Sep 19, 2017 City Council on 2017-09-19 12:00 PM

Good afternoon, good noon everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, September the 19th, 2017. It is 1201 PM. We're going to work down through our work sessions. We do have quite a few work session reports, so I certainly want to encourage staff to, encourage my colleagues, let staff get through their presentations and certainly don't mind the questions, but let's ensure that they're to the point and I have to be reminded of that as well, so don't anybody hesitate to do that. So we make sure we can get out at a decent time and still make our 630 meeting. Our first item on the agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items. I don't know if I have any cards. I don't see any cards, so we will move past that one. Request for clarification on agenda items listed on today's agenda. Council members, yes, Council Member Briggs. So I have a few, there's a lot of consent agenda items this time, more so than a while. So I want to start with I. So is this vote to approve all the fees for the ordinance for the budget or is this just for the change in the cemeteries or is that the only change that's made and that's why it needs approval? Because I see that the water park fees are the same, high price, and I will not vote for the ordinance if it's re-approving those. Well, that ordinance is to approve all the park fees for next year, so yes, it does include the water park fees at the increased rate. Okay, so the only change though that was made was the cemetery and that's why it's called out in the... There are a couple of changes specifically called out in that AIS. Okay, yeah. The cemetery ones are the primary ones. There's one for a tennis pass and some natatorium rental fees as well that there were some increases for, but yes, that will approve all of the fees for the department for the year. Okay, thank you. I'd like to pull that item, please. From J, the volunteer impact program, I don't necessarily think we should pull it because we had a work session on it not too long ago, but is there a way that we can make sure and get council updates regarding participation and success? I mean, is that part of the process? We can certainly put those updates together as frequently as you like. Okay. On L, so in the wording, it says camera systems and my question is, are the camera systems mentioned here for red light cameras? No, ma'am. The camera systems are the camera systems on top of the mast arms which allows the controller of the control from red light to yellow, the control system of the traffic signal, not the red light cameras. Those are completely separate systems. Those are maintained by Red Flex. Okay, thank you. Down to T, the utilities, fees deposit ordinance. Now, this is the same one I think that myself, Council member Hatsbeth and the mayor actually requested a discussion on a while back ago regarding connection fees, late fees and deposits. Is that the same? Is this the same ordinance that includes all of those things? Yes, it is and there's just some real minor changes to this ordinance but like the park ordinance, it includes all the fees so the fees are staying the same as the current year but it includes all of them in the ordinance. And I think we do have that scheduled for work session coming up in October. Okay. I'd like to pull this item please. Which one, T? Yes. And then there are several items about moving utilities and payments to companies for those and so I just have a general question. With the money that we're paying, is there a guaranteed date that we settle on that those utilities will be moved with these companies or no? Which one are you on? Well, I could go through them there with - there's several of them and it's - and if they don't meet that certain date, do we reduce the payment to them? No, there's no deadline provisions in those agreements. They're basically going to approach that work in a reasonably expeditious manner to get that work done but they, like Encore, they have crews going all over the country now so that actually could end up delaying their ability to relocate these facilities on May Hill so, you know, we're getting into these agreements, really kind of good faith that they're going to prosecute that work quickly, as quick as they can. So we pay them to do it ahead of time? No. No. So we wait and pay them? No, they'll be paid after the facility is removed. Okay, thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Right. Okay. We're going to - oh. Yes, Council Member. I would like to pull H for the brief presentation during our regular council meeting. Okay. And I think J is noteworthy again if we could get just a short presentation, just a general overview in the regular session. That would be my request. Which one, I'm sorry? J, that's the volunteer impact. Okay. Then looking at S, I'd like to pull that again, just a high level view of that and how that - that's J. No, pardon me, S. Yes. S is in SAM. Okay. And then I think my notes indicate Council Member Briggs suggested we pull T, is that right? Okay, great. And then if we could - and I gave notice on this - presentations just briefly in this work session on L, F, and I. Okay. All right, before we move on to the presentations for L, F, and I, were there any other clarifications for you on the consent agenda or any part of the agenda? No, sir. Okay. Thank you. Any other clarifications on the agenda? Okay. Then what we'll do is we'll take those in order. So on F, Consent F, Considered Option of Ordinance Appro ving a Discretionary Services Agreement between the City of Denton Encore Electric Delivery Services Company. Can somebody just give us a briefing on that? On F, the - one of - we had two actually posted on the agenda. F is one of the - there were two Encore contracts for rearr anging the electric utilities that are in conflict. Did you have a particular question or - Yes, sir. Just - I was provided the background information, John, but I just wanted to kind of have an overview conversation on how - because DME controls most of the lines, but in this instance there's a different company. So just how that came to be kind of historically or how those two worlds interact. Well, to my understanding, we have - there's across the DME service area, there's areas in which Encore is certified to provide electric service as well as co-serve. So there's areas within the city where there's either singularly certified for the City of Denton to provide those services or dually or triple certified for - and Denton carries the majority of those areas, but there are pockets that have - and even in these certification areas, there's areas where Encore or what used to be TP&L had service lines, and even after deregulation, they can still maintain those lines for service even though they may be in Denton's area of service. And that's - and these Encore lines out on Mayho are like that. They've been there - they were the original service providers in that corridor, and they still exist today. Okay. And what is the - so if I may, what is the governing body that kind of keeps everyone in their lane, if you will? Who kind of oversees that? Public Utility Commission. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Agenda I. Schedule of fees. So now we're pulling that. That's been pulled for presentation out in the main council session. So do you want to still have a presentation here, or do you want to wait and have it out there? We'll wait and have it there. Okay. And then L, which is accepting competitive proposals and awarding a contract for the purchase of traffic signals, hardware, etc. Mayor and council, this is an item that we have just for - to have for our traffic signals throughout the city that we have, whether with their installations of new ones or repair and maintenance of existing ones. So these are just the vendors that we have worked through to get bidding so we can get the supplies and necessary materials to do that - to carry out that work. So that's what that item is. Any specific question? Yes. So just wanted to understand, four entities from memory, round numbers, I'm not familiar with the - are not as accustomed to the different entities. Is there a reason that one can't provide or is there different areas of specialty? Correct. They're different suppliers. So one may specialize in an area of the traffic signal that another one doesn't, so we just - we go to the bidding process, get the best price that we can for that specific part or piece of equipment that's necessary for those traffic signals. So that's why we have multiple vendors that are in the proposal. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to go back over the ones that I have that are being pulled. So those who have requested some items being pulled, please double check me on that. So I've got agenda item H, I, J, S, T, and - is that it? Okay. All right. Fantastic. Mayor, you said P as in Paul and S as in Sam. I don't - did I say P? Is it P or is it T? I think it's T. T. Yeah, T as in Tom. All right. We're going to move some of the work session reports around just to accommodate some additional staff material that needs to be gathered and also some of the parties presenting today. So we're going to move to agenda item H first, which is receive a report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the resource planning and power supply strategy for Dent Municipal Electric, prepared by enterprise risk consultants . Thank you, Mayor and Council. I have a knack for clearing the room. Brian Langley, Deputy City Manager. We've hired the firm of enterprise risk consulting to do some work for us on our power supply for DME, looking at not only where we're going to be in 2019, but where we can go in the future, how quickly we can get to the council's goal of being 100% renewable. We haven't completed all that work, but we wanted to come today to give you a status update of what we've looked at and how we're proceeding on this path. This is the same presentation that we gave to the public utility board just last week. We expect the first phase of this work to be completed in mid-October, and so we'll come back on October 24th and present to you the final findings from enterprise risk at that time. There is going to be a second phase of the work that I did want to mention to you. We're going to take that through the PUB on September 25th for their review of that, and then we'll look at bringing that to you on October 10th for your approval. So we have with us today two representatives from enterprise risk. Larry Lawrence is here and Neil McAndrews. I'm going to turn the presentation over to them and they'll walk you through their approach. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Good afternoon, everyone, Mayor and Council. We're pleased to be here. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to Denton. We -- this is a project we really like, and we're enthusiastic about working for you all. We're here to, as Brian said, we've been engaged to develop a resource plan to help you meet your goals of being 70 to 100 percent renewable in terms of your power supply. So today, this presentation, we're here to share with you our thoughts and our process and the guiding principles for developing that plan. We're going to give you a sense of our planning approach, which would include the various factors that we're going to consider in formulating a recommendation for that power supply portfolio. We also want to give you a sense of what the management process is going to be like, what your energy management organization would be required to do , the responsibilities and the opportunities for you all in terms of managing that portfolio on a daily basis. And we want to give you an early look at our expected findings and recommendations just to allow you to get a sense of where we're going and get some feedback with that. I won't go through a lot of this, just to give you some of the highlights. The main thing here is that we do a lot of work in ERCOT. We do a lot of work in public power. We do a lot of work with municipalities and co-ops. So we have a successful track record of doing these types of implementations, developing resource, renewable resource portfolios, helping clients acquire those portfolios. And we do active daily management of those portfolios on an outsourced basis for clients as well. And pardon me, I didn't mention this in the introduction, but please feel free to ask questions at any time. I know questions are at a premium today in terms of your timeline, but please interrupt at any time. The answer to that question or the discussion that mine and Sue could be just as valuable as the material that is in the course. So one of the main reasons we're here is the city of Georgetown. Denton reached out to Georgetown. Georgetown has a reputation of going 100% renewable. George Denton reached out to them, and Georgetown recommended us. Neil McCandrew is here, who works with us, was primarily responsible for helping Georgetown meet that goal. And one of the main points that we would just like to get across from that is Georgetown did not originally set out to be 100% renewable, but in the process, in Neil's research, RFPs, working with vendors and so forth, what they found was that the price of renewable assets had come down so much that it made a lot of sense to go 100 % renewable. Originally they were looking at a portfolio that had a 30% nuclear component, but when they started examining the costs of the renewable assets, the renewable power purchases they could do, they decided to just dial it up and go 100% renewable. So we're here because of that relationship and the success, and we continue to do work on an ongoing basis with Georgetown to help them manage that portfolio on an ongoing basis. I have a question on that, which of course, as we've looked at, and as y'all will look at our portfolio and so forth, so on Georgetown. So are you saying that in Georgetown's portfolio, there's never been an opportunity or there's no contracts or anything that provide for some type of backup power that may be something other than a renewable source at any time during the day over whenever they are saying it's 100% renewable? >> I'm going to give you two answers. >> Yeah, I just want to understand that because I know this gets tossed around a lot. And so loads can be represented as 100% renewable. Sometimes if those renewable resources don't show up, what happens? >> So let me give one answer and then I'll let Neil speak to some of the detail on this. But this is something that we wanted to define a little bit later and we'll do it right now. What do we mean by 100% renewable or 70%? What does that mean? Because there are different ways you could sort of stack that up and add it up. So our approach is this. Just for the sake of the example, let's assume that over a year Denton is going to consume or provide energy to their rate payers, say, of 100,000 megaw att hours. You're higher than that, that's just an easy number. For planning purposes, we want to build a portfolio of renewable resources, if your goal was 100%, to match that 100,000 megawatt hours . So you have enough contracted supply in terms of renewables to match your expected usage. Now the usage, the production of that is going to be intermittent and that's a lot of what we're going to talk about. Is how those various renewable assets would behave or perform in the market. What management actions you would need to take to efficiently manage that portfolio. So that'll be a lot of the detail you're going to get. But when we talk about 100%, we're saying here are your needs, you buy enough energy to match those needs on a planning basis for whatever your target is there. And then I'll let Neil speak specifically to Georgetown. >> So, yeah, obviously if there's anything proprietary, we don't need to hit this. So I want to make sure I understand what you just said. So we'll use your example, 100 megawatt hours. >> Yes. >> Got 100 megawatt hours as Denton's load. >> Right. >> We've got a wind contract that will, contractually, it provides 100, it can provide capacity wise 100,000 megaw att hours. But now that's if it's blowing 100% of the time, 24/7. >> Which we know it won't. >> Okay, so I just want to, because I think this is what gets really confusing. >> It does, and that's why we want to clear this up. >> So if you're saying that we can create a portfolio that on paper matches our load based upon the full capacity of that renewable resource, I get that. But what I'm also understanding in the marketplaces, renewable resources are not 100% capacity. >> Correct, that's right. >> Fair enough. >> So somewhere something's gotta happen. >> Yes, and here's the something. We want to weight the expected output of those renewable resources by their capacity factor. >> Right. >> So for example, if solar has a capacity factor of 20%, we're taking the nameplate or the maximum capacity of that and multiplying it by 0.2. If wind resource has a 45% capacity factor, we're multiplying that capacity by 0.45 and then summing that up to get to the number of megawatt hours . >> Okay, so you're not taking the, what do you call it, nameplate? You're not taking the potential, you're applying a capacity factor which more closely represents the actual production. >> Yes. >> And then adding those up to represent the 100% or whatever percentage goal you're looking for. >> Yes sir, and that's a lot of the work that we do is to be able to forecast that and measure that expected productive output. >> Okay. >> I'll let you speak to that and George's hand as well. >> So the simple answer is yes, you actually do have backup all the time and you buy market based in the day ahead from the market whenever you don't have the wind. So you make sure it's, you're not only estimating annually, but you're also estimating down to the hour so that all the energy that you're purchased is firm and secure. >> Sure. >> But one thing, the whole idea of capacity is kind of meaningless in ERCOT. This is an energy only market, that's the design. >> Right. >> It's only about energy. >> Right. >> You guys use 1.5 million megawatts. If you wanted to be 100%, you buy 101.5 million megawatt hours of energy. Then you're 100% renewable. But during that, when you dispose of it, sometimes you have too much and you have to sell it off. You have to buy market purchases or other firming things during the day. Should I do the ATM thing? >> We'll get to that. >> Okay. >> So, and this is important, so I hate to belabor this. >> No, no, it's important. >> I was the one that said, hey, let's, because. >> [LAUGH] >> Well, when I hear you say that you have to buy a market. >> Okay. >> You have to buy a market. That market could be, that energy on the market could be produced from various types of energy sources. >> Yes. >> That you're having to purchase. >> That's right. It's the most efficient resource that ERCOT could bring on at that time, and that's according to their cost minimization program. >> And just so that I'm clear, the only way that you can say one kilowatt of energy is renewable is because you have to have those renewable energy credits. In other words, if you don't have the credits to a wind farm, you cannot claim that to be renewable energy. Is that correct? >> That's part of it. You also have to have the energy. You actually have to own the actual energy from the farm. The credit markets just count how much energy you own. That's all it does. It's a counter. It doesn't have any kind of renewable effect. But what does have an effect, if you've gone to a wind farm and say, I want to buy all of your output. >> Right. >> And it's served into, then you really have it. In other jurisdictions, in other. >> And if it's, so I want to make sure I understand that. So we've got a wind farm that is 100 megawatts. >> Right. >> So it has 100 megawatts of energy. You can produce, and it's got 100 megawatts of renewable energy credits or certificates. >> Right. >> So let's say I'm going to contract with you and I want to buy all the wind energy you produce. But I do not want, or you do not have available the renewable energy credits. Okay? Let's say they've been bifurcated. >> Yeah, you wouldn't do that. You would never do that. When you buy a renewable thing. >> No, I just want, okay, so it would never happen. What I'm hearing you say though is that if somebody did do it. That in order to claim your energy is renewable, you have to have a corresponding amount of credits associated with some renewable energy source in order to claim that. >> Right, but you buy the source plus all the environmental attributes associated with that source. >> Which are the credits? >> Well, it's, are the credits and the fact that it doesn't , you know, make particulates, doesn't put out socks or knocks, doesn't use much water. It's all the environmental attributes. >> Good, thank you. >> It's got to be real. >> Yep. >> And so just for clarification on that, that's why currently Denton is only 10% renewable and not 40% renewable because it's not actually all physical. Most of the claims that we have now are the credits that the mayor was just referring to. >> Right, and what's happened in Texas, okay, and this is kind of only in Texas this has happened, is that the original credit market doesn't work any longer. The legislature has said that last year. They said, let's just get rid of this, it's meaningless. And that's because it is. And in other jurisdictions where they have a, you know, they take the renewable portfolio standard for the state and say, we want 30 or 40%. You'll see that the credits are much more expensive. And that's where the market works because the market is really supposed to represent those, all the environmental attributes associated with the energy . So in other places it works, but not in Texas anymore. >> Okay, so I want to go back to Councilmember Bigg's statement because I'm not sure I agree with it. We have a contract from the wind farm. We have a 40 megawatt or whatever it is contract, which includes these environmental attributes. Now, if that wind farm is only producing 10% of its name plate, all right, we may not be getting but 10% of that, but we have the renewable energy credits for that difference or that delta. That's all we do with our green sense program. What we do is we buy renewable energy credits. So this notion of 10% is only physical, so that's why we're not 40% renewable. I don't think that's accurate. We may only get 10% of our energy from that wind farm, but we have the renewable energy credits where we can say that we have, because that's what came along with that energy purchase. So this is something that I think is very subtle in this community. And this is a, you could spend probably two or three hours talking about this whole thing. But do it, do it. No, no, we're not going to. But when we start talking, but this is important. Because here we've got Councilmember Briggs saying we're not 40%, we're only 10% renewable, because that's all we get. I don't know if that's accurate based upon how the system was set up back when we purchased the power. Now what you're saying is it no longer works that way. You execute a contract with a wind farm, you're going to get what they produce, and you're going to get the renewable energy credits for what they produce or however that works. >> Right. >> So this is what, I think we confuse the community when we talk about these things that are different time and spaces as far as how they were developed and how they were, and the nomenclature of it. >> Because it's all different is what I'm saying. So I appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree with it in the sense of we have the contract that says now, because the wind doesn't show up, they have to provide that energy somewhere. And they've got a renewable energy credit that provides that, that turns it. So it's very complicated, but I'm trying to get some straight answers. So and get the facts to where we all can at least have an understanding of the same facts as we move, because this is important. I mean, we could talk all day about all this, and if we don 't have an understanding when we say 100% renewable option, we've totally missed the boat, quite frankly. >> It's unfortunate that this subject area is very complex and it's hard to translate that to the public. And one of the challenges here, as Neil alluded to, is that the rec idea in Texas really hasn't come to fruition like it has in other areas. Texas is sort of has benefited from the fact that you didn 't really need an RPS or renewable standard because Texas is an ideal place for renewable assets and they've come in faster than anybody dreamed. So that in a way has undermined that validity or the value of that certificate. So I would just say it's really up to the user and what sort of perception do you want to put forth to the world. >> We may have different beliefs, we may have different sem antics on this wording, but it really depends on the goals of the city and how they want to represent this going forward. And that's what our goal is, is how to construct this going forward with actual energy. It's unfortunate that you can't hook a wire straight from the renewable resource and go straight into somebody's home here and the way ERCOT is structured, it's even challenging to educate the public. Because all the power goes into ERCOT, into ERCOT's model and all the power comes back out of ERCOT. >> Bill was going to talk about his ATM analogy. When you deposit money in the bank, when you pull money out of the ATM, that's aren't literally the dollars that you put in there. But you're still getting credit for those dollars as they went into your account. >> Right. >> And that's the approach we're taking. >> Council Member Duff. >> I'm trying to understand these credits, okay? When you say you're able to use these credits, but if you 're having to go out on the grid and buy electricity, aren't you paying market price at that point? >> Two answers to that as well. We're not really concerning ourselves specifically or focusing on the credits. We're engaged to have a resource plan that purchases renewable energy for the portfolio. So the credit really has become a marginal market here, so we're not even really that focused on that. But the other point I want to answer, this is a very good question you've asked. This is something we'll get to in the presentation as well. Which is, because of the intermittent nature of the output of renewable energy, you on an hourly basis are managing that portfolio. And there will be hours where you have excess energy and you're selling that or disposing it in the market. There will be hours when you have a lack of energy and you 're buying energy from the market. And that's going to go on all the time. We're going to show you a little later a slice of two different days, a summer day and a spring day just to show you typically what those excesses or shortages would be. So yes, regardless of whether the credits are there or not, you are selling into the market, buying from the market. This is part of the obligation to serve on a reliable basis to your rate payer. Is you've got to run that balanced portfolio all the time. And regardless of the nature of your assets, that's an activity you would need to be doing. It's exacerbated because of renewables. >> Yeah, yes. Good, I appreciate it. I think that helps us as we move forward to try to understand. We're all sort of trying to think in the same terms. >> Yes, yes. And that's sort of an important definition. >> Yes, sir. >> Councilmember Doe. >> Yeah, so I guess the real concern that we probably should have is that when supplies get really short and those prices spike, we want to make sure we're not paying those spikes. And in fact, we may be able to be supplying energy during those spikes. Yes, as you are set up, you may be able to depending upon the portfolio composition. But that is something where the Denton Energy Center would be an asset that would help you in that sort of a circumstance, depending upon pricing at that time. If gas prices have spiked, perhaps not. But this is all a multiple dimensional thing. And this is one of the things that we're going to model is how to reach a least cost efficient portfolio, taking all of those factors into account. So our essential findings here, did I go too far? No, I did not. Okay. Here's the good news for Denton. We have a lot of other municipal clients, some of which have broken away in the last few years from LCRA, for example, that have ended up with their obligation to serve their load without a generation portfolio. It's great that you have been in this position where you haven't have already filled your portfolio yet, because prices have come down substantially. So you're in a great position to be able to take advantage of these reduced prices here. So what's remarkable about that is the reduction in the prices for renewable assets. So some of our expected essential findings are one, that we highly anticipate that additional renewables would be the least cost alternative for Denton. This is not unlike Georgetown, except now, you're even doing this later than Georgetown, and they're much cheaper than when Georgetown even acted. By far, renewable assets are the least cost alternative for adding to your supply. Additional renewable resources will reduce the long term cost volatility of your supply portfolio. What does that mean? It's always good for planning purposes. It's always good for your rate payers to have stability in your costs, not have a lot of uncertainty or subject to those price spikes that you were referring to. The Denton Energy Center will assist in lowering that supply volatility. And we are doing additional research to see exactly how that would fit into the plan, because it's a complex problem and there's not an immediate easy answer to that. But there are a variety of ways we're looking at to help dispose of the perspective excess production potential from the deck. And then as I said earlier, DME will need to develop forecasting. Well, we didn't specify the activities, but there is daily management that's necessary to efficiently operate that resource portfolio. This includes forecasting of output, forecasting of your load naturally, and congestion management processes to integrate those renew ables in your portfolio. So, the first principle here is that Neil alluded to that ERCOT is an energy only market. You don't get credit for having capacity. You have load and you need energy to serve that load. That's the way ERCOT works. It's very simple. It's the only energy only market in the country and it makes it unique. And we think it's a very good and viable design. So the design of ERCOT requires that load only needs to acquire adequate energy schedules. And then most of your supply risk is neutralized. And this happens on an hour by hour basis. So a first principle we have is that supplies must work as an efficient opposition hedge. Now that's a term of art or a technical term. And let me just take a moment to explain that so we don't have any confusion going forward. When we think about Denton's load, just ignore any production assets you have. Just think about the load. As long as you intend to serve your rate payers, you have an obligation to serve energy. And if you don't have the supplies or the ability to produce that energy, you have a shortage. So as far as you can look in the future, you have a lack of energy that you need to supply that. So from what we talk about as an opposition hedge, you need to acquire assets in perfect, hopefully targeted perfect opposition to that shortage. So that's what we are going to set out to do in the resource plan, is to build a resource portfolio that can be operated to achieve as close to an efficient or perfect opposition hedge as possible. So many renewable resources, yes sir. >> So when you're using that term then, is that where you 're talking about purchase power agreements for wind and solar, wind in different spots so that when wind is not blowing in one spot, it may be blowing in another spot, but then part of the opposition hedge is a purchase power agreement or a plan to back up that power when renewables which are not dispatchable are not available. Is that part of the opposition hedge? >> That's part of the opposition hedge. And another important part, that is part of it, and another important part is this. And I went to this next slide to illustrate this point. ERCOT is structured with two different pricing grids if you want to think of their networks. They price load at load zones and they price resources at resource nodes and those two don't overlap. I know it's, we sometimes pick on Austin, Neil lives in Austin and we know the folks at Austin energy, they're great. They sometimes are sort of early movers in some things and don't always make the right steps being an early mover and we'll talk about that a little later. But they have a generation unit that's in the city limits of Austin and they assume that the pricing for that generation unit would match the pricing of their resources at the load zone. But that particular generation unit is in a different resource node. It can have substantially different pricing for the load. So we need to do two things here. The power purchase agreements that you talked about, we need to fill the supply bucket with enough megawatt hours of energy to meet your load requirements over whatever defined time horizon we look at. But we also need to close the gap on the pricing specific ity. We don't want wind that's being priced radically differently in West Texas, for example, than it is in the north load zone for Denton. There are, ERCOT offers a very viable insurance market for that locational price differential. It's called congestion revenue rights. That's something that we actively manage and help our clients actively manage to close that gap. So you want to, as much as possible, perfect the pricing. So the up and down pricing of the resource node is matching the up and down pricing of the load zone. So it's a two part thing. We need enough energy in our supply portfolio to meet the load. But then we need to bridge that locational gap so we're not getting price mismatches at different geographical locations. We need to tie all those things together. And then we have an efficient opposition. And part of that pricing mismatch has to do with transmission loads and congestion. Absolutely. So that we have to be careful about buying overly, being dependent overly on coastal wind because of the congestion issues that come with that. No. No. The coastal wind doesn't have much congestion. You have to buy congestion revenue rights everywhere. OK. You think of it not necessarily as a congestion right, but it's delivery. It's a basis. You have to, if you have any resource, it's located at one point. Your load is always at the hub. I'm sorry, the load zone north. You have to deliver the resource to the load zone north. And you do that through this insurance facility, the CRR. It transfers economically the basis so that if you have a generation, let's say South Texas nuclear project, then it 's actually delivered to Denton. So all you have to do is put the CRR. If you have the CRR, it protects you against congestion also. So these things, that's what everyone uses. And the market is actually designed to use that very thing. The market was designed as a postage stamp. No matter where the generation is, the transmission cost is the same. And you have to, on energy, you have to add this congestion revenue right. And therefore, to make the path to the load zone also ins ured. To link the path. To link the path. And specifically on coastal, one of the facts about transmission and congestion in Texas is there's a lot of congestion pricing getting energy down into like the Houston area. But if you bring something up from the coast, you may actually be able to get negative congestion. You get a discount because you may be bringing power counter to the congestion. This is something that we're going to take into account in our models. So there may be advantages to you to siding a generation in certain areas because it could provide a discount to you. Let me give you a real world example. Some coastal projects are, let's say, $22 a megawatt hour, which is cheap. Because they have a lot of energy during the afternoon in summer. If you were to bring it to the load zone north, you would get a discount of $3.25. So your delivered price wouldn't be $22. It would be, what, $18.75. You actually get a discount on the price. And so that's one of the things that we're really going to have to look at. Each one of those, you have to look at the actual anticipated congestion path and how much it costs. And so that's one of the big things that we're going to have to look at. And just to finish that thought, you're going to see a slide in a little bit about giving you a sense from ERCOT how they measure some of these congestion costs. You've been fortunate here in the North Zone that your general congestion for load is low. But that's not a reason to avoid the insurance. It makes the insurance for you cheap. But as we've talked to Brian in the past, this is like somebody in Houston two months ago saying, you know, Houston hadn't flooded for 10 years. Why do I need flood insurance? When it's cheap, you buy it. There's that possibility uncertainty. So this is a significant part of what we're going to propose from a management standpoint is perfecting that opposition hedge as indicated in the green. That's the financial instrument that ERCOT makes available to help you bridge that, bring the pricing home. And then you can avoid those congestion problems. All right. I'm going to take a little bit of time here to go through exactly what we're looking at. Because this is a very instructive slide and it may look like spaghetti here for a moment. But what you're looking at, this is a slice of a day in August. The horizontal scale here are 24 hours. So this is from hour ending one to hour ending 24 across an August day. The vertical scale is in megawatts. There's a reason that it's above and below zero. You got positive and negative because the negative here, as you'll see in a moment, is going to represent where Denton would be selling excess capacity. Yes, thank you. And the line that looks like the wave, this is would be Denton's load. So this is what you have an obligation to serve. Now, the color coding is the following. The red bars are a typical wind asset, which in the summer is going to be not blowing so much during the peak hours when you need the energy. It's going to be blowing more off peak. The green would be a solar asset, which is producing during the hours that you need it. The blue vertical bars here, this would be where the deck would likely to be dispatched on peak during a summer day. Those are the most likely hours where the deck would be economic to dispatch. And you can see here that you're taking the output of the renewables as it comes. So if we look here, for example, around, let me get the mouse going, around 4 or 5 a.m., you don't have much wind. You don't have any solar. So this is the time where your wind output is really low. The sun isn't shining, there's no solar output, but you still have load that you need to serve. So this is likely when you would be supplementing your supply portfolio with purchases from the market just for a certain amount of energy, just for those hours. Yes, sir. Councilmember Riggs has a question. So did you use our little pie chart that we were presented for the Dent Renewable Plan? Is that is this something that are currently that we have or is this what you're proposing? This is just an example. And so this isn't even to the proportions we might propose. This was just sort of a typical example. Neil, you can speak to how you chose those. But it's not from the proportions that we were given that we would possibly use? It's not far away from those proportions. And what I so that I tried to sort of match what you have and what you those proportions. But it is just an example of how this works. And you could have bought more solar, for instance. You can buy more solar. And you can also buy more wind. And so all your market purchases go down. OK. But the use of the deck probably would stay the same? No. You could buy-- I'm sorry. Yes. The answer is yes. The deck is kind of independent of your whole load. It just runs. It has-- it doesn't know what your load is. You might try to stand a little bit behind the mic. Thank you. No, you're-- The deck is independent of your load, and it just runs. If the prices are right, one of the concerns, though, is the deck is not a hedge against an energy-only market. Because it's not energy. It's a capacity heat rate. And so it depends on what the gas price is. And also what any other variable cost you might have with it. And so the concern with that is that energy prices go up, but heat rates don't. As a matter of fact, there's a negative correlation. As gas prices go up, heat rates go down. And the deck is dependent on dispatch of heat rates going up. So you would have this missing hedge here, mishedge, that the deck doesn't cover. And you could do that with a market. And so that's why it fills in perfectly all the time. That's part of the daily process, is looking to see what the economics of the deck are versus market purchase. So clearly, from an economic efficiency standpoint, you want to maximize or reduce the cost and maximize your cost efficiency for the supply portfolio. This is where Neil says, to an extent, the deck is sort of outside the portfolio. You want to integrate that as much as possible. But it's an asset that you have debt service on. So naturally, you want to maximize the revenue on that to pay off the debt service. And this is part of the plan that we're going to come back with, is in addition to how you might serve load, we're going to come up with a variety of alternatives to do whatever we can every hour, every day, to help reduce the debt service as well. So it can act as a farming resource for renewables. But there may be a lot of hours where the market's cheaper to farm than running the deck. That all depends on the gas price. OK, we've got a cue here. Council Member Duff, we've got Council Member Gregory, and then Council Member Ryan. So we'll go with Council Member Duff. Very quickly, I mean, the purple area over here, I guess the decision whether you use deck for that is basically cost, right? Yes, sir. I mean, period. Yes, sir. Period. Irregardless of anything else. Period. OK. And you notice here from hours like noon, 1, 2, 3 o'clock, you're selling excess energy from the deck. So you're producing more than you need, and you're monet izing the deck in those hours. Yes, sir. Council Member Gregory? So 5 o'clock in the morning. Yes. Or the fifth hour. You have a lot of purchased power off of the market because the cost is low. The demand is low not only - Super cheap. There's less demand in the city, but it's all across the state where that's an hour where the demand's low. Yes, sir. So we can buy it cheaper. Starting at noon, this model suggests that we fire up the engines at deck because now the price is going up because the demand is going up. So we're taking part of that energy and paying what it's actually costing us down the road, what it actually cost us to make it. Yes. And then we're selling off some of the excess because people are buying at a higher cost during that time. Yes, sir. And so the model goes the same way the other way. That's right. This looks very similar to some slides that were presented to us about August by Denton Municipal Electric. Have you compared this to the slides and presentations that we've gotten? We've looked through, for example, the Brattle Report, some of the economics, but this is not based on this. And we have not looked at that. We have not looked at any Denton DME presentations at all. This is something that we've looked at. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then Mayor Pro Tem. Is this based on the deck running at full capacity, all 12, or is there? No. Whatever. The deck runs per ERCOT's execution of the deck. You don't have any control over it, basically. ERCOT will dispatch it or not dispatch it based on your pricing, and your pricing should be your variable cost. And so when they turn it on, most of the time they'll turn it all the way up. All the way up. There isn't any partial. It's either on or off, for most cases. I actually used prices in an actual summer day, this recent summer day, to represent this. And so, however many hours that is, that's how often it would be turned on. You would offer it to ERCOT at a certain economic value, and if it becomes valuable to dispatch it, they're turning it on. Right. And I also know there's a limited amount of time that we can run the deck based on our permits. