Jun 12, 2018 City Council on 2018-06-12 11:00 AM

Good morning everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Dent on City Council on Tuesday June the 12th 2018. It is 1103. We've got a quorum here everybody's present. First order of business just I think the box lunch es are served so what we might do is how long do you think well first of all we 're gonna move agenda item C to the beginning because it's the budget overview and so we've got some departmental budget presentation so we thought we 'd do the budget overview and then have the departmental presentation so how long do you think the department the budget overview is probably 45 minutes yeah I think that's part so we'll do that and then we'll decide to take a break and grab us some lunch all right so we'll go through our work session oh request for clarification of agenda items list on the agenda any requests for clarifications seeing none we'll move on work session reports 3a I'm sorry going to 3c I just said it receive a porthole discussion give staff direction regarding the preliminary FY 2018-19 proposed budget capital improvement program and five-year financial forecast thank you mayor before mr. Puente gets started through our conversations with council last following last year's budget presentation one request that came up was from a couple of you was to just spend a little bit of time talking about how the budget was built major themes that it's trying to address in the upcoming year and how it's being approached so Tony's gonna provide that that overview to you before we in for your feedback and then we'll get into the department presentations after this so turn over to Tony so quick quick quick question for you start you shared with us us that you had some new slides that's correct so are you just point those out as you go through this because you gave us a hard copy and I believe they're probably in the hard copy the new slide that's correct so some air Tony Puente director finance so what you have in front of you is a hard copy of the updated revised presentation there's a number of slides in it I'll identify those as we go through that we added some of those were at a council members request but and then there was some additional items that we thought we clarified regarding our budget process to give you some insights on that again this is a preliminary budget discussions where are still receiving preliminary numbers on our on our appraised values from the appraisal district they continue to work through the protest period of ARB period and so those numbers will continue to change out one of the items that I'll talk about you know in one of these slides is what we're assuming as far as assessed value growth within our assumption so unless anyone has any questions before I start I just keep going so today what I want to cover just briefly is a little bit about the budget process this is going to be focused on the general fund as you're aware we've already been discussing with you and the PB our various utility funds the only one that 's still outstanding is the solid waste fund and we'll be talking with the PB into the end with the council very soon about a management study and cost of service study that are nearing completion and we'll be bringing that to you in the very near future so I don't talk about any of those also there's additional funds a number of funds that I'll identify for you that we've not touched on in this presentation but they'll certainly be part of the proposed budget when we come back to you in August to do the budget workshop and so while this is only a 29 slide presentation the August 2nd will be much larger so I can assure you just a just a little bit of preview so we'll talk a little bit about our about our estimates in the preliminary forecast we'll mention a little bit about the over 65 and disabled tax freeze there was a council request early early on regarding the Homestead Exemption so we have some information for you and ask you for some direction if the council so chooses to make changes to the Homestead Exemption go through a little bit of the debt get another council request regarding the amount of debt that's outstanding and the bond program authorization and then finally just listen to solicit your feedback any direction the council may have regarding any of the items that are presented to you today so the so the budget overview this was a change in state law that occurred that was really effective last year requires that that there be a 60% vote that's five or more of the council to adopt the tax rate the budget is still on a simple majority again you'll be discussing that upcoming and there'll be a vote in September on a tax rate and also on the budget so I want to just remind you of that change in in tax law just briefly this is our budget calendar it's really a continuous process throughout the year you know we start the budget process internally in January February going through preliminary forecast and really you know developing the baseline what we call the baseline budgets for our departments and I'll talk to you a little bit more about how we do that departments are then given those budgets those baseline budgets they work through those baseline budgets they're able to make some adjustments within line items and then they really begin to prepare any supplemental requests for additional funding they'll also look at their existing programs if there's any reductions that need to be made as part of our cost containment request to the to the department's there's a couple of other things that we've implemented this year that I'll talk to you that departments also do to look at their existing budgets to make sure that they're in line what their needs might be and then in June and July we began to to go through and prepare the city manager's budget that then gets presented to the council at the end of July and 1st of August the council then deliberates on that budget recommendation provides count the staff direction August through September there's public hearings that are held both on the tax rate and also on the budget and then finally we end in September with the budget adoption and then the cycle just begins almost immediately again so it's really a continuous process of developing and monitoring and implementing the budget so a little about our budget process so as I mentioned in January or February time frame the budget department begins to develop these baseline budgets and what that what a baseline budget is is basically last year's budget adjusted for any one-time expenditures that may be added so if there was a vehicle that was added in the prior year we back that out there's a number of other you know one-time expenses computers and things like that that are added to the budget that we back out in the next budget the other thing too that we started to do really this year you know more heavily than we have in the past we do a line item scrub of the budgets we look at a three a five-year trend on individual but a line items and we trend those downwards if those are trending higher then we ask departments to submit a supplemental request for that again not always the most fun thing to do with our departments but certainly something that we've implemented and that we do the other item that we started doing this year is it's a little bit of a take of a zero-based budgeting we've identified a number of line items this year those included outside contract services licenses dues and publication and consultant fees and we zeroed those out and so we asked departments to look at what their spending was and what their true needs were what we've seen holistically across the organization is that departments have really taken a good look at that and their justification and generally speaking they're asking for less money than what they previously had there the other thing too that this is what what this is aimed at is we've had you know a number of turnover across the organization we're having managers that are calling the budget office and say they're asking hey I have X amount of dollars in this line item what is it for well we really didn't have a good tracking mechanism with that now we do so now we have a document that we can give to that new manager and say hey here's what is included in in that line item that makes up your 50,000 or 10,000 or whatever that case might be that's included in your budget items again it's it's also a good continuity plan going forward for for our departments I wanted to touch a little bit about some of the initiatives that we've undertaken some of these real quick question do you have any idea on that third bullet point what that dollar amount was on the aggregate I don't off top my head we can certainly provide no sweat yeah just curious so some of the initiatives that we've undertaken over the last really year and a half is we've engaged a number of studies management studies and the areas of planning building inspection solid waste and electric suddenly those that were involved with solid waste and electric you've you've seen and and you've been involved in we've also focused in on eliminating contingencies within budgets there was a number of budgets that we reviewed and there was really no explanation to why certain dollars were included and so we've backed those out we've simplified our fund balances and how some of those are calculated one of the ones that I'll point out is customer service as an example we've we've pulled that out of of water and so how water's fund balance is calculated now does not include those additional expenses we've recommended to you to create a separate internal service fund that does not require a fund balance within that fund drainage is another example we'll talk a little bit about that later today in which we've excluded that from the calculation of the fund balance for wastewater as an example a couple of other initiatives is you know ongoing quarterly reviews with our department directors as we're presenting our as we're presenting our poorly financial reports those are shared with our department directors to make sure that they know where their budgets are and where they where they stand any point in time in the year if we have variances we certainly address those with with those department directors to make sure we understand where their expenses and revenues are lining up various management studies as I as I mentioned earlier monthly review of capital programs that's something that we've leaned pretty heavily on this year we really started that back in in August is is really taking a deep dive into all our capital programs across our departments I think that's had a huge impact in what revenue funding might might be needed going forward as well as what bond funding might be needed as you're aware this year we've not recommended to issue any debt for any of our utilities that's really kind of a product of that process and and that process continues we're doing that on a monthly basis with our management team and our and and our departments to go through each individual capital project and and try to understand the status of those projects finally the other initiative is what we call our lean program our process improvement program we've looked at a number of processes across the city to streamline and provide improve efficiency and also to eliminate duplic ation of effort within some of those processes I think once you start mapping out a process you really start finding out where some of that duplication occurs and you start asking why is this happening and you find that there's a lot of items that have happened that are there for that been there for many many years may not be needed now so it's a good way for us to kind of scrub those processes and really get them updated so beginning in really beginning in fiscal year 1617 you know city management has certainly focused in on right sizing our organization certainly to better serve our community in in the 17 18 budget we did eliminate a little bit over 10 FTEs across the general fund that totaled 1.16 million as a result of those savings we were able to utilize about 800,000 of those savings to add five additional patrol officers and a crime analyst in our police department and then within our utilities and some of our other funds we eliminated a total of ten and a half FTEs for a total of 1.17 million dollars so again I wanted to make sure that the council knew that we are focused on cost containment looking at places to where we can save and reduce expenses certainly looking at programs that are maybe out there so just really quickly why to cover some of the some of the funds that we manage in the city certainly our major operating budgets and one that we'll talk about with you today is the general fund the general debt service fund is another substantial fund that we have that also a portion of property taxes go with the fund our debt and then electric water wastewater drainage is still included solid waste and the airport make up our major operating funds internal service funds as you can see those up there the one that I'll point out is customer service that's a recommended new internal service fund that will begin with our 18-19 fiscal year and then we have our our capital funds you know we have we have to say segregate these capital funds by their use and so we have those broken out between general government and in all our utilities separately to account for those and then we have a whole list of special revenue funds to that I'll point out for you is the economic development investment fund that is a fund that continues $150,000 of our mixed beverage is going into that fund and in the downtown reinvestment fund I want to point out that that the hundred thousand dollar contribution from mixed beverage to that fund was discontinued there's still a small balance of about a hundred and thirty thousand in that the direction we had gone for the council that will continue to draw down on that fund balance until that fund goes away and is discontinued and they really that program has now been shifted over to the downtown terse fun and I think economic development will come to you soon on a discussion about that particular fund in that particular program so a lot of funds that that we are that we oversee within the finance department really the city a little bit about our 17 18 budget you know total of about 1 .1 billion dollars the vast majority of that is made up of our capital program again about 360 million dollars is is what's already there and has been approved in previous years it's just multi-year funding of that that rolls over from year to year and in new funding and in in 17 18 was about 154 million dollars that is in addition to what was already there in in capital projects about 119 million of that amount is general fund and then I'll point out the electric fund at about 180 million dollars that comprises the current year 17 18 budget again these these percent these numbers and percentages will certainly fluctuate as we come back to you on the 18 19 proposed budget and then finally what the council adopts for 18 19 this is one of the items that was requested this is just a breakout of the 17 18 general fund revenues I'll point out of a hundred 19 million dollars 37 percent of that is comes from a vel our or its property taxes and about 30 percent is made up of sales taxes the next the next item next largest revenue source is service fees followed by return on investment from our utilities and in cost service transfers these are transfers that are coming from other funds to pay for centralized services like HR and legal and accounting that are centralized in in the in the general fund but that are that are charged out based on on usage but to those additional funds councilmember Gregory I saw that in the departmental budgets that are funded through the general fund that there is also a cost of service line in those correct as some of those tend to be for tech services primarily and so so when when tech services allocates to the general fund they identify for us where those costs are actually at so so there's computers and planning there's computers and finance and so then those cost of service transfers we show them within those departments they really show the total cost of that individual department so that's primarily you know the largest transfer that you see that makes up that well yeah I get it when you're talking about cost of service from a fund like a rate payer fund because those are not tax dollars but when when you've got tax dollars funding or the general fund revenue dollars that are funding HR and then there and then they have a cost of service charge how do you keep from double counting that revenue well we certainly have a pretty complex allocation model that does that and so what we calculate for HR as an example is we calculate what the cost of HR is associated with the general fund and that's not transferred within departments that just you know that's the expense in that fund I mean in that department will we allocate out to the other the other funds it comes back in to the general fund as a revenue to pay for the cost of of their pro rata share of HR so it's out and yes okay thank you that helps so again this is a slide that was requested really a breakdown by category of that one point 119 million of budget for the general fund certainly the largest portion of that is personnel about about 84 85 million dollars in the general fund that goes to pay for for personnel this is you know firefighters police officers people like myself librarians and the such so and this is again another slide that was requested really a breakdown of expenditures by department as you can see here certainly by far the largest share of the 119 million is made up of public safety what is fire community improvement police animal services followed by parks and recreation so that 's really where the bulk of the city's general fund dollars are going to fund the question councilmember Melcer thank you mayor first why group group it that way please an animal and fire community improvement seems like community improvement is largely also part of law enforcement in a way but be that as it may can you break animal services and community improvement out as a percent of general fund absolutely I think that within animal services you're talking about about one and a half million dollar expense the way it's the reason it's aggregated here is because they report to the police department community improvement reports to the fire department so it 's really a reporting but I can we can certainly break that out well if you said it's one and a half million you're talking about a little over a percent for animal services so please it still be you know 27 or something yeah correct this is another slide that was that was requested I just wanted to give you some context of sales tax rates within cities and again there's really no you know no rhyme you know no no reason for me to include these cities other than these were the ones that had readily available information in in for the city of Denton our sales tax total sales total local sales tax is 2% 1% is what's called the general purpose so the regular rate we do have a half a percent for property tax relief and then finally half a percent for transit and then again the vast majority of cities are already at the 2% state law cap except for in this particular case Arlington is at 1.75 1% for regular rate they have a quarter percent for street maintenance and a half a percent for sports venues so that just gives you some context as to where where the city's rate is in comparison to some of these others councilmember Melcer I wonder if you take a moment just and just explain how how those carve outs work like the half a percent for property tax relief is that just does that just mean it goes into the general fund or it goes into the general fund but when we do what's called our effective tax rate calculation we do include the amount of revenue that's generated by the half a percent that has an impact on how the effective tax rate is calculated and it wasn't there the effect of tax rate will be would be that much higher and the half a point for transit is that is that a direct subsidy to DCTA that's DCTA that that's revenue that gets that goes directly to the DCTA it's not a pasture to the city but again it makes up our you know 2% local local cap and that is capped by by state law but it's but it's not part of I think instead of 30% of our revenue that's that's sales tax that's not included in that no sir that only reflects the revenues that actually come to the city yes sir so so for clarification we see two columns economic development section 4a and section 4b now it's my understanding so correct me if I'm wrong that you're capped at 2% but but that 2% is that including the half percent for transit yes sir all right so really because my understanding is the transit half cent could either be used for economic development 4a or 4b or transit in other words your cap really is one and a half but you can go over that except for but only for those two is that correct but my understanding is that half percent could only be used for one or two of those and that's what my understanding has been but if that's if I'm under the wrong impression I sure know that so that half a percent the voters elected to to levy that and dedicate that to transit and so unless there's an election to repeal that you could not allocate that out to to any of these other purposes you would have to have a vote to eliminate or discontinue that to half a percent and then you would have to have another election to allocate that half a percent to one of these other purposes or an election to sort of split it up yeah or another something something yes sir so then the cap is 2% correct and you can pretty much designate that where you want it to go based upon you might have to have an election based upon certain criteria yes sir okay and we had an election on the property tax relief one is that correct yes that was back in the 80s yes yeah I believe so 85 84 answer 95 95 so if our transit has what 's that 95 that's okay long before I got here yeah there anybody else here so that portion that's about if it's equal to a half percent of transit if we're paying 12 million a half a percent of our sales tax roughly equates to about 12 or 13 million dollars a year is that right so that's 12 or 13 million dollars of our sales tax that we collect simply goes to quote-unquote you know provides property tax relief that otherwise the tax rate would have to reflect to raise that additional revenue if we didn't have that that's correct so so at this point that was those were the slides that were added there's there's a couple of other slides here in in this presentation going forward I'll identify that for you so some of the themes that that we're looking at currently that are going to drive this budget and certainly we want to get your feedback today on if there's any other budgetary themes or priorities the council may have for staff as we're as we're developing the city manager's proposed budget but certainly you know we want to highlight again as we've mentioned already the focus on cost containment organizational efficiency we have established this preliminary budget and we'll have a proposed budget for you that's in essence based on the effective tax rate and then we'll certainly as the same managers already briefed you we'll be coming back to you and proposing options for additional funding that may take us above that amount for your consideration on specific items again we'll be working through those certainly enhancing street maintenance and and the inspection capacity in the city is going to be a focus for us public safety and the response capacity maintaining a competitive compensation plan and then also looking at debt financing options for some capital projects and again these are preliminary I just wanted to highlight some of these that we're looking at there's a discussion later today with you about the radio system replacement there's also discussions about fire station 8 we'll be looking at potential design for that service center remodel as we've been having conversations with you about our staffing needs and and where we house our staff members certainly that's part of the consideration and then finally also you know making whole some of our residential streets reconstruction projects Todd Estes has come up come come before you and talk to you a little about that program and where we are so so we're gonna be looking at how do we make that program whole so that we can fulfill kind of what the commitment was to to our citizens in regards to street reconstruction the general fund and how the general fund is broken up but we kind of you know lumped lumped apartments within categories and so you know we have neighborhood services public safety certainly we've talked a little bit about those that also includes a municipal court and the judge transportation and an administrative administrative and community services as we prepare the budget we are kind of focused within those major air major areas focus areas and that's how we present the budget to you every year so some of the assumptions that have gone into this preliminary forecast preliminary forecast and again this is still very preliminary we still have a number of weeks July 25th around July 25th is when the app raisal district will deliver to us the actual certified role and and that that's the role that will have used to calculate our effective rate right now we 're looking at about a 10% increased in assessed valuation assumes that about 3% of that is for for new growth again that's kind of been a historical trend that we've seen and then going forward again we base our our forecast that we'll talk about here in a few minutes on on actually adopting the effective rate every year of of the forecast so the tax rate is set at a very rough and let me just say that again it's a very rough estimate and so right now we think that that effective rate is going to be about 61 cents that's about 2.7 cents below what our current tax rate is of 63 cents we'll still be looking at again all contingent upon where our final assessed value comes back also wanted to point out that this year is the first year that the that the over 65 and disabled tax limitation of the tax freeze will will take effect and so we'll be talking with the county and preparing that effective tax rate so that we understand what the actual effect that first year effect is of that tax freeze and so again we'll bring that back to you and let you know just very clearly what what that means in this first year sales taxes we've projected sales taxes to be for the for 18 19 5% above the revised estimate and let me just say that our sales tax for the current year has been growing pretty healthy we've revised our current year estimate from 36.2 million to 39.2 million dollars we think that there's probably an additional three million dollars of additional revenue that we're going to see going forward so we want to make sure that we provide to you the best estimates that we can so that the council can can have clear understanding of when they're setting the tax rate next year what that means in in other words we want to make sure that you you don't feel that we've sandbagged on some of these revenues right and so we're gonna be very clear yes sir yeah yeah do what no yeah well and that's a and I think that's maybe going to also need to be if there's a desire to have a policy discussion on that because I know that in the historically typically we do have this additional money I don't necessarily I want it to be as accurate as possible but when we start getting into the 5% range and things such as that I mean it doesn't take much for us to get into a situation to where if it's less than that then we are so that Delta between what we've typically budgeted and the 5% I'd like to maybe have a little bit more specific indication of that amount of money so that as we're looking at priorities as we're looking at funding priorities that we could say that well here's what we typically do 3% here's what we're projecting and let's just call it a difference of a million dollars I mean I don't it's probably gonna be more than that but and therefore if if we can say we have we'll fund all these things but if we don't get to that percent on the sales tax we already decide potentially at the budget process what would be something that we may look at not doing I just I just don't want to just sort of throw it out there and then we sort of try to on the fly figure out what that is because I would much rather quite honestly have money that we've in good faith put forth a conservative budget and that if somehow our expenses are less and our revenues more and we have additional revenue that we're able to to maybe do something with that I just I don't want us to get to where we're too confident that I mean I lived through that 2007 eight nine and ten and you did as well I mean it's it gets it gets interesting so anyway did you have a question yes well I was gonna basically make the same point that another word for sandbag is conservatism yes I'm okay with that yeah well and I'll remind the council to that you know for and of end of last fiscal year we did end up with over three million dollars of additional you know fund balance and if we could did come back to you and identified some one-time capital projects that we utilize to fund that and so certainly we're conscious of that mayor I think that this projection I think you know it is it is conservative in my opinion I think that we've seen a substantial amount of growth in that area as you can see kind of going forward we 've tried to temper some of that projected growth out in the out years to just to kind of keep us on a more conservative level okay so franchise fees is the other item that I'll kind of point out to you in this forecast we do continue to assume that an additional six hundred and twenty two thousand dollars will continue to be transferred over to the street improvement fund along with any growth in in the franchise fees and so you'll continue to see that that the amount of revenue from franchise fees that stays in the general fund to continue to diminish we still have that 10-year program so at the end of this five-year window we'll still have a little bit over a million dollars in the general fund from franchise fees that will continue over the next five-year window to continue to transfer over to street maintenance real quick question in the first value the 10% assume new value 3% of total value I know when we get to the five-year projection it's more the do you off the top of your head if you don't know that's fine the 3% of total the new value you had to have some figure in mind to to work the forecast do you remember what that was about 300 million dollars of new value and so then you're thinking the 10% so the 10% includes the 3% so you're saying we're only gonna have a 7% increase in existing property and then another 3% for new property yes well no no okay no it's 10% and then 3% yes so all right so the 10% would be pre-existing yes properties and then the 3% would be added on to that in new properties all right so the 10% again all that 10% is going to to reduce or lower that effective tax rate so that's where you see that in a lowering of that effective right and that that amount that you use for the assumptions do you know off the top you're it okay all right thanks so the next item that I wanted to talk with you about again this is a request by the council to come back and discuss a little bit about our homestead exemption just want to point out that our current homestead exemption is half a percent of the market value of a homestead of property or $5,000 whichever is greater and so homes currently from zero to a million dollars all get $5,000 we have a few properties that are above the million dollars I believe it's about 18 properties that are that are valued of over a million dollars and so that's currently our homest ead exemption based on preliminary values as of May 31st we had about 19,000 single-family homes with a homestead exemption that's a that's 64% of the 29,630 single-family homes so there's a lot of homes within the city that either aren't eligible or haven't applied for a homestead exemption that's that that's a value of about 92 million dollars or about five hundred eighty eight thousand dollars of revenue that's foregone to the city that is being exempted and the city is not receiving based on preliminary values the average home is about 234, 000 again that number will continue to fluctuate as as as the appraisal district weighs through the protest period and then just wanted to point out to that and I have some examples here for you but the appraisal district is comprised of 42 cities 16 others of those cities have some type of homestead exemption and they range from half a percent or five thousand dollars to I believe one city has a homestead exemption of 20% or ten thousand dollars are those whichever is greater yes sir on those two customer breezes you have a question well I can wait till the end to go back unless we want to talk about this right now your call I can wait till you get all right so again this information again is select cities certainly doesn't comprise all the cities but I want to kind of give you an idea of of where you know cities in at least the largest cities within Denton County are located within these categories and so what you have here is whether or not there's a homestead exemption that's offered and you can see that some cities have some and they range you know from what the city of Denton has to as much as you know 20% or ten thousand dollars in value you know Denton certainly is here over 65 exemption disabled exemption that's offered by all these cities again currently the city's over 65 and disabled persons exemption are both at 50,000 they kind of range in each one of these cities Trophy Club as an example has an over 65 exemption but they don't offer an exemption for disabled persons and then this next column just identifies for you which cities actually have a tax tax limitation on over 65 and disabled persons again you know it's kind of a half and half of the cities out there and then they want to show to you I'll show you here is what the 2017 tax rate comparison is for these cities you know all this information is information that's that's tracked and collected by the appraisal district and that's where this was obtained this was a this was a slide one of those slides that was requested that is in your revised presentation what we've done here is to try to show you what the average taxable home value is and so in the city of Denton the average taxable home value is about 214,000 that 's net of your homestead exemptions that may be applied and then that as you can see here you know average taxable value kind of varies city to city certainly in Frisco it's about 413,000 about twice what the city of Denton's average taxable value is we have a rate comparison we've sorted this out for you based on where the tax rate is and so Denton is you know here at 63 cents the high is 80 cents for Fort Worth and Great Vine a low of 28 cents we've calculated for you what the the taxes would be due on an average home within the cities about thirteen hundred dollars and again gives you the comparison of what it is for the other cities and then we just try to give you just the basic two hundred thousand dollar home to try to give you some comparison of where we are in comparison to to the other cities so again if you have any questions be happy to answer councilmember Metzler and then councilmember Gr atery this is a new slide this is a new slide yes sir okay thank you very much because I I was really hoping to get that I forgot to ask more thank you okay go ahead yeah I just wanted to comment I asked for this look because you know my fundamental question was are we high or are we low on our taxes and if you just look at tax rate you know it looks it looks one way and like for instance Frisco you know looks what looks great and if you look at it on a two hundred thousand dollar home in Frisco wow how cheap but you can't get a two hundred thousand dollar home in Frisco where it's a lot harder to do so in terms of tax bill I want to see how we stack up and you've got it sorted on the last column instead of the second last but just just eyeballing it we fall out about the same spot there's about six municipalities on that list that have a higher average tax bill than us so just sharing I just had a request I greatly appreciate the slide being added can you send out to us one that breaks out the tax rate into own M and debt service for each for all these cities to kind of see the difference there or is didn't debt heavy or is you know an M heavy you know where does that fall we can certainly do that for you okay so just wanted to again you know to address the request wanted to point out that if the council chooses to make a change to the current homestead exemption we would need to notify the appraisal district no later than July 1st for it to be effective in this particular tax a year we do have a couple of meetings available we can bring back to you an ordinance to do that if the council so chooses we can schedule it for June 19th or our or June 26th in order to get that in before July 1st just wanted to point out that the tax code does limit the exemption present percentage to no more than 20% and the council may increase the minimum in $5,000 increments and again that's how I presented this here for you and then just wanted to again just from remind the council that you know $5,000 the current exemption is about $588,000 that is foregone revenue to the city on a $5,000 exemption that's about $31 per year to an individual homeowner and so what this table does here is just attempts to let you know that again this is the the maximum value on a house that could get $5,000 a house above this would certainly be calculated off of the off of the percentage so it's a it's it's the greater of the two quick question on that on the slide the statement is council may increase minimum but must be must be in $5,000 increments is that state law or is that charter it says must be where's that correct in in our conversations with the legal department I'm not sure that that's if it's identified in state law but that was certainly the are the legal direction is that that needed to be in $5,000 increments well I know when we increased the over 65 and this over 65 I guess and disabled or we did the disabled this last time that we did it in $5,000 increments but I don't know if that was the legal work so if we could just have maybe report on that that'd be great okay yeah so so that's really my last slide on on the Hom estead exemption mayor certainly will be asking the council for direction we can either if you want to discuss that now or you want to wait to the end presentation certainly your pleasure because member Briggs you've sort of talked about this and so we're fixing to move on to some different aspects of the presentation so if you have questions about the Homestead exemption I'd go ahead and ask them now observations yeah well the last slide asked for council direction on this issue so I of course brought this up and requested it mostly because the increased values has taken a toll on some of the homeowners especially I've seen comments in in our neighborhood so I asked for this because I would like to see the exemption increased to 10,000 and would like for council to consider that but we can wait till till the end of the presentation to discuss that okay if there's even anybody who's willing to discuss it okay we can come back to that so some of the assumptions that have gone into this forecast regarding compensation and benefits is we have assumed a 3% average merit and it increases to civil service based on their meet and confer agreements again these are just again preliminary planning level estimates you know based on where we think our market comparisons would be we'll continue to work through that process and have additional information for you in conjunction with the with the proposed budget in August future fiscal years within this also continue to assume a 3% average merit health insurance is based on a 3% increase to the city's contribution employee contribution rates we'll continue to review those and we'll be reviewing those in the next coming weeks and we'll have recommendations to the council as part of the proposed budgets if there's gonna be any changes to employee premiums or deductibles co-pays and and such quick question on that if that's okay I want to understand what that what that's saying so we've got so that's saying that in the budget the city built in the city budget if we're paying ten million dollars a year we're gonna increase that by three hundred thousand dollars three percent what are health care costs right I mean is that in line with what we think health care costs are gonna I mean we can that might be too much in the weeds but I just want to understand because if that assumption is if health care costs are rising ten or fifteen percent and we're assuming a three percent city contribution that means then part of that the other part of that equation is then the employees will bear that difference okay just all right okay and I don't yeah I don't need it we'll go into more detail as we get more into the budget but I just want to understand I just want to point out that you know Scott Scott is here today he's gonna be presenting the health insurance fund and maybe that'll be a good time that'd be great yeah thank you and then on on the retirement plan for TMRS we do have a decrease in the city's contribution for TMRS fire pension rates are being held at eighteen point five percent and then I just want to point out that we'll have a more detailed discussion with the council in July or August mr. Langley is you know be happy to present that to you in July August we'll be working on that we are we are we are pending the most the most current actuarial study on our fire pension and so we want to make sure that we have that available to bring that back to the council and we anticipate that to be in July or August so from my understanding sorry just I want to make sure I have a good overview so when you presented this slide with the pie chart that showed 70% of the general