discussion, I think, uh, uh, without a solid engineering plan and what those engineering solutions might look like everything from controlling access on those roadways to, uh, to potentially, uh, you know, how do we treat the, uh, floodplain and the, and that wetland area respectfully. So we'll try to, we'll try to look at it and put together some options for you as well. Council member, council member Hudsbeth. Thank you, mayor. May I add to that, uh, a projection as the value, so let's project the value, uh, you know, two years out, three years out from that study, just to kind of understand the trend and, and if we hold onto it, all right , kind of what that window looks like. Absolutely. Sure. Yeah. Yeah, because I think that's critical. I mean, um, uh, this is a, I don't know what it is. What's it's own, what's the property zone commercial. So it's your own commercial, which means probably if we decided to sell, we're might not have very much control over what goes in there because they might be by right being able to develop by right. So, um, that, that would be problematic, especially if we wanted to sort of look at it as sort of a gateway to the city. We'd certainly want to be able to have some kind of control there, but delay it. Let's, uh, get a little bit more data. You know, it's not like we've got to do something tomorrow with this piece of property, so we have some time and we can do it, you know, careful study and analysis. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mark. All right, we'll move on to agenda item three C, which is receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding park turf maintenance and reforestation of parks. Get that fence up yet around the cemeteries. I'm just, see the city attorney's out of the, out of the thing. So he can't shake his paper at me. All right, Brian, you're going to have to, I don't know which one to hit. No, what I'm looking for. I'm not saying. Wow. I have exhausted all of my expertise at this point. Just like that. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. All right. Um, this presentation is, uh, in response to a request from council, for some information about our park mowing practices and, uh, reforestation, how those relate to reef natural reforestation in the parks . Um, we'll talk a little bit about, uh, the four class ifications, uh, that we use to identify our parks, talk a little bit about park inventory and use, um, a quick map, um, showing park property. There are, if you look real closely at this, there are a couple of spots on here. We, we are not responsible for the airport nor are we responsible for the clear Creek natural heritage center. Um, but kind of gives an idea of, of, um, the green space scattered around the city. You can see a, a very even distribution throughout the city . Um, we address our parks, excuse me, and the turf in those parks, which means the moe in those parks by four separate class ifications, a, b, c, and d class a turf. Um, the big differentiating factor here is that it's, um, irrigated. That turf is typically mowed 32 times a year, something in the area of 32 times a year, that means weekly. Um, in the case of our, well, you know, class a turf is typically the public buildings, the fire stations, our athletic fields, um, the athletic fields, um, we'll get mowed twice a week during the summer season, the busy season, playing season, um, they'll also typically get mowed once a week during the off season, um, because our athletic fields get overseated in the winter with ryegrass, um, to try to establish additional turf there. Is this city of Denton staff or is this contracted out all of the, the maintenance and mowing? The athletic fields are mowed by city staff. Most of the rest of the park and right of way, well, the park mowing is done by contract. Okay. So parks and recreation is responsible for 259 acres of class a turf. Class B is what you'd see in most of the neighborhood parks . It's non-irrigated turf. It's mowed 20 cycles annually. That's every other week. Um, this is what you'd see in the neighborhood parks and on the medians throughout the city. Um, responsible for 465 acres of that type of turf. Class C, this turf is typically mowed monthly. It's mowed with the, with the large equipment. Most of this mowing is done by in-house staff. Um, these are non-irrigated areas in the parks. Um, and a lot of this acreage is made up of rights of way throughout the city. Um, parks is responsible for maintaining those. This is the turf where this time of year, we usually get some call and some, some complaints. Um, we have a kind of a sensitive balance that we try to meet here. Um, these are the areas where you would typically see wild flowers. Um, and we try to hold off mowing wildflowers until the 1st of June or areas that had wildflowers in them until the 1st of June. Um, this gives them an opportunity to come up flower. The important part is set seed and disperse that seed so that there'll be a crop next year. Um, that's the part that most folks don't see and don't, aren't maybe as cognizant of. Um, so what they see is tall grass and in some cases they want it mowed. They want it mowed right now. So we have a balancing act that we do there. Um, with all the rights of way involved, we've got about 8 60 acres, um, that we maintain as class C turf. The final area, and this is where our two conversations intersect. Class D, D turf. This is the areas that are not mowed. Um, these are natural or undeveloped areas. Um, at the moment, our inventory is about 722 acres. Um, this may be acreage that we're holding. Um, an example would be the Southwest park. We have 200 acres down there, um, at the corner of all red road and Bonnie Bray, um, south of fire station seven on vintage. Um, at some point in the future that will become athletic fields. Um, and hopefully another recreation center and a bunch of more active, um, activities that will take place on that property. Um, right now we're just holding it. It does not get mowed. Matter of fact, other than running some cattle on that property, but, um, um, we are not, we are realizing a small amount of revenue from doing that actually. Um, so these are the areas, um, uh, like the core, you would see this in the, in the middle area at South lakes park, you would see this in the middle area at North lakes park, uh, a lot of our lake forest and cross timbers parks, um, are class D turf where they are never mowed. So when we talk about, uh, unnatural reforestation, which means, you know, acorns growing into mighty Oaks, this is the place, these are the places where that would take place. Question. Council member breaks. Could we add, um, natural ditches to this, to this area? Um, in Avondale, there's kind of like just a natural, I guess, um, ditch. It's not deep or anything. And at one time I was walking through and it was beautiful tall grasses and wildflowers just in this area. And then the next person, I guess, that came in, the one person left it to grow. And then the next person that came just mowed it all down. Um, so is it, is it up to the discretion of the person m owing to do that? Or is it policy? I mean, is there a way to add those to the non? The areas that I think you're referring to are the drain ways, the drainage ways. Um, parks is not responsible for mowing those. Um, that's handled by the folks in the drainage department. Um, so that's why it, I'm certainly it appeared to you that the first time we went through, we left them. That was probably the parks contractor going in and mowing the class B turf. And then at some point it was in a cycle with the drainage folks to come through and mow that ditch. Okay. That's good to know. So when you look at the, I'm sorry, I apologize. No, my fault. I mean, kind of dovetailing off of that, is there a way to integrate the conversation between drainage mowing and you know, whatever class of mowing we have at parks, because I know there have been some complaints about, you know, when drainage areas get either paved or cut down, it would be nice to have kind of an integrated conversation about how we manage those areas. Certainly. I think some of the thing that goes on with that, there's, isn't there a reason why the drainage areas are mowed from time to time? That's a question you're going to have to take up with the drainage folks. I'm sorry. My understanding was they get mowed in order to let the water flow so that we don't have flooding. And, and, and I fear that sometimes we, uh, wait so long to mow those. For example, there's a drainage area, uh, close to the intersection of Audra and Audra and, and Nottingham. Um, and now there are trees, probably two inches, an inch and a half in diameter that have grown up in that drainage area. And, um, and the water is not going to be able to flow through there. And it, and then when we go and mow and cut all those trees down, there's going to be an outcry of, oh my gosh, we're cutting all those trees down. But if we don't, then those trees are going to cause flooding. So we might just need to get a report on that. You're, you seem confused. Why would the trees cause flooding? I don't understand. Well, the report they'll explain. Okay. Um, in conclusion, I mean, I have half of the park inventory, uh, the acreage, um, at the moment is in class D turf or class D classification, I should say. Um, so, uh, I think we're making pretty good inroads and trying to keep things reforested and let the little ones grow into big ones. I'll stand for any questions. Sure. So, um, Mr. Voral's been really patient with me because I think I've emailed you a hundred times about mowing at North lakes park, so thank you publicly for dealing with me. Um, one of the things that concerned me about our mowing schedules on class C is we have like migratory patterns that go through here, monarchs, birds, et cetera. And from my perspective, it always seemed like we were m owing right as the migratory season started. And so one of the things, one of the reasons that I wanted to have this discussion as a council, as a policy was, you know, we spend a lot of money on keep that in beautiful and seed packets and all kinds of different things. When I feel like we might be able to achieve some of the results that we want just by shifting more property into class D space, but I think that's a policy discussion for all of us to have and to have it in the context of we're in a migratory pathway. So that's my comment. Yep. Um, piggybacking off on that, if there's any areas that, um, parks thinks that we can move those to, to have an updated report for us , um, on that, because when I'm looking at, um, the medians, I think, Oh, what beautiful that would be to have, you know, wildflowers instead of mowing them down, you know, certain, certain medians, um, because nobody's really going to walk through those on a daily basis. So they're not going to annoy anyone. They're not going to get tall enough to get in the way of, you know, vision. Or most of them won't. So it might be good for the, um, butterflies and beasts. Okay. We can look at that. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, mayor. I guess, could, could you bring me up to speed on the origin for the, the, the request, is it more tied to grass complaints or is it more, uh, spurring growth for trees? I just wanted to kind of better understand the original request better. If I'm missing something. So I think it was probably a month that I was on council. I got an angry constituent letter about mowing because it was right as soon as the wildflower season had started or it was mid wildflower season. So I started a conversation with Mr. Vorall about, you know, what parts of North Lake parks are class the different classes, I didn't know the classes at that time. So I was just trying to help a particular constituent that had asked me about, you know, our mowing policies, which then led me down a rabbit hole about, you know, drainage dishes and reforestation and kind of looking at things more holistically in terms of how much we spend on tree planting and et cetera, et cetera. So I'm trying to kind of integrate this into a larger holistic conversation about maybe we can achieve some of our goals by just changing how we mow things and how we do drainage. I also think we have to be really careful that we're not micromanaging. Um, the parks department does a stellar job on manicuring and taking care of our parks. So thank you for that. I know that it's hard sometimes just to keep up with my yard, let alone your job where you are keeping up with, um, the rapid growth of our city or our, the, the spaces that we have to mow, but also overseeing the contractors who work for us because, you know, they don't just head out there without supervision. You know, somebody is, so it's a mammoth responsibility and I get that. Uh, so I just want to be careful in terms of, you know, trying to micromanage your weekly monthly responsibility during the spring, summer, fall, when your, your crews and your contractors are out there. Um, it's, it's a tough job and I just want to say thank you for doing an excellent job. Thank you. Council member Riggs. Um, council member Hutsmith to your question also in, um, on our committee on the environment, this issue also came up because we're designated a beast city. And also the, um, migratory path for the monarchs. And so we just, and at the same time, uh, mayor pretend, but Gary asked. And so we just had a joint, uh, meeting here so everyone could take place instead of it coming to their first. And then, and then here, um, is another reason why it's on the agenda. Um, I do have a question regarding the contract labor. Has there been an analysis lately on the contract mowing versus staff? On the, um, is it just that it's so much that we don't have the amount of staff to do it? Yeah, there, we do not have, um, adequate staffing to do all of this mowing. We also find it's significantly more cost effective to go ahead and contract that out. There's a lot of competition. So, um, and it's seasonal too, right? Seasonal. So it works well. Okay. Thank you. We can try to keep a balance between in-house staff and, and contracting. Thanks. I'll just put a footnote whenever we get to a point where it leans more towards trees. I'd like to kind of have Hayward some kind of note or something from, from Hayward, from his position of being the arborist and once we, if the conversation ever kind of migrates more to trees or when we get to that point, just kind of as a footnote, I'd like to, when we have those instances, kind of have his input on, uh, his assessment, please. Thank you. So the caption says receive report, hold discussion and give staff direction. So what direction are you see? It sounds like we've heard about a list of, are there some that we can convert from class C to class D or something along those lines, um, drainage, you know, sort of incorporate, you know, how do we get a little bit more cohesive in that? Um, what else, what am I missing? Is that it? Um, if we can on the class C, again, with everybody's agreement, if we can kind of determine when we're mowing on the class C so that we don't interfere with the migratory patterns. Sure. And identifying what, because the migratory patterns are about specific kind of either vegetation or things such as that. Yeah. So, right. So if we know what is desirable for the Monarch butterfly, because we are that city and you know, TWU created a park that, that helps that . So we, I talked about that earlier. Um, does that give you direction? Do you sort of have an understanding of what, what we're sort of looking for and just trying to understand. I've got five acres and I will tell you it's, I can see it 's a challenge because I've let it grow. It gets two to three feet tall and grass, but also got some beautiful wildflowers. I like it. I'm the only one that sees it. But when you have a community of 130,000 people, some people's values and perceptions and ideas of beauty are different and it's very difficult sometimes to balance that. So I appreciate the, the, the challenge that it can be for the parks department. You get someone in this year with one thing, and then you get someone in the other year, the exact opposite. And I think it's good that we're discussing it so we can have some strong policies that you can then simply say, call your council person. Because that's the policy of the city. I'm writing that down. Yeah. Yeah. So, and that's really what we're looking for is to have enough policy standards and direction to where you, it's clear and you're not having to necessarily make all these decisions that you get five people on one end and five people on the other. So, and on the reforestation, which is interesting because I've thought that about my track, the thing is if you really want to reforest , especially from seedlings, you can't mow it at all because you can't determine which ones are the tree. I mean, you can, but you're not, unless you go stake them out and to where you know where they are. And then of course you've got the deer and other critters that come along and eat those saplings, but it's, it's challenge managing an urban forest per se and parkland. Well, and when we talk about migration too, it's not just monarch butterflies that migrate. We have a lot of birds that migrate through this area. Yes, sir. And in fact, I believe that federal law prohibits, uh, m owing and disturbing, uh, their habitat during migration. Is that correct? That is correct. Can you, can you expand on that any? So while, um, a migratory bird act of, uh, I think it's 19 12, um, that does exactly what you said. It, you and I remember when that passed, right? I thought this, I thought this, uh, work session item was almost done to yes, that question, but go ahead. But yes, to make it brief, it states exactly what the council members said that, uh, we can't disturb those nesting areas while those migratory birds are coming through. Yeah. I think we had that come up to North lakes. I think. Yes, sir. Yeah. Any other questions? So I want to make sure that you've got some clear direction because this conversation was really for, for you and your department to help, uh, uh, us share some of our thoughts and, and, and policy directions. Okay. Great. Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you, Emerson. Okay. Well, we will now, I don't think we have any more work session items. Uh, we will now convene, uh, in closed session at three 47 PM on May the 23rd, 2007. And we will convene to discuss, uh, and consider the following items, consultation with attorneys under Texas government code section five five, one point Oh seven one and deliberations regarding real property under Texas government code section five five one point Oh seven two. Okay. Okay. Good evening, everyone. Wanted to welcome you to this meeting of the Denton city council. We do have a quorum. It is Tuesday, May the 23rd, 2017, about six 30. Uh, our first item on the agenda is that our pledges to our flags and we have troop seven 55 here to help lead us in that working towards their citizenship badge. So if you gentlemen will come down front and lead us in the pledge to the American and the Texas flag. The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, invisible with what we're doing justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one and indivisible. Thank you all. Thank you for being here. Proclamation for mental health awareness month. Come on up. How are y'all doing? Well, once you introduce yourselves and just tell us a little bit about mental health awareness month. Thank you so much. I'm Pam Gutierrez. I'm the executive director of Denton County and make you more. Thank you very much for having us. Thank you all very much for having us tonight. I appreciate it very much. Um, we are very honored to be here. This is Beth, our mental health administrator, and we serve individuals that have developmental disabilities and individuals that have mental health issues in Denton County at our center. And, um, we just are so, so blessed and so honored to be here with you all tonight because you all know that, um, one in five individuals have a mental illness and it affects individuals every day and what we do at our center. So we're very honored that, uh, Mayor Watts has chosen to give us this proclamation, so thank you so much, sir. Thank y'all for so much what you do in our community. And I think Denton right now, sort of at the forefront of reimagining mental health services delivered to the citizens in his community. So thank you so much for your hard work and your commitment . Cause it's, it's, it's, um, it's hard work. It's a challenge and, uh, you've got a great, you guys have a big heart to do that. So it's my pleasure to do this because you stand there in the front lines, really help people that really need help. So thank you so much. And it's my honor to read this. This is a proclamation. Uh, whereas the citizen of Denton County understand that mental health is essential to everyone's overall health and wellbeing. And whereas the citizens of Denton County value their overall health and the wellbeing of their families and fellow citizens and are proud to support observances such as mental health month. And whereas one in five adults has a diagnosable mental health condition and the need for comprehensive coordinated mental health services for individuals and families has placed a critical responsibility upon our community. And whereas it is appropriate that a month should be set apart each year for the direction of our thoughts toward mental health education and the support of treatment and recovery. Whereas there's a strong body of research that's that supports specific tools that all Americans can use to better handle challenges and protect their overall health and wellbeing. And whereas Denton County MHMR center and the Denton County behavioral health leadership team through their unique partnership and approach to serving individuals is effectively caring for the mental health needs of those in our community. And whereas every citizen, local business school, government agency, healthcare provider and faith based organizations share the burden of mental health concerns and has a responsibility to promote mental mental wellness, recovery and support preventative measures of prevention efforts. Now, therefore I, Chris Watts, mayor of the city of Denton, Texas, do hereby declare and proclaim May 2017, the whole month as mental health awareness month in the city of Denton and urge all citizens to increase their awareness and understanding of mental health and the need for appropriate and accessible services for all people with mental health conditions. So thank you so much for what you do in our community. Thank you so much. Thank you. You bet. You bet. Okay. All right. Let me get to the agenda. Our next item on the agenda is presentation from members of the public. We did have a person who had signed up to speak a BC growth , but I believe it was, she was unable to make it this evening. So we'll go on to agenda item three C and if we could roll the presentations. The Denton city council has adopted rules of procedure, including a code of conduct, which applies to citizens as well as council members. These rules were enacted to promote an orderly process and to preserve decorum. Here is a brief review of the rules that apply to citizens' reports. Citizens will have four minutes to give a report. There will be an electronic beep when time has expired. If the remarks are not concluded by that time, the citizen will be asked to stop speaking. If the citizen does not cease and a second request is made, the mayor will request to have the citizen removed from the council chambers. Citizens are asked to not approach the dais. If a citizen has papers or other materials to hand out to the council, please let the city secretary know. And she will have a staff member distribute the materials to the council. The attorney general has ruled that council members may listen to citizens speak and may ask questions of citizens for clarification of the issue. Council members will not engage citizens in discussion of a topic because to do so could potentially be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. When speaking to the council, citizens are to direct all remarks and questions to the council as a whole and not to any individual member. Please refrain from making abusive, personal, impertinent, profane, or slanderous remarks. Anyone who violates this rule will immediately be removed from the council chambers. Citizens' adherence to these rules will help make an effective presentation and will preserve the order and decorum of our proceedings. Copies of the rules of procedure are available from the city secretary. Which is the additional citizen reports. We have three and we'll take them in this order. Mr. Mark Moffitt, Mr. Robert Donnelly, and Mr. Willie Hutzp eth. So Mr. Moffitt, if you could come down and your four minutes will begin once you state your name and address. Mark Moffitt, 2708 Crater Lake Lane, Denton, Texas. I request the document camera please. A couple weeks ago, a friend of mine, one of my neighbors, some of you all have met him, had an accident out at Hobson and Country Club Road. Pretty rough intersection out there. Would recommend looking at a traffic light out there, but that's not the point of the discussion tonight. Not injured, not a big deal, just a little fender bender. Called out Denton PD. Denton PD arrived, came out. Officer Jackson showed up. She was awesome. Have to commend Officer Jackson on that and the professionalism that she showed there in handling that incident that day. She did awesome. Absolutely a testimony to Chief Howell and everything he's doing over there. While we were filling out the report, all that kind of stuff, started looking at the police car that Officer Jackson showed up in. I don't know if you can see this closely or not. That's a bent out door. So I kept walking around. Those tires are bald. Bumpers busted up. Not a big deal, but rusted out hubcaps. And then there's the hood of one of the cruisers there. We may laugh at this. We may say, "Oh, you know, old cars," things like that. But I think the big issue here is that what it illustrates is that in the past, our public safety has not received the prioritization of funding that I think it needs. And what I would recommend over the next couple of months, the budget process is going to begin. There's going to be a lot of requests for funding, a lot of wants, a lot of needs are going to be presented. And I would ask, you know, here recently, a lot of the campaigns and a lot of the discussion in the public has revolved around these primary functions of the government there, of our city. Public safety, infrastructure, those primary functions of our city. And I think that my recommendation, my request to you all as a council in discussion with our city manager and our staff moving forward over the next couple of months when we talk about what are your priorities for this city, I would ask that public safety and infrastructure behind that be some of our top priorities and that we show and demonstrate when that budget is final ized that we value our public safety and we value our public infrastructure and we're committed to making an investment in those items there. So I would ask that you all consider that, make that request. Again, staff is going to come to you over the next couple of months, those of you that are new council members, experienced council members, they're going to say what are your priorities? And again, I would ask that you would respond, public safety, public infrastructure in that order. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Robert Donnelly, come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. And could I get the document camera also, please? And can you zoom in to... This area, do I need to move it? Can we zoom in on that? Can you keep moving? That's one little part is all I wanted to talk about. It might be all the way in. Is that it? That ought to do. Okay, thank you. My name is Robert Donnelly. I live at 3900 Quail Creek Road , Denton, Texas. And what started out to be an effort just to get the mobility plan changed has turned into an astounding case of either deception or incompetence by the city. It's... This area that I'm showing you, let me give you a little history so that you understand that I'm not just an angry resident that's up here because he didn't get his mobility plan changed immediately. In 2006, the mobility plan was changed to go through the center of my property. And that was based on where the city thought they were going to move Mayhill Road, I assume. And that's even though, in years prior to that, I sold them property at the existing Mayhill Road to widen it there. So from 2006... ...till 2010, in 2010, the city had a meeting and showed the preliminary design for Mayhill Road, at which point it did show, going through the middle of my property instead of along the eastern border... ...the land where I'd sold them. They were putting a 35- foot-high bridge in the middle of my property. I have a 19- acre track. So for 10 years, well, for four years up to this point... ...in 2010, we had a disagreement over price. So for the next five years, we argued, cussed, whatever. For five years during that time, the city sent me what I considered a fraudulent right of entry claim, which I spoke to council at that time. I understand most of y'all were probably not here. It claimed to give...the city would give me...hold me harmless in case their people got hurt. I understand that constitutionally, Texas Constitution is not available. But they sent it to me because I wouldn't sign the right of agreement. They also hired a drone operator to fly a drone over my property during this litigation from their eminent domain. I can only assume that was to do surveillance on me because Google Earth can give you about anything else you want. They just evidently wanted time. So in 2016, February, they dropped the case. They say, "We no longer want your property." So for 10 years, the mobility plan basically took my property out of the mix. I never had it for sale, didn't want to sell it, but I do want to get invited to the party if developers are out there paying lots of money. But the plan showed me cut in half with a 35-foot-high bridge. So after they told me they were no longer condem ning me and didn't need my property, I asked that it be changed. May of 2016, I sent the first email. September of 2016, I sent the entire council an email to try to get it changed. I got a response from a Jessica Rogers that it said it will be changed when its final revised plans are done. I thought the mobility plan was for the future development of things. After all, for 10 years with no plans in place, they didn't mind showing it, cutting across me where nobody would want my property. But now that the plans have been changed and you know it -- can I finish up? I'll do it very quickly. Very quickly. Sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought I had more time. Then in November, I spoke with the Acting City Manager and told him my problem. December the 8th, he sent me an email with this plan. Yeah, Mr. Donnelly, I've got to -- your time's up. Yeah, I apologize. No problem. I just don't want to -- I understand you can't ask questions, but I have where it shows that to date, your website still shows the mobility plan through the middle of my property. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Mr. Willie Hutsbeth. Mr. Hutsbeth, come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. Is it two or -- well, I've already called him, so we're just going to go with it. Yeah. Is it two? Yeah. All right. Mayor and councilmembers, I notice in the presentation before -- or the information that's presented beforehand, I know why -- is Bob Clifton still here? Why you came up with that, me and Bob. One of the things it says is you can't address you all negatively. So I'm going to address the whole council. This is to the person who is blood of my blood, bone of my bone, color of my daddy, and who looks like me. Oh, heck, let me just call her name. I'm going to call her Huts. Okay. I thought I'd just lighten up things for a little bit . No Sunday dinner for you, Gerard. You don't get to come over Sunday. I just wonder after reading Jeremiah, it's a book in the Bible that tells us how to do things and how to be. Jeremiah was a guy that's gloom and doom. All he talked about was negative, negative. Everybody's going to burn. Everybody's going to die. Kids are going to die. Just all the whole chapter, 60-something chapters, gloom and doom. Man, I sound like Jeremiah. I got to work on that. I don't want to be Jeremiah. He was making a point, which is if you don't do what God says, then you got to suffer the consequences. And he was talking about the consequences. So I'm going to try to give this plea in a way that I'm not gloom and doom. There's gloom and doom in it, but I don't mean it to be just really negative, too negative. After seeing what happened in England and those kids being killed, man, I've never had a child hurt like that, a grand child. I don't know what that feels like. That would just destroy me. So my little thing I'm finding out, this is not a big deal, my thing. Losing a child in that situation, that's a big thing. So take it in that light. This is one little part of what I want to say without gloom and doom, but I want to make the point. I have a question for you. It's the same one I keep asking. Why aren't there any African-American, well, only two African-American firefighters in the history of Denton? Why are there only two? And I ask that question without thinking what I think. I just want to know. Secondly, why is it that, here comes Jeremiah, we've got the money appropriated for a football field, soccer field in southeast Denton, and it's been there for a while and nothing's happening, but you voted several thousand dollars to do the tennis courts, or whatever, it's something to do with tennis, the person that trains the kids, the program itself. Well, there are not very many black people that play tennis . There are a few, but not very many. Lots of our kids play football. Fredmore Park doesn't have anything but very outdated playground equipment. Why would you build the football field? All it means is earthwork and grass, but it would mean a world of difference to those kids over there and me, who's trying to get them off the street. So the questions are firefighters, football field, and what was the other thing? Brain left. And don't remember. Well, those are the questions that I'm thinking about. Thank you. And as a reminder to the public, I made an error on the open mic. We are limited to two speakers, so since I called three, it didn't have any issue doing that. So just in the future. Yeah. So I apologize for that. That 's my error. Moving on to the consent agenda. Agenda item four. Council member Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of consent agenda items A through J as presented, except for item H, which we will be pulling for individual consideration. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval of the consent agenda, except for item H, which is being pulled for an item for individual consideration. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries seven zero. We will now consider consent agenda item H, which has been pulled for individual consideration, which is consider approval of a resolution by the city of Denton, approving a change in the rates of Atmos Energy Corporation Mid-Tex Division as a result of settlement between Atmos and the Atmos Texas municipalities. Do we have a staff presentation? We do. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Where is the view? That's where I was going. There we go. Larry Colester, Deputy City Attorney with the City Attorney 's Office. What I'm here to speak about this evening is the 2017 rate review mechanism. It's in response to the Atmos application for a base rate increase, the Atmos Energy Corporation Mid-Tex Division. You know, you move between Apple computers and Margaret. In 2004, Atmos Energy acquired the regulated distribution and pipeline operation from TXU, and that formed the Atmos Mid-Tex Division. Denton, as a city's regulatory authority, and it retains original jurisdiction over the rates, operations, and services within the city presented to the state's utility regulatory act. Denton participates in these gas rate cases as part of a coalition known as the Atmos Texas Municipalities. That will be referred to as the ATM in this presentation. The rate review mechanism was created as a collaboration between the ATM and other similar groups in Atmos that allowed the cities to participate in an expedited rate review process. And this is separate and apart from the legislatively constructed, it was called the Gas Reliability Infrast ructure, or GRIP. And the GRIP didn't allow for the cities to review the rate increases and really created a piecemeal, bounced around rate making process. What we have before us is Atmos this year applied for a system-wide base rate increase of $57.4 million. As shown on the slide, this equals to a base rate increase of 8.35%. This increase is to replace both aged infrastructure and construct new infrastructure for the increased growth that 's happening in this service area. And this comprises of, it's comprised of basically Austin North, and if you've driven down 35 or in Dallas recently, you'll see the growth that they're talking about. The ATM responded and had their consultants look at it. They calculated a base rate increase of 32.1 million. This information was provided by our consultant and outside council, Alfred Herrera, and Atmos disagreed with it. And to not have to go to an appeal before the Railroad Commission, they agreed to a system-wide base rate increase of 48 million. And this equals a base rate increase of about 7%. The group's options to Atmos' proposed base rate increase is to approve the full base rate increase, which is 57.4 million, deny the base rate increase outright, which will trigger an appeal by Atmos, approve a base rate increase of 32.1 million based on their consultants' evaluation, and again, that will trigger an appeal by Atmos, do nothing, which will in effect is a task and approval of the full base rate increase of 57 million, or accept the proposed base rate increase of 48 million. This avoids an appeal, and the steering committee of the group and the city's as part of this group are going to their councils to recommend this course of action. We do, Mr. Castle, we do have a question. Councilmember Br iggs, did you want to wait till the end of the presentation? Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead. Denton's options as a member of the ATM and on its own are, it includes all of the options that I previously discussed. The city could approve a base rate increase of 32.1 million based on the group's consultant, and this will again trigger an appeal by Atmos, but it will be against Denton only. The city can do nothing, which is in effect again an approval of the full base rate increase of 57 million, and that increase would apply to Denton only. They can accept the Atmos proposed base rate increase of 48 million. Again, that will avoid an appeal, and that's a recommended course of action by the ATM steering committee to the members. Let me go back. What you need to look closely at is the likely outcome of the financial impact of the appeal and the Denton rate payers, and that's what I understand you all to be mostly concerned about. The likely base rate increase outcome on appeal to the Rail road Commission would be between 48 million and 57 million, and this base rate increase would be applicable if it's the entire group that's appealing. That would obviously cover the ATM and Denton rate payers, and that would be between 7% to 8.35%. Now important to this is the cost of the appeal. The attorney's fees and experts for both sides are passed on to the rate payers. This is both Atmos fees and the ATM or the city's fees that Denton chose to appeal alone, and the total cost of appeal is estimated between 1.5 to 2.5 million. These figures have been confirmed by outside counsel who's participated in these processes for well over 20 years. What will happen is, this is regardless of whether you win or lose, and the cost of Denton rate payers would be, if it 's an appeal by the entire group, it costs the rate payers about $25 to $40, paid over 12 months, which would be a sur charge on the bill. If Denton goes it alone, the surcharge would be between $75 and $120, paid over 12 months, as a surcharge. Because the outcome in front of the Railroad Commission is likely going to be the amount that's been agreed to by the other groups already, it's likely not going to go below that. So Denton, in essence, could end up being where they're at with an agreement reached with the group, plus having the attorney's fees and costs passed on to the rate payers. Staff recommendation is, except as a member of the ATM, is to accept the Atmos proposed base rate increase of $48 million. I wanted to point out, talking with outside counsel and talking to Atmos about this, the last base rate increase case that came before the Railroad Commission that involved Atmos, Atmos received 98% of what they applied for. So in this case, that would be 98% of the $51.7 million. So the likelihood of Denton doing any better than $48 million is not high. And then you add on top of that the cost of the attorney's fees and expenses passed on to the customers, the rate pay ers. I talked to our outside counsel, he attempted to work with the ATM members before the legislative session. The best place to get something done would be down in Austin. Denton and about four other cities of this group responded that they were interested in finding a legislative solution to this. Nobody else wanted to, until the application was made, and it was too late. So Denton has done as much as it can to try to attempt to solve the problem. But going it alone, as you can see, there are financial implications that will impact the rate payers in this situation. And we find ourselves where we find ourselves. And just to remind my colleagues that we do have a card with the public wishing to speak. So I want to go ahead and recognize the questions. But Councilmember Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Collister, talk a little bit about either the exact or the approximate number of municipalities that are members of the ATM. I don't have the exact number, but they represent about 230 ,000 meters. And Denton has 20,000. So I think it's probably about 15 members. And what needs to also be understood is that another group that is represented by another law firm, to go along with your question, they agreed to this 48 million dollar number before we even had a chance to get involved in it. And they set the bar high. So of those 10 or so cities, and we have a history of about 10 years of these back and forth activities with Atmos. Generally speaking, when this coalition finally settles on a number that they can agree with, with Atmos, do most of the cities then go along with that? Or do we have occasions when they have not? There have been occasions. But again, if a city like you've read about Dallas, if Dallas steps out, they'll be going against Atmos by themselves. And there has not been, from my understanding, cities of this size that will step out to do that. And so then, and I've highlighted in my backup information the bullet point that you made on the next to the last slide, if you could go back, that win or lose, there is a cost to our ratepayers. Correct. You could win and say you get less than 48. But if it's $2.5 million in attorney's fees and costs, you 're going to have to get below probably 45 to where you come ahead. And based on past rate cases, the utilities don't lose in front of the Railroad Commission. And the rates have to do with, you said it at the very beginning, but remind us again, these rate increases have to do with replacing infrastructure? Correct. The base rate increase has to do with replacing both aging infrastructure and new infrastructure for the just increased explosion of growth we've had within their service area. It does not include the price of natural gas. The price of natural gas is a straight pass through to the customer. Okay. Thank you. No more questions. Council Member Pro Tem. You mentioned that the 48 million number was reached before . Did I understand that correctly? There was a second coalition that struck an agreement with them. So something different than the ATM coalition? There's another coalition of cities out there that ended up reaching an agreement with Atmos at 48 million. And because of that agreement out there, the Road Commission will in all likelihood not go beneath that. Since you've had a number of cities already agree to that. And so it's backed Denton into a corner and the ATM into a corner that, I mean, we've lost leverage at that point. Okay. How often can Atmos bring a rate case? This is the end of this current rate mechanism that we have , and we'll be negotiating a new agreement with them. We can either negotiate a new rate mechanism or we can go back to how it used to be under the statute, which is not having the ability to impact by direct participation the rates. So we would always have to go to the Railroad Commission? Yes. Okay. If there was an appeal. Okay. And then you also mentioned that utilities don't lose in front of the Railroad Commission, which I agree with you . I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you about that. However, I'd like to know beyond the most recent time that you mentioned that there was a 98% rate guarantee by the Railroad Commission or 98% of their ask was granted by the Railroad Commission. What are some other rate cases that have been brought that had either a similar or a different outcome than that 98%? That's the most recent one under the makeup of the Commission. I'd have to go back and find out others and I can find that out for you. Okay. Was it relatively recently? Do you know when it was? The last one was around 2013. Okay. So just sorry to circle back again. So another another group of negotiators arrived at the 48 million number. And because of that, the board of the ATM, which is the group that we are a part of, has determined that it's in our our group's interest to acquiesce to the 48 million number. Correct. The chess board has already been set in some ways. I mean, with the other group agreeing to that amount, it's almost set a floor for what Atmos would give for the Commission. Sure. And so, sorry, last question. With the consultant that we hired to arrive at that 30 something million dollar rate, what weight does that have in terms of, you know, if we were to end up in an appeal at the Railroad Commission? As you're familiar being a lawyer, it would be a battle of experts at that point. Thank you. All right. Seeing no more questions, at least at this time, I might hold nine for after public comment. We will now take public comment. We have one card wishing to speak on this item. Deb Armitar, if you'll come down, state your name and address. Your time will begin. Deb Armitar, 2003 Misty Wood Lane in Denton. I'm speaking to urge you to vote no on Atmos' requested rate increase. I urge you to stand with Dallas, who is bravely standing up to this artificial increase, which has no justification whatsoever besides as far as I can see and greed for more revenue to match Atmos' losses from the past year in natural gas. I see this as Atmos holding us hostage, not just us, but the other cities. There's no positive end to a no or a yes vote. Either way, as the lawyer just said, rates end up going up. As he said, the Railroad Commission consistently votes in favor of industry. We all know this. That's what they're for. I am a strong believer in not negotiating with terrorists and in taking a stand, because that is how history gets made and hostage situations like this end up changing, getting broken, and the power can come back to ultimately to the cities. I want to read a little history about this. This is from a Dallas Morning News article about Council member Philip Kingston, who, Dallas Councilmember Philip Kingston, who voted no to this and led the call against this in Dallas. Years ago, so this is from a Dallas Morning News article from last year, years ago Atmos would only ask for a rate increase every few years, but in 2003 the state ledged past what's known as the Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program, GRIP, which made it possible for utilities to ask for hikes without filing full rate cases. The state said that was supposed to expedite investment in infrastructure, which is the