Sep 20, 2022 City Council on 2022-09-20 3:00 PM

September 20, 2022 City Council
Full Transcript

43029 words Download SRT Download VTT
             - And welcome to this meeting of the Denton City Council.
 Today is Tuesday, September 20th, 2022.
 It is 3.01 PM.
 We do have a quorum, so I'll call the meeting to order.
 Let the record reflect that Council Member Davis
 has given notice that he won't be here,
 nor will Council Member McGee for this portion of it.
 So just wanted to make sure everyone was aware.
 And then for the agenda's a little different.
 We're gonna start, but before we,
 we're gonna start with closed session.
 Before we do that though,
 any questions on the consent agenda for staff?
 I wanna address those before we go on to close.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 - If you bear with me just a second,
 I'm getting my notes up,
 'cause for some reason my internet dropped,
 and if you'll, but I do have a copy.
 So maybe go to someone else.
 - Yeah, is there, Council Member Watts?
 - Yeah, I just needed to pull the Mayor Pro Tem's
 nominee for the Ethics Board for the alternate position,
 just for an individual vote.
 - Okay, is that B?
 Is that right?
 Yes, I think it is.
 Either way, yes.
 Great, we'll pull that.
 - And I've got it, sir.
 - All right.
 Is that all you had?
 - Oh yes, I'm sorry.
 - Okay, great. - Yes, sorry.
 - Mayor Pro Tem.
 - Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
 Yeah, so I had a question on G and a comment on Q.
 And my question on G is,
 it's not really in opposition.
 Ben is great.
 I have no problems with Ben.
 I'm just, could we have a little more detail
 on what happened and why we're revising the downtown TURS?
 And I'm just a little confused
 by the narrative on what happened.
 Both Tim and Ben are great.
 I have no issues with either one of the gentlemen.
 - Hello, hi, take your time.
 Yes, please.
 - Hi, Christina Davis, Economic Development.
 Could you repeat your question, please?
 - This from the narrative in the description
 for the downtown TURS appointment
 where we were playing Ring Around the Rosie
 with Tim Smith and Ben Easley.
 Can I get a better description of what went on?
 'Cause I'm just a little unclear.
 - Okay, no problem.
 When I originally submitted the nominations,
 we also include the list, the sheet,
 the breakout list, the exhibit one.
 And I was using a template.
 And I just missed, corrected from the previous template.
 - That's good, thank you so much.
 I appreciate that clarification.
 - All right, thank you.
 - And then my other question was a comment on item Q,
 and this is the genomic life item.
 And I'm not gonna resist the item,
 but I just want to make a comment
 that roughly 500 per annum for genomic screening,
 full genomic screening only costs $1,000 to $2,000
 depending on the company.
 So if you're looking at a family input of $500,
 you've paid that easily back in just a couple years
 and then you're bleeding money
 'cause your genes don't change.
 Bioinformatics analysis changes,
 and so that's worth something.
 But since this is a five year not to exceed,
 I know there'll be a time for revision.
 And I strongly encourage the city manager's office
 to see, to count the number of people getting genetic
 screenings to make sure that the bang is worth it
 because you honestly could just pay $1,500 for a full genome
 and get that done as a one-time cost.
 So it's not an opposition, it's just a comment
 that just please be careful on long-term contracts
 for this kind of thing.
 - Can I?
 - Yes.
 - Mayor Pro Tem are you saying that this contract
 may be costing us more than it should?
 Is that sort of your comment?
 I mean, is that what you're--
 - So as I read, and maybe staff can clarify
 'cause I may be misinterpreted,
 but it looks like it's about $20 to $40 a month
 depending on whether it's single or family,
 which is roughly 500 a year.
 And you can just purchase privately a genomic,
 full-screen, every single base pair
 for between $1,000 and $2,000 and that doesn't change.
 - Right, okay.
 - And I'm worried that if we have a monthly outlay forever,
 then that is an excess cost to our staff.
 I believe they pay themselves, it's not the city.
 - Correct, yeah, okay, we have HR coming in.
 I just want to say they're here to answer the question,
 but it is a voluntary program,
 so this will be employees paying it
 through their payroll deduction
 and then the city paying it to the contractor,
 it's not the city, but go ahead.
 - So it's not terrible.
 I mean, that's a way of amortizing out the costs,
 but it's just, I mean, it's gotten cheap enough now
 that maybe that's a thing we just cover
 'cause it's a one-time cost, your genes don't change.
 - Well, in addition to the genomic testing,
 there's also counseling and support that goes with that.
 So if you received your tests back and they had an indicator,
 then the individual would be able
 to work through genetic counseling.
 If they are diagnosed, then the program would assist them
 with finding different kinds of programs
 that would be available to them, support, grants,
 treatment options, things of that nature.
 So it's not limited to just the genetic testing.
 There are other components that go along with that.
 - Okay, and I guess I'm still gonna keep with my original
 advice that we track that real carefully
 and make sure that the juice is worth the squeeze on that one.
 - You bet, thank you for your comment.
 - So, but did I understand right?
 The city's not paying, it's just a pass through.
 Am I, do I misunderstand that?
 - Correct, correct.
 - So whatever is spent, it's the,
 that's between the insured and the organization,
 and we just kind of get directions to pass that through
 because we manage payroll.
 - Correct, it's a voluntary product
 that is employee paid through payroll deductions.
 - Thank you.
 All right, any other questions?
 Councilman Burke.
 - I was looking at A G, ID 221802.
 I just need some clarification.
 It says that it is authorizing the execution
 of the first amendment to a funding agreement
 between the city and Giving Hope, Inc.
 Approved by the city council on December the 7th, 22nd,
 and said first amendment to amend the agency name
 on the contract to Grace Like Rain
 during businesses giving grace.
 Is Grace Like Rain absorbing Giving Hope?
 - Yes, ma'am.
 - And who was, or is it any kind of directorship
 or anything like that being changed
 or giving hope, no longer giving hope?
 - Correct, Dana Shaw Community Services.
 So these two organizations have merged,
 and so they're merging under one entity
 called Giving Grace Now.
 The legal entity Giving Hope goes away,
 and then Grace Like Rain is the legal entity,
 and they're doing business as Giving Grace.
 - Okay.
 So that's not going to have any kind of,
 this doesn't have anything to do
 with any kind of structure change,
 internal structure or anything like that.
 It doesn't look like there's any kind of funding.
 Let's talk about the funding agreement.
 What does that mean?
 - So we have funding agreements with both organizations,
 and this amendment allows us to merge the two,
 the agreement under the proper legal entity
 that's gonna be managing the funds.
 So we had grant agreements with Giving Hope before.
 They will now go under the new entity Giving Grace.
 Funds do not change, their executive leadership
 has not changed, their board of directors merged.
 - Okay, all right, thank you.
 - Any other questions?
 See, Mayor Patan.
 - So I just, I have a point of procedure,
 if the mayor could help me with.
 If we're pulling item B, all those nominations,
 nominations?
 That's not a word.
 All those nominations are in a single item.
 Are we pulling every single one of those for an individual?
 It's still an aggregate vote, is that correct?
 'Cause it's a single item?
 - I'm looking at a city secretary, so.
 (indistinct)
 - They are listed as a group and will be passed as one.
 So if you would like to separate it,
 I'll have to make that determination now.
 - Yeah, so I think that that was the request
 to segregate out the one appointment,
 council member Beck, for the ethics board.
 We get the board of ethics alternate three position.
 So that's the one that's been requested
 to be segregated out.
 So is that able to be done by itself?
 - Yes sir, we have one individual appointment out.
 - Great.
 Wait, yeah, Mr. City attorney?
 - No, I was just gonna say, I concur.
 You could have one vote on the rest
 and have a separate vote on just the one
 that's being removed.
 - Fair enough.
 - Okay, great.
 Then that's what's been requested thus far.
 All right, any other questions?
 Seeing none, so nothing, only thing is that one appointment
 was pulled, everything else was addressed
 and will stay intact.
 That will then, oh, any questions,
 before I go into closed session,
 any questions related to,
 because this is just a placeholder for item C
 in the closed session under your agenda ID 221861,
 is only a placeholder.
 So if there's any questions, let's get those,
 let us know now so that Mack and his team
 have time to have the right people in the room
 when we get to C.
 If C's not needed, we need, I'm sorry.
 I'm sorry.
 - Which item, sir?
 - C, in closed session.
 - Oh, C in the closed session, thank you.
 - Yeah.
 Consult with attorneys and discuss status strategy,
 potential resolution of litigation
 and cause number 21-10564-431,
 style Mackenzie Hooks v. City of Dent.
 - Is this, yeah, there's a settlement agreement.
 - Was that in the details of that in the legal status?
 - It was on Friday, yes, and it's on,
 the actual agreement is on for a consent agenda.
 Just to hear if there's any questions.
 - Yeah, thank you.
 - So any questions there?
 Seeing none, okay, thank you.
 All right, then that concludes kind of the,
 we'll go into our closed session and, right,
 I will convene the closed session at 3.13 p.m.
 We will consider the following items deliberation
 regarding personnel matters under Texas Government Code
 Section 551.074, consultation with attorneys
 under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
 Soon as the room's set, we will start.
 So no break, we'll just go right into it.
 Good afternoon.
 We are back in regular session with today's agenda.
 So the first work session is ID212812,
 receive report, hold discussion,
 and give staff direction regarding audit project 027,
 network management asset controls.
 - Hello, I'm Madison Rorschach, Denton City Auditor.
 I'm going to present our findings from phase two
 of our audit of the city's technology
 network management activities,
 which focused on IT asset controls.
 So to begin, this audit generally evaluated
 the effectiveness of the city's IT asset management program.
 The city currently owns about $8 million
 in technology assets, which must be managed
 to ensure they continue to fill operational needs
 and are appropriately safeguarded.
 While IT asset management is primarily the responsibility
 of the city's technology services department,
 all departments are responsible for following
 IT-related policies when identifying, procuring,
 and managing their assets daily.
 Specifically, this audit evaluated IT asset planning
 and procurement, deployment and monitoring, and disposal.