fund is personnel service in other words staff payments salaries etc is this part of that the 17% which that's probably a fairly large number I would think 17 or 18 percent if you had the fire and okay but that is included in that 70% yes all right thank you so briefly just want to point out that you know five-year forecasting is something that we've certainly done for a better part of 15 years or probably before that within the city is multi-year forecasting just helps us to better evaluate budgetary decisions on a long-term basis and then also to ensure financial affordability and sustainability of budget decisions that are being made today and into the future so I want to again just make sure that the council understands that where it's clear that this is a very preliminary forecast for you it assumes the assumptions that we've kind of already gone through for both the current year estimate and also the preliminary budget wanted to point out that what we've shown here for you for 17 18 is the amended budget if you recall we had made some one-time funding of capital projects that comprise about 4.8 million dollars that wasn 't in the original adopted budget for 17 18 it's reflected here for you that then goes to calculate where we think we will end up in 17 18 right now we think that we'll have about a twenty five point six percent fund balance in our general fund again we continue to refine those estimates both on the revenue side and on the expense side as well and then going forward as I previously mentioned to you what we've shown up here for you is the effective tax rate that is calculating what we project to be our property taxes over the five-year window sales taxes and certainly we're cognizant of kind of the mayor's comment on the five percent growth but again we believe that that's that's still within the conservative range certainly in the out years we've we've tempered that down a little bit to continue to keep this as conservative as as we can this this forecast assumes currently about seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars of new expenses that will be added to this the 18 19 budget there's not any one specific item that's identified as just a placeholder that we show to the council will be refining that recommendation as we continue to review supplemental requests any other direction that the council provides to us today and so with so currently based on on this forecast we believe that this certainly as a conservative forecast it keeps us well within the fund balance targets that the city's established for for this fund that 's 20% plus an additional 5% resiliency reserve and certainly we believe that this keeps us within those ranges over that five-year plan so if you have any questions go ahead because I don't know if you would know this off the top of your head but how long have we seen that trend in in sales tax increase and just and how sensitive is it to to recession cycles just you know don't see what tomorrow no one ever knows it when exactly will come but seems like some time in every decade we generally get slammed we went we've been back to a council member we looked at a five-year kind of average and it's average about eight percent I will tell you that last year was kind of a banner year was over 12% growth again I think you know while I'm confident that we might see that going forward again what we've tried to do is to temper that estimate and try to get more to a 5% I think what happened was so what sales tax in those years is felt self-sex was really flat it was really on the property tax side that we saw a decrease in in in values and praise values and now that's really where the hit was on the property tax side correct so as Brian identified there was a there was one year that we saw about 10% actually decrease in assessed values on on properties in sales tax excuse me in sales tax so did you I thought you were pushing for you but okay no I think when we're definitely sensitive to the to the issue about not not being too bullish on sales tax and we so we've paired back that 8% number to 5 and then we moving forward it moving down to 3 and 2% just to account for that we've got a fairly high level of certainty right now based on what we're seeing in the new building that's going on that sort of thing new projects coming on board but one of the one of the discussions I've been having with staff is well it's great to have a three and a half or four million dollar you know I guess windfall at the end of the year that can also be due to our forecasting not being as refined as it needs to be and I'm very concerned about if we're going to be talking about potential tax rates above the effective rate that we would be as accurate as possible I mean whenever gonna be perfect we're always gonna end up with the one to two million dollars on a budget of this size but I do think that it's incumbent upon us to be as refined as possible to really insulate the council for many accusations that maybe we were too conservative and overtaxed raised property taxes we didn't need to so that's a lot of the debate that we've been having in internal right now and why you're seeing as paired back some of that sales tax rate but something that we still think is reasonable if we expect we've kind of discussed being within a couple million dollars on a base budget of 119 million is pretty good but there also needs to be that point with which we're talking about other proposals you're gonna see we need to be comfortable that we're not putting you in an uncomfortable position down the road if we wind up with too much money and then the other side of that is well why did you have this talk about raising the property tax money so it's a it's a complex situation and we take that very seriously this is a great great segue into my question because I think we can look at this current budget as an example of what you're talking about I would have a I don't disagree with it but so the current but the current estimate is the fund balance is 31.5 million the budgeted fund balance was projected to be 26.9 so including the new one-time expenses that was originally budgeted in 2017-18 adopted and in the current estimate carrying those same ones forward we're still having a four point five million dollar potential increase in the fund balance which is what you're discussing right which what is a penny what's a penny of our sales tax but is it seven eight nine hundred dollars any of our sales tax or property I'm sorry it's about a million dollars okay so that's about three and a half cents on on it which from management side I get that we want to make it refined because we've got a lot of priorities that we're trying to fund and and things such as that so I just want us to be cognizant that yes we can raise that which is fine but we it's in the end it comes down to how much money are we spending based upon our prioritized needs so whether we have four million left and we were to say you know what we're gonna cut the tax rate and spread that over two or three years or whatever or we decide to spend the additional funds that we are forecasting for on on priorities I just want us to keep in mind that that it's we are gonna make the decision for the 2017-18 budget in the next few months on hey we got this or back in October I guess when we finally close the books out November we've got some money that is above the what we projected what do y'all want to do with it we could either spend it save it or give it back I mean those are basically I guess the options whereas in this budget cycle what we're trying to do is eliminate that as much as we can which means we still have those options which is we need to spend it save it or give it back and and that's okay all right fantastic and in the out years it's the assumptions that just went down to four and three percent like you said correct any questions on this before he continues on yes the only thing I'd say and I'm all for having as a priority limiting the amount of taxes that we that we charge our residents but at the same time I think our first priority is to fulfill the duties of the municipality I mean that ought to be always the first priority and and we were able to do both of those last year because we were able to add some much needed police officers I think we want I think we need to keep looking at that in terms of as we go through these presentations our our response times for for police going down our response times for fire calls going down are we are we real do we really have enough people to to do all of the health inspections that we need to do for the restaurants and pools and things like that you know I thought it was a great presentation a couple of weeks ago about about reminding us that the importance of building inspectors that that we often think of as just bureaucrats but no they're not they are there people that are protecting the safety of our of our residents so I think that that we ought to always have that priority and and each of these departmental presentations ought to be talking about how we are able to achieve our duty to the residents to provide for health safety and the general welfare of the citizens and I think along to your your points we're right on right on task with you there you know one of the things I commend our department had team over the last year so and we heading into this budget as well that since I've been working with them there's a lot of creativity in terms of you know alter ing the the way their resources are used if they're seeing other areas in their departments that that need attention and they're getting more efficient in areas we've been able to to shift those resources and not have an impact on the taxes so they're to be commended for that and mostly what you're seeing in the the new recurring expenses you'll can you'll continue to see additional proposals this year with to beef up dispatch police fire and and that 's really where we're putting priorities in addition to the field inspection work that you all heard about recently with from mr. Estes and which is just really critical so those have been driving the budget is how do we continue getting those frontline services those public safety based services funded and still work within the effective rate and so far mostly because of the the growth in the in the property values and the growth in the in the sales tax we've been able to do that as well as cost-cutting measures that the departments have initiated so it's been second year if things look pretty good right now we still got another couple months to keep refining the numbers but that 's the I just wanted to reiterate that's exactly the approach we're taking is with those core services which unless the council has any other questions I'll move on did want to point out that currently you know we are looking at reviewing supplemental requests from from departments currently they total a little bit over 47 million dollars I know that's a that's a daunting number I will point out that about 41 million of that is is related to capital and some already identified some of those fire station aids you know City Hall those types of projects and so we'll be bringing to you likely sometime in July a discussion about what those supplementals are get some council direction on some of those we've split this out into three categories we have recurring operational expenses a little bit over three million dollars one-time operational expenses about two million dollars again as I mentioned we're still kind of refining those numbers working through with departments certainly if there's other items that the council would like for staff to to consider and including that we certainly want to solicit that feedback and direction from you today so we've not provided a lot of detail here for you on supplementals again just because it 's a little too preliminary so yes sir question on just the concept so when I see capital 41 256 is that debts is that debt or is that cash outlay is that cash flow or is that debt well what we'll be coming back to use is giving you some options to fund some of that if it's a design as an example if it's a design component of a wider project likely the recognition could be to revenue fund that component but there could be a component to actually debt fund some of some of these projects well I think there's gonna have to be a large component of that servicing these projects I mean it's almost it's almost entirely dead well and so that's and that's a good point and I appreciate that so I'm just messing around with Tony I'm not getting on to you so that's my point is that it would be helpful when we find out what part of that is debt what that translates into into a debt ongoing debt service payment because that's what we're gonna have to structure the tax rate on is the debt service payment not thinking we've got to come up with 41 million dollars in this next budget now the next two are those kind of numbers in other words we're looking at 3.5 million for reoccurring which means it just adds into our expenses and then the one-time operational this is equivalent to the 4.8 million that you had on the slide for this current year I believe correct so my thought is this obviously reoccurring operational expenses and we went over this ad nauseam last time during the budget process that you can't you know just fund those you got to find a reoccurring revenue for that in the out years whereas one -time operational expenses that's like the 4.8 million or the 3 million we came back with these traffic center lines so if we're looking at a potential of I'm gonna say four million dollars increase in our general fund budget I mean our reserve fund because of you know new revenues forecasting whatever you want to call it I think we need to really think about because this is where I was trying to talk about the tax rate component because if we let's just say we do this forget the capital we'll figure that out but these six million dollars we're gonna it's gonna be in the budget so we've got to calculate our tax rate to accommodate that which from what I'm hearing you say is a million dollars for every cent so none of this these numbers have been included in the effective tax rate plus the 3% correct all right so if we were gonna do all of them we'd have to raise the tax rate almost 10% to do that well and and and to your point mayor you know in debt funding you know you know at least a portion of or you know the vast majority of these products assuming what the recommendation is about about a one penny on the debt service tax rate is equivalent to about 10 to 12 million dollars of debt service right so right and so my thought being if we if we think we're gonna have a an overage which we're almost to the end so we our confidence level the additional revenue we're gonna have over expenses probably growing with each passing month because you have less time for that to be skewed I think we need to look at that's sort of what I was saying is if we have an if we have an idea that we were wanting to request or submit 2 .5 million dollars of one-time operational expenses if we think we're gonna have that left over if it's just one time why don't we instead of waiting to decide on new things in October November why don't we just say okay we feel comfortable that we can allocate that here which will take a little bit of relief or a little bit of pressure off of the tax rate without quality without dimin ishing services or the kinds of things you're asking for so that's sort of that's my it's working that's exactly what he's showing I was just thinking we could have shown this slide butter but what he's doing is showing the total number of quests there have been especially the one-time operational expenses when we know that the department's coming well under budget we've just basically said go ahead and move these up especially if it's critical to reducing future costs so we probably could have laid out a table that hit the points you're trying to make a little bit better so you'll see what you will see during the budget presentation is kind of the net of those decisions and then what's still left okay great yes councilmember Melton thank you mayor in the process of you know going through the the whole budget review will there be some point where you might provide some guideposts and some education maybe others don't need this as much for fiscal responsibility with respect to debt because it you know and I think I say this with appreciation for a couple of points that have already been raised I appreciate councilmember Ryan's request to look at debt service as a percent of budget you know across comparables and I appreciate the mayor you know asking specifically for the debt service implications of our debt requests but it has a little bit of the flavor of the feeling of like a magic cookie jar when we hear that it's dead like oh we won't have to you know decide about that in the same way that you do cash and you know at some point we have to have a clear understanding of what's over leveraging you know and what when do you start bumping into bond rating impacts and so on so so will we have a review that will help us you know give you guidance back we will we will now and and so yeah we'll bring that back these are really good questions and I think the other thing that it needs to be put into some context is excuse me how debt falls off over time as well and and how the bond rating looks at that so we need to provide that more holistic picture over the next several years so you can make those kind of decisions but it's just lacking a little contact context at this point but we will certainly put all that together in a few slides for you and if I could piggyback on that comment because I know when you look at in our budget like if you look at the adopted budget was it 16 15 16 in other words the adopted one have about had about capital improvements capital of gosh I mean six or seven hundred thousand dollars or something but then the actual came in at about three or four hundred but you and I had a conversation that that component that line item has a couple of different components in it one is if you've approved the debt there somehow it's it's we have to carry forward so that number I think sometimes is not necessarily representative of exactly what's going on so if when we have that discussion if we could just sort of go into what flows into that line item on that adopted budget that would be great so this is a kind of a good segue into into what the current debt is again this was part of it's not a new slide but it was it was requested so we provided this for you this shows you kind of a point in time as of 930 17 where the city's total principal and interest debt is by fund and so I just wanted to point out you know 1.4 billion dollars you know if you look at the electric line item I just want to point out in case you go back and look at the electric presentation that we've made some slight adjustments here so the sixty point five million dollars that's in in TMPA is not part of this number we do pay for that through our purchase power cost and then I have in this excluded or there isn't an exclusion about sixteen point nine million dollars of bonds that we have that will offset the thirty three hundred and forty six million dollars of revenue funded debt that's for the deck that that was part of the capitalized interest and so again just trying to give you a little bit of reconciliation to what we've shown you in in the electric budget and then also again this was as of 930 17 so this does not include any pay down in debt that we'll have during this current fiscal year nor the addition of twenty nine point six five million dollars in debt that were that will be issuing for general government purposes at the council previously approved and it will be selling later this this week so again as of 930 17 this is the the total debt by fund that the city had on its books as of 930 17 by fund okay the other request that was made is you know regarding our geo bond authorization again after the issuance that we'll be doing this year of that 26 million 19.7 million is is to fund the 2014 bond program we have now issued all the debt associated with a 2012 so there is no more remaining authorization on that there's still third there will still be 34 million dollars of authorization left in the 2014 bond election program the bulk of that is associated with street projects 700,000 still remaining for drainage and about five point five million is associated with with parks so we have two years remaining to issue geo bonds for that program will be bringing that back to the council recommendations on what projects to fund both in 1819 and 1920 as we continue to to look at those and look at this program and solicit feedback from staff so any questions on on this so just as a reminder you know the departmental presentations will continue you know the areas that that we 'll be focusing on certainly you know the staffing and the structure goes and accomplish it accomplishments performance measures cost containment and process improvements departments will be going through their individual presentations started last week really with tech services and it'll continue today just to give the council kind of the preview and what what's coming up so the calendar again June 23rd we'll be going back to the PB with seeking their recommendation on the utility budgets May through July will continue our departmental presentations July 25th is when we get the certified value from the app raisal district we'll be working through the truth and taxation or the effective tax rate calculation with that will the county assist us in that calculation August 2nd is the scheduled budget workshop with the council also consideration of adoption of a maximum tax rate for for that and we'll talk about that a little further at the workshop August 14th and September 11th we 've scheduled public hearings on the tax rate and proposed budget and then finally on September 18th we've scheduled the adoption of both the tax roll the tax rate and the budget I want to point out to the council to that all of these presentations discussions that we're having with the council regarding not just the general fund budget but the utility budgets all the other budgets departmental presentations we have a dedicated page within the city's budget city's website where we're posting all of these that were they're readily available for our citizens in addition to that we have a portal that's available to citizens to solicit their feedback on on the budget process if we get those we'll certainly be sharing that with the council if our citizens are submitting that to us and then lastly the last slide that I have for you is again to solicit your feedback and direction regarding any of the budget themes or priorities the homestead exemption and any other feedback or direction that the council may have for staff as we continue to develop the 18 -19 proposed budget okay open it up council member Briggs so again I would like to see the homestead exemption increase at least a ten thousand I know we have the tax freeze for 65 and older but we do not have any relief for young families and that is whom I'm here to represent just a little bit of information so we average about ten foreclosures a month in our city and out of that we only have I think the number was ten thousand or 19,000 homeowners and so I'm not sure of the reasons for foreclosures but I do know that we want our families to be able to own homes so so that's so help me understand the connection between the foreclosure data and the homestead data well there's some it's my understanding that there's some people who cannot pay their property taxes or their mortgage keeps going up so much a month because their taxes are going up their escrow account increases yes and so they can't afford their homes anymore and so they're foreclosed on that that's where I'm relating that I don't know what our part in that is but I do know it's a real issue and if there's something that we can do even if it's minimal at this point I'm willing to do that I the amount was I think five hundred and eighty eight thousand and in revenue but looking at the budget we're still over thirty million in our fund balance so that's I'd like for council to entertain that option all right anybody else yes councilmember Hudson yeah I would ask is looking at the themes priorities I'd like to get some sort of snapshot of how many additional roads or backlog of approved fixes we could we could get in what does that number look like right so if at this rate we can squeeze in we can make up this gap or whatever and and if we could if we could make that actionable so kind of put a component of how many crews we can put to it you know shovel ready projects we can expedite something like that it or paste that we're already taxed whatever that looks like but I'd like to kind of see that in actual fixes and how fast that can be turned we will have that as one of our supplemental discussions with council on the debt service time what I've asked Todd S is to basically give me some idea on our local roads what it would take to make that those packages whole and catch that up and provide some kind of a plan and what would that translate into debt if we went ahead and moved it there's no way you could afford to do it cash right now so that'll be we'll bring that back sometime the next month if you could go back to slide 19 real quick this is on kind of talking on the homestead exemption I don't think I would have an issue with raising the homestead exemption to 10,000 because you're really only affecting homes but that have a value between a hundred and and two hundred thousand dollars you're not affecting anyone under the hundred thousand because they already are gonna max out with five percent at five thousand and if you're over two thousand or two hundred thousand you've already got an exemption of over ten thousand is that is that correct so so every home if you go to two million if you go to ten thousand keep the same percentage every home from zero to two million would be would get an exemption of ten thousand dollars it was until you go above that well no I think I think you're talking about it's a it's a half a percent right based on a half percent I'm sorry based on the half percent or what we currently have percentage wise correct we if you if your home is currently valued at two hundred thousand dollars or more you're already getting a ten thousand dollar or more exemption it's a thousand yeah yeah it's a half a percent it's not two hundred thousand five percent would be the ten thousand dollars but it's a half a percent it's either a half a percent or five thousand whichever is greater is that is that correct yeah okay so at what point do you get more than a five thousand dollar above a million dollars currently currently yes sir okay I guess I'd like to know where that five hundred eighty eight thousand would go to if we did do that change that that's an important factor to understand is how much of a difference would that make so there would be an additional you know five hundred thousand that would not come to the city and that would be ongoing for the for the for the five year you know period so you're looking at you know two and a half million dollars of revenue that it's no longer coming into the city plus any you know any growth and we see about a two percent growth in Homest ead eligible properties every year so what you're saying is if we went from a five thousand dollar to a ten thousand dollar that we would go from from the five hundred and eighty eight thousand to you know about a million little over a million sir go ahead yes so building a little on councilmember Hutzpah comments on roads on streets first of all thank you for providing the map of where the poor and very poor condition streets are which are the public hasn't seen sort of all over the place so while maybe 25% of streets it's probably a much higher percentage of trips you know involved going over poor and very poor streets so I think that you know lens leads to the that perception of our streets really being horrible but what I what I'd like us to get to in the planning is is a is a plan that ties to a target OCI a sustainable OCI you know that we think we can really do that we think we can really afford you know pulling in the impacts of finishing out the 2012 and 2014 bonds plus whatever new bonds plus whatever we identify for for street repair but I think it's quantifiably modelable right to say if we do these things on these dates and we know the things that we're not acting on are are deteriorating in O CI right we ought to be able to see that you know we have a plan that ties to that target OCI and is sustainable so that's especially if you're gonna you know ask us to consider coming back to the taxpayer I'm just I'm just gonna talk a little bit more on this you know in addition to having a plan that makes sense on paper I believe the citizens need to know that we have the capacity to deliver on them you know I don't think anybody in 2012 thought that those bonds were going to be still being worked on you know in 2023 you know five years from now which is going to be the case so I think you know we want a good assessment of our our capacity for putting projects out the door which we've seen evidence over the last few years that we you know that this management is able able to improve that significantly but let's make sure that our vision you know ties to a rate of projects hitting the street that we know organizationally we can actually deliver well I'm not sure you said the 2012 bond program still gonna be working on in 2023 I don't that sounds a little is that isn't it over five years no we've got a plan right now to clean those out by 2020 2021 so okay it was still beyond what anybody imagined in 2012 I imagine right so back to the homestead so what I'm hearing is 580 thousand is about a little over half cent on the on the on the tax rate I want to see some more numbers on the tax freeze impact and things such as that before I mean we 're only if all we have is two weeks to make a decision on that that seems pretty quick I mean five hundred eighty eight thousand dollars seems inconsequ ential I do when you said only ten foreclosures in a month I mean I know that seems like a lot but ten years ago it was probably ten times that amount if not if not more I mean it's just I mean that's and I know that they do have state law does provide that your homestead can only go up from a taxable perspective ten percent look if we have a 15 percent increase like there's average 20 percent increase and then once it comes down 15 percent it can only go up 10 percent for tax valuation purposes is that right that's the current yeah and this is the same this is the same sort of concept that when this council considered whether to adopt the tax freeze sort of unilaterally and I don't I don't know if you can send a homestead to the Folgers but part of it was your concern is for a certain income level I think of people and I understand that that's sort of was the same I think approach from from the tax from the over 65 certainly the disabled that's a whole different situation so I'm not categorically opposed to it but I think I don't know if I can get the information that I mean I would like to have at least some more analysis of the data to make that in two weeks that that's I mean maybe we can and then this council can decide on it so I'm not opposed I just don't know if I have enough information right now to to be able to make that decision without it just being a decision based on more than maybe just the data and I'll just point out that the homest ead exemption is available to all homeowners regardless of whether or not there's a freeze on that particular property and so any homeowner that that designates their houses at a homestead we'll get that right right it currently does yeah okay yes so just on that in April there were 18 I just I took an average like there's there's more in three months there were 42 foreclosures in our city that's not the county in the county they're way way up yeah so just just to add that in there and it's it's for homeowners period not really an income bracket oh no it's for all of those that were left out of the 65 and older I guess okay you would say okay and we'll have those that impact the impact of the tax freeze or impact or the number of that's that if that wasn't in place what it would have been we'll have that at what time do you know likely the plan is to have that for you during the budget workshop in August okay as once we have the final certified value we'll be able to kind of run those comparisons for you and provide you a better explanation of what that is well if I could then ask colleagues unless you know of it now if you if there's information that you need to be able to make a decision on this particular issue to give direction in the next two weeks so most likely we're going to put it on an agenda unless there's four of us here that don't even want it on the agenda and and then we can talk about it I just I mean I don't have an issue with it if there's if I can get some more data of exactly you know how that's gonna impact where that additional money will come from just so that we can see exactly what that decision entails councilmember I just want to go on record I asked for this well over I mean a while ago so I remember you discussing yes ma'am yeah you 're right yeah anybody but yes councilmember Hadsworth yeah for me to make a decision I'm gonna need more than just foreclosure numbers so I'll circle back with staff but just because candidly if someone goes to win star and bets it all in black and then comes back and lose their home that's very different than someone that that lost a job or just say I mean it's just there's no site into that right I mean I've made you know Dave Ramsey calls it stupid tax I mean but the thing is I've made decisions that have been costly to me in my household right and so I think it's important to look past that first level and look deeper into those numbers and so I just need to process what that looks like to me to get there but and I'll tell you I'm absolutely hesitant because we don't know the the effects of the freeze we're just not far enough into that to really understand what that looks like and and what did you is it is it a what commitment is it I mean once did you say five years is that yeah freeze the tax freeze no no no oh the if we how often you can change the rate the council can change that annually okay up or down okay well good well no so I mean but I just don 't I mean that to me I'd like to see maybe two years historical data of what where we are with the freeze before we because that is really what's troublesome to me if we here you go here's the additional homestead exemption and oh by the way we're wrong we got to take that back you know that is is really bad to kind of pull the trigger early and let me point out that in order if the council chooses to make a change in order to make it effective for the 2018 tax year would have to be before July 1st if the council takes action after that then it will be in the 2019 okay sorry okay any comments on this particular topic because my short answer is I need more information all right any other direction what works I mean we've sort of addressed the hums budget themes priorities we talked a little bit about that any other direction on this particular issue I mean I'm sure we're gonna have a lot of information coming forward a lot of details so it's been a good discussion anybody else all right appreciate it thank you well let's just take a quick five welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday June 12th 2018 it is 1240 we're gonna proceed continue to proceed with our work session reports I do have a housekeeping item I've been asked it seems like work session item 2d is in David their staff has asked that that be postponed and pulled for a different discussion so some further clarification and facts can be developed so we will not be proceeding through work session item 2d so we're gonna go back up to the top of the agenda is that what we 're doing all right going to agenda item 2a which is received important whole discussion received department presentations in preparation for the FY 2018 19 proposed budget good afternoon mayor council members I'm Nancy toll I'm the budget manager for the city of Denton we 're gonna proceed with the department presentations and of course they'll be at every council meeting from now through the end of July the departments we have today are fire community improvement human resources risk retention fund the health insurance fund library and drainage and drainage was the held over from last week so it's gonna be today our first one is fire and it'll be chief hed ges good afternoon mayor city council members pre-hud being here to watch our presentation so I'm excited to be the first of seven department presentations so I guess it's good to be first was it this your first one is fire chief this is my first one so please be gentle so as we go into this I 'm gonna go through slides I'm really gonna kind of highlight one or two points on each slide obviously if you have any questions please feel free so first looking at our goals and accomplishments looking over the past 17 18 fiscal year one thing I really won't point out is with council support was the in service of the medic from station for so this actually is our eighth frontline medic and this was partially funded by FEMA grant and that unit dig on circles on April 1st interesting point on this the fire service is very big on when they run EMS is to have more fire units and actually MS units so we are very innovative in didn't is the fact that now we have eight frontline units that is actually more than what we have on fire units and that was really derived from our main goal and are actually are the driving force was the fact that EMS constitutes 65 to 70 percent of recall volume and let's go through this I'll show you some more statistics as that call volumes increasing on annual basis as well as we look into our future goals of 1819 some very specific ones that really will impact our technology side is the implementation of a new computer a dispatch system that's a group project with purchasing tech services fire and police and then also our RMS which is our record management system both those systems we have in place right now over 20 years old and as you know technology 20 years old just not very feasible and we're not quite getting the data analytics we expect from that so that's exciting and the last one is actually the future opening of the agreement we have with our GAL ES D district that will actually be serving the ropes and ranch area they expect to be open October 2018 and with that if you recall the city didn't with the ISO audit this past summer and excuse me last year actually and we went from a rating of three down to two which lower the homeowners insurance rate ropes and still outside what they considered the range of five miles so they were maxed out it was a ten when this station opens we both identify a map and send it to ISO and ropes will go from a ten to two literally overnight so the homeowners in that area should actually experience anywhere from 20 to 40 percent homeowners savings on their insurance rates so obviously that's very positive as we move on really when we look at the emphasis as far as fire department for this last year we respond to our 14,000 calls and you see there's 68 percent are EMS I want to point out in the past two years we track this by calendar year so for 16 to 17 the department experienced a 20 percent increase in call volume so as the call volume increases obviously you know the budget request kind of aligned with that when we're going through calls I didn't point out we did start actually tracking homelessness so exactly how much were our crews impacting and being responsive to EMS calls related homeless and we started this manual process back in January it's very cumbersome to try to track this but I can tell you since January to this date about 2.5 percent of our EMS calls is related to homelessness I just took a bite do you have a monetary value associated with that percentage of what that cost to taxpayers we do not at this point because when you go on a EMS call there's different levels there's a basic level and an advanced level as well we can actually supply you first further information to drill down on type two calls and then price them type of approximate value as well may I request that I'm sorry say that one more time I'd like to request that okay what's in that and chief if why you're doing that because I mean that's 2. 