Apr 03, 2018 City Council on 2018-04-03 11:30 AM

We are all in attendance so we do have a quorum so I will now open the meeting. First agenda item is consent citizen comments on consent agenda items. Do we have any blue cards for I guess not. Okay. A request for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for April the 3rd 2018. Council members any yes Councilmember Gregory. Thank you Mayor. My question on item E was this reduction or increase in DISD reimbursement was this initiated by our city manager or by this the school superintendent and how did we come to that particular figure. I initiated it after a quarterly meeting with Chief Powell in reviewing how the funding formula currently works. It was a formula that had not been updated for several years so we were receiving reimbursement for about half of our SROs if that makes sense to you and so basically what this does is provides funding for half of all of the SROs. On the flip side we're also going through an accounting exercise with the water park ensuring that our books in our allocations are clean as well so we're working on that other side of the coin as well. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. On A for the disposal hazardous disposal services I'm just curious has the collection time or amount of days changed or is that pretty consistent and also if any of the staff that participates in this service has weighed in on the contract . Absolutely they've certainly weighed in they were part of the evaluation committee. In terms of the time frame could you clarify what you're asking. Well I think six months is standard for the pickup for waste and so I'm just making sure that the person that because we're switching part of the service that it's gonna be at least six months that we're not gonna be holding the product any longer than that. That's my understanding is we try to bundle those pickups to make it somewhat efficient for us where we're not having pickups without a lot of product to turn around. Okay thank you. I know you and I had a conversation and I just can't recall when I read this about paint pickup and that you know you can your residential are allowed I think ten gallons pick up from the residential area but if you have more than that or other people that we might start a pilot program of where is that that's not that's not part of this I don't believe it. No but I think it's tied into the program so currently we do curbside collection only something we've been talking about internally is allowing residences and even maybe some folks outside the community to bring in waste and perform that as a drop-off service and so we're hoping to at least try to pilot that and within the next couple weeks for our residents we do get quite a bit of foot traffic out there at the landfill people wanting to drop it as opposed to scheduling a pickup and so we want to see how that works. So we'll have a work session coming up on that I just don't want to get outside of posting so we got something coming up where you or you'll describe to us that program and what all. I can certainly get an ISR out on that and as the pilot program picks up when we get some results we'll circle back with something a little bit more formal. Okay all right. Did you have follow-up to that? Yes. Yeah so in regards to the disposal because there's certain amounts and you want to make sure you have enough amount is there something a program that we do with the county that we accept their their chemical hazardous and that's included in this disposal? Not currently and that's that's one of the things that we've been taking a look at it's kind of a business case is do we want to provide a regional service do we want to provide service just for our residents in terms of drop-off so I think to kind of following up on the answer I provided the mayor is we want to see how it works for our residents first and then we can kind of project out and see if there's a benefit to us opening that up to folks outside of the community. So this contract for disposal is just for exactly what we're doing now for the current. It provides us a little bit of wiggle room I mean it's a volume based pricing and so as volume goes up the pricing will escalate but the biggest component of our cost at the HCC is actually the building the staff things like that this is a very small cost is it comparatively speaking. Thank you. Any other clarifications? Nope all right seeing none. Oh we do want to pull agenda item K consent agenda item K for just individual consideration. K yes. [inaudible] Okay well so do we still want to pull K now? Okay well we got a little change of plans good thing about City Council and being the chair we can make some modifications on the fly as chair sees fit. So we're gonna put K back on the consent agenda because what we want to do right now and we 've checked with legal staff and we're well within our legal rights data so I'd like for Chief Palsgrove to come forward if you would please. Well we've decided we're just gonna put you on a truck instead of letting you retire. Okay I'm kidding. We have a little plaque of appreciation that we would like to present to you and I'll just read it and then I'll make some comments and anybody else that would like to comment I certainly would welcome them to do so. The plaque reads the City of Denton expresses its gratitude to you Robin Palsgrove for devotion and invaluable service to the citizens of Denton serving from October 2014 through April 2018 as an employee of the City of Denton Fire Department. Employees such as you are a valued asset to our community your contributions to the City of Denton are greatly appreciated. Thank you. Let's give him a hand. And you know and plaques are great words are great but they really cannot express from me to you the appreciation that I've had for you as being our Fire Chief you know when when you came on is about the time I was elected initially as my first term as mayor and we both hit it off well we worked together hard to do something that I think was very innovative and I think your expertise and your personality and your drive helped us to achieve that with that partnership with the Emergency Services District. You 've maintained a great relationship with the Fire Association and all those men and women who are under your charge and have set a great example of leadership and collaboration and cooperation and just your passion for your job and for your people is extraordinary as it's seen every time you would give a speech at the Firefighters Award banquet and any other time that you were able to speak so I just want to thank you for your service and it was your second I believe coming out of retirement this is your second retirement I believe and certainly wish you the best and whatever you decide to do and wherever you wind up landing and just to enjoy your life and just the things that you contributed to here will be greatly appreciated and you will be greatly missed so thank you Chief. Thank you. You bet. I want to I want to open it up to anybody else if they want to have a few words. So I echo exactly what the mayor said and wanted to thank you for for your service personally and say that you were exactly what this department needed at the right time and we're gonna miss you. Yes, Councilmember Gregory. It was shortly after you got here that I gave you some grief about a report and you accepted it so well and you were so dedicated to getting data and justifying what you're doing and what your plans are and I appreciated that much and I remember going to Firefighter banquets prior to you getting here and the tension was you could walk into the room and just feel it and that's not the case anymore that the notion of we're all going in the same direction and trying to achieve the same goals that message resonated well and I appreciate it I appreciate what you've done and I hope that maybe this time for your sake your retirement takes. Anybody else? Chief. Thank you all very much it's it's it's been a tremendous pleasure to be a part of this team to have all of you as public safety partners the last year and a half working with our new city manager has been extraordinary the partnership that we've developed and and I'm certainly very proud of the contributions that I've been able to make it's a great great organization and I turn it over to a great leader who's equally dedicated and will make a significant difference for our citizens so thank you again I've always been proud to be a firefight er and I'm I'm honored to be Denton's Fire Chief. Thank you. All right I'm sure when we pulled item K the incoming fire chief was like why are you pulling that? I'm just teasing you chief. All right we 're gonna go on to our work sessions agenda item four work session reports for a oh oh I'm sorry yeah skipped one apologize citizen comments on ethics related work session report items so this is a suspension of our rules for public input at work session meetings so there's anybody that has a comment or public input on the ethics related work session please come forward. Okay all right seeing none now we will move on to agenda item four work session reports for a receive report hold discussion provide staff directions concerning the proposed revisions to the Denton Development Code regarding environmentally sensitive areas. Good morning City Council my name is Deb Raviera I'm with Environmental Services today at the request of the Committee on the Environment we are bringing you a work session item on the proposed amendments to sub chapter 17 3 and 23 of the development code. Currently the city have four type of ESAs. Environmental sensitive areas those are floodplains which are further classifying to developed and undeveloped, repair and buffers, water related habitats and upland habitats and their specific provision for each one of them. In regards to the developed floodplain those are areas that are within the FEMA hundred-year flood plain but they have been heavily modified they have been changed and channelized so there's no habitat along those corridors to protect. The protection given to develop floodplains ESAs are minimal most of the time we defer back to the sub chapter 19 for the drainage standards . ESAs provide environmental services they are typically considered a field trading devices for pollutants they provide resources along that corridors for species to exist they serve as a conduit for wildlife and other species to move from point A to point B and also to sequestrate some type of pollutants but from a more utilitarian perspective and more close to to the city of Denton ESAs also allow us to comply with some TC and ESAs to help us to protect CEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and FEMA and some ice cream designations that the city currently has so it is important that we not only protect those areas for their intrinsic value that they provide but also for the benefits that the city of Denton can obtain by protecting those. When we started looking at sub chapter 17 around 2016 we we have worked with sub chapter 17 at that time for almost 14 years we had a lot of input from the development community and from staff about what was working and what was not. In in the past 15-16 years the Denton development code and the criteria manual have been have a modified in numerous times and the connectivity that we used to have between sub chapter 17 and those other chapters are no longer there. The community and staff has identified areas where the wording or the phrasing of the code could improve for understanding. Sometimes there's no clear indication of what is trying to be attained by the protection of the ESAs and some of the policies contained in sub chapter 17. Some of the policies were mentioned but never a implementation mechanism was put in place so those are issues that needs to be addressed. The code have been existing for 16 years. It's time for us to take a closer look about the existing policies and evaluate that and of course to consider new policies that might be applicable. Through this process we took the amendments through 14 meetings with the committee on the environment. We have been working very closely with the committee in drafting some of the language. We have posted all the amendments to the in the Denton development code update web page. Notices to all project docs applicants were sent as a part of the public vetting process. We also did a couple of presentations as part of the Denton development code update open house meetings. We solicited input from developers and consultants here in Denton and outside of Denton and we had three PNC work sessions and two public hearings. The first public hearing was in February 7. We presented the language that staff have v etted through the committee on the environment at the time and we provided the 61 public comments that I was received at that point. PNC asked us to go back and provide written responses to every single one of those public input comments and they requested the rewarding of the definition of the upland habitat. They also had questions about the upland habitat and where those are located in relationship to the zoning districts and we were tasked to do an analysis. Some of the members of the COE asked us to bring that analysis back to you and we will touch bases later. On February 21st we continued the work session that we started on February 7. We provided written comments to all the public input. Because of that exercise staff were able to identify 26 instances where we were able to accommodate those comments. PNC direct staff to include all definitions not only in sub chapter 17 but also to include that in sub chapter 23 and to include that in the new ESA criteria manual. PNC recommended approval with some with the changes proposed to address those 26 public comments and this is the analysis that we also include as a part of that public hearing. On this staff that we group all zoning districts between three categories. The green areas are zoning districts that only allow residential uses. That means single-family, multifamily, 2f and so on. The red districts are district that will not allow any of residential just commercial development and the green districts are those that could allow both of them. The purpose of the end this analysis is because the Committee on the Environment and PNC's recommending the approval of changes on the upland habitat that now will be applicable if approved now will be applicable to residential to non-residential uses. So pretty much there's a split between residential and mixed use within 45 percent of the upland habitat of the existing upland habitat is within mixed use district. 48 percent of it is within residential uses and only 7 percent of the existing upland habitat are within districts that only allows commercial uses. So staff has identified approximately seven to eight important changes throughout the document that we believe are the most substantial changes. The first one is to actually create for the first time an ESA criteria manual and the purpose is just to provide a guiding document for developers and from homeowners on how to actually manage and work with ESA. That's as information that it is not currently available and based on our interactions with the public and residents staff believe it would be a great addition. We received one comment as a part of the public input process and the planning and commission recommend no changes. As a part of the backup I have included the list of the 61 public comments with written responses so the number that you will see reflects the number on that list so you can correlate the two. Credits. Currently the code provides some credits however we based on what we have heard from the development community we thought that there is an opportunity to actually increase the the opportunities for developers to actually obtain credits by using environmental sensitive areas. When we meet when we say credits it's in the idea that by meeting the ESA they will also fulfill the requirements of the tree code or the landscape ordinance and so on and more importantly we provide a specific ratios that there were absent in the existing code. The first three are completely new the last two are actually existing credits available to them as of now. The first one is one square foot for tree canopy will be given for every square footage of preserved ESA tree canopy is a one to one ratio. Two square feet of landscape credits will be given for every square foot of preserved ESA it's a two to one ratio and one square footage of credits will be given for every square foot of non-wood ed preserved ESA. The city of Denton is split between two ecoregions on the eastern side of the city you will see is where the trees are on the western side is where the prairies and non-wooden materials will be typically found so to accommodate for those differences in ecoregions we've made that distinction . Currently the city of Denton doesn't have an appeal process for ESA field assessments those field assessment is when somebody questioned the validity of the ESA map and asked us to go to the site and confirm with a specific criteria if the ESA is present. We don't have an appeal process in 16 years of implementing sub chapter 17 we have been challenged once and when we start looking into the options available we find out that there's no an appeal process so for the first time we are creating one. The appeal process will be through the zoning board of adjustments. I have two questions for you first one was the one challenge that you got I'm just curious in 16 years. It was about the existence of a riparian buffer and we have a specific criteria that we look when we go to the site we look into the type of vegetation present the type of soil present and the hydrology. With further conversation with the applicant at the time they find other options to make their development work and they were not concerned about the outcome of the field assessment. Okay then my second question about the ESA is so there the different types of ESAs include for instance floodplains so would this provision allow an appeal of a floodplain determination? It will be a pill determination of the developed or undeveloped condition of the floodplain. The floodplain is currently defined by FEMA hundred-year floodplain so those boundaries pretty much established but what could vary is the condition of that habitat so we have a specific criteria between what is developed and what is undeveloped. Okay so what is the I'm concerned about the floodplain determination so what would be the difference in outcomes if for instance staff determines that the floodplain is developed versus unde veloped? Okay developed floodplains are you have been heavily modified have been channelized have been harnessed and all the habitat have been removed. The typical example would be the pecan creek going through the core of the city the downtown area. Those are areas where everything have been concrete there's no habitat to protect whatsoever. So those are areas that we are most likely to be subject to the developed designation of it. And if a floodplain is determined to be undeveloped what does that mean for a developer? Well on the undeveloped conditions what we're looking is the protection of the habitat itself. Okay so for example if they wanted to clear some of the vegetations in the undeveloped floodplain that would not be allowed or if they wanted to fill put fill dirt into the floodplain that there's very low thresholds for that to happen. So they let 's say that they want to actually do those activities they still have that option but it will be through the alternative ESA plan where this body would be able to take in consideration what they're doing any mitigation factors and render a decision. But this would allow an appeal of an alternative or appeal of an ESA assessment that for instance staff is saying the the flood plain is undeveloped perhaps the developer says well there is some development here they could go to ZBA and that determination would be subject to appeal. Correct so we would provide a specific criteria that we use when we make those evaluations and provide our facts and what we have found through ESA assessment. Thank you. Real quick question just overall and you might if you get to it another slide just let me know what I'm what I'm hearing and what I've read which is stayed consistent through our old code and now this new code is that if you have an ESA whatever type that we've identified you're not able to remove that ESA unless you've somehow mitigated it somewhere else most likely on the side in other words if I've got an ESA I can't come in and say hey I'm just gonna remove the whole thing and not do anything else. That's not gonna happen. I may have to encroach a little bit over in this one area but then it's your the requirements are going to the codes gonna require me to somehow replace that somewhere else is that correct? Correct. Okay yeah and we later going to discuss the criteria for alternative ESA. You bet. All right thank you. Oh I'm sorry sorry. So just on this one I have and have made it known that issues with this I'm not completely in favor for a few for a few reasons but so I guess my first question is do you you said you had the one challenge do you think with this in place that you will have more this process in place that it would be an avenue that more developers will take? It could definitely however I think that we have a very specific criteria for each type of ESA to determine what is developed and that's criteria that is not only a specific to the city of Denton but it's criteria that we have borrowed from like example the court of engineers and things like that so those are criteria across the board that when biologists do the assessment most likely we will concur with us so in that regard there is some security from staff standpoint that our provisions will prevent but definitely that's that's a possibility where more people will pursue those options. So to that point even though the biologist and you you have your your requirements the ZBA board doesn't necessarily have to listen to those requirements and can decide otherwise regardless. Correct. Yeah so that that's my issue I mean if if you say it there is one and the biologists or scientists says there is one and then there's this elected board who makes a decision well maybe there is but we're gonna allow this to happen anyway that's that's concerning because the appeals process is there for the person if if they side with staff but if they don't then do you have an appeals process or is is that decision final? Currently there is a field assessment because we don't have the appeal process is final. Yes. So if I oh I'm sorry go ahead Mayor Pro Tem. I was gonna follow up on something you said so you go first because maybe you'll. Okay well I wanted to ask Council member Briggs just sort of try to understand a little bit more about so what I'm hearing you say is that you don't like the appeals process because staff will go in and say we believe it's met this criteria based upon their the criteria. My hunch is that the developer will have people who are biologists or somebody I mean if I just go in there as a developer and say hey I just disagree with you I think I have a lot of confidence in the people that we appoint to ZBA that hey you've got to provide some kind of evidence I mean this is an official appeal process I mean if if you believe that that board can be that sort of arbitrary then we've got bigger issues than just this because we this is what we use as our appeal board in general so and if we do I'm certainly not opposed to looking at that but I get uncomfortable when the city can make a final decision on something and there's nobody in any place that we can say hey can we take a look at this we have a disagreement and we have some subjective evidence that we believe may assist in that determination so I'm not I certainly understand your concern but I get more concerned if somehow the city has processes in place that we say it's final you don't have any other chance to come back and what we say goes that that that alarms me on the other end of that that spectrum well there's currently PNZ and council so when there isn't an E SA president alternative plan will be presented and then it goes through PNZ and council which is the current process for that approval or non-appro val well that's if well that's for an alternative ESA I believe what is being talked about here is if if there's a disagreement with the actual interpret with the field assessment which is where you determine the kind of ESA and those kind of factors is that correct I mean because an alternative ESA saying we agree with you there is an ESA there's repairing buffer there's a floodplain but we want to modify it we want to encroach here what do we need to do to preserve the same amount of ESA just in a different configuration that's that's really not what I'm hearing with this process so are you saying that you would feel better if are you not wanting an appeals process at all or are you thinking that the ZBA is not the appropriate avenue for the appeals process an appeals process will be okay I just have had concerns about that board and had citizens reach out to me about that board before okay that is a little bit about my concern I I can sit here and tell you I may not fully understand their abilities and what they can do their capacity to make decisions but I do know that it's final and and it's a legal legitimate decision and so today we could have the city and then they can hire a biologist and they could pay them a lot of money to say whatever they want and the zoning board can choose to hear and decide on the facts and this the whole reason we're doing this is to protect our ESAs and our upland habitat and I just want to make sure that we're not allowing or putting in a process where people can get away with not following our rules okay all right okay so does this process allow people to appeal the actual determination of the ESA to begin with yes the field determination yes okay so that that's really concerning that ZBA would be able to just say there's no ESA there by a vote and I served on ZBA the decisions appealable only to district court if I remember correctly and I'll tell you the processes are very much proper and they're in place but the decisions can be arbitrary the example that I like to use is the Buc-E-S ign Buc-E-S- asked for a hundred foot sign and I think our code was for an 80 foot sign or something to that effect I think we came up with a 96.5 foot sign that's literally the definition of arbitrary so decisions are made in well processed environments that are arbitrary and for me there's scientific reasons for designating ESAs that are not negotiable I mean it's kind of like the flood plains and I just I don't see how you can negotiate on an ESA because there's science behind it so I can't I can't get behind an appeals process that allows you know seven appointed people without a scientific background to determine what is in an ESA or what is an ESA yeah I certainly understand that position and I don't I don't have any problem with that what I get concerned is that I believe we've seen we can cite as many examples of where cities has made a determination that could have not necessarily been a hundred percent accurate I mean I I think it speaks to itself I didn't know that this meant you could say because so an ESA field assessment is a determination of is this an E SA or not correct okay and so in the past whatever y'all assessed nobody could challenge they couldn't say hey but what about this what about that what about the drainage square you know square miles or acres vegetation past history the the gray area starts when for example if we are in a drought for example and the vegetation is not there because the drought is not present so by not finding the vegetation would that be the reason for us to determine that the ESA is not present in those instances we also looks to the hydrology of the site and we also looks into the salt into the soils so we assume and this is a common practice among biologists that if you see two of the existing parameter soil or something else then you assume that the third is present but because there's some factor that is preventing for example a drought or something like that so those are the instances where because some special conditions the three factors might not be present and explicit out there so those are the seat those are the what we call the gray areas when when we have those situations most of the time we find the three conditions soils vegetation and hydrology and it it would be hard to contend that they are not present there sure so then help me understand because it sounds like this appeal but what was the origin of thinking about putting an appeal process in the revised update and going back to that incident it was the the questioning by the developer I don't have a place to go and challenge staff determination and we turn back to legal and there was none that the code was silent or is currently silent on the matter so we thought that that might be a mechanism to address that issue so as you've been in your position of you know managing the ESA's for the city of Denton for how long ten years so in your professional opinion as someone who's been doing that for ten years do you mean is this something that you're okay with is it something that you're questioning it are you afraid that this is going to lead to some some damaging of our ESA's I mean if staff I mean and so that's why I asked who's really bringing this appeals process forward and so if it's staff based upon a developer's comments help me understand you know are you okay with that do you do you share the same concerns that you've heard here today or not trying to put you on the spot but you have been doing this for ten years and you're the professional so I'm just trying to understand what staff's position is I think that staff concern is more from a legal standpoint are we providing all the processes that we need to have to not to be legally challenged if we do a staff is okay with it okay but however also as a city employee and knowing that we need to make sure that we comply that's what we brought it up okay so sounds like from a process perspective you want to you don't want to have the perception that the city is my way or the highway but with the potential of appeals that if there may be more challenges that there could be a risk of a body making of more I'm gonna use your word arbitrary decision that could impact an ESA that is truly an ESA but because of a decision made by maybe some I'm gonna say lay people unt rained necessarily in the biology and science of the essays I mean y'all been out to my place evaluating ESAs I don't know what you're looking for so that so do you share that same concern of well we would just hope that somehow these decisions would be made professionally based upon science and evidence and not just sort of I think that if city council concern is about the specific body who's making those decision the staff has no concern about bringing that through PNC or city council if that's the pleasure of council okay so it's completely okay up to you we'll check over here yeah and then I'll come back to you so typically with government hearings there's a you know you have the appeals process if there's a due process right attached to it so I guess those questions for legal what would be the legal without getting into some type of attorney client confidentiality but what exactly is the legal question here with an appeals process for something like an ESA based on what I've heard Dev explained is that there's been some concerns as to the ESA field assessments being you know set in stone there's really not a mechanism like we have in many other areas of our code to appeal that assessment decision and so this is just a reaction to that and that's how I've interpreted what she 's presented today certainly this council doesn't have to allow that but but that is what staff is recommending so I just want to be clear that there's not a legal reason to have an appeal necessarily like there's not a legal under pinning for having an appeal no there's not I mean the the avenue that a developer would have is to actually go down a district court that would be that is that Avenue is always available to a developer okay thank you as my breaks well that one of the things I was going to mention is that if if staff wanted to have an appeal although not legal and I mean not being required the way we do the alternative ESAs through P&Z and council would be my preference because there are a couple of different bodies looking at it once it gets to ZBA if that's determined not to be an ESA then P&Z nor council no one will ever see it there's development going on the citizens see it and have questions and come to us and we just have to say well I never even knew about that and so I mean as a representative and being responsible to the citizens who asked me questions having a certain process where it goes through a few bodies and has public comment as well it's very important okay just to follow up would you like for the process to follow the common zoning change procedure where it's two public hearings planning and zoning Commission city council notification is that the same process that you want to follow well this was just me speaking I'm not even sure that anyone else I want to make sure that we're because you're still you're still talking about alternative ESAs that alternative but and what I'm but I think what I'm hearing you say is if someone wants to appeal the classification of an ESA by staff in a field assessment that that appeal would go through and I think what Debra's saying is it would go through that same process of public hearings but planning and zoning city council the same process that it I believe an alternative ESA goes through is that what I'm hearing since we already have a process for the alternative ESA I thought it would be easy just to group those together the appeal and so the process would be the same for both personally I don't have an issue with that I think for me the larger issue is or concern is if we're making these comments about this appeals process and the Z BA and their decision making authority and their decisions in general that's where we take many of decisions that staffs makes not just the ESAs but and you just rattle your paper if I get up so that's a conversation we're gonna have to have because if there's a if there's a concern with the ZBA in general there's a lot of appeals that go to the ZBA that council and planning and zoning never see that have nothing to do with the essays and so we will talk about that later so I'm okay with that process what I'm hearing is it's just the same process as an alternative ESA is there you know council members want to weigh in customer that's but you're looking like you want to say something no I just wanted someone to summarize where we're because and I guess if you could speak to just to make sure I understand it correctly I understand there's criteria but it's it's not as succinct as I know it should be as succinct as it is or it is not but I think there's some matter of interpretation to an ESA right it's not it's not an absolute decision that I think that's my my understanding just complaining and zoning that there are there is some interpretation and someone may view something and interpret it different or am I wrong there are specific definitions for each type of ESA that's that's we start with that then for each type of habitat to be present there are certain conditions that needs to be that to be happening okay and those three classifications could be determined in soil the presence of soil the presence of the hydrology needed to support that that habitat and to the presence of vegetation that give us confirmation that that habitat is there so those are the three things that we look to confirm if they are present or not for example if we if the ESA shows floodplain and the floodplain have been heavily channelized in the past five years or what have you we're all that habit that have been removed you will see that the hydrology is there water still going through inundation still happening during the rain event but is the vegetation present how probably not is the soil have been modified because field have been brought it in into the site and now those soils are different probably not so out of those three conditions you will see that two are not present so and those determinations that will side on the on the floodplain to be developed instead of undeveloped so those are the things that we look and we make a professional judgment based on our training and in our experience if they are present or not okay thank you thanks well to the question if you're trying to figure out where we all are to the question of whether or not there should be an appeal a process to ESA field assessments I believe that there should be there's always a chance that a that a staff member highly trained staff member might not get it right or where it might be a very close call and and it might take hearing a different trained biologist or a person giving an alternative side now whether it goes through ZBA or through planning and zoning or through the City Council I'm not particularly concerned I suspected all three of those groups are could possibly render a decision that somebody would regard as arbitrary especially if my side loses I think that they're arbitrary but but so but I think that that that to deny an appeal process is is what we're having to balance is personal property rights against environmental concerns and I think that that that both of those are important and and we have ESA's period because we're concerned about environmental conditions and so so we 're trying to address that but but somebody a landowner needs an opportunity somehow if if they think that that that a mistake has been made to appeal it and it's not just left up to people at the staff level and that and I suspect if I'm a staff person I would I would in some way feel reassured that that that somebody else might be looking over my work and and to verify it and I suspect from a staff person doing all that work I'm gonna be making sure that I am checking off every box and crossing every T and dotting every I to make sure that that what my professional opinion has some merit to it so so I don't I wouldn't think the staff would be concerned about about their opinion or their assessment being reviewed by someone else yeah I think I mean I haven't heard from anyone else other than Councilmember Briggs and mayor pro tem about just I don't think it was a concern with the appeal pro with the appeal in general I think it was the pathway of the appeal at least that's what I heard you say I did not hear you say that but mayor pro tem but I'm okay with sending it to PNC at the very least there's a voter gonna be some type of voter accountability if it comes to City Council through the PNC process I'm okay with following the same process of formulating an alternative ESA that seems to be a process that has worked over the years and I don't know why it would be different on an appeal to go through that same process because it seems like it's had some credibility and it's been tested and you know over time and so I'm okay with that yeah okay couple of questions one if if there's a controversy over whether the ESA is there or not is it more whether it's there or where the boundaries actually live for that ESA the controversies that I have experienced will be is the is present or not okay that's what the facts tell me however the possibility of the boundaries is also a an issue however I in 15 years we have made changes to the ESA map to reconfig ure those and we we have a grill we have come to an agreement between us just keep in mind when somebody has a ESA field assessment they have the options to get it done through staff or they have the option of bringing their own consultant when they are done by a third-party consultant we still review those we still look for the factors that we're looking they're using the same forms that staff will use so they're looking at the same things and most of the time believe it or not we concord and when when there is discrepancy staff will go to the site do a field inspection by themselves and compare we even bring the third-party consultant with us and we we hash out the the the issue so we have been a successful doing that okay and my second question is based on the way that this is written is it set up that it if it went for an appeal to ZVA would it be a simple majority or would it require a supermajority or is that more of a question for legal is that even something we could set it up that would require a supermajority it's a supermajority that's set by statute okay in any powers that you grant will require a supermajority vote okay so based on the fact that it would require a supermajority I think that the zoning board of adjustments is the better place to go for the appeals process and that would be the direction I would prefer okay all right okay anybody else share that same sentiment because we're tough okay yeah I'm good with that anybody else the two options are as presented or changing it to where it runs through PD and council or the same process as someone requesting an alternative ESA plan is that right so you you enumerated the two choices very succinctly but you failed to give direction on either one no I think I do fall on the I think mayor pretend makes a fair point and so I would fall on the P&Z side of things given those two options I think it to your point it's it's the road most often traveled so there's some level of familiarity and it still leaves the option to to challenge it by going to different routes and so just to clarify with legal if it goes through let's say they'll say the appeal goes to this to the planning and zoning Commission and they deny it by majority vote they can still bring it to council is my understanding does that denial by P&Z create a supermajority requirement at the City Council it depends on how the appeal language is drafted under the alternative ESA plan it falls the same procedure as the zoning amendment procedure where is that that super majority requirement would be triggered if it's written not to to require that supermajority vote it can be written that way so it just depends on what the pleasure of the council is does it want to follow the alternative ESA the same process including the supermajority vote or not well okay that's helpful because what I'm hearing you say is under the alternative E SA if P&Z denied it it would require a supermajority what I'm hearing is the appeals process at least as presented drafted by staff if it went through the ZBA would require a supermajority so I think then we can just leave it the same pathway as P&Z and City Council and if there's a Nile at P&Z then it's a super majority requirement at City Council correct what we're doing now for alternative ESAs okay all right just wanted to clarify that okay well we got through slide 11 in about an hour so we're good so that's sort of the new direction at least on this particular part of the rewrite what staff is going to do we will take notes of all these changes and when we present tonight as a public hearing we will make those changes on the document understanding that those changes will have to also be reflected on the ordinance okay that be something okay okay everybody's good yes sir okay all right are we ready for the next slide absolutely onward and upward are you ready for the next one oh yes I am this is one of my biggest pee pee for 15 years so let's let 's do it currently the the ESA map has developed undeveloped floodplain showing in some of especially in the western part of town you will see that that classification can change from property to property having the same flood plain running through however one side is developed one side is undevelop ed when we further look into those and look how natural the floodplain looks there's no indication that has been channelized or have been a heavily disturbed to actually meet the criteria of developed floodplain so what we are asking to do is to present all floodplain ESAs as a floodplain ESA and when those parcels come in for development we will actually do an assessment and determine at the time of development if those floodplain meets the condition of developed or undeveloped the reason why we are asking is if you have two property owners that have a decent property it is unfair for one property owner to bear the requirements of undeveloped floodplain and for the next door neighbor not to bear that those requirements as well so instead of having this hodgepodge of developed undeveloped floodplain let's just show it as a floodplain we are not changing the boundaries we're just showing the class ifications and then made those determination at the time of development sure so help me understand I think you started out this slide with this is your biggest pet peeve yes and is that because that there was a lot of disagreement when it came down to classifying as developed or undeveloped at the front end I mean so this is curing this concern you've had over the years okay we will have the opportunity with scientific data to determine if it is developed or undeveloped at the time of development okay so the ESA map has been in place since 2002 or even before that and I think that just pre designing a floodplain as it was 15 years ago may not be to be honest with you I have looked into the basis that was put to make those determination and there's no much scientific or evidence that I could find so that will correct a map error that we have spread throughout the entire city okay so the flood so you because I thought the floodplain map here in town reflects the FEMA flood map correct but you're saying we then overlay on that we used to either say it was developed or undeveloped based upon what you're saying was some very unreliable criteria correct okay okay any questions on this mobility plan roadways some of you may have been at City Council when Ryan Meadows came in and this is a development that were required to extend Crickdale per the mobility plan and to do so they had to encroach along the edges of the floodplain they felt that they were punished because they were actually meeting one of the city criteria which was the mobility plan however they have to go through the process of the alternative ESA plan because of that and Ryan Meadows is just one one example but I think that most of you were present when they came through council at the time and this is something that the development community have echoed very strongly is if the roadways are required by the mobility plan then at least done we will restore it we will go and make those areas that have been disturbed stabilized they vegetated and so on but don't make us go through the alternative ESA plan so this is the language that will fix that situation just a comment from the committee on the environment when we went through this we added that it be roadways required by the mobility plan only the proposal was all roadways originally so yes customer husband can you my question is and I don't know who it speaks is but with respect to the mobility plan do does that entity not coordinate with I guess the entity would determine the ESA plans to try to circumvent those or is it so my question is do they try to circumvent it or is it something they take it as it comes right so oh by the way there's a essay plan the ESA area there or do they kind of meet in advance and say when you're drafting the mobility plan avoid this area so when we're drafting the mobility plan those are factors that should go into it as we start to lay roadways out and definitely if we're going to get any kind of regional funding or state funding we have to go through an environmental assessment which goes into not just ESA's that goes into noise compliance and a bunch of other issues that we have to get into on any of those major roadways that would be a factor in which way we go with any kind of roadway yes go ahead and so in the instances where the two collide is that because it's unavoidable or something unavoidable or we knew this was coming but there's no other way how do those two worlds come together when they collide that's typically the cases we've evaluated all the other alternatives and this is the best possible option okay thank you yes yes so under the new infrastructure plan getting rid of the environmental clearance is a possibility to speed the process up is that something that we as a city require or is that something that we could make sure that we do or is that something that's passed down from the federal so anything that has federal or state dollars tied to it will require an environmental assessment it will require us doing an environmental clearance on the entire length of that roadway so if that goes away at the federal level which has been proposed possibly then that would just trick le down to us and we wouldn't have to do that at all anymore that would be up to us now anything that's more stringent than what the federal government or the state government requires is something we can utilize within reason okay thank you any other questions comments so everybody's okay with that based upon those explanations and okay on the next slide is in to address one of councilmember Hutzpats about utility crossings staff received some questions this morning from him so this is an attempt to answer those the goal was to actually exempt public utilities I should say exempt utilities public and private and and eliminating the need for alternative ESA plan while getting the disturbed area restored I believe councilmember Hutzpats have concerns about sending a wrong message about provide some leniency to public utilities and not to meet the more the intent of the protection of data is that what your concern was yes that yes that we would that we would public utilities would have a release basically I can't think of the proper word release from following the guidelines that a private the private sector would not in the way that is drafted right now it says the placement of public or private so we are treating both segments equally however you ask for staff to provide some alternative language and I have added in red which has the installation of utility facility by underground boring should be the preferred option if all standards engineering practices and design criteria could be met just and by no means I'm an engineer but I'm going to try to answer in a very intelligently way when we're looking into the routing and alignments of utilities we are looking into areas of where they are connecting to the existing utilities they also have to maintain some depth they have to maintain some slopes because most of those utilities are served by gravity they have to maintain also some angles in some spacing for manholes and so on so their specific design criteria that determines or eliminates options where a utility could be laid so in those instances and I think that intent of the of the language being this broad it's just to be able to adjust to those circumstances so each side is different some some sides they really poses some challenges from a development standpoint so if if the council is is okay with the additional language we can provide request for things to be bored under and not for the ESA to be disturbed yeah and so my as long as you're my chief concern is that that we were playing by the same rules as the private sector and then above and beyond that if you're saying here's a way if we do have if the route won't lend itself to changes here's the best way to move forward given those circumstances then then yes that works for me well okay well so then I I guess the red language which is what you're asking about it said should be the preferred option it doesn't say it shall be the only option but I thought what I heard you say is that it should be bored no matter what but that's not what you're saying no boring poses some challenges because they have to meet some minimum death and so on so I'm I'm proposing boring but they also have to be aligned with the engine is sender engineering practices and design criteria so I'm trying to right well what I'm hearing is that the default is boring that's an interesting statement the default is boring but if there are some engineering circumstances or utility infrastructure that would prevent that or would make it not practical then some other alternatives may be considered but so my my thought is who decides all those things because boring is very expensive I mean it's very expensive for whether private private or public and what we've had before is that if you're gonna have to disturb the area and we have this throughout the code if you're gonna disturb the area you have to restore it back to what it was prior to that so it's not as if we're doing away with it we're temporarily modifying it why something's got to get done so my only concern is that this language unless it's really understood what it's saying would lend itself to some interpretation of is this a requirement and that if we're asking for a change based upon utility siding and infrastructure and engineering concerns who ultimately decides whether that's a go or a no-go and that's my only because I'd rather take care of this on the front end because you will get a ton of potential pushback on this and who's making the decisions how final are they we've already gone into that so that's another issue that comes up here is if there's a decision made by staff that no we don't believe that it's it's impractical and then what do they do so those are my thoughts well we have the option of leave the language as it is without the red language does that would be language number one I will say option number one the option number two about boring yes it could be expensive especially if you have a very wide floodplains where the boring have to span long distances sometimes and I don't think it's the case sometimes there are some limits and how long they can go before they daylight the pipeline who reviews it all all development goes through the development review process all those are reviewed by DRC engineers and by the and by staff from the environmental services and that's where we start having a conversation when we have a situations where the applicant have a preferred way or have limited options they they let us know that and at that time we we make a professional judgment if what they are presenting to us are valid concerns or not however if if the concern about treating public or private was the main reason the current language as it is treats both the same yeah yes so that's that's good information but I'll tell you I could absolutely see because who determines backup do we hire a third party to go out and investigate the ESA or would it be staff that goes out investigates the ESA and then DME staff B goes out and executes right so you could see where it looks like home cooking and that's what that's what I'm saying we don't have a third party understand that they're all professionals and they're all well trained and they're all gonna do it right but it is all under the same roof quote unquote and so if we're not hiring a third party that's where my concern would be that the language does nt where pardon me where a private entity could say the public entities not playing by the same rules you know does that make any sense that that I think the evaluations all being under one roof could come into question so let me just make sure I understand where you're going with it sure if it's a city-funded project or it's a capital project that we're doing is that where your concern is versus what a private development would do yes sir and really what it points to and I know you don't have the question in front of you but it's question as she indicated 42 and it just says they question whether the utilities the pathing of the utilities where they should go and the answer says the code number does not dictate the alignment of the utility facilities and so that's what raised a concern to me is because that sounds like hey we there's no indication of what we have to do so so there there are multiple ways that gets addressed okay one as we're putting in capital infrastructure we are hiring a consultant to go through that design process we also have our own set of standards and criteria that yes we have to abide by but all of those are also based on or in lockstep with what is required through what the federal government has the United States Army Corps of Engineers has a whole set of permitting requirements that we have to go through and if we miss that step yes the city can get called on the carpet for those so that's another step that we require of our consultants in a public project is to make sure that we've met all those federal permits the 404 permits the there's a whole host of them that we have to meet that go in lockstep with what is considered ESA is here but we call them wetlands environments and you got a whole host of things that we have to abide by that all has to be met if it's not then we run the risk of not only looking like we haven't done our homework on our side and kind of given ourselves a favor but we run the risk of running a foul of the federal government and the state government if I may so the so the consultant in the example you gave yes would monitor the city is it am I tracking with you there for what we end up doing let's say we do a we're crossing a wetland area which would be any set so we cross that area regardless of how we do it there is a set of steps based on federal permits that we have to apply to get and that may impact the overall delivery of the project because until we get those permits we can't do the work now some of those permits are covered under what they call a nationwide permit and it's a little bit easier to define what that is and they're very limited in scope and it's very expressly stated what they are so if it's a very limited area or I'm crossing a stream with a roadway of a very small area not over its length then it says you can be covered under a certain area and it tells me specifically