excuse that they're using, oh, we need new infrastructure for this and that. Again, like I said, please look at Atmos' annual report from this past year. You'll see that natural gas, that they lost roughly the amount of natural gas that they're asking us to make up for all of these cities in rate increases. But it also made it easier for companies to increase profits, and Atmos has taken full advantage of GRIP asking for significant rate increases year after year after year. The largest came in 2011 when Atmos filed for a $20 million increase. The city balked anyway, and they still ended up paying with a rate increase, but at least they balked. If we keep going along with it, we're negotiating with terrorists. And in answer to Sarah's question, it's my understanding At mos can and will keep asking for more rate increases every single year. This is wrong. Thank you. I've got a couple questions. Oh, Mayor Pro Tem. I can have sound effects every time. That was anyway. I have one question, sorry for Larry. Again, I apologize for bringing you back up here, Mr. Col ister. The $25 to $50 amount you mentioned, is that a monthly charge or is it paid out over 12 months on a ratepayers bill? The first one, if the entire ATM were to appeal, the 25 to 50 is an annual amount. And that's just based on 1.5 to 2.5 million divided by the number of meters represented by the group. If it didn't want to go in alone, then it would be between about the 75 to 125, 150 amount. Divided over 12 months? Yes. So it would be on the high end, it would be $10 a month. Okay. And then if, like, let's say Dallas or another city is also appealing, is it divided by the other cities or pr orated, I guess? Dallas is not a member of a group. That would be going it alone. But they would have -- you'd probably end up having a same or similar amount of fees, maybe not much over 3 million, but they're going to be dividing that by a whole lot. There would be more meters. So the net impact on the Dallas ratepayer would be less. I see. Okay. So it's an annual expense basically that's divided monthly. But correct. Thank you. You had mentioned that this is the final year under the current kind of rate setting mechanism. That's correct. This was the end of the -- so there's another one. When can they begin this next series of potential asks? We would have to just meet with them as the group and the other group to find out, you know, if they're going to do another rate review mechanism. Or -- and I would assume that everybody will want to do that. But there can be parameters set in that. And that will be -- it's really a discussion for another day. But it's coming up soon that we need to address that as we 're terminating -- as this agreement is coming to an end. So theoretically, we could enter into an agreement or we could sort of acquiesce to their desire to enter into agreement that begins next year. Another five-year cycle where they could come next year and ask for a rate increase another year. I struggle with this. I'll be honest with you. I mean, we've got experts that say it's $37 million. I certainly know that they do have aging infrastructure in the ground, which is dangerous. I mean, you have rusted pipes and things such as that. We need to be able to get that fixed. So there's no other -- so we don't have anywhere in the backup or anyone here that we know who all -- what cities are involved in this coalition with us? I was trying to get that information from Mr. Herrera this afternoon. Didn't receive it. And I'll provide that to you in legal status. When does this decision have to be made? We're preparing a legal status on that for Council in the next couple of weeks. And that decision is going to have to be made here probably this summer. I mean, what you're asking -- this agenda item is to approve this settlement? By May 31st. Which is next week? Correct. Okay. So if we don't approve it, then we either have to elect to fight it. If we don't do anything, it just goes in at $57 million. Correct. So question, though, you made a comment that if we go it alone and we lose, it could be the full amount that they were asking for, which only the ratepayers of Denton would be subject to whatever that rate calculates. I don't know how -- I'm sort of confused by that. Okay. If Denton were to take -- if Denton were to say we wanted to place a rate -- a base rate increase of $32.1 million, that would trigger an appeal then by Atmos. And they could go in and ask for their full amount under the application, $57.1 million. And if they get that $57.1 million, that amount is only going to be applied to Denton, not to everybody else in their service area. It would be prorated. I mean, they'd say -- I mean, because they only have 20,000 meters here, whatever their service plan is to replace so much infrastructure. We're not going to get charged $57 million. This is for the whole -- it's going to be carved out of what is Denton's portion of that. Correct. Where everybody else would be getting -- they'd be paying their share of $48 million, we're paying a share of $57 million, plus the added cost of the surcharge for the attorney's fees and expenses related to the appeal litigation. And I apologize for my colleagues, I've just got a couple of more questions. This other group that you mentioned, we know anything about that other group? I'm looking into that with our outside counsel. Because this doesn't make sense to me. Because why would we have a coalition to try to negotiate our own deal with Atmos, but yet when someone else negoti ates a deal with them and comes to an agreement, somehow we feel that we are held to that agreement or we're going to lose. There's just a lot going on there that this really isn't a negotiation. These aren't contract negotiations. These are -- I don't know what they are, but that's not really what I see it as when I hear that someone totally outside of our sphere of influence that for some reason we 're not having any contact with to be able to try to form a coalition of two maybe of these groups to have a little bit more bargaining power. And now we're sort of subject to or we feel that we're going to be subject to their agreement. That's sort of challenging for me to get my arms around. I've talked to our outside counsel about that very point along with -- I tend to talk to TML about it, as well as the Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility issues to have a more united front about this. And you're correct. And I found it strange. So the other members in our coalition -- member cities, have they all already determined what they are going to do? Based on my conversations with Mr. Herrera, yes. And that's to go with the 48 million. So we're the last ones to decide how we're going to handle this? I don't know whether or not that final action has been taken by the other cities, but they've all indicated to outside counsel that they're going along with that. And we're the only ones that haven't made -- indicated a decision to him one way or the other. And final question. Help me understand, when we're talking about apportioning attorney's fees both for -- at an appeals process, both for Atmos and both for, let's say, either us or our coalition combined, and that the rate payers eventually will pay for that whether -- no matter what the outcome is. Is that because those -- is that the law? Correct. That's the law. That the rate payers, no matter what the outcome is, will pay for the legal fees of adversarial parties at the Rail road Commission. Let's make a note of that for the next legislative session. Let's make a note of that for the next legislative session. It's a lawyer for employment bill. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem. Nice segue. Okay. I found some -- it's not for you, Mr. Collister, but I found some history of the Atmos rate cases under the GRIP program. And it's in the City of Bryan's backup. So in -- if you'll bear with me, it's actually very detailed and it's good information. In 2011, Atmos filed a request for an increase system-wide for 15.6 million. ATM and Atmos agreed to not increase to that rate and instead to give them 6.6 million. In 2012, they sought -- Atmos sought 49.1 million. We didn't agree with them. ATM is we. And then the Railroad Commission on appeal approved an increase of only half of that, of 24.1 million. In 2013, Atmos and ATM entered into an agreement for the RM and doesn't -- so Atmos had requested an increase to 22.7 million, which was 5%. And then it settled at about 3.7%, which is 16.6 million. 2014. So every year Atmos is requesting more and more money, like exponentially larger increases. So in 2014, they requested a system-wide increase of 45.6 million, which was double what they requested the prior year and represented a 9.2% increase. And our consultants at ATM said that they only were entitled to 26.6 million. And we ended up going to the RRC appeal and RRC, I think this is the one you're referring to, Larry, where they got 42.9 million. In 2015, they requested -- Atmos requested a system-wide increase of 28.7 million. This is in 2015, which was 5.6%. And the Railroad Commission gave them 23 million. Sorry, I'm getting through it. I just want to kind of give you a background, because it's all over the map. Like, I understand that in 2014, they got like 98%, but in some years, they're getting 50%. And it kind of seems to me, based on the history, that the more grabby they are with their rates, i.e., they're wanting 8 and 9% increases, the less likely they are to get the 8 or 9% increases. They're getting 5 or 6% increases on appeal. I mean, it's hard to know, because, as you mentioned, the Railroad Commissioners change over time. We don't know what the temperature is down there. I trust Herrera and their group to know the temperature. That said, I'm just not in a mood for them. So I'm not in favor of this at all, and I'd like to appeal it. Based on this history, I think we have a fighting chance, and it's worth it. -Councilmember Ryan. -Thank you, Mayor. I've got a question for Mr. Colester. If we were to go for something less than the 48, but not go as low as the 32, where we might be looking at possibly not having a fight, if we went in the 47, excuse me, 45 range, something like that, and they don't appeal, then the citizens of Denton are only subject to that lower rate as long as they don't appeal? Is that correct? -Correct. Well, what the city would have to do would approve basically a rate increase of whatever number you all come up with, and then Atmos would have time certain to do something about that, whether or not to appeal it or not. And just based on their history, as Councilmember Begarra just pointed out, the likelihood of their appeal in recent times will be, it'll happen. And so, but to answer your question, getting that we would, yes, Denton would just pay that reduced amount. -Okay. And prior to the other coalition coming up with the number of agreement with Atmos for $48 million, was there any way that the ATM was kind of swaying, thinking that they would go for something different, or have they been at that $48 million all along? -I don't know what the negotiations were prior to that, but I know that there were ongoing discussions, but once you had a similar sized coalition, the city is great at that. It's almost identical in size, and then you're placed in a really bad position leverage-wise. -Okay. And it's also my understanding that if Atmos appeals , that the ratepayers will begin to pay that rate upon their appeal, and then if, once the case is finalized, then they would be refunded if there was a refund due? -Correct. What Atmos would probably do is go ahead and apply the full increase that they're asking for to the community or communities that are appealing the base rate increase, and then depending on the outcome, it either stays that way or it gets reduced, and there will be a reduction. -What was the general feeling of the city staff when the $ 48 million came about? -I can only comment on the legal aspect of it. I'm not sure who'd comment upon the numbers on that. -Okay. I understand. That's it. -Councilmember Briggs. -Did the same situation happen last time we had these negotiations with this other coalition? -I couldn't answer that because I wasn't involved at that point. I can find out. -I'm just curious because I know that we've hired outside legal to negotiate for us, and if this other coalition is already deciding, then maybe we shouldn't, you know, if that's not working out for us that way, we should think about it again in the future. -Councilmember Gregory. -Mir Pro Tem, you were reading some information from Bryan College Station. You know, that same, those same history is in our backup. Yeah, it's page two and three of our backup. I just want to say that because our staff provided, I mean, I don't want it to sound like our staff did not give us a full bit of information because it's right there in the backup on the ACM report. -I was on the public backup. I'm on the public page, so I wasn't available publicly. -But here's what I'm thinking in terms of the discussion. Atmos said 57 million, the cities have agreed to 48 million , the chances of us getting less than 48 million from the Railroad Commission are probably zero, and why wouldn't they appeal if we have to pay for their legal fees? They will appeal. We're not going to get a better deal than 48 million, period. We're not going to get a better deal than 48 million. And I don't know what argument we would use given that so many other cities have already done that. I think I love the idea of a fight, but I generally like a fight that I have at least a snowball's chance of winning. And given the fact that there's, I don't see anything in the tea leaves that suggests that we would win, and surely they will appeal because they have nothing to lose, and our ratepayers get to pay for their fees. So I feel like it's, the system is certainly rigged against us. It's set up in Austin to do that. And Mayor, I agree with you that this needs to be part of our next legislative package. And I'm, in the meantime, I think that we really need to look at getting all of the cities involved in a coalition, one coalition, and for all of those cities to work with us on some legislative remedies, along with the Texas Municip al League. Councilmember Wasney. I see it as a real lose-lose. There just isn't a, there isn 't a win either way you go on this. There's just not a win. With 20,000 ratepayers, we're a small player in a very large field. And I think it gives us a small voice, not a powerful voice. I think it's a lesson to be learned that let Denton be the leader to go after these cities to try to form, because we really don't have a feel on who this other group of cities are. And every city is trying to take care of themselves, but there's power in numbers when you're dealing with somebody like Atmos. So, you know, I think moving forward, there has to be some movement for a coalition and talk to Austin and the representatives down there. This session is almost over. The next one will come up in two years, and we need to have a presentation ready to go with our consultants down there so that they understand that as a city, we're a pawn on a chessboard, a very small pawn. And what's the risk? The risk is that we get stuck with the 57 million. Do we try to hedge our bets and take the 48? Do we try to go for broke and appeal to a railroad commission who has never been kind to us? So, again, I think we're between a rock and a hard spot here, and I just don't see a positive win-win for these 20, 000 meters that we're talking about, all of whom live in our city. So it's just, it's frustrating to be an elected official and to feel powerless to kind of fight a big, not just At mos, but I'm blown away that another group of cities would just spin off and kind of do their thing and leave the rest of us hanging. So, just frustrating. Thank you. Councilmember Hutsbeth. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question, if you could, please. Thank you, sir. Just, can you bring me up to speed? If you 're giving me the pitch for ATM, and what is it they do for us? What is their market to denting there, or what are they advertising to us? This is what we bring to the table if you join our coalition. What is that? Can you give me an essence of what value they purport to provide? Well, it was to negotiate with Atmos and negotiate, hopefully, a lesser rate, base rate amount than they're asking annually for. And that's what this group has done, that's what another group is doing. And so I don't know how to differentiate between the ATM and the other group in terms of bargaining power with one over the other. If I may. Is there a fee we pay to be in this? We pay a prorata portion of the attorney's fees. And do they indicate, so when they're saying we're going to negotiate for you, do they indicate what they bring to the table? Why would we use them in their expertise? What is that? What is tangibly different, them negotiating versus us just hiring outside counsel that's familiar with Atmos and negotiating with Atmos? What is the value add to being in the coalition? Well, it would be reduced attorney's fees. There's going to be a prorata reduction. The city would be paying for that attorney by itself versus paying a prorata share of that attorney or firm as part of a group. Mayor Pro Tem? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify, you know, I'm really not pulling my fighting mood out of the air. Like in 2012, the Railroad Commission only gave Atmos half of their request at rate increase. So it's not for nothing. And I guess I just don't share the frustration because I don't feel like my hands are tied. We actually are a governing body and we can make a decision to move forward and it could give some weight to other cities who don't know if they want to move forward or not. We may be the people who compel other cities to move forward as well. So I think we need to take a lead in this and we're in a position to do it. So I don't consider this a lose-lose. I think there's definitely something to be gained from this. We've got a question, Mr. Collister, on the backup. And I guess my first question is, is this was this backup prepared by legal staff or who prepared this particular backup? You're talking about on the AIS? Yes. It was prepared by our office in conjunction with Mr. Herr era. Okay. So on page two, when it talks about the pending increase under RRM May 2017, sort of gives the factual background for where we are today. It says, and I quote, that they requested, "After review of ATMOS's application, the Railroad Commission's prior rul ings and ATMOS's response to requests for information submitted to ATMOS by ATM's special counsel and consultants . ATM's consultants concluded that the ATMOS merited an increase of about $32.1 million." Of course, that was presented to ATMOS and as we all know, basically they split it. They split the difference almost. I mean, a little bit more in their favor, but that's sort of a pretty common negotiation tactic. You're here, I'm here. Let's just split it and we'll move on down the road. "Of which ATMOS disagreed. Following negotiations with ATM OS, ATMOS agreed to an increase of $48 million." So the information about this new association or whatever we call it that agreed to the $48 million, that's obviously new, imported into this discussion outside of the AIS. And when I look at the, and help me understand on the backup, on the bill, you know, there's a chart in here about the cost to different. It shows customer class, current bill, proposed bill. Now is that what the $48 million rate increase? Correct. Okay. And so for residential customers, it shows that that if it goes from $52.78, I guess these are averages, to $54. 82, which is a difference of $2.04 a month. I believe these are monthly. Yeah. So I guess from the perspective of when we talk about that we negotiated with ATMOS and they came down to $48 million, was that before the other coalition agreed to the $48 million or did the other? After. We were negotiating after. I think our negotiations were going on at the same time, but they reached an agreement with the other group at $48. And I, from what I understand at that point, that really set the floor with what would happen for the railroad commission. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. We, any other questions for staff? I do have one question. Sorry, Mr. Callister. Trying to understand, get clarity of all the options available. If we decide just for discussion purposes that we will not agree to the settlement and in the end we have to quote unquote go out of the loan. Are those fees, how much have we paid in fees to date the coalition for our current fees? Do you have any idea? I don't have those numbers. Maybe you could get those to us in a formal staff report. That'd be great. So you're saying that if we go it alone, then this estimated, what was it, $2 million? $1.5 to $2.5 million. And that's everybody's. That's Atmos's. That's ours. That gets passed on to the consumer. Correct. Whereas if other cities pitch in of our coalition, let's say, some of them say, well, you know what, we're going to go with you guys. Then it lowers that. It's split out over more meters. Correct. Okay. And so the decision for us and the whole coalition, there has to be final approval by May 31st. I mean, help me understand this May 31st date. Is this just a date everybody's agreed on in the settlement proposal or is this some kind of statutory deadline? I understand that that's the final date or we have submitted to the $57.1 million. Based upon? Inaction. Is that is that statutorily prescribed? I'll need to get with Mr. Herrera on that and I can find that out. I'll try to find out this evening. Okay. So then if we decide to fight it, then we have to give them an election that we're going to fight you. We just can't not do anything or the $57 gets approved for the city of Denton pro ratted and we're not doing very well . Correct. But what the city would do then, I think would be one of the options is to approve a base rate increase of $ 32.1 million, which is what the ATM experts have out there. And then we're looking at the gap between $32 and $57. Or we could we pick a number outside of $32 million? Absolutely. Whatever you think it can be supported. And again, I mean, it's not automatic that APMAS would appeal, but just based on history. Sure. I understand. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Chair can't make any motion. So. Chair would enter Council member Gregory. Well, again, I'll say I think we've learned some lessons in terms of the current arrangement that we have with with our coalition and the other coalition is not a good arrangement . We need to get all those cities together in one group. I suspect that that might have to do with the fact that the other cities in the other group were wooed by one outside attorney and we were wooed by a different one. But but the two different groups that that's not helpful. The fact that a whole nother group has agreed to the $48 million doesn't bode well for us. I don't think that we get any lower. If this is the final week that we can do anything, the chances of us making a move to to say no and to go with the $32.1 that our consultant has advised. I suspect that we will be going at alone. I suspect that based on what we're hearing that it's going to cost our ratepayers in Denton between $1.5 and $2.5 million to go at alone. I am disinclined to obligate our ratepayers to that much money to for a fight that that does not seem at all likely to win. So I'm prepared to make a motion, but I punched in and let Councilmember Wasney speak before I make a motion. Councilmember Wasney. A question for staff please. So to Councilman Gregory's point with the attorney's fees, you mentioned a figure of high end $120 spread out over 12 months, which equals $10 a month per rate payer for attorney's fees. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you. Mr. Colister. Sorry, I'm sorry. I apologize. Making you run back and forth. Getting my steps in. So what does the difference between $57 million and $48 million or $32 million represent for a rate payer on their average bill? I don't have the financial calculations on the rates and I 'd have to go back and look at the backup. What I'm looking at are just the percentages at $57 million, it's 8.35%, at $32.1 it's 7%. Okay, so on $100 average bill we're looking at either $108 bill or $107 bill essentially or $106 bill if our consultant was their recommendation was approved. Okay, so one way or the other the rate payers are going to be paying more money. Correct. Correct. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ryan. Mr. Colister. Council, just stay up there. If we were to approve something in between, we negotiate, let's for the sake of our arguments, we went with $40 million. And we waited to see what Atmos decided to do, whether they decided to fight us. If they do fight us, would we later be able to potentially stop the legal fees if we then went to something that we could agree on with them? Can we kind of push down the road this decision that has to be made for the 31st or do we trigger something as of the 31st, whatever we agreed to is going to go into a court fight? A railroad commission fight. Let me answer I think what your first question is, is as with any litigation, there's always the opportunity to settle before there's a final determination by the judicial body that's hearing the action. So there would be that opportunity to settle with Atmos prior to final determination by the railroad commission. I think that answers the first part. And the second part, I 'm not sure what you're asking with respect to the rates and where we're at. I guess where I'm going is if we decide to go with a lesser amount and we find out we are the only one in the state, in this area that has done that, and it potentially will cost, you know, that $1.5 to $2.5 million with the legal fees would all go only onto the 20,000 rate payers in our area that we may think about whether to do it. But if other cities decided to also join in on that and other cities decided to go with a lower rate that we could join with them and reduce, because the way I see it, that if we go to loan, our rate payers are going to end up paying more in the end because of legal fees than what all the other cities that go with the $48 million. But if we had other cities involved with us, we potentially could come out with a better deal for our rate payers. I don't believe the cities that would have reached an agreement with Atmos that have finally papered that up would be able to undo that to then want to join with Denton . I think that would be difficult for them to be able to do that. And since obviously not all the cities, there's probably other cities deciding the same issue tonight. If some of those other cities also decided to go with something less than the $48. I would really need to talk to outside counsel about that. I mean, I'm familiar with how the rules of procedure would operate in state court. I'm not sure the difference in an administrative proceeding before the Robo Commission, what Joinder rules would be allowed if parties could then assemble their claims together to go forth. And I can find that answer out. So quite likely, even if we approved a $40 million and somebody else approved a $45 million tonight, another city, we would have to go separately before the Robo Commission? Going after a different rate determination, the assumption I would make would be yes. And if I were sitting in the shoes of Atmos, I would fight the Joinder of that just as a matter of course and a matter of trying to prevent it from happening in the future. Okay. One other question. The RRM expires this year? Correct. Is there any way we can add contingencies to our motion to do extension or ask for additional information in the future? Absolutely. I think that's something that would come into play in conjunction with looking at a larger, more unified group representing the cities. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Hudspeth. Here's, assuming we don't make a decision today, I need one piece of information I'd like to know from outside council is their best read on Atmos' view on things. What I mean by that is if they have X amount in house, so they have this one coalition that's agreed and they have that number in house and then the majority of the other parties kind of agree and they have another number, so they have this found money, if you will. They have this reserve of money and now they're settling with these party, the holdouts, if you will. Do they look at that to say, we have this much in settlements, which lessons are well to fight because we've gotten more in settlements than we anticipated. This extra, let's just be done with it, move on, or do they look at it as they want to get as much as they can always? When you're talking about there, are you talking about At mos? Yes, sir. Because I'm assuming the consultant at some level has had some inside experience with Atmos because that's generally how it works. Hey, I work at Atmos, now I'm going into the private sector to work against Atmos because I know how things work in At mos. So assuming they have some inside track as to how that process works, I'd like them to share outside counsel either to share that first hand information or just kind of their best guess as to how they arrive at these. Once you've had X amount of number in settlements and you have a real figure you're working with, how they process those last holdouts. I can ask Mr. Herrera that, but I'd also point out that there is no downside to Atmos fighting. And if they're familiar with the activities of the Railroad Commission and where they may end up on their ultimate award, on their application amount, the odds are in their favor to go forward. They're not out any attorney's fees. Everything goes back to the rate payer at the end of the day. So they've got a free roll the dice to go forward. It's just understanding what the players at the Railroad Commission would do. And Councilman Begarra has looked at the recent numbers and gone back for the recent numbers. If that's a predictor of the future, then it doesn't bode well for doing anything. But if I'm advising them, we really don't have anything to lose at that point. Now I have heard back from Mr. Herrera, if the city is going to deny the $48 million, then it needs to do so by the 31st. If you intend to accept the $48 million, you can do that at a meeting in June. That's a little confusing to me, but I understand. So if you're going to deny it, you need to deny it by the end of the month. Okay. A couple of questions, and help me if I'm thinking about this correctly. So I'm looking at the bill chart, and I'm just going to deal with residential, because I think that's just what I'm going to do. It's the first one. So currently it says the difference is $2.04 between what they originally proposed, which is the 57, and accepting the $48 million. So that means, I'm trying to think if my math is right. So they came down $9 million, and that's what they're saving is $2.04. That's the increase, is $2.04, instead of something else. Who knows what it'd be? Maybe $3 or $4. Part of me, just because I don't like to feel like I'm being bullied, or that I feel like I don't have any options , that's that sort of part of me that wants to get out there and fight. But I also have been in battles before that, you know, I know that, okay, maybe we learn here and live to fight another day with a little bit different approach. Because I think hearing the facts here, there are some problems with what I'm hearing as far as we're not talking to another coalition, we've got somebody competing. And truthfully, if I were Atmos and somebody's agreed to the $48 million, you can't accept anything else, because then you're going to open yourself up to look what's happened. You know, we're never going to agree with you, Atmos, because somebody else fought you, and so we've got to change that. And my point being, if it costs, if we go it alone, and it costs us, let's say, $8 a month for a year for each meter that we're, win or lose, we could even get down to $32 million, let's say. And let's say it drops that difference to $1, let's just say it cuts it in half. You've got $9 million here, you've got about an $18 million difference between $32 million and $57 million. It's a little bit more, about $25 million, I guess. So you 've got a little bit of a savings, but yet you've got it tacked on there, $7 to $8 a month for a year. So these rates, are they amortized? How far out are they am ortized? When they consider the calculation and the amount that's being added to each bill, that's amortized out over how many years? It's a year. It's an annual increase. So they're recovering all of their expenses in that year? That's what I understand. Okay, all right. So then if we add $8 a month, all right, we've just paid for, if you were to use the math here, $2. 