5 percent that could be responding to a shelter it could be responding to a park so if you have just some general categories of where those calls come from and if maybe one station is fielding more of them if one if one station is fielding more of them than others just just some basic general okay yeah we can drill down and get all that data for you okay moving on cost containment so what have we done internally to try to cut cost and within our department and I'm gonna focus on the top one terminology may not quite fully understand so let me walk you through this so it's a parallel system this designer our answers previously 15 20 years ago is up to the employee to take the full weight of a patient on a medical call and to move that patient into the ambulance we have since transitioned through numerous different advances in the industry into where this is actually a automated system where the employee rolls the patient up on the cot and it does all the lifting so our ultimate goal here is just reduce injuries to our employees average back injury we've got you know not exactly drilled down costs and you know on each type of back injury but they could range from 500 or 50 to 100,000 on that these units are costing 50,000 per ambulance do the math I mean that several back injuries but these systems are designed last 10 to 15 years I think our return on investment are definitely shown on that are you tracking the metrics on so if it works the way we hope it does we will see a decrease in the type of injuries facilitated by the old way of doing things correct that is the ultimate goal is to reduce injuries to the employees so are we are we trying to track that in a more specific way regarding this particular purchase or is it just injuries in general it's just we choose to track injuries in general so we can associate it if it's what type of unit they're assigned to what part of the body the injury is affected as well so we can once again go down to the specifics and see did this exact purchase benefit overall okay great yes thank you how long have those power load systems been available we started installing December 2015 it was just a transition through supplemental requests and also when we replaced new units and with medic for going into service April 1 that was our last unit so we have eight and all the frontline images have they been around for 15 20 years no it's new technology they probably have been around for probably within the past five to eight I'm just remembering back to years ago when our fair city made national news and state news when we decided to charge for overweight people that we had to pick up in our ambulances so bad that we had to present the council at the time had to present that what do you know what year that was prior to 2008 okay sure you that that's when I went into E MS so I know that wasn't within my realm well I'm glad to see that and because it's it's good to get those folks do those work in people's homes yeah it's just a pat battery powered cot so they put the patient on the cot room to the ammits a piece of a device pulls out the ammits connects the cot and it's automated it just works off battery packs thank you and actually each one is rated up to 700 pounds moving on on cost containment something that the department started back in 2015 is we actually do a quarterly report and this is top 12 is what we call this report it's really identifying some of the process the department does and it's just really brought awareness not only to fire administration to the department as a whole turnout time you'll see up there in your upper right side that was a big thing that we have control of so that is the time from whenever a station receives alert until the unit checks in route that is purely up to the employee so we've really been focusing on that for the past two years and we've really seen significant strides in that and kind of reducing that not only on just the employee aspect but also bringing technology on board as well unit responses that's a just how quick units can get to the scenes and we try to break that out by type of instance as well fire EMS so we can just see I mean the more data you have the more you can actually draw down on your processes moving on to the process improvement so what have we completed and what we're looking forward to so last year budget process we were approved for what they call a Knox brought box program that is one company that it 's installed in businesses and it has one key accessible port that allows fire service to access and inside is actually keys the entire building so how that benefits us if our department's call to an automatic alarm after hours or nobody's on site previously you would either try to contact the owner and if the owner was not available and you suspected something you actually had to damage the door window something to make access now they actually have a key system where they can actually get into the business without damaging and then also is audit trail so it shows who in the fire department actually pulled that key out for tracking Mexican mechanisms honestly current fire station learning expansion this is something we came to you last year as well and this started in station to the reconstruction project that opened in January 2017 this is an automated system that now removes the 9-1 dispatcher so when it calls dispatch this computer system actually gets the correct information and sends it to the right station by computerized voice we have seen significant improvements on the turnout time and dispatch time by removing the what I call the human factor station two is the only one we have online right now we have seen the average turnout time reduced from one minute 20 seconds down to one minute in four seconds just by this system alone so significant improvements future process automated annual bidding this is something small on paper but it's huge for the department up to about five or six years ago we were still at one point in the year in December all units would congregate in one location just to pick annual vacation our employees pick vacation one time for the entire year and that was pulling them out of districts and was taking several out of service we have learned better we've learned from a mistake so now all units stay in their districts and they stay in service this is just another piece of technology that has aided as far as the bidding auction system that employees actually go on any type smart device they can pick their vacation so just a process improvement this slide is just what we actually submit quarterly for the financial report for our department performance measures just going through this this is 17 18 targets we're actually in the process of reviewing those numbers you see they are a little bit under is what the 16 17 actions are and we may be making adjustments to this for the future the percent of active structure fire responded five minutes less that's just the NFPA standard we follow as is several of these did you have a question customer Mel sir asked not asked but answer okay good one thing chief on the last slide about the the ESD the fire station out in our GAL yes if maybe you could just send out an informal staff report about you know when we contracted with them originally there were certain projections about the impact of the budget and you know how as the expansion continued out in that area how that would impact our contribution we could just get an update on what we think the actuals may be as compared to what that forecasted was moving forward since it's almost online okay we can get that out to you thank you okay how lots nothing really here stands out I did won't just point miscellaneous line item you see a significant increase in the 17 18 budget then you see a decrease in what will be the 18 19 baseline that's actually based on actuals primarily that account is for our meeting defer agreement with the firefighter association for the employee physicals so we had budget 135 true numbers came back so we have less than that for this upcoming year as well the only other thing I'd like to point out is there on the materials and supplies you see an increase in the 17 18 budget cycle that was actually cost associated with Ashley placing that eighth frontline medic in service medic for so you have the cost of additional equipment EMS supplies items of that nature so chief the again the question I asked it at the higher elevation in personal services that's where the city's contribution to the fire pension plan is located is that it is that number within that budget that should be included that's okay it's all in them personnel thank you okay moving forward this is the current work chart with the department as mentioned earlier you'll see that CIS actually does fall underneath the scope of the fire department now for reporting structure so right now the department has 186 civil service and we have 5.25 civilian positions and then community improvement so it puts us right about 200 person department actually last slide so I just want to break it down as far as FDs assigned to the area not a significant change you see over the course of years as we've added medic units you see that uptick the 18 19 baseline does show a shift in administration numbers that is just really due to payroll with a new payroll system come online it just made more sense to move eight people from operations into the administration line so it still bounces down there at one ninety one point two five for a total yes go ahead well that was the question I had because who are those folks are those like battalion chiefs it's administrative battalion chiefs correct and staff okay that is all I have any further questions yes I have a question about response time yes I know that the implementation is the for medic was going to reduce those response times to you since it's been operational do you have any information on that on the reduction of response time since it's been active we have not ran that they just been in service right at two months they're actually not even in the new station which will have the computer station alerting we can actually see if we can go back for the 60 days and see if we can see a difference on that you still had previously before that medic was placed in service you still had engine responding so it just did not have the transport capability is still delivered the exact same medical care that what amens would it just did not have a transport function but with the ambulance it is a smaller vehicle is a little bit more agile it should respond quicker but we can look at those numbers for you as I recall the ambulance was coming from a station farther away so the the fire the fire truck would get there sooner than the ambulance so I'm just just stick just to kind of see the importance of it because I know that it's really significant for our area really what we'd be looking at is transport time how quick we could actually get a patient in that you can transport because that's the delay prior to that ambulance going in service in fact you did had to wait for a transport unit to come from an outlying district into station force district right some of those minutes are critical yes they very mature thank you got a note for mr. city manager I would like to ask that we in conjunction with the information coming back from the homelessness kind of counts I'm gonna again breathe life into a nurse station downtown and so I'd ask you to kind of prepare fold that into consideration right or with I can we can kind of talk about it I guess outside of that but I think there's some data that a nurse could provide if it shows that there's a higher number of calls coming from the that downtown area there may be a way to alleviate some of that based on the numbers that come back so just the heads up that that I'll chase that data with with that with those questions thank you to follow up with that I think if we're collecting that information it would be interesting to see a lot of the hospital groups in our area have outpatient clinics and shopping malls different directions from the center of town so I think it would be interested to at least inquire with with those facilities that already do that sort of thing if they would be interested in partnering with the city on something like that or doing it in place of the city and you might want to we've talked about this over the years but sometimes we get emails and just like a little clarity on our ambulance runs apparently what you're sharing is that there's different levels of transport they're providing different level of services regardless of the level of service we do bill at a rate there's probably a rate that a flat rate of for this service this service in this service or however it's calculated correct so when we bill out and let's say someone has insurance that they you know insurance says we're all gonna pay so much and it doesn't cover that bill then we still bill for that difference is that correct yes the difference is built to the patient directly okay and if someone doesn't have insurance is it still that same rate or do we offer some type of non insured rate or is it I mean I don't know I'm just gonna pick a number let's say $1,200 that's what that's what we're charging and so I I need the service and I don't have insurance well I get billed that 1,200 or if you if we don't if we know that people don 't have insurance do you say well don't have insurance we have this rate that we can do or do we not have that I don't we do not have that I mean one thing we have to work with is with Medicaid Medicare they do state that they will specify they only pay a certain amount right so you work with those federal government agencies as well there's other agencies we work with that assist patients on payment but we set our fees we go out on a reoccurring basis to just short up our current cost and we run evaluation with our compare cities and usually we're right in line on those charges sure it's a matter of fact coming up in June you will come see before you a contract for a new that EMS billing contract we're went out for RFP we have the evaluation back just waiting to bring that to council for approval that actually will up our billing percentages and at that point I definitely can have more information because I can 't quite fully sure talk about the depth of what we do I mean that's go back and investigate that we have people that specialize in the bill aspect that should work as liaison with our contract and with the federal agencies so on the Medicaid and Medicare so what I'm hearing you say is that there's only a certain charge that we can charge and in those cases the the patient does not get build the difference or they do they do okay I'm gonna nod from over list okay yes they do get build the difference yes councilmember Briggs on that to my understanding there is actually a charge that insurance doesn't cover no matter what insurance it is it's the basic trip charge and it's like over a little over thousand dollars that people get billed for no matter if they have insurance or not and so when we're talking about you know people without insurance I mean there's still there's still a charge that they have to to come up with if they do have insurance is that correct correct there's still gonna be a certain amount that interest companies know where Medicaid or Medicare will cover they will still be upon that patient oh no I'm just saying yeah no matter if you have insurance or not there's a certain amount of bill that everybody receives yeah yeah it's a trip charge that insurance will not cover they won't even touch yeah not assuming the you'll have this off the top of your head and I know it's your first time presenting but just raises the question I'm curious to know what our bad debt percent is you know how much to go how much goes on collected I think right now with the current company I can say we're collecting around 25 28 percent collection rate which is not necessarily out of the ordinary for EMS for 9-1-1 thank you yeah there's a couple of other partners need to come up here no we still got about three hours worth of departmental presentations yeah yeah we'll give that to you mayor good afternoon mayor and council members my name is Brad Layhart with the fire department of fire assistant fire chief and fire marshal I also receive community improvement services with me today to is Lansing Bentley she manages day-to-day operations of community improvement services we want to be aware of your time today so I'll give you a real high over few community improvement services budget our accomplishments last year the number one of our top accomplishments last year was really the cleanup of the downtown rail center which not only involved regular cleanup but it also involves a lot of agreements between the railroad and the city and the you think it's a really easy task to do but working with the railroad and getting the rights to clean around the railroad tracks is daunting at time and takes up a lot of time to do goals for 1819 we're going to continue our right away maintenance and property maintenance contracts update our agreements with the Union Pacific Railroad and then we've been working on partnership with keep done beautiful to review the mural at Dallas Drive it's what about ten years old so far needs to be repainted so and we're also going to work on enhancing customer experiences with customer improvement services community improvement services and so to that point on that last one what exactly how do we measure that what are we going to do well we're really wanting to work on the officers do a great job when they interact person to person or over the phone with the community and the resources we what we see a deficiency in sometimes is our weight and communication it's really the notice of violation it's a little bit confusing it keeps on going through different transformations over the past several years and we're going to look at that actual form that gets sent to the citizens and can we clarify it a little bit and make it more user-friendly something that they instituted about a year ago was a 24-hour notice which we don't like posting notices on people's doors but it's actually one of the most effective tools that they've gotten because they actually see it's a 24-hour notice and it's like oh my god I need to do something now so they'll have some they'll pick up the phone contact the community improvement services officer the next day so we get a really good turnaround that way so it's generally it's about it's about the form and the about the form you know where we can improve on the form it 's a little confusing for a lot of citizens thank you plan and vision the number one items can continue our voluntary compliance rate right now we average in the mid 90s for voluntary compliance the higher our voluntary compliance goes enables us to keep our budget intact and keep our budget where it is now instead of continuously going up year after year after year so I just wanted to call attention to the last item on the previous slide mm-hmm so that that 10% funding increase is not in this budget that's in supplemental requests I'll be in supplement and is that I mean is that really sort of optional in the same way the supplemental requests are if this is the actual bit amount that came in we will recommend that that get funded so the the the reason why it's supplemental like and Tony wanted to keep it supplemental is because we're gonna bid this out late fall right after probably after October 1st so we truly don't know what the number is we do know most likely we're gonna see an increase because we actually had two contractors doing this work of which one contractor pretty much bailed on their their contract so they're no longer doing it and so we're having to use the other contractor and the other contractor was higher in certain aspects so we know we're not gonna most likely get that low bid again so we're just trying to be proactive real quick question that 10% increase that's a mowing expense mm-hmm it would I thought parks handled mowing is this so see ya we do a ton of money really yeah okay parks does primarily the medians in the right ways okay like if you go down Dallas Drive parks and recs take care of the medians okay we take care of the right away and the drainage ditches on the other side all right like that the ongoing mowing okay gotcha that's the easiest example appreciate that yes I don 't know how big a number we're talking about I'm just knowing but it's just kind of raised an interesting question about whether you know it's cheaper to do it through one department or the other if there's a way to maybe find some efficiency we're always looking at that and in Lansing and the previous parks director they spent a considerable amount of time looking at maps and stuff like that because drainage also does mowing too of which you'll hear from them too so there's actually three departments that do mowing so there 's pros and cons to everything you know the advantages and disadvantages but you contract some of the mowing out do you contract some of it out we contract a hundred percent do you have to pass a background check in order to do that I 've got a lot more and I'm gonna have some time on my hands you have to have a lot of insurance work for this yeah yeah I got some for you cost containment strategies 85 to 90 percent were discretionary funnies contractual services which a lot of people don't know and I didn't know this until we start running the reports last year we did about 1700 graffiti abatements which gets costly right away maintenance is the 215 acres that we maintain and the dangerous buildings the number one item on one of our line items to help contain our cost is through facilitating building rehabs each building that the city would has to tear down pay for ourselves is anywhere between 15 and 20 thousand dollars now so it's a lot better for the city even though we understand it takes a lot longer time and sometimes the neighbors get a little bit more upset but it's a lot better for us to get a house or building rehab instead of demolishing it so we have a high voluntary compliance rate - you can see oh yes I'm sorry so on the on the dangerous buildings if a building was our home is it is it generally just what kind of structures are they for the most part is it a residence or most of time it's dilapidated houses almost all the time it's dilapid ated so we could rehab the homes and then are they would they be city property at that point no at that depend on how it is usually it's still the ownership of that of the homeowner we get them to rehab them or in certain circumstances I know we're going through a couple of them right now the homeowner what it'll be a vacant house for past ten years and the homeowner will finally sell it to a developer and then that developer will then rehab the home so but the cost is to the city no the cost then would be to the developer but it takes a little bit longer period of time obviously for develop a for the person finally decide to sell their homestead then developer to come in finally decide exactly what has to be done how much it's going to cost get all the perm itting in place to do it so it does take a little bit longer period of time sometimes to do a full rehab but that's much preferred route because then the city's technically out nothing compared to if we had demolished a house and then put a lien against the property and based on the size of a lot and stuff like that 15 20 thousand dollars a lot may not even be worth that with the graffiti removals what kind of structures are we talking about is that on the own structures where are we doing graffiti public or private it's a lot of times private what we do is we'll get the landlord property owner to sign an agreement with us saying that we have the right to come and remove graffiti and we do that for free is 1700 it's an awful lot so I suppose that must be spread over a lot of private properties I was just wondering if it's a lot of repeated graffiti on the same public structures and if we 've connected the dots and put graffiti resistant you know coatings in those areas the community improvement officers if they think it's a repeat or specific people there are certain tags that are all start using they work closely with the police department and start working it that way they we don't just simply come and remove all the graffiti right away they'll take detailed pictures of it and forward it on to their case file and also the police department case file so yes just in response to that a lot of the the complaints I 've gotten are on concrete drainage channels that's where a lot of the graffiti removal is yeah for your neighborhood yeah a lot of it's in the concrete yeah downtown we'll see it on all the traffic signal boxes and he's flats metal surfaces side of buildings you know but on the northeast side of town it's the concrete it's usually juveniles or something messing around rubs and r akes doesn't get a lot of graffiti that's that's the best line yet process improvements the number one area that we're doing a process improvements I like to refer to the three Stephanie project because we use Stephanie Barry Stephanie Lang and Stephanie Neil there are three attorneys for community improvement services what Lane seen in her supervisor Leo have done this past year has really worked with those three on cases and brought the cases to of them beforehand and worked out you know out of the ordinary type cases with them before we even take them to court so we're all on the same page before we even get to the judge here's our performance measures they're pretty straightforward I've hit on a lot of them already I'm sure saying questions budget our budgets pre-flightline this next year if we any questions yes customer husband in the earlier numbers did you does it capture trees as well I know that's an issue if private property if they don't self-correct for staff ours trees weeds yeah is that was that factored in your okay yeah thank you yes one of the concerns I had was and I don't see it I just see percentages when we reduced the number of folks going out to do inspections my concern was is that we might have a reduction in the actual number of cases worked do we have a account of cases worked and how that's changed and and how did the change of staffing has we could supply that number what happened is instead we increased the districts on everyone everyone's district got a little bit larger right and then a supervisor actually goes out halftime to and covers a smaller okay well if we could just get those numbers to you they seem to still be doing a great job on my street yeah notices I get this is CIS is on the far left-hand side as I mentioned I'm sorry I'm sorry I had a question yeah so just a follow-up to councilmember Hussbuss question about trees and Mike my question is about but the property private property and there's a dead tree on it and there's a risk of it falling on a neighbor structure or injuring somebody is that something that this department can can do or what what do we do in that situation generally no it's a private civil matter in that situation what we can do and what we have done a few times if if it's luckily in the city right away then then it could be considered a public danger so we could take care of it then but if it's on private property it's it's a private civil matter unfortunately I mean I live in the same neighborhood as you I have 35 post oaks in my backyard so I'm responsible for 35 post oaks so my neighbors have several dozen post oaks too so okay so there's no it's a homeowners insurance issue basically okay thank you that's my we've had that issue before especially if a tree is dead and is on the edge of a property and really is endang ering somebody else's home and we don't have any ordinances that address that right now there's one not that I'm aware of that's right next to a back fence line and ranches are falling out onto the alleyway mm-hmm unfortunately nobody's been hit yeah but we just don't seem to have any kind of if you if you let us on that specific case if you let CIS know about that what they could look to see is if it's an easement or something like that I mean there's possible some alleyways have the actual easements in them for utility lines and stuff like that so we could we could look at that matter but if it's in the middle of a property chances are city has no right to access that property no just it was kind of just a situational thing and it is it was so like a caddy corner neighbor has a dead tree that is hanging over our neighbors and we were outside and part of it broke off yeah and fell down while we were outside and so I'm looking they'll come look at anything that you guys ask them to come look at and issue opinion in a couple options but sometimes if it's in the middle of the property chances are it's gonna be just a property owner so it's just like go knock on the door and kind of yeah neighbor new okay that's good it's like everyone that has Bradford pairs that are like 15 years old thank you well it's also my understanding and I mean I think if you have something that's encroaching upon your property line whether it's dead alive whatever you had the opportunity to trim that yeah back to the property line you can't you can't go beyond that but I mean if it's coming over you can just sort of draw that invisible line up and and trim it up yeah yeah we have those questions a lot actually this is how CIS reporting structure the number of FTEs that we're proposing is 11 which is the same as last year and do you have any additional questions questions comments on the on the dilapidated housing do we because I know those are sometimes very challenging circumstances but is that a way that if we have funds through our home program or something like that I mean is that a resource we're able to draw upon or is it just usually that's very separate from that it's pretty separate with that to tell you the truth we we budget $45,000 a year for dilap idated housing for tear downs it's 15 it's between two and three houses if we had to tear it down oh what I meant was for the rehabs in other words if you find somebody that is willing to rehab but they don't have the money do we try to connect them with the programs the city might have to help yeah with some of those you keep doing beautiful okay yeah okay right that's what I mean yep okay all right wonderful and that all space on their income level a lot of time right and grant money any other questions for community improvement services okay thank you very much you still have a coming on to agenda item B no good afternoon mayor members of City Council my name is Carla Romine I'm the director of human resources under the human resources umbrella we actually have three budgets I'll be presenting the first one which is human resources under general fund Scott Payne our risk manager will be coming up after me to talk about the risk retention fund and the health insurance fund wanted to quickly remind council some of the major functional areas we have in human resources which is depicted here on the slide we have 22 FTEs in human resources 11 of them are budgeted in general fund while 11 are budgeted in our risk retention fund if you'll notice there have been two that have been added for fiscal year 17 18 but I want to point out these are not new FTEs to the city instead they were transferred from our utility safety group which was budget ed up under the electric department so now they're reporting to the risk manager here's our org chart those in yellow are the risk retention fund and I do have one additional HR assistant that's budgeted under the risk retention fund as far as performance measures we track a lot of information but these are the the performance measures we thought would be interesting to counsel our turnover rate you can see we're at 8.32 percent year-to-date as far as the performance reviews completed within 30 days we've made some significant improvements over last year with the help of the city manager's office and with some of the new leadership so here's some of the major accomplishments that we've either completed this year or will be completing this year just a few that I want to point out on the second bullet we have implemented a requirement for mandatory supervisory training so we're requiring 12 hours per year to coincide with their annual performance review the other area I wanted to point out is on the fourth bullet our comprehensive policy review we've started looking at all the policies within human resources and risk management there's 91 of them back in the 80s they got pretty happy writing policies so we're trying to see how we can consolidate those make them clearer we've already brought three of them to the council on June 5th I'm bringing this up because I wanted to give you a heads up that you'll be seeing more coming over the next year and then the last thing I wanted to point out is the last bullet working with technology services to find a new information system right now we have a lot of different systems within human resources from performance reviews or training tracking applicant tracking benefits enrollment in addition to Excel spreadsheets and other online forms that we've created and so we're trying to make this easier for us to administer as well as easier for the end users and trying to find one system to the best of our ability to house all of that assuming we're successful and it's something that we can afford we will be working with technology services to implement that new system for 1819 if we're not successful then we'll continue working with them to find a solution and you can see that we want to complete our review of the policies and then we're trying to do some more content development on our internal website to make provide more resources and tools for employees and supervisors most of our cost containment strategies are really about time savings we talked to council last year about some of the online forms we've continued doing that adding some more online training and again adding some more content and redesigning our internal website as far as the mandatory supervisory training this is really cost avoidance we're trying to minimize liability and exposure for the city with better training for our supervisors and you're going to see our process improvements mirror the cost containment thing I just talked about future recommended process improvements obviously if we get the new software that I talked about and just so y'all know we're looking to offset so all the money we're spending on the current systems we're looking to offset that for the new system but obviously there will be a lot of changes if we implement a new system and then we're looking at all of our functional areas that in that first slide I showed you and we're looking to improve efficiencies where we can our budget when you're looking at the baseline for 1819 over the budget for 1718 this represents a 3.15 percent increase those are mostly in the personal services and then fixed costs like the insurances and the tech services there have been some other little minor adjustments based on the spending trend that Tony talked about earlier in his presentation where we just haven't been spending money that is the end of my presentation I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have councilmember Briggs so what what types of training do you implement is it new hires and I know you're going to be continuing it so can you just give me some examples of the types of training you are implementing is it certain sensitivities is it ethics is it all of the above we have leadership training communication training we have some compliance training like your FMLA FLSA all the alphabet soups of HR we do work with Cassie and her group to help with some of the ethics training we have harassment prevention training I mean there's there's a lot of training that we offer yes how do we ensure that we maintain a diverse workforce that 's a partnership with all the departments whenever there's a vacancy we are working with them to see if there's an area that they're demographic they're wanting to target and see if there's opportunities for posting and those different sources I know police they do they do recruitment fairs and they try to go to some of those areas where they're like San Antonio or Houston where there's opportunities for maybe some more diverse recruiting it's really a tough question to answer specifically kind of at that over the last year or two we we've also tried to diversify the panels as much as possible take any biases out of hiring processes making sure that we've got more of an equal mix of females males that sort of thing so all that starts to play into it but we're getting a little bit more aggressive in the larger departments in terms of where we're recruiting and trying to figure out how to grow our own talent as well at least in fire right now particularly fires working with the school district just kind of brainstorming issues as well to try to increase diversity as well so all that plays a part but to me the biggest move this last year is just trying to put the interview panels get those interview panels as diverse as possible to ensure against any biases that the that you're bringing with you that's member Hudson thank you looking at the benefit consultant is that that's gonna be in the next okay got it I'll wait any other questions for human resources thank you appreciate it Carla was sandwiched between all the tall guys get from council mayor my name is Scott pain and the risk manager for the city and I get the joy of presenting not one but two budgets to you and some of it will have been led into a little bit by what cause already talked about because there is some blending obviously between the groups but first we're going to talk about is the risk management budget and that's going to be the risk retention fund this is an area where there is some crossover with the health insurance fund we 'll talk about next specifically with the number of employees all the employees where they're managing the risk side of it or the health insurance side of it our budget out of the risk retention fund and so you'll see that born out here as call I mentioned where you did have two employees transferred over from the utility safety and training group into ours effective this year but they won't show up in our budget until next year and so we look at changes in cost what you'll see is related to that change and also the funding of a vacant compliance special that we've had before so for this purposes we're talking about the five employees there across the middle of the line there the safety claims and compliance again we have three this year and going into five next year here's the organizational chart again we report it through Carla and the ones in yellow or sort of the ones that are focused more on the risk retention side of it so our safety claims administrator claims coordinator to other safety resources and then the compliance specialist and one admin person that assists us as well the compliance specialist and the risk management assistant don't report up through me they're funded out of the risk retention fund but they report to other supervisors within HR again like Carla said we do track and count a lot of things the way the main measurement they report up through to management has been the workers compensation cost per $100 a payroll we had a bad year last year most that was driven by one kind of catastrophic claim we had those cows are still blending over in a little bit into this year as well as two other kind of complex claims that we're dealing with but quarter two is looking a little bit more favorable and we're getting trending back toward what our target is of 0.75 as far as accomplishments again those are there for you won't go over all of them the two ones I want to highlight for you is we are working on a two-year safety strategic plan now that we have those additional resources we're putting a more focused effort on our safety operations throughout the organization we've already had a lot of really good dialogue we've already realized a lot of areas where we can make some improvements to improve our safety culture and they are working on some more tactical goals to try and bring that about and then also other areas are securing the property insurance for the new didn't energy center as far as goals for next year obviously we'll be implementing the things we're putting it together in our safety plan I'll be a year two of that process we'll need to be updating our actuarial study on one of the next slides we'll be talking about our fund balances and a big part of that is what the actual says we need to have in reserve for our workers common liability claims this is a lot of information but really what risk management is about is trying to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our assets that's our employees that's our fiscal resources that's our property so whatever that needs to be done whether it's training accident investigation procuring insurance and on down the list as you can imagine some of the main cost drivers we have of course are the salary and benefits load again those three employees to do that were transferred over and the one that's being filled as a big driver of our cost increases for next year certainly workers compensation claims have been a challenge over the last couple of years and then just some more insurance procurement so I get to a little bit here in the future as far as cost containment strategies nothing major there one of things we're really proud of is we're working with fleet services to reduce some costs to the city when we have liability claims where we're at fault and we've damaged some parties vehicle to the point of it being a total in the past we had to rely on paying storage costs at body shops and sometimes almost having to pay someone to come get rid of the salvage because there wasn't a lot of value there in some vehicles but now working with our fleet services to be able to store those on site takes away that storage cost component of it and then put those vehicles in our city auction so we get some level of money for those I'll lose this before but the main cost drivers for us again are the salary increases we did at a cyber liability policy this past year obviously that's a big thing that's been the news a lot with other cities being hit with cyber liability issues and so that was an area felt we needed to procure some coverage and then just the ongoing property insurance market and Texas is obviously a challenge the last bullet points there are estimated fund balances and the risk retention fund as the end of 2018 and then also 2019 a little bit of dropage there but again nothing to be concerned about and still within the range of where we're supposed to be at Scott what's the how does the coverage work on that cyber liability is there a maximum coverage and I mean how does that how's that work it's a it 's a one million dollar policy and it's a what I'm sorry one million dollar policy and probably the biggest piece of that is going to be in the area of if we do have a data breach the notification piece of it to let all of the people who have been affected by that breach the credit monitoring and all the work to try and get all that taken care of us literally is where a lot of expenses come in and so that's the main benefit of having that coverage Melissa craft and I and her team we talked a lot about this and you know knock on wood we feel like we've got a lot of parameters in place we don't capture a lot of that personal identifiable data a lot of our third-party vendors do that but there are some areas where the risk is there we've seen some pretty significant breaches happening with some of our Texas cities here locally and so we thought that was important to add to it and it's a fairly low cost coverage for some pretty good sleep good feeling so it's not coverage to cover if there was a liability component to damages I mean or it would it just it's up to a million dollars whether that's notification all these kind of