what we have to submit to the TCEQ who is operating on behalf of the federal government to review all those permits and then what we have to do when we're done with the project some projects require that there is monthly monitoring of what we're doing other projects it 's just simply telling him we're starting and we're stopping here and they have the ability to come out at any time and inspect what we're doing does that answer your question yes yes so if that it if that is met without the additional language then I'm fine because that is my primary concern that if we 're managing everything and we're policing ourselves all one fatal swoop then that's where that's what gives me concern from a private entity looking at a because we're going to we manage public entities when they come to us and make sure but but I I was just curious the process of who make sure we're doing the same thing that we're not being punitive to a public company are probably private company while circumventing those things for convenience on our end absolutely yeah thank you so counsel as far as what I think I heard you say councilman Hesbeth is based upon that explanation you're okay with it as it was proposed without the red language is that correct that's correct who else is though let's just sort of take it sort of first who's okay with it without the red red language proposed okay all right I mean I'm okay with it without the red line I wouldn't mind if it said is the preferred option giving a choice and just stating a preference but I struggle with that we're saying it is the option except X so that's my only struggle with the red language I mean certainly if we want to say it is a preferred option because it does reduce the stress and the disturbance of the ESA but I don't know if I want it to necessarily be a should or shall yes councilmember Duff well you know I look at that and I would think one of the determining factors is this you know what's gonna be the cost versus boring and not boring and I think that may be the over overwhelming choice because you know I mean you don't want to run the bill up just to you know but you're gonna restore everything anyway so it looks like and somebody correct me if I'm wrong that the consensus is we can start maybe without the red letter language and then if you know certainly we have our preference and we can explain that is it we okay with that okay all right thank you private driveway is to exempt residential driveway eliminating the need for alternative ESA fans this is one of others of circumstances where a private homeowner is about to do the house they have an ESA across their front and they they to be able to build the driveway will have to come and get an alternative ESA plan when we v etted this last time through the COE councilmember bricks have concerns about limiting this to a single-family I went ahead and I provide the definition of what a driveway is based on the most current approved transportation criteria manner which got approved two weeks ago and this is the definition a driveway is located located entirely on private property it is only for single- family or duplex property it connects a drive approach to a garage carport parking pad or the like so by saying that is a private driveway we are limiting to residential uses yes and just referring to that conversation and our committee it was a concern that commercial developments would would take advantage of this if not specified I understand that that's okay any everybody okay with this especially with the the emphasis you know the additional of the definition of a driveway so yeah I think I think we're good with that thank you preservation of open and habitat currently in the city of Denton if you happen to have upland habitat on your property and you wanted to develop for residential uses meaning single-family to have multifamily you must preserve 50% of the habitat in a contiguous way however that requirement is not for non-residential uses so even though as a non-residential use some of that trees will be preserved just to meet the existing tree code what we are not protecting is the habitat that comes with it the understory so the the committee on the environment actually we're looking into this and staff draft some come some language and we agreed on non-residential development shall be designed to retain 30% of the tree canopy with the proposed credits as we discussed earlier they will be able to meet the tree code as well so by meeting the 30% of open habitat they will also meet tree code so this is a this is a complete new language that we know currently has that we receive no public comment on that and the panning and zoning Commission didn 't recommend changes the zoning and upland habitat analysis that we presented earlier were showing that the how the upland habitat is broken into residential and non-residential district each it was for these specific change any questions concerns everybody okay with this looks like it yep our criteria for approving the alternative ASA plan we have gone through 15 years without having a specific criteria for a proven alternative in a safe plan when alternative ASA plans were conceived back in 2002 they run the same process as a alternative development plan which is deviation from the site design and standards contains of chapter 13 however that process the approval process of the two were split and the alternative development plan was kept to be approved by PNC not coming to City Council approval however the ESA alternative plan was kept on the original path meaning PNC and City Council no criteria was developed just for the alternative ASA plan so this is the first time that we have something concrete on it we we met with CoE let me let me show let me back up on that there were sections in the existing development DDC that they lean themselves to be good appro ving criteria but we're not listed as a approving criteria so those are items three four and five what we are using is the same language that we had in a previous section we just move it around now into the approval criteria section then the first two items on the list they're completely new language and you have probably heard me before saying that you work with what you got first if you have ESAS you start improving those ESAS on site and you offer that up as a mitigation so item one and two is for that matter mitigation goals are obtained by creating expanding or improving environmental sensitive area if you have something that is not working right you can improve it that that's how you meet your mitigation requirements item and number two mitigation goals are obtained by preserving environmental sensitive area above on the minimum requirements we have had multiple alternative ESA plans that have been approved based on the amount of upland habitat above and beyond that what they are required to preserve and they have offered that up as a mitigation and have been accepted quick question on the number one language number one says mitigation goals creating expanding or improving would so and I mean the essays can be very complicated and so I'm not I'm not gonna even try to say that I know a whole lot about them as far as the technicality of them so there so there's a minimum when you look at it when you do a field assessment on an ESA there's typically minimum requirements I don't know if it's side you know you got your 50 foot from a and you know center line of a creek and but is there at any poss are there any kind of scenarios where someone has an ESA they come in and they're asking to reduce the footprint of that ESA by improving the remainder ESA to a point that it's functioning better than it was in its pre in its prior state or is it once you have the footprint whether it's in square feet acres whatever it is do you try to make sure that that same volume or footprint stays the same you can look at it from quantitative okay and qualitative that's good work that's good word yes so quantitative we can say this is the total amount of ESA this is amount of the encroachments and this is how much they are mitigating right so we can look at it from square footage and so on we can also look at it from how good it is for example riparian buffers when they're assessed their score are they poor for good or excellent based on the characteristic of the habitat is presenting themselves so if you have a riparian buffer that you want to encroach partially encroached but it is ranked as a poor incised channel a lot of sedimentation vegetation is loose you have invasive species so on and you say okay I'm going to restore the remainder and I will bring it to a higher quality that would probably be a acceptable okay mitigation okay thank you I appreciate that that's helpful any other questions on the new language I believe the the next slide was just some existing language that's been moved from the codes I believe so are there any questions oh I'm sorry go ahead um the red line is because during our see a last year we meeting see see oh he was concerned about not not being clear about how many of those criterion should be met to be able to approved a alternative ESA plan okay the language as it is much bit much much which must be met and by which the proposal will be judged are is the same language that we currently use for alternative development plans and that language have been better through legal during the last coe just making sure that we are sending a clear message of what the expectations are the coe thought that maybe by striking which must be met and it will clear that up however legal have expressed some concerns about striking that section and so what I did I the first one you will see the original coe language the second one is the revised language and the new staff language is City Council may approve the alternative plan with conditions necessary to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development upon considering the factors and goals noted in this section so I was trying to meet staff coe legal sure altogether yeah okay councilmember Briggs did you have a comment or question or no so are so you're saying for you the step the new language from staff so legal I mean I'm fine I think the staff did an excellent job and re phrasing it to say that okay all right so everybody okay with the new staff language which begins City Council may approve sounds like I'm saying consensus okay all right yeah the first time ever thank you so also as a part of the coe that the discussion the body thought that maybe providing a scorecard as a part of all staff analysis would be a good tool so we just are create something quick pretty much you will have all the criterion listed for approval a column that will say yes if have been met no or not applicable and how so you will have a specific you will see it right there how the criteria have been met so that will be something that we are offering to include in all PNC and City Council staff reports for now on great council Gregory asked me about sample of approved alternative ESA plans the woodlands a riparian buffer was removed it was meeting g ated with upland habitat villages of Carmel a riparian buffer was removed also the upland habitat was a was used as a tool for mitigation beaver Creek a riparian buffer was disturbed not removed but disturbed and they probe they restored they expanded and they they also provide a earthen nature walking tray trail with signage on it so in that way they're using that ESA as an amenity for the development and spending the environmental benefits that the community is getting Ryan Meadows we briefly discussed they encroached partially into the rip arian buffer on developed floodplain and water related and they mitigated by planting trees outside ESA so those are examples of approved alternative E SA plans Councilmember Briggs you had a question after those are approved to staff go back out and would do and do a site okay yeah we do we during construction we make sure that the areas that have been set aside they are being protected and such and when they are all finished for example bivouac is currently under construction we will go out and look at how that is coming along thank you because of the changes and I think based on the discussion we will not have to change the section 3.7 D because that relates to ZBA and the other changes are to add all the new definitions to not only sub chapter 17 but also sub chapter 23 staff recommends approval PNC recommended approval and the COE recommends approval so council okay with moving forward on the changes as we discussed here today all right fantastic thank you thank you let's just take a quick five because I think the next one might be a little longer welcome back to this meeting the Dent City Council on Tuesday April 3rd 2018 it is 112 it's only 112 all right we're gonna move on to agenda item 4b receive report hold discussion provide direction regarding current city of Denton facilities and how to proceed with planning for future needs good afternoon mayor members of council mark Nelson director of transportation my pleasure to visit with you this afternoon regarding City Hall City Hall East and development services specifically looking at a facilities plan for some of the core business functions that that the municipality that the city provides to the community I'm just going to do a quick introduction of the this item as already stated we have Kelly Morgan who is with Nelson Morgan who actually facilitate the first part of the presentation I'll certainly be here and available for questions we also have Dean Hartley our facilities manager here to answer questions as it may relate to technical issues associated with any type of maintenance or expansion renovations etc to to this particular facility towards the end of the presentation we do have some financial information we had indicated in our backup and in the information that went out on Friday that we would have a pro forma available for for a council discussion unfortunately Tony Puente our director of finances unable to be with us this week our first part of this week due to some family issues but Brian Langley will be available to answer some specific questions as it relates to to the financial plan to put that we've put forward on this so without any further ado I'm gonna invite mr. Morgan to come up and initiate the discussion the last one took an hour and a half this one should take no more than three or four hours members of council mayor again my name is Kelly Morgan with Nelson Morgan architects and I will be presenting City Hall recommendations and updates to the 2003 facilities master plan so just to give you a little overview of the presentation we're going to talk about some of the issues some of the goals and objectives we've got some concepts to look at we're going to talk about parking as that is never lacking recommendations some opinion of probable construction costs and some next steps in a proposed timeline so the existing facility is City Hall and City Hall East their aging structures still in good condition development services is currently in a leased facility and in customer service for citizens is impaired by the lack of one centralized facility we don't have that one-stop shop right now we've got a decentralized location so we're going to look at bringing everything back down to that one-stop shop and then demands for public meeting spaces strain many facilities which don't have enough community meeting spaces and then again parking at all facilities is limited so some of the goals and objectives we're going to update the departmental and staff space requirements what we did is we took a 10-year horizon from 2016 to 2026 and then we adjusted the organization and relationship changes and then we made adjustments to the plan based on those recommendations and from the since the adoption of the original master plan so what is our vision for this one of the main goals is to create a one-stop shop to enhance customer service we want to provide additional community meeting and gathering space improve workspace efficiencies we want to provide a new front entrance I remember when I moved here I came to City Hall and I wondered around wondering where do I go in so we're going to create some kind of a main entrance for City Hall so that a new citizen comes to City Hall they'll know where to go and then we're going to make it scalable for growth in the future and then we're going to enhance the the campus concept improve the entryway into Quaker Town Park and then we're hoping to that this will serve as a catalyst to bring other developments in the downtown area and then just want to provide a positive image for the community and then we want to eliminate the lease property that development services is currently in so some of the concept challenges back in the 2003 master plan one of them was the inability to support the one-stop shop concept with the police and courts lack of adequate parking construction of the DCTA terminal and other area development in that area and then for City Hall one of the main concerns or one of the main challenges here is to this was designed by O'Neill Ford and we have to definitely take that into consideration when we build on or build adjacent to this facility and then we looked at some vertical expansion which was basically not cost-effective we would gain 12 to 15,000 square feet and the cost to go up was just too prohibitive and then again the floodplain challenges so if you look at City Hall right now we've got these eight departments city manager city attorney transportation finance reprographics public communications and so currently we have a staff of 73 over City Hall East we have these nine departments 279 staff total and what we're going to do there is we're going to take commercial development we're going to take human resources parks and recreation and customer service we're going to move those departments over to City Hall to start creating that one-stop shop currently we have development services over in the DAC U leased facility again we're going to take those and move over to the City Hall and then we're also going to look at taking the EOC and some engineering from service center and move those over to create this one-stop shop so to create that one-stop shop we're looking at a little under 110,000 square feet total we're going to reuse the existing City Hall the facility that we 're in right now to the maximum advantage there's approximately 35,000 square feet here and then we'll need a balance of about 75,000 to bring all those other spaces I talked about over to this one-stop shop so if we look at a little pie chart we're going to bring 90 staff from City Hall here City Hall East we're going to bring over 120 staff 22,000 square feet development services 12,800 the EOC and some engineering and then we're going to have a little bit of unassigned space for future growth because we want to build it all and be you know full on day one so we're going to build in a little future space and then mechanical support space restrooms circulation space will also be built into that and that's what makes up the hundred and nine thousand seven hundred five square feet and then in 2026 321 staff total Thank you Mayor. So the unassigned space of almost 7,000 square feet yes should accommodate do we have any estimation of how many how much growth that will that will allow for well we took we took that 10- year rising through 2026 and I think that the there I think we were pretty conservative on those numbers so I think we can take that out probably quite a bit longer with that 7,000 square feet so we have room for growth within each space plus we have the unassigned space to to grow into as well well as far as a as far as a how far that'll go it just depends on a lot of things. I would like to know I think that there are two really common temptations when any governmental body is building space and one of them is to under build so that too soon we're short of space and we can't provide that one-stop shop that we're hoping to provide that we have to start pushing people out and so I'd like to get some kind of a horizon as to how many years we think that that a hundred and nine thousand square feet well we'll provide the a one-stop shop that we're hoping for. Okay. Well I echo the same comments and part of what I didn't see in the backup is what we currently have to do is a comparison how many square feet we have over it at the the Dacu facility how many square feet of what's at City Hall East is going to be moved we see the departments but we don 't see the actual square footage to know. Yeah basically you're moving over about 22,000 square feet from City Hall East which will free up enough space to for courts and police to expand into those space tech services will be expanding into those spaces and then from the from the Dacu facility right now they present ly have gross square footage I've got about 25,000 square feet over there the net square footages are about 10,000 square feet so the 2016 numbers for the development services is about 9,500 square feet and then by 2026 we're gonna need about 11,800 plus all the multipliers which gave us the 12,800. Okay yeah I'd just like to see a little bit more in depth on the numbers because this is based on what we think staffing is going to be at that point and I know you've got large spaces that you use it's difficult to you to figure it out this way but if you take the hundred and nine and you've got 321 people in there and you figure out your square footage for that that's 6,900 is only about 20 more employees so yeah that that really doesn't give us much much growth room . And then the other thing is this facility can be done in phases so if we want to add another story we can go up so there's always those possibilities so we have to balance the cost plus the space so we could do it in a phase process so we can always add another story for growth. We don't want to over build but we don't under build so we got to take that balance between cost and space. Right. If I made that let's talk about adding another story because we know we get out of the story to where we are right now but we're told that we really can't because it's gonna be too expensive and because it will be too disruptive to the operations that are going on here so I'm just telling you early on I won't be around I'll just haunch all and follow up. Send you emails. We not only have to go up we could also come a little bit to the south we could go to the east a little bit so there's options. It would just be better to I'd love to see estimates when you when you start bringing in stuff for design of what would it cost to go ahead right as it's being built of building that extra floor up and not finishing it out. Just a shelf space. Because it would be easier it would it'll be a whole lot less expensive to do it then than to come back in later and then we're told well we really can't do it it's gonna be too expensive and it will disrupt that what's going on on the floors below. Right. Okay. Well I guess just two comments we can certainly put that I think Councilmember Gregory's points a very good one in terms of you know does it make sense to have that open space now to be built out I think in terms of the existing space it is so poorly configured that you know we would never for instance build that space for development services that we have today I would say probably a third of it's just wasted space you know that it's gonna be very difficult to get you the kind of comparisons that you want. I think the other thing is we were looking a couple of comments on this exercise is we went back and reviewed the 2016 report there was such huge growth estimates for staff that were made that I just really felt that there wasn't a lot of integrity of the plan and so we went back and and tried to take into consideration the fact that we're re-engineering processes we're doing more work in many of these departments with fewer staff because we're changing the way that we're relying on technology we're changing the way that we're you know our processes which really is saving in some cases multiple FTEs out of these departments so we can certainly put together some projections I think I think the comment that you're making though Councilmember Greger is probably the most prudent and probably the most easy to defend and that would be if you know if we could reinforce floors if we could build out the shell space what would be the cost of that but from our the way that we're looking at moving forward today is just if there's any way of re-engineering processes or automating functions in order to avoid ongoing costs that's really more of our aim so it's a very different way of looking at this than 24 or 36 months ago and I think we're seeing that out of you know building inspections engineering and planning which are all down significantly staffing but their productivity is up 20 30 percent so we can give you some we can give you some numbers and maybe even build in a contingency of 10 percent or something on top of these figures but I really think that the way that the shell space is probably the most credible way of handling this. Sure. So to sort of follow up on that so I want to understand that I understand this slide so this is so I see total space I see 321 total staff by 2026 so that means you're anticipating 321 in 2026 or that's how many would be coming over when it first comes online in 20 26 okay so how many of these people were saying we're gonna move over what's the actual number that we have now you've got what was that you had it up there I thought like representing all those different departments how many do we have currently? Currently there would be let me go back to that previous slide I think it was on the previous slide. Okay currently we have 73 staff in the City Hall and then when these move over you have 168 and then 321 in 2026 so I think there's about 279. I was gonna say that didn't tell me. So I think that's what's important is to know what that is because that tells us what you're projecting is the growth by 20 so let 's just take your number 279 and 321 somebody do that math real quick what is that there? It's 327 right now. What did you say 327? Counting the numbers of people in those pages now it looks like 327. Oh you mean in the pie chart? Yeah no. Okay because he's saying that currently if we moved all them over today it's 279 approximately. This is showing that if by 2026 it'll be 321 and that's how many people? Forty-six? Forty-two so that's additional 42 and what is that seven years eight years that's about 15 to 18 percent total so you're you're you're confident I just want to make sure that if we looked at what the 2003 report said as far as the number of staff we'd see that it's more than what we've got right now at this time I mean like 15 or 1900 people or something like that total in the city so I echo Councilmember Ryan Councilmember Gregory 's sentiments in that you know are we you know how accurate can we get our projection for two because 2026 is not that far away and this building is going to be a 30 to 40 to 50 year old building and so there's going to be a lot of growth that's happening beyond 2026 and in about 2030 didn't supposed to have what a couple hundred thousand people in it or something so I would certainly if we're gonna build it I don't want to build on by scratch add on to building is horribly expensive yes and so to have some additional room so what I'm hearing though this if there's 321 people we still have so all the other spaces are full except for the unassigned space is that how I'm reading this slide or is there growth factors even in those specific departments there's a little bit of growth factors figured in those spaces okay yes all right won't be completely full and so this is okay this is a very high elevation presentation is what I'm understanding so we're not because I think there's a lot of detail that we got a feeling before we can have some kind of reasonable conversation about specific detail moving forward so I don't want to bog us down in detail if that's not the purpose of this so because my question was okay well how much growth do we have how much people do we think and it's gonna grow so I would almost say we need to figure out yeah this is 2026 but what do we think our space needs are gonna be ten years out from there and that's what we really need to start you know sort of figuring out how do we reverse engineer that based upon those numbers but that's just me so okay sorry go ahead okay so back in November we did a presentation in November 2016 so we looked at a City Hall facility that was approximately four stories coming up to 118,333 square feet we used about 13,553 square feet in this facility it was for human resources and parks and then we had some space on the west side some unassigned space for some arts looked at different options to fill in those spaces and then we were looking at a five level parking garage 120 spaces per level for 600 spaces so if you look at the chart over there so back in November the proposed City Hall was 131,000 square feet the cost of about 60 million the parking garage was another 14 million and then we had 382 F TEs at that point so we went back went back to all the departments they looked at their forecasting reduced a lot of those numbers and so we in March 109,000 square feet cost of about 38 million surface parking is what we went back to and I'll talk about parking here in a little bit and that was about another million dollars and so we reduced the FTEs by about 61 people so quick question so I can understand this slide I'm sorry I'm so not understanding today well that's interesting double meaning the City Hall that's labeled here a hundred and eighteen thousand yes and then we have repurp osed City Hall for 135 so that's a total of about 131 86 so the hundred and nine that was just on the last slide that was just for the new building the City Hall building or was that including both including both City Hall so the new building was how much new building seventy five thousand seventy five thousand okay all right yeah seventy five thousand and this facility is thirty five thousand okay okay so if you look at the site plan in 2026 you have the existing City Hall thirty five thousand square feet you have the City Hall annex of seventy four thousand six hundred and forty three square feet and then we we would produce some extra parking along the south side along the west side in 23 spaces on the east side and I'll talk about parking here here in a little bit on some additional slides yeah so briefly so I I'd mentioned to Sarah this is kind of what I'm talking about if I could get a just a graphic of those two images so that's seventy four thousand six hundred forty three square feet in combination with the thirty five thousand etc. square feet if I can get those together just to see what that landmass looks like can you can you put that together well that's a site plan you're looking at right there right well I'm assuming you could save some space of you so if I if I took the the yellow and kind of smushed it with the the purple I'm assuming I could get a different what I want to do is drag it around and see how much space it takes kind of generally in the air anyway if I could get something that kind of represents that or I'm assuming I can cut and paste it and yeah right now the the yellow that you 're seeing is the facility that we're in that's existing right the purple is the new portion correct so it basically will take up the space of course it doesn't go all the way to the parking for the Civic Center right okay thank you and I think in terms of the configuration one thing you might want to just kind of hit on is the constraint of the floodplain yes yeah basically the flood plain comes up comes up and goes right along in here the of course existing Civic Center is in the floodplain but we have constraints in going to the north that's as far north as we can come without without getting into the floodplain so we we don't want to get into the floodplain and that's why it's located as far south as it is we can't go any further north we can go a little bit further east and we can go a little bit further south but we figured that the parking would be important to have to the south side and so that's kind of the reason why we placed it in that location is to get the maximum parking the maximum facility footprint so Mayor Watts I think that's a conversation to be had and I just say based on the emails thus far round one I just don't I don't I wonder if if it's best to have an independent location versus I understand the idea of having a location here that functionality and add-on and kind of transition seamless but I just want us to at least have a conversation about a separate complex that's built that houses everything meets these goals avoid certain other pitfalls and so I want to know what that footprint is so that in my mind I can set conceptually drag it around and I'd like to see us talk about maybe going up maybe an additional maybe it's three levels maybe it's you know additional meetings but I just think there may be some value add taking up less of a footprint going up higher that sort of thing I don't know what those costs are you know it may be totally not feasible but I just want to kind of explore that option of a same footprint just kind of brand new what would that look like what does that take up and it may not we may not want to go that direction maybe I may be the only one so in that instance that's kind of the presentation that we did in November where we had a smaller footprint but we had four levels and with that separate facility so I don't remember let me go back a slide here and we'll just take a look at that yeah I missed that meeting yes you did so so that's that's kind of what we had in that location was we had City Hall as a separate facility we had at four levels and we had the smaller footprint we went up and so we had everybody pretty much everybody in that facility the the downfall of that was it was 60 million dollars so we started we started tweaking that and bringing some of the costs down and okay so that's but yeah I mean we can come up with several different options to look at thank you back to my archives and just and just to clarify you're you 're even saying not just a different configuration on this side but you're saying relocate it all together at some other site is that what you're saying is that yes sir I would like to have that conversation I don't know if there's if that's a consensus but yes I would like to have that conversation Council member Ryan and councilmember Briggs well to follow up on that to to try and split on a different location you're not gonna have that one-stop shop anymore but the 74 is that a one-story the 174 no it's three stories it's every basement a ground level and yeah that's right I've remember seeing that I've got great concerns with the historic value of the O'Neill Ford architecture of this building of covering it up I would rather see something that was configured maybe even closer to the street but it didn't maybe had a connecting corridor back to this building as opposed to covering up half of this building you know and that's one of the things that will once the architect is selected and gets on board that's one of the first things that they need to do is get with the Historical Commission and look at what the options are for that just to make sure that we take that into account because as an architect that's that's the main goal of this facility is not to cover it up but to enhance it yeah because I also see if you get it closer to the street and we did build those extra floors for future use you could consider putting the parking garage as opposed to where the plan was on the previous plan putting it against McKinney and I know the cost is astronomical but consideration of putting a skybridge across from the parking facility and that's been a discussion as well in the past. I wanted just to clarify what we're looking at now is the 35 million right 35 to 38 right and the one before that was we had heard before that was 74 million yeah it was 60 I think 60 it was a range in there yes right yeah I think when you add the parking garage it was around 74 million for the project and so we're going from 74 million to 35 million and we're only gonna lose in that like 61 staff people is that we're losing 61 staff people but we're also losing quite a bit of square footage okay about 22,000 square feet and so another and we're losing a parking garage which cost 14 million we're doing surface parking which is about a million so that's another 12 million so I also to echo have concerns about the annex butting up against the building and at some point would like for Roman McAllen our preservation officer to weigh in I don't know if that's the conversation today but if we are to give staff direction on this I would like to hear what he has to say on the annex attaching to this building or if it would be better separated yeah I think that's one of the first conversations it needs to be once we get into that design phase that's one of the first conversations it needs to be well if I'm sorry if you want counsel are we are you looking for direction today what exactly are you looking for today well we've been getting some questions about where we were at the process so I wanted to kind of share where our thoughts were talked to you a little bit about square footage budgets that sort of thing and if the council and just kind of your direction what kind of information would you like to see before we move forward I think there's an assumption out in public because of the story that came out that we're already in the design phase and I just I just basically wanted to make sure that you understood the process we've been going through with with regard to the to the square footage and how that impacts budget I think the other thing that we wanted to bring up is all the assumptions on office sizes were also looked at so that also there is the parking debt but it that also accounts for a little bit of the budget as well as skinning down some of the offices but I think this really gets down to with council we've tried to put together a an initial plan that yeah it's it's pretty it's pretty austere there's not a lot of growth potential in it but we also felt that it was something that was we could finance fairly simply because right now we're putting about a half a million dollars a year into a building that we're really using half of because of the practicality of it you know and so we've got a few years that that are left on that lease so we've been coming at it from a kind of a 10- year horizon what what we felt we might be able to get support from the community from the council and maybe we've you know and I'm really curious as to council's perspective on that my our approach was that a 60 million dollar facility would scare the public and so maybe maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle we feel fairly confident that we've got room to grow 60 or 80 employees into the building over the next 10 years but that was just kind of the discussion high level that we wanted to get your feedback on as we continue to structure the conversation at some point if you're comfortable we can start moving into design philosophies we will certainly put have those conversations on the historical preservation that sort of thing but I think right now we needed to get a little bit more feeling for where you were at as a as a council in terms of the budget the practicality of moving forward with the budget in that range and just kind of where you were with the square footage so this is a good conversation for us we're really trying to get you to a point where you're comfortable saying you know what we'd like to start seeing some at least some concept drawings so the last time we had the presentation I think back in November of 16 one of the things that I had requested was in future presentations if we could see the layout perhaps with the building on the hard corner of McK inney and Bell so I'll just reiterate that obviously I won't be here either but I think it would address the historical issues it would address the ingress and egress which right now really there's only a McKinney Street that's available for this particular layout and I know that's a design issue it's just if it keeps getting you know if we keep having presentations and there 's not anything about a hard corner building then it's not ever gonna get discussed so that would be my request going forward is to just renew that request it looks like the floodplain doesn't go through the hard corner so unless I'm mistaken correct no it does not right okay thank you clarification there's four corners to McKinney and Bell which one are you talking about the parking lot and it would face golden chick I guess I feel like that sounds the right message they have delicious yeast rolls I expected a delivery any moment okay yeah and that's and that's a you know it's basically I think that's good feedback because it's saying hey that's that's not just make sure we don't get pigeonholed into one sure concept but to have you know some at this high of elevation not to schematic drawings and all that but at least it gives us an idea of how we would configure that yes what what would it take to bring that backside out of the floodplain I mean it's it's already an improved drainage I mean is it is it I don't know how bad it is I mean we would need to have a little bit of engineering done before we could answer that question intelligently just to give you some idea what what that would take but you know if we if the cat if there is interest in and I seem to be hearing that from several of you and in terms of maybe moving the building a little bit more east and kind of to preserve the existing City Hall in the in the the architecture with it we can certainly answer that question you know about I'm not sure it would need to be touched we just need to revise a site plan but yeah so for me I think going going forward is is good I I disagree though I think you can have if you have one new location it can still be a one -stop-shop I don't know why those can't be those can't coexist I mean you just put all offices in the new City Hall man so I think that seamless in that aspect it for me I would like to see it I think the hard corner is a good option that I've not heard so for me I think without going into great detail yes I'd like to move forward yes I'd like to see it different locations and even and I would like to see what that footprint looks like holistically to see where else so how much of that corner does it take up what does that look like you know that sort of thing if I see it all together and I guess that's generally it I yeah that's my thoughts Joe I would just kind of weighing in on the you know separate location I mean if that's if the council wants us to take a look at some other locations we're happy to do it I think the one-stop-shop is really there to you know for the community but it right now the way we're doing this it's highly inefficient having you know this many departments distributed the way they are not only is it confusing for the public but there's a lot of wasted time on a day-to-day basis driving back and forth across the city to meetings and that sort of thing so even even if it was not connected and on this side it's far more preferable from a management perspective just being in touch with the employees and that sort of thing to manage on a day-to-day basis so I just wanted to put that out there for you council wants us to look at other locations we'll do it but there is a downside in terms of overall management efficiencies I'm not sure you're used to probably got some slides don't you just a few okay yeah yes go ahead well I guess there's another question besides the floodplain is is there a line as to where the park ends and City Hall begins or are we all completely within the parkland and if it's if there is a dividing line again well that have to because it's changing entities within the city have to go through the citizen vote council member that's a that's a great point that you brought up and yes in terms of the hard corner we'd have to look at some type of a swap with park property and and transitioning their parking to a different location back over this way so so there is a there is a consideration for park for park property in terms of Civic Center versus City Hall Park City Hall property okay all right ready yes okay so looking at the existing City Hall the facility that we're in right now city manager would stay in its current location and then they would expand into the existing workspace work session room the existing council chambers will become the work session room public communication didn't TV would move to the north utility admin and transportation would move to the north wing finance accounting and budget they're currently in the northwest corner they would stay there and then their growth would happen to the east legal would still be in the southwest corner expanding to the north have our circulation mechanical support spaces and then some unassigned space there as you see in the white and in the basement would remain as it is now reprographics the conference room those would remain the same and that's the total of the 35,000 square feet that's how we would use this current facility to its maximum capacity if you can converted the current council chambers into work session room would require any reconfiguration or would it be left and we could look at a couple different ways and we talked about that we could leave it as a tiered facility like it is now the bottom part could be leveled out so we could put configuration similar to what we have here the most cost-effective would be to keep those seats as they are but we could look at options to go back in and modify that it's just a matter of some costs okay because I I guess for me that room represents the O'Neill for an interior room that architectural style that room represents that and that's something I wouldn't want to have changed yeah it'd be better if you kept it and kept the seating and then if you take that existing City Hall then if you look at the starting at the basement area we'll have the EOC which could also be a multi-purpose use space down in the basement and then on the ground floor we'd have the new council chambers which would seat approximately 200 we have a new public pl aza and entry coming into their customer service building inspection development services would be on the ground floor and then on the second floor we'd have all the the other development spaces human resources parks community development public communications engineering and economic development on the second floor yes councilmember is that council members up for it is that like our office the one that we have here in this room say it again is that the council chambers or council members council members would be the offices for the council members thank you and that would be adjacent to the this is the existing council chambers and so all of that would kind of be in in one area for efficiency what how much seating is in the existing council 117 117 yes I'm that kind of ironic because we're looking at right now reviewing the previous council chambers over at City Hall West and trying to make sure that we don't exceed 299 and seating so that change that the old council chamber at City Hall West was larger than the current one and so option 2 is similar to option 1 but we left EOC in their current location so to do this it takes instead of a hundred and hundred and nine hundred and seven takes 103,000 square feet and this would save about three million dollars to take the EOC out of the basement and then that just gives us some options there so let's talk about the parking currently this is the current layout so City Hall has 154 spaces South of McKin ney has 110 spaces Civic Center which could be used for overflow has 175 parking spaces so currently we have 439 parking spaces on this campus and then in 2026 the existing parking at City Hall we would have 76 we would add 107 spaces for the new parking City Hall we have the 84 south of the new annex we'd have another 23 that gives you the 107 South of McKinney we could get 170 spaces in there and we would definitely want to keep the the existing trees that are in that location but some tree wells in that but we can increase the efficiency of that parking as well and then add an additional 23 new parking spaces over at the Civic Center so that would bring the total up to 551 on the campus for parking question yes so you said the additional 23 is that that number of 23 that's in the green there that's this 23 okay thank you and then so to recap on the parking currently we have 439 and then in 2026 we would have 551 spaces and then the middle section there is the parking required per the City of Denton code if you take the existing City Hall here 32,479 square feet we we subtracted the council chambers because it's factored in as an auditorium space so the office space would be one per 450 square feet so we'd have 72 parking spaces and then for the existing council chambers which had 117 seats they factor that as a one space for every four seats so we'd have an additional 29 spaces for that and then the annex was figured the same way so one per 450 square feet would give us 156 parking spaces and 50 for the new council chambers so the required City of Denton per code would be 307 and then we would suggest adding another 10% for visitor and short-term parking approximately 38 spaces for the fleet parking and long-term parking and then again we could use the the Civic Center as overflow which would bring us down to the 551 so in order to go over that 307 we'd either have to get a variance or we'd have to do what's called pervious paving and that would be my recommendations maybe we do some of that pervious paving around the existing trees on the south side of McKinney so to kind of enhance that it's a little more expensive to do that but that's just an option. Councilmember Riggs. I have a question back on the employee staff site for the building there was 321 employees yes and so with our requirements we're only required to do 307 spaces even though we have 321 employees coming to work every day correct so we've been has a specific code that they do per square footage so we we would need a big bicycle rack yes correct and that's why we would want to add a few more parking spaces to to take that into account okay it's a very good observation that's what I've been saying we do that on a daily basis well I'm just saying we you know we our code sometimes you know limits the amount of parking to where it's I mean it's I mean like you said we got 321 employees 307 is what the code would require is what we could do in concrete anything above that would you have to go to pervious material and anyway yeah okay we could encourage or incentivize ride-sharing and bicycling we could install a shower so that when people get to work they can they could take a shower yeah okay that was my bad idea no I understand all right so what are master plan recommendations and vision so number one we'd want to transition City Hall East into a criminal justice center we'd want to keep technology services police and courts in the existing City Hall this would allow the tech services in the police and courts to expand in place it separates administrative and municipal functions from the police and courts and most of that would be renovation space not new construction and it would leave relieve some of the traffic congestion at City Hall East number two we'd want to centralize City Hall we want to create that one-stop shop in this area we want to provide additional community meeting and gathering spaces on site just improve the work efficiencies by keeping everybody together it improves the collaboration that the city staff has on a day-by-day basis we'd want to preserve the historical integrity and the architectural legacy of the City Hall we'd want to provide a new entry into the City Hall definitely make it scalable for future growth we want to enhance this Quaker Town Park entry and then we'd also want to promote a positive image to the community and again eliminate the lease for the development services and so the existing City Hall we'd have these eight departments City Manager Suite City Attorney Finance Utility Admin and then in the Annex we'd have all of the 14 departments that you see over there to your right and three would want to relocate development services to a central facility to enhance customer service and then to centralize planning inspection and engineering services and again to get rid of the the leased facilities that they currently have and then relocate the emergency operations center currently it's not a hardened structure so we would build it to be a hardened structure to increase the security and the survivability we'd also have it to have to be a multi- purpose room so we could use it for community and public meeting spaces as well so what does that cost so if we look at the first line item existing City Halls we have about 24,000 square feet to renovate at about 88 to 113 dollars a square foot which would be somewhere in the range of 1.8 to 2.4 million dollars the new Annex of 75,000 square feet would range from 285 to 325 square feet so that would be 21 to 24 million and then we put a design contingency on top of that so you're looking at about 25 to 29 million in construction costs and then on top of that you add your FF&E and your soft costs which would be 33.5 to 38.7 million for the total City Hall and then that bottom portion for the parking we figured $3,200 a space if you look at the new the new spaces for City Hall Civic Center with a design contingency came to a million so the total in parking in the City Hall one-stop shop would be 34.5 to 39. 