 And I'll begin by discussing the IT asset planning
 and procurement activities.
 Historically, the city has lacked
 an information technology strategic plan
 and formal IT asset replacement program,
 which has hindered long-term planning
 for the acquisition of critical assets
 and has led to some IT asset redundancy.
 Technology services has recently tried to address this issue
 by developing a strategic plan with a consultant,
 creating a technology project and governance policy
 to facilitate the strategic acquisition of new IT assets
 and by establishing a five-year replacement program
 for critical hardware.
 In addition, we found that most IT assets
 are procured through cooperative agreements
 in compliance with state procurement regulations.
 However, the city does not have clear policies
 to provide guidance to departments outside of tech services
 when procuring IT assets, increasing the risk
 of redundancy and network weakness.
 The city has tried to mitigate some of this risk
 by requiring IT assets purchased on P cards
 to be approved by tech services prior to purchase.
 However, we found that at least 60% of these transactions
 in 2021 were not approved appropriately.
 Finally, best practices suggest that government assets
 with a useful life greater than one year
 and valued more than $5,000 should be capitalized.
 While the city does have a capitalization policy,
 it is outdated and does not provide specific guidance
 on what IT assets should be capitalized.
 Still, finance and tech services have established
 a generally appropriate practice to capitalize IT assets.
 However, this process is informal,
 which could lead to inconsistency,
 potentially impacting the city's financial statements.
 So based on tech services, finance and procurement
 management responses, these policies and procedures
 are currently being developed and should be implemented
 over the next year or two.
 Next, best practices generally suggest
 that capitalized assets be inventoried
 and regularly monitored,
 especially if the assets are easily movable.
 While we found that the city has established
 an effective procedure for requesting new IT assets
 to be deployed, there's not clear guidance
 on what types of assets employees are authorized to have
 and what information should be recorded
 when an asset is deployed.
 Specifically, we found several instances
 where an employee was assigned multiple assets
 of the same type or assets that were shared
 were assigned to a single employee,
 potentially creating confusion
 and increasing the risk of loss or misuse.
 Further, the city's technology asset register
 is based on an active network directory tool,
 which identifies end user devices
 and infrastructure equipment
 that are connected to the city's network.
 While this is generally effective for recording
 some capitalized assets, other hardware,
 such as monitors and mobile phones,
 do not connect to the network,
 creating gaps in the city's technology inventory records.
 In addition, while this tool is generally effective
 at verifying the accuracy of asset records
 for network infrastructure equipment,
 it is not an effective tool
 for verifying end user device record accuracy,
 such as where or to whom an asset is deployed.
 Moreover, technology services does not have a process
 for periodically verifying the accuracy
 of these records manually,
 increasing the risk that movable IT assets
 are lost or stolen.
 Specifically, based on a sample of 31 end user devices,
 we were unable to find 11,
 as summarized in the table on the slide.
 Based on tech services management responses,
 they plan to develop the needed policies
 and are planning to request additional funding
 in a future budget to complete a full inventory of IT assets.
 Lastly, tech services does not currently have
 formalized controls over IT asset disposals,
 such as guidance on who is responsible
 for authorizing disposals, preparing assets for disposal,
 and identifying and tracking obsolete assets
 to ensure that they are appropriately sanitized
 of data and disposed.
 In addition, the city recently executed a contract
 to have obsolete IT assets sanitized
 and recycled by a third party,
 which better aligns with the city's sustainability goals.
 However, based on review of this contract,
 the vendor plans to sanitize the city's data
 in accordance with standards
 that are no longer recommended by best practices.
 In addition, while the vendor plans
 to provide certificates of destruction,
 tech services does not have a process
 to periodically verify that the contractor
 is complying with this identified data standard,
 sanitization standards.
 Based on tech services management response,
 they plan to develop the needed policies
 and will be adopting the criminal justice information
 services data sanitization standards in the future.
 So in summary, we issued a total of 11 recommendations
 to three different departments,
 nine of which were concurred
 and the remaining two were partially concurred.
 Based on this response, we believe the identified risks
 will be appropriately addressed
 and plan to conduct a follow-up
 in the next 18 to 36 months in conjunction
 with the first phase of this audit project.
 Any questions?
 - Okay, questions for staff.
 Any questions?
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 - Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
 So I was curious on the peripheral deployment issues.
 I mean, it is often burdensome
 to track those assets
 more than the time is worth to the city and staff.
 Not that you want to have monitors
 and mice and stuff floating around.
 But I was curious where the guidance was coming from
 that we wanted to track that.
 Was that internal?
 I mean, is that self-derived
 that we want to track peripheral devices?
 But we have that best practice, was that?
 Where is that best practice from?
 - If y'all want to do that, I'm not gonna get in the way.
 But that's one of those things
 where you build 15 minutes and it's a huge pain.
 - I think for the monitors,
 we're not necessarily recommending that they are tracked
 like a computer laptop would be.
 It's just that we're currently capitalizing those assets
 and it's recommended that capitalized movable assets
 be inventory to track.
 And that was by the GFOA, right?
 Yeah, for the Government Financial Officers Association.
 - It's more of a county governmental agency,
 but I can verify that specifically.
 - Okay.
 - But it is more just of a best practice
 that it's actually tagged
 rather than like putting on a GPS type tracking system.
 It really is just because you're capitalizing something,
 you should know where it is.
 - Okay.
 - So I just, I would say too,
 it's the responsibility that each department,
 when they're buying the smaller pieces like the mice,
 the mouse, mice, those little items that they keep,
 correct me if I'm wrong,
 they keep an inventory of what they purchased and when,
 then if they have to exchange it out for a new one,
 'cause they do go out of, you know, out of date.
 But then the larger equipment,
 before it's turned over from IT,
 usually puts a tag on it.
 They should be putting a tag on it and they're not.
 But that will say it's the property of the city of Denton
 and when it's been placed.
 And I just wanna say, while we have, I have the time,
 both Shannon and Leisha are fairly new here
 and we have a new IT strategic plan
 where all of this stuff, including IT governance,
 is all coming to play because we have not been doing that.
 - And then if I had one other question
 and that was on the data destruction.
 I mean, do we have an idea of how much CUI data
 that we have, controlled uniform data that we have?
 That's because that's gonna be the issue
 with data destruction.
 I mean, you know, most emails are incidental
 and nobody cares.
 - I don't think I could answer that,
 but maybe Leisha or Shannon could.
 - Is that part of the audit or is that?
 - The reason is it's a cost to destroy data
 with extra cleaning.
 - Yeah, how much CUI data do we have as a city?
 - Yeah, I don't-- - That's a stumper.
 - Controlled unclassified information, it's fine.
 How much data is it really critical to scrub?
 Well, do we have CUI data that we have?
 And you know, a lot of that's gonna be contractual.
 And the reason I ask is it's a budget issue
 because you have to take extra measures.
 - Well, I don't, go ahead, I'm sorry.
 - Okay, Shannon Mejia, Deputy Director of Tech Services.
 So yes, you're right, there is a cost involved
 in destroying the hard drives or scrubbing it or whatever.
 Because we do have CGIS, PII, HIPAA, all that kind of stuff,
 it's just still best practice to just destroy it all.
 So we don't have to worry about if it's not or is.
 And so we'll be following CGIS guidelines
 'cause that's the strictest to destroy the hard drives.
 - All right, all right, fair enough.
 And correct me if I'm wrong,
 the only way to get rid of something
 is to override everything.
 You fill it up and then you can't just,
 you have to feel, you have to wipe something,
 you have to override everything, right?
 Because otherwise it's recoverable.
 If any forensic expert, if you don't wipe it
 and don't override it, can go get it.
 - Yeah, and so you can wipe the whole hard drive
 and the DOD standards,
 but you can also just crush the hard drives.
 And so we have a vendor that we can just crush it with
 and the cost is negligible.
 - Yeah, so it doesn't matter how much is on the drive
 or how much data is there,
 you're destroying the whole thing, right?
 Okay, got it, thanks.
 - Awesome, thank you.
 - Any other questions?
 Great, thank you very much.
 - Thank you.
 - That takes us to item B,
 which is ID 221446, receive report, hold discussion,
 give staff direction on proposed municipal utility
 district policy and application requirements.
 - Thank you.
 - Good afternoon, Mayor, Tina Fergens,
 Deputy Director of Development Services
 for the City of Jettin.
 So it's my pleasure to be here this afternoon
 to provide you with an update regarding our new mud policy
 that we're proposing to council for your consideration.
 This agenda item is related to updating
 our existing interim mud policy
 that was adopted back in 2020.
 We're bringing this forward as a result of your request.
 We had some discussion early this year, back in May,
 and talked about the purpose and intent and goals
 associated with the proposed policy.
 And at that time, I told you I would bring this back
 and we would actually have the policy document itself.
 So that draft is included
 within your council agenda materials this afternoon.
 As you're well aware,
 there continues to be development pressure
 within our Extraterritorial Jurisdiction or ETJ,
 as we call it for short.
 And therefore it is appropriate to review our policies
 from time to time just to make sure
 that they are still relevant
 and accurately address the needs of our community.
 And in this particular case, as it relates to development,
 that's happening within our ETJ.
 As I shared with you back in May,
 our current interim policy that was adopted in 2020
 does not incentivize nor encourage,
 and maybe encourage is a better word to use,
 but it does not encourage the developers
 to pursue consent from the city.
 What we've learned over the years
 on working with our current policy
 is that if the developers are not encouraged
 to come and visit with the city,
 therefore then we do not have a seat at the table
 to try and influence the type of quality development
 that could potentially occur within our ETJ.
 What we're finding is that these MUD developments
 are developing not consistent
 with our Conference of Plan policies,
 nor are they developing consistent
 with our technical requirements.
 So our goal is to really get them into a position
 where they're eventually negotiating a developer's agreement
 where we can influence the type of development
 that is happening within the ETJ.
 If you recall back in May,
 what I shared with you at that time,
 and the case still holds true today,
 is that MUD developers do not have to have our consent.
 If they do not receive that consent,
 then it just means a longer arduous process through them,
 or for them through the Texas Commission
 on Environmental Equality, or TCAQ.