working with agencies or people but if let's say something happens and we get sued well then we got a whole another issue about immunity and all that never mind forget it yeah no we're good we're good yeah no I appreciate that yes that's a that's another conversation for another day any other questions at least on this slide so again this is our revenue highlight we really only have a few revenue sources coming in the vast majority these are allocations to the departments based on whether it's a per FTE losses number of vehicles or whatever that brings that in as you can see in the 1617 numbers those went down quite a bit that was a decision that was made to reduce those alloc ations back to the risk attention fund in order to fund other projects specifically those were some parking lots that got funded so that number is definitely an anomaly when you look at the other years in there but again the vast majority of that five hundred thousand dollar increase is going to be the salaries of the employees that we talked about earlier and then finally the expenses again no huge change there majority that is going to be the salaries for the employees and some of the initial insurances we purchased so questions about the risk retention fund any questions it's sort of very kind of mysterious department it's not nearly as exciting as the fire department or is entertaining us the library that you'll get next yes or the medical like we're fixing it I guess is that right sadly yes yes so one thing I know there was some question that came out during Tony's presentation about the health insurance and what we're being brought forward to you obviously the health care costs are kind of a high dollar thing and so that we have to kind of wrestle with every year as long as I feel like a chew toy for a really big dog being shaken around by health care and what it drives and what we have to do sometimes because it is a really large animal that we have to try and deal with we will be bringing back components of the health insurance to you all one thing that Brian has asked for is that we look at keeping the city's contribution to health insurance flat and what that would look like by our current projections that's about 1.8 million dollars we 're gonna have to come up with either in increased employee contributions or plan design changes that will hopefully lower our costs by that amount and so we want to kind of put all that together and see what that looks like so you guys have an understanding of what that might take to do that again we're I think one of the questions came up was you know is that six percent keeping up with medical inflation it depends on the source you look at but everything I see says on the medical side of it's about eight percent on the prescription drug is we're really seeing the greater impact for medical inflation that's about twelve percent historically although we've had some really up-and-down years our trend has been about five percent so even though we've had a couple of really anomaly years you know we usually typically will come down from that and our historical trend has been less than what the overall medical trend has been in your slide presentation where you go into you talked about that the cost I think you said 1.8 million that either gets made up with employee contribution or change to the plan to reduce the cause was it 1.8 million correct that's to keep the if the city's contribution remains flat for what it was last year that's what we have to change about the plan and is that some of those just higher elevation concepts in the presentation are you just answering the questions from I was asking the questions that were there I mean we 're gonna talk about the specific number and that's got the full six percent or five percent increase built into it again we may have to work back from that if that's what the council's direction is or what management feels like we need to do to make the bout the budget balance but so I'm knowing Tony's presentation I think one of his slides said a 3% increase in city contribution was I correct on that 3% you're saying keep it flat is 3% is that considered flat or what it would be keeping the same amount that the city contributed last year would be for this year so no increase at all to the city's contribution okay so it's like 20 million eight hundred fifty thousand dollars I think was what the city's basically working on a sensitivity analysis for you that if the city's costs were zero what would that mean in terms of plan design employee contributions if we went up to three what would that mean so there's gonna be a serious have that okay could it seem like there was a alright thank you appreciate that yes I'm sorry why do you believe that that we're lagging larger medical inflation is it something we're doing on purpose or is it just kind of chance you know based on how things have occurred within our population yes I like to say it's not purpose when things go down and it's on chance when things go up but it really is a lot of that we try and manage the plan on a yearly basis about keeping up with trends looking at ways to maximize the benefits for employees we've tried to work on you know wellness strategies and one of the things we're gonna right now is revising our current wellness program or healthy incentive program so I think it's a combination of all those things we do have our shock claims our high-cost claims that certainly drive that we we sort of bridge that by having stop-loss insurance to protect the city the maximum exposure on any one claim is a hundred eighty five thousand dollars and so even if we have a one million dollar claim for example we've capped our exposure for that and so I think it's all those things in joint use and to help that councilmember Gregory well it might be helpful I think one of the things that when we put it into place was our clinic our staff clinic that reduced some of our claims but if you don't have it now if you could send out some updates on the stats on that absolutely I can send that to you jumping back to the presentation again you see this slide before this is our breakdown of where the staff goes now I'm talking about the second at the top line the benefits and leave retirement staff there's about four employees that deal with that that area again we have a benefits administrator we have a benefits and leave coordinator and then two benefits and HR S stands for human resource information system that's what color was talking to you looking at other options in that regard but a lot of the stuff we do from the benefits is enrolling people getting in the system managing their benefit levels and those types of things I'm not touching it that much once a bit a couple of key performance measures that we do track is the number of health risk assessments that goes into what Councilman Gregory was talking about those are the basic the physicals that we have done our employee health clinic we track the number of folks that go through that we are currently at about 603 I believe for the year thus far so we're having a pretty large increase about 39% over this time last year so a lot of folks are going and utilizing our clinic and then our clean insulation rate we try and work around 80% and we're currently around 95% for the quarter and about 93% for the year so it is being utilized quite heavily. Thank you. Why is 850 the target? What does that represent? For a number of health risks historical averages and kind of a kind of just a goal we set again as our employee base grows that has increased over time so it's roughly about half of our budgeted positions and about 80% of our number of our employees who are on our health plan achieving their H RA. We just have some folks that aren't going to use our clinic regardless and so you know there's a challenge there sometimes but that's part of what our healthy incentive program is working as a component of it is to incentivize people to go get that annual physical done the way we look at is leave at least once one time a year they've spent you know 20 minutes with a doctor and whether they choose to do anything with I've been told or not that's up to the employee but at least they have the information about what's going on with their health. Yes. Do you still think it's a good target or should the target be higher it sounds like there'd be a lot of benefit to having you know as many as possible go through. Certainly I mean I would love to see every you know employee go through that every dependent to go through that but I feel currently based on what we've got in place at 850 is a reasonable target. Again for accomplishments we're currently working on rev ising our healthy incentive program our wellness program we have several RFPs are gonna be going out this year for some of our voluntary benefits our dental division our life and disability among others. One thing that I'm really excited about is we did launch a new program called the Denton fit program that's a program that's a partnership with our recreation program where we have roughly a $30 credit for each employee to take advantage of some of our recreation programs so basically the programs that are exercise wellness based things to get them basically off the couch and out doing things so it could be a swing dance class the senior center or rock climbing at Dean year what have you and the idea behind this is that it gives folks that an opportunity to try something maybe for the first time without having the fear of signing it for 30 days worth of lessons or a two-year gym membership or whatever it's just a way of giving them to try new things to see if they might find something that will meet their needs from an exercise standpoint. So we just got that started in April and I think we've had about 33 employees that have taken advantage of it. The good thing about the program is is that we're funding out of our wellness budget but that we're being reimbursed by a wellness credit we have from UnitedHealthcare so essentially there's no cost to the city for that program but hopefully we'll generate more opportunities to the RIC programs and also get people on the path maybe to a more healthy lifestyle. Goals for 18-19 again I know Councilman Hussbeth has talked about the benefits consultant that's one of the things that will be going out for our FP their contract is ending for us then another program we're looking at on the wellness related is the real appeal program that health care has it's a weight loss program so many of our health care costs are driven by the obesity epidemic we have in our country your high blood pressure your cholesterol one of our main cost drivers is going to be musculoskeletal issues a lot of that's being driven by the high weight we're talking about ankles and knees and hip replacements so again this is an area where we can focus and hopefully create a lot of value to our members. Councilman Hussbeth you had a question about the benefits consultant I don't know if this is a time for you to... Sure. Okay. Yeah so so my question is how do you measure the return on that investment what are the how do they earn that that rate what are you looking for what are you looking for them to do I know they coordinate a lot of different moving pieces but how do you evaluate that for value? That's a good question they do help us with pretty much all the moving parts of our benefits program so all the benefit levels from health dental vision etc. They help us with RFP preparation they help us with the technical specs a lot of times because they speak a deeper level language when it comes to health insurance and understanding things we ask for from a claims manager standpoint or from a networking standpoint so they help us with that technical piece of it they're helping us now with the things we're putting together for our employee insurance group and management about if we make these types of benefit changes what is the savings that goes along with that so it's a lot of the projections for us what we're doing right now is we're monitoring every month that the change in our projections and so that goes into then the projections for what 18-19 is gonna look like and down the line and so we get that from the consultant as well so there's lots and lots of things that they they bring to the table for us we pay them about $48, 000 a year for their services and whatever we've gone out for RFP that's always been an incredibly competitive rate so they do a lot of things that frankly I don't think I would have the skills to dig down into and manage for us because they bring not just knowledge of our plan but knowledge of city plans throughout the state of Texas and even beyond and so that helps us to from a comparison basis as well but is there a so understanding helpfulness but am I looking at the wrong line item so consultant fee for employer is that that's the revenue piece that comes in for we have a it's a percentage of the amount that the city contributes toward that and it goes in that line item but we pay much less than that for the consultant okay very good so that kind of goes in the overall funding of the health plan okay well and so I guess for me it would really be helpful if if there's a way to develop a straight line one two or three if not for this component we would have spent you know this much money so I don't know if that's hey we would have had to hire someone to negotiate this contract and that that value is this I just would like to see a kind of a linear approach to how to evaluate that service I just don't know enough about it to understand if that's if 48, 000 is is earned or not I'm certain it is I just don't have a way to to see that is that okay we can put that together for you thank you again moving back to the slide deck the health insurance fund basically it's was set up in 2017 sorry 2007 we moved to a self-funding model that's just basically where all the revenue for the city's benefit program all the expenses come out of as far as cost containment strategies the biggest one there is revising the healthy incentive program again we want to try encourage as many wellness efforts as we can to reduce our overall health care costs and also get our employees healthy we're looking at our revenue and expenditure kind of challenges certainly the uncertainty with all the RFP's that we have going out I know in the past when we have gone out for Dillon sorry for disability and life for example we we were able to see significant savings for the city we currently purchase life insurance and launcher disability for our employees and we saw some pretty significant savings there so I don't know if we'll be able to realize those same type of savings again but those are out going to be on the market this past this next year mission before the the rent for the clinic space up until last year we had a really sweetheart deal from didn't regional medical centers last medical city for that lease space when we wanted to create it they came to us with a dollar a year lease but once it moved over to medical city they felt like they need to get a fair market value from us and so we're that obviously added to our cost that we hadn't had before but it's about 23 dollars a square foot I believe for about 2800 leaseable square footage there in the professional building next to medical city or sorry the medical city professional building and so one thing is we're going to be doing is looking over the next few months to make sure that's a good rate and that's the spot definitely meets our needs and it definitely serves our employees but want to make sure from a rate standpoint that that's a good rate yes yeah does that come with a certain amount of equipment or is that just space and then the equipment is ours in the clinic it was just for the space itself all the equipment that's there is property of the city of Denton so the beds and the stethoscopes and etc are all ours yeah so yeah mr. city manager I'd really like to see us do something different there right I mean for me I think even if we partner with UNT maybe their athletic programs something like that or someone that is served in is developing their their health services side of things and so if we can partner with someone and do a better job keeping it in the family that would be my preference I just think there's that I don't think we I don't I don't want to pay market rates I just don't think we should have to because of I just don't think I'm biased that way but or if we are I think let's contribute to someone right let's that is contributing back that sort of thing so I think there's some return we can get okay and you're talking specifically for the space yes yeah because if there's no value add in them in equipment that sort of thing you know the location sure I get it but we have really fast emergency services if we need it hopefully we won't but and I think then we can if we're invested in served in and helping them get up and running faster to serve other citizens then that's fantastic you know we can take a look at I know Scott's been researching different rental options for us so we're happy to look into it and see if it makes sense sure okay thank you that was what I was gonna ask for as well so I sort of shared that similar sentiment yeah the last two bullet points there are just the fund balance again and the health insurance fund 20 about 2.1 million dollars I'm estimating of 2018 about 2.8 when are at the end of 2019 again that's on our current projections that number will flush out as we get the firm numbers in there for what the health plan is going to look like these next two slides are just the revenue structure of money coming into health insurance fund the majority of these are going to be employee contributions for their portion of the health insurance for their portion of life insurance etc there's are some that are city contributions for the city's life insurance and for the health insurance that's the big number there in the middle the 20 million dollars to the 2850 that I mentioned before and that comes over to the next page we get down to the totals that are there you'll notice in the first two columns for 1415 and 1516 there are some stop-loss numbers there that are absent as we go further on that's because that's when we had a separate stop-loss company and so if we got reimburse ments from that it came in as a revenue source now UnitedHealthcare is also our stop-loss carrier and so it's a credit toward claims and so it gets pulled into the claims number versus being a separate revenue line item go back to the last slide so the employee the city of Denton pays okay we have dental vision that's employee pay okay so we are basically paying twenty three point three million dollars a year it proposed budget the proposed one twenty million eight fifty is what the city paid last year the city's contribution and the proposed for the net this upcoming year is twenty three point three that 's without having the exercise we just talked about to to try and bring that back down to the twenty million eight that's the three percent or what it's actually six percent okay so we had a nice all right so you're saying that may depending on how everything else flushes out based on council policy decision whether that's stays the same as last year right or is only to one percent two percent what I okay correct and then the expenses again hopefully those match up close to what we have for the others begin the biggest piece of that being insurance which in this case is that the health plan twenty three million dollars so the total health insurance go back to that I just want to make sure I get the gravity of this so when you combine all of them employee paid portion of the premiums for health insurance you're telling me it's what you're adding all that up to the twenty to the twenty rates it's these three numbers here the one point two and the five seven three point two so twenty four million there yeah and if it goes to and also oh go ahead also that we also have the retiree premiums over here that added to that as well so twenty five million dollars and and that's everything that's health plan that's the administration of it that's our stop-loss expenses that's all those things and that is in when we're looking at that pie chart again I'm just trying to relate to where these numbers so the in the health insurance is that under personnel sir where is that inside that pie chart of our expenditures should be under personal services so I want to make sure I want to make sure I understand something so we got a let's say a hundred million dollar budget 110 million dollar budget 70% of that is personnel services or 77 I forgot 72 somewhere around there so that's 70 million bucks or 70 75 million dollars 25 of that so I'm okay I just want to make sure I'm not getting that so somebody show me if you could just sort of explain I'm trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together this is different well this is across all funds right so Tony was showing you the chart earlier which was just the general fund pieces so a component of the 70% is there but this is also DME water wastewater so forth got you so one of the things that we did last year that I just want to remind the council which I thought was helpful is we broke out all of the personal services cost and you could see that by funding so you'd be able to see salaries overtime no that's good pensions and so we'll provide that as part of the budget process this year so you can see all those yes councilmember and in that if we can have a just an example of the the pay increase and if the city does not choose to increase the health insurance portion along with that how much more of that increase is going to go to the health insurance because that's cancer yeah so just would like to see that please that's all I have okay any other questions fantastic thank you [ Pause ] >> Thank you. My name is Jennifer Becker. I'm the Director of Libraries here at the City of Denton. And I'm going to talk all about our department. So this is our current org chart. We do have three library branches. And then there's library administration. Within library administration, we also have our technical services department. That's the department that does all of the ordering, processing, cataloging, and interlibrary loan for materials . Under administration, we also have a technology librarian who works with the three branches and is our liaison with the technical services-- technology services department within the city. So this is just an overview of our positions that we've had over time. We did have a little bit of change this last year. We eliminated a branch manager position, actually transitioned that into two part-time librarians to provide some additional coverage. We are transitioning an assistant branch manager into a librarian archivist position. And then our marketing library assistant moved over to public communications. And we are adding part-time library assistant too to assist at the service desk at the Emily Fowler Central Library. >> So does that mean that one of the branches does not have a manager? >> Stacey Sizemore oversees two branches. He's-- his focus is branch services. So he oversees North and South branch. Kimberly Wells is our branch manager at Emily Fowler. And her additional focus in addition to her branch is she oversees all of circulation as well as she oversees programming for the system. So each branch manager has an add-on, if you will. Just Stacey, his add-on is another branch. >> I looked at some of the other information that you provided and I saw some numbers but I didn't-- it might be in there and I might have missed it. But I'm a little bit concerned about the staffing not only being flat but going down a little bit over the last four years. Does that mean that our-- the patron visits and the services that we're providing to our patrons is remaining constant? >> So I've got some measures on some future slides about some of our growth. Our overall visits have gone down in the last five years by about 2 percent. However, we've done significantly more outreach within the community. That's a changing trend among libraries and just among kind of the population in general. People want things where they are and where they can get to things conveniently. Our overall circulation the last five years has dropped about 5 percent and I've got some analysis of what that is. It's really DVDs and audio books which is being picked up by downloadable materials. So that's most of that drop there. We're still circulating 1.18 million items a year. So that's a lot of items in and out. >> OK. >> So we're very busy. We're packed to the gills and we are looking at future growth. >> Thank you. >> Mm-hmm. >> Great. >> Great question. >> Right. Well, so yeah, my comment was kind of along the same lines. If I remember correctly, last year the presentation was that some of the libraries or one of them was going to close certain amount of time so that your employees could get some time off because they were working overtime and, you know, is that still the case? >> We actually didn't follow through with that. We adjusted our internal staff scheduling and some of this reorg helped address some of those issues. When we broke out a manager position to two part-time librarians, those librarians are working nights and weekends to help with that rotation coverage. We also do have an internal committee who's looking at scheduling, particularly our desk scheduling and our scheduling rotation. Currently the full-time staff and public services and circulation work either Tuesday through Saturday or Monday through Friday. And then it switches every three weeks which can be kind of difficult to schedule your life around. >> Yeah. >> So we're looking at some more stable scheduling and we hope to get that implemented with the new fiscal year. >> Thank you. >> So this is a look at our performance measures. We met our performance measures last fiscal year and we plan to meet them again this fiscal year. We are above target at the 50% mark for several of our measures already. Our third quarter is our busy time. It's those summer months. So those ones in yellow should be full green by the end of this quarter. So these are some of those trends that we've got. This slide particularly focuses on population and service trends. Our population served which is not just the city of Denton population but it's in a population assigned to us by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. That population has increased by 10.4% over the last five years. And our number of card holders has increased by 19% over the last five years. Our cost of service has seen a 15% increase and that is total library funding, our total budget divided by the population served. And then our staffing FTEs was pretty static. Our number of programs had a huge increase of 39% but we're particularly proud of our program attendance. That has increased by 50% over the last five years. So a lot of people doing stuff. And then this slide focuses on our collection. I mentioned that collection trend with the audio visual materials going down. That's just with new technologies, that's the trend. People want to stream things and download them at their convenience and carry them around in their smartphone and tablets. Our print circulation has gone up which is bucking the state and national trend so Denton has a lot of readers which is fabulous. And then our other includes kits and interlibrary loan. They're very small. Hoopla is static. It is a-- we pay an upfront cost and it won't grow without additional funding. But our overdrive downloadable services, you can see that that's an increasing growth in our circulation and a significant portion of that growth is with downloadable audio books. The pie chart to the right is just a recent Pew Research Center study from January of this year. >> Okay, real quick question. Council Member Melton. >> Yeah, I'm sorry, I just don't know what Hoopla is. >> Oh, Hoopla is a downloadable and streaming service that we offer. So you get the app on your tablet smartphone or get to it on your computer and you can download e-books, audio books, stream TV and movies and documentaries. >> I'm going to get that. >> Yeah. You'll want to use it between midnight and 6 a.m. before it tops out though. It's really popular which is why we need more funding. >> And so on that you said it will not grow unless we-- >> Unless there's additional funding, yeah. >> And so it's maxed out daily. This is a service where you pay an amount per year and we divide that by 365 days a year and then there's so much usage per day. And currently the system resets at midnight by 6 to 8 a.m. We're done. That was not me. >> I take that as a sign. We should increase that funding. >> So we have about 550 patron turnaways. We're going to have to reduce that by a month. And one of our goals is to reduce that, actually eliminate it if we can. So people are still reading. Unfortunately, 25 percent of the population is not reading but the rest who are reading about half of that remainder is reading print only and the other half is reading a combination of print and digital and that does include-- the print and digital includes books as well as audio books . We did a lot this year. We're still doing a lot. So one of our most exciting things was we created the legacy lab at the Emily Feller Central Library. If you have old photos, videos, 8 millimeter family films, you can digitize those for free. We have staff who will show you how to use the equipment. It's been very popular. And then our goals for 18-19, we are in the midst of developing a new strategic plan. We have-- I have already met with staff and the library board. We're doing public input. We're going to do an online survey and do a couple of public input sessions to try to see where we need to go. And we'll have that up and running with the beginning of the new fiscal year. >> Yes, Council Member Riggs. >> So on this, on the teen room at South Branch, I'm just thinking of the teen room at North Branch after Strickland lets out and how overwhelmed it is with students. Do you see the same thing or at South Branch with-- is it McMath? >> It's not-- it's not as intense. >> Okay. >> Strickland Middle School is right next door to North Branch Library. And if you've ever been to the North Branch on a school day from 3.30 to 5, it is packed. I recently looked at some video of that teen room and we had 50 teens in there for an hour and a half period and it is not that big of a room. So sometimes we do get concerns from people that it's really loud. The teens themselves aren't usually being too loud. They're speaking in a normal voice but when you pack 50 of them into a small room, that's a lot of rumble. The South Branch because they're further away from McMath Middle School, it is getting used but not at that intensity right after school. They get a lot of weakened usage out of that. >> Well, I appreciate the teen room at North Branch. I do know that my son has enjoyed himself over there. >> Yay, guys. >> A couple of times. >> Council Member Duff? >> You probably know that Ropes and Ranch has their own library which is not really huge. But I just wonder if you've done any collaboration with R opeson? >> We do. We go out quarterly. Jess Turner coordinates that program. So we make quarterly visits and occasionally we'll do additional one-offs but at least quarterly scheduled visits where the library comes. We help any residents access the digital resources, any of our online other learning resources, help them get library cards, update existing cards. And we're looking at expanding that if possible too. >> Very good. >> So our budget emphasis is focused on identifying and growing those high impact services and programs that we offer, responding to that increasing demand for digital resources, and then strengthening and growing our outreach services. And you'll hear me talk about DPL2Go. That's our main outreach service. It's Denton Public Library 2Go. So anytime we are doing any activities outside of our library, that's DPL2Go. So we had some cost containment strategies last year. Our biggest was through our library reorganization where we had some salary savings. We are also planning to save about $15,000. We're getting all of our PCs refreshed. And there's a nonprofit organization called TechSoup that facilitates donated software. So we're looking to offset those costs for 50 of our public use PCs. And then we do get an annual reimbursement grant from the state library for interlibrary loan services. And that helps cover that staffing cost. >> Just as an update, I think they're working on the HVAC events. So that's-- so nobody's going to come flying through the roof. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's hope not. >> So our process improvements included that library reorganization. We did a time study and we reorganized staff to better match skill sets and make more equitable distribution of responsibilities as well as solve some service coverage issues. We are working on a lean review of our statistics gathering process. We are librarians. We love data and information and we collect tons of it. But we're looking at better ways to do that and reducing redundancy and irrelevant work. And we have already done some updates to our EnvisionWare print release project. And we are working with our self-check vendor to implement an option where if you forget your library card, you can scan the back of your driver's license, that bar code there. So you can still use our self-check resources even if you forgot your card, which I know nobody would do. But. So these are our budgetary highlights. There's not a whole lot of movement there. And then questions, comments? >> Any further questions, comments? Yes, Council Member Melton. >> Yep. Mr. City Manager, will we have sort of other opportunities during the year to hear more about library vision and so on? Or is this, you know, pretty much it? Just I want to know if I, you know, can I get things that are not strictly speaking budget? >> In terms of the master plan and that sort of thing, strategic plan? Yeah, we'll bring that back when it's ready for, just to bring you up to speed. And we're still also in this particular budget, we're still working through a couple of supplementals related to the hoopla and the other online program, which are wildly popular. We're trying to figure out exactly what kind of investment needs to be made in those particular systems and how much money that's going to take. But anyway, in terms of the planning exercises, that sort of thing, we can certainly bring something back when we're ready to go. And if you have any other subjects you'd like us to discuss, we'll be happy to bring those back. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yep. >> Well, and I know in the past we've usually had a lunch eon or something at the library where they've gone over-- >> We usually do an annual report review. >> Yeah, annual report. So yeah. Council Member Hussbett, do you have a question? >> First, I just want to say that I see our library everywhere. I mean, at different events, I mean, no matter what the function, they have a table there and books at the ready and information. So I think that that's outstanding. And then I've used both the-- I think it's the overdrive functionality and now the Libby for the audio books and it's fantastic. And I've always had-- I mean, I've always been able to find -- I mean, I'm about seven, eight books in and I crank that thing up to about 1.8, it's awesome. Get through it. But no, but I've always had success finding what I needed and so I think you're doing a fabulous job, whatever that is. And I've been able to kind of share with other people that they've kind of done the same, picked up on it. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments? Okay. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I didn't know if you're waving at me. You got a question or comment? Okay. >> Well, I just want-- I wanted to echo that as well and say thank you for all that you've done and I really enjoy our library systems. They're really great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Yeah, we've got drainage I believe, isn't it? Yeah. Thank you very much. Now we're going to start over with this one, right? Going to go through the whole thing? I'm kidding. >> We can, Mayor, if you'd like. >> No, no, we're good. >> So Tony pointed to Director of Finance. We had already covered last week kind of the financial component. I just wanted to go just really quickly just to let you know again, we covered a lot of history about the drainage fee. The drainage fee was implemented back in 2002. We are not recommending through this budget process any changes to that fee. It's still the same fee schedule that we've had since 2002. The other thing too that I'll point out is that again, we 've brought this to you separate from the wastewater fund. It is part of the wastewater fund. These expenses are no longer included in how we calculate the fund balance for the wastewater fund. We have shown a million dollar drainage reserve. There is an ordinance attached to that that limits that to projects in the emergency type situation. As you can see, the drainage debt is projected to be completely paid off by 2023. We are ramping up the revenue funding of capital. And Daniel Kramer, who's our new Deputy Director of Operations over drainage, will talk to you a little bit about the capital program that they'll be focused on. You know, this is a capital program, but it's maintenance related type capital. It's not your large PEC 4, Magnolia drainage type projects. Although, you know, the council may recall that we did utilize some funds from the drainage fee to make those projects hold. Council approved that recently to us and those projects are moving forward. That really kind of concludes my piece. Again, we had already talked about it a little bit. And I'll ask Danny to come up here and kind of go through his departmental presentation. Unless the council has any questions for me or if you want to wait until the end, whatever your pleasure might be. >> Any questions? Okay. Thank you. >> So Daniel Kramer again is our new Deputy Director of Operations over drainage. And so he'll walk you through his departmental presentation . >> Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. Hopefully we can get done today so we don't have to go over . So for drainage, some of our goals and accomplishments that we've had over this past year. Worked on the Canterbury, which we are about 80% complete. They will finish up this week on our part of that and then paving will be in it the week after to get that done. We've had Kingswood, which is also complete. We've had that one completely done. And the Rockwood is actually in design right now. About 60% plans on that and we'll be starting that later this year to finish that one up. Some of the -- our future goals coming up is South Bell, which is in design about 30% plans. The Smith is about 60% plans right now. And then the Oak Tree and Choctaw are not set up until the late fall of 2019. Our budget emphasis is, you know, making sure we do focus on our citizens and all of our storm drain systems and keeping those up to date and where they need to be. We've had a lot of stuff, a lot of things in the works. Making sure we maintain all the storm drains, keeping all the silt and everything out of the systems and, you know, improving the potential flooding risk for everybody else and also working on the mosquito population. Process improvements, we've been doing mapping the storm drain. Pecan Creek, that one is about 90% complete. We're going through aquatic control, verifying everything that's correct on that and all the information that we have in there and there's no missed processes. Inspection inlet for mapping, we've also been working on that. And some of the future processes is keep going with our mapping of all of our assets and our drains and everything and making sure that all of our -- all the information is in the system so it's readily available. We can go look on our GIS maps, verify exactly what size assets we have there, how long they've been on the ground and everything else that we can track through there. As for our position summary, in fiscal year '17, we had one FTE increase due to watershed intern and a reduction in one which was when we pulled the street superintendent out of drainage and completely under streets. Some of our five-year capital plan have a lot of different, as you can remember last week, we talked, Chad was up here working on a lot of those -- talked about a lot of those projects and discussed most of those through there that we're working on. We are using 2.8 million from the channel rehab to cover some of the 4.1 million in revenue funded projects coming up. So, that's most of those going through. Sorry. So, some of the bond funder projects for the 2014, you got the Eagle Drive improvements which is going to council on the -- on the 17th and on July 17th and construction in August -- late August. We also have the Magnolia which is going to be advertised in June and construction late fall. And then PEC 4 phase two is actually in design, waiting on some new construction documents to get finalized on that so we can go out for a bit on those. And then the downtown section, that's going to be in beginning of 2019. And there's a map of some locations of those projects. And future projects, some of the unfunded ones that we've been working on, the Mingo Drive, they're going back and resetting some of the floodplains and verifying a few things on that. So, expand the scope and make sure we have everything straight on those. And we talked about, you know, Sherman Drive a little bit last time and PEC 3 and 4 design, you know, that's going to be looking at the next bond cycle when we come up with that. So, we're looking at roughly about 26.9 million in future projects that we have unfunded. And those are some of the locations for those. And basically in summary, that's about all of our basic presentation we have. A few comments. >> Oh, I'm sorry, do you have a question? >> Yeah, I have a question. >> Yeah, okay. >> You mentioned that mosquito control is under drainage. I know years ago we used to have where citizens could pick up the little donuts that they had an area they couldn't drain. Is that still available for the citizens? >> Yes, those are still available. That's kept down in our street drainage area in the service center over there. >> How do we let citizens know that that's available? Is that put out on a utility bill or anything to? >> I'm not sure on that. I will get back to you and let you know what we need to do on that. >> We can get something in the next newsletter on that and put something online. >> Okay, thank you. >> A couple of things that, you know, we're focusing on coming up. We have a lot of direction that we want to take this department and a lot of things we got to look at using some of our current software and, you know , different things we have in our works and some other stuff that we're looking at to make sure that we can actually do the best of our ability and make sure we're running efficiently, especially with our street sweepers and everything we have coming up and looking at different ways we can adapt those to help out and make our routes as we have more and more neighborhoods come on board and, you know, how often we want to do the routes. You know, we have GPS tracking on those. So we're looking at different ways we can make sure we're doing everything efficiently in our departments and going through all that. >> Great. Any other questions? Oh, Councilmember Fraggs. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I have to ask just because I normally do, but do any of those future projects that you listed up there include going in channelizing natural creeks with concrete? >> All those plans are looked at. These specifically, I can't tell you 100% if they are or not, but I know we do look at the cost difference of both and going each way and then we present all that information out and we will make sure that everybody has an opinion on which ways they need to go. There are certain areas that we do have to look at in the flooding and we are putting together different numbers. To make sure because, you know, there's costs associated with each way and we have to make sure that the environmental effect and the cost that we're doing the best we possibly can. So, yes, ma'am, we will, all that information we will bring out. >> We'll follow up with Todd on that. I know PEC 4, phases 3 and 4, that's underground culvert. >> Yes. >> And so we'll either put pavement or grass on top of that . I'm not sure on the other three, but we'll ask, we'll follow up and get back to you on that. >> Thank you. >> Questions, comments? Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Let's take about a 10-minute break. Then we're going to move on to agenda item E. Welcome, everyone, back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, June the 12th, 2018, back in session at 2.35. I'm working through our work session item reports. We're going to move down to agenda item 2E because I believe we have some airline flight schedules we have to be able to maintain and I was told this was about a two-hour presentation. >> No. >> I'm just kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Yeah. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call the item, item 2E, which is, 2E, receive report and hold discussion, give staff direction regarding options for proposed radio communication system replacement. >> Good afternoon, council, mayor, city manager. I'm Alyssa Kraft. I'm the chief technology officer. Today we'll be discussing the current state of the Denton radio system and some of our pain points with the current Denton radio system. Also with me today we have mission critical partners, Richard Gaston. We also have Motorola and a police chief and fire chief as well. So let's talk about the current Denton radio system. This is a 800 megahertz 14 channel smart net 2 system that 's been in place for over 18 years. An interesting tidbit. This was actually procured back in '97. It was purchased used as part of the Olympics, in case you want to know that. We also did some minor upgrades and adjustment in 2001. So this primarily serves our public safety dispatch and DME operations. Part of the radio system also includes two radio sites, mobile radios and handhelds. Some of our system users and partners for the radio system, again, multiple departments rely on this, police, fire, EMS, DME, water, wastewater and parks. We also provide support to the UNT and the Texas Women University too with a total of over 1500 radios. Some of our tower sites include one tower over at McKenna Park and another at Teasley Lane. We lease this through the Denton County. As part of our tower sites we also have equipment and generators and secure enclosures. Right here you can kind of see a visual of what that kind of looks like. Some of the present issues with our smart net radio system, it's reached on a life. Motorola stopped manufacturing these systems back in 2011. All support ceases in 2018 and we actually experienced a couple of recent failures. While it hasn't been catastrophic, we have received intermittent issues where some people were unable to communicate over the radio system. The gold elite dispatch radio console that's used in public safety communications and DME operations has reached in a life. Software updates and repair service will not be available through Motorola as of December 2018. Again, they stopped manufacturing these parts in 2011. The dispatch console system uses Window XP. Microsoft stopped supporting this back in 2014. Some of the current issues, it does not provide adequate coverage throughout the city. So this also includes in areas by Robson Ranch and also by 380 and North. The radios and used by the departments have also reached in a life that will not be supported after December 2018. The system does lack redundancy. If we were to have failure damage to a tower, it would really cause communication issues or lack thereof. Radios used by police and fire while they were replaced back in 2016, they are operating at a reduced capacity. So as part of this, we spoke to it in our previous budget presentation. Previously, the radio shop used to report on a deadness of electric. As part of our centralization of services and coordination of services, they came under tech services. We hired mission critical partners to really come in and take a fresh perspective to really look at the radio's operation, people and processes. As a result of that, they're going to come here today and kind of give you their finding, analysis and recommendation with that. So with that being said, I'll let Richard kind of take the floor. >> You and Paige down. >> Yes. >> Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Mr. City Manager. I'm Richard Gaston, Mission Critical Partners. Also have with me today Bill Loggeman, Bill's a radio expert. I think he was around in Marconi, founder of the system. So if we have any high level technical questions we have Bill. [ Laughter ] And of course we have our partners from Motorola here as well. [ Laughter ] I reiterate what Melissa said. We were brought on in 2015 and one of our tasks at that time was to do a high level operational assessment of the radio system. And the findings of that time are echoed in the current report that it's reached end of life and it's reached the technological support offered by Motorola. So we are at a critical juncture here with the radio system . We were brought back in in 2017 to do a much more detailed assessment of the system and update the findings from the previous report. So as she mentioned, we-- you're operating on 800 megahertz Motorola Smart Zone, our SmartNet 14 channel trunk system serves all of the city departments that utilize radio systems currently. So an outage would seriously impact the ability not only for public safety to respond in an efficient manner but also for the other users especially, you know, DME would be another critical user here. We completed a very thorough assessment. We went out to both the tower sites that the system uses, the McKenna and the Teasley site as well. I looked at the towers themselves. There was a secondary engineering firm that came in that did a structural analysis of the towers to determine if there was any upgrades needed to supporting additional antenna structures or microwave systems that might need to go on these towers. Looked at the grounding systems, the generator, the backup power capacity. We've done a thorough assessment of the public safety communications. Dispatch operations where we're seeing the redesign and the renovation over there working closely with the architect and facilities management. We're also involved in the procurement of the computer dispatch and the records management systems for law enforcement fire as well. We've been to the DME operations center, did an assessment of the backroom equipment they have there and the radio systems and their radio requirements and met with the Denton County Sheriff's Office and been to their sites and did assessment of their system to determine the interfaces that are required to bring the city system on the county system. The, let's see my slide. The findings were the same that Melissa just echoed. Again, we're at end of life on the systems, the radio system itself and the dispatch radio console system that's in use in police dispatch. Currently that's the system that the dispatchers literally use to push the buttons to switch between channels if you will, to talk to the different user groups. Same system is in place over to the DME operations center. So that's also reached end of life and no longer will be supported. Our recommendations based on these findings are that the city move forward with procurement of the Motorola Astro Project 25 Phase 2 system. This is a digital radio system that Denton County's already implemented it. They brought a number of other municipalities in the county on board. The Louisville join, I believe Frisco's considering joining as well. The benefit there is that the county's more in the cost of the brain of the system if you will, the controller that would represent a significant savings for the city by partnering with the county at this point. In essence, the residents of the city wouldn't be purchasing two separate radio systems, you'd be purchasing one system and just simply expanding the capacity of the county system . We also recommend replacing the gold elite console system in dispatch with the new digital MCC 7500 console system. That would be seven positions in the newly renovated dispatch center and seven additional positions over at DME operations. The partnership with Denton County would offer the capability to expand the system coverage as well. Robeson Ranch has been mentioned several times today. Coverage in that area is lacking under the current system. Fortunately, there is a county tower that you'll see in some slides coming up that would provide coverage to the Robeson Ranch and some areas further west as the city grows out that way and complete coverage for the ETJ area. The also joining the county system would eliminate the need for the city to purchase and construct two additional tower sites at about a million dollars per site. So that's significant cost savings there. We're also looking at implementing a microwave system to provide another level of redundancy between the police dispatch or the communication center here and the McKenna radio tower site and the Teasley radio tower site. Recommendations continue with the replacing of 440 non-public safety analog mobile and portable radios with the new digital radios. Public safety radios were upgraded over the last two years so they all have the digital capabilities so they can already be used on the new system when it comes online. Again, implement that microwave link between the dispatch center and the McKenna park tower to provide redundancy. That would actually be -- that's actually a shared system between Denton County and Denton 9-1-1. So the limited expenses there just piggybacking on existing system. And the tower structural analysis has already been completed. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So as we were having discussions with Motorola, they're able to provide a project discounts of up to 3.2 million if the city utilizes the Denton County contract. Now these are time sensitive different proposals. We're still kind of evaluating kind of what the actual contract amount looks like at this point. The Motorola contract allows the cities and agencies with Denton County to purchase Motorola radios and equipment at a 20% below the lowest HDAC contract. In order to integrate with Denton County and be compatible with the upgraded technology, I will say this particular technology with Motorola systems is proprietary. >> Question. Council Member or Council? >> Yeah. Sorry. I just don't know what HGAC is. >> That's a cooperative purchasing contract that other cities can utilize. That's been pre-bid and pre-vetted out through-- >> Houston, Galveston, and Gary, Galveston. >> Houston, okay. >> Houston, Galveston. >> Gary. >> Gary. >> Gary, okay. All right. Did you have a question, Council Member Briggs? >> Yeah. I think-- well, I have several, but I think that kind of answers my question is why we don't do the-- is this why we don't do an RFP because of this, right? Okay. >> And I think we'll have options too if we wanted to utilize that product as well too. So some of the benefits of the new system, I know Richard had mentioned, Motorola did some current state analysis of what our service area reliability is. Our current state is 80.54%. If we were to upgrade the system utilizing the Denton County in partnership with that, it would be 96.62. So that would show around an 18% coverage improvement for our service area. Also, as part of the new system, we'll get enhanced system redundancy should our primary method of communication fail. It also allows us to share costs with Denton County. And also the ability to communicate with surrounding public safety agencies. And I know that's one thing for, you know, police chief and fire chief and operability is pretty critical, especially when you have any type of large scale disaster or any type of communication requirements within the same jurisdiction. Having that interoperability work seamlessly really helps with response times to getting on scene to communicating with county and other folks within that area. >> Council Member Hussbett has a question. >> Yes. >> Can you help me visualize what that looks like? So a break in communication, so you say 80% reliability, 90% that gap, so if there's a break in communication, what does that look like in actual, like an event? You know, just, so not like mass event, but just a regular everyday we have a missing communication . What does that trigger? >> So currently, let's say if they're going out to the Robson Ranch, as far as the clarity and the tone of voice, it might get weaker as the signal goes. In a digital, it would just completely cut off. So that person handling that subscriber unit couldn't really transmit that. And also, what to, Motorola, if you have anything else to add to that as well too. >> If you do, you'll need to come to the mic please. Yeah. >> Yes, yes. >> Yeah. >> Hello everyone. >> Hello, Motorola. >> My name is Rahul, by the way, but I'm glad to be called Motorola, that's fine. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, yeah, to answer the question though, again the 80% versus 96%, it talks about where you get what we call 95% reliable coverage. So you might be able to get audio coming through the radio, but you can hear it in bits and pieces and patches. It won't be what we call reliable coverage. You may be able to hear parts of the conversation, and it's just not what we recommend for mission critical systems. For some commercial scenarios that kind of works, but for mission critical scenarios we always wanted to be 95% reliable, and that's where we try to baseline it at that when we say 80% of coverage for 95% reliable systems. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Appreciate it. >> So I think as they're looking at some preliminary designs, that's where that over 95% was on it. Also, some of the new radios do possess noise cancellation technology to enhance voice quality, and also encryption, that's something that's not currently available. So if we had some type of SWOT thing we had to do that would help provide some encryption for that. So additionally, it also, I know we talked about increasing the service area reliability. It also allows us to double our talk path capacity as well. So here's some of the equipment totals. I will say these are preliminary numbers. These are not nailed down numbers at this point because I think as we're looking through the contract, Motorola did offer some time-based incentives. Originally, we were looking at bringing that as part of our fiscal year '18-'19 budget. We're currently investigating options if we could potentially do it sooner to take advantage of some of these time-based incentives. So, yes. >> Yeah, did you have a question? Oh. Okay. Let's go with Council Member Briggs and then Council Member Mathis. >> So in 2016, you said we approved a replacement amount. Do you remember, recall what that was that we spent? >> I want to say it was over 2 million, slightly over 2 million, Chief. Does that sound right? >> Okay. >> For the radios. >> Yeah. Yeah. Whoever's going to give any kind of-- >> That was before they were under TAC. >> Yeah. I know there were a couple of different purchases of radios and I think one of them was about $800,000 and the other one was, again, close to a million. So it was about 2 million total. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Council Member Belser. >> Has Motorola persuaded you that this time aspect is very serious? It sounds to me frankly like what every salesperson always says. I'm sure my-- without you telling me otherwise, I'd assume they'd be happy to take our money a day after, whatever that deadline is, as soon as the day before. >> So we also brought them here today. So if you have specific questions for Motorola-- >> I'm happy to say it right to your face. >> They would be happy to answer that for you. >> Good afternoon, Council, Mayor. Brad Rice with Motorola. To address that, absolutely. We're happy to work with you any time of the year. Unfortunately, the one-- one of the incentives that was tied to this is the actual Denton County contract itself, which expires-- it expired June 1st, but our legal gave us approval to extend it through the end of this month for you all to be able to take advantage of some of those discounts. But again, like I said, absolutely, we're happy to work with you guys any way we can beyond that date. Just unfortunately, that contract itself does expire. >> If I may. >> Yes. >> But is there any indication that that county contract won't be renewed? >> It will not, no, sir. That was actually tied to when Denton County purchased their radio system. It incorporated some additional discounts and future purchase discounts that Denton County and other users' entities that are taking advantage of the system and working together like you all are considering, were able to take advantage of. So if they buy a new system, new radio system next month, then absolutely, they'll renew it. But I don't foresee them doing that anytime soon. >> And so do you guys guarantee that 95% reliability? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Is that part of that? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We do-- it's part of a-- the initial part is obviously study and testing using our tools, but after that we verify it and validate the data to prove it. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Gregory. The other system has been supported for 18 years. We got it used, so actually more than 18 years. Any notion as to how long this system will be supported? >> So we obviously-- we're a technology company. The one big benefit that helps for the new systems coming out, most of it's all software based. It's, you know, just like everything else is moved more of a software platform versus a hardware. So it's going to last a lot longer. Typically, when we design-- when we build systems and the components of it, we have a roadmap and plan on it being able to be upgraded. They don't necessarily set an end date at any early stage, but what they do is once they've identified that something is coming up for end of life or they're going to stop building it, we notify the end users and then we still will support it for usually for five years after that point, which is what we've been doing with you all for past five years now, working with you. So it's not going to be a hard cut off and these systems are designed to last decades. I mean, they're not going away anytime soon. >> Thank you. >> Also as part of the proposed Motorola contract, there's also a software user agreement package that helps us kind of keep up to date at a certain level, at a software and support level. As we're joining Denton County's core, we're all going to agree to maintain a certain support level as well too, so. >> Council Member Hesbitt and then Council Member Ryan. >> So two part question, have you talked to Denton County to get a feel for their experience? >> Absolutely, they were actually part of the process when we were doing kind of the scope of work and just the stakeholder engagement to try to define the needs surrounding the radio system. So Lieutenant Willis was there with us for those several days as well too. >> Okay, and then this may be a Motorola question. Can someone speak to me about the frequency and so competing frequencies and is there a wave that's set aside, how does that work to prevent inter ruption? So I don't know. >> So I can answer part of that. That's done through our FCC licensing as far as what frequencies we're allowed to talk to and what other entities are allowed to talk to as well. >> But are they carved out like they're exclusive for this type? Type service or it's exclusive to the City of Denton? >> It's exclusive to the City of Denton. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So as part of the licensing process, one of the things that's done is in the study they look at how powerful are those repeaters going to be transm itting at and they actually look at who are all the other users within 20, 30, 40 mile area and they do an analysis to make sure that there's not that interference happening and the frequency band this is going to be in is very well regulated so you're not going to have any kind of interference happening. >> And is that across carriers or is that carrier specific or I don't know how it works. Is it the frequency, is that frequency exclusive to a particular carrier or multiple carriers have the same frequency? How does that work? >> So this is not going to be used by any of the carriers. This is dedicated for public safety so you know in the 7, 800 megahertz spectrum that we say this is all going to be only public safety agencies. There's not going to be other carriers who are going to be interfering with that. So it's, the spectrum is carved out for public safety use so it's not going to, you know, you're not going to run into that problem. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's my right. >> Thank you, Mary. >> On Denton County, do you know if they went with the lease purchase or did they do a cash or bond pack? >> From our understanding they did the bond package. >> The bond package? >> Yes. >> Also I'm guessing because of the new technology is why we would have coverage at Robeson that we don't currently have or other areas of the city is just has to do with the technology. Is that correct? >> I think as we're expanding and growing the current system is at capacity so to add new features and functionality we wouldn't be able to do that. >> Okay. Well, I'm thinking that Robeson right now is because it's beyond the distance from our towers but we're not, part of this proposal is not to add another tower. >> No. >> So does the new equipment just have a longer distance that it covers? >> I think as part of this proposal if we join the Denton County's core like Richard was mentioning kind of the brain behind that, we can take advantage of Denton County's tower to provide us coverage in those outlying areas. So there's going to be some benefit there using a shared system. >> Okay. And I guess I understand that but we are currently using the tower, the same tower as the county or does the county have additional towers? >> They have several towers throughout the city as well. >> Okay. >> And we're using different technologies so they're not integrated with each other. With this solution we would integrate both systems as part of an overall area strategy. >> Okay. >> And lastly I just want to say that I'm glad to see that this is software based because still being stuck with something that runs on XP is -- >> Me too. >> Makes me awake at night. >> Yes sir. >> Yes. >> Very, very scary. >> It's very scary. >> So again these are preliminary numbers. We're still kind of working through the contract but you can see lease versus bond. You know we're still kind of investigating which option is the most feasible at this time but it will kind of give you a gist of, you know, the annual lease payment would be roughly around 660 where years two through three-- years two through six for as far as maintenance of system upgrades was around 1.9 million. Here you can kind of see the financial cost by fund. Again, these are preliminary numbers until we can figure out, you know, when the execution of the contract is working through Motorola, we'll have more accurate numbers with an actual contract. You can kind of see here as part of next fiscal year's budget, the amount would be 685,000. You can kind of see how it hits most of the funds and the users of the different departments where general fund does take a big portion of it primarily for, you know, public safety. They're the primary users of that system and then parks and rec and water and waste water as well. >> Is this based upon the lease or bond or they pretty close? >> They're pretty close. >> Okay. >> So you kind of see over time. You can also see it in 1920, this would be that first year where that maintenance payment starts to kick in which is roughly around 400,000. As part of, you know, the years two through six, we will expect an increase of around 3.5%. >> So help me understand because, I mean, what's the maintenance and the upgrades? That's not the warranty on the equipment. I mean, we're-- let's say we buy it. That's $6 million. So are we only getting one year of, I mean, quote unquote warranty? I mean, is that it? >> No, no, no. And then years two through six can-- that's part of your warranty, your maintenance and your upgrade and support. So that would include your maintenance and support should something break, we would call Motorola through that agreement for repair or replacement. >> Well, that's what I'm saying though. If in year two, second year, something breaks, if it's software based, I don't know what-- some component breaks, it's fairly expensive. We're paying for-- it's like an extended-- I look at it like an extended warranty, OK? Not quite because you have upgrades but I'm just saying from years two through six, which is four years, do we think that-- I mean, first of all, so we're not getting any coverage on a warranty item after year one. If something were to break a component after year one, we'd have to pay to repair or replace it. Say we didn't get the maintenance agreement. We got to-- is it just a one-year warning? Is it-- can somebody from Motorola help me understand? Sort of share with me what-- I'm trying to understand. If we're paying $6 million, how long do you all stand behind the product? >> So typical system warranties are the annual, the first year is included. And the way the years two through six that she was presenting, that incorporates your ongoing maintenance, it incorporates your-- we'll call it SUA2, which is the upgrade agreement which every other year we do an upgrade for your system which it not just gives you the upgrade for the software that's anything that's required. It also covers any hardware that is either out of support or is not capable of upgrading to the next level. So it is-- it's incorporating multiple aspects in that. Yes, sir. >> So let me ask you a question on what you just said about the hardware. So you said it would include hardware that either is not capable of being upgraded or is not being supported any longer. >> Correct. >> So I must not be understanding something. So if we're buying a new system, why would something not be supported after year two or three? >> So-- >> What would go out that's not being supported after year two or three? >> Operating systems like the XP, you know, on-- if there's any kind of server-based components, any kind of third-party components that are tied to the system that are required for it to function and if we do an upgrade and it does not-- it's not upgradable, then we replace the entire hardware with it. >> So these are third-party pieces of equipment that would be included in the purchase price of the system. >> Yes, sir. >> So it'd be like we're buying something and we bought what you guys sold us and in two years something may go out that is no longer being supported. >> Correct. So we make sure that your system stays at that upgradable point and is maintained at that same level all the way. >> So after year six, what happens? >> You have the option of either extending. Basically, we typically do-- you know, we do multi-year contracts because it helps you level-- lock in some of the escalation, you know, factors that go involved in that. But you can do two-year, five-year, 10-year. I think that's the year that was requested, it was two through six, a five-year warranty. So you have the option of renewing, doing whatever, you know, if you want to change it up, add to, take things off of it. >> Okay. >> You have that option. Yes, sir. >> That just seems high to me for paying five or six million dollars for a new system that we're paying $400,000 a year for five years and then we have to pay another four or $500,000 a year to-- so, I mean, we need it, we need it. But I certainly want to explore, I mean, because I don't know what those components are, I don't know what those upgrades cost us, you know, so-- >> So now, typically, now that it's becoming more of an IP- based system that's pretty standard across any of our kind of hardware or software procurements , usually the ongoing maintenance is anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the original cost as a service. Now, if you start looking at cloud technologies, you know, that's pretty streamlined and then you start to see the 5 percent increases thereafter. So, you know, as part of the radio components, you have firewalls, you have switches, you have routers, you have PCs, you have management consoles. There aren't-- they weren't typically there before with the analog solution that are there now with the upgraded, when they mentioned software base, it's more IP-centric. >> And I understand that. I guess my response to that is if we're buying equipment that could be unsupported within a year or two because it's being offered through the total package and it's a third-party piece of equipment provided by Motorola in this sort of turnkey system, that seems a little concerning to me. I mean, you know, it'd be like me buying a car. It seems like in the transmission is not going to be-- so it's-- and I understand it's not the same because you got third- party vendors who they can choose at any time, we're not going to support X. So, it just-- I might have to maybe get offline and just get educated a little bit more about that. >> OK. >> Council Member Briggs. >> Just on that for clarification. So, it's 6 million to begin with and then 2 million years, two through six. So, we're potentially talking about a $16 million system. Am I off? >> No, I think it's roughly going to be around 8 million. >> Total? >> Total for up to year 6. >> OK. >> And I think we're still trying to, again, figure out what that final number looks like, so. >> Well, I want to talk to the Motorola guys when we get off because I-- back in 1965, I came in second. [ Laughter ] And the-- in the-- this ticket sales for the Longhorn Council Scouterama. And I won two Motorola Walkie Talkies. And Buddy Stewart and I would activate those on our bicycle patrol for the Idiot's Hill Bicycle Patrol. We kept it safe, but I'm having some problems with them. So, can I talk to you guys afterwards about that? OK. They're good radios. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think we've got radios that are over 17 years old. It still works. So, definitely got our money's worth of that. >> But '65 is more than 18 years ago. >> Yeah. I won't tell you what year it was born. [ Laughter ] So, here are some options for the radio system. We could-- option would be not to replace the system or repair as needed. We don't recommend that due to the sensitivity of public safety utilizing that as the primary source of communication. When out on calls and in the field. Option two, we can request to do an RFP for a Denton only radio system where the new system is owned and operated by the city of Denton. This again would kind of run two different systems not connected to Denton County. Do want to add if we choose that option not to connect to Denton County, we would probably incur or require the need to add two additional sites at a cost of a million dollars per site. Option three would be a regional radio system where the city joins an existing system and shares cost in supporting infrastructure with Denton County. >> Is there any downside to finding out what the answer is in option two? Would it in any way prevent us from ultimately choosing to do option three if we didn't, you know, like the way option two looked? >> We can definitely explore it. I will say if we want to use the Denton County system, we would have to go with the Motorola technology to ensure the integration between the systems. So, you would just be completely on your own. >> Well, I guess it's really just comment. I guess we would then-- let's say it comes-- it turns out to be cheaper, right? Then we would be able to say this is the amount more we're willing to spend in order to be interoperable with the county. You know, that-- and there might be some benefit just in at least knowing that. >> So-- >> I'm sorry. >> Hey. >> Well, two questions to go with it. Any notion whatsoever of what option two might run? You've already said about $2 million for towers. >> Yes, we would have to go through the process. >> Okay. The other thing would option two reduce our effectiveness in communication with other agencies in a major situation. >> Yes. The interoperability factor with being able to talk to others within the same jurisdiction would definitely be limited. >> Would be what? >> Limited. >> You know, I'm interested-- I would be interested in exploring the cost savings, but if it means that we really can't operate effectively with our other-- the other agencies that we need to especially in a major emergency, I'm not sure that it's worth waiting for option two. >> I also have Richard Gaston because, you know, we had him come out and do analysis so he can kind of elaborate as to how he came with those recommendations as well too. >> Let's let Bill address that. >> Okay. >> When you're speaking of interoperability, the federal government SAFECOM, which is the Office of Emergency Communications within DHS and the federal government has recommended one of the standards for the system that it be a common standards-based system which would allow interoperability. Here, if you have the county and you would have city of Denton, the county, Louisville, Flower Mound, and-- >> Probably Frisco. >> And-- >> Potentially Frisco. >> Potentially Frisco and Highland Village all operating on the same system. So the officer, the firefighter, it's a matter of selecting a talk group or a talk path or a channel, whatever you want to call it. On that radio, to communicate, it makes it a whole lot simpler and the technology, it all works together. So there's a real advantage and I think the second thing to consider here is that if for some reason the Denton City portion of the system, which is the two towers that you saw, was to fail, you would still have the county system in place providing that second level of redundancy and interoperability and it 's the same thing. You go somewhere, you go to-- you have to send someone to Flower Mound or to Louisville for mutual aid, again, it's almost-- it is its intuitive for the operator just to switch and get on the proper channel and they're talking to those people. >> Thank you, Mayor. So are you a consultant or are you with Motorola? >> No, sir, I'm a consultant. I'm sorry, I'm Bill Wagaman, I'm a senior consultant for Mission Predictive Partners. >> Well, he had introduced you earlier. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure. So do those systems also communicate with this like DPS, Department of Public Safety for Texas? >> Not right now. If the technology is available and depending on what DPS finally decides to do in the way of a statewide system. >> Okay. >> I think DPS is working that right now they operate on different frequencies. There's not a lot of good ways to have interoperability but it's improving and as the DPS units they start to add more capability and give that capability to the officers, yes. >> Well, based on what I'm hearing, I would lean for option three. >> Okay. Council Member Rates. >> So-- oh, I have a question really for staff because six months isn't really that long of a time for when this ends. And so back in 2016 with the replacement of the radios, I don't recall this conversation. So I guess I'm just wondering why we're just now hearing it . >> So that's a good question. You know, as part of that transition to streamline of services, that's when we really decided to take a step look back and really look at it holistically at people processing technology within the Denton radio shop based on discussions with the chiefs and I know the-- sounds like the request was brought up and, you know, to be frank, the people that were over that at that time, you know, I'm not sure if that was necessarily a priority or I don't know. >> Go ahead. >> So what do we do with all the radios that we have? >> In terms of can they be recycled or-- >> Yeah, yeah, or-- >> Do you know the answer to that, Melissa? >> So typically what we try to do is go through our normal process which is probably either take it out and put it out for auction or see if we can recycle it within the jail or other areas that might utilize that, maybe a smaller city. >> I have just a few more questions. >> Well, let me get-- Council Member Ryan, you let her finish? Okay, go ahead. >> And so on this system that's being proposed, you said TW and UND, do you both use their own separate systems? >> They utilize our services to use the radio system. >> Okay, so it's through us. So would they help with the funding? >> So as part of that, historically they haven't but they will pay for the radios. >> Okay. Is that-- okay. And there's just one more question. On the tower, you mentioned McKenna Tower. I think that we actually lease that tower with the system stuff that we put on that tower for this new radio, would that interfere with what else is going on currently? >> No, ma'am. What we did was structural analysis. We will have to do modifications to the towers to incorporate some of this new technology as part of when we were doing the comprehensive radio analysis. So we did get quotes for modifications. We got three quotes. It's going to range anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 to make sure we have enough capacity at those towers to supplement the new radio system. >> On each tower? >> On one tower, which is the Teasley Tower. McKenna, we have enough capacity to add. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay. >> Council Member Ryan. >> Thank you, Mayor. Looking at option two on this, can you turn back to slide 14? >> We're getting what, a little over $2 million discount if we move on this in rather quick fashion. Can you imagine that an RFP or RFP would come back that low ? I mean, looking at the base price for the equipment, I just can't see that we're going to find anybody else out there that going out for an RFP would be beneficial to us. And the extended warranty is going to be about the same no matter who we go with. So I'm strongly in favor of option three. I did have one kind of follow-up question. The UNTTWU, you said they'd pay for the radios that they would be using. Or is it right now they're just not paying for the services , the ongoing cost? Is that what they're not covering? >> We do get services through our revenues. So we, it's based on, it's part of our staff time helping them troubleshoot the radios and working through that process. So we already capture some of those revenues through UNTTWU . >> So they will be paying their share on this? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> For services consumed. >> Okay. I need to understand that a little bit more. >> Okay. >> So currently, they're using the same system we're using. >> Yes. >> And so one of their radios goes down or there's a problem. We have staff that will help them troubleshoot it and then we bill them for that. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So if we go with option three, because they've been using them, if we've been using it for 18 years, they've probably been using it. Had they been involved in this conversation? >> So I know as part of the discussions, we've reached out to several of our stakeholders to include even some of the hospitals too to really try to gather what those requirements would be. So I know we've been in contact with them, yes. >> Okay. But has there been any discussion about we're fixing to do this? This is going to be a very expensive proposition, but it's going to provide a tremendous amount of additional capacity and redundancy and it's going to bring us into the 21st century of this kind of communication equipment. But there's been no conversation about would they like to help with some of this, you know, or just what the ramifications are and just the partnerships. I mean, we're working on building partnerships and this is something I think that would be beneficial obviously for the whole county. So I think that's just worthy of a conversation in that regard. >> We will absolutely reach out. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Council Member Meltzer and Council Member Hudspeth. >> So the current system we have, we got around the same timeframe as 9/11 and if you remember the 9/11 Commission Report, like the main failure that, you know, was assessed or one of the main ones was lack of interoper ability of radios. You know, a lot of lives would have been saved if fire and police have been able to talk to each other for instance. So, you know, clearly the benefits of interoperability, you know, are there. The question is just, you know, what, without some kind of a benchmark, how do you know if, you know, if you're getting a reasonable price and reasonable terms? You know, the fact that it's, quote, unquote, a 20% discount or whatever, I mean, you know, if you want, they could double the list price and we could get 50% off, you know, those are very manipulable terms. So, you know, I lean toward ultimately having a result that is interoperable, but I want us to be smarter purchasers and, you know, otherwise it could be absolutely any price on option three and we just sort of say, well, we'll pay that because we prefer that. I think we need to have something to compare to, you know, make sure we're being smart. >> Well, sir, we did look at different aspects with the HD AC contract. They did go through that bidding process kind of for us as part of that also. And as well, working with Mission Critical Partners, you know, they've worked with Highland Village who just recently did an upgrade. They've been in contact with Lewisville too to try to get kind of a benchmark as far as what other cities that have recently upgraded their radio systems as far as, you know, was it similar in pricing? I don't know if you want to kind of give your perspective on there. >> Yeah, if you'll-- yeah, because we're televising and we just can't hear if you're not at the mic. Sorry. Thank you. >> Mission Critical has been working with multiple large system users, Wake County, North Carolina, Broward County, Florida and others. Also, for your own reference to put your own mind at ease, very large system just in Tarrant County, city of Fort Worth. So, you could talk to the people down there to see what sort of discount Motorola offered them. Typically, you're going to see in these 20, 25, 30 percent discounts on the equipment hardware, again, depending on what incentives the vendors have as far as meeting their own numbers to keep Wall Street happy. End of the year, these sort of things, the deals tend to get better at the end of the quarter and at the end of the year simply because they're trying to make their numbers to make-- they're all public corporations. They want to look good in Wall Street. >> Great. >> Sure. And then we'll go to Councilmember Huss. >> Yeah. And I would just suggest, you know, make us feel a little smarter by putting at least some kind of estimated number up for what option two might look like and, you know, then I don't feel like I'm buying a bag of magic beans. >> Councilmember Huss. >> Yeah. >> So, my question is if I could-- >> I think if you wanted to look at it just from a-- basically a list price perspective, something like that to put four tower sites, master controller, some consoles, you're probably adding about $2 million to that $7 million that's up front. >> So, it would definitely cost more-- >> So, you're looking at about 9 to 10 million dollars in-- >> Then it's easy. Then it's a no-brainer. >> In that-- >> Okay. Councilmember Huss, but then Councilmember Duff. >> Thank you. Is it Brad? Is that right? >> Yes, sir. >> If I can borrow you again. Sorry, Bill. Thank you. >> I feel like we're in a wrestling match tag team. >> Yeah. So, can we go-- I love it. Can we go back to 14, the project cost estimates, please, and thank you? All right. So, I need a-- if you can give me a straight line answer, please do. If you can't, I get it. >> Yes, sir. >> But it affects my decision. So, equipment total, do we have a list of equipment that falls under that number? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> So, if I can see that list of equipment and then-- so, when we're looking at system-based discount, didn't count it. So, it's already in place. It's already active. I need help understanding-- my understanding is it's going to be a program type thing more than a hardware fix that we're taking advantage of. I mean, I'm assuming if the program is already operable, already on the towers and didn't count is already using it. It's covering that area. So, it's as much as-- and pardon my poor tech lingo, but it's like a node we're connecting to or something like that. I mean, I need you to help me understand what that process is that affords us that discount, right? What-- because absent that, that's kind of what we're talking about, right? That's in theory the motivator is this $1,800,000 discount. And so, absent that, there's a process. If we don't opt for that and we wait and didn't count it goes offline, then there's a process. And if we take advantage of that, there's a separate process. I need to understand physically what's done in that that we can take advantage of that nets out to a $1.8 million refund. >> So, I want to make sure I understand the question, but there-- so, there's two things. So, the Denton County contract is an actual purchasing contract, which is what we're referencing and then the discounts are based off of that contract that were awarded when they purchased the radio system. So, the $1.8 million that was referenced in as far as the discount was because of that contract, that contract discount that is afforded to users that are going to be tying into the Denton County system. So, that is-- that's all it is, is a purchasing contract and that's where those discounts come from. Now, as far as the physical part of it, the physical aspect , part of the discount for you all in pricing is tied to the fact that you are utilizing their existing core. It's the brains of the system and some of their infrastructure. So, you're basically extending their system and expanding the current system, which will benefit everybody. So, you're saving cost for the city upfront by not having to buy a core which is in the million dollar range and then adding additional sites. So, you're utilizing your two sites and then the backup of the county sites as well. So, there's two sides of that. So, I don't know if I'm answering your question correctly. I want to make sure I understand what you're-- >> Sure. Yes. So, I'm tracking with you generally. So, there's no physical action tied to that discount. That's just-- it's a friends and family, hey, if you have other people that you refer us to in this window, they too benefit from your wise decision. >> Well, in theory, yes. It's basically because you would become technically a user on the Denton County system. >> OK. >> Or a partner on the system because you will have your own standalone portion of it. But no, it is absolutely the-- it's the contract verbiage that allows users, primary users on a system to take advantage of those discounts as well. >> OK. >> It's kind of a co-- it becomes a co-op type purchasing contract and it allows-- it's part of the benefit of people working together and trying to manage that interoperability goal as one of the benefits. Because when you get a mid-size city, that's a lot of money for a radio system just to purchase outright and when you can convince cities and counties to start working together and share some of that cost, it helps the whole region. And that's part of the goal behind that. >> OK. >> That was actually Denton County's original intent with the radio system. They built enough capacity for those that reside-- those cities that reside in Denton County to join in. That was their original intention with the upgrade as well. >> OK. And if I may. So-- and I think Mayor Watts touched on a good thing. And so I don't know if you need-- if you need to go back and check. But I do have heartburn on equipment wise, if something breaks, I need that to-- I mean just for my own peace of mind. I mean that's like anything, right? If I go-- my cell phone, if it's on a lease, it costs me a discounted rate. I mean it's an insurance policy that I'll then execute that then gets me a new phone at a reduced rate. I just-- I can't imagine and my phone bills a lot less than this. And so I can't imagine a scenario where we move forward and Motorola is not willing to guarantee us the equipment if it drops, falls in an emergency situation, right? I mean it's like this is built for bad stuff to happen. >> Right. >> For them not to cover that to some degree for some more than a year gives me heartburn. I mean because I just don't-- I don't like it. Just personally, I just don't think it's good to ask someone to give you $7 million and then you're on your own after a year. And so I would ask you to go back or revisit that or at least make a phone call during the break and see if there's some way we can get to a reasonable-- there's got to be some coverage for the phone without having to wait for an upgrade, right? So now the phone's under a fire truck and so it can't be upgraded so we get one at that exchange. I just don't-- that just is a problem. >> And I understand. So the initial purchase price, the way we split-- the reason why it was split that way is because you have your purchase price and it includes your first year. Some customers, some cities like to do things all at cart and will just do their ongoing maintenance. Some people are not concerned about future upgrades because they're not necessarily tied with another entity and need to maintain the same level of upgrades. So it's closer to the $5 million range for the system purchase. The other-- the 1.9 is the out years alone. So those-- we split that out so that you all have the ability to pick and choose the level of support that you have. Now that-- the out years of service absolutely includes the break fix. It has-- we have what's called a CSM, a customer support manager that is responsible for every customer if there's an outage. They-- it's the hotline, it's the tech support that maintains the system. And if there's any kind of alarms or anything at any of the sites, all of that's taken care of. That's part of our process because it's public safety. Lives are dependent on it. So we've set these programs up to make sure that we respond within a specific time window. We have folks spread throughout the territory to make sure that we have resources that are quickly available and can respond adequately. So we also build in spares in a lot of our designs. So if there's a piece of equipment that is possible that would be a failure, we have spares that we, you know, have set up that you swap it out and it 's back up online. So everything we do is redundant and is got backup for backups. That's part of public safety. So that's part of all of that. >> Let me just clarify. So everything you listed is covered in that 1.9? >> Yes, sir. >> So there's no-- so that break fix-- >> That's all included. >> And the backups are in there? >> Yes, sir, absolutely. >> Okay. I would just need-- if someone could-- I don't know why this is going on. If someone has it back at their computer, obviously someone has an agreement someplace. A list of equipment and break out this 1.9, what goes in there? I mean, it's a quick-- I mean, it's a quick bulleted list. Just get cut and paste, give it a meet and that helps me make a decision. >> Okay. >> And also part of that intention, we wanted to separate what was actual capital and what was O and N too so you can visually see what's capital and what's the ongoing maintenance of that product. >> Sure. Yeah. No, absolutely. >> So-- oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. You had one other comment? >> I actually just wanted to address Councilperson Briggs' question about the radios. I want to make sure that it's clear that the purchase that was made last year, year before, those were all public safety radios. Those were bought for this new system. So those are not going away. That was kind of a future purchase that was planned for that. The ones that are included in the proposal are more like the public works radios-- >> Of cars. >> -- that are not able to be upgraded. So while you will still have some of those that you can recycle, sell, donate, whatever that may be, you're not-- this is not a forklift replacement of all the radios. That was part of that purchase. >> Go ahead. Yeah. And then-- >> Sorry. >> Councilmember Duff, yeah, because I know you guys are on a time frame. So we got about 30 minutes left. Yeah. Okay. So we're going to go with Councilmember Briggs' follow up, Councilmember Ryan, Councilmember Duff, yeah. Go ahead, Councilmember Briggs. >> In response to that, so then we can add the 2 million onto this as for the total system. Then, since the phones were purchased for this system in 2016. Basically, that's what-- okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Councilmember Ryan. >> Okay. Since at least 2011 when they quit making our current ones, we've been doing all in-house maintenance. There's been a cost to us. Will some of those costs go away if we're under this warranty? >> Absolutely. Currently, we have around 100K in our O&M that we use a third party contractor to kind of help with some of those maintenance and some of the break fix since Motorola currently can't support that system. So we would-- and that also is part of what's included on this here. It just takes an account in the 100K in our current year's budget that we can put towards the payment for that. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. >> Councilmember Duff. >> Do I understand that our present system does not have any encryption? Is that correct? >> Not that I'm aware of. No, sir. >> I would think that a new system with some encryption would be really added benefit. >> Absolutely. >> You have a SWAT team out there. I can't imagine that their radio signals are being able to be picked up by anybody. To me, this whole thing is-- I mean, option three is-- it's a total no-brainer to me. I can't see us going in any other direction. It doesn't make any sense to go any other way. >> Do you know, Melissa, how many radios are supported both at UNT and TWU? >> Off the top of my head, I don't, sir. I'd have to come back to you with that. >> Okay. So-- okay. So I really think that that's going to be-- I mean, I'm obviously for option three. I mean, I think we're all having a little sticker shock here, but I think it's just the way of the world right now and you're wanting some additional detail information. But I think we really need to talk with our partners, our education partners, because I'd like to know how many radios they have on there , because we've got a certain number of radios and so you can almost parse it out as well. This is costing us X amount per radio. Does DISD-- do they use their own radio system? >> Oh, they do. >> They have their own separate one? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So there-- so yeah, I think we just need to speak with those at those respective institutions, say, hey, this is sort of what's happening and see if we can't, you know, collaborate on a way to-- because this is a big upgrade for the city. I mean, this is-- this isn't like sort of getting onto a system that's 18 years old. This is revamping the whole thing, spending $7 million. >> It's also a very complex upgrade too, keeping in mind even communication with the different hospitals and the different emergency responders as well too. >> Yeah. So I think that's a worthy conversation to have, Mr. City Manager. >> We will do it. >> In that regard to see if there's some opportunities there. Okay. I see you got a couple more slides. We've probably gone through all this but-- >> So the staff does recommend option three. Again, we're still looking at the time sensitive incentives and kind of how that falls into play. So we'll keep you posted as we make progress. The city can share costs to assist the maintenance and operations by partnering up with Denton County. Also, this still enables us to keep autonomy of our mobile radios and independent radio sites. And again, just gaining that redundancy that we currently don't have and that interoperability with this option, we would definitely gain that. Staff have request approval to proceed with proposed option three. NIFA approved, staff will bring forward Motorola's contract . Again, we gave you some preliminary numbers but we wanted to really run and see what the impact would look like against all funds and kind of the recurring cost on that. And also in the process of working with Denton County on an interlocal agreement and future council agenda. >> Okay. Anybody have any more questions? So as far as the conversations with our educational partners, we have time to do that. >> Yes. >> We're not having to execute this by tomorrow, you know. Or we get up and walk out and the manager comes running after us. Okay. All right. Any other questions, comments? Yes, Council Member Hussbett. I know you got some information coming to you. >> Yes. Now, are we going to communicate to them how much, right? I mean, I think it's going to-- I think that's fair to say once we figure out how many radios you have, here's the new-- I don't know if it's fixed rate, whatever that-- you know, whatever that is. But we'll communicate that in advance. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Fantastic. Any other questions, comments? Thank you very much. Great presentation, great information. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Melissa. All right. I think we can get back on our regular agenda schedule now. Now that we've only got two left. >> That's right. >> What the heck? Let's just go to half, you know. We're just going to-- no, we'll go back to agenda item 2B. Receive report and hold discussion regarding the status of the Oak Gateway Area Plan. >> Thank you, Mayor, members of council, Ron Magida with Development Services. Really just want to give an opportunity, wait for these folks to step up. >> Sure, no problem. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, get out of here. >> Thank you for the opportunity just to give the council an update on the area plan. As you all know, we started this effort back in August when we hired Friganese and Associates to help us prepare an area plan for the area. As you can see here on this slide, south of Panhandle, east of Carroll, north of I-35 and just west or east of Bonnie Bray and I-35 as well. The area encompasses the area that you see here in light brown. The area that is in green is the University of North Texas property. You see that there are two historic districts within the boundary, Oak Hickory as well as West Oak. And of course, the reason why we started this effort is the Fry Street Overlay District. When we started this effort, when we began to think about putting together an update to the area plan or to the overlay district, we had a number of developments that were proposed for the area, large developments. And really that's what triggered the need to revisit the area plan as well as the overlay district. Some of the challenges that we saw with these developments, of course, were related to mobility, parking impacting the neighborhoods, as well as development compatibility. They were proposing really higher buildings or height than what was surrounding them, as well as looking at established neighborhoods. >> So I want to make sure that when you're talking about what sort of spurred this discussion, when you talk about big projects, so correct me if I'm wrong, I can remember two. >> Right. >> One on Hickory Street, which is where the Vertmans is. >> Right. >> That one. And then the one on Scripture Street, which was the big apartment building. >> Correct. >> And both of those are within probably about 400 yards of each other. >> Correct. >> And so I don't have an orientation on the map here. >> Yeah, one was generally in this area here. >> Right. >> And then one just north. >> Okay. >> So this whole small area plan that I'm going to call the big area plan. >> Okay. >> Nobody, I wouldn't be true to myself if I didn't go back into this. I'm sorry. I'm going to be like Council Member Hutsbeth. And so I just want to, so that's sort of setting the stage of we came up with this big area based upon the challenges we had with two projects within about 300 yards of each other that both were rejected from the City Council. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And just to add to that, we also saw similarities in other areas that we also know of. Did you all know that there's also a large development on Eagle and Bernard? And so that's generally in this area over here. And we see potential development happening in this area as well. So that's partly the reason why it's larger than, you know. >> Is that, what area is that? >> That's the cement city. >> Okay. All right. Owsley Park? >> Owsley Park. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So we saw development activity not in just these areas, specifically near Fry Street, but also in other areas that's shown in this particular boundary. >> Okay. >> So just to make -- >> No, no, I understand. >> Okay. >> This slide is just to help illustrate a little bit why we're doing a small area plan. Of course, it's a long-term planning exercise for a specific area in the city. It involves the community and stakeholder input. What it does is it provides a shared vision and development priorities or policies of how we want to see an area to be developed. We do that through a small area plan, and we hope to have a vision for the area, and of course, recommendations that meet that vision. Back in September, the council appointed a member of citizens made up of the following committee stakeholders, from residents all the way down to local builders, bicycles, and other stakeholders as well. So photos that you see here are one of the first meetings that we held in which the committee was introduced. And we held exercises to identify some of the issues and concerns that the stakeholders felt that the area needed to be addressed. >> How many of the committee members actually reside in the plan area? Do you know? >> I'd say about half. >> Okay. >> Yes. And the remaining either work there or live in the city outside of the project area. So following the kickoff of the steering committee, we also held interviews where there were multiple interviews held several days. We also then commenced our committee meeting number one, which again, we talked about the structure and the actual committee itself. Started working on guiding principles. Again, an illustration here that shows the committee working together, identifying some of those issues and concerns that they felt that were in the area and needed to be addressed. Committee meeting number two, we selected a name. We didn't have a name until then. The committee chose Oak Gateway Area Plan. So that is the name that is for the area plan. Again, Oak Gateway. >> Thank you. >> Bless you. >> Committee meeting number three, we then selected a chair and vice chair. And at the time, it was Councilman Metzler. Metzler that is. And also Patrice Likes served as vice chair. >> I'm sorry? >> No, at the time it was private citizen. >> Oh, okay. >> Yes. At the time. And then we also talked about upcoming work-- an upcoming workshop. And you see the photos here. These photos were taken from that workshop where there were six stations. The first three were of each sub areas, one, two, and three . We had a station that spoke of parking, mobility, and then we also had street corridors as well. Where the attendees of that committee or that community workshop participated in providing input and feedback on certain items related to how they thought that the area is currently and how it could be improved in the future. >> I think Councilmember Briggs has a question. >> Of the 24 committee members, do they-- have they all attended the committee meetings or what's the percentage of attendance? >> I'd say the first four or five, we had a really high number of attendance. Probably 20 of them attended on average. However, the last three or so, probably half of them showed up-- or is showing up, so about 13 or 14. So less than what I would hope, but we are getting half at this time. >> And I think some of them may have moved away and I know that you-- I don't know if you can still be on it or not. So I mean, is there a time where we need to give you more-- >> Yes, actually that's a great comment to bring up because I was just talking to your current chair that, you know, as we continue with these meetings, we want to make sure that we meet quorum and also we want to get input. And for those that are no longer able to serve on the committee, we would like to seek their interest and if they are not interested any longer, we'd like the council to repoint some other members that could attend or should attend. And so that's something that we would certainly welcome as we move forward with this committee. >> Council Member Meltzer. >> Yeah, I mean, I'm willing to do this unless you prefer to, Ron, but I thought I could talk about the change in the frequency of meetings which probably has something to do with the attendance and, you know, kind of what that shift was about or-- >> Sure. >> -- did you want to do it? >> I can certainly mention that to that. Let me see if I can mention it through my next slide. >> Yeah, well, is there a slide that you'll address that? >> Yes. >> Okay, why don't we take that-- >> It's coming up. It's coming up. I just want to make sure we get through some of what has occurred and so in doing so, we'll get to that point. Committee number 5, we start talking about a vision for area 1 and I believe you all have a copy of the exhibit. I'm going to just show you really quickly the sub areas as we talk about them. We currently are looking at three sub areas. The first one you see there is everything north of Hickory, north of the university, the residential neighborhood. Area 2 is the area that is more or less the cement city and west of Bonnie Bray. And then area 3 is the area just southeast of the university that makes up Bernard Eagle and the other neighborhoods to the south. So those are the sub areas that were identified. So going back to meeting number 5, we started drafting the vision for sub area 1. Following that, we held a tour. We actually toured areas 2 and 3 to get a better understanding of each area. We, as you can see here, took a number of our committee members on a bus and drove around and stopped at several locations and looked at areas 2 and 3. Following that, we then came back and had a meeting. And this is where I wanted to bring up that discussion. We had a concern from some of the-- I'm sorry, the council members, the committee members, that the focus and the direction wasn't going in their direction. So we had a meeting and we've changed our focus a little where now the consultants are more of a resource and they're not driving this committee. The committee members are actually facilitating and are doing more of this input. And one of the things that they decided to do, which is great, is to hold more meetings, more weekly meetings so that we don't go from month to month and not have a continuous discussion. So the committee has decided to meet more weekly meetings that is. And we are actually meeting and doing all the work from the committee's perspective. So we selected a new chair because now we have Councilman Meltzer that is no longer able to perform or be on the committee. We selected Patrice Lake as the chair and Kim McGibbon as our vice chair. And they're both here. I don't know if Patrice would like to come up or the council would-- >> Yeah, well, let's get to the presentation first and then if we have questions or comments certainly want to hear your thoughts. Councilmember Hutsbeth had, I believe, a question or comment. >> Yeah. So a couple of things. So before we get to the committees, I do have a concern reading the backup. So there's a subcommittee that met with the consultants absent the rest of the committee. >> No. There was a committee made up of members of the committee that met to discuss how we want to proceed. But it wasn't a formal subcommittee created and the consultants were not present. So I'm not sure where-- >> OK. Let me find-- I'll find it. >> OK. >> But you know, I think the point of reference is there was some angst amongst the committee because some meeting, right? Yes? >> Correct. >> OK. >> Correct. >> And so was the whole committee aware of this other meeting? >> No. >> And staff is at these meetings and staff is OK with that ? >> It was just one meeting and that was-- >> OK. >> It was just one meeting and that was not intended to be a meeting that was not to include the entire committee. It was just an opportunity to address how we want to move forward. And so it was not a meeting that involved the consultants or any idea of creating a subcommittee, it was just thinking how we should address the project moving forward. >> Got it. So I'll ask it a different way. >> OK. >> So staff's at all the meetings. >> Yes. >> Staff-- and some point staff was at this small meeting. >> Yes. >> So staff's aware that this small meeting is planned and staff is OK with that. Or it happened so staff thought it was OK. >> Sure. I'll ask Scott. >> Let me jump in on this because I had an instrumental part in doing this. And so what had happened is there were a number of the committee members that had concerns about the consultant that the consultant was-- had prepack aged a program, delivered it to the city and the committee wasn't able to truly provide their input and feedback. So I visited with the chair and we met with the chair and vice chair at the time and had the conversation about having any number of options available to them which was to increase the frequency of the meetings or have meetings without the consultants so the committee could do the work as well as whether we wanted to have subcommittees. And so that was just that initial conversation that took place. There was a meeting scheduled. Now, the meeting that was scheduled was intended to be a committee meeting and that notification did not go out as it being a committee meeting. So ultimately, I think there were six or seven members that showed up for the meeting. Conversation took place. No action was taken. And ultimately, we regrouped and then we have the chair and vice chair send out a meeting that was in accordance with Open Meetings Act. And then the committee is now working as a committee. They elected not to have subcommittees of the committee. It's the entirety of the committee, a quorum being present and then working through each of the sub areas to tackle this. And again, staff being truly a resource to the committee. So we provide a space and anything that they'd like to have . The committee is doing all of the work and we have not-- we've yet to engage the consultant but we're working through what it is the consultants were trying to do some months earlier that they weren't able to do because they were being very direct in what it is that they had for a process and there was pushback from the committee. So this was all designed for the committee to be most effective and there were a couple of steps that were sideways and absolutely staff didn't try to do something nor did they support the fact of trying to do anything outside of what the design of the committee was. >> So-- and I want to be concise. I'm really trying but I'm trying to get to the meat of it. So six people at this committee meeting, staff always has like a set email list, right? I mean it's just, hey, you grab an email list, you send it out. So at whose behest did the email list get truncated? >> And I can't tell you the specific short of the fact that it didn't go out as a normal meeting because this was the first conversation through the chair to try to address this. >> So through the chair. So the chair decides these six people get an email. >> Fundamentally, it was an assumption on staff's behalf that an email went out and whether or not the chair believed the same thing from staff, I can 't tell you. But once this was identified, it was corrected. And there was only-- and it was the first meeting trying to talk about organizationally what to do. And really it was the concept of trying to help the committee to be more effective. >> I understand and I'll just let it go because you're not going to give me a concise answer and that's okay. >> I don't have a concise answer. I don't think to give to you. >> It's a function of the process. If there's an email list that goes out, right? >> Yes. >> And that email list gets truncated, that's an easy understanding of who-- and who asked email to be truncated and who sent the trunc ated email. That's a very short concise answer. And if you're saying you don't know who orchestrated one, the truncation of the email, and two, the sending of the truncated email, and at whose behest, if that's the chair, that's the chair, but if those three components aren't known, then point me in the direction of who I can ask and I'll get that. But that-- just a minute, just a minute. But that's my concern is that it's okay to do it, but it's not okay to do it and then not stand behind it, right? I need someone to stand behind it and own it in a perfect world. And if we don't have that, I'm not going to ask the question again. You know what I'm trying to get at? I'm trying to get at three people. Who asked for it to be truncated, who truncated it, and who sent it. Those are the three things I'm looking for. And if I can't have them, I can't have them, but it's very frustrating. >> Councilmember Melton. >> Yeah. I was the chair at the time. I don't recall that I sent an email. I had conversations with individuals who were concerned about the direction of the committee, had a conversation with-- and as I said, I don't remember sending an email, but we had a conversation with a few and it became obvious pretty directly that we shouldn't have. That we should have done it by way of sending out an email to everybody and then having the conversation with everybody. So that's what we did immediately thereafter. And in fact, at that meeting, you know, I took responsibility and apologize for having had a conversation with a few and not all. And I think we're, you know, on track now. And also, you know, in that second meeting, by virtue of not wanting to have council members on the committee that was intended to not have council, I resigned from the committee at that time. I don't know if-- does that get at the questions? >> No. Because your-- the email went out and you're saying you don't know who sent it. >> No, I'm saying I don't recall doing it by way of an email. I remember having conversations with, you know, several individuals who were very active participants and we probably just agreed to a time. I don't think there was a mass email. >> Okay. Yes, and did you have a question, Council Member Briggs? I thought you had it. >> Well, I was just going to say that I'd heard the same concerns regarding the consultant. And so I'm glad that you guys addressed it if that were the case. >> Well, and I will say there's two issues out of this. And, you know, the first one out of this is I think after spending quite a bit of time with Scott and the team in planning, we're not going to have another process. I know Council Member Hussbett, you've mentioned this before, where we've got a consultant coming in laying out their process to us and taking us through. It was clear that we should have, you know, that staff should have had the process laid out with the residents before the consultant and not just had something in the can. So that was a lesson to learn. It was something that was very upsetting to them. I think the second thing is we'll have a conversation with you a little bit later, probably, I think in July at some point, is just the whole issue of, you know, I don't think you'll see this happen again, the staff, and certainly, if we have any additional planning meetings. But the other thing that was an issue here was compliance with the Open Meetings Act. And I know that's where you're going. And I think it's something that I know our city attorney would like to discuss, and I would too, with the council in terms of expectations with these groups . We set up ad hoc committees, and does it apply or not? Because staff really got in the middle of an interesting discussion on that one as well. So a lot of lessons learned here. We're not hearing talk anymore about jettisoning the process, jettisoning the consultant. I think the residents on the committee are very passionate, and they wanted to drive the process. So we've made those changes. It could have been handled differently. There's no question it could have been handled differently, but I think we're back on track. >> And there was no email for the meeting. And I think that kind of supports that fact. It just, it happened in a unique way by virtue of conversations and who was going to be, staff was there to be a facilitator offering space and man power. We didn't send an email out for that meeting. So there was an assumption made that an email didn't in fact go out. So with that being said, I assure you that we are now orchestrating that, and we are ensuring that that doesn't happen to the future. And that's all I can assure you of. One meeting, no action, and then regrouped, and we're on the right path. >> Okay. Yes, Council Member. >> Yeah, and if I can, you know, maybe allude to more of the substance behind this dynamic, you know, of the change, it really goes back to perception I think shared by some over here that it's not really a small area. And one of the consequences of it not being a small area is that members of the committee felt that there were distinct needs that were different between these sub areas. We didn't start out with the idea of sub areas. So a lot of the conflict was over, I don't think it was the consultant's fault, but, you know, they're kind of taking on the charge of saying, what are the common needs of this whole area? And the members of the committee were saying, that very question is denying the thing we feel, you know, needs to be examined, which were the differences. And in fact, the first time those sub areas were sort of exposed more broadly was in the public input where there was polling done among people from all over the community who came to ask what were their perceived priorities for each of the sub areas. And they came out quite different, certainly between sub area one and the other two. So that was a lot of the drive behind all this was to sort of, you know, get the committee members more driving the bus so that we could really explore what the differences were between the needs of those different areas . >> So I'm going to -- I'm surprised I still have some hair in my head because I'm almost pulling my hair out. I'm going to have a real problem if this gets split up into three sub areas. But with the -- well, number one, it should be. From all the get go, it's been too big in my opinion, because you've got Allesley Park, which is a highly dense multifamily. You've got, you know, historic districts and residential, you know, strong residential, single family on the northern side of this down in the other part. But that's why I think it's too big because they do have three very distinct different types of issues that may have to be addressed. And if that's the case, if that is really the assumption or the conclusion that we're drawing, I think we need to have three different -- I don't think the same committee needs to be addressing those because if we'd have had three different sub areas, then we would have known, well, maybe I need to appoint someone more people to an area where they have an interest more in this sub area. So when it was all considered as a whole, it's just, well, if they live here, you know. So this has been my concern from the very get go that we're going to try to take this big concept. Now we're dividing it and it created this kind of, you know , procedural anomaly that, you know, look, yes, some people really got upset and we'd all like for it to have been different differently, lessons learned, life is scar tissue, so we'll make sure that we do that differently. My main concern about this is that moving forward, if we're going to -- and you're shaking your head about sub areas, but I do believe that those areas that were identified, there's a little bit of overlap except maybe down in three where you've got some pretty much some geographical boundaries. They're very different areas. And so this has been my struggle this whole time. Not that I don't think we should have small area plans. Not that I don't think that the areas that we were protecting and the areas that we rejected those projects on based upon public input, based upon the residents coming out, just commonsensical decision making on why are you wanting to put a 300 bed student complex in the middle of a residential neighborhood that has some historical components that are just on the outside of that. So yes, do we want to have small area plan, but this thing is ballooned and now -- and I think that's part of the struggle is how do you get your arms around this with such different types of approaches for these different areas. So this doesn't surprise me, I mean, frankly. >> I think we've got a solution moving forward just because it's a larger plan doesn't mean you can't have, you know, different mindsets, different design philosophies in different parts of the area. So regardless of whether it was three small plans or one plan, what drove this again was UNT, not us. >> And that's fine. >> They laid out an expansion plan down in what you saw was sub area two. They laid out another expansion plan in sub area three. They were asking us to close roads, which would have affected the first area. And so it wasn't staff necessarily driving this, it was UNT and not wanting -- in trying to take more of a holistic approach as we slowed down their requests to redirect traffic patterns and development. So I get what you're saying in a perfect world. We probably could have set up multiple planning areas, but the way they were approaching it and the way that they were envisioning their master plan when we started meeting with them a year ago, it wasn't possible. Because as you start closing the streets and changing developments, it just pushes traffic in other areas. So we needed a holistic analysis in order to say, we'll either support you or we won't. >> Well, but that's -- to me, that's a very different approach and -- I mean, that's a presenting problem. You know, you've got traffic patterns, parking. Okay, those are pretty finite issues you can sort of get a grip on. And so you can address those. I mean, you can figure out a way to address those without necessarily having to create this big -- and I don't have a problem with whether it's UNT driven or whether it's resident driven. I mean, if a residents -- you know, if a group of residents in an area want to create some small area plans that really protect the integrity and the culture of their neighborhood, man, I'm all for it. And when you look at these three, there's some pretty vast differences. Regardless of what -- if UNT was doing nothing, this still may be something that's appropriate to look at because they're very -- they're vastly different . I mean, there's been people advocating in Owsley Park to tear it down and build more density. Well, that's in total opposition to maintaining a residential feel here. So my observation is that if this gets split up into thinking about these in more sort of -- not isolated, but segmented groups of this area, I don't know why -- especially -- and this may be the opportunity. If people aren't coming to the meetings and they don't have an interest anymore, I think we need to take another look at this and go, okay, well, if we're going to be breaking this up, then maybe we need to make sure that we've got people who have -- you know, what interest do they have? Somebody who has an interest in Section 2, they may not have much of an interest in 1 or 3. And they may have a very different approach of ideals, of solutions, of those kind of things. So, I mean, this may be the best thing that's happened because it's given us an opportunity to sort of reengage -- not restart, like start over with a whole new committee. But if we're going to do this, then let's make sure that we 're doing it as efficiently, effectively with the stakeholders in mind because whoever's in District 3, if they don't have an idea of what's going -- the people in 1, if they live there, they're going to have a certain, you know, vision for that. That doesn't mean they can't look at 2 and 3 and have a vision. But our whole goal was to get people who have a vested interest and a stake -- not a financial interest, but a cultural, a home interest, a neighborhood interest. So that's my thought on it. I just think this gives us an opportunity to, you know, ret ool or, you know, have some new direction. But yes, Council Member Hutsbeth. >> Yeah. No, I could not -- I could not imagine rolling it back. And I think they do -- the three subsections connect because if -- for example, if you go more density in Seamant City, which then allows you to create a green space buffer before you get to Hickory or allows a grander entrance to that historical district, then that's a win. That more density there that then creates a block and a half or so green space density and allows UNT to create an entrance from that west side kind of north on Bonnie Bray is a value. And I think you -- and just organically, when you're traveling, if I'm going from IHOP to Oak Street, I'm not going down Avenue C because it's 20 miles per hour. I'm then going down through Section 3 here down by Eagle and kind of circumventing -- >> I'm not saying redo it. >> No, no. >> I'm not saying redo it. >> No, no, but I think they interconnect. You travel it all the same, right? I mean, and I think -- >> But the connection is different. The connection -- if you're talking about a connection, you 're talking about buffers, you're talking about travel ways, but what we're talking about here is development. We're talking about how do these neighborhoods develop? Are there distinctive differences in these neighborhoods? The connectivity, I totally agree with you. I totally agree with you. But you've got to -- but they're -- philosophically, they 're different. The commonality is UNT. UNT is right in the center of those three areas right there . So I'm not saying undo it. I'm not saying unwind it. I'm just saying that if you're going to separate it -- not separate, but if you're going to put it into sub-areas, let's just make sure that we have the people in place, which we have people in place now. We have some that may not be participating much anymore, and we need to make sure -- this is important. I mean, this is important. This is -- we don't want to try to just willy -- nobody's saying we're willy-nillying this, but this is important to get this right and to have the people involved who truly care about this area and have a stake in it, who can know the -- they know the connectivity, because they're driving it, they're walking it, they're biking it. So I'm not saying let's see them as three separate ones. I'm saying let's ensure that we understand that they have very different needs and they have very different development kind of futures, but you're right. The connectivity is the same. So no, let me make sure I'm very clear on this. I'm not saying we disband the committee and we start all over. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is this is a chance to have a fresh look. Have a fresh look. >> Yeah, no, and I think you're spot on, and I -- you know, but I don't know -- the path there means do you start reevaluating who an individual member -- >> No. >> -- appointed? Then I don't know how you get to -- I don't know the path forward to -- >> Right. >> I'm trying to catch the vision of the path forward, if you could help. >> Well, what I did here, which Councilmember Briggs had brought up, was that, you know, somebody asked about attendance. Who asked about attendance? And that attendance has been -- well, that's another thing. We don't need 12 people deciding the development of all -- we need people that we've appointed who are committed, who are working hard and being there and providing their expertise and their vision to this. So I think the path forward is if there are people who are not participating at a level that, you know -- and if you're meeting every week, you're -- I mean, that's -- I was surprised about that. I didn't hear about that. So if people don't want to participate, it gives someone an opportunity to maybe say, hey, I mean, if they're saying I don't want to participate anymore, what do you do? Do you just leave it vacant? Or do you get a chance to nominate someone else? >> I think you signed up for it once a month, and then it got -- >> Right. >> -- kicked up on you midstream. So I don't know how you -- I don't know how you do -- >> It's true. >> Because when I'm reaching out to someone and I'm saying it meets once a month -- >> It's a good point. >> -- and then all of a sudden they throw it in fast, I didn't get a chance. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I just heard about it when I was reading the backup, you know, so that it got -- >> Right. >> -- that it got fast-tracked. And so there was no, hey, council, this is happening. It really was, you know, just, oh, by the way, this happened, you know. And I'll tell you, I don't know -- I could be shooting myself in the foot. I don't know who assigned 623 Newton to this committee, but I could have saved them. I could have saved an appointment. >> Oh, boy. >> I mean, you know what I mean? >> That's not -- that's not going to happen. >> That's the emotion going into it, right? >> Yeah. >> I mean, that's not, to your point, that's not -- I mean, I could -- there's a clear track record that you can make a decision, you know, and that's just -- I'm absolutely biased in that regard. >> Sure. >> But I'm just telling you, I think it's important to evaluate -- >> Right. >> -- and look at it holistically in reality versus, you know, this sounds great, you know. And so I look forward to the conversation with the path forward is I -- the city manager knows how I feel about consultants driving -- I mean, I'm absolutely sensitive to that, you know, but we can't go on eight years, you know, at a snail's pace hoping we get to it. I mean, there's got to be -- City Hall West is -- it's -- we end every meeting with, hey, what's next, staff kind of prompts us and do those things, but we got to -- I mean, it's got to keep moving. I don't know if every week is the deal. I mean, I don't know if my appointee has signed up for every week. So I think there's some -- >> Sure. >> -- some -- we got to get it back normalized. >> I've been trying to get in here for a year. >> Okay. >> Well, and I just want to offer a couple of pieces here. So in the initial meeting, we had great participation and it waned because of any number of factors. And it wasn't necessarily the frequency of the meetings because we were losing attendees by virtue of some of the discontent, the feelings from the consultants. So that's why it is that we became a little bit more aggressive in the pursuit of getting the committee involvement, getting that participation. I will say it's very positive now. And I will say those that are probably that were most opposed to what were happening are the greatest champions and have been supporters. And so last week, the weather was horrid. The power went out in our building. It was pouring, lightning, and we had -- I think we ended up with 13 people. Is that correct? 13 of the committee members. So I think that says something especially when we know that we've lost four or five. So a path forward is to continue to do what the committee is asking to do. So we're supporting what the committee is wanting to do. I will say that their work for the last couple of weeks have been doing a SWOT analysis and they started with area two and area three. So looking at strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and saying, what do we do? What -- looking at those areas and saying, here's an approach. And then we want to distill all three of the areas and then say, well, kind of from an overview, but not lose -- be sensitive to the fact of the uniqueness of those three areas, to your point. And I think that we ultimately can, as staff, go out and try to solicit or engage some of those people that might be in area two and three because that's our lowest attendance as far as most of those committee members are in area one. So we have very little participation from area two and three. So we can provide some names for council to consider or council obviously can provide those. So we need to fill the gaps in the vacancy of those that may have participated once or twice or have moved or just no longer wish to participate. I know that there was correspondence that Councilman Mulvig aray's ultimately appointee said, well, she's not here. I'm no longer a participant. And wherever that came from. So I think we can offer some things going forward. >> Sure. No, that's fine. >> And there is positive momentum and some real work being performed by some very dedicated people. And I don't know if it helps to hear from the Chair on that . >> No, no, we're going to hear from the Chair. Absolutely. Yeah. One question I have is, though, we've been meeting now for how many -- well, I've only been in two or three, but the Development Code Review Committee. So obviously, zoning, the zoning map, is that part of this discussion? >> It is. >> Okay. >> It is. >> Okay. >> We're taking a holistic approach so they understand kind of the present, the future, and what they want the future to look like. So we've talked, as a matter of fact, about UNT. We've got a piece of property. The committee asked about that piece of property if it could be a park. So we had some conversations last week with UNT, and I think they were somewhat receptive to the fact that maybe some short-term lease of that property to some organization. So, I mean, some things are -- very positive things are happening, and I think some outcomes. >> Sure. >> And again, without the consultant. So we're going to bring the consultant back as far as how it is that we present this in a different format. But the reality is the committee is doing some very wonderful work, and I think that's important to note. >> Where are you in the presentation so we can hear from the Chair? >> Maybe we just really -- >> Why everything's still fresh. >> Just one slide, just really -- >> Okay, yeah. >> -- summarizing what Scott just said and what we're talking about. Vision statement, which we are working towards, one, two, and three, and overall, sub-years and overall as well. The plan itself will have guiding principles, goals, and then recommendations, and then ultimately an implementation strategy on how to implement those recommendations. So that's where we're going. We're going forward with these items, and then public open house where we can get more input, feedback from the general public, and then hopefully to you all in the near future with the public hearing item. >> What is the timeframe for identifying people who may not want to participate and then trying to beef back up -- >> We can do that, yeah, as soon as possible. >> No, I'm just wondering, have you all talked about that or is this sort of a novel idea, I mean not novel, but is this the first you've really thought about maybe doing that? >> We've talked about it, talked to Patrice earlier this afternoon about it, letting her know that that's what we wanted to reach out to those that have not participated as much as we hope, and then hopefully we can either -- >> Encourage them to come or -- >> -- come back or if not, replace them with others that can provide input. >> Okay, great. >> Definitely. >> All right. >> Patrice? >> Madam Chair? >> Okay, whoa, I almost forget. Patrice Lyke, 1109 Eagan, current chair of the, what I like to call the OG, SAP. Kim Kibben is the current vice chair. Some of the things that I want to address, some of the concerns that I'm hearing is that, yes, we started out with a larger committee, absolutely. We had good attendance, the first one, the first two meetings, but people trickle off. What we did then learn is that meeting once a month wasn't cutting it for a lot of people because we discovered once we got together, we have a deep bench on that subcommittee. We have a lot of people with experience on boards, on commissions. We have a lot of people who have our experience with zoning , who know the DDC, who have been on the Denton 2030 plan. So as we're listening to the consultants, absolutely, the consultants are useful. They can bring us information. They did the overview of the district. So that we can look at our acreage. We look at income. We look at single family versus rental, all those things. So all this is good information for us, but we also discovered that we are the boots on the ground. And so, and like I said, meeting once a month was not cutting it because we are talking and then we are not talking for a month. Then we get back together and we don't talk. So that's how we discovered that we needed to take the reins for this particular committee. Use everybody's expertise. Use the consultants for, you know, finding information for us, finding models that work in other cities for areas, and use them as a resource, but not as the driver for this particular plan. Now, some of the things we also noticed is that absolutely the residents who were chosen to be on this committee are predominantly in what we did have to break out as sub area one. And that's just the nature of this entire 1,000 plus acres of this small area. And sub area one has the residents. We have the long term deeply rooted residents. Sub area two, sub area three both have a more transient population. But also I feel like the residents in sub area one are very aware that anything that we want to keep out of our neighborhood, right, any of our NIMBY policies mean that we're going to, it's going to get squashed. It's going to get squeezed out of sub area one, sure. But sub area two is going to get some of our problems. Sub area three is going to get some of our problems. We don't want that. Well, most of us in the residents in sub area one have been in there. I've lived in my house for 22 years. And I'm also, and I teach at UNT, so I'm super aware and sensitive to the area. And I don't want sub area two to falter because I don't want something happening in my backyard. I don't want sub area three to falter because I don't want something. But they do end up, these three areas do absolutely end up interconnected. Because truth, yes, if we are going to, in sub area one, absolutely, I'm not going to lie to you, we do want to keep SROs out of our sub area. Are they going to go somewhere? Yes. But how are they going to develop in sub area two? How will they develop in sub area three? I have an investment in that just from the long term. So, yes, you know, that is the current resident, you know, demographic. And like I said, we really do hope we don't dump our problems on these other areas. All of these areas, of course, are affected by UNT. And so, it's all part of that jigsaw puzzle that UNT binds us together. It separates us as well, but it also binds all those areas together. One thing I did, like I said, the consultants are super handy with giving us demographic information. One thing that we're all, I believe, very concerned about is while we're thinking about how development, I know Mayor Watz, you know, you're saying this is development. We have to, we're going to guide development, absolutely. And one of the things that I discovered because I can do math, despite the fact that I teach English. But this area is only 2% of the overall acreage that Denton , you know, spreading out Denton consists of. But it contains 18% of Denton's population. So, it's a dense area, but it's also a dense area that currently does not have a grocery store. So, there are a lot of these, you know, high altitude yet, you know, on the ground kinds of concerns that we, I think, are hoping to address. And if we are not addressing them in subarea one, we're hoping to address them in subarea two and subarea three. Now, in terms of, you know, kicking up meeting schedule, absolutely. We had to. We have a lot of questions. We have a lot of discussion. We started to meet on Thursday evenings, 530 to 730. And we take up at least, we take up easily those two hours. Staff has been fabulous with providing the guidance for our discussion. We've been doing the SWOT analyses. And we've been workshopping vision statements. So, we haven't said, oh, here's the vision statement for subarea one. Now, subarea two and three better just fall in line with those two. We workshop, we're leaving it as a rough draft. We're thinking about subarea two, subarea three. So, we can go back and retool all our visions for those sub areas. And then they can come together and form an overarching vision for the entire, yes, small area plan. Any questions? >> Any questions for the Chair? So, you all are meeting once a week? >> Yes. We're planning to meet once a week. And that's just going to go on our schedule. And yes, as Chair, and I know the co-chair agrees with me, we'd be delighted to have more participants. We have a core set of 13 to 14 people who show up every time and show up on time. They're there. They're ready to work. And then we have people that I know we could identify as being there once. And no, we've never seen again. >> So, of those 13 or 14, how many would you say reside in one, two, and three? >> I'm -- let's see. Of the 13, what, maybe four? Help me count. Four of us -- >> Three quarters. >> Yeah. >> So, about nine? Eight to nine? >> Yes. Yeah. >> And we have people who own businesses who in the area who also are showing up. And UNT has had a representative. Their student government shows up regularly. And DCTA is showing up regularly. So -- and we have a couple of representatives from the cycling community that are showing up regularly. So, in terms of overall representation, I think out of those 13 to 14 people, we're getting some good representation. But it's always good to have, you know, more perspectives. Because we are lacking the perspective of transient residents. And I don't mean transient in a bad way. >> No. It's transient housing. It's more of a transient -- >> Transient housing. >> Transitional neighborhoods. >> Right. >> They're just -- so -- and that's a good segue. Because when you said that, you know, our main goal being the residents of district -- district one. Sorry, council member, but it's not district one. >> Sub area. >> Sub area one. >> Uh-huh. >> Is we don't want SROs. So, we're going to move the things that we don't want necessarily out to, you know, where -- they have to go somewhere. So, what about, you know, either area two or area three? Totally get that. >> Right. And the important part about that is that we're not -- we don't want to do that to the detriment of sub area two or sub area three. We have to figure out a way for them to be contextually appropriate and be the thing needed in that area. >> And I can appreciate that. So, I think that the way that happens is because someone who maybe has more of a -- you said you have a vested interest -- I mean, you've been living in your house for 20 something. You obviously have a vested interest in that area in sub area one. So, people who have been in sub area three or two, whether they be either residential like yourself or let's say that they're more commercial. They're more from a development perspective or something like that, that they're going to have a different approach and a different set of view points and ideas. And so, if those aren't there to help with what you're trying to say is, well, we want to make sure it's contextual. We want to make sure it's this. We want to make sure it's that. If there's not someone who can give some feedback to that, well, then it tends to go the way of, you know, the people who are in sub area. I'm just saying I'm all for, as you said, trying to find a better way to include people who are in those sub areas who have the same level of interest from their perspective, whatever that perspective is, as that you have from your perspective having lived in that neighborhood and seen that, having fought the challenges of people coming in and having to say, hey, this is probably good somewhere, but it's not good here. And that's all I'm saying is that there's a greater mix of viewpoints and perspectives that would help, I think, create a better solution. So, I think we have an opportunity to do that. >> Yeah, we have. Well, there was, we had a developer who showed up in 2017. And we haven't seen him since 2018. >> Okay. >> So, we did have a member of the development community on the committee who, yeah, showed up when we were meeting at the village church. And we had, and we discontinued seeing him. We have moved some venues. We were over at Highland Baptist Church, again, just to try it. And we had our van tour. So, we've been trying to mix it up a little bit in venue, meeting the venues. Everybody has been apprised of those meetings and of the van tour. But, and I don't remember who the developer is. But we had, early on we had one, but that developer has not shown up. >> Yeah, and I don't know if who you're speaking of has any kind of connection to these sub areas. But I'm hearing, we're agreeing that you desire to have a little bit more input and feedback from people who are more directly connected to those sub areas that would help, I don't say round out or even out, but provide a more collaborative discussion in that. So, I think we have an opportunity if people are just not participating and they say, I don't want to participate, then yeah, I mean, we need to. And so, you all are, you're okay. You think your committee would be okay with, you know, if people aren't going to participate and don't want to, I'm not saying we're kicking people off. But, I mean, this is important. I mean, we need, we need people to participate. >> Right. And I would agree that I would like to see more voices from the development community. I would like that opportunity because, you know, early on consultants do what consultants do, which is ask you what is your dream. >> Right. >> And that's part of, as I'm saying, you know, we have a deep bench on our committee. So, we also could say, we know about what the dream is and we know that there's reality. And so, if we did have another voice, some more voices that were also able to say, well, yes, you know, that is, we would like to have that particular Disneyland over here, but the reality is it's not going to happen. So, yes, I'd be, you know, happy for more voices to hash some of that stuff out now so that when we get to PNZ, we're not watching something die so that it is lame by the time it gets to city council. >> Well, and I thank you and Kim for stepping up and, you know, providing the leadership to that committee because the chair moved on to, I'm not sure if it's bigger and better things, quite frankly. It might be tougher or, I'm not sure. It sounds like it might be easier compared to what's been happening. But, any questions for the chair while we have her here? I want to give the vice chair an opportunity, if you'd like to share just a few moments. I mean, if not, that's okay. Well, if you are going to speak, you'll need to come to the mic because we're televising and they can't hear you. >> It's something very simple. >> Okay. Great. >> Any of you-- >> Oh, no. If you could just, yeah. >> My name is Kim McKibbin. I'm the vice chair for this committee. Any of you that would like to come and see what we're doing to look at the processes that we're going through to meet the people who were there on an ongoing basis to look at any of the notes that have been taken, the charts that have been done, the maps that have been drawn on, the massive amount of information that we've gone through and looked at to make sure that exactly what you're saying, you don't want to have happen, these tiny little things is not going to happen. Please come. Please come to the meetings. Obviously-- >> But only three of you. >> Huh? >> But only three of you. >> But only three of you at a time or two or three, whatever the-- >> Right. >> You can't all come at once. And listen to what's-- listen to-- well, you know, can't be in the same places. So-- but please, send people that you would like to, you know, listen to the-- it's an open meeting. We're not doing anything that's secret and there is a lot of good work being done there and a true effort to look at what this can be. And we're very aware of the fact that we're the pilot. >> Right. >> This won't be the last small area plan that you have in Denton. And we're happy to make the mistakes as the pilot and then figure out what not to do next time. >> Sure. OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. >> Mr. Mayor, we'll reach out to each of the committee members and we'll define those that are continuing to serve and those that opt not to. And we'll also provide some recommendations of some participants. The developer she referenced is an area too. I'm certain he would be willing to participate or continue to participate as well as we'll look for a communication study that some means that we can probably reach out and see if we can just get some general attendance so folks can participate in the process. >> Fantastic. All right. Questions, comments? All right. Seeing none. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. You bet. Is that it? We got one more. Don't move. >> Nope. >> OK. We've got one more on our work session reports and we'll go into closed session. Receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the city, hotels, occupancy tax and sponsorship programs. >> Mayor, city council, Tony Puenta, director of finance. First of all, I just want to say that this is a follow up presentation to one that we made back on February 27th based on direction that we get at the time from the council and I think other direction as well from other presentations regarding sponsorships. We did meet on April 26th with the hot committee. And so what I want to do today is kind of go through just really quickly and talk to you a little bit about the hotel occupancy tax programs. We refer to as the hot program, the proposed hot and sponsorship committee, sponsorship program for community events. Just briefly go through the calendar and then seek your direction on a couple of items. So just as a quick reminder before I kind of go through the guidelines. And so there is a 13% charge tax on all lodging establish ments per room. Seven percent comes to the city and six percent goes to the state. This information is not on your -- on this presentation. I just want to, again, based on what we previously discussed. The city does have a hot committee that's made up of three council members, the mayor, council member Hutzbed and also council member Gregory who 's the chair are the current members. Of course, with council member Gregory leaving us, we'll just have two. So we'll need to have a third person. But so anyway, so I wanted to just kind of recap that. All lodging establishments within the city limits pay these fees and we monitor those on a monthly basis or due to the city on a monthly basis. So just a little bit about the hot program guidelines and the application. We did meet with the hot committee and they gave us approval of the guidelines and the application for this next year. We've actually already posted those and have received applications. We're kind of going through those applications now. I did want to mention to you that we did update our guidelines for two items specifically. Signage was something that was added, was a category that's been in state law. But as we were reviewing the guidelines, it was not part of the guidelines. This signage is specific to directing the public to sites and attractions that are frequented by guests that are visiting locations in the city. To date, I believe we've gotten one application that we're currently reviewing that has submitted a request for funding in that area. And so we'll be presenting that to the hot committee at their next meeting. In addition to that, we also clarified some language regarding transportation. That is transportation that is owned and operated by the municipality or privately owned and operated but partially financed by the municipality and may not be used for a transportation system that serves the general public. So this wouldn't be DCTA. To date, we've not received any applications in that area. But it is something that's provided in state law. So we wanted to kind of put that in the application just in case. Two items that were of interest to the council previously that we went back and reviewed. And so according to state law and also in our hot ordinance , the contributions of the category for arts is capped at no more than 15% of the annual revenue into that fund. We do have a separate resolution that sets out that at least 2.4% of the hot revenue be allocated to public art for fiscal year or for PY 18, which is the current fiscal year, we allocated a little bit over $73,000 to that. That's overseen by the Public Art Committee. In addition to that, there was an additional $45,000, one time that was approved for some public art at the police department. For program year 2018, there was total allocation within this category of 11% or a little bit over 347,000. There's approximately another $110,000 that the committee could have allocated to get to the 15%. And so the council had asked for us to come back and brief you on that. I think there may have been some interest to potentially allocate more for public art, all for public art. So that is something that we'll be asking you today. If there is direction to do things differently, that you provide us that direction so that we can discuss that with the committee. On the historical side, the historical category, that has historically been capped at 15%. That is now capped at -- excuse me, at 50%. That is now capped at 15%. State law, once you go over the 125,000 population, that reduces the cap from 50 to 15%. Based on our estimated population for 2017, we're already above that. And so, again, we believe that the 15% would apply. For program year '18, we've allocated about 12% within that category. So there's approximately $84,000 of additional funding that could have been provided within that category to stay within that 15% cap. So as I mentioned, the HOT Committee met on April 26th. The committee discussed not just the HOT guidelines and application, but we also talked to them a little bit about the sponsors hips that are currently managed in the city by three separate policies. We talked to the committee about reconstituting that committee to the HOT and Sponsorship Committee. The committee has recommended to the council that the council consider doing that. In addition, they also are recommending to the council that we repeal the three separate sponsorship policies and create a single policy whereby we would manage all sponsorships for community events, and we'll talk a little bit about those in the next slide. So in addition to those items, the other item that we talked about, because we have four separate funds, actually five separate funds that are budgeting for these sponsorships under the guidelines that are currently set up with three separate policies, total is about $87,000 that we would set up a zero balance fund in which these dollars would be contributed to that the HOT Committee within make recommendations that would be managed within that fund. Any residual money that's left over, if everything isn't spent, that would be allocated back out on a pro rata basis to the contributing fund. But that way, all of these dollars would be managed and they're a single fund by a single committee and that the council would then make recommendations on that $87,000 that's currently included in the '17-'18 budget, and there's no proposed changes to that at this time. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Councilmember Ritz has a question. >> So just for clarification, because I'm trying to understand. So right now, that $87,000 for sponsorships that comes out of the general fund or different funds like from taxpayers and the ratepayers. >> Correct. Correct. That's in the individual funds right now. >> Right. >> Yes, ma'am. And so this is proposing that it go into the hot committee but come from hot funds, which are -- no, so it would still come from the general fund. >> It would come from the general fund, the electric fund, solid waste fund, and we would aggregate all of those dollars, $87,000 in a single fund that the committee would then, based on the applications that are received, allocate -- recommend allocating those dollars out to those events. And then that would come to the council as part of the proposed budget for the council, you know, to make a recommendation or a decision as to whether or not to approve that. Very similar to what we do with the hot funds, a complete separate fund, though. >> Instead of the different departments choosing who gets the money, is that -- >> Correct. Correct. So -- >> Oh, no, I'm just -- I wasn't in favor of the sponsors hips anyway. I guess I just thought by reading this that the money would come in the same way and it would just be the sponsorships would be allocated and use the same kind of process that the people that are applying for hot funds do. So -- >> Correct. I think part of the challenge, council members, that some of these events that are being sponsored don't necessarily meet the guidelines under the hot program in promoting tourism and the hotel industry. And so this is a separate avenue that those events would -- you know, could solicit funds from the city is by submitting an application under a sponsorship program, which is very similar to what we do today, except that those are happening at the individual fund level. And also, those sponsorships will be managed by the individual operating departments. And so then that removes that management from the operating departments and moves it to the finance department, again, where we're used to dealing with the hot program and we'll just manage it very similar to that. >> Council Member Meltzer. >> I wonder if there's another way to look at the sponsors hips. I think it's a little bit different with hot funds, clearly that's about putting heads in beds. You know, with the sponsorships, the objective is kind of an advertising objective, right? I mean, it's not -- it's certainly not necessarily attracting tourism, nor is it specifically kind of philanthropic. You know, it's really about trying to reach a specific audience that's relevant for, you know, a city department with a specific message. And I wonder if there's some part of the city that has more that kind of expertise. I don't know if it's in public affairs or -- you know what I'm saying? So the evaluations being made are about is this a good spend for us to reach our audience? >> Yeah, I think in theory that it has been explained like that in the past. I think that as we've gone through the last couple of budget sections, though, there's been concern about how much money is being spent on sponsorship. You know, the council has gone ahead and approved smaller budgets that move forward. There was a concern -- the reason I initially suggested this be combined with the hot funds because the rationale and the way that we're critiquing the funds, it's somewhat arbitrary to begin with. However, and we just felt like whatever rationale that the hot fund committee is using on some of these events, it probably makes sense to apply a similar rationale in the sponsorship area. The staff really, I think, is hard pressed to make strong arguments that they're benefiting the -- from an advertising perspective. I think this has just been something that's been historically a way for them to get the word out, perhaps educate folks to what DME might do or the solid waste department might do. But it's really been more of a philanthropic supplemental budget. And once we got the policy direction from council to go ahead and skinny down the budgets, but they were comfortable -- a majority were comfortable where this landed, the methodology to assess these requests is not all that different than the hot funds. And so I just felt like if we're going to go ahead and move the -- you know, keep this program, it belongs in the elected official's hands rather than having staff come up and get beat up every year. I mean, it really is an important thing that -- to keep those philosophies somewhat similar. And it's the priority of the council whether they want to keep the sponsorship programs moving forward. So that and we were also getting a lot of questions about, well, how much did one organization get versus another organization? And is one organization getting money out of the sponsors hips and also hot funds? And it's a real clean way to sort of answer all those questions and put a magnifying glass on it. >> Councilmember Ruegel? >> Well, and I think part of it also was that there are some of the requests that come in that probably would warrant some type of city participation, but maybe wouldn't fit as well under hot funds, wouldn't fit as well under the category of heads and beds, but there's still an interest in the city participating. And therefore, there would be those other avenues. And so I think that the idea was to help provide those kinds of sponsorships with the most appropriate source of funding and that that group could help do that. >> And again, these sponsorships are occurring now. They're governed by these three separate policies. You know, the joint policy that we would recommend would just be, you know, basically keeping the same processes that we have now but under a single policy. In talking with the committee, the committee felt very comfortable in the recommendations. It did direct staff to go ahead and begin to notify current and prospective recipients. So we've done that. We've identified those recipients that have received sponsorships over the last year to two years. We've notified them. We've placed the application and guidelines. And we are currently going through applications that we've received from organizations out in the community. So just to touch a little bit about the sponsorship program , again, all this language already exists within the three policies that we have. The purpose would be to support nonprofit or civic-minded programs or organizations that further a charitable cause, economic or community growth, or serve a public interest. To be eligible, they must be a nonprofit, a Texas corporation, federally exempt organization, or an educational institution. And the requirements are that they be able to execute a contract with the city. I will point out that under the current policy and what we would come back to you as a recommendation is that request below $2,500 that those contracts could be executed by the city manager. Again, very similar to what we have today. Anything above that amount would then come back to the city council to award a contract in that particular arena. So to touch base just with you on the calendar and kind of next steps, you know, based on council direction today, we, as I mentioned, we are receiving applications, have received applications through the 1st of June for both hot applications and sponsorships where staff is going through those now. We'll be providing that to the committee around June 21st. And then our hope is that by August 2nd, in conjunction with the city manager's proposed budget, that we would bring back to the council their recommendation for for the hot fund and also this this other separate fund that we would call the sponsorship fund. So what we're asking the council today is to provide any direction to us regarding allocating a different percentage for public art. I will mention to you that we have a number of recipients currently that receive we have nine recipients. That receive hot funds within that arts category. If the council was wanting to allocate the full 15 percent to public art, we would recommend that we provide some type of notice and either implement next year or at least identify those nine now, let them know what the council has directed and that they relook at their budget submission and their application and potentially craft that. In some cases, some of these organizations may have general fund dollars that are paying for