7 million dollars. Go ahead Mayor Pro Tem. So is there a reason that we're kind of lumping in McKinney South parking with this project I mean that that could be a separate project couldn't it as far as enhancing that parking lot and adding the parking space? Sure absolutely it could. And it could certainly be cash funded as a part of you know? Absolutely in fact Mario will kind of Zaris will be bringing you a contract fairly soon for design of several parking lots and we've actually added McKinney South there we will be adding it as an alternative should the council want to go in that direction but yes absolutely can be treated as its own standalone project. Okay thank you. Couple of questions and they're just more based upon what I know about other things in the city so our you know when we talk about building a new annex at 285 to 325 that's I'm having a hard time saying that's even today pricing because our fire stations are being priced out at $400 a square foot and fire stations outside of you know the thickness of the concrete and the piers I mean we're gonna want to anyway I think that cost is is off and so when I see McKinney South parking of 170 spaces for 544,000 and we just spent 900,000 on getting 81 spaces at the so I don't I don't think these numbers are very we've had not with you all but we're dealing with our bond program where we are saying that we woefully underestimated our costs five years ago and I mean if I don't think that today if we had it ready to be built and had a bid that it would come in it at the max of 300 I think it'd be more than that and so five years from now four years from now I mean I don't think it's gonna keep going up a percent a month if it does everybody's gonna be out of business but so this cost could vary and so I don't the cost is I'm just saying I want to make sure that we're getting we don't fall into the same problem we did with the 2014 bond program of costs really not being probably representative of what we're trying to do not saying that that's any anything intentional it's just the cost we're seeing for projects right now I mean we're gonna have a we're gonna have a presentation where a concession stand in a park with a restroom is almost a million dollars so we'll have that conversation when we get there but so I've just really struggled with these cost figures based upon some of what we've seen recently I mean within the last 60 or 90 days so it's nothing that's not a criticism it's just more of an observation and we've looked at some other facilities that are comparable to this and of course it depends on what finishes you use and what type of construction well I mean there's a lot of factors that you factor in so yeah I understand I just when I look at I go back to the fire stations I mean they're not I mean there's not a whole lot of I mean a lot of its open space Bay areas things such as that so of course in this facility we're talking mostly offices sure which is a little less expensive than a fire station called yeah so I mean oh these are this is meant to give you some pretty broad swags obviously if we get into more of it more of the design as we're picking out qualities doing value engineering we can come up with that refine those numbers a little bit better and one of the other changes that we're making also with our facilities as well as just also contracted with an independent cost estimator trying to get those numbers as solid as we can at a point in time so we've got our architectural estimates and as well as independent cost estimators trying to give you as much certainty as we can at that point in time in the market but totally understand your point of view I think from from I guess from a moving forward standpoint we've heard possibly looking at McKinney South Park you know we looked at other locations for the building quick assessment of what might be preferable in terms of comp lying with the O'Neill Ford standards and making sure that we're preserving the architectural integrity of this building are there other and then we've also taken a look at possible ideas on building some open space and taking another look at our staffing numbers there are some other things that you would like us to to bring back so we can continue this conversation I'm sorry yeah really I think that a lot of the concepts I 'm giving you the feedback you're asking for that I think the concept about what to do with City Hall East is right on target of turning that into making that space available for a justice center that kind of expansion I think that the notion of this centralized City Hall one-stop shop is right on target I appreciate the new numbers that you're talking about in terms of projections for staffing just don't under build in the bubble future bubble drawings hiding any part of this current building I think is probably a mistake so you could reconfigure the bubble little so that it doesn't hide it I think it's a good idea to consider alternative sites on the campus such as the northwest corner of the Bell and McKinney I think it would also be interesting to consider the southwest corner of Bell and McKinney that property that's currently privately owned going from McKinney all the way over to Oak Street is an alternative site and one of the reasons I think about that is because as we get more and more residential downtown and everything indicates that that trend will continue for some time the need for green space is going to be more and more important and we gained green space when we moved the raised the old county building we could keep that as green space and have that as part of the Quaker Town Park I think when we build this building this building that we're in it's 50 years old and and I remember I remember because I was about 17 and I was a nerd I read the newspaper every day I remember the discussions about building this and this whole complex and building the Civic Center and I remember people talking about why do we need a Civic Center in Denton Texas and yet think about how often that building is used even 50 years later I mean it's really been used a lot so I think that we really have to think long term and think a little bit larger I think about a building that's going to last 50 to 75 years and granted we don't know with technology how that's going to change the way the Civic Service municipal services are provided but I suspect we're still going to have people that need to serve the citizens the final thing is because I'm not going to get many more chances to talk about this I think as we design the building so that your building can become as significant as any O'Ne ill Ford building that will want to be preserved I think you think about it in terms of more than a very utilitarian structure I'm very very grateful that over a hundred years ago the County Commissioners did not build a utilitarian courthouse around that's the center of the Denton Square it's much more than a utilitarian building I'm not suggesting a building quite as ostentat ious as that but one that certainly reflects something of this city and the citizens of the city so that it's not just a box there you go anybody else go ahead if everyone else is done I don't want to but yet so I think for me going forward I think the different areas work for me I I guess it's a offline I guess I'll get with Roman or somebody I need to understand the the costs associated at some point the cost to avoid tampering with this building and affecting this building versus a new building autonomous from this building to keep it pristine to that there's there's a cost ratio at some point that that has to I need to understand what that is right what is what is the value that an old or Neil Ford building brings and then what is the cost to make sure to not affect that that value and so that's that's a long conversation so I'll just I mean whatever you does the stuff that you've pointed out that you can bring back is is valuable for me to kind of see other options and where we are and as an aside there's a giant field next to facilities on Colorado Boulevard that I drive by periodically just in case you're out that way and so yeah I'll look and see what you bring back and and we'll go from there but I think the timing is the key for me and we we sat in at a meeting last night and and and so the financial side of it is daunting as well because there's a soon-to-be 100 year old building that brings a five million dollar six million dollar price tag and a four hundred thousand dollar a year price tag that all of a sudden when you start looking at it cumulative and 200 roads on a bond package I think there's some some policy decisions to be made but I think as far as the numbers if you say 60 million to go four stories I think you know in the middle I'd say north of the middle probably is my pain point it's about 35 40 million in there because that captures future growth etc it just for for what it's worth so thank you yeah I agree that I kind of question these figures based on some of what else we've done and the other item is that whatever we do if we do it on this property will require a certificate of appropriateness which means the exterior finishes are going to be a little bit more expensive than what they might be if we built in another area and I'd like to see this move forward what concerns me is the fact that we're looking at staffing in 2026 that we're not looking for this building to last us I mean that's eight years away it doesn't seem like it should only be eight years away but we're probably looking at four or five years before it's finished so you 're probably looking at six or seven years before we're out of space again and that's where I'd like to know that cost of adding a fourth floor or you know additional unfinished space what that runs for square foot as well to possibly incorporate that into the whole project okay anybody else oh I'm sorry may pretend sorry um so I wanted to echo what councilmember Ryan and Gregory said about perhaps adding the fourth floor and finishing it I know that when they built the county courthouse that's exactly what they did basically the entire fourth floor was unfinished and that was in 1996 and they're just now getting to actually use some of those spaces for courtrooms but I mean it's it's cost-effective if you're anticipating growth so probably just some figures and then I guess I won't be here but when there's gonna be a time when we have options as to finishes and things of that nature I would just assume that the numbers are low when we get these estimates it's not a slight against anybody at the city or independent consultants or anything but you know I get a lot of heartburn when we get these like middle low high options and we always pick the high option because everybody wants the best and then the project is like double what we thought it was gonna be so I think we just have to be realistic that probably these numbers are low and plan accordingly that the project is gonna cost significantly more than that I mean if your pain point Gerard is for 40 million I think we'll get there you will probably get to your pain point pretty quickly 38 7 right now without adding another point yeah yeah I share some of the same concerns but also the same sentiment of let's continue the conversation that number will be probably closer to what we had originally thought our 2016 number would be with the bigger building so I mean that's just what I'm anticipating I mean probably closer to 45 or 50 million when it's all said and done and and you know I like the council member Gregory sentiment of it if we're going to go to the expanse and the time to build a new city hall it needs to be one we're proud of and I know when I look at Louisville and I look at somebody else you know Louisville's got their new city hall that's not new anymore but they've also got a like a little event center that's there that's that's you know sponsored by a local business you know they probably underwrite some of the remaining rights but so I don't I mean my goal wasn't to try to say let's build this as cheap as we can let's make it something that we can be proud of without having it to be you know like but if the cost isn't that much different I mean so you'd be surprised how sometimes the difference between sort of a medium finish and a little bit higher-end finish is not as much as you think it would be to get what you actually to see the difference of what it actually looks like it's the difference between laminate countertops and granite actually the cost difference is not that much anymore it there is some but not enough sometimes to the benefits you get as much higher so yeah I think we can continue the conversation I think that what you do with this building you know we've had some conversation about you know the courtyard and that's your submit desire on the schematic to put a big sidewalk in the core of this this building that needs to be carefully considered because it will help the process go smoothly or it could find you know you could find some bumps in the road justifiably so so and then whatever's next to it you know how do we make it compatible but get also something that reflects the city now which is both historic and modern those are those are some of the just general concepts because some of the specific ones that have been mentioned I I don't have any heartburn on yeah okay any councilmember breaks I have a question about the next slide the next slide I didn't know that was an excellent this isn't the end okay 30 more slides it's the end this slide or the one previous to that one that one this one on on utilities for some reason on July 21 it's just $5,000 is is that a typo or is that some weird month of some weird year I think that's a typo okay so then that would affect the total cumulative total carrying forward yes 3% each year it looks like yeah yeah this this question is a total this question comes up frequently as well as you know the terms of that lease and so I did ask him to put this in there so you're saying I think it's 2021 is when you can end that lease so whether that's reality reality realistic or not is another thing but that's at least when we start looking at it so kind of how we've been looking at this is we already got some of that built into the base budget that really converts to covering quite a bit of a new facility based upon if the mayor is correct it's less than I thought but it would most likely convert you can probably convert that into about eight or ten million dollars right there and so that it does go a long way towards using that those dollars towards a new facility in a way that's much more productive so on that and for discussion for the next conversation on this looking at the date if the 2021 is when the lease ends is that is that what we're looking at the current lease it ends in 2023 right now but as of 2021 we can get out with a six month notice okay I would like to have staff bring back some options on other places we could be besides there okay because if we're looking at funding and a bond election and 20 I mean there's no way that we're gonna have a new council and I mean another annex by the time we need to be out of there and so I mean if there is another place where development services can go in the meantime I would like to just have that discussion to you okay if possible okay okay any other discussions any other slides there is more slides okay basically the the timeline we were looking at do we want to continue with it the other two slides I think there's only two left no go ahead yeah yeah we'll run through these quickly so the preliminary schedule we were looking at 651 Mayhill and the service center is currently in progress and then City Hall if we were to take an RFQ for architectural or professional services in the second quarter of 2018 and then start design in the in the fourth quarter first quarter of 2019 it could be designed takes about a year to design it and then bid permit council approval sometime in 2020 and then constructions about 18 to 24 months so that would move development services out to that annex in 2022 which would beat the 2023 is this presuming CEOs or bond election okay all right yes all right and then what are the next steps and goals and that's basically initiate phase two if we were to initiate RFQ for professional services begin the preliminary design of the City Hall facility some of the goals for that in the first quarter of 2019 get a conceptual design for the City Hall facility by fall establish some probable construction costs get some more accurate costs and then determine the funding options at that time so I think what we were looking for as far as direction is do nothing at this time can continue to go as we're going or issue an RFQ maybe for professional services through the construction documents phase so that you could get some some accurate pricing and the approximate cost to take that up through construction documents you're looking at about a million and a half to start that design process I think we got this direction from you so I think rather than the options that we have listed here I think in terms of seeking some additional direction from Council we've we've we've heard that and so give us a couple of weeks and we'll see if we can get some information back out to you as to when we might be able to schedule another discussion so what I'm hearing you say as the direction is that there were some questions about this building about the s iding of that one about the historical sort of preserving the horse historical character here and you know what exactly we proposed in other words we have another conversation like this one just at a little bit lower elevation to because we're in no way ready to go to an RFQ to start talking about design or anything like that but but to have another one that starts narrowing down the focus to where we can give direction on with a little bit more correct okay all right we'll save this slide for the next couple presentations okay yes can I add the funding options to that next meeting because I'd like to see the CEO versus the the bond election to see which one sure I think that's an important point it's part of why we're trying to tease out a little bit the the budget you know the comfort with the budget at this point I mean I've obviously met next bond program there's there's probably it 's gonna be easy to hit nine figures in terms of needs in the community and so that was the really the question is you know where do you want to head from this point but it's simple we'll get we'll get this to you and it's not gonna change I don't think a whole lot in terms of the interest rates at this point it's not gonna change the map it's more of the tool and how what your comfort level is at that point and along those lines talking about alternative funding for the parking lot and I'm assuming that we're talking about anything from cash funding to using some of the TIF funds we certainly can move today I appreciate all the outside of the box thinking all right yes mr. Morgan your offices here in Denton correct outstanding thank you probably five minutes from here hope to see more of you thank you okay any other questions comments believe staff has direction thank you appreciate it thank you mr. Morgan you bet all right we'll go on to our next agenda item which is 4c receive report hold discussion give staff direction regarding a citizen comment pilot program ready there you go mayor council members my name is Victor Flores I'm deputy city attorney here for the city then I am gonna make this very brief and I believe everyone's familiar with the program as was created back in December 2017 I'll leave this up here and let council members kind of read through it but this is just a summary of what that program pilot program created we're here just because the pilot program has come to its end on the 30th March 30th and so there are three options one is to just either either make it permanent extend it to these July 17th or to discontinue the pilot program the first two options which are memorialized and draft ordinances I believe you have would require an amendment to 2 - 29 of our court of ordinances and so that actually be presented on the believe the 17th at this point I take any questions okay council member Brazen council member Ryan I'm okay with it I think some of the issues that when we were talking about the pilot program haven't arisen and that we haven't really had any problems and so I'm okay continuing this program can you refresh my memory prior to to the trial program was it a three minute or four minutes on this but believe this four minutes four minutes is it and I really have not seen any issue with us running over that two minutes afterwards and in 3c I believe allows four minutes that I would kind of prefer to go back to four minutes and take off the limitation for the two minute council discussion that I think it's so infrequent that it's not disruptive to our meetings to to go that route so help me understand what you're saying under the the trial program we did three minutes citizen speaker and then we allowed two minutes for discussion between the council and the speaker correct prior to that it was a four minute for the citizen to speak and no discussion and we limited we limited discussion quite heavily right but I haven't really seen where we've had any heavy discussions to go that we were all concerned that it was gonna lead to a 20 minute discussion I don't see the reason to put that limitation on there and it makes more sense that the people who sign up to speak are allowed the four minutes then what it does for those that just turn in the blue card that day okay so four minutes and then just take off you still can have council to stuck the discussion just take off the time correct and the chair would just have to sort of yeah the chair could just determine it for going too far okay I'm okay with that I mean everybody okay sounds like yep so the direction is as per council member Ryan's observations and and then is it to extend it or to make it permanent I think to make it permanent I'm fine with making a permanent yeah okay make it permanent if I may mayor I just wanted to add that to eliminate any potential confusion or disruption your regular agenda format for section 3b appears as it did in the previous meetings during the pilot program so we went ahead and left it I strongly suspect that that you would want to make this permanent or at least extended so we left it just to make sure the public isn't confused with tonight's format so what is tonight's format just like we did in the under the pilot program okay three two it expired okay so we're good and then these changes will be made permanent on the 17 correct all right that's correct okay all right great thank you thank you agenda item D receive report and hold discussion provide direction regarding the appointment of an alternate to the board of directors of the Denton County Transportation Authority you mean do that line said yeah we'll switch them around okay you mean just do go ahead and Vela call Bella is Bella ready oh okay good morning or good afternoon again yeah we've already called it just received discussion providing direction appointment alternate to the DCTA board good afternoon again mayor members of council Mark Nelson director of transportation I have a very short presentation here this is a follow-up to the ongoing discussion we've had as it relates to city I didn't representation on the DCTA board of representatives I'll walk through this quick presentation and mention a little bit about one of the nominations so just to remind you it's a two-year appointment current term November of 17 and November of 19 eligibility is listed here in terms of transportation business government or law and engineering in your backup material we've provided four different options take a look at to move forward with what we ended up with is a as a nomination from mayor pro tembe Gary for a representative by the name of miss Donna bloom the local attorney here in our community she's a resident of Denton she meets the the bylaws as well as the requirement of being a city didn't representative she did express some concerns and that she is the the firm or she with didn't county friends of the family and she's been working with our with our community in terms of a grant that we should be receiving in the near future as I understand it's a through the International Police Chief Association for domestic violence sexual assault so on and so forth but her firm would be a subcontractor in terms of supporting that particular grant we vetted that with the city attorney's office there did not appear to be any type of conflict of interest there we also visited with our compliance officer as well they did not indicate that that would be a particular issue but I did want to bring that forward in terms of just transparent conversation here so then the other the other opera options but that you may want to consider is a reappointment of the existing board alternate guy McElroy if there's other nominees counsel certainly welcome to bring those forward and then again take no action at this point in time I will mention that there is an item on the individual consideration agenda later this evening to take action we have a draft resolution in place so we will just be able to fill out a name if if indeed counsel chooses to move forward with a particular nominee at this point in time I have no further comments other than that well I had looked in the backup to see if there were any names or applications or information on anyone and I'm certainly open to replacing mr. McElroy but not without getting some kind of a resume or some kind of information on the nomination and my apologies there was a request from councilmember Cuspeth on on a bio which that should have been sent back out to you I've got a hard copy if you'll provide me just a quick moment but again the it's a very short bio abbreviated bio miss bloom is a is an attorney practicing law for over ten years undergraduate from Austin College out of Sherman JD and law out of St. Mary's University and again a resident here home owns her own home and then is is employed by friends the family yep yep you said you got a hard copy yep any other questions comments on this while he's getting those and then we can just you know it's on an action item so if whatever action we want to take group or phone or the like we can we can do that up at the regular council work session thank you thank you so does that does that conclude does that conclude the presentation of this agenda item okay all right thank you we will then go on to agenda item e3e if it was 3e or 4e excuse me receive report whole discussion give staff direction regarding the G Roland Vela athletic complex capital project good afternoon mayor council members my name is Laura parents and I'm the assistant director for parks and recreation as we've been discussing some funding strategies for this project I wanted to give you kind of a brief overview of this project from its inception and how we got to where we are today funding history this project was originally funded through the 2005 bond program at 1.6 million it was broken at into land acquisition the construction of the soccer fields and then the restroom and concession stand in 2014 an additional 1.333 was added in the 2014 bond program for design construction fixtures and project management over time approximately 1.4 has been added from various sources including project fund savings general fund gas well revenue and park dedication which is the 916 I'm sorry 915 funds and then here recently five hundred and seventy five thousand dollars was transferred from the general fund actually in December the 12th 2017 so that's an overview of the funding specifically for this project looking at the different evolutions of our sites for this project it originally started back in 2005 at the CH Collins complex it called for land acquisition three adult fields with lighting and irrigation a restroom and con cession stand and the issue ended up being that the proposed site was part of the stormwater detention area so that project was abandoned on that site in 2008 we began looking at some different property and purchased the property along highway 77 for 1.3 million dollars that was a joint project between parks and the police department just under a million dollars of certificates of obligation CO's were used for the purchase of the property and 384,000 was used from that original 2005 CIP bond program the purpose of the purchase and of that property was for the animal care facility and the expansion of North Lakes Park at that time we had spent approximately fifty thousand dollars for design of the soccer complex the amenities in that design included four to six adult fields the restroom and concession stand a playground area and a picnic area the issue with that location was the encroachment on natural preserve area I want to share with you the original concepts at that site so you can see this is the property that was purchased the animal shelters currently in this area this is a proposed side of the athletic fields all of this area today is natural preserve this was a second concept that was shared with the public at that time and then the third concept was for the six fields so fast forward to 2012 with the purchase of the current location on Rainey Road that land was purchased for a million dollars and you can see the breakout of the funding at that time 2005 funding was used just half a million dollars there 250 for gas well revenue from gas well revenue and 250,000 from an open space CIP the purpose was for the athletic complex we have 273 dollars in on design and the amenities were for four adult fields that included LED lighting and irrigation restroom and concession stand playground pavilions in a parking lot so the actual amenities and scope really didn't change that much from the original project this is the design concept for the current location and a review of the funding strategies that we've discussed with you include a presentation that was done in September at that time we had an engineers probable estimate of five point one four million dollars with a total project cost of five point six seven that included some pro rate is that are owed to a developer who installed the infrastructure for water and sewer and we had a two point five million dollars short shortfall the funding strategy that was proposed was to use some funding from two 2014 projects nine hundred and forty five thousand dollars from a property acquisition project and a million dollars from the southwest master plan park project an additional five hundred and forty five thousand was yet to be identified that was the that was the last funding gap that we that we had at that time we were given direction by council to move forward with this plan so on December the 12th we came back with a new engineers probable cost of five point five and the shortfall was then two point three the funding strategy to fill that gap was to reallocate general fund fund balance and the amount of five seventy five which was approved and to use that one point seven five and CIP funds council approved the reallocation of the fund balance but the bond oversight committee requested that we look at different options rather than using the funds from the 2014 bond program so today we're left at six million dollars for the total project cost that is based on the that's based on the bids that we've received and the opportunity to review those through the RFP process we have three point two million dollars in available funding our proposed strategy which is presented to you on December the 12th was for two point seven in the reallocation of funds I'm sorry this was proposed to you just on March 27th two point seven million dollars for the reall ocation of funds that included one point five in the use of previously issued CO's and that was related to the RTR reallocation now we do have another option in just using all CEO bonds or available funding and not the reallocation of the art RTR funding and one point three dollar I'm sorry one point one in general fund resources and unallocated project savings additionally we do have three construction options for you to consider in that funding strategy the first one is for the full amount and I believe in your backup I've outlined how we structured our bid into a base bid that included two fields some of the well the concession stand the restroom and part of the parking lot the alternate bids were for the for the full build out so at six million we have the full build out this is the bids plus the alternates at five point five we have an option that will allow for the construction of the restroom well all four all four fields the construction of the restroom and concession stand the playground the full parking area what would be removed are going to be the pavilion areas and f encing the parks department would be responsible for hydro mulching and the procurement and installation of amenities which would include like seating benches and so forth so is there an itemized amount for how much each of these things cost to see is it it's an exhibit okay in your backup yes and the final option is at four point six this is going to be essentially your base bid items which are the two fields a portion of the parking lot the con cession I'm sorry that yes the concession stand in restroom and the playground area so just to outline those project options again option number one would be to proceed as proposed on March 27 using the previously issued CEOs and unallocated CIP funding for the full cost of the project option number two would be to identify and utilize a combination of certificate of obligations and other available sources of funding for the full cost of the project and then option number three would be to select one of the two lower cost designs and fund utilizing identified available funding just wanted to point out an option to we have on here identify a combination of CEOs and cash or general fund reserves we've identified we do have the money in general fund reserve you could all you could cash fund this out of your general fund reserves and not use any other CEOs to fully fund the project that 1.5 million dollars that would take you reserve down the general fund about 21% of expenses and our target for reserves is 20 to 25 percent so you'd still be in that range so I just want to clarify that under option two certainly could issue more CEOs but you have the cash to do that okay so I have a question and I never mind explain to me first of all this concession stand is nine hundred thousand dollars how big is it you know the restrooms it's obviously got female restrooms how big that just seems like an awful lot of money for a concession stand given though that we've spent three or four hundred thousand dollars on a restroom somebody's just gonna have to really help me understand that because concession stand I don't think they're are they preparing food there do they prepare so hot dogs or stuff like that so just a small kitchen something that allows them to do something that just I mean that's over 15% of the project cost of the project is the concession six million dollars 10 percent six hundred thousand is eight so and it's it's not a complaint or criticism anybody I just somebody's got to help me understand how that how that price is out at that I mean so that's just a personally I'm okay with either option one or two I mean if we're gonna do it let's do it but I want to understand how these costs are coming because when I look at the parking lot of 209 spaces and I multiply that times the 3,200 per space that we just saw on City Hall the new City Hall that comes out to about a hundred thousand or so more than what's in that estimated cost so I'm just trying to get more comfortable with the numbers I mean I'm okay with the project in the sense of that's if we're gonna do it let's do it but we don't want to be coming back here in six months and saying well it's now six point five million and so that those are my questions just the concession stand primarily and that's nine hundred thousand dollars so it's about sixteen hundred square feet that includes the for both facilities not only do we have that space to accommodate a full-service concession stand but it also requires plumbing and so forth or the for you know washing your hands and food prep area on the men's and women's each bathroom includes three stalls and then of course you know the the washing facilities as well there yeah I really I appreciate that I do and because to me I built things so I know what rough-in plumbing costs your main costs are in the you know you want that facade to maybe even be the structure such that it's pseudo safety area but I just somebody's please just give me a breakdown of how we come to that and then we're gonna go Councilmember Gregory and then Councilmember Briggs well you hit up on the point because my understanding is is that on these buildings we're building them to a higher level of a higher level of construction so that they do become safe zones for people that there's a storm it has that been figured into this cost and how much does that add to the cost yeah I have to go back and look at the specific detail about that I can tell you that when we were looking at the construction documents it had a surprisingly high occupant load for what you know more than what I'd want in a bathroom facility but yes and again they're outdoor facilities they're meant you know to be 20 year structures and so I can definitely go back and look at the breakout of those costs I can also tell you I'm just a little bit of you know background on the bids themselves this was sent out to over 600 potential contract contractors and vendors we had seven that submitted bids through this process that was across the board consistently the one highest you know priced yes and they and they were all consistently you know within the within I say ballpark and now it's you know but it's it's the yes they were all they were all consistently high but also all within the same range so for each one this bid that we're currently under we've gone back and have now a best and final offer and it 's good through May the 18th so back to the restroom is that the same one that we did in North Lakes because I remember that kind of a similar conversation about a concession restroom that we upgraded at North Lakes Park but it was in around 600,000 and that was even hard to to get past so is how does that one compare is it I would have to go back in and look at to see what the construction model was for that upgrade okay and compared to this I don't know immediately and on the is it possible for the trees to use the tree fund to reduce some of that cost because I know that we have put other trees in the parks with that fund that is correct is that something that was considered or no no we didn't look at the available funding within the tree mitigation fund which which you're you're correct we have used it for other park projects I didn't I don't know immediately what the if that would fit within the requirements on this project I know that we're looking to have a an update on the tree fund policy that we 're bringing back I believe next week around the 17th to council to have a discussion about that and that's a direction of the council we can look and see what's the cost of the plannings and did you want to include that other tree fund or not we could certainly consider that yes okay the only reason I bring it up is the fire stations are built for safe zones as well parts of the fire stations and I think they're coming in at about three or four about $400 a foot is at least station four is what we did or station three and this is coming in at $550 a foot or close to $600 a foot so yeah any anyway I just need some help with that that's not a criticism of anybody that's just more about I mean where is that and if anything split it out as you'd said maybe split it out and bid it separately on it I mean it's just a commercial building that doesn't have it's got open space kitchen plumbing electrical probably concrete walls or cinder block concrete filled walls so I think at this point we can we can certainly move forward with the project deleting the the bathroom structure and in the you know that building and building on its own with the fine last and final offer I mean the cost is what it is right now and so if that's something you'd like us to take a look at that's fine I'm not sure any answer we bring back to you right now is going to satisfy that kind of a square footage cost and we can certainly go out and look for different options and just delete that out of the project budget and we're happy to do that and happy to bring you other ideas and and options at a lower budgetary price councilmember yeah for me I think you can accomplish the same thing with food trucks if you were to have them there just have you know utility so that they can plug in and be there in service whatever again I have the idea earlier I've not seen anything in the presentation maybe I missed it I think you can find someone to sponsor it I think you can absolutely gobble up half that cost by naming rights if someone would research it I'm certain you'd be the only show in town for tournaments and I think you can you can eat some of that cost and in the restroom side of things maybe it's a it's an avenue instead of if we talked about purchasing a mobile unit park it out there and then use it otherwise you know but it may it's it's cheaper than I can get back to that line on them but it's it's cheaper than the number that comes associated with it being fixed but I think the food trucks you know does span the restroom thing I think you need obviously but I think the the food side of things you can you can meet that need but I too I think if I if you ask the question it's probably because it's in the middle of a field that the cost gets way out of whack but and then on the funding side of things I look forward to the presentation on that that frontage to see where that goes and again I I think if the the marketing side of things we're missing an opportunity if we don't investigate that I have two two things one related to RTR and the other related to the concessions I second what councilmember Hutsmith said the idea of building a concession stand let's say it's half the cost of the nine hundred thousand spending four hundred fifty thousand dollars to build I'm guessing there's some plumbing and grease trap I don't know what is involved in a concession stand I mean people want to sell their products at the parks but they're not allowed to by ordinance if I remember correctly and I'm remembering from when I was kicked off of parks property for selling my popsicles so that's actually a thing and I think people want to sell products there and the people who are there also want product diversity as opposed to just some gross hot dogs so I would say that not only can we eliminate the cost of the concession stand we can also create a source of revenue for the city at Austin Street food truck park monthly parking is started at 400 when they first opened so you have a way to actually generate some revenue for the city save yourself costs and expense and provide a better amenity for the people who are going to these events so again I'm I mean I'm in favor of completing this project but I can't be in favor of the concession stand and I wasn't in favor of it with the water park either it's just this huge cost that it doesn't make sense for us as a city to be in the hot dog business I just don't understand it the second question I had was regarding the RTR funds I understand that we can cash fund this entire thing which I would be in favor of doing that first but I was hoping that I would get some type of briefing on you know how are the RTR funds being moved and you know does ITS know about this and etc yeah I can give you a few details on that so we've been looking at that with John Polster and ITS we've talked about it with Martin Nelson director of transportation and Todd Estes our director of capital projects so essentially we're overmatched on the project for not only the funds that we personally put into the project from the city of Denton but also the Denton County match as well so all of these monies I want to be clear it's the interest earnings on the RTR funds that would be applied to RTR projects Monty brain Mayhill all it does is it frees up dollars that we have already issued in CEOs for that purpose and allows us to reallocate the CEOs to this particular project but certainly if you wanted to look at cash funding it that's a way to do it as well but we believe we're overmatched on the project we have more than more than our match that's required okay so I appreciate that but I did want to clarify that the entirety of the project the entire Bonnie Bray project which is the six or seven phases is under funded that's correct so for that particular portion we may be having an overmatch but the whole project's under that that's correct and you know you can look at it two different ways you can take the 1.5 million dollars out of general fund and looking at applying that towards body brain in the future or you can apply it towards this project just to some degree it probably doesn 't matter it's just here's where we are at this point we have a bid for this project and that's why we're recommending those funds be used in this purpose it doesn't preclude you from trying to fund the rest of Bonnie Bray in a different manner down the road likewise with the highway 77 project I know there 's or the land that's at that intersection we're gonna have a briefing to you next week on that and we can talk about various options there's other parks projects coming down the pike in the next couple of years and that could be used to offset some of those costs as well and funds can be moved around for other projects as well well that helps clarify the RTR portion of things I 'm still in favor of doing cash funding primarily just as long as nothing goes to a concession stand I would suggest option to cash funding using those RT R funds to to roll back into the body worry project when that when it's needed to do so I would suggest it along with option to that that we seek an alternative to just building the restrooms and not not adding the concession stand see how that changes the price of that facility I think that we need those I think that we need that structure and I'm saying that it's a point of view of having been a parent of children that have been playing on athletic fields for a lot of years and facing more than a few times when we were all told to seek cover because of lightning storms or hailstorms coming and a trailer with restrooms in it is not where I want to go nor nor should you go and get in a car neither one of those places are safe you need to have some restrooms out there and people are going to feel very very sorry and very very bad about a decision to not build a structure like that when not if but when a storm rolls through and there's softball size hail or high winds and people get hurt it's just that's a that's a false sense of economy to cut out those kinds of structures that provide not only essential services for the patrons but but a refuge absolutely the restroom building would would be required in terms of the concession stand mayor Pro Tem you're absolutely correct there isn't city ordinance it prohibits people from setting up and selling in in the in in the parks through our special events through that process and coming to council with those in-kind services and ordinances and that sort of thing that that then is not it is a way that is allowed for those for those types of special events in our parks but in general having a food truck at this point is not something that we would be allowed to do just to have them set up in a parking lot in our parks or on our park property but but we could we could change the ordinance absolutely we could to to to because we our ordinance allows for vendors to set up in our parks for some special events so we could adjust the ordinance the point of that is that people don't get to operate businesses on city property without paying back something to the city because they're not supposed to have that advantage and city cannot give away those kinds of services correct correct the only other thing I'd like to point out in terms of the concession stand is having some sort of structure though where we would be able to provide even the most basic I mean we've got to have somebody out there that is providing water Gatorade even even some of those small snack items that's not only is that you know an amenity but that's that 's also something that's a draw for that which I certainly think being able to to open up our options for those draws like a food truck park in there would definitely be beneficial and I could see that as being an advantage to our marketing and and again a draw to bring in tournaments and so forth but just still having that available you know that ability to offer some of the basic concession stand items I think is still necessary in terms of having just those small snack items and and water specifically water and Gatorade and drinks there yes another thing I'd like to explore the the playground area again I'm not I'm not trying to nickel-and-dime the project but I am trying to nickel-and-dime the project because spending is tight you know and so for me I envision an open area it can be turf it could be whatever that it could be a mock soccer field but you know I don't know that we have to put the equipment in there if there's a playground just across the park at North Lakes you know for that but for a tournament I think kids can can get in there and run around and have miniature goals and call it done for me just because again you don't when your budget is tight at home you cut back you know it's not like you hey I'm just gonna somehow to work out you know it's not reality so I think to install playground equipment I think it's great if we had the money but the fact that we're what oh five so we're running a little behind we had to cut that out to get it done would be my preference and I think that that plays well just a small soccer field for kids to get in there run around and and and and I think that would function just fine whatever that cost is I'm fine with the whatever we end up on the concession stand I'm fine with I have one thing though if we're going if we're gonna go push for if we do end up with a con cession stand I think we almost have to go take a plunge off the deep end and go get the kind of like some sort of soft drink thing because then you can that's what a profit margin is if I got to go if I go to Sam's and buy the Gatorade wholesale and sell it I'm not making near as much if I buy a box of syrup for 20 bucks and I sell a cup with ice for a dollar each you know again it's just a financial thing but I think when you're talking margins and you're talking recouping you're talking utilization I think we need the best use versus just buying something and marking it up and and not really recouping just my thoughts councilmember Brace so for me as I have said before in other conversations I'm not necessarily in favor of the complete project especially knowing our true community needs I have a really hard time approving six million dollars on a soccer field I think we should build what we can afford and and I don't know that that that's the best option for us so I I'm in favor of the the smaller one to start and then expand on that but I don't think I have other people here that are in my same camp what and the only reason that I'm not honestly and I mean I certainly understand that but when I looked at what you got for the four point four million and then adding two more fields the incremental cost is much it's less only because you've done all your infrastructure costs upfront on that and so so let's I mean as I'm looking at this cost I just realized I realized that the concession stand is is at eight hundred and eighty nine thousand and I agree with you about a space for snacks water I get that but and councilmember Hudson with you had said it's out in the middle of a field correct so in addition to the eight hundred eighty nine thousand and maybe I'm wrong if you could put the full project schematic or site plan or conceptual drawing up all right so what is the structure okay I see there's looks like there's something not come down that what is that these are some pavilion okay so the only water and electricity and sewer the electricity is for the lights the course the the lights but it's also for the concession stand so you're already running electrical there but your water and sewer is directly related to the concession stand in restrooms correct which is water for the irrigation of the irrigation yes so you've got a hundred and fifteen thousand for the water sewer and drainage so some of that cost also goes to the concession stand just to get the water and the sewer to there so it sounds like we're sort of between a rock and a hard place in the sense of you're saying that the best and final expires in May and you had sort of thrown out the suggestion of can we you know split out the restroom part and in the concession stand not to say we're not doing it but is there a way to modify that because I envisioned you could mean maybe for the same cost you could get your restroom this concession stand sort of limited when you're talking about a parking space that allows food trucks to come in with the electrical there to supply and then you're receiving revenue off of that which will at least but what I'm hearing you say is how difficult is that going to be to take that out and then say to the contractor hey we're going to subtract well I don't know how much you subtract I mean you're your sewer is strictly for the that's strictly for the restrooms I mean that's you don't need that for irrigation yeah we would have to negotiate we'd have to negotiate that out and and obviously we could take a look at bringing you other options we could I'm sitting here kind of thinking of other ways of doing that I could I can envision partnering this with the American Legion contractor you know there's lots of ways that we could kind of go at this to try to get somebody out there I mean when you see a bit like that typically it's because it's not somebody's area of expertise and they're subbing it out so there's profit on top of profit so you know we're happy to bring you other options good modular buildings we could bring you you know all sorts of different options and we could also take a look at combining it with another building project and seeing if that helps the pricing but I think right now there's just not much room to negotiate on the 889 with that best and final sort of take it or leave it and if you want to leave it that's fine we can get there a different way and bring you other alternatives so so are you saying that you feel comfortable going back and saying hey we want to take the restroom concession building out and just subtract that from the contract of 3.1 through a 3.4 million which knocks it down to about 2 point that's something that's on the base bid yeah yeah so that yeah that first piece that you're looking at is just a base bid that's exactly what we do because then the water the water in the sewer that's still in there the electrical still in there so it's it's still you're still getting it to the side you're getting the infrastructure to the side and this all somebody's got to do is rough it in hook it up and yeah I mean if that's a way to go then I'd be okay with that because I really think we can get it done cheaper than that I just even to provide shelter even to provide shelter because yeah I'm okay with that okay and I'm okay with cash funding and or RTR stuff I have y'all want to do it I just if we're gonna build it let's build it and understand that if we did half of it at 4.4 for another one and a half million dollars you get basically the whole thing you get you get another 50 percent of it and that's just the economies of scale now if you do so do we have a have we looked at the need for these type of fields are we out I mean do we not have the availability are they all scheduled out in other words we're at our max we're busting at the seams for this kind of facility because soccer is becoming so popular it's my understanding that we have been out for quite some time and have been unable to expand on our current programs because of the lack of facilities that we have okay well parks are certainly a part of you know quality of life in a city and so I'm okay with the proposed full build out as long as we can get our costs in line yes yeah just on the parking how how is parking I guess when you have an apartment complex you have a ratio so how is parking for facility like this determined with the spaces I know I know it's similar in that it's got it has a ratio a formula based on the use I believe the number of fields and the attendance but I do know that it's it's also a formula based on the use okay so like the soccer players and then the parents okay yeah I'm okay with option two I would like some other council members have said I would prefer to keep the RTR funds on the bonding project and as far as the project as a whole I'd like to see it without the concession stand but we can as far as water and snacks that can be handled through vending machines and then come back with a change of ordinance that we would allow rental space for food trucks to be out there would you like to repeat what you think the direction is okay so it's my understanding then that we will move forward with the exception of the concession stand in the building we'll pull that piece out I'll get with purchasing to make contact with the contractor that we're currently working with and see how that would affect the bid and we'll come back with you with some information yeah so let's not be surprised that that won't be a dollar for dollar reduction so I just I mean put that out there so we may be back at this from ground zero the other thing I'd like to try to bring you back is some detailed information on why the cost is the way that it's been bid there may be some valid reasons on the infrastructure or some issue that we're not aware of that we can't explain sure we'll go back and look at that and make sure is it a reasonable basis for how those costs were arrived at is it something related to the linear feed of water lines going out into that area or something like that I don't know but we'll look at that and see if there's a basis for that if not and we'll look at the other other piece of what how can we could pull it out and what would be the impact on the bids well to bid this they had to have had some construction drawing absolutely yes sir it was designed so the look so the concession stand has construction drawings associated with it with building specs building materials yes well if you could just send me a copy of you know email just a letter form not to not the actual drawings but you know how big it is what kind of okay using a head act block with concrete fill or you know what's the interior finish I mean I think that would and practice your solutions to consider lowering lowering the cost of still keeping the building but doing some different I mean if they're going down 30 feet for peers I mean no I mean so if you've got those specs I'd love to see them will do yep all right turn any other questions that's it thank you anything else all right thank you okay now we're on to a see when did we take a break last 110 yeah let's take let's take a break all right wanted to welcome about everybody back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on April 3rd 2018 it's about 330 we are at our agenda item for F which is receive report hold discussion give staff direction on a draft ethics ordinance from attorney Alan Borquez is that right no say did I really yes sir okay good thank you thank you thank you mayor council we're here primarily today to talk about two things changes between drafts B and C and then my responses to some of the questions or feedback that we've forgotten that we've gotten from the public and from some members of the City Council the first thing I want to bring up is one that actually did not make the slide deck I'm sorry but it's in your in your packet if you look at draft C on page 8 you will see where I tried to add a section I added language trying to capture what I understood to come up from the public discussion during the last public hearing and that is under mandates a business disclosure requirement and it requires the city officials to submit an annual report to the auditor naming the human individuals with which the city official has a business relationship in the form of a partnership limited partnership limited liability partnership limited liability corporation or professional corporation and that these shall be done within 90 days of taking office and annually and this is this was an issue that I understood seemed to be raised by a member of the public was discussed by the council there was some council support for it I don't know that it was a majority but I tried to to add some language to this requirement this would be an additional disclosure it would not itself trigger an ethics violation unless the city official failed to turn in their report after they were notified that they had forgotten to turn in their report and it also clarifies that just having a business relationship with someone does not necessarily create a conflicting interest that would preclude the city official from participating in deliberations it's just a disclosure requirement so the public has that information so the first question is do you think I you think I got it right that I capture what was discussed at the public hearing and if so is this the kind of provision you want to include in the ordinance I guess for me I don't see the need to do it as an annual report I think if something comes before councilors pending before councils at that point it should be disclosed but when you say all city officials we're also including P&Z and ZBA and you're creating additional paperwork for both of them as well because they're not they're not even required currently to fill out a financial disclosure so it's it's putting additional information out there that is available from the Secretary of State's office if someone wants to to find it it's it's just a matter of where you send the open records request understood yes so yes so I like the language and yes it does address that's