 So really, it's in their best interest to work with us
 and pursue that consent and allow us to engage
 in that conversation with them
 about how we can influence the better quality development
 within our ETJ.
 We believe that this policy
 that's put forth before you this afternoon
 provides clear direction and allows for consistency
 with respect to our evaluation of the MUDs,
 and would ultimately put us in that direction
 of entering into development agreements
 with the MUD developers.
 So we believe that this updated policy
 that's included in your packet
 is reflective of the direction that you gave us back in May.
 And so with that, I'd like to dive a little more deeper
 into the purpose of this agenda item
 and get into this presentation more.
 So again, our purpose today of our discussion
 is to present this updated policy
 for your consideration and feedback.
 The updated policy essentially is a rewrite
 of the interim policy that was adopted in 2020.
 We believe that this proposed policy
 included in your agenda materials today
 achieves removing application requirements
 from the policy itself.
 Right now, that's one of our challenges
 that we have with the interim policy
 that was adopted back in 2020.
 But more importantly, we believe that this policy
 is reflective of the goals that council has today
 for development occurring within our ETJ.
 Also, I'm gonna share with you that the MUD application
 that we're proposing to include,
 and it's still in a little bit of a draft format,
 needs a few more refinements that need to be made to it.
 But we believe we need to put an application process
 in place to be able to support the development of the,
 or to support the consent requests
 that are being submitted to us
 and be able to help ensure getting better documentation
 associated with that consent request.
 But between the policy and the application framework,
 we believe that this will allow for increased consistency
 with which we're evaluating the MUD applications.
 We believe it will also clearly lay out
 our minimum expectations for these MUD developments
 occurring within our ETJ.
 It would provide ideally increased leverage for the city
 when we're talking with MUD developers,
 and then also result in higher quality development
 for these MUDs that are occurring within the ETJ.
 So as you know, sometimes when I give presentations to you,
 I start with beginning with the end in mind.
 And so I want you to think about from the policy lens
 and policy perspective that the proposed MUD policy
 included within your agenda materials,
 does this policy adequately address the city's expectation
 for MUD developments happening within our ETJ?
 So if you can keep that in mind as I work through this,
 I would greatly appreciate it,
 because I'm gonna ask you that same question
 when I get to the end of this presentation.
 So as you're well aware of,
 we have provided consent to MUDs in the past,
 the most recent being the legends development
 in which council granted MUD consent earlier this year.
 We also negotiated a development agreement
 as a condition of that consent that laid out expectations
 for that developer having development within our ETJ.
 Otherwise, and we have, in my apologies,
 I have a typo, it should say 12, not 11.
 We've had additional MUDs that have expressed an intent
 to apply for consent with the city.
 The most recent items that we've had or the requests
 since I was here in May are the Young Tracks,
 Ponder Farms, Tabor Ranch,
 Rocky Top is looking at doing expansion.
 All of those are typically west of the city of Denton.
 A new one that we've had come about is Clear Creek 1 and 2,
 which is actually located north of the city.
 So we're now starting to see interest
 in that part of the community.
 And there's one, the one that I realized
 I left off the list was Sanctuary Farms.
 And we received that here within the past month.
 So prior direction that we received from you back in May
 was that you were in support of updating the policy.
 You also had supported the proposed purpose and goals
 that we had presented back at that time.
 I believe there were 11 goals that we had presented
 and those continue to carry through with this policy.
 At that time, the policy purpose and the intent presented
 was one to keep this policy at a high level
 in that it needs to be flexible
 because this policy is applying to a large, vast area of land.
 It's applying to an area that equates to 168 square miles.
 So we recognize some of that lands within ETJ 1,
 others within ETJ 2.
 And so our policy needs to be flexible enough
 to be able to address the development
 depending upon where it's located within the ETJ.
 We all agreed that the policy needs to have clarity
 and in order for us to be able to apply it
 to any mud consent application processes.
 Obviously the goal is for us to be able to influence
 the quality of development that is happening within our ETJ.
 Ideally, one of the significant goals that we have
 is mitigating any potential financial burden
 on the city in the future.
 Because with these mud developments,
 they're being set up to be developments
 that are gonna last 20 years, if not longer.
 They may eventually be interested
 in pursuing consent with the city,
 but we wanna make sure that they're financially solvent
 and so that they're not coming to the city
 looking for the city to bail them out from that perspective.
 Also, we're wanting to encourage that these muds
 as they develop, that they are consistent
 with our technical requirements
 and any other policies that we have adopted for the city.
 Again, we're concerned about fiscal sustainability
 'cause we wanna make sure that these developments
 do not result in being an undue burden on the city.
 And then more importantly,
 that this policy provides that framework for discussion
 as we enter into negotiations with the developer
 and as we negotiate that development policy.
 So again, based upon all that conversation
 we had back in May, we've updated the intent and policy,
 or excuse me, we've used that intent, policy purpose
 and goals that we presented back in May
 for formulating this policy.
 We believe that the policy being presented this afternoon
 protects our interests for the longer term,
 especially should the mud development request annexation
 at a much later date.
 And that's what we're dealing with is really,
 we're looking 20 years into the future
 associated with these developments
 and if they are eventually absorbed
 into the city's corporate limits.
 We also believe that this policy protects the integrity
 of the mud development itself for the residents
 that also would reside within the development.
 So with that, this policy is, as you've seen,
 if you had an opportunity to review your agenda material,
 packet items is divided into four sections.
 And we felt it was, so we broke it down
 into introduction goals.
 We felt it was important to include a section
 that addresses how to use this document
 because we are keeping the end user in mind,
 both ourselves from the staff perspective,
 but also the mud developer.
 And then also addressing the conditions
 and consideration for consent.
 The bulk of the policy or the meat of the policy,
 if you will, really is in section four,
 that conditions and considerations consent.
 And so I'll share that here just momentarily.
 With respect to the introduction,
 again, the whole purpose of this section
 is to be able to guide the discussions
 between the city and the mud developer.
 It outlines our goals and expectations and our priorities.
 This will serve as a resource
 when we're evaluating these application requests.
 And then it also provides the basis
 for negotiating the development agreement with the developer.
 I'm not gonna read through all of these goals
 because they were included in your packet materials
 and addressed in the AIS.
 And I shared these with you back in May.
 But council was in concurrence with all of the 11 goals
 that we had presented at that time.
 I think overall, what you'll find is the goals
 provide the framework for what the policy seeks to achieve
 as it relates to quality development happening within our ETJ.
 So moving on to how to use this policy.
 Again, we felt it was important to include this,
 just a description of how the city process
 fits into evaluating, or excuse me,
 fits into the TCEQ application process.
 Because ultimately, the developer's requesting consent
 from the city, but will be pursuing an application
 through TCEQ.
 The other option is they could form through the legislature.
 But we believe the best opportunity to influence
 the development is their application
 that they would submit through TCEQ.
 Again, the policy outlines our application process.
 And more importantly, it also addresses alignment,
 or the policy is drafted where it aligns
 with our current city policies and requirements,
 takes into consideration annexation status.
 But more importantly, where the proposed development
 is being located within the ETJ.
 The policy also outlines some scenarios.
 And so bear with me as I work through some of this.
 So 'cause you'll see we've got may support,
 may not support, and shall not consider.
 So I wanna work through each one of those here briefly.
 So the way this policy is structured is that
 council may support applications for consent
 where the recommendations of the policy are being met,
 where the proposed MUD is consistent with the policy,
 and then the vision and goals
 of the Denton comprehensive plan.
 'Cause again, that comprehensive plan
 is our overarching policy document
 that addresses development happening within the city.
 And then also council may support applications
 where the proposed MUD meets or exceeds
 the city's minimum technical requirements
 or the minimum requirements that the policy has provided.
 We wanted to make sure that the policy
 has some flexibility built within it.
 So if council chooses not to support the applications,
 the main criteria associated with that would be
 that council probably does not want to consider
 granting consent, especially if the area is proposed
 to be included within the corporate limits of the city
 within the next five years.
 Also, if the property is currently subject
 to a non-annexation agreement,
 we believe that that non-annexation agreement
 should prevail, and so hence why council may want
 to not consider granting consent.
 And then lastly, if the proposed MUD development
 does not meet the recommendations
 that we've included in the policy,
 then maybe that development is not in the best interest
 of the city where we would not want to grant consent.
 On the shall not side, the reason why we have
 city council shall not consider applications,
 it's just some basic requirements that come into play.
 For one, if a MUD development was proposing to locate
 within our corporate city limits,
 then they should not be considered by council.
 Again, that development should follow
 all of our development requirements we have in place.
 If we have plans to annex the land within the near future,
 then it may be in our best interest, bless you,
 it may be in our best interest to not consider
 the request for consent.
 And then also lastly, if the application is incomplete.
 So moving ahead, section four, the policy.
 So this particular, as I mentioned earlier,
 this is really the bulk or the meat of the policy
 where many of our desired outcomes related to development
 is addressed in this section.
 So this section, and my apologies, it says 11,
 we made a last minute change and we separated out
 gas wells from open space and environment.
 So there's actually 12 subsections,
 and each of those subsections addressed
 within the policy itself.
 I'm not gonna go through each one of those,
 but you can see with this list of topics
 that are included here that we have worked to ensure
 that this policy is comprehensive
 as it relates to development and provides that framework
 and expectations for those developments
 and as they're occurring within our ETJ.
 If there's one thing that I think it's important
 to understand amongst all of those 12 subsections
 is really there's about four common themes that come,
 or excuse me, looks like six common themes
 that come into play as it relates to each
 of those 12 subsection areas.
 And the first one being, it develops a framework
 for communication with Denton County.
 We realized that Denton County needs to be engaged
 in this conversation because again,
 these developments are occurring within the ETJ
 and when we talk about the ETJ,
 that's out in the county, right?
 So hence why it's really important
 that we engage in those conversations with them.
 We also believe that the proposed policy really forms
 the basis of a development agreement because ultimately,
 and as I shared with you back in May,
 that's where we want to get is to get into entering
 into a development agreement with the MUD developer
 because again, it's laying out those expectations
 for the development happening within our ETJ.