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem. Two questions. One, you said that there was a negative correlation between heat rates and gas prices. So to the extent that you're using deck or market, what does this example assume as far as gas prices? This was power prices in August, so the gas prices were like $2.90 or something like that, around $3. And so the problem, you know, I think in the future is if gas prices go up $4 or $5, then the amount of execution of the deck will decline a little bit. And so, but during the summer, you should, it should be pretty steadily used by ERCOT. One of the strategic alternatives, we're not committed to this, but one of the strategic alternatives is to look through a variety of scenarios and project when the deck might run. You may choose to an extent to lock in some of the cost of gas so you know what those economics are. And that's a strategic choice that you may make. No one's committed to that yet. But then that would allow you the ability to know exactly what those economics are. So just to, if I can rephrase what you said, a higher gas scenario would result in less use of the deck. The lower gas scenario would result in more use of the deck . But with no comment about what that means from a financial standpoint for the actual solvency of the deck or how much money is coming in, correct? Yes, that's correct. We want to maximize the value of that to reduce the debt service, regardless of what the actual debt service is. The other question I was going to ask you had to do with the CRR. You said that everybody uses CRR. No. They should. Everybody should use CRR. Yes, they should. There are a lot of, we've actually picked up a couple of clients recently that thought they could get away without doing congestion hedging because they didn't, weren't really suffering much congestion. All of a sudden in June there was a lot of congestion in ER COT. The phone's ringing. Now we're doing congestion hedging for people. So some people take the attitude that, well, we can self- insure. Yeah, those risks are there, but they're probably not going to happen. Let's save a little bit of money. We refer to that, pardon the analogy, picking up dimes in front of a bulldozer. You know, as long as you don't get crushed by the bulldozer , you can slowly save some money. But when you get crushed, it's pretty rough. So we prefer to spend a little extra money on insurance premiums to then cover that risk. So does Dutton use CRRs? To an extent. I think our, we have not done a full investigation of that. That's not part of our scope of work yet. But our initial indication of that is you would make much better use of them just from our initial look at it. I'll take that as a no. You're using them, but I think you could use them now. You have something called pre-assigned congestion revenue rights on Gibbons Creek to the Lutz on the north. And those are subsidy given to noeys from the, so yes, you do. For 100 megawatts or whatever the Gibbons Creek, you get these and they're heavily subsidized. So they're incredibly cheap. So you have a cheap location and you get, it's like, I think it's 90% off or so from the price of this. So yes, you get them. They're almost free. However, if Gibbons Creek goes away, so do those PCRRs. So you're going to have to substitute, in our view, be much more active in putting in the CRRs that are not these pre-assigned, the subsidized CR Rs when Gibbons Creek goes away. And so our current plan doesn't contemplate using CRRs at this time? I don't know if we could go that far. We really haven't examined the current plan. That is something that is the scope of work that we're discussing with the city manager and the deputy city manager, but we really haven't dug into that to see yet. We've received some initial indications just from some conversations that we suspect that you would benefit from increasing that usage. Okay, thank you. You can look up how many CRRs from ERCOT has a CRR ownership by record. We've looked at this and Denton doesn't have a lot out in the future. Not near enough to cover your risk. So what we would suggest, yes. All right, you can proceed. So just to sum this up, you can see here the variable nature of the renewable resources. You've got market purchases in some hours to supplement what you need to serve your load. You've got excess generation and you've got opportunities here where the deck can generate power at a premium where you've seen excess sales here in the early afternoon. So I think that gives you a sense of how the portfolio would need to be structured. And this is a daily management process to help meet that load requirement. There's a daily purchase and sale portfolio balancing that 's required to do this. And we have a lot of clients and this is a daily outcome here. So some of this we've already talked about, but just to go through this very quickly, just in summary here. So the initial models of price suggest that the deck is likely to have excess capacity for most of the year. Clearly in especially the low gas scenarios, high load scenarios in the summer, that's when the deck's going to be running. But at 4 a.m. on an April day that you'll see later, the deck is likely not to be running, just for example. Under some perspective, coal retirement schedules, the deck capacity factor may be higher. But this is uncertain. The faster the coal gets retired, the higher the demand for other types of units in the deck would likely run more. And that's an uncertainty as to how fast coal may be retired from the market. In either case. Yes, go ahead. And on that point, are you talking about just Gibbons Creek or coal in general across the coast? Yes, sir. In either case, it may be an opportunity to sell excess deck potential production on a seasonal basis to capture additional revenue to pay debt service. So also related to that last bullet, one of the things we 're going to look at is the deck is a firming resource. You may be able to sell it as a firming service to others. This may enable others to increase their renewable portfolio. So you may be providing a service to that. There may be other ways to monetize that. And as I said earlier, we're going to be looking at that on an hourly and daily basis, whatever is possible to maximize the value of the deck to minimize the debt service there. And that fourth bullet, because most 70 to 100% renewable portfolios produce too much renewable production during the spring and fall season, it may also be beneficial to sell excess renewables as well. Because if you're buying a power purchase agreement, you've got to set amounts that you're buying. But if there's excess production in addition to your load in the spring and the fall, you may be able to monetize your renewables, excess renewables, and use the deck to pair with it to firm up that sale of those renewables as well. I suspect that maybe some of this has been couched in the term ancillary services in other presentations that we've received. Is that an incorrect guess or? Yes. Ancillary services are - there's four defined ancillary services per ERCOT. Every load has to purchase. And so that's kind of a formal way of doing this. And you know, ancillary services are essentially a minor part of the whole energy equation. It's like a dollar and a half out of a $26 market for the entire year. And so that part is, again, that's kind of the most regulated part of the market, and there's lots of sellers. We're one of the - and it's great for consumers because we have some of the fastest reacting in the largest amount of generation in the United States, and that's all related to what ancillary services can be. So it's a very competitive market. Just to - I think to amplify the answer, maybe answer the question that you asked as well, you could sell excess renewable power that you have, but if it is - it might be just as intermittent to the buyer as it is to you. But then you could sell a block of power where you're firmly committing to generate that. And if the wind blows, fine. The wind's supplying it. But if the wind's not blowing, the deck could be used to firm it. So it depends on the terms at which you might sell that energy to somebody. You're selling it as a firm block or you're simply just selling it on the intermittent basis of the wind power. That's my guess. When you're preparing your budget and your cost calculations, and if you have a portfolio that's 100 percent renewable, so clearly at times you're going to be - you're going to have more renewables generated than you can use. The load, yes, sir. When you're selling them, do you really figure on making any money off of that, or could you actually even be losing some money because you may be - there may be so much on the market that we're having to sell at a discount from what we're buying. This is a little bit of an oversimplification, but realize that when you buy that on a PPA, that's a sunk cost. So whatever you can monetize from that, that's lowering the cost basis of your overall portfolio. So if you can pick up something, even if it's cheap, it's still an advantage to you to bring in revenue for that. Yeah, okay. That's good. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Here's a spring day, just to illustrate this point further. Same concept, the horizontal scale, our 24 hours, it's a slice of an April day. This is a high wind scenario. Our vertical scale, again, our megawatts. Notice that the block of the red bars is substantially different than it was in the summer. This is when the wind's blowing. It's blowing heavily and all the time. So here in the early morning hours, you would likely have excess capacity that you could sell to the market. Yes, the price probably wouldn't be that high because everybody else has excess capacity in selling as well, but whatever you can get is still a revenue to help lower your cost basis for your overall energy. You're not getting as much output from your solar. The solar is still there, but the sun angle isn't as high, so the production is not as much. You see here during the peak in the afternoon, you still might need some market purchases. Because the overall price is probably pretty low, the deck might not be economic to dispatch in April, so you're simply buying cheaper energy from the market to meet your peak demands there. So it would be a different portfolio composition. So every month would have a different portfolio composition . Every week might have a different portfolio composition. This requires a lot of forecasting, planning, and daily transaction management. That's something that your EMO would be doing to manage a portfolio like this, to buy the shortage in the afternoon, sell the excess at night, and so forth. I see some questions. Well, no, yeah, Council Member Reed. I'm sorry. Just for clarification, this is pretty simple, but when you say summer, do you mean June, July, and August? Sometimes summer could be June to September, and usually July and August are the peak. I'll let Neil speak to that specifically. Yeah, September's included, and sometimes June and July aren't, strangely enough. It pins, like last year, the wind blew very strong all over Ircot in July, and so prices were very, very cheap. It was fairly unusual, and this year wasn't bad either. And so what that did is it really backed off on fossil fuels use. Right, yeah, because I'm thinking back to the original one that we saw for the summer day, and if the summer isn't necessarily summer all the time, then that usage of the deck will definitely shrink. Yes. It rained last year on August the 8th, it rained this year on August the 8th, and then much more. And what it did is just really depress the market. So typically when people say summer, they think of the summer vacation in those three months, but that's not necessarily what we're talking about here when we're... We're talking peak demand season. Okay, yeah. And then, you know, Ircot also has a secondary peak in the winter too, so there might be times where there's enough load if temperatures are really low in the winter, but it would not be nearly to the degree of the summer. Okay, thank you. So our path, this is our planning path here to produce recommendations for a maximum renewable lease cost portfolio here. Lease cost, lease cost, lease cost, that's what we're leading with. You want to fill a portfolio with your lease cost energy. And again, that's the opportunity you have without having a full power supply portfolio. Prices are cheap, so you have the opportunity to fill the bucket, as we say, with cheap energy. We also want to feature diversification. That's something that's going to be really important in your portfolio. You'll see some specific examples of that later. But in order to reduce the cost variability, to add more certainty to your costs, we want to then feature a diversified portfolio of assets. The renewable goal is also important. We've heard 70%. We've heard 100%. I think prices are cheaper than probably when you set those goals. You could go easily to 100% right now, very cheaply. And then, some of you may not be familiar with Monte Carlo simulation, but this is one of the things that Neil's going to oversee the effort. This is a modeling process where we're going to develop a variety of price and production scenarios, a variety of different assets, looking to achieve the maximum in diversification and bring a least cost portfolio that's the most stable in terms of cost. I don't know if you want to speak to that. I think that's enough there. That's a lot of what is the next step here, is to essentially put this in the modeling and come up with a variety of portfolio alternatives for you all that are low cost and stable. So speaking of least cost, current wind resources are offered from $17 to $22 per megawatt hour. Solar is offered in the mid-20s. I mean, I'm even shocked when I read these numbers. Every time we revise a presentation, every month or two, these numbers are coming down. These power prices are the lowest offered in the last 50 years. This is the opportunity you have. And it's renewables. It's cheap and it's clean. That's the mantra here. This is in contrast to four years earlier, when wind purchases were offered between $40 and $65 per megawatt hour. And solar was as much as five to seven times current offers , such as the city of Austin's Webberville cited $165 per megawatt hour. Prices for solar and wind are being phased out. This is a good amount of a matter of timing right now to pick these up. Natural gas is the marginal fuel nationwide and supply is declining at current price levels while demand is increasing. That could likely lead to gas prices increasing. And if gas prices increase, then you would see a rise in the price of renewables. So I think this is the perfect storm in a positive sense of all of these factors. Yes, sir. Do you have a question? Councilmember Briggs and then Councilmember Barabas. Well, yeah. Regarding the renewables and purchasing more. The reason I asked on the first slide for the summer output was if we were looking at our current mix, because if we do go out and purchase more solar than the summer months that we were talking about, more than likely those summer P PAs would reduce, we would be getting more energy from solar. Yes. And it would reduce that, those purple lines. That's correct. Yeah. Reduce the purple lines and might reduce the dispatch of the deck. Although, that's right. Neil is going to correct me there. The deck, we're going to dispatch that as much as possible to make as much revenue off of it, yes. To make as much revenue? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. You want to monetize, you want to maximize the value of that asset to reduce the debt service. Yeah. So that's the main goal here, right? Is just to check. No. No. The main goal here is to meet your renewable portfolio standards and do it in the least cost way. It's just that you've made a commitment to the deck and you have a debt service. And so, you know, we also want to help from a planning purpose just to reduce the debt service as much as possible. Okay. Thank you. I want you to think about this on the solar. If the solar is less expensive most of the time than the deck, then it's also energy. So it's a perfect hedge against your load, whereas the deck isn't. And so, that means you may want to buy more solar because it's a hedge and it really covers the purple purchase. It fits your load better. Yeah. It fits your load better. Yes. The solar. Yes. Council Member Goodman. I just want to make a couple of points. Subsidies for solar and wind will be phased, are being ph ased out. Will that likely cause the cost per megawatt hour to go up in those areas once the subsidies go away? Yeah. Yeah. The subsidies are big. But at the same time, solar is becoming more efficient. It depends whether it's the long term or the medium term. In the medium term, yes, the prices are likely to go up. However, in ERCOT, because of this, we don't have that renewable portfolio standard. Only a few folks buy long term renewables. And one of them is right here, right? The munis and that sort of thing. And so, the demand isn't great in Texas. Did you say is or is not? Is not great in Texas. For solar. But the supply is great. So it's a buyer's market. For renewables in general. Well, the concern, the anxiety is, you know, in the next two years as we're converting is when we need to be buying those long term PPAs. And the anxiety is that we buy them just like Austin did a couple of years ago at $40 to $65. And then they drop. But I think what I'm hearing you say is that because the subsidies are going away, we may be at a low point. It may not be jumping up as fast because there are the engineering, the technology is such that they may be continuing to drop the price for solar. I'm not sure that the price for wind is dropping that much more. Do you see? The price is coming down faster than wind because of the increases in technology. So you're thinking that we're in a very good window to make long term purchases or medium term purchases or what? Yes. For both. And so that's part of the planning function as well. One of the things that we like to do with clients is try to understand what their goals are and there are competing goals. There's a goal of getting your cost stable, but if you buy too much for too long, you're putting a stake in the ground and you might be wrong. We call it the hero or the goat syndrome. You may be the hero for a while and later on you'll turn back into the goat. So there's a balance there. And that's another thing that we would work with your staff to determine. You want to go out 20 years, 10 years, 5 years. You may want to layer that in. You may be 100% for, I'm just picking these numbers out of here, 3 or 5 years, 70%, 10 years out, so forth. That's a matter of the balance of those objectives. Yes, sir. If I may, and that's part of what you were talking about on that previous slide about diversity. Yes, sir. That's part of the diversification as well. Because you want to at least somewhat stay aligned with the market, but stay competitive as well. Yes, sir. Council Member Duff. Yes. Yeah, I would be a little concerned about buying too far out in advance on these renewables because I think that the solar is going to come on a whole lot faster than a lot of people will imagine because the efficiency is increasing. Yes, sir. And it will continue to increase. As the volume goes up, those prices come down. It's a semiconductor. Yes, sir. Unless Washington slaps a significant tariff on it, that's another wild card in this as well. Yeah. That's another wild card. But I can't imagine that happening because I mean what's cleaner than solar? Yeah. You want to speak to the cost thing? Yeah, one thing too. We're an energy-only market and the marginal fuel is natural gas. All these prices are set by natural gas, not the renewables . The market prices are set by natural gas. So you have to really, that's really what you want. If natural gas prices are really high, the market will be high. And renewables are only a small, even if they're, you know, if you quadruple or increase them at a huge rate, they'll still be maybe only 20 percent of the market. What Neil is saying is that the gas prices set in the market, you can have a very high price set by gas. Solar, the solar producers are loving it because they're making a huge margin on that. So if gas prices go up, renewable prices will also rise because of that offset. So I want to, oh, go ahead. Yeah, but I suspect that, you know, that solar really takes off and I think it will. I think actually the wind, you know, what they're getting for wind prices is going to be driven by solar eventually. And I think solar will be the driving force. Now, I don't know whether that's going to be two years, five years, or 10 years. It depends on the penetration. That's clearly a growing asset class. It's got to have a lot more. But that can happen pretty fast. So thus, part of the balance that we want to help work with the city on is how far out do you go? Yes. I want to make sure I heard a statement that one of you made, I can't remember, said that there's not much demand in Texas for renewables. Did I hear that or was it the opposite of that? No, that's exactly what I said. There's not much demand in Texas for renewables in terms of going out for long-term prices. But also even in the retail, you go out and look at a fraction and says, we can sell you renewables even if they put on a Rex on those. And often it's not real. The appetite isn't there, you know. People just look at price. And so there's not much of a demand for renewables in Texas because in the retail areas, it's maybe 10% or something of the market. And to us, that's not an argument against them. The beauty is they're cheap and clean. No, I understand that. But that's just -- It's a curious fact. Yes, it is. So we find that to be curious as well. But that's just what the retail market has shown there. We have one other comment. I'm sorry. Well, on things like solar, is it possible to do a long- term commitment but have it hedged to something so that the prices come down, you can maintain the lower price or at least some part of it? I think what would be easier to do is that, you know, you 're not obligated to do a 20-year deal. It would be easier because one of the things we're likely to propose are maybe two or three different sites and contracts for solar. You could stagger those in terms of the duration. So I think it would be easier from a transactional standpoint to do that as opposed to hedge it. Just kind of step into that, have different pieces of different lengths. Well, it probably would be rather difficult to get, you know, a solar farm to go along with -- It would be difficult and they would probably -- They're looking for their profit. And they would charge quite a premium for that. Yes. Yes. All right. This slide illustrates the diversification we're talking about. So what you're seeing here, again, this is a 24-hour slice of a day. So the horizontal scale or hours of the day, the vertical scale, is the percentage of capacity of each of those various generation technologies with the load, the wave curve, the load, overlaid on top of that. So the purple is solar. You can see it's not generating at all overnight and it peaks at 3 p.m. But what's also interesting here is that the wind is not the wind. People think -- often think that wind is just wind. It's not. Notice the difference in coastal wind, which is red, from the blue line, darker blue line, which is West Texas wind. Coastal wind has a higher capacity factor. It's peaking at the right time of day. It's a very nice complement to solar. Panhandle wind has a higher capacity factor than what your sort of generic West Texas wind is. So we want to look at diversification from a variety of perspectives here. You'll see this in a moment. But, for example, wind and solar are almost perfectly negatively correlated. They're a great fit from a diversification standpoint. But coastal could also have a role. And there's a fit for that versus other types and locations . So you don't want to just go all in with one type of renewable. You want to build a diversified portfolio of these. And that just gives you an illustration of that degree of diversity there. So speaking more to that point, as we've talked about, renewables are intermittent producers and they carry two risk elements. Spotty hedge performance -- in other words, they are intermittent. So they're not always there. This is something you need to manage around. And increased forecast error. So by diversifying these sources, you can reduce the forecast error because you're not all in on one asset that's going to have a wider range of uncertainty. So by building a diversified portfolio, you can reduce the degree of uncertainty and reduce your overall costs of managing around that. One other piece that's not on this slide that I should have mentioned on the previous one. You also want diversification and counterparties. You don't want to go all into one company because there's a risk that they go out of business or default. So there's a credit risk management aspect to divers ification as well. This is why portfolio renewables should be composed of resources that are poorly correlated with each other. So combining those lower correlations reduces risks and improves the overall hedge correlation and forecast reliability. And there are two examples presented here. You've got the main risk reduction, combination of solar and wind. But as we said, you have differences in quality in wind and diversification there as well. So here's the beauty of this. If you were in some other commodity complex like petroleum refining or agriculture or whatever, you won't find these negative offsetting correl ations. You are in the business. You are in the industry that has the greatest opportunity for this diversification. Any questions on this before we move on? I won't spend much time on this slide. This is just from the ERCOT State of the Market Report, which if you haven't seen it, it is very technical. It's very long, but it really has a lot of valuable information. These are just congestion spreads. These are the price spreads at different time frames in the different regions of Texas. Over here on the lower left is the North Zone. You see the congestion is the least. This is an advantageous position for you all to be in the North Zone. But you might be bringing renewable resources from the West or the South or so forth, which would then lead to more potential congestion exposure. Now we talked about coastal possibly being a negative. But this just, we just wanted to illustrate the point that congestion is a risk. It's likely to become more of an issue depending upon the regions where you source your renewable portfolio. And this is why a CRR hedging program is very necessary to complete that opposition. So our anticipated recommendation is for the real plan. Yes? Well, you mentioned congestion about renewables. But if we sell the energy off the deck, are we also concerned about congestion as well? Or no? I mean, if we're purchasing -- You use the same market to deliver elsewhere. You simply buy a CRR to whatever the location. Or let the buyer, if you're selling it, let him do the congestion. You could -- different ways of doing it. I'm selling it as is. The deck is somewhere here in Denton. That's the firming thing. That's the buyer's problem. And here's the wind I'm selling you. This is out in West Texas. And that's also as is. Or we can buy these CRRs and put it together and package it and deliver it to your location. And whatever they want. And so you can put these together and take away a risk in the transaction. Okay. Yeah. I just -- the deck was sold to us as our own backup. It's loved for us. And so when I was thinking of energy, I was thinking our citizens of Denton would be purchasing the energy as well. That's why I asked that question. But it's still settling in the whole process of the way that it really works. Yeah. Thanks. Okay. So we have a delivery date of October 16th for the resource plan. And then we'll be back, I believe, about a week later to do a brief presentation to kind of summarize that. So here's just our anticipated recommendations here. We will be recommending purchasing additional wind with lower correlation to your current wind supplies to better complete the supply hedge and achieve greater diversification. You do have a substantial PPA coming online here in West Texas. So additional wind resources need to be diversified versus that asset. We would anticipate purchasing solar at two or more additional locations to improve the aggregate reliability that also can spread across the time frames in terms of the commitment and achieve additional diversification. We would anticipate that 30% of the purchased load or the supplies purchased for the load would be done with short to intermediate term contracts, for example, two to five years, to achieve this layering and not this overcommitment over too long a time frame. Preferably, if possible, we want to avoid known congestion areas and emphasize higher capacity interconnections with the grid because that would lessen your likely congestion risk. We expect prices for renewables to be in the mid $20 per megawatt hour, which is highly attractive. And we will propose a variety of alternatives for maxim izing the value of the deck, including how to dispose of prospective excess production potential. As we view it, this is a sunk cost, and you need to maximize the revenue from that to reduce the debt service. >> So what you're saying, just for clarification, is that renewables are cheaper and we basically need more of those to make our deck successful? >> No. >> To hedge? >> No, we would say lower your cost. >> Lower your cost, period. >> To lower the cost. >> Just take the deck out of it for a moment. You have a renewable goal. You don't have enough energy supply to meet your load going into the future. It's a great market to buy more, and the least cost resource is the cleanest resource. It's just a perfect match for that. The deck can serve as a farming resource for your renew ables, given the intermittency of it, but they'll have a lot of the year, there'll be excess capacity, and you've got a large debt service, and we want to work to help you reduce that as well. >> And so here I notice there's nothing about storage. So is that not -- we're not there yet? Is there some city I see issuing RFPs for storage and whatnot? Is that -- we're just not there yet? >> Some of the storage can be useful for a few hours. It can be useful behind local congestion. It can help you smooth out your demand within your city, but for large-scale commercial, for example, say storing all the solar production during the day and then having it for days later, it's not there yet. There are tremendous improvements in that coming. A friend of mine just sent me a blog post today. I haven't read it, and it's about that. We're on the cusp of that there. But it's not a viable mainstream, large-scale potential asset yet for your supply portfolio. So thus, for where we're going to go right now for the renewable resource plan, it's not there. >> It's not recommended. Okay. >> But, you know, five years, that may be a substantial part of it. >> It's going to be a big part of the market. That's one of the biggest differences between the power market and any other commodity market. You can't store it. So that will be a huge boon, a huge boon to the renewable application of this industry as well when it's there. But we're just not quite there yet, unfortunately. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yes. >> No, thanks. >> Yeah. I'm sorry, I'm approaching. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> I have a question about the short to intermediate term renewable contracts. We purchased a very long-term 20-year contract for West Texas Wind, and if I remember correctly, it bumped our renewable percentage to 88%. So I'm wondering where 30% is going to come from. Wouldn't we only have about 12% renewable penetration available? >> Those aren't the figures we've seen. I don't know if that's including the recs that we're not counting as part of that. Or is there something else? >> We're talking about the 150 megawatt capacity and, you know, the -- >> That's the capacity factor on that. >> Yeah, and it's about maybe 40% or something like that or less. And so it does increase your amount. I think I had it at something like 50%, closer to 50% than 88%. I think that's adding some solar and some other stuff in it . And your current 30 megawatt, one, two. I think what had happened was our original, the renewable didn't plan was for 70% renewable by 2019. A few months ago we heard that it would -- that we could boost it up to 88%, but we had not done all of the contracts yet. It was just a projection for 88%. And part of the reason that they were saying that we could get up to 88% so much sooner was because of that second to the bottom bullet point, which is the expected price for renewables in the mid-20s so that we could do more deals between now and 2019 so that we -- the projection was 88% by 2019. >> I guess just a further point, Councilmember Gregory's memory is correct. And to further his point, we have asked our team at Enterprise Risk Consulting to help us write the next RFP so we can try to increase the diversification of the assets we bring to you, hoping to get up to -- to creep closer to that goal. >> That's a perfect cue for the next slide, which is the last slide, which is phase two, or part two of our project here. This has not been authorized yet, but this would be the next steps we would be taking in addition to the resource plan that we are -- we'll be delivering here in a few weeks. You already have an RFP on the street for requesting proposals for renewable assets, so there are some things that can be done to improve that, to increase the offers, get the right offers. We want to look at that. We have extensive experience in evaluating RFPs and helping to figure out what the appropriate deals are in negotiating those deals. That also includes the gas supply. The gas supply is really important in terms of the economics of the deck so that you can at least maximize the value of that asset, because right now, as Neil said, it's a heat rate. You've got the capacity to convert gas into power, but without the gas being locked up with no specific economics for that, you don't know what the actual cost is. So the gas supply, who's going to provide that, the pipelines, under what tariff -- what the tariff terms are going to be for that, that's a very important thing. So we propose that as a next step to these things. You're on a critical path to get this going very quickly, to make sure you've got the right supplies, the right suppliers, the right type, and so forth. That's just the next part of our proposed work for you all. And that's the end of the presentation. Any follow-on questions here? Any questions? One thing I might ask, and it's not so much for you guys, but I made a presentation at the U.S. Conference of Major's Energy Committee, and they provided a document that shows sort of the projected split out of our renewables. And so I think that would be helpful if that was maybe sent to the count, just that one singular page, because it does go into here's what we've got, here's what we've got, here's the percentages, and I think that would be helpful to help you guys see that. So any other questions for our presenters? Yes, Council Member Briggs. So you had on the last slide that solar is around $20 per megawatt, right, or expected mid-20s? Okay. So do we know, or in your future plan, will you look at what the gas per megawatt would be, like if for our FAR deck, would that all be incorporated as well? Do we know what that might be right now compared to solar? Well, the problem with this is that, you know, this is a -- the deck is just a contingent resource. It doesn't -- you can't compare it. The sun will shine every day, and sometimes it's a little cloudy, but it still shines every day. The deck may be in the money, may not be in the money. It's very, very difficult to predict it. So what happens is, if you want to buy gas for that, and you tell the gas supplier, I don't know whether I want -- you know, I want to run this or whatever, it's -- they charge you a large premium, and that's what we don't know, and so you don't know how much you will use it, and you don't know what that premium will be. And so that means the economics are very difficult to compare the two. But in our -- in the planning process, in the modeling process, Neil's going to do, he can look at various gas scenarios to get a sense of then what role -- So we're not over or under buying? Because I know right now with the Gibbons Creek, there was an issue with the coal, like, buying so much and not being able to use it and all that stuff, and so I think that might be a -- My understanding is you're not buying any gas forward. You're just buying it as you use it. So that is a potential to do, but there'd be a lot of planning for that. Thank you. I've heard -- I've asked this question a couple times, and I've heard two different answers. As it relates to the strike price of the deck, does ERCOT include the capital costs and the debt associated with building that product or building that source in the pricing? You can address that. I've been told yes and no. No. No is the answer. They only take the variable costs that you -- or, yes, the variable costs that the people bid in, and that's really what everything is dispatched on, and so some costs are not -- you know, sometimes they're huge. You never run. At some point, people show there's no cost in things. It's just whatever margin you can make over your variable costs, that's how you get net revenues from the process. So to that, we've also heard that deck being a clean, more efficient generation, that it would be called on first before other generation available that's not so clean. No. There's no environmental dispatch at ERCOT. It doesn't have that process. There's only, say California and New York are including environmental dispatch and their economic dispatch. It's just variable costs based on whatever the price is. So another risk would be that if there's two gas plants competing, one has a lot of debt that they need to make up for their -- to put in their price and one doesn't, then the one that doesn't have the debt to worry about is going to win that ERCOT market? No. It's just what they say is the variable cost. If they have the exact same heat rates, they tie. Oh, it's the heat rate? It's the heat rate. It's the efficiency that they convert typically. We learned about that last week. Yeah. And then you look at your gas price for instance. Let's say you have two units. This is what we're concerned about. Two units. They're both nine heat rates. One has long-term tariff and their price is $3 for gas. The other one doesn't. And that day's gas price is $3.30. The one with the long-term tariff will dispatch. It'll be cheaper. Yeah. Okay. So it's all about marginal economics at the time. Yes. So what you're talking about is that determines the bid price. That determines the price at which you offer it to the pool . Right. And the bid price is set by -- for DEC is set by Denton, correct? Right. Yeah. And so if we set a bid price that covers our cost, I mean, we can do that, right? You can do it and it might not run. Right. You should. You should. The whole market is designed in economic efficiency by -- all these economists would say you should always bid your variable costs. Make sure you get -- if it does run, you're not losing money on it all the time it dispatches, right? Aren't you also bidding your fixed cost? No. You're not? No. You can't. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that when you were talking about cost, Councilman Gregory, that it was not fixed cost, not capital cost included in that. Okay. Any other questions? Are we to give direction on this right here? Whether we're -- what do we call for direction? I'm okay with this, if this is what we're looking for. I think Brian Langley is working with them on a proposal to bring before PB and Council just to make sure that we have the authority to enter into this contract. So these are the next several scopes that we'll be working with them on. I'm on the wrong slide here. But the next -- we will have something in October for you to consider. Okay. There we go. Thank you. Great. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. You bet. Let's take a five-minute break before we get started on the next one, just so we don't go too far over. All right. Welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on September the 19th, 2017. It is 4 -- 4 o'clock. Wow. It is 1.43. All right. We're going to -- agenda item A, we're still compiling some additional information for the presentation, so we're going to move that on down in the process. So we're going to go to item B, which is receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction on the vendor master list audit. Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Craig Hammett, and I'm a city auditor. I'm going to give you a briefing on the vendor master file audit. The first question that you may have is why would we do an audit on the vendor master file? Well, the vendor master file contains vital information from our payees. Our payees could be citizens based on the refunds that we give them, employee reimbursements, and vendors themselves. So ignoring it could lead to duplicate payments or fraud ulent activity. When I looked at this particular file, it had over 92,000 total records in it as of April 2017. So my objective in this audit was to determine if the controls are designed appropriately and working effectively. And what I found is that there were some improvements that could be made to this particular file. So one of the items is I did not find any policies and procedures which govern this particular file. So items that I would be looking for in policies and procedures would be, when do you make an active file inactive? How often do you clean up this file? Naming conventions also. How do we name the accounts that go into this particular file? The next item that I want to talk about as far as an improvement goes would be gaps in address book numbers. Okay, now regarding gaps, the reason I look for gaps is because I'm looking for accountability over this file and whether I have a complete inventory of address book numbers. Okay, and so when I looked at this, I found that, yeah, there were a lot of gaps, but there was a reason for that. And so what I have up here is a diagram. In blue, you see the JD address book. You see there's modules there. There's seven modules up there. Now keep in mind, I'm just looking at the supplier or vendor master file, which you see on your left under materials management. So I'm looking under that particular file, but the way this works is each of those seven modules is pulling an address book number. And so I'm just looking at the vendor master file, which is right over here. And all seven of these are pulling address book numbers. And that's what you have here. That's what creates an account in this vendor master file, are the address book numbers. So Payee has an address book number. So there's no way at this present time that you would not have gaps. So right now, there could be modifications done to the program to correct that. Right now, management is looking at the functionality of JD Edwards to see if it's meeting the needs of the current and future users, so we'll have to see what comes out of that. But that was dealing with that particular area of improvement. Now while I have this diagram up here, what I also want to show you is there were about, there's different business types that we have up here. And so what we found is that there's about 16 that I saw that were being utilized here. And so all of these except for three. And so what they've done is, what management has done is, they've already corrected this. There's now only going to be those areas in green that you will be able to make a payment on. So they've reduced the number of business types that can be paid on. So that puts greater control into that vendor master file, which is a good thing. So I wanted to point that out also. >> Yes. >> So was that change made on your recommendation? >> Yes, it was. And it was made, they already have implemented, that's what they told me. So kudos to management for jumping on that right away. >> Awesome, thanks. Okay, so then the next item here, we have naming conventions. So what are naming conventions? Let me give you an example of what I mean by naming conventions. Let's take the company IBM. In the file, it could be named as IBM. It could be named as I space B space M. It could be notated as I period B period M period. Or it could be notated as international business machines. Well, that creates an expansive file if you don't have a naming convention. So that's what I'm looking for in policies and procedures. What is the way that it should be done? So that was one of the issues that they have and management agreed with that particular item and they're going to cover that in their policies and procedures. Now, the next item you see up here is cleaning the file. So what I'm looking at here is I'm looking at the amount of duplications that are in the file and also the amount of inactives that we have. And when do we make an account inactive? When do we purge it from this particular file? And so that's what I mentioned to management. Management agreed with this particular recommendation except for the purging. Because if they purge, it has to go into a different program which would make it difficult to assess that if they're doing any research. Now the other thing that came out of this cleaning of the file is what we found is that we can still pay on inactives, which is not a good thing. Because you make them inactive so you don't pay on it. So once again, management got on this right away and got that implemented. So that's very good. Okay, the next item we have up here are access rights. So what I'm looking for there is in the case of purchasing, do I see an approval for all the entries made in this particular file? And then also, accounts payable. Can they get into the file and make changes? And so those were the two recommendations that I made regarding access rights. And I will tell you this, that management has already looked at the security rights for this file and made those needed corrections. As far as purchasing, to show the approvals, they're going to use laser fish and come up with a new vendor request form which will show the approvals. So that is the issue on access rights. Reliability and integrity. There are certain business types that are paid. I just showed you the diagram on the different types of businesses. What I found is some of those were using these when they actually were refunds. And so I brought that to management's attention. And so they're going to take care of the recategorization of those particular items as far as reliability and integrity of computer generated data. Okay, the next item I have here is taxpayer ID number matching and debarment. And what I found here is that was being done on the back end in the accounts payable section, rather than in the purchasing section. So what I recommended is that they move that to the purchasing right up front, which they agreed to, and so that took care of that particular issue. Now, the user defined codes in JD Edwards, that is the one that I mentioned to you already. We went from 16 down to four business types that could be paid on. So those are the areas of improvement that I offered up to management. And so if you have any questions, I'm open for any questions at this time. >> Yes, Council Member Briggs. >> Just a quick one. So you said we currently do not have any policies or procedures written for this file. >> For this file, correct. >> So who will be writing those? >> That'll be purchasing along with some of the other departments that also use this file heavily, such as customer service, they'll take part into creating those policies also. >> Using your recommendations. >> Correct, as to what to put into the policy. >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. >> Mm-hm. >> Anybody else? >> Okay, all right, so with your direction then, what I would do at this point in time is then put this on the website. Is that what you're- >> Yeah, yes, I think the caption is give staff direction on the vendor master file audit. So what you describe that you want to do, that's the direction you're seeking. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> All right, Council Member Riggs? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay, everybody okay with moving forward in that direction? >> And the audit finance committee did see this presentation. >> That is correct. >> Recommended that as well. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right, okay, so then the next item is item C, which is receive a report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the FY18 annual audit plan. Okay, so the alternatives here for this FY18 annual audit plan will be take the plan as is, rearrange the audit plan with the various audits that I'm providing you, or adding, changing, or deleting audits if you'd like. Okay, so how do I go about doing this plan? Well, the first thing I do is I create a risk assessment. And so how I went about that is I interviewed council members, I interviewed management, and I used my own observations. All right, so. Okay, so what I did here is when I created this risk assessment, this city-wide risk assessment, you'll note down here that what I do is I look at impact and I look at likelihood, and I assign values of one through five for each of these here. And then I create those values and then I assign them and I come up with a risk score. Okay, so the top five risks that I have here for this city are going to be project delivery, it's going to be contract administration, management of bond funds, energy management office at DME, and then information security. Those are the top five. What I have here is about 100 risks. Just two comments here, no two people will come up with the same risk assessment because their assessment of impact and likelihood may be different. The other thing I would tell you is this is a living, breathing document. This gets updated constantly. This is a baseline. So this is what we use from here on out. But this is the risk assessment. This is what I use to facilitate that annual audit plan. Does anybody have any questions on the risk assessment? >> I do, on this one because the EMO is mentioned here, but I think we saw a presentation last week on the EMO. Is this something different or is that correlated together or? >> No, it's correlated together. This would be the shop over there that does all the trading in that. >> Okay, so you would be doing something separate from what the people that are over there, we gave direction to? >> Well, this is just the risk assessment now. So when I go to my annual audit plan, which I'm going to do here in a minute, you'll see I have an item for DME. But it's not dealing with the energy management office because I know that they're in there right now. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. All right, so that was the origin of the plan. So now, once I have an idea of what audits I want to put into this plan. >> Greg, I'm sorry, Council Member Gregory. >> I'm saying this for the guys in the media center. Can you go to full slide? >> Sure. >> It's easier for the people on TV to see it. >> Okay, there we go. Okay, so with the risk assessment in place, I've also got to take into consideration the scarce resources that I have. And so what I have here is the total hours available for audits were 3,040. I have an annual audit plan, I'm assuming here, staff auditor for nine months. And then also I'm going to provide you with additional aud its for your consideration. So I'm going to go ahead and show you that right now. Okay, now, I had 3,040 that I just told you. However, my total is 3640. Audit time is split three ways. It's audit, admin, and time off. So what I have here, I'm estimating 450 hours for admin, 150 for time off. Okay, so now I go into my annual audit plan. The first item I have here is the contract administration audit. You notice it says from FY 17, that's a continuation of this particular six months audit plan. There was about 400 hours in that audit plan, and I was not able to finish it due to the other items I was working on, such as solid waste, DME. So in order to finish it, I have that in my annual audit plan for FY 18. I also have management of bond funds. This also was one of the top five risks I had. Information security was one of the top five. Part of that is the access rights that we have to our software. I have that in the annual audit plan. Here's the DMEs that I'm going to look at policies and procedures. And then also the Denton Energy Center, the billings there. I told you in a prior memo to council, I would be doing a P card audit, and there that is. I put on here a red light camera audit. I have a fixed base operator lease agreement audit. This was a requested audit. I have on here a hotel tax audit. That has been done by an outsourced firm, hotel tax audits. I've done hotel tax audits in Dallas and Irving. I have an alcoholic beverage permit fee revenue audit. And so that makes up $2,500. Well, part of this plan has to be dealing with follow up audits. And so I just presented you the vendor master file audit. So next fiscal year I'll come in, make sure that everything that they said they would implement, they have implemented. The cash count follow up audit, there was a cash count review done. That was briefed at the Audit and Finance Committee meeting . And so there again, I'm going to look at if what the departments are saying they're going to do, they actually have done that. Now, the next item here, I have estimated at $300. It consists of investigations, advisements, risk assessment , and audit plan, annual reports, and fraud training. That's estimated at $300. Here's the thing that's going to make or break this annual audit plan, the amount of investigations. And that could be internal or it could be coming from the anonymous reporting mechanism that we have. But that is the 3,040 hours that I mentioned to you I have available. Now, I have some additional audits here. >> Craig, real quick before you get off on that, Council Member Gregory had a question. >> So a couple of questions on what you've presented so far . >> Yes. >> If you'll scroll back up to the DME. >> Okay. >> I think it was mainly dealing with DEC. >> Yes. >> I think what I heard today was that we have an outside consultant that is going to be coming back to us with recommendations about how to operate DEC. >> Right. >> And I guess that has to do with procedures and policies that we operate in order to firm up our renewables and to sell. So is this a duplication of that? Does it overlap or is this completely separate from that? >> Well, this would be looking at policies and procedures entire in it holistically at DME. That's what I have here. Now, there's other odds I'm going to give you. If you want to take this out and substitute with another, we can do that. >> No, I was just, I did not want you to be operating here and them to be doing virtually the same thing and when we could use your hours in a different way. When you do something like this, I'm assuming that you're collaborating with those folks because they know their procedure is better than you would. How does that work? >> Yeah, well, one of the first things I ask is, is there going to be a consultant in the area? And that happened on one of the additional audits here that I'm going to go to in a minute. And so when I heard that, I had moved it to FY19. But when I did the research, I actually read the contract. I don't think that it's going to be an issue. When I heard freezing nickels, I didn't want to go there right away because I don't want to overlap what the consultant is doing. So if we do have an issue with this one, I can pull this one out, put another one in. >> Okay, then if you'll scroll down to, you were talking about risk analysis. There you go. I don't think that, anyhow, what I wanted to ask was, how long has the hotline been in place? >> Hotline has been in place since June 1st. >> And how much time have you spent in June, July, and August, three months on following up on those calls? >> Yeah, I don't have that off the top of my head, but I have to keep track of that. I have a schedule, a time schedule, I can give you the exact amount of hours I can give you. I don't have it off the top of my head. >> Did you use that three months in order to estimate this 300 hours? >> I did, but when it comes to investigations, it's very hard to project that. You don't know what you're going to get into. >> Right. Okay, thanks. >> Okay, you may proceed. >> Okay. All right, so here are the additional audits that we have. And this really, what Councilmember Gregory mentioned, leads me right into this. Because CIP project delivery audit, that was something I heard Freeze and Nichols was doing work over there. So I had originally put it FY19. When I came to the Audit and Finance Committee, that's when I stated that these next three audits would be FY19. But I did some follow up work since that Audit and Finance Committee meeting. And I actually read the agreement with Freeze and Nichols. And I don't think it's going to be an issue. I don't think we're going to overlap there. So that's fair game for this year. And I know Councilmember Ryan mentioned at the Audit and Finance Committee he wanted me to switch out the red light cameras with this particular audit. And I can do that if you so desire. There will be some other audits here, one is the Tree Mit igation Fund. I don't see a conflict there. Denton Chamber of Commerce was evaluate the financial information to include the metrics in that contract. The Municipal Court audit, evaluate the reliability, integrity of the ENCODE software. Another one here, Municipal Court audit, evaluate the accountability for the conversion of monetary to non-monet ary punishment. And two from Fleet Services, Parks and Rec, they're in the process of going from the class software system to the Rec 1 software system. And I would come in here and do a post implementation audit to make sure that new software is working the way it should work. Then also the Police Seizure Fund. And so there may have been some concern there about if there's any commingling of funds. So those are the additional audits for consideration. So once again, the alternatives would be to accept it as is or rearrange this audit plan or put in any other audits that you would like. >> I think if I remember correctly, the Audit and Finance Committee, outside of your suggestion of moving it, had recommended moving forward with just the plan as it was presented. But that was with you saying that you were going to move one of those audits into 2019. But you're saying, so open for discussion at this time. Any questions or comments? Council Member Ryan? >> On the Freese and Nichols, how much overlap is there? Or do you see none? >> When I read the contract, it's more on on call. They would come on an on call basis and to review certain projects. So I don't think that there would be an overlap there. >> Okay. So to me that's just a more important one. If there's not overlap, it was our understanding at audit that there probably would be quite a bit of overlap. >> You're okay with that as presented? Is that what you're saying? >> No, what I'm saying is, what I'm hearing now is that there's not the overlap that we thought there was during audit finance on the CIP audit. >> Yes. >> And so I still would like to see the red light camera get moved out one year and move the CIP up a year because I think there's much higher impact on CIP than what there is on red light as far as if there are issues. >> Okay, so you're saying you want the red light camera to be done this year and the CIP to be done next year? >> No, opposite. Because right now the way it's scheduled is for red light this year. >> Okay, and I'm okay with your suggestion. >> So I'd rather have the CIP this year and move the red light. >> Okay, I'm okay with that. Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. >> I thought you said the CIP audit could be done this year ? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And that's what I think he's recommending. >> That was my recommendation, a change from this, the way it was presented to us in audit finance is that CIP because of the crossover with Freese and Nichols would not be done until the following year to see what they came up with. But what we're hearing now is that Freese and Nichols is not going to be the same type of audit as what he would perform. >> So do you have a problem with keeping the red light camera audit on this year's? >> Well, I was just trying to find a place that we could cut from his, because it's 310 hours on the CIP, 300 hours on the red light. >> I see. >> So it doesn't even swap. It'd be great if we could do both, but there's not the hours there to handle by. >> I see what you're saying. Okay, that's fine. >> Yep, Councilmember Housman. >> I would be a dissenting opinion to that, just because the year before we had minimal projects. CIP this year will have 40-ish, next two years we're having 60. So I think it's best use of time to push it, maintain next year for CIP, because that'll be around numbers 100 projects in the works. And we're expecting real heavy load those next two years. And red light cameras affects our citizens every day, and it's something that doesn't have to roll around as frequent , again, the contracts coming up. So I think it's important to know what we have going into that contract discussion round numbers two years. >> All right, comments, questions? So we gotta give direction. Yes, make a- >> When is the red light camera contract? >> I don't know the exact date. I think it's coming up sometime this next fiscal year. >> It's either 2018 or 2019. >> I think Councilmember Hutsmith brings up some good points. I tend to agree with him. >> It would definitely be good information to have for that discussion, if we renew or not. >> Is that renewal though? Is that this year, next year? Is it this year? >> I believe it was 2019. The end of 2018 is when the contract is up, I believe. I'll double check with Chuck. >> So the end of next year? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I'm indifferent. I mean, I'm not so, I don't know if I would think waiting for 100 CIP projects to do an audit. If we got 40 or 50 or 60, I'm okay with that because I'd hate to get out to 100 and find out that we might have some systematic issue with that . But I'm indifferent. It doesn't matter to me. So it's whatever the council's pleasure is. So we're going to, Councilmember Briggs. >> So reading the CIP project, it says determine if there is an efficient and effective process in place. So if we did that, by the time the hundreds come up, then we would have a better efficient process in place for those coming up. The more, okay, I see. >> Yeah, I mean, I'm indifferent as well, but a CIP is pretty important right now to make sure that that is efficient and effective, especially if we're having a lot of projects come up. That is, I mean, I get a few calls about red light cameras, but not near as many as I do about streets and water, so. >> Okay, all right. Councilmember Wright. >> And I have no problem with the red light camera audit. It was looking at the list, that was probably the one that personally I felt was needed the least, not that it's not needed. It's just if there was a different one that you wanted to take in place of it. But I think Councilmember Briggs brings up a great point that we want to have these policies and procedures in place before we get into those 60 projects. And by doing that this year, it makes more sense. >> Councilmember Gagarin. >> Well, that was my same thought. Don't wait till we get into 100 projects. We'll do it ahead of time. But how about going back to your risk analysis? Which had the higher risk, CIP project delivery audit or red light cameras? >> CIP. >> Well then, if that has a higher risk, it seems like that ought to be the higher priority for getting it done. >> Well, and what I'm hearing is that these audit plans are based on fiscal years. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> So if our contract is up for renewal with the red light camera at the end of 2018, that will be the next fiscal year, because our fiscal year starts October 1st. So technically, I mean, we could give direction at this same time next year for your audit plan to say, yes, we want to include the red light camera. We want to get it done before the contract comes up. So it still puts us in that same position of having this information at hand before the contract renewal. So did you have a question? >> Yeah, a question about, because you were also talking about being terribly understaffed, but there was also the possibility of, I think we have budgeted some additional staff. If we have some additional staff, could any of those projects be bumped up? >> Well, the way I did this annual audit plan was- >> Assumed that I will have a staff audit for nine months. >> Okay, got it. So you're already assuming that. >> Okay, so any comment, yes, Council Member Duff? Good with what? Okay, still red light? >> No, I mean, I get it. The math makes sense. Yes, my individual preference is red light because it lacks the oversight that we have a brand new CIP manager, he's looked into that and there's a few other layers versus an entity that we have not under our roof that's running things that I'm not crazy about. I'm absolutely biased. So I go along to get along, but I still think it's more important because it doesn't have the oversight that a CIP under our roof has, but I get it. I'm counting. >> Okay, yep. There's that, what was that? When was that retreat? This is reminiscent of the retreat. Okay, he's counting. Remember the retreat? Okay, so I think the direction is, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, seems like the consensus is at least some of the consensus, the majority of the consensus. Is to move forward with, as recommended with the CIP audit for rules and procedures, process and procedures, and then bring the red light camera back next year. So that we can have that done prior to, and if somehow one of these, so I have a question. If somehow these audits don't take as long, and so you have a freed hours, do you come back and ask are there any additional, or could we say if there's a, could we say that there's a contingent or a backup audit that we've requested if somehow you had the time because of accumulation of some of these audits not taking as long. Is that a possibility to work into the audit plan? >> Yes, the way it will work, if I ever have extra time, I have provided you with these additional audits for consideration. I'm taking consideration of the discussion today. So I know now if I have any time, I'd go to red light cameras. >> Okay, all right. Okay, good. I think that's helpful, yes. >> One of, I think that on there we're going to need to do an audit. And this is very serious about our contract with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for the number of trout that they put into the South Lakes Park. And I'll volunteer to help you to go out there and catch them to see that we- >> Any more questions? Any more questions? All right. >> Okay, well, what I'll do then is I'll bring this back in an ordinance at the next meeting to get that approved into an ordinance. >> Okay, fantastic. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you, Greg, appreciate it. >> And thanks for picking up your pen and actually pretending that you were going to write that down. >> Agenda item 3D is received report and hold discussion regarding the requirements in Denton Development Code 35.12.10 for home occupations, specifically the requirement for a specific use permit for musicians and artists studios. Again, nice and concise. >> Absolutely, good afternoon, members of the council, city manager. We received a request from the council regarding music studios and the appropriateness, for lack of a better word, as it relates to SUPs. However, the question was a little more far reaching and it was associated with home occupation and what the requirements are should someone want to utilize their home to have a music studio specifically in their home. Additionally, the Clarion update as it relates to- >> Council member Briggs, did you have a question? >> It's artist studios as well, right? Or this one is just for music studios? >> Well, that's why we broadened the discussion for this evening to give you a synopsis of where we are. As a result of the Denton code update, we are evaluating that already. And so I wanted to just give a quick background on what we define home occupation as. And I've provided that definition in your backup too. It is a dwelling and basically it's an occupation commonly that is carried out within a dwelling by members of the family that live there. And the use has to be incidental and subordinate to the use of the home as a residential use. There are several, home occupations are committed within several zoning districts. Now keep in mind this is the code as it stands. And a music studio does require approval of an SUP. The proposed regulations that we're looking at with the Clarion update is to remove that SUP requirement. As well as fine tune additional conditions or requirements associated with home occupation. So that it does not become as restrictive as it's listed right now. Now home occupations currently do have certain criteria associated with it. For example, the types of vehicles you park on the street or on the property itself. You cannot advertise that. You can't be a commercial vehicle, for example, or a van. The intent, I think, when I look back and understand why the SUP was attached as it stands currently in the Denton Code. Was primarily, I think, to retain the integrity of residential, well established residential neighborhoods. And to make sure there were no nuisances associated from the specific music studio, for example. Or any use that does attach an SUP to it. However, upon further deliberation and meeting with Clarion , they are in the process of studying what is home occupation. And what should the limitations, if any, be associated to that. The current limitations I have listed for review and they address basically where the uses are permitted. The number of employees that can be employed. Patrons, which means that how many customers or patrons can visit the site. The hours of operation are also limited. The display of product, and again, this is the broader area that we're talking about as it relates to home occupation. If there is outdoor activity and storage, then that's an issue too. Signage, how do you advertise? You cannot advertise on or off the premises. And then product sales, they're permitted provided they comply with all of the conditions in this section. So it's a rather lengthy section and its goal is to, I think, the intent is to retain the integrity of residential neighborhoods. There are specific limitations, for instance. There are certain equipment and materials that can't be stored on site. Noise, vibration, smoke, these types of elements also have to be addressed. And then the parking issue, which I discussed with you earlier. So in summary, the proposed new regulations as a result of the Clarion study. And we will, of course, vet this with our citizen engagement as well. We'll remove the requirement for approval of an SUP, at least that is our proposal at this time, for home-based music studios. And we will also comply or create standards. Home-based businesses will still be required to comply with specific standards to ensure there are no negative impacts on residential neighborhoods. So this was a result of citizen inquiry that came to several of you. We wanted to quickly state that one, we're looking at home- based occupation. Clarion, the consultant, is looking at that and what the current regulations are. And the email was very specific to the music studio. But when we go back to art studio and what have you, the similar applications would apply in terms of the prohib itions and the parking regulations. >> Councilmember Gregory. >> Thank you, Mayor. I think what I read in the backup was that as you researched this, that there had only been one SUP request. >> Since 2007, absolutely right, and that was withdrawn. >> And do we know if we've ever had any complaints from citizens about home-based music studios? >> Councilperson Gregory, I think I would have to do some research. My department, I don't believe personally has, because that was more of a, the nuisance complaint wouldn't come in that direction. But we can do some research and find out if there have been any. When I was first hearing this, what I was thinking about was recording music. And then I got thinking about my children's piano teacher. >> Sure. >> And she had a studio in her home. >> Yep. >> And we dropped them off, we picked them up, and those are all over town. >> Correct. >> And I have never had a complaint in my nine years in council of anyone being concerned about that kind of traffic, because it's fairly minimal. And it's the most reasonable basis for a piano teacher who is teaching one student at a time, or maybe two, that they can do it out of their home where they have a lower overhead, and it's happening all over town. >> Correct. >> Every day of the week. >> Absolutely right. And one of the things that we are going to tackle with the Clarion study is let's revisit the definitions. What do we mean by art studio? What do we mean by music studio? Because through that we can then understand and have more specificity to those definitions. >> I'm pleased to hear your recommendation that we remove that issue. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Council Member Rieck. >> I am also in favor of the removal for a few different reasons. If there were issues, I mean we have codes in place, like nuisance sound. I mean, we have a way to handle the issues if they come up. >> Absolutely. >> Without this hardship that we are. >> I would agree. The hardship does place a financial onus on the applicant number one, and then with an SUP typically one site plans and a little bit of design document that goes with that, a patent book illustrating how and what you're going to do. So this is an opportunity, in my past experience with home occupation, I usually call it a residential conversion to some extent depending on what is being proposed. And then of course you visit the zoning as well, but it shouldn't become restrictive to prevent people from using their homes, such as Councilman Gregory mentioned, a music teacher or what have you. >> And having a new definition of home-based music studios, what does that mean? Because today with technology, you could put a studio anywhere. >> You're absolutely right. >> With equipment being this small, so. >> Absolutely. >> I'm in favor of the removal. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Ryan. >> Can you back up one slide? >> Yes, I can. >> City attorney stopped me if it's out of posting, but it 's on the slide. My concern is on that first one, I understand that no chemicals prohibited equipment and material. Can we use the word installed electrical equipment if we go forward with that so that it's not, if you've got an electrician that stores some stuff in his garage, are we out of line? If he's got commercial electrical equipment stored there. >> That's short. >> That just. >> It would really depend on what exactly constitutes a storage. If they're storing what I've seen in the past in another city, all the chemicals to a business. >> I understand chemicals completely, but what I'm talking about is electrical equipment. If you've got an electrician, I mean you don't have a three phase breaker in a residential, but he might have it sitting on the shelf in his garage or a three phase disconnect that's not normal residential equipment. But he's saving it for a project that he's doing. >> And it would really depend on if he's just storing it temporarily, but sometimes what you saw, especially during the last recession, was businesses running out of houses. Or they would store electrical equipment or any other chemical equipment of their trade inside houses. So I guess we would take a look at that very carefully to make sure that we're not burdening those who are just doing like you're saying versus those who may want to operate a business out of their house. It's where they're storing all these things on site. >> Council Member Hussband. >> Thank you. And just to correct, he or she on the electrician, I have four daughters, so I'm sensitive to that. But it's giving you a hard time. So my question is, I know you answered my question on directors. >> Yes. >> And as far as that terminology throughout. My question is, is there some sort of key or something that would say who the director is or who that director of which department is there. If I'm just looking at the document on its face and I see I need to contact the director, is there something that would guide me to the proper partner? >> Sure, sure. What we could do is we do have an application form and we could definitely go ahead and address and put key staff contact as it relates to issuing permits for this type of use. The reason why we keep it generic and just label it as director is because positions change, use of titles change, those types of things. So in terms of having the availability to the director, we're working very diligently to make sure that that option is always available to applicants and clients. >> Okay, thank you. >> Council Member Gregory. >> Thank you. Back to what Council Member Ryan was saying. I would be concerned about how we word that because I know of a particular instance where there was a person that was basically operating a business out of their home. And it was a lawn irrigation system. And they had massive amounts of PVC pipe stacked up in their driveway. It wasn't installed, and so it would be legal. But it was a real, very inappropriate in that particular neighborhood for all of that to be stacked up there. It should have been stored in a different spot rather than the person's driveway. So when we do the wording, I understand what you're saying. If a couple of extra circuit breakers are being stored in somebody's garage, that's one thing. But if you have piles and piles of materials out in a driveway visible to the public in the neighborhood, that's not appropriate. >> Right, so a couple of things, Council Member Gregory and Council Member Ryan. What we would do is through this application for a home occupation, formalize the application and say, okay, tell us what you're doing and what are you going to store on site in terms of whether it's in your garage. What is the use? What are you doing? Secondly, if there's any type of outdoor storage which could be prohibited so that there's no conflicting nuisance with the adjoining properties, that would become a code issue or a zoning enforcement issue. So we have through complaint procedure or our own drive-bys to discern how to address that. But we can fine tune that language and it can be represented very clearly in documentation. >> So what is the time frame for taking care of this particular, not the music studio issue, but just home based businesses in general with the rewrite? What are we talking about? >> Our goal is to secure approval of the Denton Code rewrite by July 2018. Because we've got a huge component of citizen engagement and development community engagement with the program. So we want to make sure we secure all the comments possible . >> Okay. >> No. >> Any other questions on this direction? Move forward. >> Superb. Thank you. >> Move forward. Okay. I don't see anybody opposing emphatically, so yes. >> All right, we'll move on then to agenda item E, which is receive a report, hold discussion, and provide direction regarding service deliveries in the downtown area. Chief, I think you get this about every council iteration because people get so tired of trucks up on the square, but maybe we'll get something done this time. >> Okay. Yes sir. Yeah, actually it was in 08, 2011, 2015 in the U.S. >> Yes. >> To my recollection. But you do have some questions about it and it is a recurring issue. So there's some time and some solutions perhaps. So let me start by establishing what the state law says, which the transportation code allows for vehicles to stop, stand, or park in a moving lane of traffic on a temporary basis to load or unload passengers or merchandise. So it is legal to do it. What the state doesn't address is what is temporary. There's no definition of that. So we generally allow it around the square as a course of business for vehicles to stop in moving lanes of traffic, and we have for many, many years. And those take place of anything from FedEx to UPS trucks to small delivery vehicles to 18 wheelers. Even some four wheeler vehicles will stop sometimes to stop . So personal passenger vehicles to offload merchandise into some of the, like the mini mall, things like that. So it's all different size of vehicles. Some of the things that we encounter with that, you see an 18 wheeler here parked on Austin Street close to the intersection of Hickory. As you can see, it's pretty well blocking one entire side of the street. And I don't know if you can make out the definition there, but to pass that vehicle, you'd have to, if you were coming up behind it, you'd have to turn, you'd get into the oncoming lane of traffic. It could create a hazard just in that if there were a vehicle coming down Hickory and making left hand turn quickly, they might meet. The issues come up and discussed, and I'll cover some of these in detail in a minute, but the idea of delivering to the backside of the buildings . All of the backsides of the squares, you know, are not created equal. Walnut Street, of course, is a one way street. And if you park a large size vehicle, you could completely block the street. Most of the time, the deliveries in this area go way down toward the end of the picture there around the Aqua Dulceo and pull over to the side, to the left typically, so that passenger vehicles can still pass. But the larger trucks will block it completely. This is an 18 wheeler delivering to several locations on Oak Street. It's stopped right at the intersection of Elm. As you can see, there's a loading ramp going down to the side. So he's there for about 25 or 30 minutes, delivering a lot of goods to the north side of the square. >> Okay, that's my breaks. I had a question. >> And on that, I've even seen them back further where they 're blocking four or five cars in at the same, like it looks like there's not very many cars blocked in this picture, but they do park further back. >> Yes, it kind of depends on who the driver is, what they 're delivering, where they're going. So that is one of the biggest issues is vehicles getting blocked in. They're already parked around the exterior of the square. Other than the blocked traffic lanes, sometimes at peak hours. And then there's just general traffic hazards like illustrated on the Austin Street photograph. So I've come up with several options. I met with the downtown task force and I met with the Main Street Association. And I've got another meeting coming up on September the 29 th with the downtown quarterly safety group, but haven't had the opportunity to meet with them yet. And I'll talk about that more in just a moment, but we discussed a number of different options. If you chose to try to restrict this by ordinance any further than the state law, you could attempt to define temporary. But this would be a difficult thing for us to enforce. We wouldn't always be there when the vehicle pulls up, so we wouldn't really know the time frame. And you also, any of these options potentially would risk some state preemption with maybe the exception of one of them. You could try to restrict the deliveries to loading zones. There is a, [BLANK_AUDIO] Let's see. [BLANK_AUDIO] There is a loading zone ordinance, of course, right now. But loading zones, of course, are take up parking spaces, first of all, which is always undesirable, or usually. It would be very difficult to find a place big enough for any of those vehicles I showed you in those pictures to load from a loading zone. So the loading zones typically are about two spaces wide, two regular spaces wide. So not really a real good solution. >> Chief Mayor Pro Tem has a question. >> Could we make the loading zone more than two spaces wide ? >> You certainly could. It would be, the only downside would be it would take up more spaces. So you probably have to take up about eight or nine of them to be long enough for a large vehicle. >> Do we know, like I know in some cities they have loading zones at certain times. >> Yes, and I think that's probably one of the best options , and I'm gonna get to that here in just a second. Yeah, you could, we discussed in these other groups, they're adding, replacing restrictions on the locations by street. Many of the folks that I've dealt with in some of the things in these meetings and also what I observed was the bigger issues were typically on Locust and Elm. And typically in the afternoons to late afternoons. So you could, if you wanted to, say you only can stop on Oak and Hickory or Austin Street or just pick streets to stop on and prohibit others. Council member Riggs had a question. >> In the groups that you mentioned, are there downtown owners within those groups? Is that the feedback? I mean, are you getting feedback from the actual owners of the establishment? >> Yes, there are several owners and merchants in those meetings. >> Okay, thanks. You could also restrict the size of the vehicles that could stop and deliver in certain locations. I can sort of see a legal problem with this and it could be disparate to businesses and vendors, could cause complete business models to have to change to be in compliance with the ordinance, so probably again not the best option. You could do what we've done in the past, and I'll talk about more of this in just a moment, but you could just take no action, rely on the state law, allow it to happen. And one of the things I have determined is that this is something that just needs to be renewed in people's minds periodically amongst the business owners and the vendors. There are a lot of change over in the vendors and the delivery personnel and often change over in the business owners and managers as well. So it's something that just needs to be renewed periodically no matter whether there's a law allowing or restricting it or not. And then number six, you could restrict the delivery times of the day to avoid the noon and 5 PM type rush hour hours. This would allow more flexibility, would eliminate the majority of the problems. What I've observed and what I hear from the folks in those meetings also is that the majority of deliveries are planned in the early mornings if it's a business that is either retail that opens around 10 or is somebody that's open for lunchtime. If it's a few of the places that don't open until 5 or 6 PM are going to get their delivery somewhere between 1.30 to 2 or later in the afternoon. And those are the ones that are typically causing the most traffic problems according to all the folks that work down there and live down there. It was discussed, one individual who lives and works in the downtown said that, personally that they had only been inconvenienced by this sort of thing about five minutes out of the last year. So to some people it's not a big issue, to others it possibly is. But if you were to exercise an option that would restrict the delivery times further, I think it probably could avoid state preemption because it 's not something that's directly addressed. We do have the authority to do or you do have the authority to do that. And it would still allow some flexibilities. What I do plan on doing is meeting with that downtown quarterly safety group on the 29th and my staff meets with them every meeting. And so Ryan Reed has set up for most of the major vendors, a great majority of the beer distributors, ships, food vendors, and restaurant supply folks to be at that meeting, as well as a number of business owners and managers, that group is made up primarily of business owners and managers and residents and a few people off the Main Street Association as well. So it should be a good discussion and perhaps we can work through a few things there in that meeting as well on the 29th. >> Okay, yes, Mayor Pro Tem. >> Are we at direction time? >> I believe so. >> Okay. >> Unless there are any questions, any questions for the chief? >> Okay, Mayor Pro Tem. >> Here's my concern about the delivery times without a designated loading area. You really can't control in some ways when your deliveries come. I mean, we, at my family's business for instance, sometimes we think people are coming at 10, they show up at 2. There's not much you can do about it. You can't control their delivery time. So I think if we're restricting times, which I am in favor of, we also have to designate loading zones with the restricted times. And it can be a temporary deal where you just can't park in those spaces for a certain amount of time. It seems like that would be easier to enforce because you can actually go there and see if there's a car there or not. But that would be my suggestion is that we both restrict delivery times and designate loading zones. And I appreciate the experience of the person that lived on the square and worked on the square. One of the first things that happened after I got elected was people sending me pictures of loading trucks on the square, especially during lunchtime. Because people have really short lunch hours and they have meetings. So I'm very much in favor of restricting times and creating loading zones. >> Mayor Pro Tem, help me understand. So let's say we restrict the time, pick a time. 11 to 1, 4 to 6, or whatever. I don't even know what time it is. So if they're unloading within their authorized time, let's say, the truck is, but we don't have a loading zone, then that means you might block some cars in. Or are you saying you want the loading zone to be where they pull out of the lane of traffic? Or do you, because that's, is that the purpose of the loading zone? Help me understand what the purpose of the loading zone would be. >> So what my suggestion would be, let's say that we say noon to 5, no loading permitted on street traffic on the regular street. In that case, it would seem to me that you have to have a loading zone that's available from noon to 5. So that if people show up, they can go to that specific spot. >> Okay, so you're saying, okay, you're saying that somehow to provide an alternative to delivery within that prohibited time and that alternative would be the loading zone. >> Right. >> So that loading zone would be on a side street? It couldn't be on the square. I mean, that would seem a little. >> I think it could be on the square, but I'm sure that other people would want it to be on side streets. I mean, the problem areas really are on the square. >> Okay, so then, and maybe I'm not sure what a loading zone is. So if you're restricted from 12 to 5 from parking in the lane of traffic to make a delivery, and you got an 18 wheel er. So a loading zone would mean that you're having to pull out of the lane of traffic. So to do that, you're going to have to have, how many spots ? >> Well, an 18 wheeler is going to be over 65 feet or over, probably. >> So 6 to 7? >> So 6 to 7 at least and allow one on either end to maneuver. >> Yeah, because you got to pull in. >> Right. >> So. >> Talking about 8 or 9. >> And then you'd have to decide if you would want one on each street on the square, or if you just have one and people carted around or two or so. Okay, I just wanted to try to conceptualize what your, yes, go ahead. >> The other thing I would just put out there is there are certain places on the square, where I used to office at 121, that they don't have a lot of traffic going into the building because they're offices, so we could minimize the effect on pedestrian heavy retail establishments if we locate the loading zones properly, I think. >> Okay. I think Council Member Hutzpeth, you had a comment? >> Yes, sir. I was trying to pull up the street, but I think for me, one suggestion, while I'm looking at the streets, would be to differentiate between a one man crew and two. So for example, if there's two people, if there's an issue, someone's blocked in, there's one person outside all the time that could lift them out. So to me, that's different than one person running back and forth that doesn't have that capability, if to show flexibility, because ultimately where I think we should go is working with the business owners down there because even in a loading zone situation, the learning curve of teaching people where to go, who's going to be there to enforce that? Who's going to, if they don't know what a loading zone is, who's going to kind of coach them up and get them to, so an enforcement issue comes into mind as far as just a practical application. But if we do go loading zones, I think it's on Oak Street next to, I guess across the street from Recycle Books, there's those little side lanes along the side of the square. So it's off the square, it's difficult to get there driving the square, which would hopefully get them off and on the side roads to park there. So it kind of motivates them not to make the circle, but kind of come in the longer way. And it's, so it's on a hill, they got to go up the incline, but other than that, it's kind of out of the way and fewer people park there. But that's my thought. I think it's work with the business owners and the stakeholders in the area to try to get them to encourage a new behavior, that way we're not having to police that. - Okay. - Council Member Grady. - In talking with the stakeholders downtown, did you ask them if you had a choice of losing some parking spaces to have a loading zone or dealing with the inconvenience of business as usual? Did they have a preference? - Yes, their preference was very strongly in that they would try to police it themselves and coordinate deliveries with their vendors rather than losing parking spaces. Another thing, loading zones and restricted times would require signage. So that's another thing that's sort of unpopular in the downtown area already, there's too many regulation signs, but that's just another issue. - Okay, Council, direction? Council Member Ryan. - Yeah, I'm in favor of option six, I think 11 to either one or two, and then 430 to six would probably be good time frames on it. I'd like for that to go back to the downtown group first to get a little bit more feedback from them before it comes to us in the ordinance. - Okay, yes, Council Member Doug. - Yeah, I just don't think the loading zones, giving up parking and all that are going to work. I'd rather see restrictions by time and pretty much do what we're doing now. - Council Member Hussman. - My concern about the, again, the time is who's going to enforce that. Who's going to look at a calendar and say, "Well, it's holiday lighting scheduled today." We got to notify all the business owners that the loading zone that is 11 to 5 is not 11 to 5 today because it gets really cumbersome to try to stay ahead of the schedule of downtown. So for example, there's the arts and autos this weekend, a couple of weekends ago. Someone's got to notify everyone, "Hey, no deliveries today ," even during the time you normally come because this event's on the square. It seems like that's pretty onerous for us to start trying to notify people once we get them in a habit and that habit intersects with an event. Who unwinds that? Who wins? So again, off the square, I think we can solve two problems here. If we go back to the drawing board and say, "Is that chest nut behind between Sweetwater and the square?" What's that street? -Wallet. -Wallet, okay. So there, everyone is not happy with the trash, the dump sters back there. Is it an opportunity to get rid of those, make it a parking spot, and come up with a new plan for how to handle the waste side of things? So we clear that out. They're not using it currently. And it's a temporary truck there versus a permanent dump ster. Okay. Well, we have a some... I mean, option six is... And I think your option was without a loading zone. Without a loading zone because on the square, I just don't see any way to... Because you have the opposite issue of if that loading zone is allowed to park when it's not loading zone time. I mean, either you're going to lose nine spaces or you're going to have people that are still going to park in there. And then what do you do if someone parks in that loading zone? So the basic question is, do we want to have some... And what you're saying is, you're not for a restriction of time on the square proper. You're saying just try to find some way to get them off onto the side streets. Yes. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. So any comments, further comments or observations about those two comments about this agenda item? First of all, are you four... You just want to keep the status quo. Are there four of us that want to keep the status quo? Okay. So I see that the status quo is not one of them. So probably what I would say is that let's look at maybe taking back to your business groups, your downtown groups, a couple of these options. One is, and then you can have traffic engineers look at the time restriction just on the square, Council Member Ryan's. Are there any ways to do this on the side streets where there's no time restriction? And then on the loading zone, just sort of bring back some options based upon sort of what the feedback has been and get some more input from... Because I think the vendors in the downtown area will help sort of narrow down the scope of those three particular type of alternatives. Yes, Council Member Griggs. I'll tell you. So one of the things I'm a little afraid of, I don't know if this may happen or not, but if we do restrict the times of the deliveries, will that congest it more? Will we have like, you know, both sides taken? You know, I'm just curious if that is a factor or not. If these deliveries are only made during certain times of the day. Well, that's entirely possible. You know, a lot of the, as I said kind of earlier, a lot of the places don't open up till 10 or so. There's not a lot of spaces taken up with the exception like Tuesday morning, Commissioner's Court, around the square proper. I'll go by there very often around 7 to 730 to 8 even a little bit later. And there's trucks parked up against in within the parking spaces around the square ranking deliveries. But so it's a lot of them try to do that. But again, it's the ones that don't have anybody, any staff to receive anything till later in the day. And so their deliveries get scheduled later in the day. The possibility exists, certainly what you're saying. And also, if you if you restrict the time and the location, then you may have trucks stacked up waiting to get into that one spot or those two spots at a certain time. If they all happen to come, you know, after, say, 130 or something. So nothing's really perfect. No, it's not. Councilmember Briggs. So have any of the merchants said they would be willing to come to their shops earlier to accept those deliveries? That's a good question. I haven't really posed that question to enough people. There's a few that suggested that they could do that. And maybe they could, you know, they would help or they suggested to talk about some of the other businesses about it. Councilmember Duff. Yeah, I guess for this to work, I think most of those businesses have to be on board and be able to , you know, if you're going to set specific times. And of course, the other part of it is how do you enforce this? That's another another problem back on you. Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to reiterate, just having spent many hours of my life waiting for deliveries, you really don't get to decide when deliveries come. So what? Well, and I mean, when I used to work in the fast food industry, you're right. Except I think if they thought that there were some restrictions, I mean, that was when there was no restrictions. So I would say with those three items, see if you can't come up with some alternative with some options based upon some of the feedback from the business community. But in the end, if the council decides to implement a policy to do something down there, the businesses will find a way to adjust and make it work. And after we see all those options, we may decide, well, we want to do the status quo. It's just we're sort of digging a little bit deeper. OK, I don't think we make any policy decision right now as far as just identifying some options and getting a little bit more information on it. All right. Yep. Is that OK, Chief? Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. We're going to go then to agenda item F, which is a report, hold discussion, provide staff direction regarding the Dent municipal electric community sponsorship program. We're moving well through these. I appreciate that. Expect that trend to continue. It's a lot of pressure, Mayor. Brian Langley, deputy city manager. I will go through this quickly. Want to continue our conversation about sponsorships of DME community sponsorships. Just in terms of background again, the current process is D ME currently has about one hundred thousand dollars budgeted for these sponsorships. These are typically used for nonprofit organizations and sometimes other city department events. And in your backup, you'll find a complete detail that we 've had over the past five years for what those have been spent on. But typically, the spending has been between forty two thousand and sixty four thousand dollars per year. As we've talked about previously, other sponsorships do require city council approval. So it's a little bit unique that that's not required in the DME process. They also have an application process, selection criteria, formal agreement that's entered into between the city and other parties. We presented this information to you and the P.U.B. in the past in August. Direction from both the P.U.B. and the city council was to continue the program. But you did request some information related to the city wide sponsorship funds received by organizations from other sources and proposed policy guidelines. So that's the reason for the presentation today is to come back and provide you that information and then let you see those policy guidelines that we've developed to get your feedback. So the proposed sponsorship policy from our standpoint would be to reduce the budget from one hundred thousand to fifty thousand. Number one, we think that matches the spending that you've been seeing over the past few years. And with some of the changes that we'll propose gives us plenty of flexibility to still meet all those needs. We would request that no funding be given internally to other city departments. There's a budgeting process that we have for the library department or the police department or any other department that we have in the city. And so providing funds from DME to those those departments kind of complicates that process. And we'd recommend that if there's a need in any one of those that they be brought forward and requested through as a supplemental package for you to consider the specific criteria that we would recommend to you for the sponsors hips is that each organization would be a five oh one C three organization nonprofit. They must be a nondiscriminatory organization. The sponsored organization must further some type of charitable cause or public interest that we're trying to achieve. And the organization must recognize the city of Denton and DME and any of their event marketing materials. And what we found in many of these is you're buying a table at an event. There's some kind of event to raise money. There may be a dinner or a luncheon to recognize this organization and raise some funds. Is there a question? Well, I it just goes back to the original conversation of, you know, is this are we marketing or are we is this a charity kind of thing for me? And then I start to think, well, we're a monopoly. We're DME. What are we marketing? And if we want our name to be there, what are we trying to say? Are we just trying to say, look, what we've done here, we 're contributing to this charity or, you know, I mean, I just trying to figure out the intention of that last bullet point. I think from my perspective, the word marketing would be that we're being recognized for our efforts in this particular area and that the city is a sponsor of the event . Much like if we have a parks event that we sponsor, we're required to be recognized as part of those materials. OK, so that leads me to my next question. May I? OK, so other departments in the city can buy tables or sponsorships, right? Like like this. Can others can other departments within the city say like DME is a department within the city can can parks. Do they are they doing this? No, no one's no one. No other department is really doing this. OK, do they purchase their own tables for events for sponsorships and things? No, we typically don't do that as a city event. There may be something through economic development occasionally that we might do, but as a typical rule that we're not doing that in other city departments. OK, thank you. OK, we also propose that industry related organizations such as the Texas Lineman's Rodeo, the Municipal Safety Exchange, etc. There's some examples of those organizations that we continue to continue to allow sponsorships there because they do further industry safety and protection of workers. And those are public interests that we think we have sponsorships that we're proposing that anything over two thousand five hundred dollars would be presented to the P.U .B. and City Council for approval. There's a few examples of that in your backup of some that have been authorized in the past. If those were to be requested, we would bring those forward to you to ask for those. Anything less than two thousand five hundred dollars that met all of the other criteria would be administratively approved. And finally, the last recommendation we would have is that a list of the organizations that receive the sponsorships from D.M.E. would be provided to the P.U.B. and the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. So you'd have a running total of everyone who has received funds going forward. So that's the proposal for you. Council's an agreement to that. What we would recommend is we bring this to you in the form of a resolution or an ordinance to approve a formal policy with an application process. And we're seeking direction if you're comfortable with this as presented or if there's any kind of changes that you'd like to make. This is not an action item today. It's just a work session to get direction. And if you direct us, we would bring back an action item for you to consider at some point in the future. Council member Gregory. Thank you. One of the other electric suppliers in our county, CoServe, is very much like D.M.E. in that its owner, the ratepayers actually own this co-op. They are certified suppliers. They are single person suppliers or single entity suppliers unless they're in an overlapping certification area like like they are with Denton. In some areas. I think they have probably two hundred fifty thousand dollars in their sponsorship budget. I think that's right. But do you have a chance to check? No, sir. I haven't had a chance to get the specifics on it. The program that they have is called Operation Roundup. And essentially what they'll do is any increment of a dollar that you've paid. So in other words, if you pay if you owe one hundred dollars and twenty cents, they round that up to one hundred and one dollars. And so that eighty cents in that particular example goes into that program that they use and they use that to fund charitable causes across their service area. I don't know how much is put in that. I haven't been able to get that figure. Well, I was trying to do some rough calculations. I think that we have more than forty thousand customers or forty thousand meters. Fifty five thousand. Fifty five thousand. So so that that comes up to at fifty thousand dollars, a little less than a buck a meter a year for this program, which I've heard some folks expressing concerns that this was a hardship on rate payers. And that's not a hardship on rate payers. Less than a buck a year. If we did the Roundup program, it would probably be more than that per customer per year. It's not so much marketing, but I think it does purchase a little goodwill. I know that that being a part of the Denton Public School Foundation since it started, there were lots of good comments from people within the school district and parents that went to that. The fact that the fact that CoServe was a major sponsor every year. And I got ever since I've been on council questions for a lot of years. Well, why isn't D.M.E. helping sponsor this? This would be an appropriate thing for D.M.E. to do. So I think it does buy some goodwill. I don't know, but it seems to me lately that D.M.E. could use a little goodwill in the community. And so I think it's a good program and I think that the suggestions that you make for how to deal with it are very appropriate. And the only thing I don't like is that we're limiting it to $50,000. I think it's low, but that's more than what we've been contributing. So I think it's a good starting spot. Mayor Pro Tem. Last time we were here, you mentioned another program that Denton had that was similar to Operation Roundup. Do you know how much? You're talking about the plus one program that we have? Yes, we've allocated, I don't remember the exact figure, but it's somewhere between $80,000 to $100,000 a year for that program. And this is to assist folks who need assistance with their bill. We provide those funds to Interfaith and then we have a contract with Interfaith that they will administer the funds with certain guidelines. And we're looking at bringing that back for a discussion with both the PUB and council so you can see that program, the plus one program, as well as all of our deposit requirements. I think there's been some requests from the council to look again at those. We've had that request from PUB, but we see that as all part of one program, so we'll bring that information back to you. So that's in that neighborhood of $8,200,000. The $8,200,000, that's from people voluntarily signing up? >> No, the majority of that is paid from the utilities into that program as a service to those customers. There are some customers who can sign up voluntarily to give the funds. I want to say that less than $10,000 of that money comes from customers who voluntarily donate to the program. Most of it is utility funds that are provided. >> That's what I was getting at because the last time we had this conversation I brought up the CoServe Charitable Foundation because it is a voluntary program. >> Chuck is shaking his head no. >> I want to clarify on the program for CoServe. It is an opt out program. >> That's right. >> You're automatically opted in unless you know about the program and you decide to opt out. >> Yeah. >> There's probably some of those customers who don't know they're in the program. >> Okay. Did you have something? >> I just. >> Go ahead. >> Okay, go ahead. >> To follow up on that, a couple of years ago when we were getting a lot of concerns from interfaith and other organizations because there were people that were having trouble making their utility payments. We had decided to move that amount up to, I think it was 100,000, 10,000 of it going for administration purposes. And everything that was part of the one plus program would go into it, but we were just authorizing the city to make up the difference in order to hit that mark because of the need that was there. >> Any other questions for Brian on the presentation direction? >> Are we at that point? >> We are at that point. >> I like all the changes that you made with the direction we gave last time. I think it's great, but I'm not really in favor of having the rate payers pay for these programs. And I'm trying to justify it as a necessary utility expense , kind of how our charter relates that, we got something on that in our legal. And I mean, like right now, just talk about somebody who needing money. I know someone who is about to probably be evicted from their home because they can't afford a $1,200 connection fee for their utilities. And if you don't have utilities in your home, we say you can't live there. And so, I mean, I know that you say, well, we have this interfaith place that you can go get money, but I don't really know much about that program. So I would like to have an update on that program. And I would personally like to be able to specifically help our citizens more so than electing them to pay. I mean, and if we do give them an option, like I would rather than be able to elect into this program rather than just say you're going to pay a dollar a month or whatever. I mean, if we could let our rate payers know that and they can opt into this, then I think that's fair. But if somebody doesn't want to do this, then I don't think we should make them. I'm going to go, I love all of these nonprofits and I don't have an issue with any of them and I personally support them. But I do that because I choose to. So that's just where I stand here. >> We'll certainly bring back the interfaith information to you so you can see that. I think in terms of the guidelines that we've asked them to follow, I think there's some improvements that we could make to that that may help more folks. And we can certainly bring back and have a good discussion with the council and PUB. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I'm okay with this. And as far as the rate payers paying for it when they might not want to, we do that in the general fund all the time. I mean, to the tune of probably hundreds of thousands of dollars with community services, grants, Health and Human Services Committee, how we allocate our federal funds. I mean, so I understand what you're saying, but we could substitute taxpayer for rate payer. And that's just a policy decision, I guess, that we've just sort of made. So I get what you're saying. I just don't have an issue with that, per se. >> It's also we don't do this with any other department within our departments of our city. So it's a little separate. >> Okay, well, and I understand that. >> Yeah. >> Yes, I get that. And so what you're saying is you're not necessarily opposed to it, but if there was going to be sponsorships, then you would want it brought back into the general funds because, and council have more control over that? Are you having a struggle with it being, because it's coming from DME specifically? >> Well, yeah, because it's a rate payer and not a taxpayer . Right, yeah. >> Okay. >> And they're not all the same. We- >> I understand that. >> Yeah, okay, all right. So any other comments, direction? >> I like the direction we're going. I'm glad to see the 501C3 is one of the listed criteria and I'd like to see this go forward as it sets. >> Okay, any other comments? Council Member Doe? >> I'm good with it. >> Okay, Council Member, Mayor Hoden. >> I'll just second what Councilwoman Briggs said. I think at the very least if we could let people opt out of it, maybe automatic enrollment would just provide a different layer of choice. >> Okay. >> But I'm in favor of these policy changes. >> Okay. >> Kathy, go ahead. >> Yeah, no, I think what they presented as well, I think it does meet a need. Again, the key thing for me though, you're putting it right back into the economy. So just as much as you say it's the rate payers, but it's a free blues fest for families that may not get to go out, that may not get to do whatever, they have different movie nights. So I think it's important to note that you're not taking it and reinvesting it in another city or in another institution. It's going right back into our community for the betterment of the community. And so I think at some point, yes, I just think it meets a need, then you start weighing needs . But I don't know how to reconcile that. So I think the reinvestment, I think it reinvested our community. I've seen the events it does and I think now, I think another thing that's important is we got to, I personally appreciate the change in DME's leadership and its direction. I think it's important to start treating them different, right? I mean, because they are significantly different, they've made significant changes. And at what point do we say, I acknowledge those changes and understand that we are being critical of everything we're spending and we are moving in a better direction. And so I think I want to reward that attention and not hover over them with this cloud of in the past, this happened and I'm leery. I think at some point, there's steps forward and I think they've taken significant steps forward and will continue to do so. >> So you're okay with it moving forward as it's proposed? >> Yes. >> Okay, all right. Yes, Councilmember. >> I have a question on that point. So do we have a community requirement where all the money comes back to the community? Because there's a few of those exchanges, I think that we don't see that. >> So I'm sorry, I mean, is that a requirement that the nonprofits be local? >> I didn't specifically put that in there. I think most of the ones that we've given to have been or they've had a local presence. Certainly in Denton County, there may be some that spreads beyond the city limits, per se. But most of them have been in the area. There are some of the professional organizations which are a little bit different, which wouldn't fall in that same category, but I think most of them have been in this area, yes. But certainly at the direction of council, we could tailor that however you wish. >> Okay, and I want to echo what you said, Councilmember H ussbuth. I too am very glad with DME and the way that they're being led and the direction they're taking. This isn't anything directly to that leadership. This is just about rate payers and just my opinion. >> Any other questions, comments? >> Okay, we'll bring it forward for a vote in the near future. Thank you for your time, I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Mm-hm. All right, moving on to agenda item G. Let's see, when did we take a break? 1.30? We'll keep going. And excuse me, agenda item G, receive a report, hold discussion, and provide a recommendation regarding the solid waste department's landfill mining operation. >> Good afternoon. Dear members of the city council, my name is Ethan Cox. I'm the director of the solid waste department. I have a brief presentation for you this afternoon to brief you on solid waste landfill mining operation and we will be seeking some of your direction about how this operation proceeds moving forward. Before we get started, I know this may not be a new topic for some of the council members, but for some of you that you're seeing this for the first time. This has been discussed a number of times over the last few years, budget meetings, debt issuance, equipment purchases. I do want to recognize that this is probably the first time that you'll see some of the financial figures that we're going to discuss. There was a financial analysis done a number of years ago and our staff with the assistance of Weaver's accounting firm have gone in and updated those assumptions. And so we're going to compare some of that today. If I do my job correctly, this is going to be kind of a balanced analysis. I think there's a number of really good benefits to this program, but there's also some challenges that we feel like you should be aware of. Some risk factors and things that you really need to take into consideration before you make a decision on this program. Lastly, I'll say that this is a fairly complex project. It's really easy to get lost in the details. And so in the interest of time, what I've tried to do is scale this back to just some of the key assumptions that really make a difference in the original analysis versus the analysis that we're going to present to you today. But that being said, I'm certainly happy to dive into details and answer questions if you have those. So first thing is just kind of conceptually, what are some of the benefits? Why would a solid waste provider look to endeavor to mine a landfill cell? And there's a few things that you want to keep in mind. Number one is airspace is at a premium. Most landfills, they make their money by having airspace available for solid waste to be deposited in. And with that airspace premium, if you're able to recover that, reuse it in a sustainable fashion, you can assign a financial value to that as future revenue. But for us as a community, it's really about managing this asset responsibly. We have 60, 70 years for our two sites that we have out there. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be taking good care of that and trying to reuse our land in an efficient manner . You also have some reduced environmental risk. That's why a lot of solid waste departments will take a look at doing this type of thing, particularly with the cell that's in question here. It's what we call a pre-subtitle D cell. What that really means is that there's a clay liner at the bottom of the waste. Those liners are not up to today's standards according to the TCEQ or the EPA. It doesn't mean that we're unique in that. There's hundreds, literally thousands of those types of sites around the US. But what that means is that there is an increased risk that there's some groundwater contamination at an interval of about 30 to 60 years. And that's about a medium risk is what our engineer would tell us. You also have the opportunity to recover and divert material. That's really how you get to your airspace savings. And so if we go out there and start digging up a landfill cell and we can't divert that material, understand that you don't recognize this. >> Councilmember Briggs has a question. >> So back to the clay liners, are those required to be replaced? >> No, there's not a requirement to replace those is my understanding. >> Okay. >> And really when you talk about replacing that clay liner , you don't completely mitigate the risk. You're kind of reducing the risk. So if we mine this landfill cell, we pull out that clay liner, we would put a geosynthetic or kind of a plastic liner down there. It doesn't eliminate the risk for groundwater contamination , but it certainly reduces it. In terms of recovered material revenue, there are obviously some recyclables within the cell. This was back in the 1980s up till about 2000 and our recycling habits have luckily improved quite a bit. But that does mean that there's some materials in there that there is some revenue potential, some materials more than others. What I would say in doing research on this, talking to the UTA professor that's done a lot of research on our site specifically, really can't count on material revenue making a lot of financial difference in an analysis like this. Most of your benefits are going to be these top two bullet points right here. >> Yes, Councilmember. >> And when you look at the other benefit, reduce environmental risk, but doesn't it cause some other environmental risk as you do it? So do they cancel each other out or do you still get reduction environmental? >> I'm probably not in a position to say it cancels each other out. I think that's a great way to put it though is that by reducing this environmental risk, you are incurring some other risk that I'll talk about later in the presentation. I don't know that they're an even trade off, but the way I would classify the groundwater contamination is this is not an imminent threat for us right now. But we start digging up the cell, methane gas gets out, that is something we're going to have to contend with immediately. And so I think that's probably the biggest difference between those two. >> On the flip side of the benefits, there are a number of risk factors that you have to take into consideration. And with this project, there's some things that we know, but there's also a lot of unknowns. And so you have a number of assumptions that you're having to make. And really the benefit of having the Weaver team and with us as we start going through these assumptions, we found that ours were very different than the original analysis. And so it really helped to have that sounding board. We also visited with UTA about some of the things that we were seeing. And so really as we go through the presentation, this is we 're going to spend a lot of our time. The first of the risk factors is processing capacity. You need to understand that from a landfill mining standpoint, this is not a short project. It's not a one or two year project. This is a 3.1, 3.2 million cubic yard site that we would be mining much larger than what a lot of other solid waste entities have tried to mine. And so this is at best probably a 15, 20 year project that we would be taking on. The big driving factor behind that is what is our capacity? What reasonably can we expect our workforce and our equipment to be able to handle? That's really going to determine how quickly we can get through the project. One of the other risk factors is the landfill composition. In other words, what's actually buried in that landfill cell? As you go through the UTA research, we have a lot of information in there. They actually came out and did core samples. So we have a pretty good understanding of what's actually out there. But one of the things you'll see in the UTA study as you read through it is a phrase that says waste is heter ogeneous. And essentially what that means is no two bags of trash are the same. They don't have the same components. And so as you bore around and as they started analyzing waste at different spots and locations on the site, they found a very different composition of the waste. Now, you collect enough of a sample, you can get a pretty general idea of what's out there. But we also have to acknowledge that there's some unknowns. Whenever they did their borings on the site, there was some material that they could not penetrate. And so it's pure speculation on why that is. Is it a large hunk of metal? Is it concrete? Is it wood? What have you? And so there are some unknowns that even with our composition analysis by UTA, we are going to have some unknowns in terms of the materials that we unearth out there. But with that, you have material condition, especially if you're endeavoring to sell some of these materials for revenue. Contamination is key. And so, for instance, if we wanted to sell some of this soil right here by sorting it, we would have to test that and make sure it's not contaminated before we sell it. Otherwise, we won't be able to divert it. In addition, even if it's not contaminated, when you're dealing with commodities like paper, plastic, things of that nature, market potential is a key factor here. I'm going to be bringing an inferior product to market. A lot of the recyclers like clean product nowadays. And so that will have a direct impact on what we can get in terms of commodity prices. And with that, you do have the material price volatility. Recycling commodities are notoriously volatile. We're going to have an inferior product. So we will definitely, if we get into that market, we would be dealing with that as well. So as we go through the next few slides, really what I want to do is to kind of take the assumptions. One by one and walk through the biggest differences in the benefits and the risk between the original analysis and our current analysis. So as I walk through this, I'll kind of walk you through our current assumptions and I'll take you into the tables and charts that we have. So for this slide, this is a benefits analysis. And a couple of things before I dive into this. Number one is these are all they have a dollar amount associated with them, but they're not actually cash flows whenever you look at the dollar amounts on the screen. These are recovered airspace. That's a future benefit that we would only realize if we fully mine the site. That's reusing the airspace. You also have avoided cost. And so those are not anything that's going to show up in a cash flow statement for you on an annual basis. You have to finish the project to get there. A couple of things on the figures on the screen. These are all 10 year numbers. The original analysis assumed that this project would be done in about 14 years. Our assumption is that it's actually closer to 19 years and maybe even beyond. And so there are some differences there, but the dollar amounts are apples to apples. This is 10 year to 10 year. So first assumption that we have here is airspace value is a function of the material diverted and the airspace revenue potential. And so what that means is we can recognize airspace value, but we have to divert that material after we dig it up. We can't go rebury it. Otherwise, we don't get to recognize that value. The original analysis assumed that we would have about 75 percent diversion rate. In other words, 75 percent of the material that we dig up, we will either divert it to another site or sell it off as a commodity based on the UTA core samples. About 50 percent of the material out at the site is decomp osed or it's called a small object, which is soil, small broken down elements. And so our assumption that we went in with is we're going to probably end up burying at least 50 percent of what we dig up again. We took a look at that assumption and felt like that may even be conservative, that we're probably not going to be able to divert even the stuff that we sort out away from the small objects. The other difference here between the original analysis and our current analysis is the amount of waste that we can compress into a cubic yard of airspace. We have site survey data that says about 1100 pounds of waste can go into a cubic yard. The original analysis was at 1300 pounds. And so the more waste you can compress into a cubic yard, the higher dollar value you're going to get. We elected to use the site survey data that we can defend. And so weaver supports that as well. So that's a big difference, about 16 million dollars in the original to the current. And again, this is at a 10 year period. You only realize this if you complete the project, which according to us would be about 18, 19 years. The next one is reclaim land value. So a number of reasons or one of the primary reasons why a solid waste entity would endeavor to do landfill mining is they're landlocked and their future depends on being able to accept waste in the future. And if they're landlocked and running out of airspace, they may not have a choice but to mine. We our assumption here was that land value is applicable only if a land purchase is avoided. I mentioned at the outset that we have about 60, 70 years left on our side. So we really don't see that as an avoided cost that we should be recognizing. We're certainly not going to sell the land on the open market. So we scrap that from our current analysis. Last two items on this page are closure and post closure avoidance. Just a quick refresher on what a closure post closure is. That is a fund that's set up. It's kind of like a retirement fund for your landfill. And so at some point, we all recognize that we are going to reach our capacity in terms of accepting waste at this site , hopefully long after most of us are gone. But whenever that happens, we need to have funds available to put a final cover on that site, close it out and then set up for future years for monitoring and environmental up keep. As a community solid waste provider, we feel like that's really critical. And the fees up here or the fees, but the funds up here recognized in the original analysis also need to understand that these amounts are for the entire site, not just for the cell that was going to be mined. This was entered into the analysis as the entire site. We would avoid that cost. The flaw that we see in that assumption is that we would have to mine not just this cell, but all of the other cells at our site into perpetuity to avoid this cost. In addition to Weaver, we had another analyst look at this. Both of their opinions match with ours. Number one, we can't recognize this as an avoided cost. It won't be avoided. Number two is there's actually probably a little bit of a liability for mining this site for us when we get into closure and post closure. One of our consultants looked at it and said, you need to plan for about $900,000 and more expense if you mine this site and then move to close it. And so for those reasons, these are all three are blank in our analysis. And you can kind of see the benefit differences is pretty stark already. We talked about the material sales and that you really can 't count on that component being what makes this make financial sense. We have a number of assumptions here. All of this in this table is from the original analysis, and I'll dive into that in just a moment. So I'm going to start down here first on the current assumptions. Number one, in terms of landfill composition, we felt like UTA had some reliable information. They did eight core samples out there. Yes, they varied in terms of waste that they found at various sites. But we felt like if we went through this project to completion, we'd get pretty close to what their analysis found. The problem with that, and I'll take you up here to the table on the current or the original analysis. Here's all the various commodity types that we were assuming would be found. The problem with these items in red here is that is not indicative of the core sample findings that you published. I don't want to assume where these numbers came from. We tried to source it, but we couldn't find it. So what we would say is if we were going to use the composition numbers, we'd definitely divert back to what U TA had found in their findings. Next, actually, let me step down here. I mentioned earlier in the presentation that there's also a number of unknowns in terms of landfill composition. These are indicated right here. So you have rolled Tetra Pak. So obviously, Tetra Pak is a big customer of ours. Back then in the 80s, 90s, anecdotally, staff has said there's huge volumes of Tetra Pak out there. The problem is we can't find the volumes in terms of the core samples. So that's a complete unknown when it comes to how much is actually in the side. Same thing with bulky recoverable materials. I'd love to give you an exact definition of what bulky recoverable materials is. That could be anything from yard waste, big tree limbs, things like that. Big hunks of metal, could be old appliances, old furniture, you name it. I think we've kind of talked about it as staff, and it's kind of a catch-all category for some of those larger items that were disposed in landfill back in those days. And then you have the soil component. In addition to the composition of these items being unknown , since we could not get a core sample of them, we have no idea what their condition is. So in this column, there's a number of assumptions made here that, let's take concrete for example. 3% of the landfill composition in the original analysis, the assumption was made that we'd be able to sell 90% of that, that it would be marketable material. All these items in blue, we really don't have any data to support those assumptions. And so we don't have much confidence in saying that we could stand behind these figures. In the case of the Tetra Pak, the bulky recoverable materials of soil, it's pure speculation, we don't have any data that would support getting to these figures over here, which is the revenue that was recognized in the original pro forma. Compounding that, I mentioned earlier, the market wants clean material. And a lot of recycling businesses, they contract directly with manufacturers in some cases. There is, the market is inundated with clean material now. The example that we talked about is Amazon. There's a lot of cardboard out there just from the onset of online retailers. And so understand that the market is inundated with clean material. We're coming to market with unclean material. We're at a competitive disadvantage in some sense for that. So I'm going to take you over to the far right hand column, which is the original pro forma, the total revenue figures. If you will, disregard these up here for just a moment. The items that we have the most questions on, the least amount of data, are also the ones that represent about $11.5 million of revenue on this slide. And so if we were to assess our, or give you our confidence level that we would recognize $11.5 million on this, I would put my confidence level very close to zero. And it doesn't mean that it's not there, it's just I can't say with any confidence that we're going to recognize this level of revenue on those items. Another way to kind of position that is the original pro forma, the revenue per ton, based on these figures, was about $44 per ton. Understand that we divert materials today, relatively clean material, at our BMR, our building materials recovery site, as well as the curbside collections. For all of that, we get about $22 per ton today. And so if you were to ask, what would we get in terms of revenue on a per ton basis for the material we mine, I would definitely say it'd be below the $22 per ton. So you could reasonably, even if the landfill composition and material pans out, you could easily cut this in half and that probably still would be a little bit high. All right, so that brings us to the final pro forma. Again, this is a 10 year to 10 year, really what we've covered so far. So you have your material sales, which is carried over from the previous slide. Over here in our current analysis, we do think that we would have some revenue that we could recognize, particularly with metals. We sell about $100,000 a year of metal right now, so that's a pretty close approximation of what we get out of that. We talked about the airspace and benefits, and so you see there's a stark difference in the revenues and benefits here. From an expense standpoint, we have a high level of confidence that these are pretty accurate. There are some caveats that I'll cover on the next slide. Really from a staff standpoint, we tried to strip this out as close as we could to get it to break even. But you really see down here that we're a pretty great distance off. And so the original pro forma had this at about $1.6 million in the black each year. We would have it running about $1.4 million in the red. And understand that this is only about halfway through the project. We used to have about another nine to ten years to go. So with all that, there are a number of things that have not been built into the financial analysis. Some other risk factors that I want to get you through quickly. We haven't gone through this because we really felt like the position, the financial position, didn't warrant it. But if council's direction is to move forward with the program, there are a number of other things that we need to tidy up. First of which is equipment failure and replacement. And I'll go back to the previous. Can I ask you a question real quick? Because what you said is what you're fixing to go over is what would happen if council moves forward with this project. That's correct. So let's skip that slide for now. Great. And we'll go to the next slide and see what our options are . And so here we go. Are you sure that that's an accurate way to forecast what we're going to do? No. But there's no sense going over that if we're not moving forward. So is what's council direction on this? Do we want to move forward with this project or no? No. Well, yes, go ahead. I just want to make sure that we're not in any way supposed to excavate and realign and remediate these cells for like standard federal regulations or anything like that. Like that's not anything that's going to be required of us. Well, I think if we run into an issue environmentally, we would have to have some remediation that we'd have to undertake. But understand we also have another site in Crossroads, the Mosley Road landfill that is in the exact same situation. And so we can certainly address those things as they come up. In addition, we've talked internally about is there a more cost effective or a better way to address this that's a little bit more fiscally responsible, doesn't have the level of risk with this. And so I think that is something that we want to keep on our radar is if we need to realign that cell to reduce our risk environmentally, is there a better way for us to approach that? OK. And we'll keep that on. Keep looking at that. I don't really see any need to continue moving forward on this particular project. Does anybody feel differently than that? No, I don't know. Ultimately, can I say because I think it just said if we did continue this, we only really saved two years of space. And we're at negative 14 million or something for two years . We'll go buy some land. And we would need to find $10 million of bulky, recoverable materials pretty quickly in order to do this. So it sounds like the direction from the council is option one. Let's phase it out, scale it back, and discontinue it. Yes. So what do we do about the money we've already spent, like the equipment? Is there an option-- are we going to bring that back to us? No, I can actually give you a sense of that today. So based on council's direction, we've already started diverting resources into other areas in the fund, example of which is as we've had vacancies come up, we've reallocated staff into other positions. So right now, we have about three to five staff members, give or take, that are still in the mining fund. We think that within the next six months with attrition, just natural attrition, we'll have those folks repositioned. To the point about the equipment, the good news is that that equipment has utility in other operations. And so a lot of the same equipment can be used in our building materials recovery operation, put to use in other diversion efforts. That being said, we are in the process of kind of taking a site-wide look at what is our equipment, what are we using, what are we not using, what's old, what's the maintenance cost on these, is it a benefit to hold on to some of this equipment or can we liquidate it? And so we think that that will really take hold over the next eight to 12 months. And by the time we roll back through next year's budget, we should have all of that cleaned out and fixed up. As we move forward with this, essentially, we can cut about $2 million off of our expenditures this year, pretty much tomorrow from an O&M standpoint. Also understand that there was about $1.4, $1.5 million with the revenue that was recognized in the budget as well. So we can immediately recognize about $500,000 with the savings in our budget tomorrow. And I think that picture will improve as the months progress. >> Okay, good. Fantastic. Any other questions? Yes, Councilmember Hotsmith. >> Forgive me if I've missed it, but what capacity, what is our capacity currently at the landfill, or what percentage of whatever full would be? I don't know how you categorize it, but I'm just curious, kind of a state of the union. >> So much like this, there's a number of assumptions that go into that. Our best guess today is that our current site, exactly where we are, has up until about 2030. Now we also have a permit expansion for some additional land that was purchased in years past. That's going through the TCEQ right now. And so with that, anecdotally 60, 70 years. And so we're not landlocked by any means. And the big variable there that we want to take a look at is the growth rate. The growth of waste coming into our sites have grown over the last couple of years, obviously with growth in the community, a lot of construction projects happening. That's something that if we are really interested in diversion and maximizing this asset, there's easier ways to divert waste than digging it up. I think that's really where the opportunity is for us to maximize that asset. So 60, 70 years given our current pending permit. Okay, great. Any other questions, comments? So direction is option one. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right, we're going to go back to agenda item A, which is receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the FY 2018 city manager proposed budget capital improvement program and a five year financial forecast. I've got it. >> Ready? Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> I've added a couple slides to the presentation, so I'll go over those additions that are a little bit different than what's in your packet. I just wanted to kind of summarize the budget is ready for adoption for the council at this evening's meeting. I just wanted to kind of summarize the changes that have been made from the 12th and are in your packet. We did eliminate one FTE in the electric fund for savings of 137 plus thousand dollars. We have reduced the sponsorship funding and there was some discussion last week about increasing the green sense funding. So we've left that 50,000 in the budget. So that can be moved over to that green sense funding should that be the council's direction. So here's the revised electric fund. You can see the beginning balance. Estimated revenues this year started out with beginning of expenditures of that 181.041 million, eliminating the position, reducing the sponsorship funding. For this sake, I just increased the green sense funding to show that total anticipated expenditures. So our drawdown is now about 7.2 million is what's estimated ending fund balance and you can see that percentage. >> Yes, Council Member Gregory. >> And the question on that again is what is the recommended fund balance for this electric fund? >> Right now it's about 14 to 18%. I know that the PUB has stated before that they would like to revisit that going forward in terms of if that's enough, they had some concerns about that being enough in terms of the fund balance. And if you remember discussions from years past, that was increased in anticipation of all of the upcoming payoff of TMPA debt. >> And does the fund balance in the electric fund had the same kind of impact on the cost of bonds, the cost of interest when we borrow money from using the electric fund as the source of revenue? I'm guessing it might not because most of it has to do with we're using revenue and not the fund balance. >> Well, there's really two things to look at. When we issued the debt for the generation facility, that was revenue bonds. And it's the system under the city's charter, which is water, wastewater, and electric. But that was one of the important things they looked at in terms of cash reserves as well as several other things in the electric. Now, when we issue certificates of obligation, we have a property tax pledge, but we agree for those utilities that we issue certificates of obligation administratively to pay those out. So the rating agencies do look each year at water, wastewater, and electric to make sure they feel comfortable that they're going to be able to pay that debt service. So there is a little bit of impact, not as much when we issue CEOs in terms of that. But the council has the ability with this, you know, one of the things we proposed in future years after 17, 18 to use some of this either to pay off existing debt, to start cash funding, some of the capital program with that fund balance, to call some debt. There's some debt outstanding on the scrubber that can be called by that. So we projected in 18, 19 to really have those discussions in terms of what should we do once this TMPA debt is paid off. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> The $7 million change in fund balance, was that a capital expenditure that was drawn out of the reserve or? >> It's really a draw down because this is the last year where we're paying off the TMPA debt. In 17, 18, this is the final year. And we'd always anticipated that we would, the balance had been built up in anticipation of that debt coming online. If you remember, they were capital appreciation bonds, so it was kind of all paid on the back end. And so it was always anticipated that we would have some draw downs over the five years when we were paying off those TMPA cabs. So that's why it's drawing down again this year. And really that balance is probably anticipated to be higher than five years ago we thought it might be. Once we were done paying off the cabs, it's really in better shape than we thought then. >> Okay, thank you. >> You may proceed. >> I wanted to go over a couple other things. There were a couple tables of debt that was put in to the presentation, I think exhibit three and four. And I wanted to give a little bit more explanation of that. There was a table that showed, and this is beginning with 10-1 for the debt, principle and interest, there's about 956 million of city issued debt for the electric utility. And this is really a breakdown of what that city issued debt is. >> No, go ahead. >> Okay, some of it was for the scrubber when the city paid for the upgrade to the environmental system with the TMPA unit. Some of it was those capital appreciation bonds where we financed a portion of those over about a five year period instead of using the cash balance for a portion of them. Part of their debt is for the Denton Energy Center, the revenue bonds, the 346 million. And the remaining is distribution and/or transmission debt. >> Before we all sort of get a puzzled look on our face, the city issued debt for the Denton Energy Center is $350 million. That's not what I remember. >> That's principle, this is principle and interest. >> Gotcha, okay. >> So this 956 is principle and interest. >> Yes. >> I hate to pull up too many numbers, but if you want me to pull up the other schedule that breaks down principle and interest. >> No, no, that's fine. And I knew that, sorry, that's my bad. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> All of this is combined principle and interest. >> Okay. >> And then the second part is debt that was issued by TMPA , but the city has an obligation under the agreement to pay for that. The first is for the generation facility, so that 21.395 million. That's what we're going to be paying in 17, 18 on the last year of the capital appreciation bonds. TMPA has also issued transmission debt for their transmission system. While that's been paid by TMPA without any contributions from the cities, the four cities, under the bond indenture, we are kind of a guarantor toward that debt. So they issued it and the four cities were also in that pledge. So we show that debt, but I've kind of backed it out in terms of TMPA, like the city, gets transmission cost of service revenue because it is a transmission system. And I think the long term plan is that those revenues will pay off that debt. >> Councilmember Briggs has a question. >> I appreciate you putting this all on one slide for us to see. >> Okay. >> So the transmission from TMPA at the bottom, it has the T-coast, which is the revenue that's going to be paid back, right, by the T-coast. So up here where it says city issue debt distribution transmission, I believe that we were under the impression that we were going to be refunded for some of those funds through- >> I think he's got another slide. >> Is that, okay, okay. >> Yeah. >> Hold off just for that. So, and just to clarify that amount paid by TMPA T-coast, that's T-coast revenue that goes back to TMPA as an entity for that. So if I can sneak onto the next slide and see if that answers your question here. What I've tried to do is summarize, we don't have the debt issued for the electric utility has been issued over several years. So we don't have an exact breakdown of how much of that older debt is transmission versus distribution. But in terms of, we went through the last seven years of the CIP and broke down how much was transmission and how much was distribution. It was about 54 transmission, 46 distribution. And if we applied those ratios to the outstanding debt up here, this principal and interest distribution and transmission at 549 million. If we applied that same ratio, be about 297 million principal and interest for transmission and 252 for distribution. So we looked at just 17, 18, the debt service equated to just for transmission about 15.4 million of the total debt service of 45. So we've backed out what we issued for TMPA and we backed out the debt service for the DEC. We backed those out and just looked at just one year 17, 18 . The transmission related debt would be about 15.4 million. The T cost revenue that we're estimating to receive in 17, 18 is about 20.2 million. So I think to your point in terms of getting reimbursed for the transmission system statewide, that's that T cost revenue. So this just gives a rough idea of what we're getting in revenue versus what we're paying in debt service in that year for the transmission system. Not exact because we couldn't go all the way back, but just kind of a rough idea. >> Council Member Hicks, go ahead. You look like you have a question. >> I'm just trying to, so we spent almost 300 million and we're getting 20 million back? >> In that one year, realize we get that T cost revenue back over the depreciation of that asset. So if we build a substation, they estimate that life to be 30 years. So we'll get T cost revenue back for that substation over 30 years. This is just kind of a one year shot to it. >> I appreciate that. I guess it's just my misunderstanding and what I had previously thought about the T cost refunds. >> Yeah. >> I'm just absorbing. Thank you. >> Yeah, it's kind of based on, we think of it as debt service, but they look at it as you've put an asset in and we're going to do a 30 year depreciation of that asset and we're going to pay you back over that 30 year period. Now, the debt service may be over 30 year periods or sometimes it may be shorter, maybe over a 20 year period. So tonight, we've hit the 19th. I know you're all disappointed that it's here, but we've got four items on tonight. On the budget adoption section, adoption of the tax rate, adoption of the 17-18 budget, adoption of the tax rolls and a ratification of the adopted budget. On the consent agenda is an amendment to the 16-17 budgets, to the general fund for all those additional one time expenditures and the electric fund. As I mentioned, when it was budgeted last year, it was budgeted with a sale of the TMPA facility. Since that did not occur, we're paying more debt service than was anticipated last year. So those are the only budget items and that's the end of the presentation. >> Question, Chuck. So what you're saying is next year, because we have such a high fund balance in electric fund, which was intended to help fund the debt as we experienced it through TMPA. >> Yes, through TMPA. So there's going to come a point where council will be discussing, first of all, do we want to change the policy percentages for the electric reserve fund, for the electric fund balance? And if so, what does that leave the delta from the current balance to that newly established if there is policy balance objective or goal? And then the discussion will be, what do we do with that as far as do we want to pay off some of the debt? So that's coming probably next year, is that right? >> Yeah, probably early or preliminarily before the budget process. >> Okay. >> That will probably come next year. >> Okay. All right, any other, yes, Council Member Hatsbeth. >> Just want to announce, if we want to give Chuck time to change the general fund budget to add that $100,000 back in before this evening, this would be a good time. >> Okay, all right. Any other questions, comments? I got it, I got you. Yeah, I hear you. I think you just did. You just asked. And so I'm asking, is there a council consensus for Council Member Hatsbeth's request? Not seeing that, okay. I appreciate your tenacity and your perseverance. Any other questions for Chuck at this time? Thank you, Chuck, very good. Appreciate those slides. >> Thank you. >> Very much so, thank you, sir. Very good. All right, then we'll move down to, let's take a break, because I forgot to take us a break. Let's take about a five minute break. All right, welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on September the 19th, 2017. It is 4.02. We're now down to agenda item 3E of our work session reports. I'm sorry, 3I. I don't know what I'm thinking. Yeah, we're going backwards. Receive a report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the establishment of a steering committee as part of the proposed renovation and adaptive use of City Hall West located at 221 North Elm. >> Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you this afternoon. Hopefully garner about five to six minutes of your time and get some direction. This particular presentation is really kind of a follow up on next steps as well as some direction and establishment of the steering development steering committee as it relates to City Hall West renovation proposal. So as stated, again, follow up from the August 15th. Staff received direction from council to take a look at options one and option two, which are five point, estimated at 5.4 and 5.7 respectively . In terms of renovation options for City Hall West, we're asked to take a look at establishing a steering committee and next steps. So we finished up our contract, our initial contract with H arkin Texas. They helped us establish a process forward, which first step really would be creating a steering committee. We identified some key representatives, key staff representatives from the various departments that may play a role specifically from economic development , planning department, facilities management, so on and so forth. But then also what we'd be looking at as part of the steering committee is a group of citizens that might be appointed to help us establish this development plan. So that's really what the purpose of the steering committee is to help us prepare a development plan for the development and preservation opportunities. So we have three different options, a volunteer citizens stakeholder and staff committee. Again, we take a look at having a number of staff representatives and then representatives from various stakeholders involved with the downtown area and the community as a whole, might it be in the arts community, economic development areas, those type of folks, certainly business owners in the downtown area. So at the bottom it says you recommend a representative from the chamber. It's regardless of option. Can you kind of explain that? So the theory would be is that if, and I guess at this point in time we're looking at preserving City Hall West and maybe having it kind of as a sister type building with what I call 1896 courthouse on the square, so to help generate interest in the downtown and in our community. So from a chamber's perspective, might there be an opportunity for them to help through the CBB or other options in terms of generating support and whether it might be traffic flow, foot traffic and interest in bringing folks to our community? I think in that regard, it would be more appropriate not just for chamber, but maybe to specify somebody from the convention and visitor bureau because what we're talking about is this as a possible generator of more tourism downtown and there had also been some discussion about the possibility that this might be an alternative to the current visitor center. Don't know if it would be appropriate at all or not, but at least to keep that in mind and having that group's input would be good. To go on, if I may, I think that your list that you've started up at the top is good, especially the community theater. I think it's someone from greater Denton Arts Council and someone from Denton ISD because there had been some discussion about the possibilities of cousing it that there might be some overlap that they might use it or don't know if that would work out or not. The other possibility is maybe the county representative would be the person, someone with the historical group from the county. Well, okay, so these are the options that we have as far as the citizen makeup. I'm going to go with option two because what that does is it allows council members to participate and any of the volunteer citizens on the committee could be made up of people in item number one. What I don't necessarily like about item number one is it's specifically still a lot of that is and maybe I'm reading it wrong within the downtown such as Denton County, Denton Community. It's still it's limiting it to people in the downtown area and there's a lot of people who have ideas and an interest with City Hall West. I think the appointed citizens committee, I could do that, but I think it might need to be more than one person per councilman because that means you'd only have seven and this is a pretty big project and it's probably going to have a very broad scope, but I think I would do two or three, but I'm not for number one. So I open it up for discussion. I mean, there's no, I mean, we can all read the slide. So any comments? Yes, because Mayor Hutsmith. I'm still shocked that we're moving forward without a plan. I want to note that the I know we're trying to develop a plan, but my thought is in the previous presentation, the gentleman specifies because the question was asked about if we could just renovate the exterior and then move forward with the interior at a later date. That gentleman says you have to know what you're going to do with the interior before you can establish the exterior plan of renovation. And here we are going to ignore the exterior, the streets around this unit, how we're going to get people to it. Are there, is it street lighting? What's the status of the curbs? Where are they going to park? We're going to ignore all that and renovate a building that we have no plans for that. We'll just, we'll spend $5 million. Let's say we get a grant of two, we'll spend $3 million and then we'll figure out the sidewalks, the accessibility, how it ties into downtown, what its function going to be. That to me seems backwards. And so I'm just saying I'm going to track the cost at a micro level so that again, I can just report it to my constituents how much money we're going to spend without complete direction. On topic at hand. Yes. I would think the citizen committee would be the best approach. And I, you know, that's just the best of three bad options without a plan is number three. I'm going to address that. I really don't, I have to be honest. I don't really understand what you're saying. Because what I'm seeing here is we're developing a committee to look at the renovation of the building. I can't imagine that part of that would not be, number one, I think that's why we, the staff recommended to have someone from the chamber there. So I'm having a difficulty understanding exactly what you 're saying as far as we don't have a plan. We've got a 2030 plan. We have a downtown implementation plan for all those streets. So help me, help me understand. I'm not following it. So I'm trying to understand. Yeah, when I say we don't have a plan, it is what is the express purpose or use of the building? When I say plan, I want to understand what are we going to use the building for? I don't, well. That's what this, I think that's what this committee is supposed to be doing. Unless I'm really sadly mistaken. If you go back to your previous slide, I thought, it says to create, charge, prepare a redevelopment plan with staff and architects to present to the city council. Prepare a redevelopment plan. So. To answer your question. Yes. Yes. I don't see a space where it says do nothing and leave it as is for right now. I see everything is moving forward on that list. And so there's no option for the status quo to leave it as is because we don't see that as a good option to move forward right now. If you put that slide, if you put that option on there, then it's complete. But right now, everything is forward moving on there. There's no, there's no nothing that gives direction to say, hey, not right now. I think, I think when we had our first presentation, there was several options. There was option two high end options, one 3.8 million dollar option. And there's certainly always an option to do nothing. I mean, even though it's not up there, this council could today say, you know what, we've changed our mind. We don't want to move forward. So, so I've just, you said it a couple of times and I haven 't, I've been trying to track it and I've had struggle with it because you mentioned streets and that we don't know how we're going to use it. But I thought that this whole purpose of the steering committee was to get a group of stakeholders together to determine what the use is based upon the committee. Now, the council could say, well, we don't buy it. So I'm not trying to be, I'm just trying to understand. And I think I understand a little bit more. So I appreciate that. So you're saying option three, if you had to choose. Correct. And is it just one appointee per council member or do you think, is that okay with you? Yeah, any, any increment. So you mentioned maybe two, yes. I mean, I think we are, yeah. I don't want to get it too big. But, okay. Okay. All right. I appreciate that. Comments over here. Council member Briggs. I liked option two. And is there in the volunteer citizen committee, is there a , do we have specifics on numbers of how that, how that would work with the volunteer citizen committee? Not necessarily. I think, I think, um, conceptually you may want to limit it to the 15 number. I think similar to what the mayor had just indicated, not being too large so that you can, you know, generate consensus and moving forward. Obviously you don't want it too small so that you don't leave certain stakeholders out. So they would just simply be volunteers? How would we choose them? That's my big question on that one. I mean, to me, that's almost, we would still appoint maybe, it wouldn't be a council committee, but the council would appoint one or two or three people per council member because how would you decide how to choose? I mean, we'd eventually have to make the decision. I would think, and am I not seeing that correctly? Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Council member Briggs, have you, so you're going with option two. Well, yeah, I'm just trying to understand the makeup of it more. Like, are we appointing those volunteer citizen committee? I just assume that it would be a big group of volunteers committee citywide. I guess the way I was looking at item two might be really kind of a combination of the appointed citizens committee where you had some folks from, there was council and then council ad hoc. So a couple of members, three members or what have you from the council that would also be participating in the steering committee. Oh, okay. So it would just, it would be like number three, just council members would be included. That's correct. Oh, okay. Based on that new definition, my apologies, number two, because that's kind of what I was thinking was a hybrid of the number two and number three that have been ad hoc committee with citizen involvement as well, as to whether that's chosen by us or maybe pull some stakeholders from the first, pull seven stakeholders. Each one of us appoints one other person and then we have three members of council. Yeah, to refine that. If staff could come up with a tentative idea of about seven members representing some of those stakeholder groups, chamber visitor bureau, arts groups, some stuff like that. And then, and then after that list of seven, then each council member could appoint one person to see in case we see some gaps. And then that'd be 14. Okay. But questions, yes, anybody? I was just going to put out there that I think there are a lot of stakeholders in this particular project because it is a publicly funded public asset. So I would say that you, we open it up to the public with specific invitations as well, but allow people who are interested in this project to participate because I think what happens when we get to, when we micromanage who are on these various city committees, we get the same ideas over and over again because we don't open up the process to allow different people to be involved. I'll give you an example. When we were, when the city basically led the creation of the Denton Community Market, and that was with Julie Glover, I think she did the right thing, which is, she opened it up. I mean, the whole process was opened up to everybody in the community and the ideas that came out of that were, I think, better than what we would have gotten had it just been, I certainly wouldn't have participated. It would have been, you know, seven people nominated by council members. I just, I think there's value in opening the process up to a lot of people. Some people won't stay, stay involved for the entire amount of time. They'll drop off or more people will get involved. I just think it needs to be more open than this. So that's my position. >> Okay. I'm not really quite sure what you mean by that. There's got to be some structure. I mean, this reminds me of what you're describing reminds me of the property maintenance code, property maintenance code, where we had a committee. >> We had a council committee, thank you. We had a council committee, but then we had a citizens committee that was, I forgot how we created it. But every one of those meetings had public input opportunities. People could come talk, people could submit ideas. So I'm just having, help me understand what you mean by, I mean, the community market is one thing. When you say open it up, I'm certainly not opposed to, I mean, we certainly want as many ideas as we can have. But what do you see as the structure of something like that through the decision making process? >> Well, for starters, I don't think that, for instance, putting a number on the committee would be helpful. I think, you know, saying, okay, there's 15 people on the committee. There may be well over 15 people who want to be a part of this and we should let them. We should definitely have a voting and chair and all the entire process you think of with the committee. But I don't think that it has to necessarily be certain people that we've predetermined. And a limited number. Let me put it that way. >> So, okay. So you're saying that it could be 50 people or 100 people? >> Just based on my experience doing volunteer things and then it won't be 50 people. >> Well, but I hear what you're saying. But again, that goes down to though we have to find some way to have some structure. And so you're saying you don't want to limit it to the number of people. But in essence, you're saying it would sort of be self-lim iting. But if you've got 50 people, I don't think you're going to get anything done if you're trying to make a decision among 50 people. >> Mayor Watts, may I offer something? >> Yes. >> It may be that as part of any one of these options that you put forward, maybe a first step could be a planning charrette of sorts that may address some of the-- >> I'm sorry, what? >> A planning charrette whereby you invite however you set your committee up. You host kind of a public meeting whereby that would get the buy-in that Mayor Pro Tem is speaking to. It may be an option in terms of if you look at exhibit to attach to the background. >> Councilmember. >> Going back to the original presentation, part of the reason for me going forward with this was to bring it back to the public and have those community meetings. I know that part of an issue for the charter committee is that there were a lot of citizens who had input but felt left out and they missed the comment period or missed their time to get a comment in. I don't want that to happen again, especially with this. So I can see where having it open for people to come in. Maybe we have a more structured committee but we have open comments every time for citizens to make on what they're discussing, you know, something of that sort maybe. >> Yeah, that sounds like property. Yes. >> Well, I anticipated that that's part of what it would be . You need a core of people but they're not going to exclude other folks commenting. There's somebody in town that might feel left out because they're not paying attention until after the whole process is over. But I don't know how you avoid that. But I think that if we give enough information out, website , newspaper, things like that, hopefully there could be some reports or some updates that go in our newsletter about what's going on because I would like to get as much input from as many people as possible. And so I would hope that the committee would be structured in such a way that there's always opportunity for any community member to push an idea, propose an idea, and they'll be able to do that when the committee report comes back to council. There would still be opportunity for them to do that. >> Councilmember Ryan. >> Yeah, I agree that having it open like the Property Maintenance Code committee was, I mean, there was a lot of, what do you want to call it, giving statements, testifying, you know, just, you know, public input was very big on that committee and I think that this could do that. I like the idea of about 17 because you may want to break it into a couple of different groups. I mean, I could see you could have an interior and exterior and a usage, you know, subcommittees of that, but I do really think that having the council ad hoc is an important thing that we're not relying on the game of telephone to figure out what staff is telling us is coming back from the committee, that we're getting more of that first hand because this is a very important project for the community. >> Yeah, and I think you're absolutely right as far as on the meetings. I mean, the committee can set up the meetings. The committee can hold public meetings, town hall meetings. I mean, we did that. Again, Property Maintenance Committee, I think we had over 40 public meetings where the public had five or ten minutes at every meeting that they could come and speak. So now it took a couple years. I don't anticipate this will take that long. So does that address any of your concerns on that? Yes. >> Again, it increases my concern. I mean, we all, there's this presumption that the community's not going to say it's not a good idea and it's just everyone just keeps talking about saying it's important. No constituent of mine has told me it's important. And matter of fact, when it was, when Doughton touched on hot funds at the CVB board or whatever board that was and the looks were not good around the room as I looked around the room, if I 'm just reading faces. And so I just, I need, and this could be absolute ignorance on my part and I'm just not talking to the right people, but I don't see the pressing need of it. I can't wait to get the numbers to see what we're paying for leases and other office spaces as we're going. I mean, these numbers are just, it's just not, I don't see the need, I guess, is what I'm missing. And I don't, I'm going to press every document that comes forward, include an option to do nothing or take a slow road or, I'm not for this just getting paced at our pace, whatever is convenient for us. And at the exclusion of the community having an option to say, not now. And so just going forward, if a document doesn't have a, not yet on it, then I'm going to just have a running objection. I won't take up time, but just as we have conversations and those conversations are all forward leaning and none taking into consideration that the community may not want to do this right now, then just know in your mind, I have a running objection. We got it. Duly noted. Thank you. Council Member Duff. Yeah, I'm kind of, kind of, kind of thinking of how, you know, for one thing, I don't think, if we set up a committee that shouldn't have too many people on it, because I think when you get too many people on it, it's hard to accomplish anything. And, and you know, I don't know, I don't know how we come up with the people on that committee. You know, I'm wrestling with it and I'm not sure I have a, I think it's good that the council members will be, could be able to be, be there. But I'm not sure how we, how we, maybe we open it up and just ask for volunteers and we pick the ones out. I don't know. Okay. So you're saying pick out according to what number and according to, I mean, cause you're saying council is still, council is still picking those people. I gotta tell you, I'm frustrated. I don't, I don't know. I 'm frustrated maybe, because this, this, we're making something I think very difficult that is not that difficult. I mean, I think, I think we can get the public input. I mean, if we want to drag this out, we can do that. But if we want to have people involved and we want to give the public every opportunity to speak, I really don't think we have a practice in this city of excluding people. I just, I just really don't. That doesn't mean that everybody would agree with that statement, but I think we have an opportunity where people can come and talk. Now, maybe they want more opportunity. If it's going to be a volunteer citizen committee, council ad hoc committee, they are able to set their own rules. They are able to set how many meetings we have, how many minutes of public comment do we want, because this is starting from the ground floor. I mean, this is, this isn't something that, so we've got to , we got to pick something. I mean, we've got to decide on something. And yes, council member Gregory. Well, let's not say that they have their own rules because we've asked all of our committees to follow the Texas open meetings laws. Well, you know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about process. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm going to pitch again for the idea of, of around 14 members getting the staff to, to, to see if they can get some of the stakeholders that are mentioned in level one to, to agree and that then we can fill in to get enough people. We can certainly invite folks to, to volunteer for this and council members can look from the list of folks that are, that are showing an interest in volunteering, or if we see that there's some kind of a, a, a void in the, so if it ended up that there's nobody representing folks who have an interest in historical preservation, we could make sure that somebody like that shows up. The only objection I have to that is staff pre-selecting people from the stakeholders because that stakeholder group, I mean, if we need to select people, we have council, we know if we're going to have two people per council and then if we're going to open it up to the community, then these people have every opportunity to come. But to me, it gets into this group thing that you've talked about just recently, mayor pro tem just a few minutes ago that if this is going to be for the entire community, number one, every one of those stakeholders is within a very small section geographically of the downtown save for the DISD that you mentioned. And DISD was looking at it simply for office space. So I'm not sure that I guess if you want to use it for office space, if we're going to use it for office space, we're going to bring people that we're already leasing office space from as council member Husbeth has pointed out. Why would we lease it to someone else for office space when we're spending money for office space? So that's certainly one of the options that would be on the table. But I'm not for staff selecting seven people to do this. I'm saying if it's going to be a committee, if it's going to be a volunteer citizens committee, I think the council members need to be able to choose those and let them decide how many public meetings they want to have, how they solicit public comment, how those public comments get interwoven into the committee process and into the recommendation process. And if it needs to be more than two, if it needs to be three people per council member, then okay. That expands it. That allows us to expand it. But I'm not for just a pre-selected group. That's just where I am on that. Council Member Briggs. I like the three people per council. In that way, if there's somebody that you know in that top group, you can nominate them or somebody that might want to participate from there. They can be on it. But I would like to also say that for that committee, at least have one, I don't know if we call it open house or one like big public meeting. One, yeah. Public planning meeting. Yeah. Public, yeah. Sure. And then have input there and then they can listen to what the citizens want and then make sure that there's also room for citizens to speak . Planners love that. Yeah. And other committees. So that would be my choice. Okay. Right. And I 'm okay with the three. I mean, that's not, I mean, I was the charter committee membership, I believe. Now, as far as council ad hoc committee, we need to decide who's going to be on that committee. Is that three? It's typically an ad hoc three? Okay. Is this when we do that or do we come back with another, do we come back with an ordinance? We would have to come back. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Apologies. Couldn't we nominate or take nominations right now and then when it comes back, it goes into the ordinance? Yeah. Are we posted for that? And then we can choose our three appointees later? Can we actually appoint or nominate the ad hoc committee? If there's interest, if you express the interest and you want to be on there, we'll put you on there and then you can vote it. So if you want, so that implies a nomination. Yes. So you're talking about a committee of 21 that we appoint plus a council ad hoc committee. Well, at least that according to option two. Now, if you wanted to go with option three, you just have the just citizens committee. I want a clarification. Yes. So when I understood number two to mean a volunteer city committee that included three council members. Yes. So it's not two separate committees. That's right. Okay. Yeah. I'm okay with that. I'm going to make the first nomination to the ad hoc council committee. I'm going to nominate council member Hutz, but if you would accept that nomination, I want you to be able to be as close as you can. Is that okay? Are you interested in that? Yeah. It would proceed my suggestion that the council not be on there, but okay. So yeah, no, I would, I accept that. I appreciate that. Okay. Yes, sir. No. Yes. I would like to nominate council member Duff. Yes. Okay. Well, are you willing to accept that nomination? Okay . Anybody else that's interested? I'll do it. Okay. I sort of wanted to do it, but I'll let y 'all do it. Okay. So there's two of you. Two of you that want to do it. Okay. So council member Ryan . Okay. So everybody okay with those three? All right. I see nobody. What was the word term? Viantly disagreeing or maybe it's violently agreeing. Okay. Nevermind. Remember that. Okay. So you've got your three council members in. So I would say , when would you want, when do you think you'll be bringing this back so that we 'll have our potential volunteer citizen nominations? Probably. We would need at least two weeks to get that set up. Okay. All right. How are we doing this now? Well, no, I mean, we're asking for volunteers and then who 's going to pick them? Well, the council members will eventually nominate three people per council member from the citizens of Denton. Oh, okay. Yes. So that'll be. I think it should be two, but you know, that's my opinion. Right. So it seems like three. Sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to say the next step is going to be a further report by staff as well as a resolution that'll be on your agenda that evening creating this committee and the how the picks will be done by each of the council members and then we can come back at a later meeting and then choose those that gives you time to start finding volunteers and that's the same process we used for the charter review committee. Okay . So we got to you. I can always tell when you want to ask a question, you never raise your hand, you lean forward to your microphone. So I know you have a question. I often raise my hand. I can just assure council member Hudsworth that given the way this conversation went, this project will not be done in a hurry. It will not be rushed. It may be the longest committee process ever. Okay. So who's on? Ryan. Duff and council member Hudsworth. Okay. Yes. I'm sorry, Mayor Pro Tem. So one of the things I wanted to go back to is what Mark mentioned about having a charrette because usually when we nominate people for committees, they've already submitted their names to Jennifer through the program and we don't have a group of names for this. So maybe we do need to have a first open call kind of public meeting and see who's interested and then from those names we take. We can choose and yeah. Of course, you're gonna have to quit using these big words, both of you. Charrette. I mean, I'm sorry. Even though I went to law school. It's just two syllables. Yeah, I don't get it. That's some kind of Latin or something. Okay. So we have our next steps. We have our council committee, ad hoc committee, which can begin planning this. What's it called? Charrette. Char rette. Okay. This open house or this call for interested parties who want to be a participant in the committee and then the council members can either choose from those people who are listed or they also are free to choose from people that they talk to throughout the committee, throughout the city. Is that the plan? Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Going on to agenda item J, receive a report and hold discussion concerning the request by franchise realty for specific use permit for drive through restaurant. I'm going to take a little bit of chair license to before we have a full presentation on this because council member Duff, you're the one that that requested this and based upon your comments on the request, I want to first have an understanding of what you want because I'm not sure that a staff presentation is going to suffice you and I think you 're just wanting some platform for some dialogue on on this process. So before we go into a full presentation, it may not even be needed. I wanted to give you a chance to have the floor to to talk about that and so that we can begin this dialogue. I appreciate that and that you pretty much have it right and I fully realize I may be adjusting with windmills here but I just feel like putting my opinion out there. Okay. All right. And we are supposed to discuss all aspects of this, is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. Of course we had the SUP from McDonald's that came with the P and Z a 6-0 vote and UNT came forward questioning the traffic that would have created. Of course before widening 35E, there was a gas station and an IHOP and a McDonald's. The gas station's gone. IHOP is going to be removed and there'd only be a McDonald's left. I don't honestly think that the university was really worried about traffic. I think it was just deployed to have counseled council to delay passing the SUP and it must have worked because the very next day UNT started intimate domain to take the property and I know this council has talked about being business friendly and wanting to create jobs. The jobs that will be lost on this are college students. The walk-in traffic will probably also be from college students. Property and sales taxes will be lost to the city of Denton . But my real bottom line here is I just don't think it's right to prevent McDonald's from rebuilding when McDonald's had been there for 40 years. Okay. And that 's my opinion and I had no way of knowing what the opinion of everybody else on the council. Okay. That's it. All right. Councilmembers? Councilmember Briggs. So yeah, I'm not, the reason that I'm not going to say anything today is because I still haven't seen the traffic study that I asked for for the previous meeting and so this was just an interesting, I guess, work session because I thought, I mean, are they still coming back to council? My understanding is yes. Councilmember D uff specifically requested this, I think, to be able to share some of his thoughts that he just shared. So, um. Ahead of that meeting? Yes. Okay. Or just, yes. Okay. Yeah. So that's where I, I mean, I still stand, I'm waiting for the information that was requested. Okay. And I hope they bring it back to us. Yes. Councilmember Hussbets. I would, I would ask Councilmember Duff to look at it, to strip away the names. If I had any request of you, because if you start folding in names of individual projects, where does that end? Either by right or by, either they have a right to have the SUP or they don't, regardless of who it is. Names, jobs, aside, all that. So I , the legacy data I lean on is this is, this is the map for the small area plan for UNT. I didn't jot down a number, but round numbers, we're paying $239,000-ish thousand dollars for this study that's ongoing right now. And that was approved, I have the date of the contract, but I didn't print that out. But, but it's, it was approved round numbers, July. So in July, we start to execute this plan that encompasses that area. That's July. That's well before anything that you referenced, that you have a point of contention with. Then, fast forward to June 20th , you're on this board and here's the votes when we voted the same thing for the same reason on Hickory Street. Hickory Street wants a bike path, we had a huge presentation. We say not yet because we have this plan pending. So pending this plan, everyone, the only person that didn't vote, you're here as a yes to hold off on Hickory Street. Dr. Gregory's the only one that voted against this. So 6-1 vote to hold off on Hickory Street. Now, we fast forward to same area, same request, and we're postponing it, stripping away the names. That is the, that is the textbook model of consistency. You don't spend a quarter of a million dollars on a study and then stick them with a project right in the middle of it before they can give you the results. And so I, I, I'm just giving you my analysis on this vote and it has nothing to do with UNT, McDonald's, it has everything to do with. I'm not going to spend authorized spending a quarter of a million dollars on a project, on a study and not see it through. And I'm not going to be inconsistent and hold off on bike lanes for this study. And then all of a sudden, because it's McDonald's and they've been there a while, I'm going to ignore that on this project. So it is absolutely consistent and it is absolutely right. And I'm absolutely ignorant to the names. You know them, but they don't factor into my decision because that's not what we're here to do. We're not here to pick winners and losers. We 're here to say if it's right or wrong. And I say it may be right, but I'm not going to ignore the study we've authorized well in advance in each of these opportunities. And I'm not going to walk back a vote from June to treat the Fry Street area different than I treat another area if it's in the same area, in the same kind of comprehensive discussion. So that's how I got there . And I just want you to know, has nothing to do with the names and it's well decided well in advance of what UNT would decide to do and what those individual property owners will decide to do. Yes. Well, to start with, let me just say I don't necessarily want this to devolve into a debate because I mean, you know, you said what you needed to say. He responded. So I'm going to let you respond, but this isn't here to debate this issue because we do have information coming back. Council made a motion and voted on it to continue. So this agenda item is really is an accommodation for you to sort of share your thoughts. But I'm going to let you respond and if somebody else wants to respond, but other than that, unless there's some fact issue that we need to get some clarity on, we're going to close down this discussion. Okay, I'm good with that. Well, I don't have any real thing. I'm pretty neutral on McDonald's. It has nothing to do with who it is at all. So okay. All right. Any other, yes, Mayor Pro Tem. I wanted to point out that, you know, we got some comments that this, I'll just call them McDonald's because that's their name. McDonald's didn't believe that they needed to get an SUP because when they were built in the 1960s, there was no requirement for permitting for drive-throughs. And the fact of the matter is zoning changes and, you know, every developer, everybody has to abide by new zoning rules. And when we carve out exceptions for that, and the reason we don't do it is because it's unfair, in my opinion, to say, well, you had a business in 1968, so you follow 1968 rules. Meanwhile, you new kid on the block, you get to follow our 2017 rules. So, I mean, just from a philosophical standpoint, I have an issue with somehow exempting people from zoning laws as they exist right now. I believe the city manager wants to comment. Yeah, certainly ambivalent in terms of the petitioners in this particular case, but I do think the discussion, listening to it, given my background and planning, one of the things that really jumped out at me is I do think the council probably needs to have a debate at some point in dialogue in terms of when we require traffic impact analysis. I find our thresholds here to be pretty loose for a growing community with the roads in the condition they currently are, a lot of infill development that's encouraged by the 2030 plan. So just kind of listening and observing the council discussion that night, I actually thought Councilmember Hudspeth brought some really good points in terms of where's the traffic data. Small area plan aside, there was no intention to put a moratorium on development in that small area plan, and I just want to be clear with that. So it's just simply a planning tool, so you could have approved it had we had better processes in place up front. I think something that you need to debate as a group is when you require these traffic impact analysis. We're going back now doing them after the fact in two different zoning cases, and that is not good planning. So I think it's really up to staff to provide you with some solid tools, let you tell us what you think is acceptable. If you don't want to change things, that's fine. If you want to tighten some things up because of the congestion issues that you all get complained to about, I think that's something that we need to give you some options down the road. So I do think the McDonald's experience, and I should have used their name, but I do think that experience was valuable to me just kind of listening and watching you wrestle with this. And I think the other thing that was brought up that was a really good point, and I know some of you have been hearing from residents along I-35, this particular case from our development review process, you know, are we really taking a look at those forward actions that we know are forthcoming that we're planning for this particular case? We have text not acquiring necessarily all the right away on both sides of the highway quite yet. And so these are important planning factors, and I think that it, you know, Manal and I have been talking about how do we upgrade the data that you're given, because when you're given data that is probably a little too loose or insufficient, you can't make good decisions. And so I just want everybody to sort of see the silver lining in this. I do think it gave us the opportunity. There's obvious need for policy discussion here from criteria and obvious needs to update our processes. And so I see this as a valuable exercise just kind of watching from the outside. Yeah, I appreciate that. And you always hear me say I trust the process. Well, this is the process. I mean, the restaurant in question can build there without a drive through. I mean, they can do it by right. And our code says, if you want to drive through, you know, sup is required. That's the process. Process is this council can ask for additional information. What changes in the in between that time that happens outside the purview of this council, it happens in the in the the private sector. And how that works out. That's how that's going to work out. But we have our process moving forward. And, and I feel very confident in that process. So unless there's any more discussion, we're going to close out this agenda item. Any more discussion? All right, fantastic. We will close out the agenda item J I believe that completes our work session reports. I lost my cheat sheet. Did I take it? Well, yeah, I did see it. Oh, there it is. Okay, I will now convene the closed session at 447pm. We will consider the following items consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code section 551.071. deliberations regarding real property under Texas Government Code section 551.072. And deliberations regarding certain public power utilities competitive matters under Texas Government Code section 551.086. Okay. Good evening, everyone. And welcome to this meeting of the Denton City Council on this Tuesday, September the 19th, 2017. We do have a quorum. It is 630pm. And if you would, if you're able to stand with me to pledge allegiance to the US and Texas flag. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On this next slide, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one nation, indivisible. We've got a proclamation for Septic Smart Week. Who will be handling that? Or maybe I'll just read. Oh, come on up. Introduce yourselves and tell us a little bit about Septic Smart Week. Sure. My name is Heather Goins. I'm the Pre-Treatment Program Manager. Come on up, John. And I think a lot of people don't realize how many septic systems there still are in the City of Denton. There's over 82 million gallons of wastewater treated every year by septic systems in the City of Denton. And I think it's real easy for people to forget that they're there because they're underground and they're hidden. So we're trying to bring some awareness for those folks to pay attention, make sure they're maintaining them properly, they're having them inspected, because they can be a source of pollution if they're not properly maintained. Mr. John Glover is our resident expert. Wow. That's quite a mouthful. City of Denton currently has approximately 730 on-site sewage facilities, which we regulate. Out of that, 358 of them are aerobic treatment systems. So the remainder are anaerobic treatment, usually a conventional drain field. We've been pursuing public outreach, contacting the property owners by mail and submitting hand outs to them in an effort to try to educate them to maintain the on-site sewage facilities. Typically, they need to be pumped out once every three to five years. That would ensure, in most part, chronic failures. When they do fail, they can present some pretty serious environmental hazards, as well as public health hazards. Our number of septic complaints per year is not that many, fortunately. We'll average approximately 10 to 15 per year, so it's fairly low. Compared to other jurisdictions that tend to do a lot more enforcement than the City of Denton does. And I am one of those. I think it's the aerobic, which is the more modern one. Yes, I do have one of those. So I certainly understand the importance and want to communicate the importance, making sure you get them inspected, you turn in all your proper paperwork, that's due from the City of Denton, and that you hire somebody to do a proper inspection. I think it's on a yearly basis or something like that you have to have it inspected. So thank you so much for bringing this to our attention because I think it's very, very important. This is a proclamation by the Mayor of the City of Denton, whereas proper septic system use and routine care are vital to protecting public health, preserving our highly valued groundwater, lakes, streams, and waterways, and avoiding costs of repairs that can result from neglect. And whereas nearly 760 septic systems in the City of Denton treat wastewater from homes and businesses. And whereas wastewater professionals of City of Denton use their expertise in the design, installation, maintenance, and regulation of septic systems in the City of Denton. And whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's SEPT ICSMART program used by City of Denton's pollution prevention supervisor educates homeowners about the need for proper septic system use and routine maintenance. And whereas residents in the environment of City of Denton benefit from properly designed, installed, operated, and maintained septic systems. Now therefore, I, Chris Watts, Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas, do hereby proclaim the week of September the 18th through the 22nd, 2017, this week, as SEPTICSMART week in the City of Denton and urge all citizens to join me in this special observation. Thank you again for bringing this to our attention. It's a very important issue. Thank you. Fire Prevention Week. Very important. Brad, introduce yourself and tell us a little bit what's going on. I'm Brad Layhart. First of all, we'd like to thank Mayor Watts, Councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tem, for recognizing us this year and every year for Fire Prevention Week. We find this very important. I had about 20 slides to give you guys tonight, but based on the length of your meeting, I don't think you'd appreciate it too much. So I did want to say one thing though, that we encourage every family to go and draw out a plan of their house or their home or their apartment and establish at least two escape routes from every room and practice those escape routes and try to do at least twice a year, once during the day, once at night, because at night time, it's a lot more difficult to find your way out of your home sometimes. And also, once you get outside, have a common meeting place for everyone to do. Thank you, Mayor. Well, before I read this, I also want to take this opportunity to thank our first responders and our firefighters who spent, you included, spent I think three weeks, people spent three weeks rotating out shifts down in the Rockport, Houston, F ulton area, supporting those victims of Hurricane Harvey. So thank you so much for that. Yeah, absolutely. And I know you represent many men and women who went down there and supported them. Provided backup service, performed water rescues and search and structural exercises or missions in building. So thank you guys so much. It's so great that we have a city that can send teams down there when people are really struggling. I appreciate you because I know it's a sacrifice. So this is a proclamation by the mayor of the city of Denton. Whereas Denton is committed to ensuring, I'm sorry, ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our city. And whereas US fire departments respond to 365,500 home fires in 2015, according to the National Fire Protection Association. And whereas US home fires result in 2,560 civilian deaths in 2015, representing the majority, 78% of all US fire deaths. And whereas newer homes are built with lightweight materials that burn faster than older home constructions. And many of today's products and furnishings produce toxic gases and smoke when burned, making it impossible to see and breathe within moments. And whereas these conditions contribute to a much smaller window of time for people to escape a home fire safely, with people having as little as one to two minutes to escape from the time the smoke alarm sounds. And if you think about it, that's not a very long, that's not very long at all. Whereas a home fire escape plan provides the skillset and know-how to quickly and safely escape a home fire situation , and includes two exits from every room in the home, a path to the outside from each exit, smoke alarms at all required locations, and a meeting place outside where everyone in the home will meet upon exiting. And whereas the 2017 Fire Prevention Week theme, Every Second Counts, planned two ways out, effectively serves to educate the public about the vital importance of developing a home fire escape plan with all members of the household and practice it twice a year. Now, therefore, I, Chris Watts, Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas, do hereby proclaim the week of October the 8 th through the 14th, 2017, as Fire Prevention Week. And I urge all the citizens of Denton to develop a home fire escape plan with all members of the household and practice it twice a year, and to participate in the many public safety activities and efforts of the Denton Fire Department during Fire Prevention Week 2017. Thank you, Brad. Thank you, guys, for what you do. Guys and guys, thank you. Okay, we'll move into Agenda Item 3, which is presentation from members of the public. 3A is a review of procedures for addressing the City Council. 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. We'll be Isabel Cano regarding a suggestion for the use of City Hall West. Oh yeah, and if you'll state your name and address, then your time will begin. My name is Isabel Cano. Address is 1323 Broadway Street here in Denton, 76201. And good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. Oh, first, I 'll take this opportunity to thank you for everything you're doing with the sidewalks and the bus shelters. And now to business. I'm here for two reasons. First, to propose that City Hall West be turned into artists studios. And second, to introduce a facility to you that's called the Torpedo Art Factory in Alexandria, Virginia. Yeah, he'll show, there you go. So originally it was a torpedo factory and it went through several different uses. And then in 1974, it opened its doors to, with artists studios in it. And it 's been going strong since then. It made a huge impression on me when I visited it in 1976. And since I've been in Denton, I've had a dream of a place like that being in Denton. And now that City Hall West has become available, I wanted to urge you to please take this into consideration. And my, okay, so here is some pictures of the inside. Oh, sorry, I reused the paper. Okay, so those are pictures of the factory on the inside and the artist studios. And here are some artist studios. And like we have First Friday , they have Second Thursday art night. And so I think it would be great if that could happen. My connection with the Denton art world is through the Visual Arts Society of Texas. Vest is a nonprofit organization that promotes the arts in Denton. I have served on the board for several years in different capacities. I know firsthand about the need for artist studios in Denton through my involvement in Vest and Vest's relationship with UNT and TWU art departments. I would love to be, I would love to be, I would love to be a part of the transformation of City Hall West into artist studios by possibly being in the steering committee. And in closing, I would like to read a paragraph from their website that directly applies to the dream I have for City Hall West. Today, the Torpedo Factory Art Center is home to over 165 professional artists who work, exhibit, and sell their art. Drawing over half a million visitors a year, the Torpedo Factory Art Center attracts artists from across the region and around the world. It stands as a stellar example of how the arts can revitalize a community and serves as a prototype for visual arts facilities throughout the world. Thank you everyone. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay, the next speaker will be David Zoltner regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. Good evening. My name is David Zoltner. I live at 2501 Tim ber Trail in Denton. First of all, I want to publicly say that I am very pleased to acknowledge the fact that for a very, very, very long time, this is the first time that I can recall a council majority along with a new city manager has really seemed to be on the same page about the value of civic involvement and the Open Meetings Act and transparency and just open government in general in Denton. So that's a big thumbs up. However, we have a remaining problem in that there are some mixed messages and questionable legal advice still coming from a few staffers regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act and what a council agenda should and should not allow. That was the reason behind an email I sent to council members in early August to clarify just one aspect of this open government process, and that being the scheduled citizen report versus the open mic. I need to revisit that issue for a moment for no other reason than two council members were on vacation and missed that August 8th discussion, but more to address some very troubling legal advice coming from our deputy city attorney who did far more to confuse and to clarify the Texas Open Meetings Act and/or my email message. First, a few facts. No one has ever argued that a city council is obligated in any way to discuss citizen comments, whether it comes from an open mic or a scheduled citizen report. But the uncomfortable truth for some is that the scheduled citizen report is actually much more than a mere report or presentation. There's a key point here. If the posting is adequate to fully describe the subject matter, meaning the sufficiency requirement of the Texas Open Meeting Act has been met, that scheduled citizen report is no less a legal agenda item than anything else that might come later under consent or individual items to consider. And this is not just my own opinion. You consider your own rules of procedure at 228 and it states the following. Any person who wishes to place a subject on the council agenda. Now that did not say just make a speech. It said place a subject on the council agenda. At a regular city council meeting, she'll advise the city manager's office of that fact and the specified subject matter which he or she desires to place on the agenda no later than noon Thursday, blah blah. Simply stated, an agenda item is an agenda item, irrespective of who scheduled it or where it might later appear on an agenda. Now for the fiction. Deputy City Attorney went on to state that if a city council member did wish to deliberate a citizen-driven agenda item, for some illogical reason, there would be need to reword or restructure our agendas to satisfy some arbitrary legal standard. That statement is pure nonsense. Consider the response coming once again from Houston attorney Joe Larson, board member and spokesman for the Freedom of Information Foundation when I asked him directly if such rewording or rescheduling was actually necessary. Quote, the only requirement for either deliberating and/or taking action is that the subject matter be listed completely on the agenda. An agenda item should not be misleading. So if an agenda item specifically stated that no action would be taken, then to do otherwise would be deception. But to consider an item means both to deliberate an item and potentially take action. That means your customary receiver report, holder discussion, and gift staff direction means nothing in legal terms relating to the Texas Open Meetings Act, nor does it create any special statutory authority whatsoever. Finally, Deputy City Attorney went even further to confound the matter by stating, quote, Dent on City Council meetings have been determined to be a limited public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. We are opening our area for limited discussion. Possibly she was referring only to the citizen report section of our council meetings where citizens can in fact be limited to four minutes to present four new agenda items. But in no way does a limited public forum meeting council member is restricted in any way to discuss anything on the agenda, including my comments right now. Taken all together that August 8th work session was a rather alarming admission by some in our legal department on misconstrued state law. To his credit, Mayor Watts pretty much nailed it during that follow-up question to Deputy City Attorney, but far too much we left unsaid and up in the air that day. So we'll leave it right there for now. And I'm open to any questions and hopefully some rebuttal from City Attorney if possible. Next time we'll talk about that rule of procedure video. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next speaker is Robert Donnelly regarding the Solid Waste Department. He'll state your name and address. Your time will begin. My name is Robert Donnelly. I live at 3900 Quail Creek Road , Denton, Texas. First, I'd like to say how much I appreciated the fact that Councilman Kealey seemed interested in the fact that there's some problems with the SUP at its solid waste. And Mayor Watts also made some comments that when we come up here and present you with some issues we think are a problem that you all should get back to us. I was a little disappointed that my council member didn't seem to be interested. Five weeks ago is when I talked to you all. By that Friday, you all should have had something from staff that says you are either in compliance or you're not in compliance. That week, it's been five weeks, they should have some sort of detailed action plan for you all. If it came back as we're in compliance and I'm wrong, then an explanation of how it 's in compliance since I've brought up the landscape, just the landscape issue, there's many other issues. If it's not in compliance, then what you're going to do. And with the five weeks, I believe the reason that nothing has been said because there's another option and that is you're not in compliance and you're not going to do anything about it. And that's because in my opinion, this whole issue revolves around your amendment to the current permit out there. You all have submitted a permit 1590B with TCEQ that will raise the landfill an additional 118 feet above its maximum height allowed by this SUP. You're going to go from 695 feet. May hill Road is at 600. You're going to 695 under your SUP, but you've already filed an amendment to go to 813. You're also going to move the solid waste landfill to the west 50 feet towards May hill Road. And that is why you spent millions of dollars building that wall out there in the middle of the buffer zone that is supposed to have this landscaping. I'm not necessarily against the wall, but it creates a point where you cannot adhere to the SUP. The SUP also says there'll be no trees planted in the drainage area. Behind that wall is all drainage areas. The landfill runs their drainage ditch back there now. So all this, I believe, and it's just my opinion, is so that in the future, you're going to raise the landfill to a 20 story, 20? No. You're going to raise it 813 feet above the road. So that's an 80 story, I guess. You've done a new SUP. I don't know how you 'll do it if you'll just ignore the SUP as you're doing now, or you'll revoke that SUP and do another SUP. I don't know. But the solid waste doesn't have all the zeros that DME's got, but between CNG and mining and now the SUP they ignore, they are running amok just as bad as many other departments. For the city manager, this is almost just an informational thing for you to know how deep the problems you've got go. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but I think that pretty well covers it, and I'll give you any information you would like to question. Any questions? Council Member Briggs. Sorry, I can't hear what's working. So can you say the permit again, the number? 1590B. The current permit is 1590 A. Okay. And they have a major amendment to 1590B that makes all these changes. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Donnelly. Appreciate it. All right. Now we're going to go to our what we call open mic portion of the agenda item. Our first speaker will be Mr. Willie Hudspeth. If you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. Mayor and council members, my name is Willie Hudspeth. I live at 623 Newton. Let me just say you all need to stop ignoring Mr. Donnelly. He's got the facts. He's got the numbers. He shows that they should have permitted the thing and it should go according to permit. It's your rules. It's your permit. You should do something about it instead of let him have his four minutes and then blow into the wind. Would I have any firemen? I've determined that you all are pleasant to me. Thank you. You don't throw anything at me yet. You don't shoot me yet. And you're just pleasant. You're not doing anything else. Let me just say again, I guess I'm talking to the public or whomever can hear my voice and next July I'm going to have my sign up and I'm going to walk in front of that fire engine and every time I can put that sign up, why don't we have more firemen in the city of Denton? We have one in the history of it. One. Why is that? You tell me. You don't talk. Somebody tell me why don't we have firemen so that I can quit thinking where I think it is and it's negative. Another issue, that confederate monument is in the city of Denton. I have one of you council members talking to me and said something about that. It's not Gerard. It wasn't Gerard. I'm just still trying to check his birth certificate anyway. So that councilman had a very good point. Darn, it was a good point. At least he said something. I think you ought to say something publicly. Just say something. You don't have to speak for the whole council but when you don't say anything, you get in the same category as I put the city, the county commissioners, the same category and it's negative. The one suggestion I got was put a statue of Martin Luther King right next to the conf ederate monument. Makes sense to me. Problem solved. When I go down there, I'll look at that monument and go on about my way. Right now, there's not one down there that I can look at. Well, what do you think about the thing? You think it's okay to have that kind of a statue up there? Do you think it's hatred? No, you're not seeing anything. You do just like you did Mr. Donnelly. And lastly , in the work session, Mayor Watts, let me just tell you something. If you don't think that the council members put people on committees other than to have an unbiased, helpful, forward thinking, inclusive purpose, you need to check a little bit. It's bias. Why is it then, if it's not bias, why is it that this, not you, not some of you, voted to not let the council members pick two people from any area of the city to be on that board, the, what is that thing? The what? Charter amendment board. Why is it that two members on this council said, we're going to change it. It's the only time it's ever been done. We're going to change it. Now you can only pick two from your district. And the only representative on this board at that time, well, I won't get into that. But I didn 't get to be on that thing. I didn't even get to be asked to be on it. I didn't have time to do it anyway. But I didn't even get asked to be on it. So if you think that these committees that's being picked, because you said in that meeting. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Okay. All right. Now I let it go. So we've got a, there's really no public demonstrations allowed, but that's going to be okay. But let's try to be respectful of the decorum. So, okay. We now go on to our consent agenda items . Oh, oh, what budget. I'm sorry. I missed one. Not used to this one. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I do. I have one more. Yes, I have one more. I'm sorry. Thank you so much for that. For the open mic, L illian, is it Prado? I apologize for that. Thank you all for reminding me. It's been a long day. I'm sorry. Yeah, there's two allowed. He was going to thank y'all so much for that. Okay. My name is Lillian Prado Carrillo and I live at 6504 Corral Lane here in Denton, Texas, District 4. So Mr. Ryan, first off, I want to just thank you for being so kind and affirming to my daughter last week. When I asked her if she would speak on my behalf, she was really nervous and hesitant. But after I told her what I was trying to do, and we were all trying to do is to advocate for people. She almost immediately said yes. That's not to say that she wasn't nervous. She was really scared. She called me about an hour or so before and she was freaking out. But I told her and I explained again. And so she decided to take a stand that day. And so my question to you is, will you also take a stand? My daughter is only eight years old. She's really kind and she can empathize with almost anyone. She may not be fully able to do that, but when she can, she does. She has a heart for people. I pray that her heart will grow with her age and that her desire to serve those who are living in marginalized communities will never cease. The energy to help other people who are voiceless or feel powerless, that that will never end. And that she will do these things as a godly woman, prayerfully protecting from people that would do them harm. Last week she gave you an illustration about protecting my four-year-old from her perceived fear or threat of tornado es. And so she talked about that. And so I talked to you about that because that perceived threat leads to real fear. That real fear that people say that with Senate Bill 4 that our community is feeling. People say right now that that should be minimized, that Senate Bill 4 is not really going to change anything, that our police aren't going to do anything, that business will carry on as usual. But I know that that is not true. And the fear that our community is feeling is very real. I ask you today as servant leaders, just as council members and our mayor and even the city attorney, that you would strive to be that servant leader for our community. She talked about your responsibility to protect all debt and residents, not just those that we do life with daily, but those who we walk by at Kroger and at Walmart and even Sac and Save when that used to be here. Those who make our food in a variety of places, those who clean this very building when we leave at night, those who teach our children, those who spend money in the city and whose paid sales taxes help boost the economy and the economic development in Denton, even those who stand at the Y and look for work and cut our yards because it's too hot and we don't want to. You are called as city council to protect us all. She began talking to you about who this bill will target and said today I'm going to pick up from there. This bill is going to target people who look like me and my daughter, brown skin. It's all the kids that she goes to school with. We go and she goes to a bilingual Title I school here in Denton and I transferred her there intently so that she could take part in that richness and that culture that is here, that is there offered at Lee. Because that school is more than 70% Latino, I have already had students that I teach that come in tears the next day because their parents have been deported the day before. They were collected, they didn't get to say goodbye. We have parents coming in and asking for information where they can sign power of attorneys and who they can leave their children with because they are afraid that because of their status they are going to get deported and their children are going to be left with no one into a foster care system. And they don't want to take them back to Mexico or Guatemala because it's not good to go back there because of the quality of life and the opportunities that they may have. It's better for them to stay here but it's not easier. I'm going to make sure that everybody understands that it's not easy to live here as an undocumented immigrant. Life is not easy for the children, it's not easy for the parents. It's scary to think that someone can go out and never come back home. We do it out of necessity and I say we because I was also in that place. I was illegal for most of my life. I was brought here when I was four years old. I didn't get my residency until 10 days before I expired which meant I was going to turn 21 and that was not because my father did not try. It's because our illegal, our immigration system in the United States is broken. I tried my hardest and I got it 10 days before I turned 21. I started working when I was 10 years old. I started cleaning houses, cutting yards with my dad. I even cleaned this very building and I would empty out those trash cans in the offices when my dad would come here to make extra money after getting off of his first job. And so I ask you today that you would honor that, that you would help the people that are here and that are trying to work hard and that are trying to give their parents and their children a better life. I was lucky enough that I had good moral teachers here in Denton. I had teachers that even though I wasn't the cleanest kid or the smartest kid at school at Frank Borman, that those teachers came into my life and they helped me. Even Chief Howe when he was a policeman he would give me rides to school. And so... Can you finish? Go ahead . No, you can finish. Go ahead. And I just want to say that had I been living in a Senate bill for Texas at the time when I was a child, I don't know that I would have accepted that ride and I don't know that a police officer would have even offered because he didn't know that I was illegal and those ram ifications might be more on his part. And so today I would just ask that you would consider joining litigation, that you would consider joining us. I gave her letters from LULAC Council 4366 that are signed asking you to do the same one will come from the NAACP. The Youth Council at Dent High has also signed and all the people behind me are asking you to please represent us and please join litigation. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you all. We've got agenda items 4 which are budget items for individual consideration. We'll go on to agenda item 4A. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, levying the ad valorem property tax of the City of Denton, Texas for the year 2017 on all taxable property. Thank you Mayor. Chuck Springer, Director of Finance. The proposed tax rate is the effective tax rate 0.637856. This is a decrease from the prior year's tax rate of about 4.56. I do want to point out that because the council's considering the effective tax rate, this only takes a simple majority for passage. If it's above the effective tax rate, it takes a 60% vote of the City Council. With that, I'll recommend adoption of this ordinance at the effective tax rate. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you Mr. Springer and thanks for everybody who worked on the budget. I move for approval of this item. Councilmember Briggs. I will second. We have a motion to second for agenda item 4A. Let's vote on the board please. Passes unanimously. Agenda item 4B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, approving the 2017 tax rolls and providing an effective date. Thank you Mayor. Chuck Springer again. This is required by Chapter 26 of the Texas Property Code. The council has to approve the tax rolls in order for the levy to be made. It is collected by Denton County on behalf of the city. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. Motion to approve the tax rolls on item B. Councilmember Briggs. I'll second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 4B. Let's vote on the board please. So I was going to say somebody's missing. We're going to revote? Okay let's revote. Mayor Pro Tem if you could move and. All right. Thank you. No you're good. Thank you. Oh. Oh there we go. Passes unanimously. 7-0. Agenda item 4C. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, adopting the fiscal year 2017-2018. Excuse me. Annual program of services budget. Mayor Pro Tem . Oh I'm sorry. Go ahead Chuck. Just very briefly. I'm back in work session mode. I'm sorry. Very briefly this is the proposed budget with the changes recommended by the council. We made some changes to the general fund. We made some changes to the electric fund. Some small decreases. And the technology services fund by transferring some individuals from the electric fund and the technology services fund. Recommend approval of the budget with total expenditures across all funds including the capital budget at 1,140,747, 079. All right. Mayor Pro Tem. You know can I say something. One of the things that's difficult about being in this position is that. We know how much work went into the budget. I mean it was a phenomenal amount of work and we're here really summarily approving things and disproving things. So I just for anybody that's watching I can't even begin to describe how much work went into the budget. What this team was able to accomplish in terms of lowering our tax rate to the effective rate and providing a program of services where no one will notice any type of difference in the services that they receive from the city. If anything there will be more. So I'm just very very grateful and I wish this could be more ceremonious for everybody who is involved. But with that I'll move to approve. Councilmember Briggs. I second the motion and second everything she said. All right . Thank you. All right. We have a motion to second for agenda item 4C. Let's vote on the board please. Motion carries unanimously. Agenda item 4D. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton ratifying the adoption of the fiscal year 2017 annual program services. So let me make sure we're we're this ordinance is to ratify what we just did. Yes. I'll try to explain this one under state law. The state law and it's on a separate section from the effective tax rate. So even though we're adopting the effective tax rate. Under this section of state law adoption of a budget that will raise more revenue from property taxes than in the previous year requires this ratification. It doesn't take into account new value or any changes like that. It's simply if there's more dollars from property taxes coming in in the budget than the prior year requires this. With that I'll recommend it. And if you'll give me a moment Mayor I would like to thank some folks especially staff for this the budget efforts. Thank the city council the city manager and the city staff that work very hard. But I'd especially like to point out our utility budget staff. Cassie Ogden Laurie Hugh Tony Tina Eck Mary Dickinson Kathy Brooks and the staff that works closely with me Dan Galizia Kristen Solaris Tony Puente and especially our budget director Nancy Tao. Those are the folks who do the real heavy lifting. I'm just here for shows. I'd like to thank them. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. OK. Mayor Pro Tem. Move to approve ratification. Councilmember Briggs. Second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 4D. Let's vote on the board please. Passes 7-0. Thank you. Thank you Chuck. Thank everyone. Hard work and good work. Thank you so much. Move on to our consent agenda. Councilmember Ryan. Thank you Mayor. I move we approve items A through G K through R and U through AA. OK. And I'm just going to go through what you're not saying as we are pulling items for individual consideration off the consent consent agenda 5H 5I 5J 5S and 5T. Great. All right. OK. We have a motion. Mayor Pro Tem. Second. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board please. Motion carries unanimously. Now we will go through the pulled consent agenda items that will now be considered for individual consideration. We'll go to agenda item 5H. Consider adoption of a resolution approving the City of Denton's Green Sense Initiative. I'm sorry. Incentive program. And we do have public comment after staff presentation. Good evening Mayor and council members. I'm Jessica Rogers. I'm the energy services manager for the City of Denton. And I apologize for two of our council members. I think they've seen my presentation before. So if I'm repetitive, I apologize. What I have for you tonight is I'll give you a really brief update on our sustainable dental dentin portion of the program, which is our energy efficiency side of the program . I'll go through a little bit of the history and evolution of the Green Sense Incentive Program, the proposed updates for this year. And then I'll walk you through the distributed generation manual as that is a new thing. So just briefly on the sustainable dentin side on our energy efficiency rebates, we had a total of 461 rebates this year that used up the full $200,000. And unfortunately, I'm not the expert in this area. So if there's a question on these, Katherine Barnett from Sustain ability is here. But we definitely wanted to let you know how the how the funds were being used and distributed. So clearly, our HVAC rebates are among the most popular that we have. OK, moving on to our Green Sense Incentive Program, just to give you a little bit of history, the program and its sort of formal state that it exists today, it started in 1998. So this next year will be our 20th year of having this program, which we're very excited about. And we're even more excited about the changes that we've had recently with the addition of the battery storage and the PV install side of the program. That's the solar rebate program. So there are many different components inside the Green Sense Incentive Program. There are free in-home energy audits, which I encourage everyone to participate in. I'm going to try and participate this next year as I'm a new homeowner in Denton. The energy efficiency rebates, residential, multifamily and small commercial, all can qualify for those rebates. Our standard offer incentive, which is our large scale energy efficiency rebate program. Engineering audits are for our industrial customers and then our ERS program, which is a demand response program through ERCOT. So Green Sense budget, this just today took a little bit of a detour. We actually got an additional $50,000 that was added from the reallocated from the sponsorship program. So what you'll see in that first line of solar rebates funds as we were proposing a budget of $290,000 for solar rebates. $10,000 from that, $50,000 from sponsorships will be allocated to the solar rebate program for a $300,000 solar rebate program this next year. That's an increase from $200,000. And the energy efficiency rebates will be increased from $ 200,000 to $250,000 with $40,000 of that coming from the $50 ,000 today. And I will note that that additional $150,000 isn't a budgetary increase. Those are actually reallocations. So that $50,000 is the reallocation from the sponsorship and that additional $100,000 actually came from some repro gramming within the energy services budget itself. So that isn't an added cost. It's just a reprogramming. So this is what our total program budget will look like for this year. It'll be, and actually we didn't change that $600,000. It'll actually be $650,000 with the additional $50,000 today. And you'll see that we didn't make any changes on the other components of the program, but that's certainly something that we look at. And if those funds were being utilized, we might make a recommendation for a change perhaps mid-year if we see some demand, we have some flexibility to move within those programs. So the changes that we're making this year to the program itself is we're changing how our HVAC rebates are allocated . We're moving to a more graduated structure instead of a flat rate structure. This will allow for sort of the rebate to match the size of the system that's being installed. We're adding an electric vehicle rebate. That'll be $300 for new vehicle purchases. For electric vehicles, only not hybrids, to make that clarification. And then we are taking down the four coincident pink and spot price curtailment programs. Those are demand response programs for commercial customers . And unfortunately right now, the way that they're written, we don't have any participants and we haven't really had any interest in those programs. So we want to do some retooling. We want to work with some outside consultants and see if we can better refine our demand response programs to make them viable for our customers. Moving on to our distributed generation manual. This is a new document that will be posted as part of the Green Sense Incentive Program. Distributed generation, just to give you a little background, is any electrical generating facility that's installed on the customer side of the meter. Could be solar panels. It could be a wind device. It could be a generator. It also could be a battery storage device. Any of the renewable types of distributed generation, as we 've discussed before, is bought back. The credit is sorry. Any renewable energy is bought back from customers when they push back on the grid under our scheduled DGR. And then all distributed generation that interconnects with our grid has to go through the interconnection process, which is why we wanted to bring this forward to you. Currently, this is what the distributed generation process looks like. And each one of those boxes represents a step, which has many sub-steps, which is a different source of information that you may be getting. So sometimes it can get very confusing for customers to have to talk to both DME and then within DME, maybe met ering and inspections and then building inspections and planning. So we wanted to really consolidate that information into one place to give customers sort of a one stop shop for where they could get all of the information and then submit one application instead of having to go to multiple places within the city. So we really wanted to be more customer friendly on the application side. So that's exactly what the DG manual does. That's in front of you. It's one document, one location and a united front between the departments. And we think this will really streamline the process and cut down on that application time. And then one of the one things that we're really proud of that the distributed generation manual will help us achieve is that SolSmart designation, which is a national program recognizing solar friendly communities. And so we are shooting for the bronze designation with the adoption of the DG manual. And then we will get hard to work on achieving a silver designation after that. And then one thing, Councilmember Hetsmith, I know you asked where this information could be found on the website. So I wanted to point out that the Greensense information is available on a couple of places on the website with the links up there available through both the DME page and the sustainability page. And then the Greensense rate, which is slightly different, has its own sort of special place on the website. And we'll certainly be looking at ways to consolidate that information and maybe make it a little bit more customer friendly. It's kind of disjointed at this point. But you can contact the energy services staff or the sustainability staff through those two email addresses right there. And you don't have to be asking any specific questions. If you just want any information, you can absolutely contact any one of us. And we can direct you to the right place. With that, that is all I have on the Greensense program. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Thanks. Thank you very much. Councilmember Briggs. I would like to move approval. And I'd also like to thank staff for the sustainability and energy services staff for the work on this manual. This is good. So with that, I make a motion to approve. Mayor Pro Tem. Oh, hold on. Yep. Go ahead and make the motion. We got public comment. But yeah, go ahead. Second. OK. Councilmember Hudson-- I mean, Councilmember Hussbett. Mr. Willie Hussbett, we have a card. Please state your name and address. UX son. Did you hear that? Mayor and councilmembers, my name is Willie Hussbett. Put this slide up there where you show how much you get for the ones that show the breakdown. This-- no. [INAUDIBLE] That one? [INAUDIBLE] Nope, that's not doing it. [INAUDIBLE] That's-- I don't know. This is very confusing. I'm going to put a solar panel on my house, Mayor Watts, because the turn electricity is too high. But the upfront cost is so expensive. The rebates should be more. Look, if I put the panels on my house, then I'm going to be saving the city of Denton energy costs. If more of us do that, we can save the city of Denton more energy costs. It seems to me that I don't think this is the one I need. But there was one-- maybe that's it. Because I remember it was-- well, it's a small amount of money. It should be more than that. If the thing right now is costing $45,000 to get that thing installed, it's going to be a while before I can recoup that. Now, but I will recoup it. I think that's-- yeah. And I'm doing some of the installation. So it's a good thought, but I think it should be cheaper than that. Put up the slide showing where we can go for help. Those four or six blocks. Whatever that was back. No. I think it's the-- I think it's the website. Was it the websites there? The links? You said-- when you were talking, you said you can go here for information, and now we've changed it to go there. I think it was blocks. That's OK. Just like trying to find out what it is that I need with this thing here, the city of Denton and the program that you have set up for us to go and get information, A, number one, what's the rebate amount? It's too low, and it's very confusing as to how you get it. Number two, what are the rules for installing it? Who gets the install it? What are the-- which kinds of solar panels do you use to get the-- generate the money? And again, it's not very much. That's my thought about the program. Councilmember Riggs? You have a question? On the rebate for solar, if you could come up and-- I think that'll all be in the manual, right? Will that information be in the manual? It is in the manual. The rebate for solar is 75 cents per AC watt, up to either 50% of the total install cost or $30,000 is the dollar cap. If you install battery storage, it's $1.50 per AC watt with the same 50% and $30,000 cap. OK. Yeah, both of those are within the Green Sense manual that 's in your backup. I'm happy to share that with Mr. Hetspeth. Where is there-- is there a place where someone could pick up a physical manual? Where will those be distributed? We don't have any printed manuals available in any place that I'm aware of, but we certainly can provide some probably to maybe the planning department. That might be a good place they have a counter that they could have people come in. And we also could provide it if someone asked for it. OK. Thank you. Councilmember Gregory? So you said if somebody were to put solar panels on their roof, the rebate that they would get after they put the money up front would be 50% of -- It's based on the actual watts and the inverter rating on the system. So it's $0.75 per AC watt on a system without battery storage. So just if you're installing a panels and inverter. The caps are that it can't exceed 50% of the total install cost. So if you were installing a system that costs $30,000, you could qualify in theory of up to $15,000. Up to $15,000. Right. And then if you had that and you're making more power than you're using, the city will buy it from you? The city will buy it back for you. Yes, there is a schedule in our rate book, schedule DGR, which is our distributed generation rider, which sets the credit rates for customers on the buy back. And how does that rebate program compare with others around the state of Texas? We are one of the top ranked programs. And if you let me flip to the right page in the program, I could tell you the exact number of where we were in the state. But we're among the top, if not the top depending on-- I know we are the top as it relates to battery storage systems. OK, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs? I move approval. Mayor Pro Tem? Second. We already did that. You did, that's OK. Yeah, OK. All right, vote on the board, please. Motion carries, 7-0. We've got agenda item I, 5-I, consider adoption of ordinance adopting a schedule of fees for cemeteries and use of certain park facilities. What I'm going to ask is those who have asked for these individual items to be pulled, if you could maybe also provide some idea of what you're wanting in the staff presentation, because sometimes you're not wanting that much and sometimes you're wanting a lot. So I just want to make sure that when we come down, if we don't need the whole presentation, then that's fine. So who pulled agenda item 5-I? Yes? I pulled this one only so that I could vote separately. I don't need a presentation. OK, all right. And we do have a blue card wishing to speak. Yeah, you want to go ahead. Councilmember Hussbett? I also identified it and I had, if staff could address the removal of the family pricing, that was my question, if it was due to lack of usage or what prompted that. Is that family pricing at the water park? No, that's the tennis. Everything-- Oh, OK. Previously the water park was removed and now they're adjusting the tennis. OK, all right. Mayor, members of council, I'm Emerson Borle, the director of parks and recreation. The reason that we eliminated that pass is because we've sold exactly two per year for the last two years. That's the sole reason. OK. Yes, go ahead. One other question. I just looked at my notes. And then could you bring me up to speed on the cemetery fees? Is that ever designed to draw even with cost or is that just an understood, just a service provided by the city that-- I think the numbers in the backup were about 36% is what we're going to cover. That's correct. Yeah, so I wasn't sure what the-- I just want to understand the history of it. We did, at council's request, we did increase those cemetery burial plot fees this year by 50%. All of the fees associated with both cemeteries. In order for us to even be close to full cost recovery at the two cemeteries, we would have had to increase those fees three to four times, bearing in mind that those numbers are then based on actually the sale of burial plots. We have no way of guaranteeing that if we raise the prices to that level, that we would still continue to see sales at that level. So it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for us to guarantee that we would fully cost recover. So we bumped those rates up by 50% this year. We'll be delighted to come back next year and look at our numbers again and talk with council about maybe another bump next year to get a little bit closer. OK, thank you. You bet. All right, we do have a card wishing to speak. Mr. William Hutspeth, come down and state your name. All right, wishing to speak. OK, this is agenda item five. I Councilmember Gregory moved approval of five. I Councilmember Hutspeth second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item five. I let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries six one agenda item five J, which is considered approval of a resolution of the city of Denton, Texas, approving a policy for the employee volunteer impact program. Who pulled that one? OK, yeah. Yes, sir. So this one, I was bear with me. Oh, so this one, I think is just a fantastic program. I think it really will enhance our community. And so just wanted to I don't know if it's maybe one of your last slides or something that kind of provides an overview of the program and what we're rolling out because I think, again, it's a great investment in our community. And I think it's going to yield some some fantastic results . So basically, it sounds like a summary of what the program is. Yeah. Well, good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. I'm Carla Romine, director of Human Resources. I actually have Tiffany Thompson here. She was the lead that did the presentation July 18th to provide you the program overview. But as a reminder, it is a volunteer program that allows eligible employees to volunteer or to receive up to 24 hours of paid time off to volunteer in the community. But Tiffany has some more information on the eligibility of the participants and who benefit from this program. Sure. Good evening, Mayor, City Council, Mayor Pro Tem. I'm Tiffany Thompson, the customer service manager, and we have a couple of members from our project team here as well. Leo Bonanno from Community Improvement Services and Elizabeth Rees from DME and Drew Huffman from Wastewater. And so I do have just a couple slides to go over with you what the program is. I wanted to note that throughout this presentation, again, it's brief, we have a couple of pictures of how our project team really got out in the community and really helped shape what this program is, what we're bringing forth to you. So the Volunteer Impact Program is designed to allocate a certain number of hours to city staff to be able to get out in the community and meet the needs of the community that's out there. And so we want to ensure that we're creating community engagement opportunities to help. Whenever we were first crafting this program, we wanted to ensure that there was a genuine need in the community. So we did research with the Census Bureau and we found that we had over 131,000 residents. Over 11,000 of them are disabled or living with some type of disability, including children. And we have a high veteran population of over 6,800. And with 21.3% of the DIN residents living below the poverty level, we really thought that this program could help meet the community needs that are out there. We also did extensive research, which consisted of gauging interest from city staff to make sure that there was a genuine appetite for a program like this. And so we got back over 500 responses from staff saying that this would create value for them, not only personally but professionally. And to be able to understand what needs are going on in the community. We also reached out to over 50 help agencies in the Denton community to gauge what type of volunteers that they need, what type of capacities that they need the volunteers to work in. And 100% of the respondents came back and said that they see value in this program, not only for the volunteers doing it, but also that the city could be a leader in the community with having a volunteer program. And so how the program's going to work is we have established set criteria for our employees that they'll need to make sure to meet in order to be eligible. Some of that criteria is maintaining our service levels that we provide to our citizens now. And we're going to do that by ensuring that staff has gotten supervisory approval two weeks prior to wanting to volunteer at an event. We want to make sure that that employee is also meeting performance standards before volunteering as well. And they provide documentation prior to volunteering and then also when they get back. So we're seeking 24 hours of time per year, per fiscal year for full-time employees, and then it's prorated down based off of their three-quarter staff or part-time staff. And that is not a rollover or carryover type of benefit. It is a use it or lose it. And we also have established criteria for the organizations that we plan to partner with. And so we want to make sure that those organizations are meeting a Denton community need and that they have an established evaluation process to measure success of the program. And that they're also creating or providing documentation and records for us. So in conclusion, with your approval tonight, this will go into effect October 1st. And we will begin communicating with staff about the launch of the program, what criteria they would need to meet in order to be eligible for the program, and then reaching out to those help agencies, letting them know that we're ready to launch the program, make sure that they meet the criteria so we can get out there and start making that community impact as soon as possible. And then with that, we're going to collect data so we can provide you with report utilization and adoption, and then begin to tell you what our community impact is. And then lastly, just the awareness piece that this program is going to provide. Not only the awareness in the community and the needs that are out there, but your awareness of your ability to be able to help those needs, regardless if you're doing it in a formal volunteer capacity, or you're just out for dinner and you see someone in need, again, that awareness to be able to help. And so I do want to end with just my genuine thankfulness and appreciation for your continued support of this program on behalf of myself and our project team. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. It's a wonderful program. Any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate the presentation. We do have a card. Mr. Willie Hesbeth, a question to speak on agenda item 5J. Mayor and Councilman, members, I'm Willie Hesbeth. I live at 623 Newton. I've been black all my life, I think. So then I look at programs that are being presented with the eyes of a man who has just been denied things because of my color. Good program. I think it's excellent. You had one black person that I saw. So my question is, is it just for other ethnicities? Why aren't there black people up in there doing that? Why don't you show them? That's my question. Because that's how I look at the world. I look to see that I'm not being represented. So that's my only comment. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. I move approval. Councilmember Gregory. Second. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carried, 7-0. Agenda item 5S, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton amending the schedule fees contained in ordinance 2017-073. And who pulled agenda item S? Yes, Councilmember Hudspeth. This has a specific question. So you have, each of you have at your station a color copy and a black and white copy. I think the black and white will suffice, especially because it's going to be available online. So I pulled it specifically for staff, they were provided in advance. So I'd like Council to consider maybe amending this to read black and white. And then, and that's just a simple to save a few cents on the color printing. And then I also wanted to ask staff to present how the tracking will work. And then lastly, there's an example I requested in the back of the room. That's the size of the sign where it's going to be posted. So that's a sample to make sure fellow council members and if there's any citizens that have comment, that's the size you'll see when you've driven in the past and you've seen the zoning change or something pending, now it's that size. So part of your reason for pulling it was to show this sign and also to ask that we change to black and white. Yes. And the middle one was what was the -- Was the understanding of how it's going to be mailed and certified. And I want to understand how that's tracked if we have electronic tracking to go with that. Very brief, yes. Pretty pointed question. Just real quickly, we go through the U.S. post office and through their certified mailing we can access how and who has signed off on the certified mail. So we have that data available at any time to present to PN Z or city council. Okay. Does that suffice? Yes. And then the rest would be black and white and then making sure everyone's comfortable with the size. So you're not asking for any changes in the format of the letter notice. It's just to go from color to black and white. Yes. Okay. All right. Council Member Riggs, you had a question? Yes, what would the savings be to do that? Because looking at it, I personally think that the color one for somebody, it's a lot easier to understand and to zoom in on the location. I can check. I don't have unfortunately the information for that. I do know that the certified -- going through a certified process is partly the high costs for it. But I can double check. I'm sure we will save some money on the color versus the black and white. I don't know how much. I just don't know the exact amount. Council Member Hussbett. I like the new size of the sign. Okay. Council Member Hussbett. And if I may add to Ron's answer, I think if you think about how people consume information now, if someone -- if I receive this in black and white, it gives the link. I would go to my phone, computer, and then I can expand it and see it in color, zoomed in versus on a piece of paper where you can't really manipulate it. I would have to scan this in color, which you lose a little of the quality, and then expand it in a PDF, something like that. And that's just not normal practice. I think it's -- I think normal practice is I'd go to the website and look at it in color and I can expand it, zoom in, screenshot, that sort of thing. Okay. Great. And just to clarify, we're just talking about the letter going black. Yeah, just -- Well, both. And then the other -- I guess this is the -- Postcard. The post notice -- yeah, both, because I have examples of both where -- Correct. Okay. Great. All right. Council Member Gregory. Thanks. So what we're talking about is the cost variation of printing letters in color or in black and white that would be -- that cost would go to the developer that's asking for a change of zoning, and these would be the letters or the postcards that are mailed out to the citizens in the surrounding area? Correct. Any public hearing items, not just zoning, but any SUP or any public hearing items would go to the applicant to pay for. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Briggs. So the cost would be to the developer. Has the developer made a comment about paying for color copies? No. Has any developer said anything about that? Not yet. And what -- Okay. No. Because, I mean, it's clear to me which one is better for view, because not everybody has a computer or a phone, and if this is the only piece of information they have, it's best to be clear. Right. So that's just my opinion on this -- on the -- on the -- All right. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you. Okay. We do have a card wishing to speak. Mr. Willie Husbeth? No. Declined to speak. Council Member Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of 5S as presented. I'm going to recognize the request to speak first. Mayor Pro Tem. Just a point of clarification. So was there a motion to amend this? No. I mean, not -- I didn't hear a motion to amend. Okay. Okay. All right. Just sorry about that. Yep. Okay. Council Member Ryan? Thank you. I'll second. All right. This is a motion and a second to accept as presented in the staff report. Is that correct? Correct. Mr. Husbeth? Discussion? Sure. Yeah. So I'm just disappointed. I think any time you can save money and you pass on an opportunity is disappointing, especially something this simple. I have a dissenting opinion on if everyone has a phone or a computer. We have several libraries, several rec centers. I think that undercuts all the efforts we do to make sure our citizens have access to that information. Those computers are also available in other locations. So for me, just disappointed how things are going because I think it's an opportunity -- whoever is paying for it should be moved. So I was shocked by that. But going further, I don't think we should -- I just think passing on saving money is not great. Thank you. All right. Council Member Gregory? Thanks. I appreciate the Council Member's comments. I think that these proposed changes have to do with trying to improve the citizens' ability to understand what's going on when there is a change of zoning requested. That's why we're asking for bigger signs. And that's why we're asking for a different way of presenting the material so that when a citizen who's not very tuned in necessarily to what's going on, if they're driving past and they see that bigger sign, it's more obvious to them that something is happening in their neighborhood or when they get a piece of mail that it's easier for them to understand the kinds of changes. And because these kinds of changes are helping to make it easier for citizens to understand what's happening in their neighborhood, I think that it's a very small price to pay on the part of the developer to make sure that our citizens and our neighbors are adequately informed and can respond appropriately. Council Member Briggs? So I'm just curious if the color version and the black and white version are being shown to the public what we're discussing on the TV if they've been able to see the changes we're talking about? Nobody's presented that. No? No. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion on the board in a second to accept it as staff presented, which means the color copies. Am I correct on that? Just for clarification, I just want to make sure I'm correct. All right. So I'll just put it on the board, please. Motion carries 6-1. Moving on to Agenda Item 5-T, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, providing for schedule of miscellaneous fees, deposits, et cetera. I believe we had a couple of Council Members who pulled that one. If there's any comments as to far as what you're looking for in the staff presentation, that would be very helpful. Who pulled 5-T? Council Member Briggs? I pulled it. I think Council Member Hatsbeth did as well. I pulled it just because I'm not ready to vote on it. I was hoping for a work session before this instead of after. And so I'm just, I'm not pleased with the fees, rates, all of that stuff quite yet. Okay. All right. Council Member Hatsbeth? Yes, sir, it's the same in the work session, understanding that it relates to the deposits than that. I would want to discuss that, but understanding there's a presentation pending, we'll just address it then. Okay. All right. And Mr. City Attorney, if I may, if this motion were to pass, and we do have a public card wishing to speak, we'll get to here in a moment. If this were to pass, and out of the work session that I believe is coming up in a couple weeks, if there was a desired change to this ordinance, then that could be made at that time when their action item is posted. Is that correct? I mean, we could pass this, but then it could change within a couple weeks or four weeks or something along those lines. That is correct. You could always amend it via another ordinance if you decide that way. All right. Thank you. We do have a card wishing to speak. Mr. William Hatsbeth? Agenda item 5T, as in Tom. Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Willie Hatsbeth. I think that's backwards planning if you're going to, you 're looking at something to accept or not accept it, and what you're doing, you haven't talked about it yet. You haven't worked through some of the issues of it, but yet you're voting. I'm not sure why you'd vote if you haven't discussed it thoroughly. Or maybe you have. But what I'm hearing is you haven't. And you can come back later and then change what you voting on tonight. So it seems to me the best thing to do is just wait and then do it then. I mean, vote to either accept it or not accept it after you had the discussion. Thank you. Councilmember Riggs? On that note, do we, is this something that we have to have in place because it expires at the same time as? As the budget? Like as a schedule of fees? And if we held off until that, because I know there are minimum deposits and things that I would like to lower as well. So how does that work? Chuck, do you have an answer to that question? And I'll somewhat defer to the City Attorney, but this was passed last year. There's really no changes to the fees. It's just updating it. I think it's just a practice to do that. The ordinance last year was effective 10/1/2016 and I don't read where there's an end date in terms of that. So I'm assuming if this wasn't passed that the fees would still be in effect. It would be last year's, yes. Last year's fees would be in effect. So it's still effective. It's just last year's ordinance would be effective. Okay. All right. Thank you. Chair, to entertain a motion or some type of action on this . It's a pleasure. Council Member Briggs. I would like to move to postpone this item until, is that correct? Is it postponed? Until we can have a work session and council discussion on changes that we wish to be made and then bring it back. Okay. All right. Council Member Hussbuth. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. Oh, Mayor Pro Tem. I'm sorry if I missed it. I was having technical difficulties. Has PUB reviewed this already? They did? And it's 7-0? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to be in favor of postponing it as well. All right. So we have a motion and a second for postponement. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. We're now out of consent agenda items. We're going to take a 5-10 minute break. All right. Everybody welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council, September the 19th, 2017. Excuse me. It is 8 o'clock straight up. We'll move on to agenda items 6, which are items for individual consideration, consideration of the use of eminent domain, agenda item 6A, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, finding that a public use of necessity exists to acquire fee simple title to 10.129 acre track of land situated in the CW Byerly Survey. I'm hoping I said that right. So ready for staff presentation. And we do have a card wishing to speak. So what we'll do is we'll when did we usually do those between the staff presentation and why he's displaying it on the or before the vote? Before the vote. Before the motion, but before the vote. Okay. All right. Good evening, Mayor, Council members. I'm Brent Heath, Executive Manager for Energy Delivery for the here to talk about property related to the Underwood substation. The executive summary for our CIP program and projects are that we we've done analysis that shows that Denton has a growth and agent infrastructure problem. We have a responsibility to respond to resolve that problem from both the regulatory and a reliability aspect. We followed a public involvement process where we solicit citizen input. We consider all the practical options and information that we hear, and we recommend moving forward to council with the most feasible and economic option that has the least public impact. As a reminder, the external regulatory electric entities that we deal with are FERC, F-E-R-C. That stands for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And that is where we perform an engineering analysis. And we do that annually and submit that to locate defic iencies of the transmission system in Denton that affect statewide electric grid. NERC is the North American Electric Liability Corporation, and they have reliability standards that we are held to. TRE is the Texas reliability entity. They've been delegated the authority from NERC to maintain reliability standards here in Texas. The Public Utility Commission of Texas has the authority to review and approve the Texas transmission projects, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, commonly called ERCOT, manages the electric flow to the majority of the customers in Texas . So to the Underwood substation project, this map is an illustration of our electric transmission system here in Denton. The green line, this inner loop is our 69 kV system that's being converted to 138 kV. The outer red loop line is the 138 kV transmission system. The clouded area shows the location of the Underwood subst ation. The project history for Underwood substation is we had a public involvement open house December the 13th, 2013. That was held at the Denton Civic Center at Bell Avenue and McKinney Street. That was when we began all of the CIP program and projects. The Public Utilities Board held a public hearing and recommended the Underwood substation site on July 25th, 2016. The City Council held a public hearing and approved the Public Utility Board recommended Underwood substation site on August the 16th, 2016. After the site was selected by City Council, it was appra ised and for the fee purchase amount of $232,502. Tonight the recommendation is to move forward and receive authorization from City Council to send out an initial offer letter for the appraised amount, then a final offer letter and if a settlement or terms cannot be reached, then go ahead and proceed with filing an eminent domain. To show you the general location of where Underwood subst ation site is located, it's going to be north of FM Far Market Road 2449 and west of Interstate 35W. We're calling it the Underwood substation site because it will be adjacent to Underwood Street. A closer zoomed in map shows the site location, the area in this triangle, this orange triangle is the specific track that we're looking at acquiring for the substation site. The blue line is an Encore transmission line that runs through that property. The red line is a TMPA transmission line that goes from Fort Worth substation to Denton West and the green line is a DME transmission line that goes from Denton West to Ardie Wells. So the substation was set in the middle of all three of these transmission lines. So this is where I will stop and let council discuss this and upon a favorable motion by council I will proceed and show the legal description of this property. Before we get started with the council discussion, if any, and the motion and presentation of the legal of the survey, we have a blue card wishing to speak Mr. Willie Hutzpeth. All right, thank you. Okay. So what we do is make the motion and then he displays the legal description. Yes, and the motion has been provided to all the council members. Mayor Pro Tem? I move that the City of Denton, after having made the offers required by state law, use the power of eminent domain if needed to acquire fee simple to the surface estate of a 10.129 acre tract generally located at the southeast corner of FM 2449 and Underwood Road and being situated in the CW Byerly Survey abstract number 1458 in the City of Denton County, Texas, and to acquire a drainage easement in a .430 acre tract. Go ahead. We'll get it later. I'm sorry. And a temporary construction easement in a .286 acre tract both in the G West Survey abstract number 1393, all more particularly described on exhibits A, A1, B1, A2, and B2 to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screen being now displayed to the audience, all of which is for 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. Did I just read the entirely wrong one? No. Okay. Yeah, no, no. Are you? Was that it? Okay. Council member Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. I will second agenda item 6A. And just to just so that just so that I understand Mr. Hesp eth, you declined to speak on this. Okay. All right. Okay. We've had the legal description or the survey being displayed during the reading of the motion. Mr. City Attorney, do you think there's been adequate display then to go ahead and take a vote on this motion? Yes, I do. All right. All right. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 6A. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries. 7-0. Agenda item 6B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, finding that a public use and necessity exists to acquire easements in a 0.728 track of land. Good evening again, Mayor and Council members. Brent Heath, Executive Manager of Energy Delivery. I'm here this evening to discuss the Pecan Grove Track. It's related to the Spencer to Locust 138 KB transmission line project. The executive summary is the very same that we just got through talking about on agenda item 6A, where Denton does have a growth and agent infrastructure problem. We have a responsibility to respond both from a regulatory and reliability perspective. We followed a public involvement process to solicit input from the citizens. We considered all practical options and recommend moving forward with the most feasible economic option that has the least impact to the public. The entities that are external that we have to comply with in relation to transmission systems are FERC, NERC, TRE, the Public Utility Commission of Texas, and ERCOT. I was going to say you probably could have skipped that because we just saw it, but go ahead. So specifically to this transmission line project, this is on the inner green loop, the 69 KB loop that's being converted to 138 KB. The Spencer substation is over here and the Locust subst ation is here. The area clouded in blue shows the segment of transmission line that's being converted to 138 KB. The history for this project is the existing transmission line is 69 KB from Spencer Locust will be rebuilt and converted to 138 KB and essentially the same alignment is what it presently is with a few minor deviations. The public involvement open house was held June 27, 2016. That was at the Greater Denton Art Council building at Bell and Hickory Street. The Public Utilities Board held a public hearing recommended a transmission line route on July 25, 2016. The City Council held a public hearing and approved the PUB recommended transmission line route on August the 16th, 2016. The specific property in question was appraised in the amount of $295,422. An initial offer letter did go out in that appraised amount on May the 28th, 2017, and a final offer letter did go out in the same appraised amount on September the 7th, 2017. So the location of this section of transmission line is in between Dallas Drive and Fort Worth Drive. The entire property, owner's property is shown in red. We do not need that entire property. That's just the perimeter of the property. The specific zoomed in area of this site shows in yellow what was shown in red on the previous slide. However, the red section here is the easement that we need, which is the .728 acres. The green line is the transmission line that will be going through that property. So once again, this is where I'll stop for a council discussion. And then upon favorable motion by council, I will proceed and show the legal description of this property. >> Councilmember Briggs, any good question? >> Yes, will you -- is that where you'll be putting poles or is that just for lines? You just need the top -- I'm just wondering how it's going to impact the property. >> We will only need the section in red. It's all that we need for the transmission line that goes through there. >> But it will be the line only, not a pole? >> There will be some poles in that. >> Inside that too? >> Yes. In the middle of that red. >> Before we -- before I recognize the movement and second er, Mr. Willoughbeth has filled out a blue card. Mr. Speaker, thank you. Mr. Hussbett declines to speak on agenda item 6B. Mayor Pro Tem. >> I move that the city of Denton, after having made the offers required by state law, use the power of eminent domain if needed to acquire easement interests in a .728 acre tract of land situated in the Alexander Hills survey, abstract number 623, city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described on exhibits A and B. So 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 to serve the public and citizens of the city of Denton, Texas. >> Councilmember Gregory? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Has there been sufficient time of display to satisfy the requirements? >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries, 7-0. Now moving to agenda item 7, items for individual consideration, 7A, consider adoption of an ordinance approving an agreement between the city of Denton , Texas, and the Denton Chamber of Commerce regarding economic development partnership. >> Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. I'm Caroline Booth, the Director of Economic Development, and I'm here to present to you the upcoming fiscal years economic development agreement with the Denton Chamber of Commerce. To start with some background, 1986 was the first year of an economic development partnership agreement between the city and the Chamber, and under this agreement, the city provides funds for the administration and operations of the Chamber 's Office of Economic Development. Those funds are spent on personnel costs, prospect generation activities, marketing activities, and the Small Business Development Center support. As you heard from the Chamber staff on July 25th during the budget process, they are requesting $238,000 approximately in funding for fiscal year 2017-2018 . In the past, the agreements between the city and the Chamber have been fairly broad in general, but this year staff is proposing some specific goals, metrics, and deliverables to be included in the contract. So I mentioned those goals, deliverables, and metrics that we're including for the first time this year. Other changes also include enhancing clauses regarding financial reporting on the Chamber's part, insurance requirements, and indemnity, and we did work with the City Auditor's Office of Risk Management and Legal on those changes. So what I'm putting up here to show you right now are these specific changes that we have included in the contract. I'm not going to walk through each one of these items word by word, but I do want to show you that for each duty of the office, there are goals, deliverables, and metrics attached to them. When we offered this agreement to the Chamber of Commerce for their review and comment from their board, the board did have a concern about the sustainability of requiring a 20% increase in some of the goals year over year, and we did get back to them and assure them that these goals are specific to this agreement and future goals and metrics and deliverables will be discussed at the appropriate time, and they were satisfied with that. Another duty of the office is to recruit prospective companies in Denton's target industries, and just to refresh everybody's memory on what those are, the target industries that have been identified by the Council are aviation, aerospace, advanced manufacturing, renewable energy, research and development, information technology, and supply chain logistics and distribution. Another duty of the office to serve as the point of contact and coordinate responses to leads from brokers, site selectors, and developers. You will recall that the responses to leads that come to us from the Governor's Office of Economic Development and from the Dallas Regional Chamber are actually responded to through my office. These goals of engagements or proposals and site visits are not related to leads that come from those two sources. We did make a change at the request of a Council member during the work session in which we discussed this to specify that the six site visits need to come from different companies and need to specifically be companies in some of the target industry sectors that I outlined for you. Further duties of the office and then additional changes to the support services and funding section of the contract. The change there is underlined to include documentation and record keeping related to the deliverables and metrics that have been added to the contract. And finally there at the bottom, an increase in the amount of private sector funds that the Chamber is soliciting to contribute to economic development efforts. That's increased to $70,000. And then the insurance and indemnity changes that we made. I also want to reiterate that at Council's direction during the upcoming fiscal year, staff will be evaluating options and costs for the provision of marketing and prospect generation activities, including bringing the function into the city or contracting with other providers. To recap, the 2017-2018 economic development agreement that we're proposing to you tonight adds specific goals, deliverables, and metrics for the Chamber's Office of Economic Development and it enhances the clauses regarding financial reporting, insurance requirements, and indemnity. And I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. I know in the work session, I think part of this agreement was that Council either sees or somehow there's a report of the entire Chamber, but we get to look at the economic development portion of their budget. But then there's another provision about their regular budget. Well refresh my memory on that. So we asked them to provide us with a copy of their audited financial statements and a couple of others financially, specific financial reports, in order to be able to gauge the information that we were getting about the economic development budgeting and function against their overall budget. And I subsequently found out that during the process of approving the CVB's budget, we were already receiving the Chamber's full budget. It was just being received by different departments. So that's not really a change in our access to the information. It's just making sure that my office has it too. All right. Thanks. Council Member Riggs? During the work session discussion, Council Member Hudspeth brought up the fact that it would be nice if we could have a discussion maybe six months in or in the meantime between the next year when this is approved so we can see how the goals and metrics are being met ahead of time. I think that's a great idea. If we can talk about that, I don't know if that needs to go into this or if that's probably something through staff. I would be happy to add that to my to-do list to make sure that we get you guys a midyear report. And since we're already going to be bringing you some information midyear about changes to the provision of the services, we'll get that added to the list. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? I have a salutation to speak, Mr. Hudspeth. We'll move on to item 7A. >> Mayor and Council Members, my name is Willie Hudspeth. The Chamber and what they provide and what we've had communicated to the public for years has been very confusing from this standpoint. We give you X number of dollars. What do we get in return for that specifically? And we've given it to them for years. My concern is nothing. And what they do is just take the money and they walk around in suits and do nothing to really help the city save money, bring in money, or organize things that's in the city. I don't know that that's true. It's so confusing to me as a lay person and not on the council to get that information that I don't know. So I wanted this key point statement put up there. And I want you all to look at it and make sure that these things will be done and assure the public, me and others, that we are getting this now. So, all right. I guess I'll just have to do my homework to try to figure out what it is that the measurements of how you determine whether or not even this, which is very general. It's general in that there are no specific measurements that you, tangible specific measurements that I'm able to grasp to see if they're doing, bringing in money, managing the situation so that we can save money. And what is the overall effect of having this agreement or paying for this agreement with the chamber for the lower income citizens of the city? Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gregory. Thank you. If Ms. Booth would go back to her presentation and look at slides five and six, five, six and seven, which talks in more specifics about what we're expecting as our metrics and our measurables. Yes. And I was going to make the offer to Mr. Hudspeth, if you would like, I could get you a copy of the actual agreement if you want to see, because we do spell out what we expect them to deliver to us to support all of the goals that we're asking them to do. But you're right, this hasn't been done in the past. So we're hoping this is the first step in the right direction for that. And I have to say, you have some amazing shoes on. I don't know if anybody can see these shoes, but they're like lavender, amazing shoes. Sorry, I had to. Okay. All right. I mean, we've already gone over these slides. Are you wanting her to go back over these slides? Just five, six and seven. Just hit the high point. Okay. So for slide five, recruiting prospective companies in Dent on's target industries, we've clearly stated to them what the target industries are. Because we have not collected data from them in this area in the past, the goal this year is to collect that baseline data so that the following year for this particular item, we can look at what they did during this fiscal year and set specific goals to increase or measure for the next year. The deliverables are monthly marketing trip activity report and a year-end marketing trip outcomes report. And the details of that are specified in the agreement. Yeah. I mean, you were wanting to go over these again because of? Just to make sure that they were clear. Just if you would show the next slide. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We don't want to read through these again. Okay. I wasn't sure. Okay. So point of contact goals, deliverable metrics. Okay. That's good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Sure. Any other questions for staff? Council Member Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of agenda item 7A. Second. Okay, Council Member Gregory. Oh, sorry. You're good. I beg your pardon. Second. No, no. You're good. Council Member Briggs. So regarding this Chamber of Commerce, I want to say that I know there are a lot of strong feelings out in the public right now regarding the Chamber of Commerce. And I have gotten emails and I hear what the public and citizens are saying. And for this, for the very first time since this, we've had this contract, there are, the dollars are tied to goals, deliverables, and metrics. And so for that reason, I will be supporting the Economic Development Partnership with the Chamber of Commerce this budget cycle for now. And I want to give the Chamber a chance to show us how they can provide value to our community in exchange for this investment. And I will be looking forward to the update in six months to see that. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries six to one. Agenda Item 7B, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending Section 1838 of the Code of Ordinances. Good evening. Council will remember that in December of '16 you adopted an ordinance amending the 2014 original ordinance prohibiting texting while driving, which added a provision allowing only hands-free use of wireless devices for any purpose while driving, including placing phone calls. This is adopted as Ordinance 2016-394. This summer, the 85th Legislature session passed House Bill 62, which was signed into law by Governor Abbott and amended Section or added to Section 545 of the Texas Transportation Code prohibiting the operator of a motor vehicle from using a wireless communication device to read, write, or send an electronic message or otherwise texting or emailing. So ordinarily, state law preempts a city ordinance if the city ordinance is more restrictive. But in this case, the wording of the law left some openings to interpretation enough that the governor added the wireless texting ordinance that the state just passed to the list of things to review in the special session. However, they didn't get to that in the special session, so it was not addressed. So the city attorney's office took a look at it and came up with a way to make a slight amendment to it, adding this paragraph I to the existing ordinance. And this will allow us to retain all the main points of the ordinance as adopted in December 2016 with that slight amendment. I'll bring quickly to your attention in the, in your backup , there was a comma left out of this particular notation of the amendment. So if you move to adopt this tonight, you'll be adopting this version that's on the screen. All the commas in the right place. So essentially, if under this system, if an officer were to observe a violation of a texting ordinance, he would write it under the, or the state law would apply. If an officer observed a violation of a handheld phone call , then the city ordinance would apply. Both laws have exceptions for the vehicle being stopped, and there's exceptions for the use of a GPS device. There's exceptions for emergency situations and for public safety. The fine amounts are very similar. The state law states a $25 to $99 first offense and up to a $200 subsequent offense. Our ordinance sets a range up to $200. Judge Ramsey sets his fines on first offenses in line with the state law. There is no administrative hearing available for this offense, only red light cameras and parking tickets have that available to them. This last week and on the 14th, I presented this to the Traffic Safety Commission and they recommended adoption of it 6 to 0. Okay. Couple questions. Councilmember Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. We have already placed signs around town indicating a restriction on the use of handheld devices. Will those signs be sufficient for this amended ordinance and to comply with state law? Yes, the state will have to come back and put up signs regarding the state law as well. So you'll have in some places double signs. So when I saw a guy the other day talking on his phone while he was driving down the street and not paying any attention at all, it would probably still be against the law even if we have an exception for public safety for me to call you and tell you about him, right? That would be against the law for me to do that. Probably so. And it would probably be inappropriate in some other way for me to gesture to him in some way my disapproval for his doing that. I wouldn't recommend it. Okay. Well, I didn't because I thought that you would not like it . Councilmember Briggs. Okay, so I think I just heard you say that there's going to be signs as well from the state about their texting ban. So we will have two different signs. Will that be confusing in our city? It could be. It's not uncommon though in some places where there's different ordinances or different laws that affect two similar things. The basic premise though is that you cannot hold the phone in your hand or it's a violation of one or the other laws. Because the state allows for a hands-free device if you have one to text with, but you just can't do it, you can't manipulate it by hand. So in essence it's the same because to text you have to hold it. To be in violation of the law. So will the signs be placed next to each other or just wherever? There's prescribed at the major entrances to thoroughfares to the city. Okay. And so that was just my other question that popped up. And you kind of mentioned it earlier I think when you were talking about fees that Judge Ramsey will do set fees according to the state, but will we have two different levels of fees for the two different violations? Well, yeah. Like I said, the state law specifically says the first offense can be between $25 and $99 and a subsequent offense up to $200. So the ordinance prescribes up to $200. Judge Ramsey said that on first offense he will continue to follow closely the state law fine amounts. So there will be a ticket and it will say whether you're in violation of our city ordinance or the state. And this is what we're doing. We're amending it to add that in there. Our ordinance to add the... Correct. So on the next slide, if you'll recall back in the original ordinance, there was already an... and there was already existing state law that prohibited using a wireless communication device in a school zone by anybody. So we had a similar section, the section H, that was in the original ordinance to keep from being preempted by that state law. So this is just the same premise that we're using to avoid a preemption with this state law. Could you go back to your language that is being amended? We're going to have to amend the amendment. This section does not apply has been left out. So on the last sentence after electronic messages, I believe it should read, "This section does not apply." Is that correct, Mr. City Attorney? That is correct. Okay. So whoever makes the motion, if there is a motion, we need to be sure and add that wording into that. Any other questions for staff? So we have a card wishing to speak, Mr. Husspeth. All right. Okay. Any more presentation, Chief? Okay. Any other questions for the Chief? All right. Thank you. Council Member Gregory. Well, I want to move approval of 7(b) as modified by the Chief and as modified by the Mayor. Does City Attorney have those properly recorded? As far as the changes, yes. Okay. All right. Council Member Ryan? Second. All right. Let's - Council Member Husspeth. If I may make a request, Mr. City Attorney, if you could provide me via email the - what you would see the elements for proof, if you could coordinate with Judge Ramsey so that I can understand what the elements are if someone were to challenge or question if the validity of - if they received a citation from the city and they have - they're going to seek to prove their innocence, what are those elements? I just need some structure as to what's going to be required by Judge Ramsey. So the elements of the offense for the city violation as well as the state violation or just the city? Just the city. Okay. Please. Thank you. Fantastic. All right. We have a motion and a second. Motion carries 6 to 1. Let's see. Agenda item 7C, consider adoption of an ordinance establishing a schedule of fees for the operation of Stoke. And before we get into this - and Council Member Gregg, I'm going to recognize you and I believe your comments will apply to both 7C, D, E, and F, which are all related to the Stoke Entrepreneur Center. Is that correct? That's correct, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Yes, go ahead. In the past, I've recused myself from votes and discussions on Stoke because one of my daughters was employed by the Dallas Entrepreneurial Center and the city had contracted with DEC to manage Stoke. The Council has voted to end that contract and the items before the Council tonight are only about the city operating Stoke. That means that I no longer have a conflict of interest and I have no reason to recuse myself from these deliberations, discussions, or votes. Okay. Thank you. Staff presentation? Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm Caroline Booth, Director of Economic Development. And in the interest of time, since the next four items all involve Stoke, I have one short presentation to cover all of them, so I just wanted to let you know that. Is it? Let me ask. Yeah. Should I call the captions if she's going to make a presentation for all of them and then we just vote on them individually? Yes. I vote yes. All right. And then we've got public comment wishing to speak, so we 'll take those all up at the same time. So I'll go ahead and call the captions. 