one of the concerns I've heard and I get depending on what everyone else says I think John has a fair point it's as you know notify as it's coming up or what that is I don't know the timing of it but I could see it not being annually but as needed depending on what everyone else thinks I think the language reflects what we'd heard but I don't think it's necessary the way it 's done this full report of everyone that I'm doing business with it's not it 's not germane unless that particular business is coming before counsel and at that time if we do a disclosure if we require disclosure that would be the time when a disclosure would be necessary I think it's putting I think it could put some burdens on folks that that don't necessarily want their names out there with all of these different not the person not the council member but other members of a corporation that don't necessarily want that all of those those business dealings that they're involved in to be part of the public record so if a business is coming before council for a deliberation and yeah yeah but not not not a blanket report I thought the way I mean I heard the comments I heard those comments that sort of reflect that language but I thought also heard from the day is that that there was a desire that if someone I don't know how to do it other than to give an example you know I'm I'm on council and let's say councilmember Gregory is coming before for a rezoning or whatever that I have no interest no financial interest no nothing I mean it's it 's strictly arms length but councilmember Gregory and I are involved in some limited partnership in some other unrelated activity what I thought I heard was yes we would want there to be disclosure of that unrelated activity business interest prior to obviously taking a vote on it which I'm okay with because I think it would I mean I think count mayor pro tem had maybe mentioned that it become part of the official notice of recusal in other words you could have another section that says I'm just disclosing this and it's an official form whereas I think we'd also discussed earlier in the work session that same day where councilmember Briggs has said well if I want to file a voluntary disclosure voluntarily sign one because my friend best friends something's coming council so either one of those as far as it being a blanket report when you first start I think that that could I think it puts a number one it goes to for me what is really what we're trying to accomplish with the ethics ordinance are we saying that we believe people on their face are going to act ethically but we need to give specific guidelines to ensure that they understand the rules that you can't do this you can do this and to ensure that people have an opportunity to know and that sort of goes to the avoid the appearance of so if you're disclosing I have a business interest with person X even though the issue before us is not about the business I have with person X I'm okay with that because that's when it arises in the beginning it 's like well okay I've got to disclose everybody and this isn't gonna affect me personally because I think I have one partner and I don't have any partners I'm thinking about people who have you know extensive business experience in the community would we want that to be a chilling effect as far as this blanket disclosure I have no problem with hey if I got a business interest with Jim Smith but it's not before us what harm does it do for me to disclose that so that those are my thoughts on it I just I think it's moving to the point of are we getting outside of what we're really trying to achieve and that is hey just tell us just tell us what what's going on with you at the time it's going on because what's not included in there were professional what were corporations were s-corps were regular corporations where you might be a shareholder you might be a an office holder or you the person before the council might be an office holder well and what's really not in there which I understand the disclosure of the business part but folks I'll say it again I think if we're trying to avoid influence and the appearance of influence your best friend can have more influence on you than you know coming before I mean who knows I mean your customer depending on what level of customer they are with your own business and this doesn't address customers and we've got some people may be talking to us tonight in the public hearing about that so there comes a point I have to go okay any anything could influence and anything could be taken construed as an appearance but what is it that we're really trying to achieve with with this and I'm okay with disclosing it at the time of the issue as it arises I would struggle with saying hey you just got to disclose everybody you're doing business with notwithstanding whether it's ever an issue or not because we're really trying to avoid the issue so that that's where I am on that I mean I think that goes to councilmember Ryan 's you know do we and sort of councilmember Hussbuss of hey let's disclose it the timing of it seems to be more the question than the actual desire to disclose I don't think anybody is gonna say we don't want to disclose it but what's the timing of it so that those are my thoughts one thing I've tried to look out for as your advisor in this process is is pitfalls landmines that were you know we 're bearing today to step on two years from now and I'm a little concerned about adding the language we're discussing unless we really draw it down in narrowly because my concern is if we don't word this right what could happen is you know an application comes before the City Council for either a contract or some sort of approval the applicant is a corporation a corporate entity of some point point the representative is not any officer with the corporation is going to be a spokesperson whether it's an engineer or an architect or a lawyer or general manager or something else that corporation is made up of people and those people might be people that a member of the City Council is in another business relationship with and so it's not going to be obvious to the City Council member just looking at the agenda packet for that item that they have a relationship now they're in a business relationship with someone that also has another interest over here that's coming before the City Council and so I think if we're going to go forward with this sort of disclosure I would want to word it narrowly that if it's the applicant and define that is a person with whom the City Council member is in a business deal with or the applicant is a corporation which is a partner with the council member in another corporation because as you know sometimes a limited partner in one corporation is a general partner in a different corporation those are entities those aren't human beings but if I word it that narrowly that might be a reasonable request to make of a City Council member anything beyond that is really kind of setting them up for failure I think so that 's a good point but when you mentioned no buts when you mentioned the business disclosure in this language you said listing the names of human individuals so I thought why in the world is he saying but now I see what you're saying is because corporate corporations S corps corporations are legal entities they 're just not quote unquote humans so you're saying because corporations are left out of this list because I mean S corps and if I go down just file corporate filing unless I'm missing it because it says professional corporations which is a PC which is like an attorney general partnership limited partnership limited liability LLC LP because you might not know if the person who is before you has an interest in a business a corporation that you have an interest if it's strictly as a shareholder but if we're not including corporations that sort of excludes that knowledge and I would also want to think that you would have to have actual knowledge of that I mean you'd have to have actual knowledge that this person is involved because it would be I think it would be pretty harsh to impugn constructive knowledge or notice that I should have known that this person is in business with in this partnership when it might be a large limited liability partnership or a large limited liability corporation that they might be a member of but they don't necessarily know all the members so maybe they should I mean that's a different question but I'm open to the concept but I think you're right it needs to be crafted in a way to not create some unintended consequences and to provide clarity of the rules because that's really what we're trying to do here is what do we I think so and I think the law firm example is a great example it's a terrible example I mean large law firms where every lawyer is his or herself is an LLC or an LLP but they operate under a broader umbrella you may not know who else those folks are in business with and I wouldn't want to create a paper filing problem that's not realistic for someone yeah yeah is that the is that the will of the council on this is that something that we can I mean we can work with conceptually as far as it sounds like there's a consensus we want notice if you're the applicants before you and you have another business interest with them that's unrelated to the interest before the council you're being asked to deliberate on or consider that you disclose that is that sort of what you're and figure out how to craft that language in a way that is clear and concise and sort of tight I'll try to tighten it down a little bit more before next draft D comes out the second one that I wanted to mention which is not on slide deck is if you turn to page 13 of draft C section 113 I subsequent work I added some language to just clarify that this prohibition on a former city official working on a contract that they had dealt with when they were at City Hall it's more than just voting the language had already said that the person had personally and substantially participated in the negotiation award or administration of the contract so for any member of P&Z board of adjustment or City Council just to have regular deliberations on an item and to vote on an item is not going to trigger this prohibition but if you push behind the scenes and sit down in the meetings negotiating and tried to bring this deal to life to vote on it one day leave City Service the next and go to work on that contract would probably be viewed as unethical in many people's eyes so to strengthen the language we have here I added this additional language for clarification purposes and there was also some concern I received after the last hearing about is two years too long should it be limited in duration and so I threw out the possibility of doing it for just a year for your consideration one question I have is on the new language proposal where you have the word deliberations yes sir it's capitalized yes so I went back to the definition of deliberations and it says discussions at the dais voting as a member of the border Commission as a member of the audience before any City Board of Commission this term does not apply to a general vote on a board on a broad comprehensive or ominous motion such as approval of the city budget and so that definition of deliberation it seems to encompass more than what you sort of had described in other words unless that unless I'm reading that wrong if that just means hey you're up on the dais you're deliberating staffs talking Africans talking we're all talking and then we all vote that's what you're saying doesn't preclude you under that subsequent work that that kind of behaviors if hey will you come to this staff meeting will you meet with me individually to talk about this project and see you know what we can do with some of these issues that you you're meeting privately you 're meeting with city staff in other words it's more than just reading the backup listening to the staff presentation in public and the advocacy of everybody involved whether they're for or against the project at the public hearing or the you know in the public meeting it's something you're saying it goes beyond that you have to do something beyond that is that my understanding yes okay where I would want to apply this subsequent work on prior projects rule is a someone at the at the dais is truly a champion a champion of a project they're pushing it through they're making the introductions they're negotiating the deal they're encouraging others to vote for it council votes for it and then when they leave City Council they go to work for that company or go to work for that vendor that's what this is meant to preclude do you think the deliberations language is too broad to do well now I've got a I've got a question about your example okay because we're in the public meeting the applicant is before the council talking about obviously an applicant's gonna advocate for their project is or her project and they're going to refute opposition or pitfalls and try to and so I thought what I heard you say is if you 're involved in that give-and-take at the dice of someone who's I think you were was strongly advocating or really trying to push it through and it's at the public meeting that somehow then there's a line that gets crossed that would trigger this prohibition as compared to if they only did a little bit or they didn't do much that you're you're not subject to it so I'm a little I was a little confused by that so I thought I'm not sure I really quite understand where the line is is what I'm saying because I think there needs to be a line I just I just don't think that just because you vote on a project that when you get off council somehow if you just you got seven people up here voting got staff making presentation and all that so and I'll be quiet on filib ustering I'm gonna go over to councilmember thank you no I think I think the line and what I hear and I think it's the clarity helps I think to your question mayor Watts I think for me the line is it's done in public right so even that advocating is tenacious as you are that's all recorded that's all archive and to me that's the line of delineation it becomes if I come in separate and apart from our regular meeting and I'm having private meetings and that sort of advocacy I think that to me is what I take from the new language but no no I appreciate that yeah appreciate that yes councilman well I need to be clear on a couple of things because it's on more than a few occasions when there's as you're seeing people that are trying to figure out how they're going to vote whether this is a good project for the city or it's not a good project for the city people on the council will make a statement as to I'm supporting this and I think it's a good project for this reason when does that become advocacy and it sounds like maybe if it's it's stated in public that may be not a problem as far as private meetings are concerned we're asked to have private meetings a developer comes in and and they want to meet with council members individually to really fully explain the project and and make sure that that that they understand it and maybe understand what your object what what a council members objections might be to it and they may modify their proposal a little bit as a result of that is that private meeting considered stepping over some line that that that impacts future employment opportunities if you're meeting with somebody just to get information by the way I don't want any more jobs no I 'm not asking this for me but but with meeting with a developer to get information on a project and maybe saying I can't go with it or I don't think you're gonna get enough votes from council if you do it that way you're gonna have to modify it because nobody's gonna buy that have you stepped over the line some line for I don't know let's follow through with that so you take you take a one-on-one hypothetical meeting with a developer they do their sales pitch you give them back information saying I'm not sure I can support it I doubt you're gonna get council support okay well what do we need to get this passed we need to do ABC one two three and they do those modifications their proposal it comes before council you sit a council and say hey I met with these folks we negotiated this I think it's fantastic this is a great thing for the city all in favor say aye it passes your term of office is up in two months and you go to work to be their new chief information officer and legislative liaison is that something that instills pride and a sense of comfort and trust in the citizens of Denton probably not and so this is what that's meant to prevent from happening if the language is an artful or too broad I'm happy to tweak it but I think that's what we're trying to do and if I need to strengthen it or cut it back I'm happy to but I think it's those sorts of things that have led cities to put that sort of thing in their origins there is a line it's a bit nuanced I think if one were to engage in that hypothetical you just described right under this language they would be looking at a complaint they would come before the Board of Ethics and defend themselves and try to convince them that I was just being helpful and then I took a job okay yeah because the wording is it says personally and substantially participated in the negotiation award or administration of the contract or other arrangement I don't know what the other arrangement is I'm assuming it could be a zoning request I don't know what that really meant I mean are you just saying it talks about an arrangement for the provision of goods services and real property other things of value yes and so I was trying not to repeat that entire line yeah okay that's the arrangement that it's referring to okay all right well I think I think the wording that you have added improves it okay okay good I think I will add the public language about deliberations that Councilman Hudsp eth mentioned and that this is during a meeting and further tighten up that new language what does what does everyone thought year versus two years I may have missed where we were with that oh I'm sorry near protein throw that hot coffee the one year the change from two year to one year that was for consistency sake if I remember correctly or am I change am I missing something there what there was there's been some post public hearing chatter about two years being too long of a period that this section and also the shall not represent before council sections should be cut back to one year after someone is off P&Z Board of Adjustment or council so I think I remembered the P&Z part of our discussion where we decided it would be one year but if I'm misremembering please tell me if we have it as one year and other portions I would want it to be just consistent that's I mean I I'm okay with one year I think really what this does is it kind of puts city officials and public officials on notice that if you want to get really into the nuts and bolts of some particular issue don't expect to go work for them after so I'm okay with it everybody I mean one year seems to be okay councilmember Br iggs I didn't okay consensus okay okay so moving on in section 114 I added some language regarding the city auditor at the auditors request further clarification that just because someone reports something on the audit hotline does not create an obligation for the city auditor to invest those allegations under the ethics ordinance that's something separate yes I 'm sorry mayor put him go ahead that was one of mr. Joel DeLau's requests right yes just want to clarify you'll still run its process and go through however y'all handle calls to that hotline but does not create a burden on the auditor or his office themselves to investigate those under this ordinance I added a section that was just an accidental omission on my part in 117 regarding the Board of Ethics whenever you create a board and as point members you want to have an exit strategy and we hadn't mentioned that the ordinance was silent on that and so I suggested that we can remove a board member for cause with a two-third vote that's a high majority but there was a suggestion councilmember Briggs and then councilmember Gregory will this Board of Ethics be covered under this ethics ordinance yes and that's not included in our list of or is it I didn't see it nope that's a very good point but yes that's the intention some of us wouldn't be clear as to what for cause means I mean a good reason yes sir would you want more specificity and examples I don't know often you look in state statutes on things like for cause it's incompetence public intoxication derelict of duty neglect of duty those sorts of things I could easily borrow from another definition of for cause or check with your HR man it because I can imagine that somebody might think of for causes because you voted incorrectly and I don't know if that's cause or not typically the difference between at will and for cause is if you want to fire someone at will or due to lack of confidence you do not have to give a reason when you're stating that someone can only be terminated for cause you have to state a reason so that's the first threshold that makes it more difficult to fire them remove them from a position than anyone else the second difficulty that I put in this language is the supermajority requirement so if a super majority of the City Council wanted to fire someone because they didn't like the way they voted or handled a matter they could they would then have the political consequences of doing that but that that would be the case otherwise some rules will define what for cause is and provide examples of that which I can do I just didn't see the need to recommend it up front what's counts maybe the only one that has a concern about it I just wasn't sure Councilmember Duff on appointment of the board this board I like to suggest that you know we probably get volunteers to be on there our City Council people members can put somebody up but I think the when we when we select these people it should be absolutely done by the entire council you mean they're all voted on approved by the entire council entire entire council we're not just gonna each council member appoint somebody I think you know they can appoint they can nom inate somebody but I think it should be the entire council that votes on them and the current languages of the Board of Ethics shall be appointed by majority vote of the City Council the ordinance is not addressed nominations or how those come forward I'm not exactly sure what mr. Duff is saying I'll tell you that I've had conversations with council members that served on the council years ago who said they thought that we ought to deliberate in closed session we were told by our attorney that we can't except for certain boards in closed session to so that everybody could hear the concerns that anybody might have about an individual is that what you're saying are you you know right now pointing people to boards generally we nominate we nominate them but I just want to be sure that it is the entire council that votes on it because I think we generally just rubber stamp what everybody says I don't think we need to rubber stamp this and that's how it is yes our council has the entire council yeah yeah so Alan if are you gonna go to your memo are you gonna get to the questions yes or okay you are okay now I'll hold mine the first part of my presentation are the the changes between B and C okay and the second part is addressing the key parts of the memo okay you asked me to add a nepotism provision that was not in B and so I took very similar language to had what been in the Charter look at state law simplified it and tightened it up in regards to the the department supervisor provision elsewhere in our ordinance we already limit the the prohibited degrees of relationship to the third degree regardless of whether it's by blood or marriage so I did that same thing here it 's third degree which is broader than state law they can't work in the same department as there as a relative as a supervisor and also as with state law I put it in their exception for someone who was previously employed by the city before their relative came to work there so does is any of that or is all of that simply a restatement of what is in our Charter yes it's the same but I clarified it to make it a little bit easier to understand than what was in the Charter is there any possibility that somebody would would say that this conflicts with the Charter we we just want we've had some concerns from the very beginning we did the Charter amendment because we wanted to make sure that that that any ethics ordinance that we did wasn't thrown out on day one because it was conflicting with the Charter so I'm I'm a little bit anxious that if we put something in here about nepotism that's already covered in the Charter that we could we could jeopardize the I believe that provision in your Charter was repealed and it's no longer in the Charter and so the understanding I think at the time was if the voters were to repeal it the council would come back and replace it in some form in the ethics or but we didn't repeal the nepotism part of the Charter yes both the conflict of interest in the nepotism provisions were recommended by the Charter committee to be repealed okay or put on the ballot they were repealed so now I was just doing what he's explained bringing it back via the ethics ordinance okay thank you that helps any other questions at least for this slide okay we had some requests I said I would add a mailbox rule in terms of meeting the deadlines under the ordinance by dropping it in the mail I hope this one is sufficient then what I'm calling questions and answers we received I received several questions or hypothetical scenarios from either members of the City Council or some members of the public I went through and addressed those in a memo to the City Council hopefully you have those I tried to summarize and paraphrase them the best I could to make them concise I chose several of them to use in this a presentation to you I'll start with the background part first I was sent with sent an article that came out in January of this year dealing with the city of Bangor Maine the Bangor Maine scenario and I was asked to address this the Bangor Maine scenario is one where a city councilman in Bangor Maine has been accused of ethics violations because he was asked to disclose whether or not his corporation had dealings with the Chamber of Commerce the Chamber of Commerce being an entity that received certain funding from the city he said no not to his recollection whatever transactions went forward later is brought to his attention that yes he did indeed have a business that had dealings financial dealings with the Chamber of Commerce and so he disclosed that after the fact but nonetheless an ethics complaint was brought up against him and in that city's code of ethics the City Council had an opportunity to rule on the matter one way or the other or forward it to the Board of Ethics in this situation the City Council had a hearing really had no discussion apparently and voted to forward the matter to the Board of Ethics so now you have a City Council member in this main city who is frustrated having to go through this process and basically writes an op-ed piece commenting that the city's code of ethics and their disclosure requirements and this policing of disclosure requirements may have the effect of discouraging otherwise good citizens who are very active in the business community from volunteering for public service on city boards and commissions that tough ethics ordinances requiring them to disclose all their finances and business relationships might drive them away and so that's that's a summary what the article said I'm not sure what I'm meant to comment on about that I'll say that I basically agree I agree that a certain type of ethics ordinance could have that effect of deterring otherwise good citizens who want to contribute their time and effort it could deter them from doing so because they don't want to disclose those relationships they don't want to disclose those deal ings or they don't want to be put into a gotcha situation and have their name questioned because an ethics complaint is filed against them I think that's something that every city has to consider when they go through and either adopt an ethics code or amend an ethics code is are you achieving the results you're trying to achieve without unduly deterring good citizens from offering their service I think it's possible some of the best citizens who know the most about the community are the most plugged in and have the most to contribute may not want to because they have their fingers in a lot of pies and that's just something that you have to weigh I trust the City Council is aware of that risk and that when you're considering adopting the ordinance that we have you're considering whether or not it's too strict is it going to turn away good people is it going to achieve the results that you want are there any comments the council wants to engage in about that op-ed piece no I think your summary is is very helpful your perspective is helpful and I and I think that's there it leaves a lot of questions on that particular case I mean it's for me if you go before your peers and and those that quote unquote know you spent the most time with you and they don't buy into what you're selling then I think the angst for me in that scenario stops there as far as it's not so much indicative of the the document or or the policy it 's more a relationship issue at that point but I think the process what we're looking at works I mean you go before your peers and they've spent time with you they've been in all the conversation in those same conversations in that test scenario and they came away thinking no this needs to go forward for whatever reason I think that their system worked and it's not as indicative of a reflection on the document or the policies in and of itself and I think you capture it absolutely spot-on and I appreciate your your candor you have a decision to make you know and ultimately there's nothing that removes you having to make a decision if I'm going to run or not and it be it time requirements for whatever that is I mean you just have to evaluate those things what if I'm if I work for someone are they gonna let me off on Tuesdays if I'm if I'm self-employed am I gonna be able to sustain you know missing work I mean those just parts of what it takes to kind of consider running so I think you you captured and framed it well very helpful go ahead well I I appreciate the sentiments of the that editorial and I have some concerns about certain aspects of what we have in here that I'll talk about later because of that I know that that years ago there was attempts to change some of the rules in a way that would make it virtually impossible for anyone who was on the faculty or the staff of either of our universities to serve on council and I and I think it was intentionally done to try to prohibit those folks from getting involved there was that town and gown split that they didn't really have enough investment in the town to do it and that was fended off because first of all it's two of the biggest employers in the city and it would remove a lot of potential talent from the pool and I think that we have to be careful in this that we don't do something that 's regarded as as so anti-business that that it that it puts a chilling effect on anyone who who is active in businesses in town from morning to serve so I think that we have to keep that in mind and I'll address a couple of specifics later well I think for me I understood I read the same article that you did somebody sent it to me and I'm not sure what the concerns are that she'll bring up but I probably was more concerned just with some of the changes that were presented in this draft that we had not gone over yet but having gone over some of those like the subsequent work and the disclosure if you're before count you know some of these modifications we're making to what was presented in the backup I think it's doing a good job of trying to balance that that I can see how somebody might get discouraged but I personally at least what I've seen so far don't feel that it's overly onerous but there's a couple questions I have for clarification in the memo that will give me a little bit more clarity on that but I think we've I mean for your first shot at this our first shot at this I feel like we're really trying to strike a really good balance and up to this point I feel like that we personally I believe that we 've been able to do that in what we're trying to achieve with this ordinance based upon some of our discussion today okay we can get to specifics there's one scenario because it's along the same vein that I want to mention a couple scenarios were sent to me today and so I read them and prepared responses one was whether hypothetically an engineer could serve on city count excuse me an engineer serve on planning and zoning and once they're off of planning zoning they can't present a zoning case or meet with the planning department because that they've done that and the answer is that's true that would be true they couldn't that doesn't preclude their corporation their business their agency their team from attending those meetings and advocating it doesn't prevent other members of their team from going and meeting with the planning department but yes I think as as the current draft is written that that scenario would be true can I ask you a question of clarification on that if I could yes sir because that goes to one of my questions in your memo in your memo and your question for the question says do the restrictions of the end of memos in our backup do the restrictions on the representation of others and it gives the code number or subsequent work on prior projects prevent a former city official from accepting business from a new client simply because they had been on the City Council simply because when they had been on the City Council they had voted on a matter regarding the new client and they're saying new client but I'm gonna lump this into representation of others and subsequent work and so as I read through your your answer down at the very bottom of at least page one in you go through sort of the subsequent work example but then it stated merely voting on an agenda item wouldn't trigger either provision also in draft CF shortened the ban to just one year based on feedback from the public hearing so it's that sentence merely voting on an agenda item which we talked about for the subsequent work portion that yes if it's just before like let's take your example the engineer he's up on the dais all the meetings are happening in public it's the public forum he's voting like every the other seven members so that sentence seems to I don't know if I'd say contradict what you just said but it confuses me okay it says merely voting on an agenda item wouldn't trigger either provision and I'm assuming that either provision refers to restriction on the representation of others and subsequent work and that's correct but I can see where it'd be confusing it needs to be clarified it it's not the voting on a council agenda item that triggers anything under either one of those two sections it's the being a city official and then getting off the city's service for a period of one year that's going to trigger the ban on representing someone before the city in terms of the ban on working on a contract it's what we discussed earlier in the meeting it's so you see those differently okay I just wanted to make sure that so that that's helpful so we're that same logic of you're not substantially involved or negotiation or any of that as we did in subsequent work that's not the same principle that applies in representing someone for pay if you were on the council you cannot represent anybody for pay period whether whether they you voted on it or not I mean yeah that's correct into the current wording yep okay I mean to kind of revisit that representation of others there there are other cities that do it differently a P&Z member can't rotate off P&Z and then come back and advocate in favor of clients for pay before P&Z or board of adjustment could rotate off but not get paid to come back and advocate a board of adjustment the way we have it worded if you're a member of any one of these three bodies four bodies or the City Council you can't come back and receive compensation to advocate on someone's behalf for a period of a year okay regardless of how you voted well so I think I'm hearing the answer to your question to the question that was raised but I don't think that your answer aligns with or is necessarily supported by what I'm reading and at least the draft that I printed out on representation of others regarding former city officials because it doesn't say it doesn't have any qualifiers of you can your firm can represent them but you can't and I don't even know what that what difference that means because if if if I own Gregory engineering and and I 'm not representing the my client myself but one of my employees is representing them and the money goes to Gregory engineering and I own Gregory engineering even if it's a client even if it's an employee it's somebody that the benefit comes to me so I can address I attempted to address that in the last line so if you're looking at D representation of others to the very last line that was my effort to clarify this prohibition solely applies to the former city official and shall not be construed to apply to other persons but but if it's another person that's simply working for me and the benefits going to come to me as the owner of the business and that doesn't make sense okay but I'll go on further to say I think that that whole section should be removed okay because because I think that what it says what it says is that you know if I'm a if you're on page 12 section D representation of others to a draft C because I think what it what we're saying is is if if I'm a plumber and I need to go I'm getting paid and I'm gonna be putting in a hot water heater I've got to go get a permit by the mere act of my going to the planning department and getting a permit I'm getting paid for that because I'm representing the household for which I'm changing out the hot water heater and now I'm I can't do that I can't work for my for my client anymore I've just lost business if I'm an electrician the same kind of thing if I'm a surveyor I can 't I can't go out necessarily and survey your property for pay for for somebody that I mean I think this just shuts off you talk about something that's chilling to a lot of people who who have jobs professional jobs and trades jobs in the city I think we're just shutting off an awful lot of people we're saying if you work if you volunteer for one of these boards of commissions not only are you giving up a couple of years of your of your time to serve the city but when you're done you're getting me up another year or two mine says two years do we change it to one you're still giving up a year of a lot of income because thank you very much for having served the city so I don't like it and and I feel really strongly that this is a one of maybe the most chilling kinds of items that we have in here mayor pro tem so I'm trying to clarify your example you're saying that you can't take on business as a plumber for instance I 'm not seeing how that falls under D2 because it has to be representation before the city well if I go to the city planning department to get a building permit to change out to build a fence for a client or to to do plumbing I'm going before the city to get a permit and I'm getting paid to do that and this is I can't go before the city and represent this person I can't I can't go and get the permit I guess I'm just I'm having trouble following your example because well in the planning department part of the city it is yes and and I can't that person can't get their hot water heater changed or their new fence built unless they get a permit yes or they're doing a remodel to their house a contractor's got to go and get a permit for them that means they can't go get those permits and get that job done because they're being paid by a client and they're and the part of the pay is to represent them at the city to get the permit well when we talked about representation in the context of PNZ zoning board it had specific there were some specific things that we discussed it had to do with actually using your influence to obtain permits or obtain some type of zoning change so I feel like there's a distinction between getting something ministerial like a fence permit versus presenting yourself in front of PNZ for your client when you just work for the city well there are differences those are differences but those differences are not I don't see anywhere in this document where they are spelled out and and if we want to use your example I don't I think it would be bad for for us to prohibit a person who's been an engineer who who provided valuable insights while serving on planning and zoning or something like that so to then have to give up business for a year because they're civil engineer and they can't represent their clients so what I guess the question then becomes what does representation mean and is that defined in the definition section because councilmember Gregory's definition of representation is very broad in my mind I was thinking of something in terms of appearing before a committee I don't I don't think it is defined and we certainly can define it in the in that vein we also could provide an exception to that section if you choose to keep it for ministerial permits for which those bodies don't have discretion I just want to clarify we've had like six or seven of these meetings so I'm really just trying to remember the context of these discussions that we've had and how we arrived here not so much that I'm trying to change anything I'm just trying to remember what got us here over the course of six or seven meetings I think you're right mayor pro tem that the context of our discussion during that work session was that there was an interest to prevent city officials who rotate out of service to come back to City Hall and then trade on the reputations that they made and the relationships that they built during that time period that's my recollection I don't know if this goes too far or far enough I'm not sure but I can see how there would be a difference of opinion on what representation means so it probably deserves some clarification let's see we've got customer husband and councilmember Br iggs and then councilmember Ryan thank you one fix that I emailed Alan that I'm waiting to see the the language for a small family-owned business because that that's gonna be key to me because if it's a larger entity you can send someone else to get the permit so that remedies that you're not you're not precluding in from anyone from going to get the permit from arguing for your case in front of P&Z I mean you're not you're not excluded from doing anything that I can see just kind of vetting it but in those instances where it is either a family-owned or a larger entity that you have a specific skill set so in sales hey I'm selling myself in my abilities and my knowledge base in those instances where you can't remove yourself what I had emailed to Alan was an option to have to have a third party attend so either so two mechanisms I suggested one either a vetting in advance so you you schedule hey I'm gonna I need to go argue before planning and zoning and I'm the only one that can do it and here's why and get that cleared in advance or have a third person sit in on that meeting unrelated person and so now your influence is hopefully in a perfect world this individual that may try to manipulate one person with two people in there it kind of then balances out and you have another voice that says no that's not right or another you know kind of just another thought process so that that's a way I envision to leave the language as is and add a mechanism or people if they feel like hey I have absolutely have to do it you have two options one get it cleared in advance or to have someone sit in the meeting unrelated party sit in the meeting with you to make sure there's nothing nefarious being discussed but I think that as much as there 's great examples I can give you we can go example for example the bad things that can come if you take it out right so I think it becomes if yet we if we think everyone's honest and gonna buy by the the honor system let's just throw this away and be done with it but if we think there's nefarious people out there potentially then you know it needs to be there we just need to make it give options you know so you have to have an extra step or two but you're not precluded from doing anything so my recollection of a conversation had something to do with councilmember Hatsbeth's comment of well they're serving for two years and obviously at that point they're not coming before the boards because they're actually serving so what would be whoever represented their company during that time period would be the same person that year following to represent them and so that that's my but I I did not recall I don't recall us saying you know well when Councilman McGregory leaves he can't go get a new permit to build the fence like that those are two different things to me and I don't think that that that type of permit should be included well I definitely think we need some clarification on all this or clarity written into this the term before the city is is what kind of gets to me in that you know I've got a commercial property a new tenant moves in they're trying to get you know all their everything for their CEO from the city and there's one item that you know they can't understand and they're getting conflicting and if I make a call over to the building official and say hey you know can you tell me what's going on on this well technically I'm in violation of this this code and so for me to have to stop my current business you know I'm not I'm not telling the building official hey you need to change your mind on this because I don't see it that way I'm saying look give me some clarity I'm still going before the city and I think that this representation of others almost conflicts with 311 G which which talks talks about that you're not going to relinquish or waive their individual rights so if you're already in a business I think you should be able to continue on in that and that needs to be the exclusion that's that's involved in this but you're not allowed to lobby but you're allowed to continue and I guess that's pretty much the difference is I should be able to get the information and have a conversation as to what needs to be done to work things out but not necessarily lobby for for a something that I'm asking for special rights I guess you'd say I guess my thoughts on this are what is it that we're actually protecting ourselves from with this section and what I've heard is influence that somehow if you've created relationships that that if you come back people will treat you differently and give you more favor than just someone who is just hasn't had that experience has not has not been serving I'm really not so sure I mean I think we can leave this into some variation but I don't know if I agree with that premise I think in some ways it could be the exact opposite that you could come back and people could say you know what because I want to avoid the appearance of showing favoritism I'm gonna make sure that I treat you in a way that so there's there's both sides of this this discussion so maybe part of the remedy is because I think we went back and forth on this what does it mean to come before the city and I was the one that brought it up is it mean that if you meet with staff if you're representing somebody and you're an engineer you say hey I've got to answer these technical questions I've got to have these technical questions or if you're before a body who a governing body who has to make a decision in other words they're the ones the I don't say the final decision-maker because council is the final decision-maker except for ZBA and you had mentioned that some cities say you can't come before the board that you served on yes so I guess that would be my question to my colleagues is it sounds like we need to have a little bit clarification of what it means to come before the city because I think the permit I understand the permit example in the sense but I've always understood that if I'm the pl umber and I'm going to pull the permit it's my license that's pulling the permit I mean yes my customer is the one that's giving me the job but I'm the one representing my company saying I'm duly licensed to pull this permit so we can certainly make some language that addresses administrative type of permits or turning on utilities or you know those things that are more administrative than advocacy or negotiation so that's as far as coming before the city what are y'all's thoughts on it not these are the only two options but at least these options either you can't come before the board that you served on or you can't come before any board that's you know duly appointed and conven ed or you still wanting to include any kind of discussion with staff at just a technical or just process level councilmember Hussbett and then we'll go to council mayor pro-taming and councilmember well I think I think it 's a great question and I think if we compare your example of a administrative task however you capture that have you wordsmith that and I pair that with privacy again going back to the kind of the concept before I can get there right so if because if you go to planning and zoning and advocate that's all recorded and you're fair game someone watching online wants to ring you up they can and get it vetted you know but I draw the line at private meetings right so if you're meeting in private maybe there's a way to to segregate that out but normal so that puts you they all planning and zoning meetings all everything that's open meeting is fair game and it's recorded and and so you're free to do all those things but to then meet with someone privately maybe is a clear line where that becomes maybe need some extra scrutiny but the other stuff then you're you know it's someone who watch online and other people kind of hearing what you're saying and so it's not you're not anonymous by any stretch of imagination and all that stuff if it comes back to get you it does if it doesn't then that's great but there's no it's it's clear there's no sneaking around there's no you know answers are recorded I mean it's all kind of captured so that's maybe an option I'll wait to see what everyone else thinks so I make sure I understood your option that if if you if you're representing someone for compensation after you've left council you're prohibited from meeting with staff or anybody related to the city in private other than administrative and permitting and things such as that but if it's an open meeting of deliberation among a body that you would be okay with them coming and advocating before that body because it is an open meeting and and everybody can see and hear and record is it did I yes that that's absolutely right because it none of this stops anyone from raising an ethics complaint against you right it's a matter of you defending your actions and so in that instance you're not no one they're still free to raise the ethics complaint and you're free to defend yourself but it also lends the freedom and an explanation that hey you're able to you know to speak and conduct business and do whatever you have to do with the city at the same time and that's just how I see it now I'll wait and hear what other people think but that well well and and so clarify something for me because I thought what you were saying is that if you come before a board a public board in a public meeting and you 're advocating or you're representing someone for compensation and you're a former city official I think what we're talking about is any because then you said people are free to bring an ethics complaint yes but the point being if you can still go before the board and represent someone and someone can still file a complaint and it be a an authentic complaint and it be one that's valid in the sense of the code we really haven't because then you really don't want to go do it I mean people because we could leave it the way it is and they could still go do it they're prohibited from doing it so somebody could still file an ethics violation you see I'm saying yes yes and I think I think where maybe I'm misunderstanding but I think I don't think any of this stops someone from raising an ethics complaint I think we have the mechanism in there where that that would be shut down gets kicked out if it's not if it's not valid right right so I think someone can make their record and they can appeal and do all those things kind of as a formula but and then the system works in a perfect world it gets kicked back you can appeal it gets kicked back again but we're not saying hey you can't you know we're not stopping anyone from doing anything we're just saying you know you can you can interpret it how you interpret it you can bring it before that that group and they will evaluate it read the document say no there here's a video they're good to go and it gets kicked out they can appeal all that stuff kind of just kind of works behind the scenes okay all right councilmember Briggs just discussion just I'm just looking for clarification about coming before the body that you served on so so if there's a big issue like the deck or something and I'm off council that just using that as a past example I would be precluded from one year to come and speak on on an issue or is this just like for an item for consideration you would have to be representing someone and getting paid for it so it's the money part that separates yeah it's the case the common yeah as a citizen you I mean when you're off council as a citizen you can come and advocate for whatever you want it's if you somebody hired you engaged you retained you and paid you to represent their interest before the city then it'd be like if the Sierra Club hired you to come and advocate against or for a particular issue then that might that might be a problematic what I would suggest mayor and council if you want to keep this provision basically in the form that it's in the fixes that I could recommend are to define representation to mean lobbying advocating on a discretionary approval to specifically exempt ministerial permits and to clarify that before the city means before a border commission if I were to do that would that alleviate your concerns yeah so I just want to make sure I understand so if if you're being represented if you 're getting compensation representing someone it applies to you you are prohibited from going before a board or commission to advocate to council C BA planning zone and PV that's what our discretionary approval for a period of one year okay so I'm gonna bring it up like we did last time just so why we have clarity I just want to make sure we have clarity so if I'm hired by XYZ to engineering I'm representing a client and I'm an engineer and I'm meeting with staff to go over the the drawings to make sure I understand what they're asking for and all that and I'm not meeting with any board or commission I 'm not going before any board or commission is that still okay and is that what this council if they agree to your potential language is that what you understand would be okay is that okay all right well well the permit example is one thing but I mean for engineer I mean when you're developing a project you're having meetings all the time with engineers to understand infrastructure requirements how do you you want me to put this in like this which it's not saying I'm advocating that you approve this project so I just want to make sure that if you're meeting with staff sort of under the nature of your business of engineer electrician a plumbing company HVAC to understand the construction act just but it's the prohibition is against meeting before a board or commission any of them as a paid representative before that board is that okay yes I think I would prefer to separate it out into the board or commission you were on or to even if that's not acceptable possibly a a board lesser board so if you're on council you couldn't go before any of them but if you're on ZBA there's no reason you couldn't go before P&Z there's not you don't have friends over there that you've been working with for the last six years that are gonna be undue have undue influence okay so so what you're saying is you could not go before a board that is at your level or quote-unquote what we might consider a higher level because I don't know how I'm gonna put I don't know if I'm gonna catch it that way yeah well well I mean when you point the people to those other boards so City Council has in especially planning and zoning we can overrule their they advise us on things and you know we can outrule them with a super majority if they vote let's take let's take your let 's take both of yours at one at a time so I'm I gave sort of my synopsis of what Allen has said so councilmember Ryan has said why don't what if we said you just can't come before the board that you were on but any of the other boards that you were not on you could appear before and receive compensation for representing someone who's okay with that okay a couple all right okay so three so that's that's I'm not sure that's gonna reach a consensus I'm trying to word your second option Alan you have any I mean because these boards I mean I see these boards is you know you're if you're on ZBA I don't see the pub because actually ZBA has more authority than the pub and planning and zoning because their decision is final so maybe you can say you can only go you can appear before advisory boards if you were on an advisory board you just can't appear upon a legislative board that actually has legislative authority those are distinctions correct that's right that's because I don't know how to delineate between what's a higher board or not well