 We believe that the policy or one of the common themes
 that runs throughout the policy again,
 is alignment with our comprehensive plan,
 but any other master plans or technical documents
 that we have in place.
 So for example, our one water plan that we're working on,
 once we get that finalized,
 that the MUD developments would be consistent with that
 or consistency with our parks and recreation master plans
 that the city just recently adopted.
 So, and then when we speak to technical requirements,
 that's our debt and development code,
 that's all our criteria manuals that we have in place
 that regulate development.
 So really we want to get those MUD developments
 being developed consistent with those technical manuals
 because it provides for consistency,
 but later on we know what we're receiving
 in 20 years from now if those developments
 were to annex within the city,
 that they were presumably developed in accordance
 with our technical requirements
 that we had in place at that time.
 So from an asset maintenance standpoint,
 we know what we would be receiving
 or inheriting I should say.
 Also, we believe that the policy or another theme
 that occurs throughout the 12 subsection areas
 is that it encourages using the city
 as the service provided when they're located
 within our service areas.
 And that particularly comes into play
 with respect to water, wastewater,
 also fire service is very important, electric service,
 as well as solid waste and recycling comes to mind.
 When you have all of these residential developments,
 we hope that the developers are thinking about,
 where's the solid waste disposal going to occur
 associated with these developments
 in addition to several other items.
 Again, we wanna ensure that there's fiscal surety
 and provides the city with the ability
 to monitor the finances.
 We believe that that's important,
 that if there's any concerns related to these developments
 and their financial solvency,
 that we have the ability to be able to review those documents.
 And then also, again, just providing a parameter
 for annexation discussions, because ultimately,
 it is possible that these developments
 would seek annexation into the city.
 So as I mentioned, again, the goal is to get at the table,
 to enter into development agreement and discussions
 associated with that.
 So you'll find that, and council was very concerned
 about that and very supportive of that direction
 and concurred with us back in May
 that understood the benefit of entering
 into these development agreements.
 So the policy identifies the development agreement
 as a tool that the city can use
 to just solidify our expectations are being met.
 And there's many locations where that's referenced
 throughout the policy document itself,
 but I wanna bring to your attention
 the very last bullet item.
 You know, it says, should city council grant consent
 to the mud, the city and the mud should enter
 into a development agreement to outline
 all associated conditions of consent have been met.
 So again, we feel like we're laying,
 we believe that we're laying those expectations
 as it relates to our path forward.
 I mentioned the application process.
 Again, the whole purpose of separating out
 the application requirements and having an application
 process separate and apart from the policy
 is again, to support the implementation
 of this proposed policy.
 It's also the requirements that we've included in,
 this was also included in your packet materials,
 but the documents that the supplemental information,
 if you will, that we're asking to be submitted
 in addition to just the application form itself, right?
 Is really consistent in mirrors with what the developers
 happen to prepare for TCEQ.
 We believe that in order to be able to help encourage
 the developers to enter in that conversation with us
 and allow us to have a seat at the table
 and to share that information is trying to make
 the application process as streamlined as possible
 in not having to have extra documents prepared
 well above and beyond what would be submitted by TCEQ.
 There is one or two items that we are seeking,
 requesting to be included, but for the most part,
 what is included as part of the MUD application
 would all be documents that they have already
 had to prepare for TCEQ.
 So we're just asking for them to share
 that information with us.
 You would be surprised when these consent petition
 requests come in.
 It's just a letter and it has a legal description.
 Many times we're the ones that are mapping it
 to figure out where in our ETJ it's located,
 but there's no other additional documentation
 that's included, not even a conceptual
 development layout plan, right?
 So we feel like these are basic things
 would be important to receive.
 And you'll see in the application form itself
 and the submission requirements,
 we put asterisks and noted that these are items
 that TCEQ is all requesting from you,
 so it's not like we're asking for a substantial amount
 of information above and beyond
 what they have to provide for TCEQ.
 So again, we're here to seek your feedback
 whether or not the proposed policy adequately reflects
 your expectation for developments within the ETJ.
 Happy to receive any questions that you may have
 regarding the policy.
 Ideally, based upon the feedback we received today,
 then if we need to make any adjustments,
 we'll be happy to do so.
 But the goal would be then to bring back this policy
 to council for your consideration for adoption.
 If you're in agreement with the policy
 that is before you this afternoon,
 then our goal would be to schedule this for adoption
 sometime in October.
 And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions
 that you may have, thank you.
 - Thank you, questions for staff?
 Any questions?
 Councilor Watz?
 - So I guess part of the purpose from what I'm hearing
 on this policy is to encourage developers
 to work with us, and is that with the intent
 or understanding or expressed desire
 that it would lead to some type of voluntary annexation
 in the future, is that part of this plan
 as well as to get those developments constructed
 in such a way that adhere to current city standards
 if they were in the city?
 Number one, does this policy try to encourage that?
 - So the policy is trying to get us to seat at the table
 and encourage them to enter into a discussion with us
 so that the developments are at least constructed
 in accordance with our technical design requirements.
 And so we really want to get to that,
 having that development agreement established.
 If they have the desire to eventually annex into the city,
 then we wanna know that as well,
 and all the more reason why, then it's important to us
 to have them follow our technical design requirements
 and any other policies that we have in place.
 So it's possible that 20 years from now,
 they may want to pursue voluntary annexation into the city.
 And if that happens, then at least we know what,
 or we have a better idea as to what we're inheriting
 because we will have known
 how the infrastructure was constructed.
 Anything to add on that?
 - Scott McDonald, Director of Buildment Services.
 We also, in most of the agreements
 that would come forward to council,
 similar to that of legends of what you've seen,
 is we'd probably have a clause in there
 once the bonds are paid down
 that we have the opportunity to annex if so desired,
 if they're built to our standards.
 But you would see any of that prior to,
 any of that taking place.
 But we would certainly set the stage that we're able to,
 and it really depends on proximity
 to where it is to the city
 and if we have an interest in doing that.
 - Okay, so then, and this was,
 y'all discussed this back in May of this year,
 which I wasn't on at the time,
 so I'm doing a little catch-up.
 Or maybe, I was. - You were there.
 - But I don't, was I there, yeah, the first day, I guess.
 - I know, 'cause you had questions for me.
 It was your first day on the job.
 - See there, I don't even remember, golly, that's terrible.
 - I know, first day on the job.
 - That's terrible, I'm probably asking the same questions.
 So, you know, it's Groundhog Day.
 In essence, I mean,
 the only leverage we have is just the bureaucratic quagmire
 or the bureaucratic just time that it takes
 to get through TCEQ.
 Is that, is that correct?
 - I think that's fair to say.
 - Yeah, so time is money, right?
 So time is money with respect to these developments.
 If they obtain consent from the city,
 then from what we understand in working with TCEQ
 is that the process is more streamlined
 for them to be able to get established through TCEQ.
 If the city does not grant consent,
 then it's a longer, arduous process for them.
 And so from a developer's perspective, time is money, right?
 So if they are able to work with the city
 and we are able to ideally negotiate
 into a development agreement that lays out that expectations,
 then associated with that
 would be the city granting consent.
 Therefore, it works to their advantage
 to obtain that consent from us.
 Otherwise, we don't have to grant consent
 and it's just a longer, arduous process.
 But anything else to add to that?
 - Yeah, do we have any idea of what that time,
 what that difference is?
 Like if they work with consent,
 if we get a consent, we work together.
 Is it a six month process?
 If we don't give consent, it's a year and a half.
 I mean, I'm just trying to understand
 because in essence, we're trying to figure out
 what we can offer them to really encourage them to do
 things that in some sense,
 they wouldn't necessarily have to do.
 Is that correct?
 - That is correct.
 The timing, there are some different clocks
 that are associated with it.
 I think it's dependent really on our ability
 to negotiate with them if in fact
 that they're desiring to do that
 and what our timing would take.
 So I don't know that there's any definitive clocks
 other than the rules that are set by the state
 as far as when we have to respond.
 So we have some response dates
 and there's a couple different pieces
 as it relates to the consent and then service.
 So I understand, and again, relatively new to us,
 but as I understand from the developers of the MUDs,
 they're certainly encouraged by participation with the city
 and it expedites the process significantly.
 - Okay.
 All right, yeah, I mean, it's better, I guess, to have,
 and this doesn't define the actual negotiated terms
 of the development agreement.
 It says, hey, here's what we need to even consider consent,
 but in that consideration, we go into more detail
 about what we're trying to accomplish.
 Like fire, who's gonna be responsible for fire?
 Who's gonna be responsible for policing?
 Or am I just totally off base on that?
 - No, it's truly, as Tina had indicated,
 just to get us a seat at the table so we can understand
 if there's interest for us to cooperate,
 then we will bring that forward
 and really bring it forward to you either way
 to say that we recommend or we don't
 and whether that comes with an agreement or it doesn't.
 - All right, thank you, appreciate it.
 - Okay, any other, Mayor Pro Tem?
 - A lot of this is getting our agreement.
 Is there ever a time when, in general for the state,
 when a mud and a city are in agreement
 and TCEQ doesn't grant it?
 - That's a great question, I do not know.
 I don't know the answer, Mac, any thoughts?
 - Not that I'm aware of, I think it would be
 a very rare exception where that was the situation.
 - It's essentially a done deal if the city agrees.
 - Right, and a much more expedited process
 for the approval.
 - Okay, thank you.
 - Okay, any other questions?
 Council member.
 - On that application, is all of this occurring
 prior to the application or is part
 of the application process?
 Are they put the application in, you know,
 how exactly are we connecting with this?
 - So, do you want to address that?
 - So two pieces, and I guess I want to step back
 one piece with Mayor Pro Tem Beck's question or comment.
 Ultimately, they have to pass through the TCEQ
 to get to us, so they're providing those documents
 that are ultimately supporting whether or not
 this was going to work.
 And then for us, as Tina indicated,
 we're just receiving that form saying that TCEQ
 is considering this, they need the city's consent.