additional advertising, other eligible expenses. And so they could redirect those dollars to the art component and still some and resubmit that amount under another category within the hot program. On the historical designation is the same type of issue here. We do have three recipients that are requesting funding within that historical category. If the council is wanting to designate that full 15 percent for historical cultural justice purposes, I know that economic development is working on a presentation on that particular issue. If the council is wanting to reserve that for that purpose, then again, we would ask that that we that we be allowed to to work with these recipients either redo the current year application or make make it effective for the following year so that when we provide the guidelines and the application, we can let let these recipients know what categories they will not be able to submit requests for. So I'll kind of leave that there for now and then we can talk about the sponsorship. OK, so you're basically asking for direction on the historical, the public art and the sponsorship program. Council members. Yes, that's my baby. I'm OK with both of those changes. I do. I do have a question. Did the 2018 guidelines for the hot funds change at all or are they just the same carried over? It's the same. It's the same carried over except for the signage component and the transportation. OK. Yes, Council Member Hudson. Yeah, no, I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to change. I just think, again, I'm hypersensitive to the fact that we 're taking money from hotels and and for that, we should incentivize heads and beds type activities, not to say art doesn't do that, but it's it's not it's not as direct as I'd like. I mean, obviously, there's exceptions to that. But just as a general principle, understanding it just it's an application process at that point. I couldn't get behind doing that because I don't I'd rather allocate the money to events, that sort of thing that would actually you can track that that has a hard line to it that I can then go back to the hotels and say, hey, this was this is how those dollars were used. Here's the net result for your industry. Thank you. Is that the only way that public art can be funded or it's just that it can be funded by hot funds? It can be funded under the public art policy, certain geo funded projects also generate additional dollars in the bond program. And so I believe it's vertical construction on vertical construction projects. A percentage of that can be designated for public art under the policy. That's where the four hundred thousand in 2012 bond program came from. There was additional monies in 2014. In addition to that, if the council would want to fund public art within the general fund, other avenues, those could also be sources of funding for that. Because I'm you know, I'm inclined to agree with Councilmember Hutsmith that the intention of hot funds is to directly drive people to come into the city. But it's not to say that, you know, that I want to change what public art gets. Councilman Ryan. Well, if I'm not mistaken, I'm seeing that currently it's at 11 percent. So we're not talking about that large of a delta on there. But I do like the idea of reserving the full 15 percent on historical for in cultural districts while we are still trying to decide what's going to happen with City Hall West. I think that's a potential place to fund that, that it will be potentially have a venue for events that would draw people into the city that would put heads in beds. OK, so I want to make sure I understand what you just said. When I hear reserve because the question is on the public art, do we want to go to the how much was the percentage? Fifteen, fifteen percent. Right now, we're not doing up to that. Correct. So do we want to move to that level and then we'll make it effective fiscal year 2020, give everybody notice and the funding and so forth. So the historical. So we're not doing any historical right right now. We are. There's three recipients that receive funding within that that category. And what's the percentage of the slide? Escaped me. So right now we're allocating about 12 percent of the 15. So about three hundred and seventy three thousand dollars in historical is going to three separate recipients. OK, so that's where I thought what I heard you say. You wanted to reserve the 15 percent for X, X, X, when right now we're already funding people up to 12 percent. So maybe for that delta three percent, three percent. You're saying reserve that eighty eight four thousand dollars. OK, to kind of sure put people on notice at that eighty four thousand. Most likely could end up being used as as a funding source to force City Hall West, depending on what the committee decides and how it moves forward through council and OK. I don't have any issue with the 15 percent for public art because it's an eighty four thousand dollar delta. I could go either way on that. I mean, if the consensus of the council is to go ahead and allocate that up simply because I know if City Hall moves forward, see how West moves forward with a well, almost did it again . Almost knocked out man. That's a lot more full water right there. I'd have been buying you a laptop. If that if that were to move forward with some major funding requirements, that's probably going to be something that. I think the grand scheme of things, it's going to be fairly small compared to the impact to that particular budget is going to be fairly small or minimal compared to even just a eighty four thousand split, let's say evenly between these three organizations. So I can go either way. Don't have a real objection to reserving it, but I don't have any real opposition to putting it off. So and then as far as the sponsorship program, I think that, you know, is that have we approached that yet ? We haven't talked about that yet. It was OK. Sorry. Go ahead. On that issue, I'm wondering if some of the money from the hot funds were to be directed towards City Hall West. It could be under art or it could be under historical because if if City Hall West is being used to promote art studios and art performances, then it could be under that category. It also could be under historical if we're trying to do some restoration or some things like that. So it would seem to me that if we said we're going to reserve the full 15 percent in those categories and notify these different groups that are already getting money, then we're basically saying we're inviting you to come in and apply for the full amount. And which would leave no money in either category if the council wanted to use some of the money in either or both categories to help find some of the work to be done on City Hall West. So I would say don't make the reserve. Don't reserve those amounts. Don't notify those groups at this time. Leave it as it is so that there's more flexibility for decision making for the council. So let me make sure I understood that. You're just saying leave the status quo the way it is. But so if somebody if we wanted to make the decision for the 15 percent, we can do it. OK. Got you. You can fill in that money. You could you could do it. And you could direct that money towards a project that is an initiative of the councils. Yeah. All right. Well, anybody else want to weigh in on that? We what I'm hearing right now is you wanted to go ahead and allow the. Increase in the 15 percent, is that correct? On both of them. There's a lot of money that goes in into hot funds. And I know that each budget year we're looking at ways to try to fund things. And sometimes we're like, well, you know, could that be funded with hot funds? And sometimes it's not there. So I think there's an opportunity here. And public art is more than just, you know, it encompasses a lot and it can bring people to Denton and it can put heads in beds. So I look forward to economic developments presentation on as well the historical and cultural district, because I think that we are not thinking out of the box here on things that can be funded through these. OK. Council member Hudson. I think I think that I'd invite anyone that that echoes that sentiment to watch or go look at the minutes for the Hot Funds Committee, because there's my first time to sit in it last year and it's in its eye opening. And so sitting with Councilman McGregor, the requests are I mean, Tony, what's the number the request versus the dollars available? Because right off the top of the bat, you get the CBB that's going to lop off million one, two or three. Right. So million one, two, three out the door at go. Then then what's left versus the request? I think I think elsewhere, we generally get in excess of the, you know, three million dollars in hot fund revenue that we get. And so the committee generally, you know, stays well within the projected revenue that staff has for that fund. This past year, there was a a one time drawdown for a couple of projects, but those were kind of one time projects. The fund does have a foot balance, about two point two million at the end of of seven nine thirty seventeen. And so kind of based on that fund balance, the committee felt that allocating some additional money for public art, the committee events there, there was no item that escapes me now that again, but generally we get well in excess of three million dollar of worth of requests. Right. And so I think that's the you have the. Black Film Festival that I asked for, whatever, let's say they ask for 50,000 and we're giving them 10, you know, because it is just that high demand. So there is not this I mean, it's it it is more daunting than you would think outside looking in . And. You have to justify those knows and to take away, I can't justify a no for art when there's I want to give the community market a lot more money. I want to give Black Film Festival a lot more money. And I think there's and there's some other needs in my estimation. And I think I think a few meetings back, Councilman Gregory was was spot on when he said it is it becomes subjective. At some point, you can you can analyze the data all you want, but at some point it becomes subjective. And so for me personally, it's just hard to one. If the hotels are volunteering the money, that's great. Then I'm willing to kind of take those educated risk. But just because they don't have a say so in it, it's hard for me to get there. And I don't think there's this I mean, it is absolutely kill or be killed in that room. So it is it is it is difficult. And it's difficult afterwards because because you get that you get the questions you get, hey, why didn't this happen? Or I requested 90,000 and you gave me 10. And and and so your direction. Yeah. You don't want to get the higher. No. But I think again, this is three times. So I'm coming down with something. But but I think I think Dalton has a point that if we decide to go there later, then then you're there and you've not set this this table for, hey, we're going to move forward something else. And then, oh, by the way, we're going to we're going to transition on you. So I think there's something to be said for that. What I'm hearing is. So. Well, the way I look at it is to go ahead and reserve it for now to block it out. And if we decide down the road, we don't want to use those funds for a particular project, they are available and we can hand out more. It's people will be happier because there's more available. But if you're letting them know in advance that there's a strong possibility that these may be this portion of the funds may be going away. So when you're requesting 90,000 and you're getting 10, that you might only get 9500 next year because a portion of that may go a different direction. I think it's you're better off. I see it as more conservative to let them know that that is a. There's a strong possibility that they're not going to get to get that or that to plan to not get it. There's also the possibility that they will that if you just leave it there, you don't warn them that. You could change it at a moment's notice. I don't know if that makes my response is in a way you just said, I'm trying to think through this because you're talking about reserve in another word. You're saying. If we reserve it, let's just use that term. But we don't allocate it because what Councilmember Gregory is saying is, why don't we just leave the status quo if we want to allocate it up to 15 percent in any given year for any given project, we can do that. If not, if it's not spent, it just comes. It just flows down to the fund balance. What you're saying is, let's reserve it. If we don't allocate it, number one, it flows to the fund balance. If we do allocate it, we still have to let these people know that this doesn't mean you're going to get this every year. We may decide that there's something that's coming along that warrants this additional funding or a higher priority than what we 're doing. Is that it? I don't know if that captured the essence of what you said. Yeah, and I guess if I were to use an example, and I don't like using this example because I've fought against it, but several councils ago, there was a large portion of the hot funds that was set aside for the convention center when it was going to be a city owned convention center. That's part of why we have the buildup we have today is we haven't worked our way back down out of that, but they were trying to set aside three quarters of a million dollars every year just for upkeep on that facility. But they warned the community that was receiving the hot funds that that could happen in advance. And that's what I'm getting at. So let's give them, give them fair warning so that they're not planning on getting, you know, most of them get a, you know, three to 8% increase, three to 10% increase every year. So, Hey, look, there's a possibility that you're, you know, we're going to set this off to the side and you need to work with what, what you have been getting that continue to get that increase. So I guess I, I'm not confused, but let's say this year, if we wanted to allocate 15% of the, all the way up to 15% for public art, and if we wanted to allocate all the way up to 15% for historical, we can do that. Yes, we can do it. So we're not reserving anything. We can still do it. I mean, what you're simply saying is do we go ahead and carve that out? Not for the purposes of allocating it because we can allocate it every year. Am I missing something? I mean, help me understand the distinction between, well, in, in what I'm seeing up here is that starting in 2020. So we're looking at a couple of years down the road. So we're going to inch our way into this. Well, no, well, that's on the reserve part, but, but, and that's not correct me if I'm wrong, this, this season, if we wanted to allocate the three members of that committee to recommend to council 15% for the public art recipients to go up to 15%, the historical that $84,000, if we wanted to allocate that to them, they re if they requested it, we can do that today. You can, yes, today we can. And, but what you're saying is in 2020, we're saying that's the drop dead date. We're not going to, we're going to reserve it to not so much for allocation, but for almost non allocation, except for something that might be coming up different, giving them proper notice. And I think what that does, it allows us to, to let our current recipients know that, you know, within that category, when they're submitting their request is to not submit any request within the, within the art component or within the historical component either, because again, if the council directs that all of that, all of that would go to public arts or all of that would go to historical, they would not be able to submit requests within those categories. Okay. Well then I was confused in the sense of when you say reserve it, you're saying pull it out to where people can't ask for an allocation in those categories that we're saying, no, we're going to reserve it for some other project that is deemed more worthy and to build up a balance somewhere or use it for something. Now, now I think if the committee, if the council decides to do that, we can do an internal designation very similar to what we did with the convention center to say this portion of the fund balance is designated for some future historical cultural project. Okay. I think I, I mean, we're talking about how much money, 84,000 and what else? Well, 15% currently is about 450,000 in each category, assuming that, that no recipients would be, you know, would be getting any of that funding. Well, I'm just going to say this. When this council decides to pass a policy where nobody can ask for public art money out of hot funds, if that's what I'm hearing, the only, the, if, if the council decided to give 15% to public art, that would go to the public art committee instead of the 2.4%. 2.4% is the minimum amount that can go to public art. So then we would just change that to 15% or the council. But that's by our code. Correct. That's by our resolution. Correct. Okay. Okay. I've heard from one, two, three, four. I'm still deciding any of y'all have any comments on this either way? I was misunderstanding. Okay. Yeah, I was too on the, on the arts portion of it. Okay. So let's, let's see if we can't try to restart this. So you're, you're asking, do we want to reserve the full 15 % of public art and the full 15% of historical starting in 2020, the 15 % would go only to the public art committee. Whereas they're only getting 2.7% now, which is 25,000. I can't remember what it is. 25,000. So other people have applied for that particular category. Category. And so we're saying you can't apply for that category anymore. This goes strictly to the public art committee. Correct. All right. So the historical portion, who's getting that now? So currently we have the Denton County office of history and culture. Okay. Uh, the firefighters museum. Okay. And there's also the, uh, the city square maintenance program that is funded out of the historical component. Okay. So if we reserve it, then that's saying it will be reserved for a future historical slash cultural district that we've sort of, that we've just either initiated or begun the process of how do we do that? There'll be a discussion in the future with the council on that. So then that money goes away. So these three organizations that you've just described, they, they would lose that funding because it would be reserved for this other specific purpose entity or specific purpose. Correct. And, or they could, or they could redo their applications. If they're able to, and request that same money out of some other category, generally speaking, it would be, um, advertising would be an example. Sure. Okay. Um, the, the one program would be the square maintenance program. Um, again, I think that one would be a challenge to, to request within some other category within the hot funds. And so, uh, likely that would turn into some type of supplemental request, uh, for general fund funding. Okay. So customer Ryan. Well, I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question, because I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. So it sounds like, as much as I know Council Member Hutzpah hates to admit it, that the direction may be from the wise old sage, which is Council Member Gregory just saying just sort of keep the status quo the way it is. Sorry, I've got to get a couple of zingers in there before you leave. Never mind. OK, so it sounds like the direction may be keep the status quo and then we'll sort of deal with it as we move forward and if the cultural district gets created, we'll figure it out. Or public art, we'll figure it out. We can do that. OK, all right, fantastic. Sponsorship program. Oh, we still got another one. OK, all right. So the recommendation here would be to reconstitute the HOT Committee into the HOT and Sponsorship Committee. They would oversee the sponsorships under a single policy. We would repeal the existing three policies and again utilize a zero balance fund to manage that $87,000 approximately, you know, in the aggregate that it would be managed by the finance department within very similar guidelines that we have currently for the HOT program. OK, all right. Thoughts on that? I think Councilmember Brix. Yeah, I have a few questions. So can an organization apply for both? Can they apply for HOT funds and the sponsorship? Yes, ma'am. OK. So on the sponsorship program, will we have I didn't look at the application. Will there be like a scorecard or some sort of return on investment kind of how Councilmember Meltzer was talking about earlier so that it's not just arbitrary? There isn't any kind of return on investment that's contemplated currently within the application, but certainly if that's something that the Council would like for us to consider, we can certainly do that. Well that would be something that I would be more in favor of. I'm not necessarily I wasn't in favor of the sponsorship programs before from the funding source. And so if we do maintain that funding source, having some sort of return on investment or some kind of this is the good that's doing it's doing for the city and that it's worth this $87,000 investment would be my preference. Can I ask you a question of clarification on that? No. Well, we're good. I think that I think the pizza and sandwiches are coming. You talked about the funding sources for those sponsorships in the past. They'd come from DME, sometimes some of the other utilities , economic development, those kind of things. So the funding source here would be hot funds? No, it would still be the same funds. Oh, OK. Gotcha. But it's just Hot Funds Committee is making those decisions . That's what you're asking. I originally thought that it was Hot Funds and I was like, yes, good, but it's not. So that's where I see it. Well and I think, I mean, these have been historically, as you had said, philanthropic in nature. I mean, there's not a we can't even get a rate of return on our Hot Funds funds. We can't even we don't even can't even tell how many people are coming to a hotel because they're coming to the Jazz Fest or because they're coming to something else or some championship softball tournament or something like that. So we don't even have the capability to do that. So the truth of the matter is these are sponsorships that have been provided for the different organizations in the community simply on a philanthropic nature. So to me, that's really what I'm being asked is do we want to continue doing that? And if so, how do we make the decisions on who we provide that those that funding to? I don't have a problem with that. I mean, if we centralize the decision making and it still comes before the council for a recommendation or no, or is this the budget? The budget will be approved by the council. Okay, so so it's with the recipients. Right. And so if there's a concern with a particular recipient of one of these sponsorships, that's where it gets vetted at the council level. Correct. As well as at the committee. So if there's a council that are proposed for organizations above $2,500, there would be a contract that would come to the council for approval. Example, I say they're mainly philanthropic. There are a few examples that are North Texas Fair. I mean, I think they we just approved them for was it 5000 or 3000. So obviously, it's a huge event. We still can't measure who's coming to put their head in a hotel bed. So I'm okay with it being centralized here because then you have a centralized decision making or recommend recommending body and it's still decisions still gets made by the council, the council doesn't want to provide that funding, then the council can say no, we're not going to provide that funding. And it's more of a discretion at the budgetary process. And the state fair is an example of an organization that already receives hot funding. So in addition to the hot funding for 1718, it was about 15 4 was 154,500. They then also got a $5,000 sponsorship. Yeah. So if we wanted to make a different decision on that, we have two opportunities to do that at the hot funds level, committee level, and then at the council level. So yeah, I think what that does is gives it gives the hot committee opportunity to look at both those requests and say, okay, we're not going to do the sponsorship, but we're going to give them the $5,000 for hot program because generally, they will request a lot more than the 154. Yeah. Okay. So I'm okay. I'm okay with this because it's not we're not saying those are etched in stone, that we can change that as we move through the process. Okay. Yes, Councilmember. I think if we wanted to measure more and request measurement more, we'd get it. If it was understood that your ability to measure hotel stays was connected with certainly future funding, I think we'd get it. Secondly, sponsorship is different than hot funds because the thing that is being delivered to the city is different. But we're looking to deliver to the city and hot funds, I disagree that it's entirely philanthropic. That's because we have failed to measure, but it is meant to drive people to come to the city to drive commerce and so on. And sponsorship is to deliver messages. I know people have disagreed with that, but having sold sponsorships, there are parts of the city that have as part of their mission getting messages to particular groups of people. And it's hard to come up with something better, frankly, than for instance, the city cycle of festivals. If you want to be visible with a message about recycling or whatever it is to people who are engaged and out in public in the city, that's an outstanding way to do it. And it's hard to come up with something better and more efficient if that's who you want to communicate with. And I think that the measures there are what audience did you deliver? And I think if we ask for that measurement, especially as part of documentation, especially as part of qualifying for future funding, I think we'll get it. Are you talking about referring to the sponsorship or hot funds? Well, first, they talk about hot funds. That's where you want to know you want the measurement of hotel stays. And like I say, if you want that measure, and we require it , we'll get it. And then for sponsorships, you want to know audience delivered. It's a different thing. The fact that you might get it from the same organization, that's sort of neither here nor there. An organization can both drive people to come to the city, count them, and they can deliver messages to members of the public in a sponsorship. So let me and I'm not going to agree or disagree with your statement of if you require measurement, then you'll get it. But the way because the organizations that receive the hot funds, they're not directly responsible for tracking or keeping track of the hotels have to do that. And this is a conversation we've had. So you're not -- hotels are not receiving any hot funds. So we can't say to a hotel, you're not going to get this money unless you keep track of who's here. What you'd be saying is to the Denton Festival Foundation that puts on Arts and Jazz Fest, unless you can document how many people are here solely for the fact and are staying here in a hotel room solely for the fact that they're coming to your festival, we're not going to give you your $100,000. >> Do a survey, for instance. >> Well, they do -- >> That's one way to get documentation. It's an indication. >> It's voluntarily if the hotels participate. I mean, you're talking about passing out a survey at the -- well, honestly -- >> It's 100 ways to do it. >> I've got to tell you, if all you're talking about in taking measurements -- because when I hear you say that, I have a certain perspective of what I think that means. If you're just simply saying pass out a survey card and tell me whether you stayed here or not, if that's the level of measurement you're talking about, well, then I'm going to withdraw my comments because that doesn't seem like -- well, to me, that doesn't seem very reliable, number one. And I guess it's better than nothing. So that's where I was confused. I mean, to me, it's like, hey, you've got to prove to me, show me by empirical data that you had 50 people staying in the Convention Center Hotel, you had 20 staying in Best Western Premier. But if you're just saying pass a survey out to people, hey, fill this out and just drop it in. >> Okay. >> Well, if I can respond. >> Yeah. >> I was sort of saying in between, there's like 100 things you can do. Some are better than others. If you're offering, you know, say a discounted group rate at a hotel and you've got to give a certain code to get it, then you'll have that count, right? And some organizations are going to do a better job than others of validating that they're, you know, delivering the thing that qualifies them for the money. And I would just offer as, you know, an example in the community of an organization that's great at insisting that you comply, Debt and Benefit League , you know, that group's been doing it for decades. And you say you're going to do something, you've got to come back with -- not these things, but, you know, they require documentation and you 've got to do it or else you're not in the pool. >> I will mention to you, Councilmember, question 11 of the hot application is provide three years' attendance and estimated hotel night history for the events listed. And so it is information that we are soliciting. The organization provides that. >> They provide a number -- >> How they provide that, how they gather information. >> Yeah, there's no way -- if somebody had to do an audit on it, there's probably not going to be a whole lot there. >> Correct. So we do request it. >> Yeah. >> Well, some events lend itself to make it easier to collect that information than others. For an example, when people sign up to do the turkey roll, they have to register. And when they register, it would be easy for the Kiwanis Club to ask, did you stay at a hotel? They can do that. Same thing for the storytelling festival. And they collect that information. Now, they're not going to get all of it because there are people that don't register for the whole festival, storytelling festival. They just come for the evening concert. They may or may not stay. For things -- for an event like the arts and jazz fest, it 's very, very difficult to collect that information because of the nature of the festival. Same for the North Texas State Fair. So there's some that are going to be easier to get that information on than others are. And so I think you put folks at a disadvantage if the nature of their particular event is one that -- where you're going to have to document that event. >> I'm going to take responsibility for putting us down this rabbit hole because we're talking about hot funds now. We've got a sponsorship program that's really the direction here. So I'm okay with this to see how it goes. I mean, we can always make a change if we don't like it. And we can always make a change of the sponsorship levels or who we're giving it to and who we're not. So I'm okay with, as staff has proposed, consolidating this , decision making, recommendations, hot funds, moving forward to council. Yes? >> One question just on the scheduling, how would that look ? So assuming we don't get -- would it roll out next year giving everybody notice that, hey, you have to have your sponsorship request in by this date or would it kind of be year round we just allocate the dollars as the requests come in and that committee would then reconvene as needed? >> The communication that we've given to past and current recipients of sponsorships is that they need to submit that application now once a year. Now there may be other recipients, other folks that may want to submit an application throughout the year and we're going to have to manage those on a case by case basis. As we're looking at sponsorships throughout the city organization, there may be others that we're not quite familiar with yet and so we'll need to address those kind of on a case by case basis. But this will be kind of a first year kind of stab at this process and hopefully next year we'll have it a little bit more perfected. >> Yeah, that would be the only ask. We don't freeze out anybody during the learning curve. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> I would just like to follow up with a question for the city manager just to give us some more information because the HOT program, the two, art and historical, I assume they came to us for a reason. Somebody suggested it and if there were programs or projects in mind for the money that this was being suggested for, if you could follow up with us and let us know specifics because I feel like there's some piece of it that's not really here . >> Good question. >> Correct. >> Back in February when we presented that, there was a council member had requested that the council consider dedicating 15% completely to the public art and that's why we're back. >> Okay. Great. Are there any objections to moving forward on the sponsorship program as staff has requested? I don't see any. All right. You have your direction? >> Yes, sir. >> Fantastic. All right. We will now -- that completes our closed session -- I'm sorry, our work session reports. We'll now move into closed session, convene the closed session at 530. Okay. But I've got to call it -- we will be deliberating regarding certain public matters, certain public power utility matters under Texas government code 55 1.086 and we'll also be deliberating under Texas government code section 551.071 and I believe those are the only two. Is that correct? >> Three. >> Three. Okay. Let me see my cheat sheet. That's good. 551 -- well, there's only two. 551.071, 551.086. Yeah. And then -- items for individual consideration, agenda item 1A, consider adoption of an ordinance of the city council of the city of Denton, a Texas home rule municipal corporation, providing for and authorizing and approving the execution by the city manager or his designee of a base contract for sale and purchase of natural gas. I caught that typo too. Good evening. George Morrow, general manager of DMA. As the mayor indicated, we're here tonight with an agreement for your authorization. It's with Conoco Phillips. It's called a NAISB agreement. NAISB agreements are general accepted boilerplate contracts for acquiring natural gas. We previously had a NAISB with enterprise and this would give us another alternative for future natural gas supplies. NAISB stands for North American Energy Standards Board and their contract is protected and copyrighted so we were not able to make that available to the public but we did make a redacted version available for inspection at the city secretary's office for those that are interested in that. And I would mention that the NAISB doesn't represent a transaction. It's simply what we call an enabling agreement. It allows us to do transactions and have the general terms and conditions related to those transactions if and when both parties should ever agree to transact. But in and of itself, it's just simply there as a boiler plate. On the redaction question, what kinds of things did we red act? I have a slide here, so tax ID information, bank account information. There's other very unique performance and payment provisions that aren't in the general NAISB agreement or there's some modifications to it. And then we did redact also the special provision section where the parties mutually agreed to make some adjustments to the base contract that one or both parties may not be willing to do for everybody. And so those tend to be commercially sensitive types of provisions and so those get redacted. And talking with the counterparties, this is pretty typical kinds of things that need to get redacted. But the good news is most of that contract is available and open for viewing of the public. So ConocoPhillips, everybody's heard of Conoco. I believe they're a large U.S. multinational energy corporation headquartered in Houston. And they're provided a link here to some of their sustainability information. They're a good corporate citizen. They're in the gas business and they know how to operate respectfully. So there is an ordinance before you tonight that authorizes execution of the base contract with ConocoPhillips. And that's my recommendation. Any questions for staff? And I'll mention the PUB did concur 5-1 to support this recommendation. Chair would entertain Councilmember Ryan. Move approval of item 1A. Councilmember Hudson. Second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 1A. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign. Motion carries 5-1. And you noted who voted. Okay. 1B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, Home Rule City, Municipal Corporation authorizing city managers as they need to execute a waiver agreement relating to the global settlement agreement between Texas Municipal Power Agency and its member cities. So the background on this waiver agreement, Texas Municipal Power Agency, for those that are not familiar, manages our Gibbons Creek project for the four member cities. TMPA pays aircot a postage stamp transmission fee. And that's just some terminology that's in state law with how they're to calculate it. Yeah, it's actually codified under the PUC rules to tell them how to calculate transmission costs. And basically they're averaged peanut butter type transmission costs. So they pay those on behalf of the members to get power to each of the cities from the TMPA projects. The global settlement agreement was executed back in 2009 said, you know, starting September 1st, TMPA will no longer pay those fees on our behalf. Now we do reimburse them for that. So they pay them, send us a bill and we pay that. But no longer would we do that after September 1st. Problem is we're getting close to September 1st and looked at that issue very carefully. And that's a bad date to switch responsibility for those transmission charges because aircot works on a calendar year basis with respect to its rates. And doing something midstream is problematic from an administrative and an accounting standpoint. So TMPA asked the four cities, hey, could we do a waiver this September 1st date and instead make it January 1st? So that would be consistent with the aircot timeline. And that's what this waiver agreement does. It has no financial impact to us because whether we pay it directly or they pay it directly and we reimburse them, there's no net change in the total number of dollars. So staff is recommending that we go ahead and approve this ordinance which authorizes the waiver agreement. - Yes, Council Member Briggs. - So I know recently, or it seems like recently, we approved an extension of the TMPA contract, but that wasn't necessarily for transmission. That's something separate. - That's correct. - Okay. So this is just for that transmission part of it which does not end? - Correct. - Okay. - Anybody else? Oh, you still got five more slides. (laughter) Okay. All right. So we're going to move on to the next item. - Okay. All right. So all right. Chair, would you have any questions? More questions for staff? Council Member Ryan? - Move approval of Item 1B. - Council Member Briggs? - I'll second. - We have a motion and a second for approval of Agenda Item 1B. Everybody in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries unanimously 6-0. Moving on to public hearings portion. Thank you, George. Public hearings. Act I of two public hearings for voluntary annexation of approximately 47.466 acres of land generally located on the south side of East Ryan Road. Before I forget, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Is that what we need to do that? And then we'll have staff presentation and take any public comment at that time. And there's no action on this? - Correct. - Okay. - Thank you, Mayor. Council Members, let me just pull up the presentation for you. Okay. A18-000. A18-0001 is the first of two public hearings for a voluntary annexation that's located on the east side. Excuse me. The east side. I'm sorry. That's incorrect. That's located on the south side of Ryan Road, east of the intersection of Andrew and Ryan Road. The applicant is proposing to annex 47.66 acres of land for a single family subdivision. The site has already been platted per a pre-annexation development agreement that the city approved with the landowner last year. The applicant was required to bring in the request for a voluntary annexation within 10 days of the plat approval. And the applicant has complied with that request. This is the proposed annexation schedule. Today is the first public hearing. June 26th will be the second public hearing. July 17th will be the first reading of the annexation ordinance. And August 21st is the second reading and adoption of the annexation ordinance. That concludes my presentation. And I'll have-- stand for any questions. - So on the map, I noticed that there's a gas well on the property. Is that an active gas well? - No, I don't think so. I don't think so. It is-- it's been sealed off and kept. - OK, so that wouldn't affect the development of the single family. OK, good. Thank you so much. - We also have the applicant here, if you have any questions of him. - Real quick question. If you could go back to the map, please. So I remember this is the-- this is where you had a couple parcels. You had one that had the gas well that were going to be bigger home. Then you had some that had the gas well that were going to be bigger home. Then you had some that was in the floodplain that really wasn't much going on with it. And you said that we're going to put only one or two houses on it. Is this the same property we were talking about? I believe it is. - Yes. This is tract 1C. - Which is that? Which is-- - This large one right here. - Right. OK, so the other one is the ESA-- - Exactly. Exactly. There's another tract that kind of-- this one's somewhat bisected. - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - And then there's the-- - Right. - Refresher course on sales tax allocation, and we're at our cap, and we're gonna obviously have some conversations about transportation and our half-cent transportation, see how we can maybe make some efficiencies there and maybe recapture some of that for various different reasons, but would appreciate that. Anybody else? Going once, twice. We will now adjourn at 714. [ Silence ]