04 increase from the proposed to, you've just paid for maybe a $15 or $20 million rate increase, but it wasn't a rate increase, it was a bunch of attorney's fees. So I understand, I don't like this at all, but even if we won the $31 million, let's say we won the $31 million, our rate payers will still be paying $6 to $7 to $8 more a month for a year. That doesn't make sense to me. We went, it's like we've, as lawyers, we've all told our clients, you can win, but you 're actually losing. So for me, I will reluctantly, very reluctantly support this with the express desire that we have a very strong conversation with our current counsel, because I will tell, I will say it publicly, if this has gone down the way this has gone down, I'm not pleased. I'm not pleased that someone else is negotiating and we have to agree to that negotiation. I'm not pleased that if somebody knows about this coalition that we are not reaching out trying to form a bigger coalition. I'm not pleased about that. I don't think that's good negotiation strategy. I think we could have done better. I'm not blaming city staff. I'm just saying, if these are the facts, I'm going to caveat it with that. I don't like it. And it's put us in a box to where we're going to lose no matter what we can win, but we're going to lose because the rate payers will be paying more money. And it's only for a year. So, at this can come right back next year with this kind of agreement we're supposed to enter into. So we got it. We got to get it. We've got to get it together. I mean, Mr. City Attorney, Mr. City Manager, we got to get this together and do this differently next time because this isn't right. And I understand they're big. I understand. But you know, Atmos also has a good relationship with the city on other areas. And I think we need to also use our relationship with Atmos and other areas to bring to bear on this kind of problem. Council Member Gregory. Well, I agree with you, Mayor, and I'm holding my nose as I move approval of option four to approve the settlement agreement that resolves the 2017 RRM with an increase in rates of 48 million. I'm going to call for a second. Going to leave it open just for Council Member Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with you, too. And somewhere in some backup, I saw that the base rate for the meters is $19 and change. If you round that up to 20, you're looking at a $1.40 increase versus the potential with legal fees of $8 to $10 increase. So I second it with a held nose as well. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of agenda item H. Let's vote on the board. As presented by staff recommendation by staff. Is that correct? Is that the correct motion? All right. Mr. Second, is that correct motion? Yes. Okay. Carries four to three. All right. Well, what time is it? Five till eight o'clock. Let's take about a five minute break. Come back at eight o' clock. All right. We are reconvening and our meeting of the Dent City Council at eight oh seven. Moving on through our agenda agenda item. We just completed the consent agenda, which was agenda item four. So we're on agenda item five, which is items for individual consideration, consideration of the use of em inent domain to condemn real property interests. Agenda item five a. And we do have two cards to speak on this. So. Thank you, Mayor Council. My name is Phil Williams. I'm general manager at Dent Municipal Electric. I'm here tonight to talk discuss with you the Eagle substation. As we have reviewed with council before in Denton on the electric system, we are dealing with tremendous growth and aging infrastructure. Much of our transmission system was built in the early 60s is now over 50 years old. And we're dealing with replacing that at a fast pace. We have a responsibility to respond to that. We involved or utilized a public involvement process to allow citizen feedback. And we try to consider all practical options. In reviewing those options, we deal we have lots of help from different regulatory bodies. Starting at the top of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which sets the rules for reliability and requires us to conduct a 715 study. A 715 study is a load flow study that takes every part of your transmission system and models it for what happens when one piece fails and to ensure that you have reliability, that you shouldn't have a single piece of equipment cause a outage or widespread blackout situation. The Federal Regulatory Commission directs NERC, North American Electric Liability Council to enforce those rules. They utilize a local entity called the Texas Reliability Entity to enforce those rules in Texas. We also deal with the Public Utility Commission as far as any rate setting for our transmission rates to recover the cost of the transmission system. And then we also to operate those assets, we operate under the protocols of the Electric Liability Council of Texas. Looking at substation spacing, we've had questions before of how many substations we have. We review the loading around the different areas of the city. And just like you would do on an interstate highway system, as far as how much traffic you have determines how many exits you have. That's how we determine how many substations we need to exit off the high voltage transmission system into an area such as this, that we're talking about now, the Eagle subst ation, into an area that has high growth and loading in a very dense area. As I said, this is located in central part of Denton. Between the Locus substation and the Hickory substation, we had desire for a substation to deal with the additional growth of downtown area, the infield area, and around UNT. We look for something halfway between. As we look at different properties, we've been in front of the City Council before. And I have a timeframe of this. We have public open houses, public hearing at the October 20th, 2015 public hearing. The blue side was eliminated from an option. We were asked to pursue other sites from UNT. We looked to try to negotiate and see if we could find other sites from UNT. We're not able to do that. We came back and got direction from the Public Utility Board and the City Council for the orange site that was located here at the corner of Eagle and Bernard. And that is the track and location map of the track. So that's why we're here tonight is for domain and approval of initial offer for that piece of property. Before you start, Mr. City Attorney, should we take public comment before we go into the display of the legal and the reading of the motion or after that? What would be more appropriate? Be more appropriate to do before. Okay, right now. After this presentation. Okay, all right. Thank you. So I'm at that point, you through the presentation. Okay, sorry. Do we have any questions for staff from council? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and call the public comment right now and then we'll bring you back up. Thank you. First person to speak is Mr. Willie Hutzbeth. Please come down, state your name and address and your time will begin on this agenda item. Mayor and city council, my name is Willie Hutzbeth. I live at 623 Newton. I'm not sure of what the issues are. Some of them. I wish that you had talked about that beforehand so I could get a feel for what the council's thoughts are in this situation. But speaking before, I'll just say what I think. I have property very near this. If this is about getting property that from someone who for some reason doesn't want to sell it for the price that you 're asking for. That's what I'm thinking. It said in the information I have that you're planning to condemn it, not condemn it, you're planning to get it because of the legal demand. You're planning to get the property because it is something that is needed for the city, if that's correct. That's my only issue. I think you should be able to negotiate with the individuals and get the property that way instead of just saying we're the city and we're the bullies on the block and we're going to take it. But I could be wrong because of what the gentleman who was just up here talked about. He talked about everything but that. So I might be off base here. But if it is taking property that you can't acquire by buying it, you're just going to take it. I can't think of a legal term that's why I'm suddenly confused. If that's the case, then I'm just against that because I think you ought to be able to negotiate an issue. Thank you, sir. Next person is Jonathan Lippman. If you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. Put this up here so you can see a picture. I guess that's where you need to put it. Yes. Overhead projector, please. Jonathan Lippman. I live at 111 Allen Adale Circle here in Denton, but I'm property owner over on Bernard and Fannin in the area that the substation is scheduled to be placed in. I was given the opportunity to voice my opinion about where the transmission line could go, should go, and it's on Bernard now. I recognize that they own the right-of-way already, but they asked my opinion about whether it should go down Eagle or Stale Bernard, and I would prefer that it would go down Eagle. I think it would impact fewer people from the electromagnetic emissions and so on because right now it's really involved in a lot of apartments. This is the building that I built that we fought for so hard a couple of years ago, and I think it -- I've got to comment on that when you finish. I'm sorry. And I think the transmission line going down Bernard would be a detriment to the beauty of what I'm trying to do with the neighborhood, and I think others will follow suit because I think the neighborhood is in transition and will continue to be in transition. And as long as the city approves nice-looking buildings like this and yours, it'll be a plus for the city of Denton and also for the tax base. Well, I only chuckle because I know you and I like you, and we've sat and ate breakfast together, but I just do remember that the whole issue then was the preservation of the neighborhood and the single-family homes and affordable housing and those kind of things. And I like the building. I'm in the business as well, but it's just interesting juxt aposed. So I appreciate you coming down and sharing with us. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Lippman? Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you. I do have a question, Phil, and for Phil, I'm sorry. Thank you. This is the site I believe council gave direction for the new gas-insulated substation, which is a very different kind of look and approach than an air-insulated, much smaller, much less intrusive, and those kind of things. Is that correct? Correct, sir. All right. All right. So we're at the portion where you do your things. Yes. So the mayor and city council members, before you tonight, as the ordinance, making the finding of public use of necessity and also for instructing staff to acquire the necessary land rights via immigrant domain, regarding the partial land affected by the EGLE substation project. Upon favorable motion, which is in front of you, I will proceed to display the effective track of land on the overhead screens. Councilmember Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the city of Denton, having made the offer, offers required by state law, use the power of immigrant domain, if needed, to acquire fee simple to the surface estate of a 1.656 acre tract generally located at the southeast corner of EGLE Drive and Bernard Street and being situated in the Alexander Hill Survey abstract number 623 in the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described on exhibit A to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screen being now displayed to the audience. All of which is for a valid public use necessary to provide the expansion, construction, maintenance operation and improvement of electric transmission lines, facilities and structures, including substations to serve the public and citizens of the city of Denton, Texas. I'm going to recognize the seconder and then I'll recognize Councilmember Briggs. Councilmember Wasney. I second the motion. And we are displaying now the survey as required by law, if I'm correct. Councilmember Briggs. So if this motion is approved, that doesn't mean negotiations stop, correct? No. Thank you for asking that question. We have had eminent domain proceedings approved by this council. Many many times. And I would say 99 out of 100 times we reached negotiation with the property owner and don't proceed to the courthouse . We, we tried always possible to to negotiate good faith and negotiated price with the owner we just want a dual path, so we can get there someday. And it doesn't mean that we're going to pay them less than what the property is worth. It's going to be equitable and we'll still work really hard to get what's needed. Yes, this initial offer that you're approving with this motion is for the appraised value for the appraisal that came back. And that's where we start. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Gregory. I can point out that the motion says that we're authorizing the city to use the power of eminent domain if needed. That's part of the motion with the assumption that that this just authorizes us to move forward with negotiations and to continue negotiations and to offer a bona fide offer . This is simply required by state law to to to be one of the procedures that we must follow in order to acquire the property. Mr. Attorney, we've waited long enough. We now vote on the board. Yes, if you're ready to vote on the motion. Yes, please do. Any any other questions for staff? Do you have a question? Look of curiosity. Councilmember R iggs. Have we made an offer currently or is this just the beginning of the process? No, this is to authorize our initial offer. So, okay. To start the process. I gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Moving on to agenda item 6A. Conduct a second of two readings and consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton annexing approximately 4.7 acres of land. Thank you, Mayor, members of council, city manager, members of staff. While I pull this presentation up. This is the second reading of this annexation proceeding. We've seen this several times. There were two public hearings held already. First reading was held as well. The proposed site is outlined here in the rectangular shaped plot. And just way background for the public and for the council that may not know of the site. This was part of a non annexation agreement back in March of 2015. The annexation agreement expired in 2016, a year later. After that, there were discussions regarding this property and the property to the south, approximately 85 acres. The property to the south entered into a pre annexation development agreement. That pre annexation development agreement did not include the 4.7 acres that's shown here. After that, council directed staff to proceed with the annexation of this subject site. Okay. Any questions for staff? Thank you. Actually. You got more presentation? I'm almost done. Sorry about that. I've got a couple more slides. This just shows the schedule that we had to go through per state, Texas local government code. So here is the ordinance. And I'm going to ask the mayor for you or member of the council to read the ordinance. I'll read it. Yes. But we do have a card wishing to speak. Mr. Willie Husspeth. Indicates he doesn't wish to speak. So I'll read the ordinance and then entertain a motion. An ordinance of the city of Denton annexing approximately 4 .7 acres of land generally located north of Ryan road, west of FM 2181, Teeley 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 an effective date. Ordinance has been read pursuant to I guess statute and share would entertain a motion if there's no other questions. customer run. I move approval. All right. Council member Gregory. All right. Thank you. Agenda item 6B considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, setting a date time and place for two public hearings on the proposed annexation of certain properties generally located north of McKinney Street and west of Trinity Road. This item is for setting the dates for an annexation of a property that's possibly 118 acres, which is again located just east of town on McKinney Street and west of Trinity Road. The request is to authorize and direct the city secretary to start the publishing of the notices that's required per the Texas local government code for annexing subject to subject property. I won't go through the quick background, but this is part of DH 12. Initially started in 2010 with a three year annexation plan . There was a approved service plan in August of 2011. Non annexation agreements were issued to certain properties within the DH 12 area. This was one of them. Non annexation agreements specifically states that any development or proposed development would trigger a voluntary annexation of said property. In December of last year, the owner, current owner came in and proposed to develop the site. That then triggered us to start the annexation proceeding. The actual application was submitted by the applicant not too long ago, March of this year. The subject site again here and surrounding the property are zoned RD5X to the north, NR2 to the west, NR4 and RD5X to the east, and NR6 to the south. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with a manufactured housing development, which would require a SUP , a specific use permit, with a zoning of NR6. The applicant has submitted the application for the rez oning or the actual zoning. So that is something that will be coming to you after the annexation of this property. But for today, the request is just to have the council direct staff to move forward with the dates as shown here on this slide. Councilmember Gregory. >> When we do an annexation, there's a default zoning that automatically happens. What zoning is that? >> That is RD5. >> But do we still offer the owner one free zoning change so that they can get the zoning that is more appropriate, or do they have to go through all of the fees, things for that? >> We have not offered for this particular applicant. They have submitted the application at the same time with the annexation. But if it's the council direction, that's something that we can consider. >> I was under the assumption that because we have this automatic zoning that they don't have to pay the fees, they still have to apply for the zoning. >> Right. So the default zoning is RD5X, and they are requesting a different zoning, which is the NR6. We, again, can consider the fees, but that's not something that we do automatically. >> And if they want to do manufacturing housing, then they have to do an SUP, is that correct? >> Right. First, they would have to get the zoning, which is the NR6, that would allow that. >> So all of that's a whole different issue that we'll deal with in a different time. >> Correct. That would come with the zoning discussion. >> Thank you, Mayor. I don't have any more questions. >> City Attorney. >> I just wanted to clarify the status of the land as soon as it's annexed into the city. It does not have zoning. It is actually, we use the term RD5X. It's a property that if they could develop as is, they would have to follow the restrictions under the RD5 zoning, but it does not have zoning. And the reason why is because a city only has zoning authority within properties within the city limits. So we don't obtain jurisdiction over this property until after the annexation is complete. Once that is done, then we can commence the zoning or the initial zoning of this piece of property. And in this case, the applicant is requested NR6 with an SU P to allow the manufactured housing community. So I just wanted to clarify that for the council. >> Okay, thank you. Councilmember Ryan? >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Can you explain the difference between manufactured housing and what we traditionally considered mobile home? Is there a difference there? Because at one time I knew mobile home was not acceptable in any zone. >> Councilmember Ryan, I want to defer to legal. I don't know if we can discuss that at this particular meeting. That's something that probably will come during the zoning change request or zoning initiating that zoning. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Card wishing to speak, Mr. Willie Hussbeth? Thank you. Decline to speak. Councilmember Wasney? >> To emphasize, this is an ordinance to establish two public hearings on this matter. And with that, I move approval of item 6B. >> Councilmember Briggs? >> I will second. >> Let's vote on the board. Item 6B passes unanimously. Agenda item 6C, consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, setting a date, time, and place for two public hearings. This is similar to the last one as far as just what you're asking for. >> Yes, Mayor. >> Okay. This site here, council has seen earlier this year, February to be exact, it's a property just south of town on the corner of Fort Worth Drive and Brush Creek. Again, the request is to consider adoption of an ordinance to set the time, place, and location, or date that is, for the annexation proceeding to begin. Back in December 2013, there was a pre-application for this site. The site is being proposed with mixed use development, retail, office, and multi-family. Since 2013, there has not been any discussion, but recently with engineering, there has been more discussion on water and wastewater discussions for this particular site. We took this to the council for their direction. And at that meeting, we were directed to start the review and consideration of annexation. We did do that against the annexation criteria, and we are bringing this forward again for the subject annexation for the subject site. The subject site for the mixed use development will be larger than what's being annexed. It will extend onto city property, which is shown here, is zone NR1. The property, again, with regards to this -- I've got a question. Is this -- we're talking about zoning here, but that sort of seems to be outside the scope of what we're -- And it's getting to that point. I think what he's trying to do is to give some background as to where this property is and surrounding zoning uses, but it's correct. He's only asking for -- he's getting to the mark where he's straying too far. Okay. So the dates are similar to the prior application consistent with the Texas local government code. We are here to establish the public hearing dates for this particular zoning application. I'm sorry, annexation application. All right. Mr. Willard, the husband's declined to speak on this agenda item. Any other questions from council for staff? Councilmember Wasney. Again, we're establishing an ordinance for two public hearings, and I move approval of item 6C. Councilmember Briggs. I will second the schedule. Let's vote on the board, please. Item 6C passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 6D, consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive proposals and awarding a three-year contract for the supply of hot mix asphalt concrete and lay down of the asphalt for the city of Denton Street department. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Galen Gillum, interim director of capital projects for the city. And I guess the good news is that this item has no impact on natural gas prices whatsoever. So let's get that out of the way first. What we're asking for in particular is the approval of a three-year not to exceed contract to Jaygo public company of $20 million for hot mix asphalt concrete supply and lay down for sections A and C, which will become more apparent when I show the map. The approval of a three-year not to exceed contract to the lane construction corporation of $9 million for hot mix asphalt concrete supply and lay down for sections B and C. These are indefinite quantity contracts. The main goal here is to establish pricing so the city can use the goods and services over the contract term. We're not obligated to spend this amount of money. The awards are line item awards that is requested in the request for proposal. So here's a map of the sections that are described in the RFQ. Sections A and B are to the north. Sections C and D are to the south. This was in your backup material, but there's a map that I was given kind of late, too late to get into the backup material that actually shows it a little more clearly. Section A is to be awarded if the item is approved to Jaygo for that type of asphalt in the northern part of the city. And you see the other blue section, CJ go would get their particular type of asphalt in the southern zone or southern area of the city. And then the two orange boxes, section B type asphalt for Lane Construction Corp in the north and in the south. So what do we use this material for? It's a lot of money. It's a lot of spend. So the city of Denton strategic plan, a key focus area is to improve public infrastructure, optimize resources to improve the quality of city roadways. And that's exactly what this is used for. Construction, renovation and maintenance of city streets, delivery of asphalt to the job site or pick up by city trucks at the asphalt plant, the per ton price for equipment and operations laid out or installation of the asphalt at the direction of the city's streets division. And here's just a list. The list was much longer in your backup material, but I just kind of chose several representative streets where this type of material and product would be used to reconstruct the street. Hickory Street, North Texas Boulevard, Windsor, many others . What results are we going to get from having these contracts? Well, continued acceleration of the bond program. The bond program projects for the 2012 program, we're working very hard to catch those up and work very hard to get those completed. Also the 2014 program as well. Continued improvement on our operations and maintenance activities. Just to be clear, this is not all new construction, not all capital projects. There's also operations and maintenance components of how this product is used. An increase in the overall condition index score of the streets. That's a score we go out and take with some specialized machinery that talks about what condition the streets are in. I could promise you miles of smooth roads also. Great. I wish we knew exactly how much, but again it depends on a lot of factors how thick the product is laid down. Just kind of a plan going forward of how we're going to spend the money. So there's some remainder amount of time left in fiscal year '16-'17. About 14% of the spend we estimate will be in that year. About 30% of the spend will be in the next fiscal year. We're trying to ramp that up for the year following that. And then fiscal year '19-'20, it'll be partial if it does wind up being a complete three-year contract. We won't finish out that fiscal year. It'll end in the same month that it's signed in this year. Again, the spend will be for both capital projects and operations and maintenance. And these numbers are estimates only. A lot of variables come into play. Whether, how well, other inside and outside utilities are cleared for projects and unexpected repairs can impact our schedule, our plan. What questions do you have? Councilmember Briggs? Can you kind of go over how the money was divided up, 20 million versus 9 million, to the different companies? Sure. So 20 million is to the two blue boxes for J. Go for their particular type of asphalt, which we use more frequently or more often on more projects than the type of asphalt that Lane could supply. So it's a more commonly used product. So the spend needs to be higher for that amount, for that product. So are they equal in quality? Like, are they going to last the same length? They are equal in quality. They're just different specifications called for for different types of roads and streets. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? More questions for staff? Councilmember Hudspeth? Good evening. I have -- and forgive me if I missed it in the documents, but I just kind of want to start to educate myself on the local effect of the dollars spent best we can, meaning I understand it may not apply, but what I would like to know if it's available, you know, understanding J. Go has been around for a while, but who are they employing? Are they local? What is the return on that investment outside of the obvious, which is the product which you've outlined? But kind of what is the -- if there is and if it's possible , what economic impact or what it brings back or how -- other than the -- again, the obvious, hey, the roads are well done. They're well maintained, but I just need to better start processing. I want to benefit Denton people, Denton hires, Denton intern programs. I just want to kind of understand that better. Absolutely. J. Go is local, as you stated. Lane is from the region, from the area. They're from Justin, which I'm not the best in geography. Which direction is Justin? Someone help me out. To the west. So they're not -- it's almost a suburb of Denton. They're not that far away. But certainly if you have the option to choose a local company, all else considered, you'd like to do that. There are times when we are allowed to take that into account of who we choose in our purchasing, and I'm not sure the exact percentage, a weight you can give to them. Maybe Karen can help a little bit on how much weight you can give to local. Local preference is really kind of what you're asking. I don't want to reframe your question. Well, more a matrix, right? So if we have a UNT student that interned at J. Go, or that they brought in 13 interns from UNT, I'd like to know that. And again, I'm not saying all that's available. I'm just saying such that it is. I want to know kind of those -- because for me, personally, $20 million, even if we don't get there, if we get to $10 million, whatever that number is, I know there's a lot of catching up to do, so I think we'll get close to that number. I want to know -- I feel better about that, knowing that that's benefiting college kids, moms and dads that work in Denton, that sort of thing. And again, I don't know that that matrix exists, but such that those numbers or information comes up or just kind of putting it in the back of your head, that I'd like to know kind of where those benefits are. Sure. I don't have anything prepared on that, but certainly we can take that under advisement and when applicable. It's not uncommon to require a contracted report back in terms of the number of folks that were hired locally to work on Denton streets, how the contract impacted their employment roles, jobs created, that sort of thing. So we can certainly probably ask for that information. My guess is there's sophisticated enough company that they could provide at least that baseline data, if that's what you're looking for? Yes, sir. No, that would be good. Local subs. That's -- whatever's -- your estimation, your expertise, whatever's easily kind of first passed and then we can kind of dig in from there going forward, but just kind of wanted to get that started. We'll put the request in. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? We do have a card wishing to speak, Mr. Wheeler-Husbuth. All right. All right. I see no more questions. Councilmember Pro Tempore-Gary. Move for approval. Councilmember Wasney. With the emphasis on acceleration of the bond program for our streets, I'll second the motion. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 6D. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Moving on to agenda item 7, which are public hearings. Item 7A is hold a public hearing and consider approval of a resolution regarding the proposed site for construction expansion and use of an electric power transmission line generally located in an area bounded by Bernard Street, Eagle Drive, South Locust Street. Evening, Council. Earlier you voted on procuring the site for the Eagle subst ation. We have alternatives for how we get a transmission line to that site that we'll discuss with you tonight. That's what this public hearing is for. Again, as I said before, we're building out the transmission system. We had an open house in March 23rd. We've had a public hearing with the Public Utility Board following our process. Both the Public Utility Board and staff recommend the existing alignment. But there is an alternative that we did to consider. This is discussing the growth, the loading of the subst ations and why we need to build out the system to put in the substation. And I discussed this with you earlier, the regulatory bodies we deal with and the substation spacing. This area town where the growth is existing. And then this is the alternatives. The blue line here, this is Carroll Boulevard coming down Collins, turning north on Bernard and coming into the subst ation site. There is an existing 69 KB line that exists today that follows this route. The alternative we looked at was to turn and go up Cleveland Street and come down Eagle. The difference is 20s alternatives, this route is existing today. And going the blue route means I would be dealing with three property owners because the properties are less divided. Going the yellow route means you can see it's more divided here. Would be 10 different property owners that I'd be dealing with. So it would be more property owners to deal with. The yellow route also has more trees. As you look at this matrix of trees to be removed, the existing blue route would require removal of seven trees, whereas the yellow route would require 25 trees. Yellow route would also, new properties that would be affected that did not have a transmission line in front of them now would be 11 new properties. The yellow route also has more corner positions. And those corner posts cost $100,000 more each, so it would be $200,000 more for the corner posts to go in that route. So that yields a total difference there of $400,000 for the different alternatives. Again, the blue route doesn't affect new residential land owners. It would require easements from fewer trees, and as I said, the poles would be $200,000 less going the blue route. That's why we made that recommendation. Staff stands ready for any questions. Before we get started, I want to go ahead. This is a public hearing, so I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Councilmember Briggs. On the other GIS unit we approved, there were underground lines. Is that a requirement with GIS, or is that just something we opted to do for the... The entrance into the substation will be underground. That is a requirement for the GIS. Okay. So if you look at the, if you looked at pictures of the Austin Energy GIS substation, you would see the transmission line comes overhead right up to the substation , and right at the substation goes underground to go into the GIS substation. Okay. The route we chose, the alternatives we looked at with the Hickory substation was to take those lines underground across the street and bring them in a little bit further away. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff before we take public comment ? All right. This is a public hearing. No card is required. Anyone wishing to speak, please come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this agenda item? One more time. Seeing no movement, we will now close the public hearing. Councilmember Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of the resolution regarding the proposed site for construction, and for the blue line as recommended by the PUB. Councilmember Ryan. I'll second. And we did have a card, and they left, not wishing to speak , so I'm going to go ahead and read that into the record. It was Kim McKibbin, 1306 West Hickory, was in opposition. Councilmember Hudspeth. Yeah, I would ask that we consider understanding the differences in the yellow line. A key component for me is the fact that from the corner of Cleveland, the better stretch of Eagle, no one's going to complain about those power lines being there because the other side of the street is a graveyard. Whereas, you're talking about affecting an entire neighborhood down a street, and you're putting these lines there. And I don't think, whatever that cost is, I think it's worth it because Eagle is seen more as a commercial street, and it's better placed there, and Cleveland's less traveled . So as UNT grows, expands, we're not affecting any households, mostly apartments. And then two, you have an entire length of a street, for the most part, that no one's going to complain about a power line being across the street. And so I think that makes for the perfect marriage and saves a lot of headache. And so I would ask the council to agree with me on that point or help me understand why it's better. I mean, I understand a cost perspective, but I don't know that that's the issue when we're talking about a better service to our citizens. There's oftentimes when we absorb a cost for that cost. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. I believe a gentleman here earlier was speaking about the power lines and just it was the wrong item. I think you mentioned there was an open house. I would like to know if you could bring up the results from the open house. Do you have those for the different lines? We have to pull back up in a minute. Well, I mean, Councilmember Huss, but I can tell you why I support the blue line. Currently, there's already an existing transmission line on that route. So those poles are there currently and they've been there for many, many years. Eagle Drive, I don't believe, does it fill? Does Eagle Drive have current transmission lines anywhere on that on that stretch? I know they've got distribution lines, but the transmission line currently crosses Eagle going up Bernard. Yeah, but I'm talking about the length of Eagle running down Eagle. There's no transmission line. No, but it has it has distribution lines, no transmission lines. Right. Going up and down. So those transmission lines have been there and people bought and sold property with that being the fact. So that's why I don't I don't have any heartburn either way , but given the fact that they're already there and we're spending also a lot of money to put the GIS in there at the corner, which is going to be much more attractive, much more hidden as far as what its true situation is. So my decision on this is not based on cost because the cost is minimal. I mean, the cost is minimal. So that's sort of some of my thoughts. Thank you. You bet. Councilmember Briggs. Do we have also a list of the types of trees like seven versus so and so? I mean, if it's like seven old oaks versus 13 crepe myrtles , that makes a difference to me. And quickly as he comes down to address the trees, I look back on the open house and we had a survey associated with that and eight people filled out the survey, which was similar to the amount of people that showed up for that open house. And it was pretty evenly split between both of those options. So we had people who were strongly in favor of the blue option, people who were strongly in favor of the yellow. But between those eight people, it was pretty evenly split. So it's like four in favor of the blue and four in favor of the yellow. That's right. Well, it was three in favor of one and four in favor of the other. And you could kind of choose if you wanted to be strong in support or just plain in support. And as I say, it was split pretty evenly between those eight. It was eight people. That's right. Okay. All right. Councilmember Briggs, on your question on what trees were on each route, on the blue route, there's about seven trees that will be affected, six or seven. I was talking to Chuck about which ones might be taken out or just trimmed back. And all of them, all those seven are larger. And I say larger, between six and 18 inches oak trees and pecan trees. And all of the ones along Cleveland and Eagle are oak trees as well. And there's a pine tree that's a large pine tree. They're smaller caliper, but they are all quality trees on both those routes. Are they just younger on the other side? Yes. Yes. The Cleveland, Street, and Eagle drive, those were put in, it looks like, for landscaping for those communities. And the ones that's an older community on the existing route, those are just older trees. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Cuspit. And just to your point, and Phil, if you could help me out, just so I'm getting up to speed. The lines that are currently, will the poles be the same or are they going to be newer, the metal pole? So what is that difference in the existing poles and what would go in? So the existing poles are wooden poles that were put in, like I said, in the early '60s. We have had some, I know one of them in particular cracked and we've already replaced one. And they're probably in the 65, 75 foot tall. What will be replaced with is what you see in other parts of town is the galvanized steel poles that are a little bit taller, spreading out the conductors a little bit more because it's 138,000 volts, kilovolts instead of 69. So they're a little bit taller. That location, to get it away from the housing appropriately, will be having to cross arms out over the street and pushing the lines out more over the streets to the next property. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Wiseman. Let's talk a little bit about the new technology for this substation. People hear substation and they think of the big monstros ity. This is new technology that we saw pictures from Austin. And driving by this, the public is never really going to know this is even a substation. It's going to look like a building, which, yes, it's more expensive, but it's why it was so exciting to take a look at this. And, of course, we're putting one in on Hickory. Councilmember Wasney, we're talking about transmission lines. I think the city attorney said we might be a little bit out of scope when we talk about the GIS. Okay. Out of the lane. Well, I just want to say bravo to Denton for picking the new technology. Well, and to your point, the blue route would have the transmission line to continue to cross Eagle only. And from Eagle Drive, you would see the substation just across the line, which you see across the line exists today . Councilmember Gregory. According to the backup, this came before the public utility board on April the 24th, and they also had a public hearing. Correct. And what was the recommendation of the public utility board ? The blue route. And the vote was six to zero? I believe so. That's what it says in the backup. Yes, thank you. I couldn't recall if everybody was absent that day. Okay. Yes, I remember it was unanimous. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Motion and a second for approval of agenda item 7A. Any other questions for staff before we move for a vote? Seeing none, let's vote on the board. Motion carries six to one. Agenda item 7B. Hold a public hearing inviting citizens to comment on the City of Denton's 2017 Action Plan for Housing and Community Development. As staff is coming down, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. And so staff presentation? None. Mayor, Council, hello again. And this is an opportunity for citizens to comment on the action, the 2017 Action Plan that will be submitted to you for approval on June 6. Okay. This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on the action plan? Come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. Anybody wishing to speak? We'll get you because you're the only one here. Anybody wishing to speak? All right. We will now close the public hearing. Is there any action for us to take here? This is just was a public hearing. Is that correct? This is a public hearing and we will be accepting comments through the end of this month and those comments will be included in the action plan. Thank you. Agenda item 8, which is concluding items. Council, concluding items? Council Member Briggs? So I have a few here. Bear with me. So the ADP board nominations are coming up, I noticed. And I would like for Council to discuss the ordinance before those nominations come back to us. Because as of now, we will have two non-council members on that board in council member positions. So I think that we need to address that before that comes back to us. Also, I would like to request a work session on the mobility and bike plan. There's been a lot of confusion, questions about that. And also with our new council members, I think having updates, changes, things like that that have happened that are going to happen could be very helpful. I would also like to request from our city manager a list of who has left the city in retirement or just resignation. I know that we've had quite a few people leave the city and their salaries. And along with who has been hired and what they're making just to get an idea of who's gone and who's here. Also, I've had many complaints recently from people living on Bolivar Street. So I would just like to have a report from the time table on that project. And lastly, we heard a presentation and saw some pictures of police cars earlier today. And I guess a few months back I also saw a police vehicle. It had a sticker that was part ripped and I was kind of curious about that. So I would just like to know a ratio of new versus old vehicles compared to the officers that we have and how all that fits together. Thank you. Councilmember Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. First item, I'd like to get an informal staff report on the difference between manufactured housing and mobile homes as the city sees it. And then secondly, I'm planning to do an outdated code of the week for each one of these. And this week I'm looking at in our code of ordinances 24-7 weight limitations on containers in the solid waste, which currently reads the total weight of any garbage bag in contents of any trash and rubbish receptacle shall not exceed 50 pounds or shall be 50 pounds or less. I'm sure that most all of us within the city, our container at some point has been over 50 pounds. And this most likely dates back to the days of trash bags and where we used our own trash cans and it was a liability issue for lifting. I'd like the city to look, I think that's a quick and easy change for solid waste to determine what that weight should be. Great. Thank you. I've got one, actually two. One was the mobility plan that Mr. Donnelly had spoken of is what are we looking at? When is that going to be removed if we're not going to be going through his property? The second one is I'm aware of the funding for the football fields in Southeast Denton. I'd like to understand where we are on that because I remember when we approved that for some enhancements to those fields and to try to get an update on where we are and when the completion of that is estimated to be. Council Member Hussbuth. Thank you, Mayor. I know the council has gone over this before, so that I'm up to speed because I'm going to try to push hard to come up with some temporary fix if no permanent fix is available . Can I be brought up to speed on the path to Ryan High School, understanding it's a state highway? And I'd really like a list or map only pointing out state highways, whatever that is, text out roads, whatever that is. I'd like if we could have a map that just isolates those, kind of how they crisscross the city. I'd love that. And then I'd like to ask consideration for the police department and kind of came up today. There needs to be some steps taken to limit that need for police to go back to the police station for reports. So if someone could come up with, give me some options, be it fire stations. We have a couple of new fire stations. I'm assuming they were built for growth, so maybe there's extra office space in those new facilities as we kind of come up with a better plan. I think that may be a quick fix. And then lastly, you'll see an email from me. Juneteenth is coming up there at Fredmore Park. There'll be a parade and be some other stuff. So I'm going to push hard to get everyone to stop by and get a funnel cake and high five and whatever that is. So those you'll see that email coming. But thank you very much. Thank you. Any other concluding items? Seeing none, we will stand adjourned at 9.03 p.m. [BLANK_AUDIO]