 So we've created the application because we're just getting
 very basic information, so we're trying to get more.
 It's there, we had no process in place,
 so it's not that they did anything wrong,
 they just submitted as they're required.
 One other piece to mention within the budget this evening,
 in the interim MUD policy, we had a fee associated
 with this, and that fee we were not charging,
 and so part of the budget process is we'll put that
 into our fee schedule, and we'll charge a fee
 for ultimately the application, and similar to that
 of a plan development where it is we have numerous
 reviews and departments reviewing that,
 so we collect the fees associated with that.
 So they would pay that in advance,
 they'd submit the application, and then we'd begin
 the review to see what it is that they have or don't have
 and what interests we have.
 - And that's after they've gone to TCEQ, or--
 - They go to TCEQ first, and then the TCEQ document
 is then the driver for requesting consent,
 which starts the clock right.
 - Okay, thank you.
 - Yeah, in a perfect world, absolutely,
 we'd love for them to come talk to us first,
 but no, they're going through the state,
 and you know, it's been very positive conversations
 with the development community, so those that are doing
 the MUDs are very excited by talking to us,
 so I don't think that they're going to do it either way.
 They do have that ability, so they're encouraged
 by having the conversation, and they look forward to it.
 Thank you.
 - Any other questions for Seth?
 I just have a few to kind of make sure I understand.
 Do we have a, I know we have like our ETJ1, ETJ2,
 but do we have kind of a percentage or a way
 to educate a potential applicant for MUD
 of the likelihood of them being annexed?
 Obviously, they know where water, sewer ends,
 and where the city ends, that sort of thing,
 but I'm assuming it extends further,
 closer to borders in different areas,
 but am I wrong, do we have a way to communicate
 kind of a likelihood that they would be annexed,
 other than just the level one and level two ETJs?
 - Short answer, no.
 - Okay.
 - I will tell you that it gets very complicated
 as to whether it is the city's water CCN or sewer CCN.
 It could be one or the other or neither or both,
 so it gets complicated in that sense,
 and then truly proximity.
 I think in the conversations that I've had,
 any number of them are encouraged by the thought
 of being able to annex into the city,
 and it's really a matter of we don't have
 the infrastructure at that point,
 and whether or not that will proceed forward,
 but certainly under legal advice,
 we are going to make sure that we're at least considering
 that to the future, not knowing where our city limits
 will end.
 - Got it, okay.
 And so to that end, I think maybe as we,
 if there begins to be kind of trends to say,
 okay, if you're near the interstate,
 that then is easier for to partner with the state
 and get money, or I just don't know what all triggers,
 easy, quote unquote, but I'd be curious
 to kind of get a feel for as we begin to have discussions
 about those costs, and I guess Hunter and Cole
 will give us a good feel for what those things cost
 and how far, 'cause that's gonna be a major
 infrastructure project, and maybe that's an education
 opportunity to say, okay, well, all projects are unique,
 but this one took this much, and what we can learn
 from that, but.
 - The MUDs are putting together a budget,
 that's how they're working their bonds,
 so they know what their water's gonna cost,
 there's wastewater, drainage, streets,
 so they're doing all of those costs,
 and then I'm just asking the question,
 what would it cost you to get water extended
 if they're able to do that, and if they wanna look
 at that expense, again, it is a very fast-moving
 and very dynamic, and we've got to be in constant contact
 with the county, the water districts,
 the, you know, all of the players at the table,
 so I don't know that there's a cookie-cutter way
 to be able to get to that point,
 but we're having all of those very conversations.
 - Good deal, and then, just so I can get a frame
 of reference, so Ropes and Ranch originally
 put in their own wastewater, right,
 and then we're going back and reworking that,
 upsizing that, what would, can you, do you have a feel
 for what that would cost when they did it versus us,
 'cause I'm just trying to understand,
 and it doesn't have to be today,
 but I'd just be curious about what it would cost
 day one when they put it in, versus what we're spending
 now to upgrade that system, just because,
 I just want to understand that dynamic and those costs.
 Obviously, the costs are gonna drive a lot of decisions,
 and I just want to, for my own self,
 just for our own understanding, kind of with that,
 how we, if we start talking about incentives
 to motivate people to, you know,
 either partner us with bonds or whatever,
 it just kind of helps me understand the savings down the road.
 Again, it's not apples to apples,
 but it'll give me some kind of line in the sand
 to kind of understand.
 - We can certainly get to that to see what that was.
 I can tell you with my conversations
 with the development community,
 as far as what they're doing on water
 and wastewater infrastructure today,
 it's gone up significantly, just like what you see
 in our budget, you know, that they're seeing
 30 and 40% increases in those costs
 just in the last, you know, two to three years,
 however long they've been working on the project.
 So over a longer period of time with ropes,
 and it's gonna be significantly more,
 but we can certainly get that.
 - Sure, yeah, thank you.
 And then from, I didn't see it,
 and forgive me if I missed it,
 but is there a way for us to work with the county
 on posting some sort of notice?
 Obviously it wouldn't be in our, in the city,
 but I'd love to have some sort of signage
 entering Denton type, but this is not that.
 It's entering, you know, this water district,
 entering this, you know, some sort of county marker
 in the county that says,
 hey, we wanna put something in your right of way,
 but it's routinely placed so that there,
 it's just kind of a notification, right?
 We can't mail to everyone.
 We can't do those things, but if there's a way
 to put a sign that says buyer beware, right?
 I mean, because it affects, it affects your services,
 it affects expectations.
 When you drive to the library and you think,
 hey, I'm a citizen of Denton, you know,
 and I know people should know that, I understand,
 but my concern is that that's, if that gets missed,
 people that sit in this, in these seats in the future
 have something to point to, have a, you know,
 education mechanism that says, hey, no, no,
 when you drove into the neighborhood,
 you saw this sign, they all look alike,
 no different than, hey, planning and zoning
 is going on here, you know, heads up,
 you may wanna call and see what the zoning hearing
 is gonna be about or what's coming next to you.
 Does that, is that at all an option?
 - Well, I think it may be required.
 I can tell you in my experience of driving through
 some of the existing muds now, they all have metal signs
 on poles indicating the water district that they are in.
 So it indicates the water district for,
 as you enter the subdivision at every entrance.
 So likely that it's a requirement,
 whether that's through the conservation district
 or TCEQ, and I'll validate that.
 - Okay, yeah, and if that could be standardized maybe,
 or if it can't, and they're doing the,
 it's their expense anyway, maybe there's an education
 component for us, just kinda as a city,
 just kinda regularly putting out, hey, if you see this sign,
 this is what that means, or just maybe it's an education
 thing more than a cost to take it on ourselves.
 - Mayor, we can probably do that,
 at least talk to the other cities when we meet
 with the county and the cities that surround us,
 'cause you were there when we were getting to meet with them.
 We can probably talk about that at least,
 just look at some of the signage issues
 and maybe talk about that.
 - Yeah, and Denton County, I think,
 would be an active participant in that.
 - Good, and then the only other thing,
 you touched on the police fire and that sort of thing,
 and I know we're having those conversations,
 so excited about that, but only other thing,
 in the document it talks about that dual submission
 to the county and the city, is that monitored, managed,
 or are we just relying on the applicant
 to make a good faith effort to get it to both entities
 so that we can track it?
 - We would ask for confirmation that they've submitted it
 to the county, and then we've got great relationships
 established with the county that we could follow up
 with any of the staff that are there.
 We work regularly with Mr. Belknap.
 - Got it, okay, good deal.
 All right, thank you, any other questions?
 Seeing none, I'm fine with it as is,
 absent those kind of questions,
 but those are forward looking, so.
 - So by virtue of not hearing anything negative,
 we're just gonna proceed forward?
 - Yeah, yeah, I think so, great.
 - Thank you. - Thank you.
 - Thank you, appreciate it.
 That concludes, that takes us to our last work session.
 So dinner is here, but this shouldn't take long,
 because, how many do we have?
 - Just two. - Two, is it?
 - Yeah.
 - Okay, great.
 - Mayor, just clarification, so neither Councilmember Davis
 or McGee, so they're not either zoomed in
 or anything for this work, okay.
 - No, not for this portion, no.
 - All right, welcome, I am Jennifer Rainey,
 assistant to the city manager.
 - Oh, I'm sorry, so CID 228882,
 receive report, hold discussion,
 give staff direction on pending city council requests.
 Thank you. - All right.
 This is a quick review of our work session process,
 up to seven requests will be reviewed per meeting,
 there will be two today.
 Staff will introduce each request,
 the elected official that made the request
 will have up to two minutes to describe and justify that,
 and then the remaining elected officials
 will then have up to one minute to provide feedback
 and indicate their support for the use of staff time
 to respond, and staff will respond to all requests
 where consensus of council is established.
 The agenda committee will assist in scheduling items
 receiving consensus based upon the priority,
 and you can rank that priority
 with that high, moderate, or low.
 Our item one is from Councilmember Byrd,
 is a work session to discuss and review
 the prospect of eliminating from city policy
 at all unnecessary employee drug testing,
 except where unambiguously legally required
 by state or federal law.
 Councilmember Byrd.
 - Well, and before we do that, Mr. City Attorney,
 if you wanna give any reminders,
 I wanna give you that opportunity.
 - Thank you, Mayor.
 Yeah, I just wanna touch base,
 I think we've given an opinion already to the council
 related to the pending election item
 that is related in some ways to this.
 There's plenty of opinions in law already
 associated with using staff time or city resources
 to advocate for or against an election matter.
 I just wanna be careful of crossing that line
 as the council as we discussed this,
 that those are separate matters.
 But ultimately, if it's the council's desire
 to move forward, recommendation is to bring this back
 after the election to avoid any kind of potential crossing
 of those two lines.
 I think there's just that potential,
 and like I say, if there's any desire to move forward,
 it probably puts the city and the city council
 and the staff in a much better position
 if we can address it after the election.
 But that's up to you all, that's just the recommendation.
 - Okay, thank you.
 - Okay, I'll just go forward as is.
 I am presenting this based solely
 on constituents' request to do so.