I guess you could just say that you've got if you're on if it was your former city council person you couldn't go before any of the boards but if you're on any of the other anything else you just couldn't go before the boards you were on okay all right all right who would be amenable to that yeah so three again okay all right I'm I'm okay with I mean it's a tough call I'm okay with I think sticking with just not to come before the boards because I think I think the biggest problem I had with that provision wasn't the board representation coming before a board it was you couldn't talk to staff you even if you so if you're an engineer electrician a plumber and you couldn't talk about your the technical aspects of a project because by the definition you were representing someone and you were getting paid and you could not come before the city and and that is not just the official board so I'm okay with it because I think that 's the biggest challenge isn't so much the coming before the board it's it cut off because coming before the City Council is a tenth of a project that if you're an engineer if you're a licensed electrician or a HVAC contractor all that stuff gets worked out on the construction stuff over weeks months a year maybe somebody coming before the council to get a rez oning or something I mean it really applies more to consultants who are trying to get an entitlement where you're trying to get a zoning change some type of tax incentive so that that's why I'm okay with the boards I'm nothing I mean I think those are very creative and solutions or options I think for me it was more how do we prevent someone from doing their job so yours you're suggesting that that we limit the representation that we prohibit representation for one year from coming before the boards or the council on discretionary issues yes okay that's the fix that I offered and it seems what is a discretionary issue the opposite of a ministerial issue okay in other words they have to make if someone applies for something and they meet the qualifications the code we're required to give it to them okay that is ministerial discretionary is something where the board or the council is exercising police powers legislative power okay so it's that can only be made by those governing boards and commissions in the council yes not because people can turn down permit I mean so okay okay yes just for clarification does that does not include yourself on representation he'd be would you be able to represent yourself or not be able to represent you would you would you're not getting paid to represent a third party you rep well I mean if you if you've got financial gain by the project about the project moving forward well that's that's why I asked for the no no and I think yeah we'd gone over that and I think that's why we were pretty specific about representing a third party you can rep there's nothing it precludes you because then you would be giving up your right I mean you got it that would be like saying you councilmember you couldn't come just talk about as a citizen except there's the financial gain component that's not there but so clarification this does not apply for someone representing themselves in an individual capacity correct okay okay moving on we were asked why our code of ethics the drafts that we have do not have any sorts of standards of civility standards of conduct behavior it wasn't something that I brought up it wasn't something the council requested if you think that is a failing of our draft I certainly can insert some language like that I preside provided for you an example of what appears in the city of Dallas's code in that regard mayor mayor pro-tama boy I didn't see this comment in our citizen comments in the back of what was this a citizen comment or yes so in I had a couple of independent meetings and they came up with one of those okay just asking for clarity that's all sure I'm sorry the memo you received for me of which this PowerPoint is an excerpt of a lot of different emails from different council members and from different citizens I tried to compile it and organize it in a way I could present today this was one of the questions I think I think when the when I was sitting with a citizen I think it we do need to add it just because otherwise it's exclusively pointed at money you know it's just that the entire thing is just hey it's all financial based and I think there is something to be said for just a general conduct of a council person what's expected that sort of thing so I don't know about the the language I'm open to that but I think there needs to be some level of how do we conduct ourselves you know there 's campaigns are you are you allowed to jump in on campaigns that are you know are not yours and say things or do we want to leave that alone and it's just generally how you comport yourself what are those I think it's good to have those conversations in advance and just having an understanding amongst council persons how we're gonna conduct ourselves socially well I'm surprised hearing that coming from you council member Hutsmith not because I think that you would not have a standard of civ ility but I think because sometimes certain people are treated differently when it comes to civility standards the same thing that one person might do is not offensive it's not frightening if another person does it it's offensive and frightening and lock your doors so I'm I'm surprised a little bit but that said I I'm not in favor of this first of all I have no idea how you would police it in terms of impertinent content content I mean what is an impertinent comment just we'll get seven different answers right now some things you know being crude abusive I think you know it when you see it I I just I haven't seen that to be an issue at all so and I say that as somebody who brought was had an ethics complaint brought against them for standards of civility that we didn't have an ethics ordinance by a self-proclaimed Pollyanna troll so I mean would that have violated this standard of civility so I mean I think you really are getting into cultural issues with this that I'm not comfortable getting into at all because I think it's gonna be one type of person making the complaints and it's gonna be one type of person getting the complaints brought to them that's the first thing the second thing is I think it's gonna be impossible to define things like impertinent and frankly people need a little bit of leeway to be adults and express their opinions people are incredibly rude and belligerent towards us sometimes I mean to the point that you're like I cannot believe that somebody is talking to me this way and for you to not be able to respond in any manner it's I view it as an abusive relationship to not be able to defend yourself personally so I'm not in favor of it Councilmember death well the truth is you can't police it there's no teeth so yeah yes Councilmember Gregory well it's not so much on civility but it's on another issue that mr. Hudspeth raised and it gets back to influence because we have had some concerns from time to time about whether or not we should attend or participate if we attend other appointed boards and committees at times you kind of want to go in here and understand the discussion so that you you see what's going on and what the deliberations are before it comes before us you know now you can go back for several of them and look at videos of the meetings or you can read the minutes but in others they're not recorded and you can't do that so if I were to put anything in terms of a standard it might be a standard of somehow calling us to account for or not to try to provide undue influence over a board or a committee and while they 're doing their deliberations we don't we want those I personally want those folks to operate independently and bring an opinion to us or advice to us or a recommendation to us that's theirs and not one that's influenced by a council member or a group of council members let them do their work and then we have our shot at it later on there may not be enough interest in to do that and I would understand that but it has been a concern from time to time and there was a big brouhaha a few years ago about about the role of boards and commissions and they're just there to do the bidding of the council or are they there to provide their independent recommendations to us without being influenced or guided by us so I just throw that out there for was there yes customer breaks so don't we have something similar not necessarily this wording but that's in or was in an ethics policy that we had before well I know I'm just wondering though your ethics policy that you adopted by resolution that's still in effect right hasn't been repe aled but yes there there are some standards that they're written in the form of guidelines as to how to comport yourself but under as during one of the two complaints that was handled by the Ethics Committee those were seen not to be the yeah the guidelines itself were not the basis for any type of violation it was other information that was below that those guidelines so that was one of the reasons why that complaint was dismissed so when we approve this ordinance with that ethics policy will we be repealing that we could put in the ordinance that adopts that a provision that we would be repealing that ethics policy if that is this council's consensus to do that we could do that I'm trying to recall the the language in that policy that talked about behavior it is in there I do you're right I can't remember the name of the exact language it's not as detailed as that second bullet point but it does list some something some basic standards of civility yes I mean I I don't know if this needs to be in the ethics ordinance I mean number one if you're not being civil to your constituents you're not coming back I mean this was what I'm thinking and I tend to have an agreement with mayor pro tem is that if someone is treating you in a manner that is disrespectful I mean I don't say that you should resort in kind but you do need to have the opportunity to advocate for yourself and to make sure that you're not left at a disadvantage of being abused or bullied quite frankly so I mean if we want to talk about this at some other level you know with some other kind of within some other context you know I'm okay with it but for it to be in an ethics ordinance where somebody could file a complaint that's the two complaints that we had were based upon sort of this kind of language that you know one of them they both were sort of you know a free speech or or a you know sort of basic constitutional right issue that okay I mean but so I if we want to have a conversation about this I'm okay with having I just don't know if I would want it included in the ethics ordinance because then you I think you're gonna open your the process up to what is disrespectful to me and what is disrespectful to somebody else could be very very different very different so that's that's where I am on that yes can I request to see a copy of that ethics policy that addresses the behavior before tonight's meeting just so that we have that in front of us and maybe if we don't repeal that that can coincide and I mean just because it's not as specific yes the first amendment right yeah another question that was brought up is regarding board members rather than the list of preferences we have particularly regarding professionals if we should have a criminal background check to make someone eligible to serve on the Board of Ethics it was praised to me as a replacement having a criminal background check replacing the list that we have attorneys retired justices those sorts of things I think if we got certainly if you want to add a criminal background check to serve on the Board of Ethics we can do that I don't know that that would necessarily replace what the council has already decided on because it doesn't serve the same purpose right yeah so this one what it came from a meeting as well and again where I saw value in the language it was there they saw they took offense it's like hey you're saying these subsec of people are smarter than everybody else or better reasoned or more able to complete a task and so that was their solution to that to that issue so I bring that forward to say someone took a a person or two took offense to that language segregating out specific titles and so I bring that to the council to see if there's if that rings true with anyone or if you if it's rebuffed and onward upward okay that's a member oh oh customer Gregory and then customer break sorry so I'm not opposed to it I've had to do those did those for folks for example parents that were volunteering at a school and we would get some back and they in you know 20 years ago or 15 years ago had some problems with some checks that they wrote that weren't good that didn't disqualify them from volunteering with children because they're not going to be writing checks to these children there were some other offenses that were probably more problematic in terms of some behavioral things that did disqualify them so are we just saying we'll get that information and then make a judgment based on what we find and how long ago it took place and how severe it was or how would you how would we do what would we do with the background check once we got yet if I may I think that if I understand you know the the context right yes it would be the nominees that everyone would put forth would then be subject to a background check and if there is something in that report that would make someone want to disqualify a person they'd bring that forth and say I am concerned about this on the report and obviously we all have to vote ultimately that's my understanding of how that that process would work folding that in but it would again this individual said it should replace the titles that we provided I know there's a there 's a significant leaning for the legal side of that component so I don't know if it replaces that but the other the language specifically preference to licensed people which is absolutely my idea and I communicated that but that's what gave that person some some heartache okay councilmember breach so I thought it was just three we talked about having three out of the seven with some type of legal background and the rest could be whomever it says gives Alan if you have it specifically but it says you give preference to licensed professionals basically well I'm yeah for the other the remaining ones they could be whomever I'm not looking to give preference to any of those but I think we talked about having at least three of those with some type of legal background since the the board is what it is and sure no I mean yeah I mean I and that and there was something along those lines communicated in the public hearing last time and yeah it says preference for this doesn't mean they have to be that there is a requirement for the three and and I and the example was you know you can be a juror and you know you know there 's not that kind of test well and if people haven't set through board our I mean there's a lot of things that come up when you're questioning jurors about you know trying to figure out what their preferences and their their you know thoughts are but you also have a whole body that's built into that system that controls the the legal jurisprudence process so I think that was the only reason why we had the three being of some kind of just understand but as far as preference is just a preference that doesn't mean that it has to be that it's not a shall be all seven members shall be of these kinds of either cert ifications or licenses or professional degree it just says three must be but there's a preference so I don't interpret preference to mean that I'm obligated to nominate someone from one of those categories I'm okay with taking it out then I mean if it's not an obligation and it's offensive then we should take it out any other comments on that not not for the three just no I know what you're saying yeah the preference language right yes yes ma 'am yes yes may pretend well I think councilmember Hudson requested the preference language for the diamond but I remember correctly yeah no I said as much just now yeah I mean that's I told I told individually yeah that's mine but I think you know I'm always willing to admit if I miss something and if they take offense to it I'm willing to reconsider that and so that's where I am seeking input okay so basically you're saying you're not completely committed to the idea that you know you're willing to I'm absolutely think I think I'm right but I absolutely understand there's other people on planet earth you know and so in that instance I'm willing to it's not something that would be I don't it doesn't give me heartburn either way right so I can lose it and be okay it wasn't something I dig in on right okay well I'm okay with it either way I mean I don't think it it's a preference it's not a requirement so just encourages people in a certain direction I'm okay with the preference remaining in there I think one of the things we haven't really brought up is the fact that when we compare to a jury there's always a judge in that case as well that can keep everything in line and that was the reason behind having three people that were either retired jurists or attorneys and the professional license also dealt with the confidentiality aspect that you wanted people on there that understood what confidentiality meant in how to handle it properly anybody else yeah I think I think this will be something that in the future will kind of give some guidance possibly to councils you know the people are you know it's gonna be up to the council anyway but it's nothing but just guidance in the future do we do and I don't know this question answer this question we don't do well I'm gonna say I think I know the answer we don't do criminal background checks on any other board of nominees do we I don't not that I'm aware of okay okay so yeah I'm not I'm not sure why we would necessarily single this out so sounds like correct me if I'm wrong no need for criminal background check and we're leaving at least a preference in but the requirement of the three and then the good thing is if that you can modify that you know on down the road if that becomes something that's problematic scenario that's presented to me based on the gift language dealing with the air show what a city council member under this draft be able to accept tickets to this sort of event and my answer was yes depending on the circumstances I just went to this particular air shows websites to see what anyone can see on the face of their website where it says it is a charity event it is a fundraiser and so if that is true and the host of the suite is there then under the language in our draft you'd be able to accept those tickets and go to that skybox yes yeah I just didn't I wanted to make that abund antly clear so you know you see me out at yeah no I just want to get it all out while while we we have you know that to create a clear record because I think it's just important you know to have those conversations and or adjust accordingly in advance I totally agree I think that's you have my opinion but that is not qualifies an advisory opinion under your oh here comes the disclaimer I'm wounded the next one the issue is regarding the $600 gross annual income threshold for conflicts of interest and does it apply to the business entity that has come before the city or does it also apply to the clients or customers of the business entity that comes before the city and the specific example I got a couple of different ones but one of them was regarding perhaps someone would serve on a board or Commission of the city covered by this ordinance who works for a hotel if the hotel is the source of their income therefore they cross over the $600 annual threshold they have a conflicting interest should that hotel come before the city for a permit or a contract or some form of authorization but the fact that the hotel may have guests who annually spend more than $600 on the hotel does not mean that the city official now has a conflicting interest as to that guest and their business I don't think I don't think 172 the local government code goes that far as to attaching to guests or customers or clients there's no annotations no AG opinions or court cases interpreting it that way I think the plain language we have in our code would also limit it to who in effect you're getting your w2 from or your 1099 or whatnot if that's unclear we can certainly add that to the ordinance to make it clear when we say where you're getting your income it's because you've received one of those IRS forms documenting it if you'd like me to add that I shall I assume that's what y'all meant yeah I think I'd like I think that like that language not so much I think just maybe defining as you have in our last meeting how we arrived at that $600 figure I think that kind of captures it without going into great detail w2 1099 it's just this number has arrived and is attributed to you know I think a definition fixes it or whatever you think but I think just some additional language it says this is not an arbitrary number I think that's how it's kicked around I explain it differently and then they 're like okay but I think somehow in there if it's seen explain how we arrived at a $600 figure and it's not some arbitrary number that that was arrived at a you know I think that will go a long way council member Ryan thank you yeah I guess my concern on this is whether it's if you're the business owner and if it's cumulative so you know council member Hawkins that sat in the seat prior to me you know if if you went over to Jupiter house every day and bought a $6 cup of coffee you could go in there 99 days in a year but if you were in there that hundredth day then you then he would have to recuse himself you know have you hit that accum ulative amount because you are the business owner because this is this is talking about if you the way I heard you explain it was if you work for the hotel and that 's who was providing you with the income but if you are that entity you know if all that income filters through on your 1040 return is that and does that put you over the over the top if it's a cumulative of anything in the retail or service industry type type business I would not interpret your ordinance that way and I haven't seen anybody else's interpreted that way nor have I seen the same state statute which this is based on interpreted that way okay it's who is your employer what entity do you work for or own stock or own real estate it doesn't reach to the customers or the clients of that entity okay if that's what you intended I don't think this says so I don't interpret it that way if it's confusing I can try to tighten it up some yeah that was part of my concern I I was at a forum last week and had some but there was somebody going around mentioning that because of this ordinance one of the people running would not be able to serve and I think that had to do with the fact that he has a quick car and a lot of people do business there and it obviously a lot of them exceed the $ 600 but I think adding the w2 or 1099 will take that totally out I think it would you know when I think I forwarded one of the questions one of these to you and when I thought about it and read the question initially I didn't think that it would apply to clients or customers but I've recused myself for clients now that I think about it and I'm trying to differentiate between what makes you know an attorney's client that pays you $2,000 you know in a retainer different from for instance a regular customer not because I think that we have to include regular customers I'm just wondering what the difference is yeah this is a safe space for discussion yeah no I think I think the only what I see is the the difference is with an attorney-client relationship you have a fiduciary relationship and so when you are asked to vote on something you're I would think you would have to vote you would almost be bre aching your duty of fiduciary relationship with a client if you were to vote against that client in some other proceeding you I mean you represent them you represent them I mean so that's it's a higher level of reference it's not just a customer customer relationship it's a fiduciary client relationship that is very I mean it's confidential you can't ever nobody can compel you to talk about what's that so I it's not so hard for me to get get to that no I agree with that I just I think sometimes when I think about stuff no excess ly then I'm like then I overthink it and but I agree with this interpretation and I don't think clients should fall under that I'm sorry that you should be commended for recusing yourself in that regard and obviously you're thinking not just about municipal ethics you're thinking about the state bar we have and those sorts of things which is what we should all be doing I think it would be difficult and I'd be cautioning you against trying to craft an ethics ordinance that reaches into those other relationships in parks I think they'd be very difficult to account for and the ordinance would apply more harshly towards some professions than others the only thing I would say on this is people receive income from a lot of other places besides W2 or 10 I mean you might have K1 income you might have income that maybe if that rolls into your your W2 your 1040 so I think we've got to find a way to not create more confusion by because really what we're trying to say is if they're a customer like this says and so if we start trying to define all the sources of income then we need to make sure that we catch those as far as if we're gonna put in W2 I mean that's a quick fix for probably most everybody but then for K1s and other kind of pass-through income that won't show up on a W2 or a 1099 you know a business could come before you that you know you receive that compensation from because you're part of it of course you don't have to recuse yourself anyway because it's part of the partnership but I think you can get past that go ahead I was just gonna say if you're getting a K1 you most likely have more than $600 interest in the business. Sure, sure. Yeah, yeah. So I just I mean I don't think it's that critical I just throw that out there just as a off the top of my head thinking about so do you think we should try to clarify that more or leave it as is yeah I think it's fine as it is you mean with the W2 or 1099 in there that that language that you were saying to add I'm asking if I should add that kind of knowledge I think if you're getting a K1 you're part of it you're gonna know that you need to recuse yourself because it's that business that's coming before you or if it's a K1 that is from somebody that is before you that doesn't relate to that business then you still got to disclose based upon our previous discussion so no this is fine now this is good I'm overth inking it. A question that's come up a few times is should we have panels remember panels are the rotating ad hoc three-member subcommittees of the Board of Ethics and when that question has been posed to me I've answered essentially in this way the mayor mentioned earlier about all the things we're trying to balance and that's true and I don't mind echoing it again we're wanting through this ordinance to promote integrity at City Hall we're also willing to provide due process for those who are filing complaints and those who have been accused of violations and we're also wanting to avoid defamation and in trying to do that I haven't seen any one system that I think works the best it 's the best it's foolproof it's the way to go in our judicial system I look at things like the federal court system where you don't often get the full court to rule on a matter it's usually a panel of the court that rules on the matter heck you don't even usually get a judge to rule on it you're gonna magist rate to rule on it and so we have this system of pre-filters in our legal system I don't I don't see a reason not to do it in our in our ethics system if we think it's expeditious and it's thorough and trying to avoid number one the city playing a role in smearing the reputation of somebody number two having our ethics code be used as a political weapon or number three I think about the pragmatic aspects of this if someone were to be accused of an ethics violation and have to go before the full Board of Ethics it's quite reasonable to think they're from about in the higher legal counsel and higher legal counsel spend money spin effort only to have the Board of Ethics throw it out because what it didn't meet the most basic requirements of our ordinance so I think the panel serves a fairly basic function in going through this ordinance process the City Council seems to find the panel process helpful you don't have to have it it is an option but when those questions were posed to me that's how I responded is there any discussion on this point I do just have a question of clarification so the the three-member panel that sort of does a preliminary review to determine if it meets a specific if the facts described meet a specific prohibition in our ordinance that is an open meeting I mean so the confidentiality once it gets to that point it's I mean or is I'm trying to remember where was the line of confidentiality or is there is none I mean once you file a complaint now there is some in the beginning stages the ordinance says that we shall treat this information as confidential to the extent allowed by law but once it gets to a panel discussion then much of that is going to be open for sure the panel is subject to the open meetings I sure okay yeah yes is it I've tried to look through here and I couldn't I haven't been able to find it but I haven't gone through every line is that the advisory is it the panel that provides advisory opinions yes sir that's on page 15 the bottom of page 15 of draft C I've also responded to those that have asked questions about the panel that it's what it's my opinion as a practitioner it's easier to get three people together faster than it is a majority of seven and that because it's a rotating group and ad hoc group I think we may be able to get those initial assessments back or advisory opinions back sooner by using a panel and so that's the other justification I gave for having that option with with that group are we requiring the panel to meet after a posted meeting and a 48 hour notice of a posted meeting they have to honor the 72 hour agenda yes sir so if a if I had a question that came up where I needed an advisory opinion I get my council packet on Friday and I see something in the the agenda that I'm thinking oh my I think I might have a conflict of interest but I need an advisory opinion I'm not going to get one in time no sir and as written the ordinance says they've got 30 days so if we need to tweak that I'm certainly open to that but in your situation it would not be very helpful because there is the open meetings act is going to require 72 hours notice with an agenda posting and well we might want to circle back to this because we're going through your Q&A no this is the last slide that I have I'm just wondering if if there's a if there's a more efficient way to do that I know that in some cities it is the Board of Ethics itself that provides advisory opinions in other cities their code provides for the city attorney's office to issue advisory opinions or the city auditors office if it's audit and compliance so there are other options out there okay customer breaks so do other cities have panels I mean this seems or is this just unique to something that that we have come up with here there's a couple of cities that have have panels I think I responded a request came up from the media before the public hearing and I think I can't remember my response I believe it was Laredo and Lake Way are the two cities that I have their codes those are two of the two of the 19 codes we've considered both of them provide for panels well I feel like if the panel is subject to open meetings and they have the 72 hour I feel like you could get a majority of the people there if they're following the same process the the Board of Ethics could get there just as well as three people could get there if they had enough time so it's y'all's call as a guy who spent 22 years dealing with cities and boards and commissions I've found it to be very difficult to get citizen advisory boards together on short notice and so I think the smaller the required group the better response they're going to have but nothing about the process that I know of requires you to have panels it's meant to be a pre-filtering device to make sure a complaint is serious and meets the basic requirements before it goes forward and someone is subject to the full- blown process it's a preliminary hearing to use a more judicial term that most folks in the legal field are used to it's an option that was provided and so far the council has embraced whether you go forward with it or not is up to you is there a change of heart on the council for the panel paradigm I mean it sounds like you're wavering a little bit and that's okay but the only thing I would say is when I've looked through the code it doesn't really give any procedure and maybe this is defined in the rules and procedures of the ethics board so will the how you determine the rotation how long they're in the rotation how you do the rotation who's in charge those sort of specifics to those panels would that be something that is going to be decided upon where the where it says that the Board of Ethics can adopt their own rules and procedures or would that be something that needs to be put in this ordinance I think it can be when it comes to advisory opinions your current this current draft says that the city auditor will designate a panel when it comes to reviewing complaints the preliminary assessment it's the chairperson of the Board of Ethics that picks the panel okay but as far as that if you on a panel you serve for so long and then that panel stays intact for so many days and then if something else comes up that's all left to the discretion then of those who appoint the panel or is there do you see do you think we have it do you feel we there's a need to put a little bit more structure to that other than just the auditor and chair appoint the panel I figured that would be part of the procedural rules okay adopt with councils consent but we can certainly add some more meat on that if that's your preference I mean if that's where you think it would best fit that we just need to let them know hey put some structure around this panel development and back to the advisory opinions did we talk about on the advisory opinions if because the timing of it can be a can be critical if you have something come up and you need to know did we talk about that we could also have an alternative method where I mean you said sometimes a city attorney but if we said okay well you know there may be a list of attorneys who specialize in ethics ordinances or I'm just for sake of discussion I'm gonna say use you for an example I'm not trying to put you on the spot but like we say okay I need an advisory opinion within four days because I've just got my back up and I wasn't aware of this and I need to have an answer you can't get the advice you can't get the Ethics Commission together quick enough what if we had a list of accepted approved attorneys that are experts in that field that we could submit to and that they could give it in that in other words do we want to have a mechanism to solve that timing issue or do you just want it because the panel may consist of you know attorneys or not I mean people have to look at the code and make factual and sort of interpreted determinations on what's going on with that yes here's my concern the reason for bringing it up I could imagine the situation where there is a request for zoning change that comes up I'm not sure if according to the rules I'm in or out I need I need a professional opinion on it and and then it comes up that oh look at that the planning and zoning denied it so now it's going to require a super majority and I may be I may have to recuse myself I don't want to recuse myself unnecessarily sure because of that well that's my point we want to try to find yeah and an acceptable alternative to a time issue and if so what is it if not okay I just throw that out there for discussion in response mayor that there are cities that have that in their code that it's special council pre-selected on retainer to serve that function that was brought up in one of our work sessions the council didn't embrace it at the time I think because they were thinking about the expense issue but that certainly is an alternative to perhaps solve the timing issue and sure are we suggesting that because our attorney why are we doing that why wouldn't we just use our city attorney I can answer that okay yeah from my perspective I 'm and it's nothing against city attorney or the legal staff I think it just makes it cleaner I think it makes it less susceptible to kind of attack of you know collateral attack of all it's it's all within the system and and it just keeps the lines we don't blur the lines the lines aren't blurred so if you have someone that's on retainer specifically that's what they don't have any dog in the hunt it's like I'm going to give you an opinion based upon the code based upon my experience based upon the law and that's it whereas we're all talking about influence here and how we're trying to avoid you know unproper influence well here you got City Council member talking the city attorney who they you know are part of a body that hires or terminates them so I think it just makes it it just makes it cleaner if that's the route we wanted to go for a need for quick advisory opinions that that's the only reason I bring it up is is it is it's just time the timing issue of it yes me a scenario where you don't have I'm just having a hard time making a connection of where you don't have advanced notice to seek an advisory opinion oh I mean if something comes up that you're unaware that it's coming up I mean it might be you just read the packet yeah you just read the packet on Friday I mean if he's saying it takes 30 days to get an advisory opinion I mean I've seen things come up where when I got the packet I'm like oh wait a minute this is coming up I need to make sure that I don't have an issue here so it's I'm not saying it's often I'm just saying if it does come up and maybe also I mean we don't get we don't know everything that's happening behind the scenes especially with people know everything all my people are doing or my friends are doing or my family's doing well if you if you're on the agenda committee you may have an inkling more of what's coming out but will we'll get a sample agenda of what the next meeting is gonna be but it's subject to a lot of change yeah so I mean I I guess I was gonna ask or have people had the experience on this council where something's come up and you thought oh I need to recuse myself because of this but if you had an opportunity to get an advisory opinion if you didn't know it's just a timing issue I mean that's the only reason I bring it up I don't necessarily have any heartburn about if we don't but I sure would hate to if somebody doesn't know they're gonna recuse themselves period because they're gonna do the thing that's more prudent err on the side of caution so if there's no traction for it 's not a problem I mean I just throw it out there as an option and there are cities that were the city attorney under the code does issue advisory opinions those exist they're published on the website they're out there and I won't presume to speak for for mr. Layal but generally the city attorney represents the organization as a whole right no individual person in that organization and to have a city attorney issue an advisory petition an advisory opinion and then later come back and advise the Board of Ethics on that you're almost necessitating that special counsel be brought in each time the city attorney does that and a conflict ensues yeah so we can leave it as it is a council member we have some out here your point of bridge so I remember talking about this and it was and I was the only person who was interested in and having an outside council do those I was in favor of not having a panel and just having the outside council doing that those advisory opinions and having the Board of Ethics review the complaint so that that's where I was a long time ago is that where you still are okay just checking yes and I think you're right you were right then and and I finally seen the light in and I'm fine with having an outside attorney do it as well I think the direction we were thinking was if you have the advisory committee you've got three members of the full body that are making that recommendation so the full body already would be able to get some understanding from them if something came back after the fact as to whether that was a proper issuance or not yeah so do we want to change direction as far as just from the advisory opinion do you want to have outside council doing advisory opinion I don't know because I think you can still go to city council I mean you still go to the city attorney nothing precludes you from going to city care you don't get it well you don't get an advisor opinion but you can go to them just like you always have and and have a conversation I mean nothing precludes that it's just you don't have this fictitious advisory opinion that still doesn't isolate you from anything it just allows you to point to it and say I got this but again the mechanisms going to work absent or with the it doesn't preclude or prohibit anything no but it does provide an affirmative defense I mean it does provide a I mean it has some weight to it I mean yeah and you're you're innocent till proving guilty but we've had investigations where that didn't work so well you know so I get it I'm just saying ultimately you get out what you put in and what you what value you see in it so maybe I just see it wrong but I just I think even if you have an affirmative defense you steal they could act in error and you're down the road further you know and you can appeal that and I mean it so I just think the process and so I I just don't want to you know to go find an attorney that doesn't have dealings with the city that's neutral and and on occasion and at $300 an hour why did you talk to him for two hours it shouldn't you know it's just it opens up a lot of conversations when you can you can have a conversation or you can you can recuse yourself for one meeting that one vote and get an answer and come back and now okay all good you know it so is the question for me is is the $400 or whatever that number is gonna be worth you me missing one vote and then coming right back to it no it's not it's okay okay who else who else there pro tem any thoughts so what I'm hearing is or what I 'm seeing is that there may be a consensus to for advisory opinions there's an option or do are we saying for all advisory opinions go to outside council or only in those moments where you need one in a timely manner and you still can get an advisory opinion from a panel option emergency I mean sure I'm just clear you're acting like I'm proposing that I'm not proposing it I'm just simply making sure we clarify so that we don't have to come back and then clarify it once again so yeah it's the option yes sir got it okay I will craft that language and that's it for my prepared slides for today if there's questions outside of that I'd be happy to entertain any questions councilmember Ryan well just have a question on brief - 13 conflict of interest in item one where it discusses if the majority of the council cannot if the majority of the council has a conflict and there is no conflict how does how does will that work on a supermajority needed vote if you have a page nine page nine top of nine if you have supermajority is required for a vote does that mean and you have two people who recuse themselves now you can't get a supermajor ity and therefore it's an automatic decline I don't I don't well if you that 's if you don't have to hear the matter I mean if you don't I mean we've done that before I think when we've had people that were absent and it required a supermajority it's it's if you vote on it yeah but if you if you vote to postpone or something like that do you have to have a super majority to do that no no not to vote to postpone it's just a simple rule of procedure that you're exercising but I think I see where councilmember Ryan is going that if you do need a super majority vote to overturn a PNC recommendation and two of your council members have a conflict for the South X one so it never come before you it'll never come before you and so that that's the the dilemma so I think what this exception I guess and your thoughts on have you ever encountered this before this type that type of scenario where they to require for supermajority are conflicted so we could never have a supermajority I have not faced that could you that's the language you're talking about applies in state law just the same under 172 of the local government code so you're required to abstain under that set of rules ours are a little bit more strict ours are significantly more strict than state law is but you're required to both disclose it through the affidavit and then abstain from deliber ations unless a majority of the body has conflicts then they're all just in the majority is just disclosing it but then fully participating but you're running but the majority would mean that for with seven of us four or more would have a conflict right but if only to have a conflict and it requires a supermajority it can't come before us for about correct okay I just think that's something we might want to think about how if that would ever become an issue if there 's anything thing that we want to change that could happen now I guess I mean if dependent on circumstances yes they could happen today yeah that's member Gregory in a case like that can you write into a city ordinance a new definition for supermajority I've always thought that the definition of supermajority was awkward to begin with because it required a supermajority of the entire council not those present so could you write write something different to say a supermajority of those eligible to vote we could do something similar to that in the in let's say the DDC this is going to happen where the supermajority vote requirement comes up is going to be those actions under 35.34 your DDC which is the zoning amendment procedure rezoning the supermajor ity requirement on a protest petition or the P&Z negative recommendation is set by state law I don't believe that we could vary from that however there are other applications on there that we follow that same process but are not rezoning applications like what we talked about this earlier today the alternative ESA plan we follow the same requirement for voting that we do for rezoning and so that can be changed but otherwise the rezoning matters where that would come up as count as councilmember Ryan came up we would not be able to vary from straight long okay so that's something we're gonna have to probably think a little bit further back because that could happen even today without this ordinance right now and I think that that's a good reason to be using an outside council to get those advisory opinions quickly it may be that if you're getting an advisory opinion you're on the edge if you know you got a conflict you're gonna sure go ahead do the sure no you're right yep okay thank you that's good point any other questions yes there were a couple comments that I sent to you that you addressed in the memo that I just wanted to clarify so with disclosures we're talking about when somebody discloses something that it's it's known to them is there could we add that as a definition section would council be amenable to just saying a disclosure required here is something that involves something known I mean actual knowledge type actual knowledge exactly yeah well yeah I mean gosh that'd be it was my assumption but I had somebody bring it up and no I mean I think it's easy to clarify so if everybody's okay with that the other thing I wanted to mention was the definition of vendors and I think there's there have been some comments about you know who is a partner with the city versus who is a vendor and I wanted to be really clear that our understanding of vendor is if you are in a contract relationship with the city and you're being provided a service or you're providing a service to the city cast member so yeah I had questions about that too as far as like the the Chamber of Commerce are they a partner or a vendor and how how does that qualify them in either our staff policy that we're going to discuss or the ethics ordinance I think under the ethics ordinance if the Chamber of Commerce is providing services under a contract or another arrangement with the city they meet the qualifications to be a vendor under the definition which means they're covered by the ethics ordinance which means they cannot exceed the gift requirements that's the provision that's going to apply to them there's a cap on the gifts that can be given or offered and if they exceed that they run the risk of an ethics violation and also being disqualified to serve for a year so if we have a contract with the University of North Texas to provide GPS services or any other kinds of services the University of North Texas is probably a vendor yes and what about if if it's a a person who is selling land to the city it's a real estate it's a real property and they're they're getting compensation in exchange for the land then yes sir I think they would be a vendor under so so then anybody that we condemn to get property for a right-of-way is a vendor hadn't thought of it that way because everybody that we condemn seeks to get more money than what we're offering do they ever give you gifts no not yet I don't think the ethics ordinance would affect them and are they providing a service yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah let me do my pretend and we'll come so I guess the way that I differentiated it because I think there was some concern about for instance United Way or some of our nonprofit organizations that provide services to the city for instance who's the organization that does the utilities assistance giving hope giving hope for instance there I think they would be considered a vendor in that in that capacity in my mind I separated between you know do we put out a bid for them do they have a professional so you know professional exemption under the Texas Purchasing Act so I just wanted to be very clear who we're talking about as vendors there's one one other one but if people still want to talk about vendors go ahead so so do you have something okay I'm sorry go ahead so then I think what we're saying then is if the University of North Texas is a vendor because we've hired them to do something that no employee of the University of North Texas would do do they become disqualified from serving anywhere I don't know of anything in the code that would trigger that is there a particular section you're thinking about can you can you can you be on counsel and be employed by a vendor yes you just can't vote on the issue if the vendor comes before you okay all right I'm just I'm just trying to I don 't want I'd rather has figured this out now than after the fact absolutely please great questions mayor protein so then the other question I had was going to the you know serving on a board of a nonprofit there was a question about what type of board and I think we all discussed this at length as well but a suggestion was made to include that it's a governing board or clarify that it's a governing board do you see any issues with that clarification and is it possible for a member a board member who's not a governing board member to have a fiduciary obligation to that organization because in my mind though how we got there between separating these board memberships was you can't serve two masters essentially if you're a fiduciary for one you can't be a fiduciary for the city as well could a non governing board member be a fiduciary I'm just trying to think of a context for that I think they could I don't I don't know what example that would be I suppose if they're an officer or they're appointed to do some particular function that could give rise to a fiduciary relationship yeah well the way it's defined right now is a conflict would arise if the city official serves on the board of directors or as an officer of a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association unless the city official was appointed to that position by the City Council so for instance somebody who's not a governing board member but who fund raises for an organization they would have some type of fiduciary relationship with that outside organization that sounds reasonable I don't know that that 's triggered triggers anything in our ordinance because we didn't define we didn't define that conflict in terms of fiduciary relationship we defined it as being on the board of directors or as an officer for a council member for city official yes and by the way I didn't I think in my memo I mentioned I don't mind adding to that provision that we're talking about a governing body I don't mind that either I just if that's not actually what we're attempting to do because it sounds like even if you're not on a governing body you could have some type of conflict present itself by nature of the fiduciary relationship but we can't think of a specific we could if they're not an officer or not on the board of directors I don't know how our ordinance would capture that person I don't see how their conduct would trigger any obligation to do this or create a conflict so I think a city council member can be active in a nonprofit do quite a bit of volunteer work for that nonprofit and still be able to vote on matters that come before the city regarding that nonprofit unless the council member is also on the board of directors of that nonprofit as our ordinance is currently working is that what we wanted to do that's what I understood that's what that's how I understood it as well the question was raised though if it should be clarified with the term governing and I I don't know that that's the way to go my question on that is I'm trying to think of a board of directors that's not a governing board I know and there's it there are advisory boards but they're not the board of directors but if they're in on the board and they haven't specified otherwise any board member is voting for you know to get a majority vote to make a decision for that organization so I think in this one is going to depend on the role I don't I don't think you're gonna be able to come up with a definition that gets all this it we have employees serving on some of these nonprofit boards that don't necessarily have any decision-making authority I can't envision a scenario where I could serve on any of them making financial recommendations to the council so you know in in we've seen council member Ryan go above and beyond with the Kiwanis relationship where he's so I don't think there's an easy way here it's gonna depend on roles influence and in really your your jobs on this one that's something in the employees side where we're working on trying to set up an evaluation tool in terms of how much authority they have over budget they're recommending it are they managing budgets or they just simply serving there to be a good citizen and I'm not sure there there's a silver bullet on this one well this one may I mean number one we're rapidly running out of time so we're gonna have to talk about some of these other agenda items and I don't I mean were we planning on having another work session before the next hearing on the 17th for this well if we're not planning to we need to because I think this is a we could spend an hour just talking about vendors because I'm thinking about chamber I'm thinking about you know banquets and I'm thinking about I mean all kinds of things gifts and dinners and so I think we're gonna have to probably dive a little bit deeper into that that particular issue because it's important because we do have a lot of cross-connection with I mean like the universities and and chambers and United Way and a lot of other nonprofits so we need to really get some clarity on that any other questions besides the vendor issue because we do have a public hearing tonight that we can address some of it out there if we need to but yes are you saying we need additional clarity on the vendor issue because I thought we laid that one to rest well I have questions about if the chamber is a vendor and the chamber has a banquet and the chamber wants to provide a you know some tickets or whatever to the banquet for you know council members we said that there's exceptions for charity events where it's an official role in duty but I don't know if that were vendors carved out of that or if vendors are included within that may solve that issue I mean in other words if you're a vendor can you still provide those kind of I'm gonna say gifts if they meet all that other criteria if it's charity function or a community event and they are there with you then you can accept the tickets for the meal the entertainment so you're not it's not gonna be that accumulation to that $50 or or not the accumulation but that $50 limit or something like that no because that these meals lot the meals transportation entertainment exception yes accepts it from the entire definition okay okay so maybe not so scratch that any other questions during this work session appreciate it we'll see out there in a little bit I've talked with the city manager and we can because we've still got to do the the employee thing but that's that doesn't necessarily mean share with what I'm just not sure we have time in 40 minutes to get through it to be honest so and we're happy to bring it back next next Tuesday as we wrap up this conversation we'll just we'll need to pair back the the workshop next week and just put on that that agenda still