7D is considered option of an ordinance approving a uniform membership agreement for the city Stoke Denton Entrepreneurial Center. And then Item E, 7E, considered option of an ordinance approving uniform facilities use of license agreement for the city Stoke Denton Entrepreneurial Center. And then Agenda 7F, considered option of an ordinance authorizing the form of agreement for special events to the Stoke Denton Entrepreneurial Center. So we will hear the presentation, which will apply to all of those, but we will vote on those individually and we will take public comment as well. Thank you. Quick background, Stoke Denton is an economic development program that provides its members with a professional space to work and meet education and programming, mentorship and networking. Stoke's goal is to foster a local business climate that's supportive of entrepreneurship, particularly in the tech and tech-enabled sectors. And the benefits to the city of Denton include retaining college graduates in Denton and creating knowledge-based and higher paying jobs in growing sectors. On the 22nd of August, the council opted not to renew the Stoke Denton management agreement with the Dallas Entrepreneur Center and went on to direct staff to manage Stoke's operations in the interim while an RFP was issued to test the market for a broad range of management options. As I have mentioned to you before, the RFP has been issued and is open until the 1st of October, at which time we will review the proposals and see if any of them are creative solutions to what we're looking for and we'll bring something back to you if we find the right thing. And if not, the city will continue to manage the space. In order for the city to be able to manage the space, from a legal standpoint, several ordinances must be adopted by the council. And they're listed there as the mayor read the captions. First we have a fee ordinance, then a membership agreement, a facilities use agreement, and a special event agreement. The fee ordinance is very straightforward. It outlines all the fees that are to be charged in the space. The membership agreement has to be signed by all members, but just to clarify, drop-in users to the space or those who are just there on a day use basis do not have to sign a membership agreement. The facilities use agreement needs to be signed by all members that have dedicated space, whether that's an office or a designated desk or more than one designated desk. And then since the space is available for special events, we also have drafted a special event agreement that has to be signed in the instances of booking a special event. And that is the end of my presentation. So glad to take questions. And we do have a representative here from legal if you have specific legal questions related to any of the ordinances or agreements. >> Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions? Seeing none. Mr. Hussbuth, you've got one, two, three, four. So you got four cards. So we would -- okay. I was going to say you got 16 minutes. >> No. >> Okay. All right. >> Mayor and Councilman, my name is Willie Hussbuth. I live at 623 Newton. My only concern is there are no African Americans over there. I haven't seen any. Maybe they are. So I just implore you to make sure that it applies to every ethnicity. Every ethnicity can use the space. So if I'm wrong and there are other -- there are Hispanics and African Americans and other races in there using these facilities and have the opportunity to do so and there's not been a planned segregated positioning of rules and management personnel that's eliminating -- and someone told me about the Confederate monument, too. I keep forgetting. And women -- I didn't even know the Constitution. I'm off track. Anyway, and women are able to use that space. That's all I ask. If I need to do the research, which to me is just walk over there and see. I've done that once before and there are not any. There are no minorities over there that I could see. But if I'm wrong, then good. But that's what I ask you to do as a councilman, make sure that that's not happening. >> Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. >> Just staff clarification. We do have a nondiscrimination policy in place, correct? >> I mean, I know we do as a city. >> And that was going to be my answer that there is one at the citywide level. There's not a specific one for Stoke, but since it is a city facility and a city program, that policy would apply. >> Translate. >> It would be the same thing when we rent out our facilities like for parks events. We don't discriminate on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> And on the special event agreements particularly, so this will probably be for the attorney or the attorney's representative. It's pretty simple. As I'm reading through it, I know we have an indemnity clause, but is there any insurance required if they do a special event? I see TBC rules apply. I'm trying to read through this to refresh my memory. Is there insurance required? >> I didn't draft that, so I need to look at it. >> Okay. >> If we need to amend that to add that in there, we can do that. >> Okay. That's just a question I have, but we're good. All right. >> Special events? >> Yeah. We've got an indemnity clause. >> I would ask, I read through that, but I didn't see it. Does anybody know? >> Mayor, there's a catch-all clause. If you'll go to, I don't know if yours is double-sided, on the next to the last page where it says licensee must comply. It states that all federal, state, and local laws and rules and regs of the city. >> Yes. >> It says must comply with all federal, state, and local laws and all rules and regulations of the city during the event, including the city of Denton police and fire regulations. Yes? >> And the paragraph above that talks about compliance with TABC and getting a license prior to the event. >> Right. And that's for TABC. You have to have the caterer must carry a liquor liability insurance for TABC portion, the alcohol portion. But I'm just saying in general, that looks like the only insurance that's required other than they do agree to indemnify and hold harmless. But that's something. So do we require insurance typically sometimes when people rent other facilities? >> It really depends on what's being leased out or rented out. It's like with the membership agreement at the Stoke, we're not requiring insurance at all because of the, it's kind of a de minimis use. And so the only insurance we'd require anyone to carry there if they want to is on their own personal property to keep the city from being liable. But as far as special events like that, they typically carry that and we can add that provision in there that they've got general liability coverage on that. We can put that, we can make that change to it. >> Yeah, I think on a special event, because you don't know really, anyway, let's hear some more comment. Council Member Gregory. >> I know that we don't require that for everything because when we had a birthday party, a kid's birthday party at the auditorium, we were not required to provide insurance. >> Okay. All right. Well, I would encourage the council to think about having them carry jail coverage if they're serving alcohol. >> Well, but I think they have to, the caterer has to carry a liquor liability insurance. I'm assuming that should, what did you say? >> The caterer's not necessarily the one sponsoring the event. >> So you're saying, say that one more time. >> The caterer is not necessarily the one sponsoring the event. >> No, the statement before that about insurance. You said somebody should be required to carry insurance if a certain. >> No, what I'm talking about is whoever's sponsoring the event should carry jail insurance. >> But are we requiring to see that? >> We will add that to it. >> Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Mayor Pro Tem. >> Well, I just saw Ms. Booth motion and I wanted to hear what she had to say. >> Oh, I didn't see you. I'm sorry. >> I just want to make sure that we understand that there are a wide range of different groups and individuals who will be having special events in this place, and most of them are on the very small side. You know, people coming in to have hackathons and sort of events like that. I don't know if we would want to require individuals at that level to carry insurance for that kind of a use. I just want to make sure that we're not getting too restrictive in this situation. >> Okay. Appreciate that. Appreciate that comment. Council Member Hudspeth? >> I was just going to go along with that. I think that we've made a commitment to the community to leave everything as is while the RFP is out, while we're researching new management. So I would ask us to err on the side of consistency. >> I appreciate that. I agree. Council Member Riggs? >> Yeah, I was going to agree. I mean, I don't know that the women who code group carry that type of insurance or can afford to do so, and I would like for them to continue to host their women who code events if possible. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate those observations. Those are good observations. Good points. Mayor Pro Tem? >> I move for approval of Item C. >> Of C. I will go through these individually. >> Okay. >> So this is for Agenda Item 7C. Council Member Briggs? >> Second. >> Let's have a motion and a second for 7C. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. We'll move on to 7D. We've already had a presentation on 7D, and the speaker who had placed a blue card has declined and waived his need to speak on 7D. Council Member Hudspeth? >> Move approval. >> Mayor Pro Tem? >> Second. >> Let's vote on the board. >> Okay. >> So this is for Agenda Item 7D. Let's have a motion and a second for 7D. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Moving on to Agenda Item 7E. Considered, I've already read the caption, and the speaker filling out a blue card for 7G has declined his desire to speak on that. Council Member Gregory? >> Thank you, Mayor. Move for approval of 7E. >> Mayor Pro Tem? >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second for Agenda Item 7F. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Moving on to Agenda Item 7G. Considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas setting a date, time, and place for two public hearings on the proposed annex ation of certain properties generally located north of Long Road and west of FM 428. So there's no action. Oh, there is action. >> There is. >> Okay, yes. Setting dates. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. President, Mr. Chair, members of Council, Mr. City Manager. >> You okay, bro? >> I'm good. It's a late night. Mr. City Manager, for your consideration today is a ordinance to approve a set dates and time for a proposed annexation located on North Long Road and west of FM 428 Sherman Drive. Again, it's to authorize and direct the City Secretary to publish notice for such public hearings. The property, a bit of background is 73.47 acres and the proposed is to be a single family residential development in the future. The dates that you see here are the public hearings. The first one is on October 17th. Second is October 24th and then following that would be two readings of the ordinance. That concludes my presentation. I do have a correction in the ordinance. If I can get the projector to show. The first public hearing, October 7th, will be at 630. However, October 24th, which is a fourth Tuesday, the public hearing would be scheduled after the completion of the City Council work session so that we don't have to wait until 630 for that. >> So this is the corrected version? >> That's the correct one. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Council Member Briggs. >> And this is voluntary? >> This is a voluntary annexation. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? We do have a card wishing to speak. Mr. Wojtkowski, would you like to speak on this agenda item ? >> Thank you. Mr. Hespeth has declined. Council Member Gregory. >> Move approval of the ordinance as presented, the revised ordinance on 7G. >> Council Member Ryan. >> I'll second. >> All right. We have a motion to second. Let's vote on the board, please. For agenda item 7G. Motion carries 7-0. Going on to the public hearing portion of our agenda. Approval of public hearing considered option of an ordinance for proposed revisions to the Denton Development Code. >> Good evening. Haley Zagurski with the Planning Department. All right, so this is case DCA17-0008 for proposed Denton Development Code amendments related to medical uses. The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance for proposed revisions to the DDC, specifically to amend subchapters 5 and 23 as it pertains to medical land use categories and definitions. Staff is recommending these amendments to these two subchap ters of our code to clarify the definitions that we have as well as the permitted zoning districts for a variety of medical service uses. We acknowledge that we are working on updates to the DDC overall. We're proposing these in advance of that for a couple of reasons. Primarily we've discovered over the past year or so that our existing land use categories and definitions as you'll see as we go through this are not sufficient to address the vast number of medical service uses that are out there and that 's an ever evolving industry. And what we have currently just isn't keeping pace with it and allowing us the proper way to analyze these uses as they are proposed based on their land use and how they function. So currently we have three definitions and land use categories in our code that can be applied to medical services. Medical services and offices are defined as offices for the conduct of business related activities excluding the sale and storage of merchandise. The next level of intensity up from that would be medical centers which are defined as walk-in facilities for medical, obstetrical or surgical care limited to day use. And then finally we have a category for hospitals which we define as establishments that provide sleeping and eating facilities for persons who are receiving medical, obstetrical or surgical care or nursing services on a continuous basis. So for those three categories you can see those may not be sufficient to address all the types of medical uses that are out there. They're very limited in scope and there are a lot of new trends in the medical industry. One of those that we've seen becoming much more prominent are freestanding emergency rooms and urgent care facilities. These facilities are a little more intensive than your typical doctor's office. They can operate 24 hours a day. They may be able to accept emergency vehicles to the facilities and we don't currently have a category that they just perfectly fit within. In the past looking through how these facilities have been permitted we found that we've either categorized them as professional services in office or as medical centers. They do not fit within the hospital definition because most of these don't provide sleeping and eating quarters but you can see looking back at those definitions they may not comfortably fit within just an office or a medical clinic either. So the intent of these proposed amendments is to create new definitions and amend our existing definitions to align with state regulations. The state clearly offers definitions for every type of medical facility you can think of based on how they're licensed and we're proposing to align with those. Each of these definitions that we would include in the code would then be aligned to one of three land use categories so that we could determine the appropriate zoning districts for those uses. This table provides a summary of what we are proposing. So on the left you see all of the definitions that would be added to subchapter 23 and then on the right we have how those would correspond to one of the three land use categories that would be embedded in our zoning regulation tables. So we're renaming what we used to call medical center into medical clinic and making sure that that now specifically encompasses a variety of the kind of medium intensity services. So your freestanding ERs, ambulatory surgical centers and in general things that are outpatient services. We're proposing to break medical offices specifically out of the professional services and offices category just to make sure that they are specifically addressed in the code and not lumped together with any type of general office. Those would also be considered outpatient services. And then when you get into the more intensive inpatient services, we would group all of those together as hospital services. So the proposed amendments that would be in subchapter 5 of our DDC and our permitted use tables would be as follows. Medical offices would be permitted in all of the same districts where we currently have professional services and offices. Those still function much the same way, we just want to make sure they're specifically defined and addressed in the code. Hospital services, much the same, would retain the same permitted uses and districts as we have for hospitals currently. Medical clinics is where we're proposing a few changes. Because we're now specifically defining medical clinics to include a few more intensive uses such as the freestanding ER and outpatient surgical centers , we feel that those may not be appropriate in these two districts that I've called out here. So the neighborhood residential mixed use district, it features or permits several residential components in that district. These districts we often find on the edge of existing neighborhoods that are well established and they kind of provide a transition between lower density residential uses and more commercial areas. So we feel that some of these medical clinic type uses that would be permitted in that category may not be appropriate without a little bit more oversight. So we're proposing that those be permitted with an SUP. That would allow any proposed site plan and landscape plan to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission and yourself to make sure that there are proper features in place on the site incorporated into the site design to eliminate nuisances such as light or glare or sound that could be derived on these sites. In the downtown residential two district, we're proposing to no longer permit the medical clinic use just because this district is primarily low density residential and it may not be appropriate to have a surgical center or an emergency room or something like that in a residential neighborhood in the downtown area. So to summarize our objectives, we're seeking to provide consistency by aligning our definitions with those in the state so that we can clearly define these uses when they come in based on how they are licensed and defined under state regulations. We're proposing to restructure the medical service land use categories to specifically align each of those definitions with the category. And then we're seeking to assign more appropriate permitted zoning districts to these new categories. Public notification was sent about this case in July and September. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of these amendments with a five to zero vote and staff is recommending approval of these amendments to subchapters five and 23 of the DDC as well. And at this time, I can stand for any questions you might have. - Council Member Gregory. - Well, I'm a little bit concerned that we've not had a work session on this before this has come to us tonight. And specifically because I would like to have had more time to kind of talk through this and I think part of this has been precipitated by some concerns of a current medical facility that's going in. And I'm having trouble navigating our new yearly revised system, I apologize. Because I just don't think that all, some of these facilities are the same. I'm not even, I didn't have a chance to read the definition of an ambulatory surgical center. I think that's what we, what I've been calling a day surgery center. Sometimes you can't ambulate out of there after you've had that surgery because you're too drugged up or they did your knee and you can't walk at all. So I'm not sure that that's, ambulatory is the right word for that. But I'm not sure if I understand the difference between an emergent, a freestanding emergency medical care facility and a trauma facility because trauma tends to be emergency stuff. What's the difference? So all of those are categories that are specifically defined in the state regulations for hospitals and medical centers. We're simply pulling those from the state so that when a facility comes in and they tell us, you know, we're this use, we can, you know, question them and see is that how you're licensed and then have a specific category for that to fit in our code. It's taking us out of interpreting what their type of medical treatment is and referring them back to how they're licensed by the state. Are we including those state definitions in the ordinance? Yes, sir. Yes. All of our definitions refer to the state definition. Do those definitions include the number of hours? Because I think what the concern is in some cases, it could be a trauma center, but if it's not a 24 hour trauma center, that's one thing. If it is a 24 hour emergency room, then it's something else . I don't believe the state necessarily regulates what hours they operate. So we've just incorporated the state definitions at this time. Could we not go further and have some limitations on hours based on zoning requirements? That's certainly something we could consider and that's what we were going for with the proposal to make an SUP necessary in the NRMU district. Most of the districts where those are permitted are more commercialized districts, but in instances such as the NRMU district where it does interact with residential districts more, we're proposing that SUP so that those limitations could be placed on a case by case basis based on the specific use. Okay. Well, and your point is well taken. So there's going to be an opportunity during the motion section if there's a desire to have further discussion on this at work session. We certainly can do this, but this is scheduled as a public hearing, so we're going to go ahead and just proceed as scheduled. Any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing? Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. What was the reasoning behind removing the SUP? Well, two questions. First, so PNZ didn't vote on this. They had a discussion though, correct? They voted for approval of this. Oh, they did vote for, I'm sorry. Recommended approval. I was reading the minutes and I didn't see, I guess it was draft minutes. I apologize. Okay. What was the reasoning behind having the SUP process removed for the downtown residential? In downtown residential too, I believe that was previously permitted by right. We're proposing to remove that entirely since that is a primarily low density residential district and those facilities would be those that could handle emergency vehicles and have a little more nuisance potential. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. This is a public hearing. I will now open the public hearing. We've got a few cards. We've got some white cards, which are people wishing not to speak, but I will read their comments and record. Emily, is it Seipel or Seipel? Oh, okay. Thank you. 3817 Seville Road in Denton. Support? Catherine Parker, 1524 Hunters Ridge Circle here in Denton Support. And those are the ones submitted on the white cards, which indicate they're not wishing to speak. And we do have some blue cards. So if you submitted a white card and you wanted to speak, then we'll just come on down because that's okay. Might have been a mistake. So we do have a couple of blue cards, but this is a public hearing. So after we recognize the blue cards, anybody can speak because it's a public hearing. Deborah Ridge. Is it Ridge? Yes. Is Deborah here? Yes. If you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. Good evening. My name is Deborah Ridge. I am the Denton County Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Coordinator. I just want to make it clear that I am not employed by any of the hospitals in Denton County, so I have no conflict of interest. I am actually self-employed. So I am a certified emergency room nurse for almost 30 years. I've been practicing as a nurse, certified in forensics also. I am here tonight because I just purchased a house at 1511 Hunter's Ridge Circle, which is the neighborhood that is directly adjacent to the freest anding emergency room that's currently being built. I had short notice of this hearing because I just moved in there a few weeks ago, and I thought that was going to be an urgent care and learned from my neighbors and the sign that went out front that it was going to be a freestanding emergency room. I have worked in freestanding emergency rooms and big emergency room. I also go to many in Denton County now to practice as a forensic nurse. I have concerns for my neighborhood and for the community, allowing a facility to be open 24 hours a day because any time you have an emergency room environment, you have a potential for violence. That is why the major hospitals in Denton employ an armed law enforcement officer 24 hours a day. I have worked in those emergency rooms and many others, and there's a lot of heightened senses, a lot of stress going on in an emergency room setting, whether it's freestanding or whether it is attached to a hospital. So I am concerned about the neighborhood, which I live in. I am also concerned that this freestanding emergency room is in fairly close proximity to an elementary school. If you look at the statistics, they will show even connected with the Emergency Physicians Association, they will show that when violence does occur in an emergency room setting, it's going to be after 11 p.m. at night and before 7 a.m. in the morning. So I do have concern. The patient flow is typically less at night, but the violence is higher. So that is why I'm here tonight to voice my concerns about that. And I kind of had a short notice and I'm surprised that the City of Denton would allow something that operates 24/7 and the potential for violence to be so close to a school in a residential area. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Council Member Briggs? So are you in favor of these recommendations? I'm in favor of the new recommendations, but my understanding, you have to bear with me because I had short notice of all the documents that were prior to this. I am in favor of this. But my understanding was that this was zoned for a medical center, which does not operate under the definition in the Denton Development Code, does not operate 24 hours a day. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Oh, Council Member Briggs, okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next speaker is Mr. Charles Parker. Just come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. And my name is Charles Parker and I live at 1524 Hunter's Ridge Circle. And one quick clarification for Ms. Zagurski's comments. There is currently only one licensed freestanding emergency room in emergency medical center in Denton and that is the one on Lillian Miller next to the Jack in the Box. And that facility, according to city documents, the CEO says medical center as its use. So that's the only, there are lots of urgent cares, but that's the only freestanding emergency medical facility licensed in town. I am happy to support the proposed changes to the Denton Development Code. There is a medical building under construction in my subdiv ision which advertises that it intends to become a 24 hour emergency room. The proposed changes clarify definitions and allow freest anding URs to operate where they should and not to be operated where they shouldn't like behind my house. The proposed updates, and I do have a document that I've set if it's possible for them to see it, it's small. The proposed updates do make sense and they help with secure future development, so I do support them. I am concerned about the current construction at 3111 Teas ley Lane. I fear the proposed code changes will allow Denton Mob Partners, the developers of the facility to leapfrog into a grandfathered use as an emergency room. And I think that's a mistake. The building under construction currently is only approved as a medical building according to the city's documents provided to me. Medical building is the word on the permit. A freestanding emergency room is not a medical office. It's certainly not professional offices and services or professional services and offices. It is far more than that. You might call it a medical center per the current definitions just like the one that's provided, but a medical center is day use only and the licensing for a freestanding ER requires it in its 160 pages to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So the two cannot coexist under current Denton development code. They cannot coexist. This really is a hospital as you can read on the chart or as you may not be able to read on the chart. A freestanding emergency medical center precisely meets every element of a hospital as currently defined in the Denton development code. That makes it not permitted in the overlay that applies in my subdivision. In other words, the requested freestanding emergency medical care at 3111 is not legal in the Hunter's Ridge subdivision and overlay. If the proposed changes pass, the ER can become legal, but only after approval of a specific use permit. My neighbors will oppose that of course, but please be aware that it should not receive a CO as if it were already a legal use because it's not. And I'll thank you for your attention and your service and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Mr. Parker? Seeing none, thank you. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak, please come down, state your name and address and your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak? Councilmember Riggs, you want to make a comment now or wait until we close the public hearing? After. Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak? Seeing none, we will now close the public hearing. Councilmember Riggs? Yeah, if someone from staff come up and address a question, I'm just curious how, if these changes were approved, if it would affect the development that people are talking about, this is just for future development, correct? Yes, absolutely. It's not applicable to permits that are in process right now. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Gregory? When we're done with these questions, I'm going to ask that we go into closed session and get advice from our attorney. Okay. I've got a comment towards that. Councilmember Ryan? Thank you. In the event that the establishment that's building right now, that they move out, they close their doors, and what would be the process for someone else coming back in? Would they be able to come back in or would that now be a violation to get a CO on that? Sure, absolutely. A couple of non-conforming, or as we use the word, vesting or grandfathering, would apply. So if the use is vacant for less than a certain period of time, typically six months or less, then the use can pick up and continue as it was operating. However, if it remains vacant for an extended period of time and this ordinance is adopted, then it would lose that status if I'm not mistaken. Okay. So it's a six month window that is vacant to close for six months? That is my understanding. Yes. Correct. Mr. City Attorney, you have a comment? I just wanted to agree with what Manal just mentioned. Okay. All right. Okay. Councilmember Briggs? Did you have another question? It just keeps showing up late. I'm sorry. Okay. So you're good? I'm okay, yeah. Thanks. Yeah. My comments on this are, and I see we have a movement and a seconder. To me, I see two distinct issues. One is the request at hand on the table, which is the modification of the code. I agree with Councilmember Gregory. I think that I would like to have a little bit more in- depth presentation on that, especially to address issues of nonconforming. And honestly, and you asked for a closed session. We could do it tonight, but I think if we postpone this, we could do a closed session on these issues that we have with this ordinance. And quite frankly, I want to have a closed session on exactly what the status is out on Teasley Lane, Lillian Miller, and then what we can talk about in open session, because we need to have an understanding there. There's going to be a potential problem there, depending on which way we go. And I want to understand all the ramifications, how we got to where we are with the different definitions and how people -- we need to have a really, really comprehensive review of that specific project and this ordinance. And I don't think -- I really don't want to do that tonight here at 9/15. So those are my thoughts on that. Councilmember Gregory? Thank you, Mayor. I will withdraw my request for consultation with Council if indeed what we have is a motion to postpone, because I think that I'm very concerned that I need to understand the legal ramifications of what we're doing as it pertains to other issues that are swirling about. Mayor Pro Tem? Well, as I understand it, this is not related to the standalone ER facility that has already been permitted. This is simply a change to the ordinance. So I'm not clear on getting a legal briefing on the perm itting of that facility would be completely separate from moving to approve or disapprove this today, would it not? It would, but I think from what I recall Councilmember Gregory was saying was regardless of the issue with the permit that there's some question about, at least what I understood is he still wanted to have a work session on this specific ordinance request bifurcated from the issue on Teasley, that there was -- wanted a little bit more time to explore and to read and to ask questions specifically on the particular requested changes without them being tied to that pre-permitted building. Okay, I understand. I'm in favor of moving forward with this tonight and I'll be voting for it. Councilmember Hudspeth? Thank you. Yeah, for me, the speakers make great points. The problem I have is this body advanced this before May. And so it was after I was sworn in that I emailed staff. Staff had sent out an email and just the mere fact that it was 24 hours, understanding that corner, setting aside that it's next to a school, setting aside that they were redoing that street and it was one lane for the longest time, setting aside that it's just a terrible intersection, just the fact that it was 24 hours, I sent an email to staff but that ship had sailed before I got here. So if we're going to do a presentation or -- first, I'm going to move that we move forward today with giving the staff what they need to move forward to prevent this happening tomorrow as surely someone that knows, hey, I got to get my permit in, would may act on it. But also, if we're going to take it up, I want to understand there's someone that approved this. And so I think there's accountability and some historical information that needs to come forward because I don't understand it but I didn't have a say so at that time. So with that, I will move that we approve this tonight and then my secondary request is if this is going to be a work session, if someone could note that I'd like the minutes from that meeting that it was approved. >> Okay. Councilmember Briggs? >> I'll second. >> Okay. I want to make sure I understand the motion. Motion is simply to approve the ordinance as staff presented. Is that correct? That's second. Okay. I want to make sure I understand. Councilmember Ryan? >> Thank you, Mayor. I, too, would like to have a work session on this. And I guess this might be a question for legal and for staff as well. Can we set this up at our next meeting and if so, if we find something in this that we want to change, could we do a motion to reconsider at that point or would that have to go back through the public hearing process that, for example, the 24-hour issue or that of medical offices or the -- would possibly have a limitation on hours . >> It depends on what the vote outcome is. >> I know it has to be somebody on the favorable side that could do the motion to reconsider. >> And that is correct. >> That's why I was -- >> If there's at least five votes in favor and it passes, then the reconsideration is not going to be an option. However, unless there's two, I'm sorry. So it's less likely. If you have a work session following this to review what you've adopted today more thoroughly, that means you have to do the work that you've been doing. >> I think that's a good point. >> I think that's a good point. >> I think that's a good point. >> I think that's a good point. >> I think that's a good point. >> I think that's a good point. >> I think that's a good point. >> Like what these speakers tonight are describing, was that not permitted by right as a medical center? >> Mayor Pro Tem, when we assess this use and other uses that are already permitted with the same functionalities, we visited with our legal team. We sat down. >> Can I stop you just for a second? >> Off posting? >> Yeah, this outside of posting. Because we're talking about a specific issue. This is really pertaining to this ordinance. >> Apologies. Withdraw. >> Councilmember Gregory. >> Is there a reason why this is coming to us in the form of a public hearing before it came to us in a work session? >> Ideally, we did realize the necessity to move this forward because as Haley mentioned, the medical industry is evolving rather rapidly. And we wanted to make sure that if there were any future cases that we had the transparency as it relates to specificity of definition. And that's why we're moving in this quickly. >> Councilmember Ryan. >> Thank you. I really want this to move forward, but I want to make sure that we do it right. So I guess the secondary question would be if we were to postpone this, we could make amendments to this before it's passed, but if we pass it, it's going to have to go back through the whole system. >> Correct. >> Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Councilmember Gregory. >> I was just going to say because of that, I won't support it this evening because I'd like for us to make sure it's done right. >> Councilmember Gregory. >> I have a feeling that there's no light to come on. I have a feeling that once an ordinance is passed, that if the council chose to amend an ordinance, that it does not necessarily -- do we have to -- if we decided in two weeks, we had a work session after we passed the ordinance, and we had a work session and decided that we wanted to amend it to clarify definitions even more completely than what the state does, it didn't require a motion to reconsider, it just requires putting it on the agenda for amending the ordinance, doesn't it? >> It depends on the extent that you are changing or addressing the definition. If you're making something significant change to it, then you're going too far. >> It might need to go through planning and zoning first? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Councilmember Hatsbett, you had a request to speak. >> Yes, I just want to make sure legal -- correct me if I'm wrong, but if an institution applies or submits an application before we take action, that is grandfathered in until an ordinance is signed? Is that when the new change takes effect after the ordinance was signed? >> You were going to say something? >> Yes, I am going to say something. What's happened here is -- because what your concern is, what I'm hearing, is let's say that this situation potentially arises again. We've got a piece of land close to a residential area that is zoned for a medical center use but wants to come in with a 24-hour emergency room operation standalone free. I'm going to be truthful from what I've read. That's why I want to have a work session on this. That's why I'm not going to vote for this. We just had another issue where we thought, why are we going to vote for this and then amend it two weeks later when we can just do it all at once ? Because if you really go by the letter of the law, our ordinance, it's silent. There's nothing that says there's a 24-hour, but there's a very specific definition of what a medical center is and it says, "Day use only." So that's really the genesis of this issue because how did -- there's just a lot of questions. So I would say if somebody came in and applied for a 24- hour freestanding emergency room, if we look at our code -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- if we look at our code, first of all, we don't have anything that addresses that. It's my understanding. We don't have anything that says 24 -- but we do have that a medical center is for day use only, which means by implication, it's not 24 hours. So I think that if someone came in with this same situation , I'm not so sure that we would have the tools that we need to say, "You can't put in a 24- hour emergency room," because it says medical center and medical center definition is not 24 hours. That's why I'm not going to vote for it if it's moving forward because I think we need to hear how we got to this place because until we hear how we got to this place, we're trying to fix something that we're not quite sure how we got there . And those are my thoughts on it. So I'm sorry I interrupted you, Mr. City Manager. We're going to let him speak and then I'll call on Council member Briggs. >> I'm City Attorney, not City Manager. >> Oh, City Attorney. I'm sorry. I'm going to elevate you to City Attorney. Yes. I'll pass that. >> If the application came in before the ordinance amendment, yes, they would be able to go under the application that they applied under the zoning that was appropriate at that time. Yes. >> And then let me take that a step further to make sure I understand the Mayor's perspective. Does this new ordinance as proposed not close that loop? Does it not define what 24 hours is? I think she, as she expressed it, it closes that loop. Does it not? >> Yes. >> So, okay. So if I'm thinking out loud, I'm currently motioning for an item that closes that loop until we can research it further. So I, yeah, I just wanted to make sure I was processing. >> And I want to make sure I understood your answer. What I'm hearing you say is that if this situation presented itself again where we have something that has a medical center zoning. Or medical clinic now. If it's, oh, I'm sorry. >> No, I'm talking about the current ordinance. The current, if we could have staff up here so I can make sure I get the terms correct. So we have, what's it currently zoned, the one out there at Teasley? And I'm not trying to get off post it, I'm trying to get some examples. >> If I'm not mistaken, the property that was discussed earlier with the emergency facility is NRMU with an overlay district and it just allows professional offices and medical center. >> Okay. All right. So medical offices and/or professional offices, is there a definition that specifically says it allows for a 24-hour standalone free emergency room operation? >> My answer is no, but I'm double checking with Manal that professional offices isn't limited with an hourly, but the medical center is. Is that correct? >> Just to clarify, we had actually had conversation, the planning team and I think the legal team had conversation. And again, I would have to pull up that data to refresh my memory as well. Where we deduced because there was no specificity associated with this use, it would or could also fall and encompass where you could actually mold two definitions that are in the ordinance from medical center and then professional offices. And we actually worked with other areas within the city allowing the use in this manner. So we had set the precedent. >> So this is really a judgment call on what's not written and how the interpretation is. This isn't about having a hard black letter law that says you're saying we're going to try to mold it to allow it to fit somewhere. >> Right, because it's a use that wasn't specifically defined. We leaned on the DDC. I just wanted to add to what she said. We only have a certain number of uses that is listed in sub chapter five in the use tables. There's no way to try to encompass every single potential use that is out there or that could come up. You know, the society changes, business changes. And so that's why we put in subchapter one an allowance for the director when a use comes in that doesn't fit cleanly or neatly in any of the uses within subchapter five to be able to make a determination as to what it closely fits. In some cases it's going to make a judgment call that surrounding uses may not necessarily agree with, but it is an allowance that is made. Once the surrounding uses disagree with that or the applicant, there is an appeal procedure available to them to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments if it's made within, I think it's 15 days, is at the board rules. And so that action or that activity, what I just described as far as trying to determine what use this is closely related to in our existing tables happens very frequently. >> Okay. >> Council Member Briggs, you've got a -- your light's on. You're requesting to speak? No? >> Okay. >> Council Member Gregory. >> Yes, I did. Can someone show me in the red line version of the ordinance where the loophole has been closed? >> I don't have to -- Haley, do we have the ordinance up? I don't believe -- we'd have to pull that up. Let me go get my -- [ Inaudible ] >> I think I have it. >> I have the red lines here, yes. Could you repeat your question one more time so I make sure I pull up the right section here? >> We are in this proposed ordinance, these changes to the ordinance. Are we closing the loophole so that there's a clear definition about 24-hour emergency -- stand-alone emergency rooms? >> Again, we're relying on state definitions, so we -- I don't believe the state definition applies hours to it. If I can get to the right page here. We do now have -- we are proposing a specific definition for freestanding emergency rooms based on the state definition. That would be lumped into the land use category as we proposed it called medical clinic. >> Where is that in the red line version? >> It's -- trying to find the right page here. In the definitions, we now have freestanding emergency medical care facilities that refers to the specific section of the state code that defines that so that -- again, so the code doesn't have to be updated routinely if the state is to change that definition. We just refer to the section where they define it. And then if you look in subchapter 5, you will see -- well, actually right here. So this refers it to medical clinic, which is a land use category that you'd find in subchapter 5 throughout the use tables now. >> And so if someone is wanting to put a freestanding emergency medical care facility in an NRMU area, it's considered a medical clinic and they have to do what? >> Let me -- >> Do they have to get an SUP? >> Yes, sir. So if you go to then subchapter 5 in the use tables, we have -- let me get to the right page here. We now have medical clinic and in the NRMU district it requires an SUP. >> And in all other areas it's not allowed? >> In the neighborhood residential district it is not. In any of the other zoning districts. There are other more commercialized districts where it is permitted, where the medical clinic use would be permitted by right. >> Okay. I think that satisfies me that it does close the loop. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? >> I'm going to support this, but I'm going to ask for -- and I'll ask for it in concluding items because we have a process problem with when we don't have -- I know we can't have all the uses listed in a table, but we've got to have a review mechanism for when those interpretations are made before people start doing construction that people around either the neighborhoods or city council or somebody has a chance to look at that so we don't wind up in the situation we're in right now. So I'll talk more about that in concluding items. Councilmember Gregory. >> To go along with that, the issue of if there was someone -- I think the appeal process that we have is basically designed for the person who's applying for the permit because they would know the ruling, but if the appeal is wanting to be made by neighbors, neighboring uses, they would have no way -- it would be hard for them to know, and that creates a real problem, a real burden for them because it's quite likely that they're going to miss the appeal deadline, and so there's something that has to be corrected on that. >> Okay. Councilmember Hadsworth. >> Real quick. I do want to thank Manal and Haley for that catch and for a great presentation and your knowledge to answer those questions on the spot, I think that's outstanding and a tribute to your research in advance, and again, thanks to the citizens that spoke so eloquently and provided the historical data necessary to get the conversation rolling and gives us a good launching point, so thank you. >> All right. Any other questions for staff or comments? We have a motion and a second on the board to approve the ordinance as presented by staff. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Brings us to our concluding items. I'm going to start limiting concluding items for council member. >> I only have two tonight. >> Okay. >> Because I need to get home. Do you want me to start? >> Go ahead. Oh, yeah, go ahead. >> Okay. So first one, I would like to request a work session on the recorded rules and procedures, and that way we can have a discussion on changes if they need to be made. I actually missed the meeting in August that council had on the open meetings, and so I would like to revisit some of the issues in that work session as well as far as being able to communicate with speakers. The next thing, as speaker mentioned, that we are raising the landfill to a certain height and a permit had been filed. If we can just put that information in the report that we were getting already discussing the SUP issues, just to kind of update on that, and if there's truth to that and how high it's going, that would be great. Thank you. >> Councilmember Duff. >> Yeah, I'll talk a little bit about DEC. What I understand is about 45 percent of the energy goes into generating electricity. The other 55 percent goes into heat, and I know it is conce ivable to take that heat and drive a steam turbine. I don't know what the costs are on that, but that can produce another 15 percent, about a third more electricity out of the same amount of natural gas. >> Anything specific you're wanting staff to research? >> I would like for somebody in engineering to go and look into that, because I know it is possible. I have no idea what the cost is on that or whether it would work. Other possibilities, because you've got a lot of heat generated there. There are many other things you can use that heat for. >> Okay. All right. Great. Mayor Pro Tem. >> I just wanted to reiterate an item for new business that Councilwoman Briggs brought up at our last meeting regarding SB4 and having an actual item. What I would suggest is having a public hearing followed -- having a closed session with our legal counsel followed by a public hearing at that next or at that particular -- on that day. So that's all. >> Okay. Councilmember Ryan. >> Thank you, Mayor. I would like to request a future work session and/or closed session on the appeals process when -- with the situation that we had this evening where the use is not clearly defined, how that process goes so that we don't end up with that -- with a situation where the neighborhood doesn't realize what's going in until after the 15 days is up and at that point it's too late for them to do anything. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> I believe we have the SB4 work session scheduled for October 17th and I'd like to make sure we kind of stick close to that. >> Okay. >> I think. >> Yeah, a couple of items -- concluding items, probably do vetails with Councilmember Ryan's. I do want to understand how we determine uses that aren't present specifically in the use table because that can -- I need to understand the process and how that affects not just the applicant but the surrounding neighborhoods and property owners because that -- something can get decided before anybody knows and before council even is aware and then once you start going vertical, it's -- you've got some difficulty. So we might need to tighten up that process a little bit and I guess to see if that has been addressed, we had someone look at our DDC, I believe, or we've had some consultants looking at that and if they've -- you know, just in that work session just make any notations of if they've raised any observations or suggestions regarding that. And secondly, I really would like to -- if we could, if my colleagues, when we're pulling agenda items, consent agenda items for individual consideration, if we could be somewhat specific about what you're looking for because I think that will help manage the time in the council meetings and help staff narrow down exactly what you're wanting to present here in the public. I think that would be helpful. Any other concluding items? Fantastic. We'll stand adjourned at 942.