 I do understand that there are processes in place
 and for this particular topic,
 but as a representative of constituents,
 if they ask for me to bring something to the table,
 then I am doing that.
 So with that being said, we wanted to discuss and review
 the prospect to eliminate for city policy
 all unnecessary employee drug testing,
 except where unambiguously legally required
 by the state or federal law.
 I just think that we need to have this discussion
 at this time to go ahead and move beyond the discussion
 and whichever direction that that goes,
 then I will address my opinion at that time, thank you.
 - All right, and so I have comments
 so I gotta figure out how to time myself.
 Here we go, all right.
 I don't support the ability for city staff
 in critical work positions, that's the only place
 that are tested to then have, be able to do their job
 under the influence of anything
 because safety is our primary focus.
 So I wanna spend the rest of my minute reading
 just as what I can from the policy
 and it just says the city of Denton recognizes
 the employee's substance abuse can be,
 have a serious adverse effect, adverse impact
 on its image and as a major employer in Denton,
 its ability to deliver quality services to the citizens
 and the general health welfare and safety
 of its employees and public.
 The pervasive presence of substance abuse on our society
 and adverse effects of employee health,
 safety and productivity in the workplace
 requires establishment of an anti-substance abuse
 rehabilitation program and that's my time.
 Anyone else?
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 - Thank you Mr. Mayor.
 So this is probably gonna shock some people
 but I'm not gonna support this item as is.
 I think it's gonna be critical moving forward
 to have a comprehensive drug testing policy,
 set bright lines for impairment versus criminality,
 set bright lines for how legal marijuana
 is treated currently, set bright lines
 for how we know it's coming,
 eventual full legalization is coming
 and how the city is gonna move forward with that
 but I think there needs to be work done.
 So I would support a work session
 to establish those different thresholds
 but I think just as you can't come to work drunk
 and alcohol is legal, I think there are certain
 critical functions that we need to have
 a comprehensive drug policy on and not a blanket statement.
 So I would prefer a comprehensive approach
 so I would support a work session on that
 but not this work session as it is written.
 - Okay, anyone else?
 Councilman McGuire.
 - I agree with the framing that I would like
 to have a comprehensive work session.
 I'm still a little bit confused about why it needs
 to happen after the election given that this isn't
 directly related to the ballot initiative
 regarding decriminalizing marijuana
 but I would like for us and I'm gonna place it
 on a low priority because I know that there's probably
 quite a bit of staff time that would need to go
 into preparing it but I would like to have a work session
 on a comprehensive drug and alcohol testing policy
 so that we can have a conversation about establishing
 which roles that is necessary for.
 - And you deserve an answer.
 The answer is because it comes verbatim
 from the person that petitioned for the election.
 So it is verbatim cut and paste from that individual
 which then ties it to it.
 Councilman Watts.
 - Can I get a timer?
 Can we get a--
 - Yes, I'll pull it up.
 - I just wanna know where I am.
 Oh, okay, golly.
 I think I can see that.
 Yeah, all right, let's go, yeah.
 - Name and address first.
 - Sure, oh, okay, well.
 Chris Watts, is it 215 East McKinney Street?
 Is it 215 East McKinney?
 Okay, yeah, 215 East McKinney.
 I don't support this work session and honestly,
 I'm just sort of a little confused about it.
 I understand that a constituent brought it.
 I still don't know if I truly understand
 where you sit on if we move forward
 and you'll state your opinion,
 especially since you were so against
 the decriminalization ordinance
 when you would have voted against it
 because of your prior experience in law enforcement.
 And this requires by state or federal law
 and we've passed resolutions
 that sort of don't follow the rule of law.
 So I think the reason why it's tied,
 Council Member McGuire,
 Mayor Pro Tembeck alluded to it in his comments.
 He said, because we're looking at what are we doing
 with legalized marijuana.
 So I think it's somewhat tied to that
 and I didn't know that this language
 came strictly from someone.
 So I can't attest to that fact,
 but if it did, I can understand that.
 But I just think we can't really pick and choose
 what rule of law we decide to obey or to not obey
 or who we instruct to obey or who instruct not to obey it.
 I don't know if I'm opposed to a conversation
 about how we need to look at drug testing,
 but I think first and foremost, what's most important.
 I'm done. - That's your time.
 - Yep, I'm done.
 - All right. - Thank you.
 Well, that's short.
 - Yes, okay. - Mayor.
 - Next, the next one.
 - Oh.
 - All right, the next one is from Council Member Davis.
 "A work session to discuss and review the status
 "of Tech Stop Roads in the city.
 "It intends to take back an amendment of the mobility plan
 "to include a roundabout at the intersection
 "of Eagle, Bell, Dallas, and Locust."
 - Yeah, so he's not here.
 So we'll have to push that one.
 That's what I thought, we only had one.
 - Yeah, so we'll push that
 just 'cause he couldn't zoom in, sorry.
 - Perfect.
 - I didn't get a chance to speed read ahead of you.
 - That's all right.
 - So great, then that concludes our work session items, right?
 Did I get them all?
 Yes, great.
 That concludes our work session items
 and that will take us,
 we'll reconvene in city council chambers at 6.30.
 Thank you.
 (people chattering)
 - Good evening and welcome to this meeting
 of the Denton City Council.
 It is 6.30, we do have a quorum,
 so I'll call the meeting back to order.
 And the first thing on our agenda tonight
 is the pledges to the United States and Texas flag.
 Please stand with us if you're able.
 - I pledge allegiance to the flag
 of the United States of America
 and to the Republic for which it stands,
 one nation, under God, indivisible,
 with liberty and justice for all.
 - Honor the Texas flag.
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state,
 under God, one and indivisible.
 - And then we have a few proclamations,
 so I'll come down for those.
 (people chattering)
 So I have a cheat sheet here,
 so I'll set that there for you.
 (paper rustling)
 Got it.
 Yes.
 (people chattering)
 Okay, do we have,
 we have a recognition for certificate of accreditation
 for the police department, so who,
 do we have
 the police chief North Lake, Texas,
 Chief Robert Crawford here?
 Okay, yeah, so you can come on down.
 And then Chief Dixon,
 who else am I supposed to call down, sorry?
 Yes, yeah, come on.
 Those associated with the recognition,
 please come on down.
 Great.
 And I'll let you introduce yourself
 and say more about the accreditation,
 and then I'll let Chief introduce folks,
 and we'll take it from there.
 - Thanks, sir.
 My name is Robert Crawford.
 I'm with the Town of North Lake Police Chief,
 and I'm also the regional director
 for the Texas Police Chiefs Association for Region 8,
 which is in Denton County
 and several other counties in this area.
 I'm here tonight to present this accreditation
 to the Denton Police Department.
 There's a lot that goes into this.
 There's 2,700 agencies in Texas,
 and only 7% are accredited at this point.
 Chief Dixon and his team has done a great job,
 and I'm proud to present this to you
 as the 184th Police Department to get this recognition.
 (audience applauding)
 - Well, this is definitely an accomplishment for us,
 but obviously nothing to do with anything that I did
 other than having the crazy idea of pushing us to do it.
 Dr. Richard Williams here,
 our accreditation and compliance specialist,
 did this entire program by himself,
 and it consisted of two years of working
 unbelievably long hours, weekends, holidays.
 I mean, you name it, this guy was never out of his office.
 He was always in there working.
 So obviously without Dr. Williams
 and the support of all the staff members
 that you see here represented and those that are not here,
 this would not have come to fruition.
 So I think it speaks to the dedication and the heart
 of the people that you have here working for you,
 our community, what they're dedicated to do
 to make our police department better,
 and it keeps striving for that excellence.
 But I'll let them introduce themselves real quick.
 Just say your name and where you work.
 - Hey, my name is Richard Williams,
 and I'm the accreditation and compliance specialist
 for the Denton Police Department.
 I'm just super proud to have been a part of this process
 under the chief's leadership.
 I mean, he was the steward that trusted me
 with being the point on this project,
 and so I so much appreciate that,
 and I appreciate everybody here.
 This was a total team effort.
 - Paul Wombrock, Support Services Deputy Chief.
 It was a total team effort, but like the chief said,
 you gotta give it to Dr. Williams.
 He quartered back this thing all the way,
 and we wouldn't be able to do it without him.
 Good job.
 - Michael Kessler, Forensics and Public Safety Manager.
 - Nina Walsh, Records Supervisor.
 Bianca Santos, Records Lead.
 - Shanika Mayo, Assistant Director,
 Administration, Administrative Services.
 - Suzanne Coletta, Assistant Director,
 Public Safety Communications.
 - Tiana Bortzenstein, Evidence Management Unit.
 - Jordan Icino, Evidence Management Unit.
 - Sharla Dollins, Forensic Services Unit.
 - Gabby Moore, Evidence Management Unit.
 - Steve Buchanan, Criminal Investigations Division Lieutenant.
 (audience applauding)
 - That's outstanding, yeah, thank you very much.
 I appreciate that.
 Okay, that is fantastic.
 7%, that's great to have.
 Okay, and then the next proclamation I have
 is Fire Prevention Week.
 Anyone associated with Fire Prevention Week,
 if you can come on out?
 Hey, how are you?
 Good, good to see you.
 Hey, how are you?
 Good to see you.
 Hey.
 (laughing)
 Oh wow, look at this.
 Man, we gotta have y'all over more often.
 Good, okay, so how about you introduce yourselves,
 tell us what we're recognizing
 and then I have a proclamation for you.
 Yeah. - Yes, sir.
 Hello, I'm David Becker, Fire Marshal with City Denton.
 We'll introduce our team, but we're excited
 coming out of COVID.
 For the last 25 years, the fire department
 as Clowns on Fire have done presentations
 for kids K through third grade.
 We touch about 7,000 kids a year with our message
 and over the last couple of years,
 we've had to get creative,
 but we've got the Incredibles with us,
 we have Sparky with us again this year,
 we got some swag for counsel,
 but I'll let my team introduce themselves
 and we're excited about gettin' back into the schools.
 Oh, you can't talk, so.
 (laughing)
 Megan Chuth, Assistant Fire Marshal.