allows us to marry it up with the same time the council adopts your ordinance and I guess as far as sorry oh is that your set your presentation okay and of course in our closed session executive session we have the review so I'm gonna leave it at the I mean we've been at this a long time since 1130 do you know the people that were gonna be reviewing do y'all want to maybe postpone that a week it's where we're a little bit more fresh and our minds are a little bit more clear well I'm just giving you an option I mean because we're not gonna be able to probably complete them within 50 minutes and that means we 're gonna stay over the council meeting so I open it up to my colleagues and those that I mean I don't mind pushing it to next week if we have time or a couple weeks if that's okay with the council is that okay is that okay with the appoint ees okay so next Tuesday yeah yeah we'll look at the agenda yeah yeah okay then well that concludes then our work session and I guess we don't have to we don't have any close that we don't know any close session good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting of the Denton City Council on April the 3rd 2018 it is 633 we have a full council so we'll now call this meeting to order the first item on the agenda is if you would stand with me if you're able to pledge allegiance to the US and the Texas flag [chanting] Denton Arbor Day Julie and anybody else that wants to come on down come on down if y'all would introduce yourselves and tell us a little bit about Denton Arbor Day. Great I'm Julie Anderson the program manager of Keep Denton Beautiful we celebrate Arbor Day every year in April and Denton's official celebration is with our Denton Redbud Festival which is February not February April 21st a Saturday here at Quaker Town Park of the big Redbud Festival come out for that and then we also have Children's Arbor Day where we give away Redbud seedlings and do presentations at elementary schools in Denton and that's next week so celebrate Arbor Day with us and then we have some board members and staff here as well. My name is Allie Solva and I am the board president. Krista Crowe board member. Haywood Morgan Urban Foresters Seed of Denton and also a board member. Celia Splacho program and volunteer coordinator. Well I'm gonna say another shout out for the Keep Denton Beautiful day that we had a couple weeks ago it's wonderful it's nice to see everybody out picking up litter so this is a mayor this proclamation this is the mayor this proclamation by the mayor of the city of Denton whereas in 1872 J. Sterling Morton proposed that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees whereas this holiday called Arbor Day was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska and is now observed throughout the nation in the world whereas trees can reduce erosion cut heating and cooling costs clean the air provide habitat for wildlife and serve as a renewable resource of wood and fuel and whereas trees serve as a green infrastructure infrastructure excuse me by increasing property values enhancing the economic vital ity of business areas and beautifying our community and whereas the city of Dent on is celebrating its 27th consecutive year as a tree city USA through the National Arbor Day Foundation and whereas in celebration of Arbor Day Keep Denton Beautiful annually holds the Denton Redbud Festival and children's Arbor Day programs as well as a numerous other community forestry programs to encourage the planting and care of trees now therefore I Chris Watts mayor the city of Denton Texas do hereby proclaim April the 21st 2018 as Denton Arbor Day and urge all citizens to support the efforts to care for and plant trees for the betterment of our community for this and future generations so it's April the 21st is when is when that festival is is that right all right well thank you all so much University Day anybody here for University Day well I will read it because I'm going to talk to him at University Day this is a proclamation by the mayor of the city of Denton whereas the University of North Texas was established in 1890 as a teacher education facility by Joshua C Chilton the school's first president who leased facilities for the Texas Normal College and Teacher Training Institute above a hardware store on the town square and whereas in 1899 the Texas legislature accepted the buildings and grounds of the college from the city of Denton and in 1961 designated the college a university and whereas the Texas legislature approved the institution's name change in 1988 to the University of North Texas in recognition of its expanding role and scope and whereas the University of North Texas ranked a tier one research university by the Carnegie classification is one of the nation's largest public universities and the most comprehensive public research university in the North Texas region now therefore I Chris Watts mayor the city of Denton Texas do hereby declare proclaim April the 13th 2018 as University Day in the city of Denton and all and urge all citizens to celebrate on this day which commemorates the institutions becoming a university fantastic thank you all so much I will give that to them at the University so University Day celebration child abuse prevention month who is here anyone here to accept this is an important one this is a proclamation by the mayor of the city of Denton whereas child abuse and neglect is a complex and ongoing problem in our society affecting many children in Denton County in 2017 didn't County child protective services received 4949 reports of child abuse and of those 3038 were assigned to caseworkers that was in 2017 alone whereas in 2017 didn't County child protective services obtained legal custody of 298 new children who were then placed within an appropriate relative or kinship caregiver or in a foster home in that same year didn't County child protective services had an average of 394 children in its protective custody and whereas every child is entitled to be loved cared for nurtured feel secure and be free from verbal sexual emotional and physical abuse and neglect and whereas didn't County has dedicated individuals and organizations who work daily to counter the problem of child maltreatment and to help parents obtain the assistance they need and whereas effective child abuse prevention programs succeed because of partnerships created among social service agencies schools faith communities civic organizations law enforcement agencies and the business community whereas effective child abuse programs succeed I just read that never mind I now therefore I Chris Watts mayor the city of Denton Texas in honor of all children in Denton County do hereby proclaim the month of April as child abuse prevention month in the city of Denton and urge all citizens community agencies faith groups medical facilities and businesses to increase their participation in our efforts to support families thereby preventing child abuse and strengthening the communities in which we live this is an important proclamation so thank y'all if we could roll the review of procedures for addressing the City Council the Denton City Council has adopted rules of procedure including a code of conduct that applies to citizens as well as council members these rules were enacted to promote an orderly process and to preserve decor um here is a brief review of the rules that apply to citizen reports citizens will have three minutes to give a scheduled citizen report and four minutes to give an open mic report there will be an electronic bell 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 not to 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 for scheduled citizen reports the council has enacted a temporary pilot program whereby additional council discussion or questions are allowed but limited to two minutes for non scheduled open mic citizen reports the council may listen to citizens speak however because no notice of the subject of the open mic report has been provided to the public in advance the Texas Open Meetings Act limits any deliberation or decision by the council to a proposal to place the item on a future agenda a statement of factual policy or a recitation of existing policy when speaking to the council citizens are asked to direct all remarks and questions to the council as a whole and not to any individual member please refrain from making abusive personal impert inent profane or slanderous remarks anyone who violates this council rule of procedure may be immediately removed from the council chamber thank you in advance 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 okay we do not have any agenda item 3b received scheduled citizen reports but we do have an open mic agenda item 3c from David Smith if you'll come down and state your name and address your time will begin is David Smith here oh oh I'm sorry yes my name is David Smith I live at 910 Stone Circle Lane Lewisville Texas and we're here to talk about the Denton County Transportation Association and it's been over a decade since the agency was created and during that time the three cities have contributed probably 250 million dollars toward that agency and I I have some information I have to share with you the first slide is the study called the Hamilton study and it's the slide that got my interest in attending these meetings over the last year and what this shows is the loss per rider that different rail systems experience in the country and it just highlight one as you look at dart as an example it experiences about a four and a half dollar loss per rider and the worst case here is is probably about six and a half dollars per rider if you flip the page this is from the information from the Federal Transit Administration database in DC and what it says here is that the Denton County Transportation Authority is the fifth most expensive rail system in the country that's quite high and then if you flip to the next page it shows is the loss and that means the cost is taxpayers of the city of Denton is $22.73 kind of way out of line compared to let's say dot if one a half so we're sitting here at $22.73 and if you flip to the next page there's a recovery graph and what it says it recovers 6% of the cost of that service and that's the last in the country out of the 60 63 64 systems in the nation and then if you flip to the next page it deals with the connect that's the bus service that services real Louisville and Denton City and you know there's a database and you you have all this information really the students run on a contract and that contract is priced at cost and you have that data so you take that out and the students represent about 75% of the riders hip in in the system so what you remove you you're left with the cost of connect and what this says here is that for every time someone gets on a bus in the city of Denton we not counting the student contract it cost $12.79 you know if you look at that of the 34 bus systems in the state of Texas it's the is the six most expensive bus system in the state of Texas quite high and then the next section is the feds call this demand response but it's your access system and this is for this probably the most important part of their system it takes care of the handicapped it takes you over the aged and they the people they depend on that and when you look at the roughly 49 systems in the state of Texas this is the eighth most expensive system in the state of Texas at forty four dollars and fifty forty eight cents and then another way to look at that is the cost per hour again fifth most expensive system in the state of Texas and so my time's about up and I have a detailed report on this and I'll come back again and provide some information on other aspects of Denton County Transportation Authority thank you very much thank you very much I appreciate that okay our next agenda item will be consent agenda and I don 't believe we pulled any of the consent agenda items did we not all right councilmember Gregory of all the items on the consent agenda councilmember Ryan I'll second we have a motion and a second for the consent agenda let's vote on the board please motion carries unanimously we'll move on to agenda items for individual consideration which will be agenda item 5a considered option of ordinance of the city of Denton Texas a Texas home real municipal corporation authorizing the city manager to execute a contract for utility assistance program supporting low-income households good evening mayor city council city manager Tiffany Thompson customer service manager here tonight to go over the request for proposal for the utility assistance program a little bit of background the prevent loss of utility services also known as the plus one program helps our customers who are going through a financial hardship to be able to pay for their utilities and also to restore services if they've encountered interruption of services originally we thought that we'd be coming before you in June for this contract but we're three months ahead of schedule for that which we're excited about so we can get that enhanced criteria to our customers quicker so with the request for proposal we did go out to 295 organizations for the bid we had one sole submission which is interfaith ministries Inc of Denton they are the current incumbent of the contract that contract is going from 100 to 125 thousand dollars per the public utilities board direction and City Council's direction the total administration cost is increasing by 26 percent with this contract over the last two contract terms that we've had with interface over the last seven years we did not have a price increase this increase is specifically tied to the personnel cost and technology the personnel cost is because they spend up to an hour with each of the clients to be able to assist them with a holistic solution make sure that they know all the resources that are available to them because oftentimes they're not encountering just a singular issue so they want to make sure to spend time with those clients and then also helping them with budgeting resources as well and then for the technology that's going up because they're implementing a homeless management information system to help gather the criteria and data that's needed that we're requiring in that contract so that 's another reason why the technology is going up so the criteria for the clients is changing with this criteria to be able to assist our customers more than once in that 12-month period up to three times a year and then also with security deposits assistance and there's no required living time that they have to be at that address in order to qualify for assistance those are the three barriers that our customers are facing the most with the current contract that we're addressing in this new contract and then reporting criteria we want to make sure that we get good good data on what the barriers our customers are facing right now so we want to be able to require that data in the contract for them to report back to us on a monthly basis and then takeaways and recommendations for your consideration tonight is to award the contract to interfaith ministries the public utilities board did move to approve this with a six to zero vote on March the 26 and with your approval we would be reporting back within a year time frame on the data that was collected and what the customer impact was and then if you would like to give us direction on further enhancements of that criteria with that I'd be happy to answer any questions customer breaks so the increase to 125 does the the amount that we're paying the 18 thousand eight hundred eighty six does that come out of the 125 or is that separate cost that comes out of that that's the total 125 a year so that comes out of that so we're actually just increasing what we can provide to people who need $7,000 it's an estimated yes correct the contract went from 100 a year to 125 thousand but I think we had administrative caught when it was a hundred thousand we had fourteen thousand dollars worth so the Delta really is the is the between last year it was like four or five thousand bucks six how much was it between the last year and the new contract could you go back to that slide please so it went up forty eight hundred dollars in essence so we raised at 25,000 but we're adding an additional 48 in expenses so the nets about a little over $20,000 extra to the program yeah any other questions or comments okay councilmember Briggs I move approval mayor pro tem second we have a motion and a second on the agenda item 5a let's vote on the board please motion carries unanimously thank you you bet agenda item 5b consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the city of Denton Texas appointing an alternate representative to the board of directors of the Denton County Transportation Authority mayor members of council Mark Nelson director of transportation pleasure to visit with you this evening in reference to this particular item as stated this is the proposed or opportunity to appoint a board alternate to the Denton County Transportation Authority we currently have a board representative and the form of Richard Huckabee there has been a nomination for miss Donna bloom who's a local attorney here in the city of Denton as a resident of Denton and this is one of the options before you this evening we do have a draft resolution in your backup whereby that particular name could be could be filled in if the council so chooses the other options on the table this evening would be to reappoint guy McElroy who is currently serving as that as that board alternate on the DCTA board should council desire to make other nominations for other interested individuals who may want to serve on that board that is open at this point in time and certainly take no action at this point in time was a is another option with that I would take any question that you may have okay put in well I I presented Donna blooms name for nomination I would if there are other suggestions I'm certainly open to it but that would be my nomination does that nomination need a second mr. city attorney okay all right we have a nomination councilmember Briggs I will second that nomination all right so we have a I guess mayor pro tem okay yeah that's okay yeah so mayor pro tem has moved to adopt the nomination councilmember Briggs would you be willing to second that as well yes sir all right let's go ahead and vote on the board for agenda item 5b motion carries unanimously thank you we now move on to our public hearing portion of the agenda agenda item 6a is hold a public hearing regarding a draft draft ethics ordinance from attorney Alan Borquez pretty close dead on there I don't believe you mayor and council Alan Borquez we are on draft C of the code of ethics that you've been working on in your slideshow I provided a quick sampling for you a summary of the process and how we've come so far and the key dates in this process I think it's important as people are evaluating our ordinance to to recite some of the priorities that developed during the course of this process first and foremost you wanted to foster a culture of public integrity at City Hall for those that serve the city of Denton you went to craft a code of ethics that fit Denton you were not interested in just copying and pasting with somebody else has done you challenged me to identify for you the best practices and bring those forward you wanted your code to have clear guidelines and rules that were understandable by those that are affected by it not for you to go to the minimal level established by state law but you challenged me to exceed that which we have done you wanted to create a fair and reasonable process to administer this ordinance while at the same time respecting the individual rights and freedoms of those that serve the city of Denton we tried to do all this why while avoiding having the city of Denton caught up in any sort of defamation or smearing of someone 's reputation in doing that we considered state law you reviewed sample languages from 18 different cities this makes our tenth public meeting that's been held on eight different dates you deliberated each and every rule that went into your code and you received my guidance along the way so what you have in front of you with draft C is a code that is specific specifically crafted for the city of Denton and this afternoon during our work session you made a few more tweaks to that which I will put together and present to you on the 17th as draft D key things that members of the public should understand when considering this is first of all the purpose which is to foster an environment of integrity for those that serve the city of Denton these things are included including an applicability phrase so you understand and they understand who is governed by this those being city officials as defined in the code for a limited period of time former city officials which under a draft D will be for just one year vendors and complainants the expectations that you set out at the beginning are that city officials must conduct themselves in a manner that fosters public trust and remind city officials they are charged with performing their public duties in a way that projects their own personal integrity and upholds the integrity of the organization that being the city of Denton your code provides many prohibitions here's a short list of what those are there's a short list of what the key ingredients are in that draft ordinance and that concludes the public hearing presentation from my standpoint I will be available to respond to anything that comes up after the citizens have a chance to speak and try to answer any questions that arise any questions before we open the public hearing saying that we will now open the public hearing I do have some blue cards which we will go through those and then because it is a public hearing anybody wishing to speak after that certainly feel free to come down and state your name and address first card up is Monica Glenn if you'll come down and states your name and address your time will begin my name is Monica Glenn and my address is 6517 Edwards Road and I just first of all I want to thank all of you for putting this together I did serve on the Charter Committee and it was definitely a big topic that we discussed and it's very exciting that you've made it such a priority and gotten in such an ordinance so quickly so thank you very much for your time for that I am a business owner in town and so one of the questions that I have is does a $600 gross annual income threshold for conflicting interest apply to income from an employing business entity or also from the individual clients of that business entity I just want to clarify that if we have a client that comes before you and they I have a hotel so this was just be specific and they they stay with me at the hotel they've now given my business more than $600 and that of course contributes more than $600 to my gross annual income so I just want to make sure that if I was on the council that I would not have a conflict of interest and have to disclose all my client list thank you and and what we thought I'd like to do is Alan as these questions come up that we might have addressed in the work session if you wouldn't in mind non summarizing some of the answers to those because I think that was one specifically that we addressed in the work session and just sort of give what the or I mean you can do it now or we can wait till we finish all the all the public hearing which would you prefer okay all right sure okay next speaker is Eric Clark my name is Eric Clark my address is 3913 Andrew Avenue in Texas Mayor Watts Council I'm here tonight representing the Denton Chamber of Commerce I currently just became the board chair for the chamber and on March 28th our local relations committee came together and reviewed the proposed ethics ordinance I understand there was a work session today so if some of this has already been addressed I apologize on the front end I was unable to get here first off we strongly support the daunting task you have taken on of an ethics ordinance I think every one of us believe that that is very important but going through this understanding that there may be some areas where we have some questions or concerns one of those would be you know a nonprofit board as referenced as a conflict of interest the language state serves on the board of the directors or as an officer of a nonprofit corporation does that refer to only the governing boards if so could the word governing be added to the ordinance second item that came up was an observation that the clause prohibiting working for compensation on prior projects one year after service is certainly agreeable if applied to city employees as currently proposed we suggest that it should not apply to citizen serving on the board Commissioner Council third based on the current language ethics violations will be first vetted by the city auditor prior to being sent to the ethics board subject to the opening meetings act the concern here is since the ethics meeting will be open it opens frivolous ethics complaints and to be filed simply to damage potentially damage someone's reputation is it possible to withhold the name in order to protect the person accused until proven guilty but also ensure there is no conflict of interest on the ethics board since they it is an appointed position by the members of the City Council the Denton chamber has proudly contracted the city of Denton to provide specific external marketing services for the didn't a convention of visitor bureau and economic development since 1976 and 1986 we would like further clarification of the term vendor specifically does this ordinance include any agency or partner the city provides funding to the chamber the United Way the festival or a festival foundation if you'd like further information I'm more happy to compile that and send it back to you again just want to thank you for taking on this daunting task I know you have had work very hard to put your arms around this and I appreciate it thank you any questions seen that thank you next speaker is Gary Henderson come down state your name and address your time will begin good evening Gary Henderson 22 32 Jefferson trail Denton and I echo the comments thank you so much for the for the work you're putting into this important policy just want to reiterate from the nonprofit community at our project blueprint board training program at United Way of Denton County we want to make sure we're training those community members that volunteer and serve as board members which are nonprofits in Denton County whose governing boards are out of Dallas or Fort Worth Salvation Army would be a great example their board members are really advisory members they're not governing board members whereas United Way's board members would be a governing board member so if you could clarify that for our volunteers then we can train and teach accordingly in our project blueprint program thank you thank you next speaker is Ken Gold you'll come down state your name and address your time will begin mayor members of the council thank you for letting me speak once again on ethics I'm gonna go one more time on public full disclosure public disclosure you've got a new section and draft seat that I'm supportive of I think you all done good work we're not quite there yet but I think the duty to disclose is ongoing in the section the new section relies on an annual report y' all talked about this a little bit earlier it needs to be these disclosures need to be prior to any action on a pending matter before the council I think an annual report is fine I don't have an objection to it but I would rather see something before the actual item comes up for a vote the annual report also has some problems with the affirmative defense in there about failure to to put something in that report it's not necessarily grounds for a complaint if you have prior disclosure requirements then that's that's just an issue with the the report it's not a problem with the actual disclosure if you fail to disclose prior to taking action that would be grounds for an ethics complaint but the way it's worded here I've still got a little problems with the construction but I appreciate everything you've done I think your discussions earlier today at the work session on this I think y'all are heading in the right direction I just want to throw my two cents in thank you thank you Ken next speaker will be Jill Jester come down state your name and address your time will begin good evening my name is Jill Jester Jill Elizabeth Jester and I reside at 2106 Stonegate Drive Denton Texas 76205 I'd like to begin by saying thank you to each and every one of you for your service some of you are friends some are colleagues and I certainly appreciate all of you and the service that you give diligently and I truly believe that each of you are coming from the heart each and every time you appear at City Council what I would like to do more than ants ask a question is voice some concerns from friends and colleagues that I have heard of and that is people like me that do business in the service industry here in Denton Texas as well as those that serve on nonprofit boards and what I would say is I'm glad that there's not an actual vote tonight so that more information can come out as far as for example myself I'm an attorney a local attorney here in town and if I did wills for a couple that would be over the $600 threshold and so what what is I think some of the information needed out in the community is if I were to run for City Council would that mean that that couple could not come to me for two years before two years after at what at what position would they have in an entity that would disqualify me from being able to vote if I were to serve in a public function and the concern I think is that business owners in service industry such as myself that relies on individuals and families and individuals to come to me for services that it would make it impossible to serve in a capacity such as City Council or on nonprofit boards in the community and that the people with the best knowledge may not be able to be a part of the conversation should that nonprofit be a vendor or should that nonprofit be tasked with a certain task from the City Council and that you would not be able to be a part of that conversation I think secondly as far as the ethics board or Ethics Council I'm not really sure what the terminology is but seen recent events in light of citizens that are here and citizens that are involved and want to be involved in the community what the potential is for abuse as well as to utilize for good I think is a is a real concern social media etc has a very big part to play in our community discourse and the ability to say hey I mean for example you know filing a pleading whether it's true or not it makes news and it gives some kind of validity's validity such as filing an ethics complaint whether or not it's true you've then had an ethics complaint and so just making sure that we are protecting the people that are in good faith serving our communities is really what I'm looking for and again I'd like to thank every single person here who I absolutely know is here in with the right heart and the right mindset and in particular I'd like to thank Miss Bagheri I saw some of the responses that you had to some citizens questions that came out and I appreciate that and I really appreciate your time and letting me come and speak some of the concerns that are coming from not only myself but others in the community thank you thank you those are all the cards that I have but this is a public hearing anybody else wishing to speak please come down and state your name and address and your time will begin mayor pro tem did you want to wait till after the public hearing did you have a comment now okay all right anybody else wishing to speak at this public hearing on this agenda item anybody else one more time okay we will now close the public hearing on this agenda item mayor protein I think aside from Ken's comments all of the other questions were addressed at our work session so it's the very like last 10 minutes or so of the meeting if you click on the item and then kind of go forward I'm sure Alan will also go into details of it but in case you just wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth it's all available Alan if you'd like to come down and address at least some of the questions that were presented this evening that we might have covered in our prior work session certainly mayor council regarding the question of whether the $600 income threshold is from just an employer or also from customers or clients it's just going to be clarified to be from the employer so if you have a business entity and you get at least $600 from that entity either because you're the owner of it or because you're employed by it that would trigger the conflicting interest provisions of this code not just the fact that a customer or an individual client has given you that much income the second issue regarding the the nonprofits we discussed adding the words governing board to clarify that that's what it's about not just a board of directors if it's not a decision-making body regarding the prior projects the current language specifies that in order for the prohibition on prior projects to kick in an individual city official would had to have been personally and substantially involved in negotiating or approving that contract and it is limited to contracts it clarifies in draft C that it just voting or deliberating from the dais would not itself trigger that limitation on prior projects we're going to go further and clarify that that prohibition on former officials working on prior projects will only last for one year not two years and we're going to specifically define what's meant by before City Hall to be basically lobbying city officials for a discretionary approval not a ministerial permit so I think draft D will clarify that a little bit further and narrow that prohibition regarding the vetting of privilege of fr ivolous complaints we have two steps in the process in our ordinance before a complaint has a full-blown public hearing before the Board of Ethics the first is that the city auditors office is charged with looking at the complaint document and making sure the form contains all the ingredients required by the ordinance it's just a paperwork exercise either the form is complete or it's not if it's incomplete then it gets sent back to the complainant and they're giving it an opportunity to cure that if the form is complete it then goes from the city auditors hands to a panel in essence a subcommittee of the Board of Ethics that will then review the document not to decide if someone's guilty or innocent not to decide whether an ethics infraction was committed or not but to look at the document and conclude whether if all the facts that are alleged are taken as true do the allegations add up to a violation under our code if the answer is yes then it goes forward to the Board of Ethics for a public hearing if the answer is no then it's dismissed so those are the two pre-filtering provisions we have in the code there is no mechanism for keeping things confidential after the panel has its review and I think it 'd be difficult for me to recommend that you have hearings without names being listed because we've already made the choice that this Board of Ethics and the panels will comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act the Open Meetings Act requires specificity in the notice and I know of no provision that would allow for anonymous hearings therefore we're trying to protect folks reputations while also complying with the council's goal of transparency and complying with the Open Meetings Act in terms of what could a Chamber of Commerce or a nonprofit be considered a vendor under this ordinance the answer is yes if a nonprofit is providing services under a contract with the city it is by definition a vendor and it's likely to stay that way in draft D as well what does that mean that means that that nonprofit is subject to the prohibitions on giving gifts over a certain level like any other corporation would that's the only part that would provide to that would apply to them at that point we already covered the issue about adding governing board to the definition of nonprofit and again any city official being on a board of directors or a governing board of a nonprofit does not preclude them from serving in the capacity with the city what this ordinance would do is create a conflicting interest for them meaning if that nonprofit board were to come before the city for a contract for funding for zoning variance for any of those sorts of things that council member or that city official who serves on the board of directors would have to do two things number one disclose that interest in an affidavit which is a public document and then they would have to recuse themselves from deliber ations and voting on that item it doesn't preclude them from serving in any way it just keeps them from voting to send money or approvals to a group for which they already have a fiduciary duty in the issue regarding full disclosures and disclosures of those business relationships we are going to to revise the language that's in draft C so that in draft D it'll be specific that those disclosures must be filed as a matter is brought before the city it's pending before the city there will be a voter action before that board on that issue that's when the disclosure forms need to be filed and then finally there was an issue regarding again the threshold for those in the service industry we're talking about the employer we're talking about the business entity this ordinance does not require people to keep track of the individual clients or customers that entity might have in terms of trying to again protect people's reputations and and avoid defamation I think that the council has tried mightily in this document to try to balance your goals of having an increased sense of integrity in the organization while also respecting individual rights and also trying to avoid defamation you've said it it's in the ordinance we have procedures to try to avoid this ordinance being used as a political weapon or a tool to pursue some sort of personal vendetta I don't know that any ethics ordinance is perfect in that regard but at least you 've made that statement in writing and through the policies that you're considering at this point and I don't have a better way to recommend it than what you have in front of you right now a couple questions mayor pro tem well I wanted to clarify because I couldn't remember if we actually decided to include the language on governing or not so I think I think the decision at that time based upon the information we had was that we weren't going to include it because we didn't know that there was a distinction between governing boards and advisory boards so I don't think it would hurt I don't think it harms anything to further clarify it so that if there is a situation where there's an advisory board then it does give some some more clear direction is that would you how would you feel about that what would your advice be on that I think that's a good change and I'm sorry mayor pro tem I thought I sensed consensus on that point oh that we were gonna include I thought we were okay all right I just couldn't I mean sometimes I can't tell what we agreed to so I wanted to clarify I saw enough heads nodding to convince me to put it in the next draft okay the other thing I wanted to mention was the disclosure portion we I think we agreed that perhaps in definitions or some area that it makes sense we were going to create a specific item that said actual knowledge yes the only thing that would have to be disclosed or things that we have actual knowledge of yes okay that will be in the next draft councilmember Gregory thank you thank you mayor okay let's dig a little bit further into vendors a definition of vendors tonight we approved a contract with interfaith ministries it's a nonprofit and they're going to administer funds that we provide to them for assistance with utilities for low-income households and they are some of that money is going for administrative services they're a vendor we have a contract with them so they would fall under the vendor category correct yes okay now we have some other nonprofits in town that also receive funds from the city and and in doing so they get a contract they sign a contract an example would be a nonprofit like Fred Moore day nursery school that might get a council member contingency funds or a number of other nonprofits that that have events that it might be the Texas Storytelling Festival that that gets hot funds and when they get hot funds they have to sign a contract they're not necessarily providing a service to the city for those funds they've simply applied for those funds hot funds to provide a service to the community to the to the area that brings heads in bed would they be considered vendors the the current definition councilman is that a person who provides or seeks to provide goods services or real property to the city in exchange for compensation and so if they meet that definition I think they would fall under the definition of vendors which means this ordinance as it's written would prohibit them from giving gifts to city officials in excess of the limits we've established in this ordinance well that's where I was going because several of those organizations for example the storytelling festival they want council members to know what this event is and so they send an envelope with a couple of tickets it's under the $50 limit but it's an opportunity for council members to know hey this is here's your chance to go or or it might be to a to some of the other events for your hot funds ago so simply people are aware I don't know that they're really providing a service to the city so I'm not I 'm still wondering if they're really a vendor or not but but but you're saying if they provided a ticket to that event so that the council members are aware of it there is some monetary value to it but as long as it's below the $50 there's not an issue with the ethics ordinance as it's being drafted you're correct as long as it's below the $50 limit or the annual maximum there's no issue under the ethics ordinance I'll also point out that things like meals lod ging transportation entertainment in connection with civic events charity functions are exempt from the definition of gifts so they don't fall under the $50 per gift or $200 limit at all if I may go on yes would nonprofits be considered a nonprofit a bit be considered a charity event often often I would suspect so yes okay thank you a couple of just clarifications you had mentioned the subsequent work on prior projects I thought you just said it only applies to contracts but I saw I wanted to make sure that and I do have just a question that lingered from the work session so the language says compensated basis relating to a city contract or arrangement for the provision of good services and real property or other things of value so it's contracts and then arrangements as defined would an entitlement such as a zoning change an SUP something that has to do with an entitlement on a piece of real property would that be considered an arrangement for provisions of good services real property or other things of value no okay so it would so those kind of issues that come came before the city official if they if they even substantially or personally negotiated in those situations that still wouldn 't apply because it wouldn't meet the definition of the contract or arrangement correct okay great and then to clarify on former city officials we had discussed they represent someone for compensation it said before that it was just before the city and what we did is we modified it to say that they couldn't represent they couldn't receive compensation for pay and representing a third party in front of the boards or commissions ie ZBA pub planning and zoning and the City Council that's those are the restrictions on that representation or before the city for for compensation yes okay and that's locked and that's restricted to lobbying on a discretionary decision yes at any of those boards and any of those boards yeah okay all right okay good any other questions or comments from staff I mean from the council fantastic thank you I believe staff is scheduled our next public hearing on this matter to be on the 17th all right thank you all right thank you I want you bet appreciate that all right we'll move on to our next agenda item on the public hearing agenda which is agenda item 6b which is hold a public hearing considered option of the ordinance of the city of Denton Texas regarding a zoning change from NR 2 to CMG thank you mayor members of council members of staff that's not it apologize load my presentation real quick mayor members of council members of staff again Romney G itta with the development services department this is a zoning change from NR 2 to CM G community I'm sure commercial mixed-use as well as an initial zoning of a property that was recently annexed also to CMG zoning district the total site is approximately six point three seven acres which is generally located just north of TZ lane approximately 300 feet from old Alton Road the subject area under our future land use map is designated as community mixed-use which is intended for mixed use mixed uses commercial which remains predominantly but has other uses that are complementary to the site it also complements existing uses and it's a place where a sense of place is created this slide here illustrates the zoning that is currently in place again our D5x which is a designated zoning NR 2 the proposed zoning is to zone the entire site to CMG surrounding the subject site which is generally in this area here we've got Hickory Creek manufacturer housing development to the east single family and a gas well production site to the south and southeast we also have commercial and industrial uses to the south primarily in this general area NR 2 and CMG industrial uses and to the southwest Gahr High School and gas well production site to the north an analysis was done on the proposed rezoning the again NR 2 is not consistent as it only permits two dwelling units per acre and is not consistent with the future land use element RD 5 is a designation of a property after annex ation and it is not consistent again with the future land use with respect to the CMG that zoning district is consistent with the future land use as the future land use designation is community mixed use also Teasley Lane is a key corridor as well as an area of a gateway entry into the city and this proposed zoning district would be consistent with with what's being proposed or what 's being developed being developed as as indicated is the widening of Teasley Lane the classification on a mobility plan is a primary arterial which ultimate right away would be 135 feet estimated time for completion for this widening project is approximately January of 2020 notices were sent out in February of this year 14 to 200 foot notices property owners 502 currency letters to residents within 500 feet that is and a sign was also posted on the site this illustrates the boundary of the notifications as of this afternoon staff has not received any forms mailed or emailed however staff has received phone calls asking about the proposal and staff was able to answer those questions primarily the questions were what's being proposed the applicant has indicated that retail restaurant and offices are some of the uses that would most likely be proposed for these for this particular site with that the planning is owning Commission at their public hearing recommended six zero to approve this request staff also recommends approval of this zoning request and initial zoning as it is in consistent with the den plan 2030 and is within the criteria for approval under the DDC that concludes my presentation I'll be happy to answer any questions the applicant is also present and is available for any questions as well Councilmember Gregory thank you mayor just to be certain no matter what the zoning is there are certain types of businesses that can not be located within so many feet of a public school certain uses yes and that and that's regardless of whatever the zoning category correct okay so this would not impact that prohibition at all correct okay thank you any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing thank you I will now open the public hearing I do not have any blue cards that have signed up to speak but this is a public hearing no blue card is required so anyone wishing to speak just come on down and state your name and address and your time will begin on this agenda item 6b anybody wishing to speak okay seeing none we will now close the public hearing mayor Potem councilmember Ryan I'll second we have a motion and a second for approval of agenda item 6b let's vote on the board please motion carries unanimously moving on to agenda item 6c hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton Texas regarding a change in zoning classification from neighborhood residential to NR2 and use classification to an ECC district thank you mayor council members let me go ahead and pull up my hand it's not it this is the one that yeah yeah I tell you what we can do is we can move on to the next agenda item to see if you are able to locate it either there on a flash drive or something and and and then pick it back up okay after that okay all right yeah so we'll do that because I think we have a lot of speakers here a lot of people here for agenda item 6d so we'll go ahead and move that and then if we are able to get the presentation at the end of the agenda for 6c we'll go ahead and consider that yes ma'am all right so I'll go ahead and and we're all okay with that is that correct mr. city attorney all right thank you we'll move on to agenda item 6d then which is oh I guess do we have the do we have the presentation for 6d or is that with okay so we're gonna move down to 6 6e yeah okay so we'll we'll go we'll take care of that so we'll get that presentation so that we can hear 6c and deep we'll go ahead and do then agenda item 6e I'm sorry I misunderstood all right we'll hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance regarding proposed revisions the Dent Development Code specifically to repeal and replace sub chapter 17 environmentally sensitive areas good evening council mayor and city manager my name is Deborah Vera I'm with environmental services and I'm here to present to you the the proposed changes to sub chapter 17 and so she had a sub chapters that support those changes as well currently the city of Denton provides protection to four type of environmental sensitive areas those are flood plains which are further classified into developed and undeveloped riparian buffers water related habitats and upland habitats all those type of ESAs have in common that they actually provide habitat for wildlife they filter pollutants they are sources of resources they are actually served as a conduit for species to move from point A to point B but closer to the city of Denton it also allows the city to meet many of the state and federal permits and regulations that the city stack is a task to to comply with and also help us with designations and programs that the city is currently part of the reason for proposing the changes to sub chapter 17 is because sub chapter 17 came into existing in 2002 with the adoption of the Denton Development Code from that time no changes have been made to sub chapter 17 in comparison with many other changes that the D DC have gone through what I have created is some inconsistency and conflicts between 17 and other chapters of the Denton Development Code staff have heard from many times from applicants and the general public about the the need to improve the wording and phrasing in some of the language in 17 it is not clear enough to actually convey the message and the reason why we are protecting the environmental sensitive area sometimes is lacking the guidance for the policy implementation in these policies that we currently have has been in place for over 16 years now and it's time to reevaluate how they are working they deserve to be kept and they deserve to be modified and definitely a consider new policies that we have come to to know about as a part of the public betting process we had 14 meetings with the committee on the environment the proposed drafts have been posted in the Denton Development Code update web page notices have been sent to all project docs applicant via email presentations to at the Denton Development Code update open houses were made we solicited input from developers and consultants and we had three PNC work sessions and two public hearings so far I would like to give you a short overview of what PNC had staff the first public hearing was on February 7 the staff presented all the COE vetted language to them at that time we had 61 public comments already received we made them available to the planning and zoning Commission the PNC task staff to do an analysis about the amount of open habitat in residential and non-residential zoning districts they also asked us to provide responses to all public comments and PNC requested the rewarding of the definition for upland habitat two weeks after in February 21st we have another public hearing in continuation of the first at that time written responses to all public comments were made available to the planning and zoning Commission based on the public input a staff were able to say to make approximately 26 pop changes to address those public comments at that time PNC directed to list all definitions in sub chapter 17 to also be included in sub chapter 23 and the criteria manual and PNC recommended approval of the changes made in response to the public comment so on staff would like to discuss with you one of the more substantial changes proposed in the DDC now the first one is the the creation of the ESA criteria manual for the first time the purpose of doing a criteria manual is just to provide a guiding document for developers and the general community in general for protecting and managing eases we often have a lot of comments from the public what they can do how they can do it and I think that a document that addressed those concerns would be useful for the community we received one comment public comment about the creation of the criteria manual in planning and commission recommends no changes to the language as better through the COE this second major change would be the expansion of the credits when actually meeting the ESA regulations currently the code provides two type of credit is partland dedication and drainage standards but with the proposed changes we're actually expanding that to meet the the tree code and one to one ratio to meet the landscape regulations two to one ratio and to acknowledge the existence of the herbaceous materials on the western the prevalence of hervaceous material on the western side of the of the city and we also want to provide one-to-one credit for those we stuff is proposing the creation of appeal process for ESA field assessments during the work session this morning the City Council directed staff to make some changes those have been reflected on the presentation as a red lines now the appeal process will follow the zoning amendment procedure and we'll have to and section three thirty four point three point four will be amended there was one public comment in regards to the appeal process and the planning and certain commission recommends no changing except for the punctuation a comment the next major change will be the classification of floodplain ESAs and the purpose is just to classify floodplain as developed or undeveloped based on field assessment for providing consistencies right now the ESA map depicts the floodplain as a developed or undeveloped and there is a lot of inconsistencies throughout the map there are multiple instances where you have adjacent parcels and one have developed designation and the other undeveloped and that makes the process a little bit unfair for the people having to meet the additional conditions for undeveloped floodplain so by providing or by changing how the flood plain ESA is shown on the map that that remove that inconsistency and provide a chance for staff to make that determination at the time of development no public comments were received about this change and the planning commission recommends no changes utility crossings this morning we were discussing about modifying the language I received indication to keep the original original language so I wanted to show it to you that they have that we have re verted back to the original language that it is part of your backup there was one public comment received and the planning commission recommends no changes to the COE vetted language changes to the mobility plan roadways many of you might remember the the alternative ESA plan that Ryan Meadows have to go through in that in case the Ryan Meadows developmental were tasked to follow the city mobility plan and to extend Craigdale towards the side of the property by doing that they had to encroach the floodplain the repair and buffer and the water related because staff didn't have the authority to approve those encro achment they had to go through a alternative ESA plan this amendment only applies to the roadways identified on the mobility plan any other encroachment by roadways not identifying the mobility plan would be subject to the alternative ESA plan we receive no comments from the public on that matter and the planning commission recommended deleting reference to section 35 17.7 before as this section have been relocated to the ESA criteria manual private driveway the goal is just to eliminate the need for alternative ESA plans for residential driveways staff received no comment public about this change the planning and setting Commission recommends no changes as well we briefly discussed this morning about what or how driveway is defined for the transportation criteria manual driveway is only only pertains to single-family or duplex properties so in no instance commercial development would be able to use that exemption to circumvent the protection of the ESA's preservation of upland habitat the change was to extend protection to upland habitat for no residential development currently in the code protections only given if the site can contains more than 10 acres of upland habitat and it is developed for residential purposes in when those conditions are met 50% of the upland habitat have to be preserved however if non-residential development takes place no protection of the habitat is granted with this change we are actually protecting at least 30% of the tree canopy for non-residential development I just wanted to point out because the expansion of the credit system by meeting the 30% preservation of the upland habitat applicants will also be able to beat the tree code so in that regards it's they can meet both at the same time now public comments were received about this change and the planning Commission recommends no changes finally we are looking at working into providing a criteria for approving alternative ESA plan currently in the code we have no clear criteria for approving those documents during the work session staff was directed to change the language and I have made it those changes in the presentation the leading the leading sentence for the section will be City Council may approve the alternative plan with conditions necessary to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development upon considering the factors and goals noted on this section the criteria contains six different ways that to meet the intent of the alternative ESA plan two of them are completely new to to the debt and development code the remainder for actually our existing language that we were able to move around from sub chapter 17 and use it as a criteria for approval the first one is the mitigation goals are obtained by creating expanding or improving environmental sensitive area that is a complete new language as well as mitigation call goals are obtained by preserving environmental sensitive areas above the minimum requirements exchanges between different type of ESOs installing pollution prevention controls and or implementing best management practices for any other approaches that result in the improvement of the environment being impacted the as we mentioned the other four elements were already part of the code for the proposed changes we received three public comments and the financing Commission recommends no changes to the language because of the change that we made on the appeal process we have to actually instead of amending the staff approval procedure we will have to change the zoning amendment procedure section 35.3 point four point eight of the development code and add the following language number six consider an application for an appeal to an environmental sensitive area field assessment determination because PNC staff to include all definitions to sub chapter 17 23 and the criteria manual sub chapter 23 will have to be amended to get the new or revised definitions the staff recommends approval of the revisions the planning commission recommends approval with conditions and the committee on the environment recommended approval three to zero staff is available to answer any questions that you may have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing got some other rigs just a comment that we discussed this at length during work session so anyone watching tonight that wants to know anything more in depth they can look back at our work session today yes okay any other questions seeing none thank you this is a public hearing so I will now open the public hearing anybody wishing to speak on this agenda item please come down state your name and address and your time will begin anybody wishing to speak okay we will now close the public hearing and I do want to make sure that the things that we discussed in the work session and the decisions we made the changes that we made those are reflected in the action item that we're considering is that correct okay oh okay that's okay no that's okay I'm sorry mayor pro tem move for approval of this item all right councilmember riggs I will second all right we have a motion and a second for agenda item 6e let's vote on the board please motion carries unanimously we will now circle back around to agenda item 6c hold a public hearing considered option city of Denton for a zoning change from NR 2 to ECC oh if you could yeah behind the mic fixed our issue so let me go ahead represented by Lisa. Z17-0029 is a request for approval of the rezoning of approximately 1.7 acres from the NR2 neighborhood residential 2 district to the employment center commercial ECC district. As you can see on this map, the site is located on the south side of University US 380 approximately 820 feet west of the intersection of West University and Thomas Egan. This shows you the current zoning map which shows the proposed existing NR2 zoning district and the map on the bottom shows you the proposed zoning of the ECC district. Per the Denton plan, the subject site is designated as rural areas. This request does not conform to the rural areas land use designation. University Avenue was a two lane undivided road when the future land use plan was completed a few years ago and that was the purpose, the reason for designating it as rural areas. In the past couple of years it has been widened to its full capacity as a six lane divided primary arterial. Since the proposed zoning does not technically conform with the rural areas, we have to refer to section 35.33(b)(3) which provides additional criteria when a request does not comply with the underlying land use designation. A full discussion of this is in your backup. I'm going to go ahead and just kind of give a synopsis of our analysis. Due to the site size, shape and location along West University as well as the proximity to gas well pad sites, this site is very unlikely to develop with low density residential uses at any point in the future. At least we don't know how long the gas wells will be in production there. It could be 20 years or more. So it would be a long time before single family residential would be able to meet the proximity requirements. The commercial uses appropriate along our primary arterials are appropriate along primary arterials. West University will provide the adequate access and visibility necessary for commercial uses. The ECC districts are typically found near employment centers and incorporate office and business workplaces with supporting secondary uses. The development must comply with all tree, ESA, preservation, buffers, screening, tree canopy, all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance whenever it comes into develop. And the infrastructure needs will be assessed at the time of platting and site plan. Here is a map showing the gas well plats in the area. The star here shows the site location. We've got the city limit light here and mosh brance here and this site and then two other sites are the only sites on the south side of university in this location that are not encumbered by a gas well plant. >> Councilmember Briggs, did you have a question now? >> What is the closest gas well? >> The closest gas well? >> Yeah. >> Closest gas well is actually right here. >> Do we know how far away that is from the proposed site? >> It's approximately 250 feet. I measured it using the GIS measure and that gives us an approximate idea. >> And so everything that we see pink is a plat and so a gas well can go up all the way to the end of that plat so it could be closer. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. >> The site has 1234 linear feet of frontage along west university US 380 which is a significant regional corridor as I mentioned. US 380 has now been developed to its full capacity as a six lane divided arterial. Public notifications, they were sent out in February because of the large land holdings in this area. We sent two notices out via certified mail within 200 feet and then two notices were sent out via regular mail for courtesy notices. We received one response which encompasses 49% of the property located within the 200 foot boundary and for that reason a super majority vote of the council will be required tonight in order to approve this request. The planning and zoning commission recommended approval of this request with a vote of five to one. The one vote that was against this, the commissioner specifically said that she was concerned about the intensity of an ECC use in this district and that she was afraid that if this was approved it would open the door to more ECC uses and rezonings. That concludes my presentation and I can stand for any questions. The applicant is also present if you have any questions. I've got a question. Yes sir. What is the deepest, what's the measurement of the depth at the widest part of this lot? Because this is what an acre, what is this, 1.79 acres? Yes sir. 122.6 feet. Is the widest part and then it goes down to a point? Yes. Okay. Okay, Mayor Pro Tem. I have a question about the ECC origin. I guess was that the applicant who requested the ECC? Yes, it was the applicant. When the applicant purchased this property it was before the 2002 rezoning and it was z oned O office and he had planned to put his own office on that site. However, he did not. During the 2002 rezoning it was then z oned to NR2 and he has, he can tell you more fully than I can but he wants to take it back to something that can have office uses. What are some other zonings that could have office uses besides ECC? Well, you can have offices in the commercial, the CG zoning districts. There are some office uses that are permitted in , well the DCG wouldn't be appropriate here. I believe it would just be the commercial mixed use districts and then from there it would go to this district here. Okay, so is there something restricting this area from becoming a commercial mixed use district? Not as far as I know. Okay, all right, thank you. Just the land use designation at the moment. Thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing? All right, thank you. Sure. Thank you. This is a public hearing. I don't think I have any cards on this. So if the applicant wants to come down and speak and then it'll be a public hearing if anybody else wants to speak. State your name and address and your time will begin. Thank you Mayor and City Council. My name is Dr. Leshchakar . I've been here for over 40 years. You might have a little trouble understanding my English. I'm from the south, south of Staten Island, New York. But anyway, that being said, I was planning on building a clinic. I wanted to have a clinic here about 25 years ago. It was difficult to find commercial property at that time. The situation was such. And I found this piece of property here and I was ready to build a clinic on it, had designs and everything. And then fortunately I found a piece of property on Teasley on I-35. And then in 2002 they changed it to a rural area and I haven't been able to sell that property since because they put in the gas wells and everything like that. I've had a number of inquiries about commercial. Within just a few hundreds of feet you have ECC. And it turns out, if I might digress a little bit, it turns out that all cities in the United States, we don't know the reason why grow from the north, go from south to north and then grow west. And this is a major arterial 380. I can see everything commercial right along 380. And the only salient feature of this property is it has 12 34 frontal property. So it's not going to interfere with anything. It's useless in the way it is. And in the United States we try to force the use of land. In fact, we permit adverse possession of land. If somebody doesn't use it, somebody can come and literally take your land if they use it. So in its present situation, it's useless to Denton County. It's useless to me. It's useless to anybody. Nobody is going to put a residential property on this said property. So I think the only avenue is to change it to ECC. I had it like that when I was ready to build originally and then they changed it in 2002. So I would hope that you would accept my pleadings here. And I thank you for your time. Councilmember Briggs. It mentioned in the backup, you may have that you were going to you wanted to make this a medical facility or was that something in the past or is that in the past? Right now, I just want to sell the property. Oh, OK. Right. Right now I don't have a practice. I have a medical company. I travel internationally, but I just want to sell the land. So I'll make that very clear. So I'm only have self- interest involved in selling the profit. OK. I was just curious because putting a clinic there around all the gas wells. Thank you so much. So I have a mayor for Tim. Go ahead. Sorry to interrupt you . No, go ahead. Well, I have a question about the zoning as well. So the same question that I had for staff, which is, you know, what was kind of the reasoning behind ECC versus some type of mixed use or commercial? Well, first of all, it's not going to be mixed use. It's just the very nature. It's going to be very, very limited and beyond the restrictions of the planning and zoning commission. And I have to prove everything because it's not that wide. So I see the property is either a clinic or I don't know, it could be like any type could be insurance, could be a big building, something office related, essentially, office. It doesn't have to be. It could be somebody. I had somebody was interested who wanted to sell military material on there. Open up a sale for military material. Okay, thank you. I mean, I'll be truthful. I'm struggling with this only because, I mean, the configuration of the lot. I mean, if it's a hundred and twenty two feet at that wid est point, that deepest point, it goes down pretty quick. So I'm not even sure how a commercial use would fit on that. And with the encumbered gas well, so I mean, I understand your dilemma. I mean, I do. I mean, it's nobody's probably going to have to meet the planning and zoning commission. Nobody would, you know, try to serve that. So it would have to be within the confines of what they say is permissible. So whoever the buyer is, they would have to submit their plans to the P and Z. Okay, Councilmember Briggs. To that point, if we changed the zoning, it wouldn't have to come back through P and Z for a site plan, would it? Yeah. Would you like to step back into that? Yeah, if it changed zoning, then it's by right. Is that correct? That's correct. And office is permitted by right and you wouldn't need to see it. All that would have to happen is that the site plan would have to conform with the zoning code. Thanks. Question, because there are a lot of gas well plats out there. Were they there when you bought the property, do you recall? They were not. Okay, so is this property encumbered by any oil and gas well lease? No, it's not. So there's no mineral leases under there? No, absolutely not. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, I guess this is a question for staff. What is a by right use in an EECC? Well, actually, I've got a list. Is it in the backup? Yes, it was in your backup. Comparison list of the uses for the NR2 versus the requested zoning. Okay, so I'll just go through these. It's hotels, motels, retail sales and services, restaurant, private club, bar, drive-through facility, professional services and offices, medical office, quick vehicle servicing, vehicle repair, auto and RV sales and laundry facilities, outdoor recreation, indoor recreation. A lot of these uses, although they would be permitted by right, it seems that the land itself would have some restrictions on it. The land, when you factor in the setbacks and all, that would restrict the size of the building. So a small office is probably the most appropriate use for this site. So really what's left is a small office is what you're saying. We are still in the public hearing just wanted to make sure that. So, okay. Any more questions for while we have staff up there? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak on this agenda item? Please come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay, we will now close the public hearing questions for staff. Could you put up the, I guess the aerial of this? I want to see the gas well locations. This is the closest gas well. Do you know what the footage is from that gas well to that property boundary line? From here to here would be 200, it says 250 feet according to GIS. I'm saying approximately because GIS isn't a perfect measurement. Okay. We don't know if that's a vertical well or a horizontal well, do we? No. Do we know who the operator is? I did know, but I'm sorry I don't remember at the moment. Okay. I thought I saw Council Member Briggs. So with our gas well ordinance, it's 250 feet, right? Currently? And so if, because there's plats all around, right? So if that is developed, how would the owners of that plat, they could not go in and put a gas well closer to that building than the current one, right? I'm sorry, could you repeat that question? So there's plats all around, and by plats, usually gas wells can go within those plats somewhere, right? It depends on the language in the plat, what they designated as far as an actual built site and those future sites, or some language that may allow them to build additional ones. So my question is, if this is approved and somebody goes on and develops that property, can the owner of that plat or gas well come in and put a gas well closer than 250 feet? That's going to get into a vested rights analysis that I don't feel comfortable giving you legal advice on that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, any other comments, questions? Seeing none, Council Member Gregory. I would like to approve approval of the request. It seems like we have that recommendation from planning and zoning. This property is not appropriate for single family NR2. Highest and best zoning, this zoning provides for the highest and best use of that piece of property. Staff could put the zoning map back up. Where's the nearest ECC? The nearest ECC is right here. This is the Business Innovation District, land use designation right here, and it's only 600 feet from this particular site, and the ECC would be a good zoning district for this Business Innovation District. It doesn't go far enough for this particular property. Okay. All right. I'm going to struggle supporting this simply because I think it would stick that ECC right out in the middle there, and this is a rural designation, and I think it's still rural out there, actually. I've driven out there quite a bit. So that's my rationale here. That doesn't mean that somewhere in the future it might not be more appropriate as things expand out in that direction, but it just, I mean, I really struggled with this when I read through the backup on it. So, just sharing that so that people will know. We have a motion on the need to say Mayor Pro Tem. I'll second. Council Member Briggs. So I have a process question because I struggle to and it says here a super majority. And so is that a super majority would be six to one or. Yes. It's going to be six. Minimum of six. Okay. And so if that fails, does that what does that mean for the applicant? If it fails, it means that the zoning does not go forward. There wasn't enough to overcome the PNC's or the super majority that was based on the in this case. Landowners. It was a protest petition, so therefore it would remain z oned as is in our two. With the applicant have another chance at what time to try a different zoning. Is that a possibility? They could not apply for this exact same zoning designation for a year, but nothing prevents them from a different zoning designation within that first year. Okay. Okay. Any questions for staff or I do. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. The one opposition. Did they give a reason for that? She said that she did not want it to. It was in your back. I just need to find it. Here it is. Too close to our home where their family still resides. I can show you where that's located. Yes, please do. It's right over here. It's surrounded by wheat fields and should not be developed commercially. Back on the map you showed us before, isn't her property close to the business innovation district? Or is that? Yeah. Actually, her property is everything that surrounds. Okay. It's right here in the ETJ. Okay. So there's no development in the business innovation district at this time? Or very little? The development, if I can go to the interactive map. No, no, that's fine. That's fine. Okay. The development is very close by down university. The ECD district, I showed you where the business innovation future land, that's where that is. And it's not that much further down the street. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. Can you show me again on the map where the person resides? Is it off of Mosh Branch? Pardon me? Can you show me again on the map where the person resides? They reside right here. Is that Mosh Branch Street? I think that is Thomas J. I think it's Egan or something like that. Egan, yes. And then the landowner owns what land? The landowner owns all of this land all along here. So including the gas well plot land? Yes. There are a total of, I believe, four or five gas wells around this site. You can see two here. Then there's one a little further here and there's a couple over here. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Gregory. I'm confused. I'm looking at the response form of the property owner that is opposed to it. And they give an address on Belmont Street, which is off of El Paseo. Well. So. They no longer live on that property. Oh, I'm sorry. No, you're good. You're good. No, you're good. They give the address as Belmont Street. Huh. Well, she told me that she lives here when I talked to her. So. She said that they're old and incapacitated. It could be that that's a relative that picks up their mail or something. Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board. Motion failed. What was that? Four to three? Yes. Four to three. Yep. Okay. All right. We'll move on to agenda item six D, which is hold a public hearing, consider adoption of the ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, changing zoning classifications from NR six to NRMU 12. Thank you. Thank you, mayor and commissioners. I'm sorry. Council. Z 17 dash zero zero three two is a request to rezone approximately eight point eight eight seven acres from neighborhood residential six and our six to neighborhood residential mixed use 12 NRMU 12 district. The site is located on the southeast side of Colorado Boule vard, which is right here. And it's approximately 315 feet from San Jacinto. Here you can see the current current zoning of NR six. And here you can see the zoning map as it would be if the zoning were changed to NRMU 12. The future land use designation of the site is moderate residential. Moderate residential can accommodate single family residential with a maximum density of up to 12 dwelling units per acre. This is a designation that is typically used as a transition area between your single family detached neighborhoods and any adjacent commercial. And you can you can see it goes low residential, which is adjacent to moderate residential, the subject site to regional mixed use, which is actually the gold triangle mall. Residential uses are permitted in the NRMU 12 district and are consistent with the future land use designation. However, the permitted multifamily and commercial uses that are also permitted in the NRMU 12 district are not conforming. And for this reason, staff recommended to P&Z use of the mixed use overlay district, which would limit the use to single family attached or detached or townhomes and with a density of no more than 10 dwelling units per acre. Moderate density residential neighborhoods are appropriate along secondary arterials. Colorado Boulevard is a secondary arterial based on the mobility plan, and this would provide adequate visibility and access to the site. The NRMU 12 district, as I mentioned, is typically found in close proximity to low density residential neighborhoods. The NRMU 12 district, while it limits the residential density and scale, it has essentially the same development standards as the NR6 district. So it has the same setbacks, height, lot coverage, landscape requirements. The only difference really is the type of uses that are permitted in the district. If this is approved, the development will have to comply with all required standards, which are relevant, including ESA, tree preservation, buff ers, lighting requirements, et cetera. And the infrastructure needs for the proposed development will be assessed at the time of plotting and site plan. The site has approximately 904 linear feet of frontage on Colorado Boulevard. This was just measured with the GIS, so that's why I was saying approximately. Colorado Boulevard, as mentioned previously, is a secondary arterial. It's built out to its full capacity as full lanes, undivid ed. And I just noted that San Jacinto is also designated as a secondary arterial. With regards to compatibility of the zoning district with the surrounding area, we've got NR3, which is located to the west of the site, and NR6, which is located adjacent to the site to the southwest. NRMU 12 is across the district to the north, and the RCCD district is adjacent to it to the southeast. We've got a couple of questions queued up. Did y'all want to wait until after the... Council Member Briggs, did you have a question you want to end the presentation? I can wait until the end. I do have a question. You can wait. I do have a question. What color is the...I'm having a hard time seeing...okay, the NR3 single family is the... The yellow. ...the town...okay. What's the NR6? NR6 is this orange here and here. Okay, so that's the only NR6? Yes. And then the rest is the commercial on the other side? That's correct. And the NRMU is on the other side of Colorado? Yes, across Colorado. So there's really no NR6 except for that and that little sl iver down there on this... Yes, it's in the garden home development here. Okay, thank you. Public notification. We sent out 35 notices via certified mail to properties within 200 feet of the request, and we sent 116 courtesy notices within 500 feet of the site. We actually received six responses in opposition originally . However, after I talked to the person who sent that in, he asked me what was proposed, and he changed his mind and he's now in favor of it. He has no problem with the town homes. So now that brings it down to six in opposition and raises the number in favor to two. That's 3% in opposition and 3% in favor. And we have one person who we interpreted as being neutral because he said that it depends. It's all in your backup. Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this request six to zero with the following conditions in addition to the conditions that staff recommended. Staff recommended conditions that are that no additional uses will be permitted other than single family attacks dwelling units, including town homes, single family detached dwelling units. The overall density shall not exceed 10 units per acre. The buildings that are contiguous to the residential neighborhoods shall have a maximum height of two stories. An emergency access gate shall be placed across Claremont Lane between the subject site and the villas of the Piney Creek subdivision. This will give the town homes two points of access for emergency services. And it will also give the villas at Piney Creek, the garden homes adjacent to it, a second point of access as well because right now they only have one point of access for emergency services. And the installation of an eight foot tall fence along adjacent properties. That concludes my presentation and the applicant is here. Sure. You know, we've been going for almost two hours and so if y 'all's questions are going to be somewhat in depth, I want to go ahead and maybe just take a five minute break. The time has sort of gotten away from us, especially before we start the public hearing. So let's just go ahead and take about a five minute break and give everybody a chance to sort of... Okay. We're going to start in our city council meeting for agenda item 6D in our public hearing portion of the city council meeting. We've got some questions queued up for the staff presentation before we open the public hearing. Council member Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I'm looking at the notifications in the backup and all I see is the map. I do not see any of the forms filled out by anyone with any of the reasons why. So that created some... just a lack of information. I suspect that maybe we'll hear the reasons why when we have the public hearing, but just wanted to let you know that. Number two, on Colorado court, do we have any notion... On Colorado Boulevard, do we have any notion as to how many curb cuts would be allowed to... One. Only one. Yes. I've already talked to the transportation engineer about that and let me see if I can get the aerial out. There is a median that begins here and that's going to limit the number of curb cuts and so the curb cut that they're going to permit will be down here, clear of the median. That's the case whether it's NR6 or... Yep. That's just regardless of zoning. That's really... That's of great concern to me either way because of our request or requirement about two access points. Exactly. And that concerns me also about that neighborhood to the... I think that's maybe southwest. Right. This one right here, Villas of Piney? Yes. Yes. That they only have one way in and out. Yep. They only have one in and out right now. Claremont is stubbed out. This area, the subject site was supposed to be phase two of this garden home development and for some reason that never happened. So it's just stubbed out there. What was PNZ's solution to the problem with the access points was to put a limited access gate between these two properties on Claremont to give access only to EMS and police so that if there is ever issue that either in this situation where Colorado Boulevard is blocked or even in the existing garden homes where their entrance is blocked, it would give them a second means of egress. So that way it benefits not just the subject property but those neighbors as well. How does a gate like that work? Pardon me? How does a gate like that work? Well, there's several ways it would work. I've been told this will be electronic so that they can fire personnel will have some sort of device that will open it electronically. There's another way that you can do it with what's called a Knox box where the keys are in a locked box that only the fire department or police have access to so that they would just go in there and get the key, turn the lock and get in. But if the people that are living on either side of that gate needed to use that gate. They can't. Well, that seems semi-useless. Well that is what the people who live in that subdivision adjacent, their streets are private. They're not public streets and they are not to city street standards, extremely narrow. So they were concerned about having, allowing just general access along Claremont into their neighborhood because of the fact they're private, they maintain them and they are very narrow. So this was the solution that planning and zoning commission came up with. And I'll bet because they're so narrow, the city wouldn't even want to assume responsibilities for them anyway. I don't know. Well, this is getting to be a knotty situation. Yes, member Briggs. So I think you mentioned it. So the zoning now is currently for the garden homes because it was originally just going to be extension of those through. Okay. And that has changed. So I'm trying to visualize this property. Is this the property that has the creek that is running through it? Is that behind the bowling alley? Is that further down Colorado? Yeah, well, if we could just have staff answer and if there 's some answer when you come up, yeah, instead of, yeah, go ahead. I'm not aware of creek on the site, but it's behind the bowling alley. If you know the bowling alley that is right there at the corner of San Jacinto, it's right behind it. Okay. Thank you. We'll get some clarity on that. Council member Husbeth. Yeah. So I have a few questions for staff. So you mentioned, well, first I want to try to touch on, well, let's start with in the backup, the future land use? Yes. And the current land use are the same? That's correct. Right. So I'm wondering how you recommend approval, but we'll keep going. And then if you can agree with me, and you can pull it up on Google, but I already did. So you take Colorado Boulevard, it changes names three times. It's Woodrow and it's Audra. From Colorado Boulevard, Luke 288, to Colorado Boulevard, Audra, the other side of McKinney, not one apartment complex or multifamily on the west side of Colorado, not one. But staff, so that's why I'm curious why even in the future land use, it doesn't recommend, it doesn't change uses. The current zoning, it doesn't recommend a change in uses. And I look at the 2030 plan, which projects 10 to 20 years out, and it mentions, and staff in the backup had mentioned moderate residential. That's correct. So residential can go from four to 12. So the middle of four and 12 is six. Yes. What it is currently. Okay. So current use says six, future use says six, moderate use is six. Well current use is six. Future land use, up to 12. We don't average it out. What we do is we look at to see what the maximum is and if it fits within the maximum that is recommended by the future land use. Okay. So but it says, if I use the terminology you supported in the backup, it says moderate residential, this design is primary intended to promote single family neighborhoods. The density of moderate residential should range between four and 12 units per acre. So I was just going off that. And then, so then I also looked at the, what is the title? Because it has to comply with section 211.04, right? And so in that it says, one of the requirements are the zoning regulations must, it says must, adopt in accordance with the comprehensive plan and must be designed to lessen congestion in the streets, secure safety fire, promote health, provide adequate light air, prevent overcrowding of land, avoid undue concentration of population. So and there's another transportation thing. So just on its face, the first one, congestion is a concern . And I think overcrowding is a concern. But that's just me personally. But I just would, so my question is, how do you reconcile, because it says must. So 211.04 says must conform. And so I don't understand how you get there with lessen congestion in streets, number one. So if you can help me understand that. Well, with regards to lessening congestion in the streets, that is actually going to be a difficult thing no matter what you put in there. We have, I compared the traffic, the average daily trips expected for town homes, for single family, and for multi-family. And the town home daily trips is the less of all three. So that is the closest. That I think attempts to address it because of the fact that it's going to be very difficult to lessen the traffic in there right now. It's going to have to come from the transportation department. And they're going to have to work on that. I can tell you that when this site is plotted, they're going to have to do traffic impact analysis. And they are going to have to meet certain standards of the traffic impact analysis in order for their plot to be approved. Okay. And if I may just briefly, one last thing. So it says must, and that still. And so I appreciate your answer. But I think the difference for me would be when I have 10 people that show up, and to my colleagues I'll say, so that's 10 people spoke against at planning and zoning. Yes. How many spoke for it? Nobody. That's right. And so 10 people show up. And I'd ask my colleagues to reflect back to your last town hall meeting, your last public meeting, and how many people did you have show up. And so we had 10 people that showed up to speak against an item and not one to speak for it. And so my response to there's nothing that we could do to lessen traffic, I'll agree with you. I'll concede that. But what I don't want to be as complicit in helping, it's z oned as is. If they want to add to it as is, that's great. I don't want to be me individually complicit in assisting break this must requirement. I mean, I can't do anything about how it was purchased and how it was when I got here. What I don't want to do is be complicit in complicating things or playing a hand in if it may complicate things. I want to leave it as is because that's how it is when I got here and I can't, in my mind, clear this hurdle of must conform. And so I'll wait and see what the homeowners have to say. And I have more questions. Sure. I do want to point out even though the zoning permits 12 dwelling units per acre and staff is recommending 10 dwelling units per acre, the applicant only wishes to build to eight dwelling units per acre. The reason that we went, that staff is recommending a little higher is we don't want a situation where when the applicant designs a site and comes out at like 8.5 or 8.75 dwelling units per acre that they have to come back and change the overlay . Okay. All right. Good. Any other questions for staff? Will you open the public hearing? Seeing none. We will now open the public hearing. I do have, now just to confirm, I have blue cards and white cards that people have filled out and you don't have to have a card to speak at the public hearing, but that's okay. We've got cards. Now, the white cards are people who are wishing not to speak and I will certainly read your name and what your position is on the issue. So just wanted to verify this. So if you filled out a white card and you're wanting to speak, when I call your name, just let me know because I don't want to, you know, if you want to speak, I don't want you to not have that opportunity. So we're going to go with the blue cards first. We also had some cards, little white note cards that I'm not sure, if you want to speak, just let me know when we get to your name. So the first person will be, what I'll do is I'll call out the first person and then the next person who will be on deck and I hope I can keep up with that myself. Nancy Barnard will be the first speaker. If you'll come down and state your name and address and then up will be, well, it says two names, Billy and Doug McLaughlin. So if one of you all could choose to speak and then if you want to, if the other one wants to speak, they're certainly welcome to, as we complete the blue card. So all right. Nancy Barnard, 1921 Cavender Circle, Denton. I'm speaking as a resident there. I'm not going to give you all the details of what other people can say because we're trying not to all say the same thing. I live at ground zero in the village of Piney Creek on the corner of Cavender Circle and Claremont. My house backs, will back up to the proposed townhouses. If the crash gate is put in, it will be beside my house, at the back of my house, and if that happens. It was proposed by the zoning commission, as you just heard . There are four more houses that back up to the lot on Cav ender and then there's six houses right on the others. All the streets in there are cul-de-sacs. The one main street is Claremont and it runs from where the dead end is, where the townhouses are going to be built, all the way around to the end of the 36 houses that are in there. When my husband and I decided to downsize our home in Fort Worth and move closer to our son and his family in Highland Village, we looked in areas around Denton. We finally looked in Denton and found exactly what we wanted. A patio home loaded with all the conveniences of our home in Fort Worth, but almost half the size. It also has an HOA that keeps the front yard mowed and you have a little bitty backyard and we really like that. We felt like we had found our own little Shangri-La in Dent on and our forever home. I think that's the way most of all of our neighbors feel. Then we found out that possibly 80 townhouses would be built right behind us. We're not naive. We knew something would come in to that field eventually. We were hoping for professional buildings like one story dentist, doctor's offices that opened at eight or nine and closed at six and were closed on possibly Saturday and Sunday. We have, if we have 80 townhomes which could produce 160 people and at least 80 cars, trucks or motorcycles, there goes our Shangri-La. We also have no crime in our neighborhood, never. We also hear that a hotel is proposed for the lot between the bowling alley and the doctor's offices on San Jacinto. More traffic, more noise. Thanks for the opportunity to give my opinion. Thank you. Council Member Husspeth, you have a question for the speaker? Yes. Ms. Muck. In a perfect scenario, would you prefer a gate or the six foot privacy fence you have there currently at the end of the street? The six foot privacy fence. Okay. Thank you. If we could have that. We know that we're not in compliance because we don't have an extra entrance and exit. Well, I think your grandfather would be into it. I think you're in compliance. Yes, I heard that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Just checking. Okay. All right. Thank you. See no more speakers. I sort of made a, it's Billy and Doug McLaughlin. If you both wanted to come down and speak, you can. If not, however you all want to do it. Okay. She'll tell you when I get home what I did wrong. Just name and address and your time will begin, sir. My name is Doug McLaughlin. My wife and I live at 1905 Briarwood Court in Denton in Piney Village of Piney Creek. And once this came to light, what was proposed, the first problem that we saw was that the roads that we have are non-compliant. They're too small. Now in putting in the gate that you were just speaking of, the footage that we have between the homes which are on Cavendish and the street is no more than six feet. On the weekends, that's used for parking when people have, people come in to see them or when maintenance is being done in one of the homes by a contractor. So that is not an easy access for anybody. And we are pretty well all against that gate being taken down and being utilized, the road being utilized. The other thing that really upset me this evening was hearing that a registered letter was sent out and speaking with the people on our street on Briarwood Court, I didn't hear anybody say that they got a registered letter. We're very happy the way things are in our little neighborhood. As she said earlier, there is no crime. We can walk our dogs. We can go down to the field and walk back. We don't have any problem. We'd like to keep it as it is. We don't want a crash gate. We greatly appreciate you keeping it the way it is for us. Thank you. Thank you. Rick Adams. And then after Mr. Adams, we'll be, I can't, looks like a, Smith, Smith? Eric, Eric, yes, okay, yeah. You want to, we'll talk after, go ahead. Sure. My name is Rick Adams. I live at 805 Geno Lane in Denton, Texas. I've lived in Denton since I was about five years old. I'm 61 now. So I'm on the downhill slide, I'll say. Sorry. No offense, but I'm just saying this. I've got a nice home in Denton and there's going to come a time where I'm going to, I would like to move into something different, but I don't want it to be assisted living if I can help it. And I don't want it to be an apartment. I'd like for it to be something closer to a home. And so if it can be a town home and I don't have to mow or pull crab grass, that'd be great. So there's not a whole lot in Denton besides houses and apartments. And if it could be a town home, I think that'd be a great thing. So I'm for this. So thank you guys. Thank you. Mr. Smith is the applicant. Do you want to take your time now? You want to wait till after all the public comment? Okay. All right. Linda Dudley is the next speaker and following Linda will be Sandra Mann. Linda Dudley, 1916 Cavender Circle. I have two objections to this rezoning, of course. I would like to keep it like it is because I think traffic would be horrendous on Colorado and all around. I think it's bad now and I think it would be just awful and the noise, the traffic coming through our neighborhood. If that crash gate is there, is that going to be open so people can just walk through our neighborhood? Right now we don't have a problem with that. We like to keep it like it is. The streets are narrow. We use Claremont as an overage. If you cannot get in your driveway onto the streets, you can't park in the street itself. You have to, your friends, your neighbors, your company, they have to park down on Claremont. Like if my children come, they park on Claremont to come see me. So that doesn't leave enough room for emergency vehicles. The other thing is we own Claremont. We do not want it to be used for any circumstances other than what we use it for. We're being offered the use of the dog park and the pool to let them come through our property. We don't want their dog park or their pool. We want our street. They're not offering us anything. Take down our fence, put up a gate, use our street. They are not offering us anything. So it doesn't benefit us. We want to keep it like it is and we want to keep our safety, our security. We want to keep the noise down. It just goes on and on. We feel like we would just lose what we have right now, the security, the quiet, the safety that we feel in our little neighborhood. Most of us are retired and this is why we move there. So thank you. - Council Member Husspeth, I believe has a question. - So two quick questions. So the offices that are just outside your residence that are closed at night, do they generate a lot of traffic? - Well, they may, but we don't really realize it. - Yeah, because they're closed? - Yeah. - Okay. And then the office depot right outside your exit, it's closed at night. So does it generate like a lot of people coming home to office depot or they leave at night? - No. - Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. - Thank you. Appreciate it. Sandra Mann and then Linda Breeding. - Okay. I'm Sandra Mann, 2312 Clearmont Lane. And by the way, I live on Clearmont Lane and I never got a postcard or a letter or anything. And I don't know why that was, but I know they said they sent out, I think 500 postcards. I don't know who they sent them to because like our little neighborhood that butts right up next to that, there's only 36 houses. So that's a far cry from 500. I don't know where they went to. But anyway, I am opposed to, I would love to just keep it as zoned as it is so that they would be houses more like ours are. When you get into the multifamily units that creates much congestion and it's gonna, the traffic through there is gonna be horrendous, especially with one exit out onto Colorado for all those homes to get in and out of. Also the crash gate, I'm opposed to that. I think it would be, I don't even know what it looks like or how it works or I don't know that I've ever seen one, but I don't think the looks of it, we would appreciate it from our neighborhood. I would prefer to keep the fence up like it's always been and just keep the zoning for the homes like it is presently. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Glenda Breeding and then up next will be Marvin Wells. Good afternoon. My name is Glenda Breeding. I live at 1913 Cavender Circle, Ditton, Texas. I live exactly in the middle of the ground zero development . My property would be exactly in the middle with the new development. I purposely looked in Ditton, I've lived in Ditton 45 years . I've owned my home 15 years. I am a planner. I'm an emergency administration and planner and just recently retired. So I plan my whole life. This was not in my plan and I just retired and had I known this development was going to happen, I probably would not have paid off my home. I probably would have looked other places because for two years I sought this property. I drove by this neighborhood every week for two years until one day I saw a house that was handicap accessible that met all of my needs and had a zero lot line. I called it my lock and leave house because I would have to travel and manage disasters for months at a time and I felt safe leaving my property and I could come home and know everything would be okay. So I looked for a long time for this property. I found it. I've been very content there. I'm concerned about the drainage. I'm concerned about the noise. I'm concerned about the lighting. I'm concerned about the soil. When I bought my home I had a soil engineer inspect my home and my soil and I was told that there's a spring near my home. So I'm concerned about construction being done on this area . What is that going to do, the topography and the drainage? Also the traffic and noise and crime and the lighting of a hotel goes in, the lighting will be in my backyard and I don't appreciate it. I just spent $6,000 putting an eight foot fence up. This property is saying, "Well, we could put an eight foot buffer up." Well, if it's a two story property it's going to not do anything but just be on the back of my eight foot fence. So if we're going to have approval of this I would ask that you put a much higher barrier up to block the noise and to protect our property because eight foot is not going to do it. And so I respectfully ask that you leave the property as is . If you do approve it that you consider a higher buffer and do not approve a hotel. Thank you and does anyone have any questions for me? - Council Member Riggs. - Well, for clarification I think the hotel was the spot in front. What we're talking about today is for townhomes. - Right. - The townhomes would be on the back of my property and join my property face back of my property. The hotel would be on the side of my property. So either way. Thank you. - I have one more question. - Yes, go ahead. - So when you moved in because there's this vacant land here, I had this question for another speaker and didn't ask. Were you under the impression that more garden homes like yours would be built? - Yes, exactly. In fact, I actually contacted the council and the planning commission, the planners here in Denton and I actually have a drawing. We were going to have a second division on our development and then they changed it about two years into that and they were going to have medical condominiums. I actually have the drawing of what we were promised and so this was a huge surprise. We only have 35 homes. We have about more than 50, 60 residents in those homes. This 80, number 80 of new homes would greatly impact. I think it's too dense to have that, it's too shallow to have that many homes on it. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Marvin Wells and then after Mr. Wells is Mike Lambert . - Mr. Mayor and council, I'm Marvin Wells. I live on 2403, nice, quiet, safe Claremont Street and it's just great like it is. I'd like to keep it this way. It's not as wide as regular streets here in Denton but this grandfather did and we live with it when there's very little traffic on it because only residents come and go and we're mostly older people. It's not required but most of us are up in years and it's quiet, it's serene. There's a walker dog across the street and hardly any traffic. It's really quiet. There are one that goes to the next to us, we're behind Office Depot and people enter it and park in front of it. Behind the Office Depot and the other buildings, there's an alleyway that the big trucks that pick up, deliver some things and pick up trash daily. That's the only traffic we hear over there and then there's a fence between us and them, between us and them also. Then on the next to it, there's the big bike. Behind the bike, there's a wall and then there's a row of red tip fatigues and then our street. There's no reason anybody going to the bike goes on to Cl aremont nor to the medical buildings. They're all entered to and from St. Jacinto Street. I like to keep it like this. It's nice, it's quiet, it's safe. Never had any crime since the area was built. I'm opposed to the possibility of a gate on an extended Cl aremont because after a while, somebody will get the idea, "Let's just leave that gate open all the time." I know that you probably don't want to now but another council, another down the road, who knows what could happen. Let's just leave the wall there and leave the zoning on the other side for the proposed place, the same as it is and we're happy and we're not bothering anybody. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mike Lambert and then after Mr. Lambert is Martha Henderson . Hello, my name is Mike Lambert. 225 West Hickory. I am a virtually lifelong resident. I've worked, lived, owned property, gone to school in Dent on since 1972. My position in this matter is that I represent the Jeff eries as a real estate broker. I have an interest and I'm voting in favor or I'm asking you to vote in favor of this. As I looked at the property as a real estate broker, first walking up on it, I looked at this as a triangular piece of land and I looked at where it was, obviously it is right adjacent to the Denton Mall commercial. It is right next to the bowling alley commercial. It's right next to the apartment complexes just across Colorado and then there's residential behind it. On two of the three sides we have commercial type uses. It seemed to me like this would be all the calls I've been getting on this property for over two years. When I say all, probably 95 to 98 percent of them, they want multifamily and they see this as a multifamily. The marketplace, the real estate marketplace sees this as a multifamily property. So when this particular developer approached us about this type of use, it seemed like a very reasonable solution to a transition between those properties, the commercial and the apartments and the landowners. So from my observation, it seems like a very reasonable solution. I'm more convinced when I look at the city's presentation about the town homes uses a buffer. So I'd encourage you to vote to approve the rezoning. Thank you. I think I have a Council Member Hussbett. Did you have a question? Yes. So 225 West Hickory, that's downtown, that's an office location, right? Yes, sir. So that's not your home? No, I live in Corinth. Okay. I do get the right, I felt like I got the right to speak because I own property. No, absolutely do. I'm just keeping tally. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Anything else? No, sir. I think that's it. Thank you. We have Martha Henderson and then I'll go through the white cards after Ms. Henderson speaks. Hi, my name is Martha Henderson. I live at 1917 Pine Creek Boulevard. And I have been looking at this neighborhood since 2004. I moved here in Denton, to Denton in 2004 and was looking for a place to buy for myself because I live alone. And I tried to get into that neighborhood back in 2004. It took me till 2016 because houses are not for sale in that area very often. Okay. So I was fortunate enough to purchase my home two years ago in June. I love it. The majority of the people are older people. We don't have kids and a lot of noise. No one should be coming into our community unless they're supposed to be coming in there, whether they're visiting or they're coming in to fix something, a contractor of some kind, because it's virtually kind of hidden back there. We don't have wanderers coming in there. No one knows it's there. It's wonderful. It's safe. We feel very safe there. As far as the crash gate that's being talked about, I don't know what that would look like either, but I think it could be a gate that someone could climb over or go under. I don't know if it's like a guard gate or whatever, but that's our streets. And I am totally opposed to it. We don't want the traffic coming in there. We don't want people being able to come in and walk around. We can walk in our neighborhood at any time of the day or night and feel very safe. So I just want to say that I'm opposed to the property. I think it should be left the way that it is. And thank you for your time. I appreciate it. I have a question. Council Member Gregory. I'm not going to be argumentative, but there have been people, I know that there have been people that have gone through, wandered through your neighborhood, because one of them looks just like me. And I'm sorry, it's not a gated community, is it? No, it's not gated. And again, I don't want to be argumentative, but help me walk through some things, because the property currently is owned in R6, which means that that property could be developed in a very similar way to what your neighborhood has developed, which means there's going to be more people and there's going to be more traffic. And there's going to be the issue of them having a second way out and of you guys having a second way out. But I'm hearing what you guys say is y'all don't want a second way out. If y'all get trapped in there, that's all right. That's correct. Yeah. Now, I believe, let me just say this. I believe some time ago, my best friend lives in Township 2 , which is we have a vacant lot where Claremont comes around and we have a vacant lot. Then there's a creek that runs down there. And I can't remember what the street is. San Gabriel comes up. I think at one time there was an opening, because my friend told me that that's now a park. The city of Denton made a park there. But they put up a gate where you could no longer drive through there. So I think some of my friends lived there since the '70s. But my question is you guys are okay with the NR6 development going on. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We've got some white cards. So if I call your name and you want to speak, just come on down. But I'm just going to read them as if you're not wanting to speak because that's what the white card represents. Please forgive me on the name is Sunita Narayana is in support. City of Denton is growing. The lack of housing is prevalent. As a homeowner, I would love to see town homes. Cynthia Labelle is in support. As a business owner in Denton and a homeowner, I think this is an awesome opportunity for the growing city of Denton to be able to provide more housing opportunity. It looks like Gudrun Jeffries. Please forgive me if I've mispronounced that. Is in support. Marvin Jeffries is in support. Sharon Jeffries is in support. David Summerlin, 207 West Hickory in favor of zoning change . Mike has already spoken. Mr. Lambert has already spoken. Josh Griffin, I believe is in support. I'm in favor of the town homes and call our Boulevard is John Whaley. I'm in favor of town homes and call our Boulevard looks like Ken Fallon. And Mr. Smith, you want to speak or we can still have people come in the public hearing without. Okay. Anybody who didn't fill out a card that's wishing to speak at this time, if you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. Good evening. My name is Alfred Bastion. My address is 1909 Priabek Court in Pine Creek. I am a relative new homeowner. I bought the house about three years ago. I bought it because it was small for me and it was a nice, small community, no traffic and quiet. And I am here in opposition to the proposed crash gate. And as a matter of fact, to any gate into the community because I think we don't need it. And it is also not very practical because as pointed out previously, the streets that lead to our houses are very small. Parking is not permissible. We must park in the garages. And when we have visitors or people come, maintenance people, they must park on Claremont Street. And Claremont Street is frequently used as a parking area for visitors and guests. And even therefore, as an emergency entrance, there could be trucks or other vehicles parked, which would then hinder the emergency vehicle to get into the community. And I would like to ask one question for the developer. Since everything is new and the plan is new, why could there not be made the proper entrance and exit for that community, which then would also benefit the people who live there? And this new community has 80 homes, maybe even townhomes, so that is quite a number of cars. And if there would be only one in and one out, what if somebody wants to go out and another one wants to go in on one street? So therefore, I think it would be best for the developer to just create the two exits, an entrance and exit, and then there wouldn't be any problem with the crash gate. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs, did you have a question or is that for later on? Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody else wishing to speak, please come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. My name is Oscar Mesa. I'm on the house in 1920 Cavender. I live currently in 3202 St. Circle in Denton. I bought that house for a reason. That was going to be my retirement home. Currently, I live in an area where my kids still in high school and they're kind of hard to move when you have a kid in school. One of the things, I'm a broker for Keller Williams. I've been for a few years now. And one of the things I've learned in my own business, not as a broker but also buying properties and doing things is one of the easiest way of making money is this was taught to me by someone who's been a businessman for many years is buy a property and resold in it and all of a sudden you have a huge income of money or property in that property. Denton County is the fastest growing of one of the fastest growing counties in the country right now. And if you drive around Denton, you're going to see every spot or just about every spot being built. You know, being new homes, new businesses are being filled up. Anything that you see that is empty is somehow being built. There's no reason for us or for you to approve a change in that zoning. That place will be filled. And this is a matter of time. It will fill faster than we think of. I think the fact that you are going to resold this to a bigger, you know, it's just more profitable. I understand that. But I don't think there's a good enough reason to make that change. I'm planning on moving down to that home, living in that home. And as they all say here, the ones who have come to talk to you, it's an area that is very unique in town. It's very different. And that's why I keep on in the home. I make sure that whoever lives in that property, you know, they have a good -- they have very good tenants for that area until I decide to move there once my kids graduate from high school. So I am also concerned about the traffic. You know, you guys have driven from Colorado to 288. And that corner is really, really busy in there at times of the day because of the traffic. You know, you're changing the zoning from NR6 to 10 units. I mean, it's just an increase that there's no need to do that. So I'm concerned about that. And I, of course, am opposed to whatever the change has been proposed. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Anybody else wishing to speak? Just come on down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Hello. I'm Jerry Rowan, 2316 Claremont Lane, Denton, Texas. I just want to reiterate, I spoke the last time. I've got big concerns about these streets. And again, those streets are considered a private drive. Those are not, I call them, they're not public streets. In other words, the city will not, don't have anything to do with those streets. And they won't repair them or anything. So I mean, it's up to the HOA to take care of those streets . The problem with, if this construction was to happen, we're very concerned about these concrete trucks, gravel trucks, and I can just imagine what 's going to happen where that Claremont ends. They're going to ramp down and they're going to use that to come in for traffic. Like I said, that road is not wide enough. It's not for, it wasn't designed for that type of traffic. And I just want y'all to take that into consideration with, because it's going to be an issue along with Piney Creek that comes in off of San Jacinto. That street is in terrible shape right now and it's not being taken care of by the city, which that's a city street. But they're not taking care of it. And I mean, you're just adding more traffic onto stuff that already needs to be repaired and then stuff that streets that we don't want other extra traffic on. So I oppose it. And thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak? All right. Applicant, if you'll come down. Husspett, did you have a, you want to ask it now? Or yes. Okay. We've got a question from council member Husspett. Go ahead. Yeah. So Aaron, my question is regarding private property and this crash gate. And so if you don't have an answer now, but my question is, does the city even have a right to affect their private property to insert a crash gate? Because currently there's a six foot private fence right there. And that's something I've been thinking and I guess in long story short, no. And the way I get there is that this is a private street, Claremont, and it is part of an existing subdivision, which was built out years ago. We're not under the same ownership. And so, and since it is a private street, we don't impose our regulations on that street. So now that one reason, the second reason is that this crash gate is not for the benefit of the existing subdivision. It's for the benefit of the proposed subdivision, which even gives me more trouble as far as trying to accept or rationalize how the city could do that. So ultimately I don't believe that that is something the city could impose to have a crash gate on Claremont and existing subdivision for the benefit of a new proposed subdivision. Thank you. Okay. All right. And then the address your time will begin. Thank you, Mayor, Council. My name is Eric Schmitz. I was born and raised here in Denton. In fact, my family arrived in Denton in 1872. We've seen many changes in my lifetime and five generations later, here we are. Everything is finally taken off. The property that we're talking about here, to clarify, is not apartments and it is not commercial. It is in fact fee ownership. These folks own their homes and they have pride of ownership. They have a yard. They have parking. We proposed an amenity center for those townhomes, which was a pool, dog park, walk parks, tree trees, landscape drives, and we offered it to the cont iguous homeowners as an olive branch. We also asked or proposed building of a fence. Townhomes aren't currently allowed under the existing zoning. As a realtor here in town as well, there's a definite lack of inventory for townhomes or empty nesters, if you will, or students or single professional folks. We felt like this would be something that would fulfill that need and additionally raise additional revenues for the city. The Jeffries are here tonight. They've owned that land for over 20 years. Mr. and Ms. Jeffries and their daughter, their son couldn't make it, but they've been paying taxes on that property for a long time. They built the original development and they in fact stub bed out that street, Claremont, in anticipation of additional development, which was density and in fact the original plan that they'd anticipated was possibly commercial along Colorado Boulevard, but that never came to fruition and time passed and we understand that. As far as the impact on traffic, we're looking at about two and a half units per acre over and above. When we had our initial neighborhood meeting, which I held, after the letters went out to everyone, both by the city and I personally sent them to everyone within a 500 foot radius and sent them certified, so I'm not sure if they got them or not, but we listened to the citizens and the folks that were next door. They were concerned about the height of town homes, which could be two to three stories and we said, "Okay, how about we limit the height of those homes contiguous to the fence between the existing homes and the property to just two stories?" And that's not indifferent than a two story house next door to you, which is legal and possible. In fact, a home could go up 45 feet in their neighborhood proper as well as this subject property. So we met that. We also reduced it from 12 homes to the acre to less than 10, more like eight and a half. So we felt like that was a good compromise. We also offered access to the walk parks. We wanted to landscape the back fence as well as Colorado Boulevard with hardwood trees to give it a grand boulevard effect, a nice, really nice development that we could be proud of and that would fit in. What's most important here though is you have what I call a hard transition zone because you have houses, then you have smaller homes, smaller lots, and then garden homes on zero lot line. And then you have the bowling alley and the mall and apartments. And so this is really the transition zone where we could create some sort of a happy medium between the two and we could answer the call for the market and the lack of the town homes that are there as well. As far as the gate goes, there's not going to be any traffic. We don't propose getting any traffic through there. And the gate, we can design and agree on the design of it. It could be wrought iron, it could be wood, it could be whatever the city recommends. It's simply for the emergency vehicles, police, and fire. I forbid something bad happen in that existing neighborhood because as they mentioned previously, it could not be approved today because it only has one way in and one way out. We could provide an alternate route for police and fire or an emergency vehicle if somebody needed medical attention. And it would only be used in the event of an emergency and only accessible by city vehicles. And we've done this in other cities and neighborhoods and it's worked very well. As far as the parking, we're not going to interfere with their parking. They could continue to park there. In fact, we would be willing to actually enhance the road if necessary to allow for parking and an emergency vehicle. In the overlay, we negated the possibility of any commercial development, which is allowed under this designation. We negated any apartments, which is also across the street and contiguous, any commercial, which some of the folks said they would like to see commercial or they thought it was going to be commercial. And my thought there is, gee, you're going to be looking at the back of a strip center and a dumpster and talk about indigence and crime and bad things. These are people that own their own house. They take care of the yards. And we also propose an HOA that is responsible for cleaning , security, maintaining of the parks, the pool, the amenity center, everything else that goes with the development. There's going to be development regardless. So if someone moved there in anticipation that that would always be a field or never be developed is unrealistic. It's just a matter of what's going to go there. And the fact of the matter is this is the lesser of all ev ils and it's a happy medium that we felt like would be a good fit and serve in a pr udent plan to transition between the garden homes and apartments or the bowling alley or the mall or the hotel. And so we're trying to come and build a good product that folks can be proud of. And it's not 80 something home. It's closer to 75 lots, which again is just two and a half more per acre than what the existing zoning is. But it didn't allow under the existing town homes that are contiguous with common walls. So that's why we asked for this zoning designation. We'd be happy to meet with the folks next door anytime. We've had open lines always available to those folks. We've tried to meet six of their complaints and we've met all six. And we respectfully ask that you guys approve the designation. We feel like it would better the city of Denton and it's something that we could be proud of and it would meet the need for the market and enhance the city. Councilmember Briggs, are you still, you're on deck, are you waiting after the public hearing? Well, I think you may could answer one of them. Okay. Since Wally's here. What, if you don't have a question, I've got a question. Well, you mentioned that it's, my question was going to be the total unit difference between the current zoning and proposed. And I think you said there's a difference of two, is that? 2.5, I think they said six and we're close to eight and a half. Okay. So that's it. That equates to how many additional? Two and a half was my math, but I may be wrong. But times eight. Yes, sir. So it was 8.8 acres, so times eight. 18 maybe. Yeah, 2018. You said that there were six primary complaints and that y' all, you met them, nobody really mentioned the six. Do you have those off the top of your head as far as sort of what they were? Yes, sir. They wanted a wall. They wanted a landscape buffer where we agreed to plant trees, hardwood trees that would shade out ultimately the development entirely. They asked for access to the parks and the walk trails, which we, and we invite everybody to that. Okay. Let's let him speak, please. Thank you. They asked us to reduce from three story, which is custom ary for a town home where you have the garage in the first and second and third level, to two stories contiguous, which conforms with the existing use in their neighborhood. So that's no different. They asked for no parking infringement. We created a guest parking area next to the amenity center, which allowed for an additional 12 to 14 cars for visitors, for anyone in the development. We asked for a double wide entrance on Colorado Boulevard that would serve as a grand entrance in the main entrance and there would be no three traffic to the back street on Claremont. Okay. All right. And then they asked us to landscape it, which we agreed to plant hardwood trees and replace every single species that's there plus 20% line in Colorado Boulevard and landscaping the entire frontage. Okay. Councilmember Gregory. Were the streets in your development as proposed, are they going to be dedicated to the city or they were they going to be private streets? We preliminarily proposed to dedicate them to the city, but we would be prepared to take them private if that was allowable. In fact, we asked for a gated community, but we don't mind giving them to the city. But we were trying to meet the objective and the requirement of two ingress egress access points. You asked for a gated community and was that rejected? Yes, sir. In the preliminary meetings and the development review, they said, no, this has to be a three street for the fire trucks and the city street and everything else. But we would be willing to accept private. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I did have one more. This was to read in the record. Alfred Bestain, I believe, was opposed. Yes. Okay. Are these questions for the applicant or these questions for staff or Councilmember Ryan? For staff. Okay. Thank you. Unless we have anybody else wishing to speak, this is a public hearing, then I'm going to close the public. Anybody else wishing to speak who has not spoken? Sure. You haven't spoken? It says a public hearing. So yes, you can. No, no, you have to come here because they can't hear you. This is being televised live. Just state your name and address and then your time will begin. My name is Billy McLaughlin and I live at 1905 Briarwood Court in Denton. I've lived in that community probably four years. We bought a small house and then we moved next door because the gentleman died and I have three little dogs that needed a bigger yard. Well, we love the neighborhood and we love our neighbors. The problem is I don't think you people realize the size of our community and the size of our streets. Now, if you start using our streets, are you going to be responsible to repair our streets? Because we have to take care of our own streets. So if you have these city vehicles coming through our property, they're going to tear up our streets faster than we are. Now, who's going to be responsible for that? You're putting the burden back on us and the street that you're wanting to use, we can't plant trees on that street. There's no place to go any wider. The street is the street and we plant, we put all of our excess vehicles on that street. So God forbid if there was an accident, what's going to happen to our cars that are on that street? We're not going to be alerted to come running out of our houses with our walkers and our canes to move the cars off the street so the emergency vehicles can get to where they need to go. I don't understand. I don't even think you people know where we live. You need to come down and look at our area. It's a lovely little area and we don't want to do anything more with it. I'm not opposed to them building something back there on that property. I know they want to sell their property. I don't blame them. But I don't want big huge apartment buildings looking over into our backyards. And that's what it's going to be. I don't care how pretty you make it. If you put trees all along there and apartments, we're going to be boxed in. I just don't think you know what we have there. I think you're making a judgment call on somebody that's a very good salesman and I don't think that's right. So please really think about what you're going to do to us. Thank you for your time. Councilmember Gregory, I believe has a question. So some of your neighbors have said that they would be okay if there was if that property was owned for professional offices or commercial. Are you saying that you would be okay with that? I don't care what they built over there as long as they stay off our street. And I think everybody feels that way as long as that gate stays there, they stay over there and we stay over where we are. I think we'd all be happy. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak? Almost everybody. It's okay. It's public hearing. Yes, ma'am. Come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. My name is June Wells. I live at 2304 Claremont Lane. We've lived there for two years, almost two years. It concerns me that all these letters and cards were sent out and not any of us got one. You know, I kind of feel like that's the first part of being shady. And that bothers me a lot. So if we can't even get our cards and letters, can we depend on them to do the other things they say they're going to do? And then as he left, he just talked about a hotel. I have not heard anything about a hotel all night until he said that. That bothers me. I don't know. I don't like people speaking out of both sides of their mouth. I like to know where we stand. I like to know what you're thinking. I like to know why we were doing this. I still don't know. I don't think any of these people, and they all live in my neighborhood, got one of those letters or cards, did you? I didn't know. You didn't know. Yeah. Okay. Ma'am, if you could direct your comments to the microphone so that the people who are watching are being recorded. Okay. One out of all the group that's here got one of those cards . And so that bothers me a lot that we were not informed. We did not have the opportunity to research this and to do some things that we would like to have done. And that just really bothers me. It bothers me a lot. Okay. Thank you. Anybody have a question for the speaker? Seeing none, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak? This is a public hearing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you've spoken, yeah, you can't speak again. No, I understand. No. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. And so now we will have discussion with staff and amongst ourselves. We'll go down the line. We've got several people queued up to ask questions. Councilmember Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. First off, because we don't have an actual name of townh omes in our list of uses, I'm assuming that it's attached single family dwellings. Is that correct? That's correct. So, they actually would be permitted under the current zoning as well as under the new. So, that's not really a change that is needed. Exactly. The only change here would be the density. Instead of six dwelling units per acre, they're asking for eight. Okay. And then I heard several people from the neighborhood talk about offices. Well, that's not allowed under the current one. There is an L14 and unfortunately in our backup, we don't have the list of what those are. Can you tell me what L14 under the NRMU 12 zoning? Because if they wanted offices, it would have to be rezoned in some way to begin with. L14 refers to uses that are limited to no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Okay. And because based on what our city attorney has told us, there may be a question as to whether the crash gate would even be allowed because of it being private property. If a development cannot get to access points, what happens at that point? They would have to sprinkle the buildings. Okay. And I guess that's, and the crash gate would be only our emergency, only our police and fire department would be the only ones that would have access. Right. It's not something that the residents can decide to leave open and let people go through. They wouldn't have the ability to open it. Right. It wouldn't be our water department or our trash trucks or anything like that. No. It would only be used in case of emergency when the primary access is not available. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, I think Council Member Ryan asked most of my questions. So just to double check, townhomes are permitted to use under current zoning. That's correct. It's just the density that's an issue. That's correct. Okay. That was my question on that, but I have some other comments and questions, not for staff necessarily. Well, one item though, across the street from Colorado, what are the uses directly across the street from the property? Multi-family, that entire length is multi-family. Okay. So that's townhomes, but they're not fee-owned townhomes, correct? That's correct. It's all apartments. All right. So I wanted to clarify that as well. No other questions for staff. Just wanted to respond to some of the comments. First, I've been to that neighborhood. People do park on Claremont. I've seen people park on Claremont. I think I probably did. Anyway, second thing I wanted to mention was that I'm pretty surprised in 2018 that it's socially acceptable to imply that there is increased crime when a townhome community is going to be planned next to you. I'll just say for the record that I'm offended, and I don't think that that's an appropriate link to make between multi-family and increased crime. That said, this is a fee ownership project, which means that people will own the homes outright. The price point's going to be 250, something higher than that. They very well could be wealthier than you. So they might be the ones that don't like living next to your neighborhood. I hate to say it, but that's just the reality of the situation. So these assumptions that are made about who lives where and what crime or whatever is associated, I just think they don't have a place in 2018 at all. I wanted to also point out that I got an email earlier today from somebody who's here, and they decided not to speak, but I want to go ahead and read their letter of support because I think it is indicative of a different generation of Dent onites and what they're looking for in real estate. So it says, "I just wanted to say that I'm really excited for the new opportunity that the new townhomes will bring to the Denton population. I really love real estate, and after going through the process of buying a house, I think Denton needs more affordable housing." Sorry, I don't know if this is it. "As a current teacher at UNT, multiple students that have families express their concerns about having to live far from campus because of the limited housing available in Denton." So they're excited about the future of Denton as essentially the conclusion, and I'm reading that into the record because if you know anybody that's in their 20s, early 20s, mid 20s, late 20s, that's looking for a house, it's unrealistic to expect them to buy a 2,500 square foot single family home. They're looking for townhomes, they're looking for smaller units. Even when I was looking for a house, 1,800 square feet for two people is just, it's crazy. So I'm very much in favor of smaller and more dense uses, and I think a very moderate upgrade from six per unit or six per acre to 8.5 per acre is not going to put a huge strain on the infrastructure. I understand the concern about the gate. That's for emergencies when there's a blocked access. So you're not even talking about every time a police officer, every time a fire person needs to come over there. It's only when the initial ingress is blocked as well. And I'm not sure when that scenario would occur. I mean, maybe somebody can give me an example of that. But anyway, I'll be voting in support of this. - Council Member Gregory. - Well, I'm troubled, I have some questions for staff, and I'm troubled about the potential for development. I'm concerned about a lot of the things that I've heard the residents in the neighboring community say about city vehicles on their street, because I suspect, I don't know how they get the garbage picked up, but I suspect that maybe there's a garbage truck that drives down their streets to get that. And I would think that they would want that. - Well, yes, their garbage is picked up. I have heard that it's difficult because of the narrow streets. - But my concern about the development of the property that 's under consideration right now is, despite the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending approval with the gate, I'm just not at all sure that, and I'm concerned about the legality of us building a gate that opens onto private property. And I would have the same concern if this property were developed in our six. The same problem is going to come. And if the city does not make an allowance and allow for a second curb cut on Colorado, and I would suspect that a second curb cut on Colorado would solve all of these problems. So explain to me again why a second curb cut on Colorado is not going to be allowed. - This was my understanding is because it was the closeness of the median to this property, and it was the... The median right here kind of starts right in here. And in order to... It is actually a traffic feature, from my understanding. They want to limit access on here to one entry. If we find... All of this is going to be dealt with at the planning stage , to be honest with you, where the entrances are, where the fire access is, and all this sort of thing. However, this is all preliminary. If for some reason we cannot find a second means of access into the site, then the fire code requires every townhome to have a sprinkler system inside of it, so that if there is any fire or anything of that nature, at least we have the sprinkler system, a suppression system that is already at work and will help negate the absence of a second means of access. - Well, but I have seen... It seems to me that there are times when I have seen two curb cuts to an area this size, and one of them is a right turnout only. - Exactly. And like I said, this was all preliminary, and this will all be worked out. If this is approved, the next stage would be the planning. - Well, the question I would have is, if this property were developed as office park or commercial, does it have to have a second exit out? - It would. - It would? - I would think so. - And it would have to be on that back street? It couldn't be on Colorado? - If it was going to... First of all, if it were to develop as office, it would have to come back before you for a rezoning. - What would the zoning be? - The zoning would... Well, for moderate, it would probably NRMU instead of NRMU 12. That's the only district that corresponds to the future land use designation. So you would have to see it for a rezoning first and go through this again. - Sure. Well, I just heard 15 people said that they wouldn't oppose that zoning. I would wonder if that would hold true if it happened. Okay, I'll ask all the questions I have. - Council Member Briggs. - A few of my questions have been answered, but I'm curious that is the gate, is that dependent upon... Is the development dependent upon the gate? And I guess because you said sprinklers would be... So that would be the option that the developer had. - Well, the gate was the Planning and Zoning Commission's idea. It was their thought that if we provided a limited access gate, that would solve any issues with regards to second means of access. Again, we haven't really looked at this yet because it's not to the plotting stage. That will be one of the things we will pay very close attention to once we get to the plotting stage, if the zoning is approved, is to make sure that they have some second means of access. Otherwise, again, if they can't work it out with the transportation department, then they will have to sprinkle the buildings. - Another question is, do we know what happened with the notification? Is it possible these people live 500 feet away? - We checked it. And it's actually the notification map in your backup. And if you look, the 200 foot line, it includes Cavender Street. That is the limit of the 200 foot line or the properties that are located on Cavender Street. And we did receive responses from people on Cavender Street if you look at your map. The 500 foot line ends at the northeastern properties on Piney Creek. So those people between Cavender, all of these people received up to Piney Creek, received the 500 foot notice. As for the people who say they did not get the certified notice, I did receive several return certified letters that were not claimed. I don't know, but I did receive several. So that could be the issue that just wasn't claimed. I don't know. - Another issue that we find when people say they aren't notified is because they are relatively new at the home and the tax rolls haven't caught up to that yet. And they go to somebody, I did get a response from somebody who says, "I no longer live there, but I'm against this." - Are there signs posted on the property? - Yes, the applicant did post a sign on Colorado. - Okay. Council Member Husband. - I'm going to start asking my fellow council members to lift this motion, die for a second and do the right thing after that. I count 12 people, 12 interested parties that spoke against . I think that's significant. That's back to back, right? So that's the first meeting, 10 tonight, 12 that are directly impacted by this. No one that spoke for it is in contact with it. And I think that speaks volumes. I'd ask you also as elected officials to again reflect back on every meeting you ever try to host publicly and their interaction you get and reconcile that and understand what it takes for these stakeholders to come out twice. I want to make a note of this video because this is the first time that I've been here in almost a year that the entire council has ignored legal 's advice and continued to talk about this gate that we can't put up. So to me, I've moved past the gate because we can't start putting gates on private property. So I don't consider the gate. I don't want to know what the gate looks like because it's not an option. It matters not. We're not going to start condemning people's property to put a gate on. What is that in? So we can't do that. So we can't consider the gate. And so then it takes us to the zoning. Zoning requirement as it explained to me when I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission was you look at all the permitted uses and see if it fits. Not what's going there, right? You can't be biased towards SROs or anything like that. It's what the zone does the zoning, is the zoning allowed for that piece of property regardless of what they put on there? And I would tell you that the answer is no. It doesn't fit. And I think Council Member Ryan's point is succinct that they can put whatever they want, what they want to build now without it. So now the question is do we want to be complicit in them taking profit or extra profit and why would we want to do that? And referring back to the stakeholders have come out twice now saying no, they don't want it. And so why would we ignore that just so that another land owner could get a little more profit? And I don't understand the answer to that. And so then I would hazard to guess, and I didn't get to ask my question, but I would hazard to guess it's been zoned in R6 for a while when they purchased it. It was in R6, I'm assuming. And so my problem is we have people that have invested their life savings or they're invested in these homes understanding what was next to them and then I don't think it's right for this council to then go upset the apple cart. They bought the property understanding what was next to them and now we're considering changing the rules to the game midstream and I don't think that's right. I think everyone entered this equation understanding what they were up against and I don't see any justification to change that. And again, I would ask you to Google Maps, pull up the satellite view, start at Loop 288 and go all the way to Audre, the other side of McKinney and not one. Not one apartment complex is on the east side, multi-family , town homes, nothing. It's all commercial or single family, the entire stretch. And so that to me is, it's a clear line of demarcation. It's okay, got it. It's a clear transition. Then you look at the 2030 plan. 2030 plan projects 10 to 20 years out. Raise your hand if you think Brunswick bowling is going to be there 20, 30 years from now. I have my own concerns about that. So that may develop into something else and there's your buffer. I don't know what they're going to be, but I know they're going to have some stiff competition in a year or so and I'm excited about it, Andy B's. So with that being said, and then the, my question, I just, you know, my question becomes staff's own analysis, future land use, current land use, unchanged. So there's no, and then staff recommends NR12 but says NR12 doesn't fit. So they recommend a use to make it work. So like, hey, we can't use NR6 as existing. We can't use NR12 existing because it doesn't work. So let's move it and modify it so that it works to meet this need. And so for me, that's just a lot of moving around again to ignore the 20 people that have spoken against it, 20 households. And so then comes to a question about UNT and people wanting that property. Well, I direct anyone that's looking for a townhome, you can go five acres of townhome right now just south of Discovery Park up in the north part of town. You're right by Razor Ranch where everything is hustling, bustling. There is a UNT bus that travels every 20 minutes from that property to the campus and back, every 20 minutes. So that's, if you're looking for townhomes, out there is your option. It's ready right now. Five acres worth. And then I'll encourage, and I'll represent to you because I don't know if you've seen it, when you talk about some of these issues and some of the needs that Mr. Smith mentioned, landscape buffer, park access, et cetera, I'll tell you, if you watch planning and zoning, you'll see why they were complicit in at least going down that road because they were bullied into that corner. Planning and zoning didn't give them any options. They gave them very few options. And so even the people I talked to, the stakeholders last night said, we thought it was a done deal. It was so heavy handed in that presentation. It really had a negative effect on me and how I view that body and how they handled those that came before them. I really don't think they got a fair shake and I think that 's what led to it. And then I'll share a specific story. When you talk about concerns about security, I have those same concerns. And it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with increased traffic. Ask any police officer, increased traffic, increased crime. We all get the emails. They have taken a significant uptick as far as police telling us what's going on and that is directly lined up with increase in traffic, increase in population. And I'll give you, I'll close with one specific example. It was raining, the day it was raining, I was in the building, in the taller office building and I forget her name, forgive me, it'll come to me. But it was raining, she had a walker, she had walked to the bank and she asked me for a ride back to the neighborhood because it was raining, she couldn't walk back. Sitting here today, I tell you I'm absolutely terrified if we open that neighborhood up or put any more houses than absolutely required as is because I shudder to think what if she, a total stranger, she asks, hey, I need, so I need a ride back home and something bad happens, you know. And so I just think I have significant concerns based on increased traffic and I think their concerns are valid. And so again, I'd ask to let this motion die for want of a second and then we can go on to validate our citizens that have come out and spoken to us and validate the requirements based on our statute. The language says it must and one other point, the planning and zoning relies on the rational planning method and it's, when I was in planning and zoning , this is part of the training. So they'll confirm this. Rational planning method, it's a circle, has some arrows and in the center of it, it says citizen involvement, very center. Then on the out exterior, it's elected official staff, property owners, residents, neighborhood associations. So all those that are involved in this planning method said no. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council Member Duff. >> I get a little bit confused here. I think when we're talking about that gate, I'm trying to figure out how that's tearing up the streets. You know, I live in a gated community. The police and the fire department, they can get in through our gates and I tell you what, if I need an ambulance, I want them to get in there. I don't quite understand why we have to have that gate. Why don't you just build an entrance, period? Okay. You know, you can build another one, I mean, you can build one right beside it, it's still on your property. I don't quite understand. Council Member Ryan. >> Thank you, Mayor. I've got one more question for staff. Something else that's not on the differences in the two zoning districts is we've got what the minimum lot coverage is, but we don't have width and depth. Is there a difference in the width between those two? >> I will check that for you. The minimum lot width for NR6 is 50 feet and the minimum lot width for NRMU12 is 30 feet. The depth for the two are the same. >> Okay. And so that kind of explains to me why that's really the purpose behind this rezoning is that if you're doing townhomes and you have a requirement of 50 foot wide lot, it's going to stretch it out in such a way that 30 foot is going to make a huge difference on the ability to put in townhomes. You're looking at more of a duplex type situation, maybe three in a row at the most if you were trying to do it with a 50 foot wide lot. So I can definitely understand that. I've kind of struggled with this, but I've looked at it, you know, thought through a few different things. One is, you know, we're very proud of our downtown and the walkability and the new apartments that are going in and townhomes we have down here. And I look at that area around the mall as having the ability to be walkable too. It is also on the bus routes over there that, you know, for those who work over at the hospital, it makes great sense for who don't want to have a vehicle. They can walk to the mall, to the restaurants around that area. A few of us were recently in D.C. and the townhomes in that area, and I hope that these are built to that type of standard. It's something that just, I love my big yard, but if I were to want to move to something that I didn't have to worry about a yard in the future, that's the type of thing that I would be looking for. And so I guess for the 2.5 difference on this, and I don't believe the motion has been actually, have you, has the motion been made? No, I have not recognized the movement or the seconder. Okay. If the motion is made to go more in line with what the developer is asking for of 8.5 as opposed to staff recommendation of 10, I would go along with this zoning change because there's not that much of a difference in the two. And until we accept the fact that townhomes are a wonderful type of development that we have been blocking out of our communities for a long time. When the ones went in on Industrial Street, I remember the developer for that and how tough it was for him to get it because that was the first thing, first townhomes we'd done under the new D.D.C. since 2002. And he struggled and he fought and changes had to be made just to be able to put those in. And for those who, you know, all of that neighborhood I understand and basically the developer is going to have a few different options as I see it. He can get back with our development department to try and get a second access point on Colorado. He can negotiate something with the HOA about a gate or he can sprinkle the buildings. So we're not saying that the gate's going in. If the gate does go in and that's what's negotiated, it's emergency vehicles only. So it's up to the community. If y'all don't want the gate, you've got the power to tell him no and he's got to find one of those other options. So I will leave it at that. >> Councilmember Gregory. >> Does NR6 allow for duplexes or triplexes? >> I'll check for you. I believe it allows for the duplexes, I'm not sure about the triplexes. >> Yeah, it does. >> Will that be considered multifamily? >> Yes, NR6 does allow for duplexes. >> Not triplexes. >> Thank you. Would commercial development or office development have to be sprinkled whether or not there was a second access point? >> That would depend on the size of the building. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So a couple questions I have. I want to make sure I understood the differences between NR 6 and NRMU12 as far as the lot size. You're saying it's minimum 50 foot wide lot. >> Yes. >> But in a town home configuration, those are attached. >> Yes, they are attached. >> And so what's the minimum or maximum number that can be attached under each one of those zoning classifications? >> I'm sorry, I don't know that. That's a function of the building code. We don't have that in our zoning ordinance. >> Okay. Yes. >> For town homes, minimum of three, maximum of eight. >> Okay. All right. I'm going to tell you, this is -- I struggle with this, especially knowing the town homes are allowed in NR6, but I don't think we're ready to vote on this because I think the neighborhood has spoken clearly that there's -- a gate is not required or not -- we've heard our legal staff say a gate may not even be legal. I mean, I don't know. That's something we've got to research. But I want to understand our code and our fire code and to see why we can't have two entrances on Colorado Court. I mean, I forgot how much the frontage was on that. It's pretty wide. It's pretty long, I think, the frontage is. The problem is they don't want to have to try to go through a median cut. That's the really big issue here. You know, that's why they're allowing the entrance down at the back end because there's no median there and it's a lot easier and it's just a hassle to try to get it through. If the code -- unless the code says you are absolutely not allowed a median cut within a certain amount of footage, I think you've got enough footage. So I'm not ready to really decide on this until I get an answer to that question because by the time we get an answer to that question, we've approved the zoning. If the gate, quote unquote, isn't allowed, I can tell you right now nobody's going to build those townhomes and sprinkle them. It's just not cost effective. So the access is a tremendous issue here that's sort of -- I think from what I understand, it was proposed at P&Z by P&Z. I'm not sure why it gets to this point that we don't have a definitive statement on if it's allowed or if it's not. So we need to figure out -- for me, I've got to figure out the answer to that question. If I'm forced to vote on this tonight, then I'm going to have to vote in opposition because I think that's a critical question that we need to have answered. And it's not -- because if you vote against it, they can still put townhomes -- in fact, they can put a lot of other things there because there's no overlay. So right now they've agreed to an overlay of 8.5 units per acre. At NR6, there's all kinds of things they can put there. But you still have the issue, no matter where you go, of the access. And to me, that's the critical question here. Not only is it a critical question for the neighbors, I would think it's a critical question for the developer because if somehow you get to the plat ting scheme -- and I don't know how the contract's structured, if it's already bought or if it's based upon rezoning or however, that's papered up. But if all of a sudden you get down the road and you can't get a gate and you can't get a second access, that deal's dead. I mean, you're not going to sprinkle townhomes. You've got to sprinkle multifamily if you built multifamily . So I'm struggling with -- I just don't know if I have enough information to make an informed choice on some of the most critical issues of this development. And to me, it's the access. Why we can't have a definitive answer to that. And I know it's in the process. It's not in the right timeframe of the process. You do zoning, then you go to platting, then you work out all these details. That's a huge detail. That's a huge detail. So I'm all for townhomes. I think townhomes can be good. I think there's a demand for them. Here they can do townhomes. It's just a matter of density. And I don't even know -- because I dare say, if you could get two entrances off of Colorado Court and there were no gate, I'm not so sure you would have the pushback that you're having with just having townhomes, whether you've got 60 on there or 80-something on there, to me the big issue has been this gate and the possibility of even emergency through traffic. So that's why I think that if the access were solved, I just don't think we would have had some of the kind of comments and opposition because the gate seems to be a major, major problem because a two-story townhome can go behind your homes right now. And there's no height -- I mean, it's 45-foot height potential. So I think there's some maneuvering here and some things that can I get everybody what they want except for one critical question that has yet to really be answered, and that is how do you get a second entrance? What is stopping? Is it truly code that's preventing it or is it just our preference? I don't know the answer to that question. And I'm not saying one's right or wrong or that I'm being critical. I'm simply saying to make the best decision, you need the best information. And right now, I don't believe I have the best information to make a decision on this. And let's -- you know, this is the first time I've spoken, so we've got everybody else that's coming around on their second or third course, so let's be mindful of the time, but let's be diligent but also be mindful of the time. Councilmember Hussbett. Yeah, I'll be succinct. I want to speak to your question, and I think the many times I've driven Colorado Boulevard, the issue is the typography . You're coming up that hill, and I don't think you can get an entrance close to the hill and an exit far enough from the hill to clear -- I'm assuming that's what's going to come out, that the clearance, the sight line, it does not lend itself to allowing people that far, and you'll get so many people making a U-turn there that someone coming over the hill won't have time to stop. You know, it'll just -- it's just too close, and so I don't think that's ever going to work out there because of the lay of the land, but I look forward to whatever staff research is and comes back with, but that's just my guess. Councilmember Briggs. Yeah, to echo your point, I feel like as well, I don't have enough info, and if I had to vote for it tonight, it would be a no, but just so you guys know that if this zoning doesn't pass, that the townhomes could still go in, so -- and you wouldn't have the chance to come back, so just so you're aware of that situation. And I also am curious, was there -- did we have a legal -- did we have legal representation during that P&Z meeting when the fence or gate was brought up? Do we usually -- Yes, we have an attorney there at every meeting. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Gregory. Well, I'd like to see this property developed at some point , and I'd like to see it develop sooner rather than later, and I don't want this to die tonight, and I suspect if it comes for a vote tonight, it will die, so there's -- we have a motion to adopt in a second, but I'm going to move after that to postpone until we can get the information on other entrances. Well, and maybe this is -- it's not necessarily -- it's a question of procedure. We haven't necessarily recognized the mover of the second or -- hasn't been intentional, it's just I haven't done that yet, but even if I had, it's my understanding that a motion to postpone or to continue takes president of a motion on the floor, is that correct? It takes precedence over a main motion. Main motion, which would be this one at hand. Okay, so Councilmember Gregory. I've got to wait until she does her motion because she's ahead of me. Okay, right. Mayor Pro Tem, you're up. Can I clarify, the Planning and Zoning Committee created an overlay district as a part of their condition for approving this, correct? The staff recommended the overlay with two conditions, which was to limit the density to 10 dwelling units per acre and to limit the uses to single-family townhouses and duplexes. Okay, and so what I'm hearing from Council is that they want clarification on the gate. The gate is not a part of what's up on deck tonight, if I understand it correctly. The gate is what Planning and Zoning Commission recommended . Planning and Zoning Commission recommended three additional -- But it's not a part of the overlay that we would be appro ving. It would be -- if you decide that you want to -- if you decide that you want to include that, staff recommended the first two, P and Z added the buildings that are contiguous to the residential neighborhood shall have a maximum height of two stories. An emergency access gate should be provided, and the eight- foot tall fence should be provided. It's up to Council whether or not they want to accept all of those or take some out or add some more. Okay, and so what I'm hearing from some people on Council is that they would like clarification on one of those items, which is the gate. Did I understand that correctly? I think for me, it was just clarification of why we are not able to get a second access on Colorado Boulevard. So not necessarily the gate, just answering the question of access. Well, yes. However, if the gate is off the table, in other words, it's not coming up. And I want to make sure that the city -- I want to make sure that I understand what we heard tonight, and I don't think we got a definitive answer, and I'm not asking you for a definitive answer. But I want to ensure that there's not some public safety element that we can draw upon or invoke to say, no, we've got -- you know, the city can say that crash gate is going there for some other different reasons that I'm not aware of from a legal perspective and a policy perspective. So that's why I'm uncomfortable. I mean, if the gate was simply -- if we said approve it without the gate, and there's nothing that the city can do to force the gate based upon a public safety reason or public policy issue that we have the authority to do, which I'm not quite sure that that's what you said, then I would probably be okay, because the key is no gate. I just don't know how definitive that position is. Well, let me ask -- can I -- if I can follow up with that. So let me ask -- let's say that we take the gate out of any type of motion that's not included in our discussion or in our vote tonight. Later, you find out that the city can put in a gate. I mean, that wouldn't even come to us if I understand your example correctly. My example? Well, if I understand what you're saying correctly, anything where the city is required -- It would be administrative. Yeah, it would be administrative action for a gate for public safety. So it wouldn't come to us. So I'm trying to figure out what part would come to us. Well, that's even more of my reason to get a definitive answer, because if it doesn't come to us, that means we could make a decision, and if the motion is made without the gate, and we approve that, and then somehow there's an administrative decision made that that gate can be there, you now have really upset the apple cart. So it's a matter of what is the legal position of the city being able to either ask for the gate, how would that happen, or if you definitively cannot ask for it, we have no power under statute or law in order to do that. I just want an answer to that question. Okay. And then my second question for staff is, if there were -- is it possible to make an amendment -- I guess it might be a legal question -- is it possible to make an amendment to include just the 8.5 per acre? Staff recommended 10. Is that correct? We recommended 10. So it would be lowering the recommendation, which would be okay. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. I'll make my motion for approval with two conditions, no gate and 8.5 per acre instead of the staff recommended, 10 per acre, and all the other recommendations would stand. Yeah. Council Member Duff. I second. All right. Council Member Gregory. I move to postpone until an event certain of getting answers to questions on second access points on Colorado and the legal questions regarding gates. Council Member Ryan. I second the motion to postpone. Okay. So we have a motion to postpone, which takes precedent over the main motion that's on the floor, and it was a motion to an event certain upon the two questions of second access on Colorado courts and the legal disposition of the gate and the city's authority to either allow it or not be able to allow it. All right. We have a motion and a second for postponement to an event certain. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries five to two. All right, we will now see do we need to take. What do we got left. Concluding items. Oh, concluding items. I will take a break for concluding items. We're gonna take a 10 minute break before concluding. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Then we will go now to. We'll wait. It's the process. Okay. All right. We're gonna go ahead and call our concluding items agenda item seven. Anybody have concluding items. Oh, these are all concluding items Councilmember Gregory concluding items. Councilmember Ryan concluding items. Councilmember Briggs concluding items. I just have one. I have one. I would like to have a work session on industrial park ideas. I think it's pretty much wasted space. And even if we do something temporary there when I was on a recent vacation, I saw something similar and they had like tables and lights in the trees and even like swing set up. And I thought it was nice and it would be something easy to do temporary so that it's not just empty while we decide on a bigger project. Mayor pro tem two things one. I just wanted to touch base with everybody I spoke with Council Representative Stuckey's office regarding the DMV situation and DMV situation being people parking across from the loop and crossing on foot on loop to 88. And his office recommended that the council take some type of formal action supporting an expansion of the DMV or at the very least installation of a crosswalk or some type of safety measure because there is overflow at the DMV. So I'd like to have just a very quick work session on creating a public statement that could put some pressure on Department of Public Safety. I'll just leave it at that. Okay. Anybody else. All right, we'll stand adjourned.