 I'm Hank Morrow, Driver Engineer, Station Five.
 I've been with the Clown program for 22 years.
 I'm steppin' down from the stage and goin' to the sound.
 I'll let these guys carry on the tradition.
 Steve Young, Firefighter, also known as Mr. Incredible.
 This will be my third year on the Clown Show.
 Stephanie Pribble, Firefighter Paramedic,
 also Elastigirl, this is my fourth year.
 (laughing)
 - Great, okay, well thank y'all very much.
 Very important work.
 And so, it says there's a, it reads,
 Proclamation by the Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas,
 to all whom these presence shall come, greetings.
 Whereas Denton is committed to ensuring the safety
 and security of all those living in the,
 and visiting our city, fire is a serious public safety
 concern, both locally and nationally.
 And homes are the locations where people are
 at their greatest risk from fire.
 And whereas home fires cause 2,580 civilian deaths
 in the United States in 2020, according to
 the National Fire Protection Association.
 And fire departments in the United States
 respond to 3,500, no pardon me, 356,500 home fires.
 And whereas smoke alarms sent smoke well before you can,
 alerting you to danger in the event of a fire
 in which you have as little as two minutes
 to escape safely, working smoke alarms cut the risk
 of dying in reported home fires in half.
 And Denton residents who know how to respond
 via planning and practicing home fire escape plans
 are more prepared and will therefore be
 more likely to survive a fire.
 And whereas Denton residents will make sure
 their smoke and carbon monoxide alarms
 meet the needs of all their family members,
 including those with sensory or physical disabilities.
 And the Denton Fire Department is dedicated
 to reducing the occurrence of home fires
 and home injuries through prevention and protection
 education, and whereas the 2022 Fire Prevention Week
 theme, Fire Won't Wait, Plan Your Escape,
 effectively serves to remind us it is important
 to have a home fire escape plan.
 Now therefore, I, Gerard Hutsworth,
 Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas,
 do hereby proclaim the week of October 9th
 through 15th, 2022 as Fire Prevention Week.
 And I urge all citizens of Denton to plan
 and practice a home fire escape plan
 for Fire Prevention Week 2022,
 and to support the many public safety activities
 and efforts of the Denton Fire Department.
 If we can give them a hand.
 (audience applauds)
 Come on in here, Sparky.
 Yeah.
 Oh.
 - Thank you.
 (audience chattering)
 - One, two, three.
 - One of those skits.
 (audience laughs)
 - Can we give it up for Sparky?
 - Yeah.
 (audience applauds)
 - Yeah, yeah, by all means, please, thank you.
 - If you guys get a chance, check out our Facebook page,
 it's named "Clowns on Fire" while we're standing there.
 (audience chattering)
 - If you wanna come see a show,
 check in with those schools at the table,
 they'll let you come in.
 (audience chattering)
 (audience applauds)
 - Thank you.
 - All right, I'll see you soon, thank you.
 Okay, we have Live United Month.
 If you're here for Live United Month,
 you can come on down, you're the next contestant.
 (audience laughs)
 Watch your step there.
 Hey, how are you?
 Good.
 All right, can you tell us a little bit
 about what we're recognizing
 and everyone can introduce themselves?
 - Yes, my name is Laura Behrens
 and I'm this year's board chair
 and we are recognizing Live United Month
 where we celebrate and focus on our mission
 of improving lives in Denton County.
 And we couldn't do that
 without the support of our partners,
 like the City of Denton and our 18 partner agencies.
 - Carolyn Simmons, I'm a lifetime board member.
 - Debbie Smatresk, I am a board member
 for the hardest working not-for-profit in Denton County.
 (audience laughs)
 - Randy Robinson, I'm passport chair
 and lifetime board member.
 - Michael Engel, probably the newest board member
 at United Way, looking to make a great difference
 and an impact here.
 - And Frank Dixon, board member.
 - Thank you all very much.
 Okay, great.
 So I have, well, and then where do people,
 if they wanna get plugged in, wanna learn more,
 where do they go or what do they do
 before I read the proclamation?
 - Well, they can definitely go to our website
 and get all the information there on, again, our mission
 and the different programs, our different partner agencies
 and the things that we're involved in
 in terms of the collaborative and collective projects.
 - Okay, thank you.
 Okay, and it says a proclamation
 by the mayor of the City of Denton, Texas
 to all whom these presence shall come, greetings.
 Whereas United Way of Denton County
 has been identifying Denton County's needs
 and responding to them for over 69 years.
 And whereas United Way of Denton County
 is unparalleled in the power to assemble partners,
 providers and resources to address the needs
 of neighborhoods, neighbors in crisis.
 And whereas United Way of Denton County
 leads the effort to provide greater opportunities
 for every person in Denton County
 by working with a network of nonprofits,
 governments and businesses across the county
 to respond to the community's immediate needs
 and seeking solutions to larger community-wide issues.
 Now, therefore, I, Gerard Hutzbuth,
 mayor of the City of Denton, Texas,
 do hereby declare and proclaim September 22 as,
 2022 as Live United Month
 and proudly join United Way of Denton County
 in calling on all residents of Denton
 to give, advocate and volunteer
 as we live united to build a healthier Denton County
 for all of us, if we can give them a hand.
 (audience applauding)
 Okay, here we go.
 And then we'll have one, so we're gonna take,
 we'll slide in.
 The rule, the newest important member has to stand in front.
 (audience laughing)
 - You go to the back.
 (audience laughing)
 - One, right, there you go.
 One, two, three.
 - All right, very good, thank you all very much.
 Appreciate it, very good to see you.
 Yeah, for sure.
 Thank you very much.
 Pleasure and all the good to see you.
 Yes, thank you so much, appreciate you.
 - Okay, and then we have,
 anyone here for Hunger Action Month?
 Okay.
 Great, thank you.
 How are you?
 Great, great, here you go, I'm gonna fix you.
 Yeah, they record these things, man,
 it's hard on you later.
 Okay, if you can introduce yourself
 and then tell us a little bit about what we're recognizing.
 - Thank you, mayors, council members.
 It's an honor to be here this evening
 and receive this proclamation recognizing
 Hunger Action Month.
 Every September, Terran Area Food Bank
 and our partner agencies redouble our efforts
 to educate the population and to have them take action
 against hunger as a group.
 There's much hunger in Denton.
 One in six of the population have been hungry
 in the last year.
 This Hunger Action Month is especially poignant to us
 at Terran Area Food Bank
 because it's also our 40th anniversary
 and we've been serving the city of Denton quietly,
 almost anonymously for those 40 years,
 partnering with your wonderful local organizations
 right here in the city,
 Salvation Army, Community Food Group,
 UNT Student Pantry, we provide the food.
 As Denton grows, it has a much larger strategic focus
 with us at the food bank
 and we hope to provide more and better food
 to the citizens of Denton in the coming years,
 generating a healthier community
 and hopefully with your support,
 we will accomplish that objective.
 So thank you very much.
 - Thank you, thank you for being here.
 Okay, and it says to all whom these presence
 shall come, greetings.
 Whereas hunger and poverty are issues of vital concern
 in North Texas where one in six people face hunger
 and one in every four children do not know
 where their next meal will come from.
 And whereas the city of Denton is committed
 to taking steps to combat hunger in our community
 and to provide additional resources that our citizens need.
 And whereas more than 96,500 residents
 living in the city of Denton across,
 living in cities across Denton County,
 including the city of Denton face food insecurities
 and rely on food resources and services
 provided by the Tarrant area food bank annually.
 And whereas the month of September
 is designated hunger action month
 to bring attention to food insecurity in our communities
 and enlist the public to take simple actions,
 including donating, volunteering,
 and advocating on hunger issues
 to ensure no one has to make an impossible choice
 between food and other necessities
 like housing, medicine, utilities, or childcare.
 Now therefore, our Gerard Hutzpeth Mayor
 of the city of Denton do hereby declare
 and proclaim September 2022 as hunger action month
 in the city and call this observance
 to the attention of our residents
 and to address hunger within our community.
 If we can give them a hand.
 (audience applauds)
 - And then how can, if people wanna donate,
 how can they donate or what's the best way to help?
 - To help, donations and donations of time
 through your volunteerism are always welcome.
 TAFP.org is our website and you'll find opportunities
 to volunteer at our main facility in Fort Worth
 and also the programs we offer here in the city of Denton.
 - Great, thank you for that.
 And then we'll get a quick picture here.
 All right, here we go.
 All right, thank you very much.
 Okay.
 Okay, got it.
 Okay, so we wanted to, our hearts go out
 to our sister city, Mooskies, there in Mexico.
 So I have a proclamation, no one here to receive it,
 but we are gonna translate it and send it to the mayor there.
 If you were not aware, they had major flooding there.
 And if you, and you can insert other municipalities,
 we all kind of work together and we all have struggles,
 but this one specifically to them,
 but we are sensitive to all our communities,
 municipalities that are, that may be working
 through natural disasters, those sort of things.
 But this one specifically reads a proclamation
 by the mayor of the city of Denton, Texas,
 to all whom these presents shall come greetings.
 Whereas the city of Denton, Texas
 and the city of Mooskies, Coahuila, Mexico
 has been friendship cities, friendship cities
 or ciudades, amigas, since May 2015
 and have many years of intertwined history
 and many residents sharing cultural heritage
 and family ties to Mooskies.
 And whereas the city of Mooskies has expressed,
 has experienced torrential flooding
 with over 10 inches of rain in the short period of time,
 beginning August 31st, 2022,
 displacing many of its residents
 and limiting access to electricity, running water and food.
 And whereas natural disasters cause undue hardship
 on multiple local governments and the afflicted residents
 within the United States and Mexico
 in which residents and communities rally together
 to support one another, including those in Denton
 who have organized for support,
 to support residents of Mooskies.
 And whereas as a friendship city,
 the Denton community expresses hope and encouragement
 to the residents of Mooskies and as they rebuild, repair
 and restore their homes, businesses, places of worship,
 local government buildings.
 And now therefore I, Gerard Hutzpeth,
 mayor of the city of Denton, Texas
 do hereby declare and proclaim the city of Denton's support
 for the residents of Mooskies, our friendship city
 and call on members of the community to share and support
 and appreciation of a special relationship
 between our two cities.
 If we can give them a hand.
 (audience applauds)
 I'll just stand here and you get a picture.
 - We can get it.
 Everybody, stand here real quick.
 Gentlemen, we'll get, just, here, just, get the.
 (audience laughs)
 What do you think?
 - I think Sarah don't wanna be in the picture,
 but we can, there you go.
 (audience laughs)
 - So you gotta, sit back.
 - All right.
 We can make this work.
 One, two, three.
 Got it.
 - Okay, thank you.
 Thank you very much.
 Okay, got it.
 And we have a proclamation
 for National Forensic Science Week.
 If anyone's here for that, please come on down.
 All right.
 Hey, very well.
 And so I'll let you explain what we're recognizing.
 And then if you could give me Chris Watts' password later.
 Just hack into his machine.
 - Good evening, I'm Michael Kessler,
 the Forensics and Public Safety Manager
 for the Denton Police Department.
 National Forensic Science Week,
 it's actually the 10th year that this has happened nationwide.
 National Forensic Science Week recognizes the contributions
 to our criminal justice system and investigations,
 not just by individuals, but actually by the system.
 So research, practitioners.
 And we're lucky enough here tonight
 to have representatives from the Denton Police Department,
 the Denton County Sheriff's Office.
 But we also want to recognize our state partners,
 Department of Public Safety, the FBI, their laboratories.
 And we also work very closely with some private laboratories
 that we contract work with as well.
 - If everyone wants to introduce,
 give your name or whatever you want to share.
 - Okay.
 I'm Tana Bordenstein.
 I'm part of the Evidence Management Unit.
 - Jordan Iacino, Evidence Management Unit.
 - Charlotte Dahlins, I'm the Lead Forensic Analyst.
 - Gabby Moore, Evidence Management Unit.
 - Investigator Ashley Berg
 with the Denton County Sheriff's Office.
 - Investigator David Taylor, Denton County Sheriff's Office.
 - Lieutenant Kenzie Lloyd,
 Criminal Investigations Division, Denton County.
 - Thank you.
 Appreciate y'all being here, it means a lot.
 All right, okay, it reads,
 "A proclamation by the Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas
 "to all whom these presence shall come greetings,
 "whereas forensic science is a vital public service
 "involving the use of scientific methods or expertise
 "to investigate and examine evidence.
 "And whereas the access to quality forensic analysis
 "dramatically improves the investigation
 "of criminal activity, leading to the exoneration
 "of the innocent and the prosecution of the guilty.
 "And whereas forensic science plays a critical role
 "in public outreach and crime prevention
 "and is evolving in its role as a central factor
 "of the criminal justice system community.
 "And whereas crime scene investigators,
 "evidence technicians, forensic examiners,
 "and forensic scientists provide unbiased,
 "accurate, and reliable analysis of evidence
 "recovered at the crime scene across our state and nation.
 "And now therefore, I, Gerard Hutsworth,
 "Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas,
 "encourage all citizens to support the hard work
 "of those in forensic science field
 "and do hereby declare and proclaim
 "the week of September 18th through 24th, 2022
 "as National Forensic Science Week."
 If we can give them a hand.
 (audience applauds)
 - Young slide on in.
 - I slide on over just so I don't get to be in the picture.
 That lady is back there that came and talked about.
 She's over here, and then I went out in the lobby
 and that's Dr. Bowie.
 - All right, thank you very much, appreciate it.
 Yes, so there's a couple.
 Thank you, all right, thank you all very much.
 Have a good evening, appreciate it.
 - Come on, and we'll have the data.
 Sure enough, there wasn't four.
 - Right.
 - Well, I'm sure she's here to, this'll be fun.
 - Yeah, yeah.
 - She's not all there.
 - All right.
 Okay.
 That takes us to presentations from members of the public,
 if we could play the video.
 - The Denton City Council has adopted rules of procedure,
 including a code of conduct that applies to the public,
 as well as council members.
 These rules were enacted to promote an orderly process
 and to preserve decorum.
 Speakers will have four minutes to give a scheduled report
 and four minutes to give an open mic report.
 A bell will ring when time has expired.
 If the remarks are not concluded by that time,
 the speaker will be asked to stop speaking.
 If the speaker does not cease and a second request is made,
 the mayor may request
 to have the speaker removed from the chamber.
 Speakers should not approach the dais.
 If a speaker has materials for the council,
 please notify the city secretary in advance.
 For scheduled reports,
 the council may initiate discussion or ask questions.
 For non-scheduled open mic reports,
 the council may listen.
 However, because no notice of the subject
 of the open mic report has been provided
 to the public in advance,
 the Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits discussion
 or decision by the council on non-scheduled items.
 As a result, the council may only proceed as follows
 on non-scheduled items.
 Propose to place the item on a future agenda,
 make a statement of factual policy,
 or a recitation of existing policy.
 Speakers are asked to direct all remarks and questions
 to the council as a whole and not to any individual member.
 Please refrain from making abusive, personal,
 impertinent, profane, or slanderous remarks.
 Anyone who violates the council rules of procedure
 may be immediately removed from the chamber.
 Thank you in advance.
 Copies of the rules of procedure are available
 from the city secretary.
 - Bowman, Wanda Bowman.
 Wanda Bowman.
 Not here.
 Here is Ms. Jacqueline Shaw.
 Jacqueline Shaw, no?
 Cancel, okay, got it.
 All right.
 The next speaker, Mr. Steven Dillenberg.
 Very well.
 Once you're ready, if you can give your name and address,
 your timer will start.
 - Sure, give me just a second.
 All right, my name is Steven Dillenberg,
 1004 Abbots Lane here in Denton.
 Heard you earlier tonight, Denton is committed
 to protecting the security and safety
 of everyone living within our city.
 And I'd like to believe that's true,
 but I haven't really seen a whole lot of that
 from this body, okay?
 And without getting specifically accusatory,
 I'm just gonna talk about some things
 that are kind of glaring.
 Bernie Sanders on 86, 2022,
 not usually a Bernie fan voted for Obama twice,
 Trump once, didn't vote at all in 2020
 because I don't favor one credibly accused pedophile
 over another.
 But Bernie's words were particularly alarming.
 Gallup poll said 82% of Americans don't approve
 of what is happening in Washington,
 and only 16% do, okay?
 So we've got kind of a growing murmur of disapproval
 relative to our trajectory as a country,
 and it's pretty glaring.
 There's also, he noted that there was a growing number
 of people who are credibly considering taking up arms
 against our federal government,
 and that's kind of scary too.
 Why is this happening?
 All right, so I came here to you guys last November,
 and I reported that my mom had a vaccine injury
 six days after getting this vaccine.
 And her doctor wouldn't include that in her chart,
 wouldn't include vaccine proximity to this stroke,
 which 3,736 strokes in Texas Medicare recipients
 in just the first six months, 180 days.
 All right, so I started looking into
 how I'm gonna sue for her, how I'm gonna get damages,
 and I thought it was under the Vaccine Injury Protection Act
 of 1986, but they actually changed that.
 They made a new one in 2005 that's for countermeasures.
 Okay, so these countermeasures,
 which the COVID vaccine includes,
 which your mask includes,
 these have been lumped into a different thing
 that was modified under the CARES Act that says,
 we don't get to see a jury until a judge has decided
 that we have proven willful misconduct
 with clear and convincing evidence.
 Okay, so what's willful misconduct?
 That goes beyond negligence, beyond recklessness,
 to willfully putting people in danger.
 Well, I gave you guys all a report
 that was available to the public this year in April
 that proved that Pfizer lied
 in saying there were no safety signals
 that emerged from evaluation of use of the vaccine
 in pregnant women when 28 out of 32,
 so 87.5% of pregnant women at that time
 that they knew the data for, the babies died.
 Okay, so 88% of those babies were dead.
 They said no safety signals, that's willful misconduct.
 But let's go further into that act
 and let's look at what our burden of proof
 has become in this, pretty concerning.
 Other parts, Secretary of the HHS's actions
 are not subject to judicial review.
 We've got a vaccine czar now,
 and they can say or do whatever the hell they want,
 and we can't sue them to get that overturned.
 That's wrong, it's not American.
 This is not a dictatorship.
 Two, no attorney's fees are available.
 Even if you win, even if you prove
 that they did this on purpose
 for whatever reason you can speculate,
 but even if we win, no attorney's fees will be available.
 So are you taking that case, Chris?
 No, you're not taking that case
 'cause you don't work for free, do you?
 One year from the Countermeasures Administration
 is all we have to report it to this.
 Otherwise, we can't recover injury or damages under this.
 And what's the problem there?
 They also have said that the only damages
 that are available are lost wages or medical costs.
 And if your insurance paid for anything,
 you don't get any of it.
 And you have to have a non, I'm almost finished.
 You have to have a non-treating physician's affidavit,
 meaning a doctor you didn't even see has to swear.
 No, this is a problem, and give me just a second.
 I'm almost finished.
 Sir, give me just a second.
 I'm more than fair, more than patient.
 I mean, you're not.
 It's unconstitutional that you can set the limits.
 I understand, I understand.
 You don't understand.
 Yes, I do. You don't understand anything.
 Okay, well, thank you very much.
 I appreciate you. At the end of this week,
 if you guys haven't polled our community
 to figure out how many of these people
 with a vaccine was injured,
 I'm gonna push for sedition laws to be reinstated here.
 Thank you.
 Y'all's willful misconduct is not investigating this shit.
 If we can help him.
 I'm, I'm, I'll help myself, as, as--
 Next person is Eva, Eva, Eva Greco.
 Eva Greco, sorry, I do that periodically.
 Eva Greco.
 All right.
 Good evening, ladies and, oh.
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
 Briefly on consent agenda item 221606 regarding Atmos.
 I printed all this out,
 and everywhere I see in the public interest,
 the public interest, the public interest.
 And in the end, there is no interest to the public.
 Okay.
 And maybe I don't understand all the details
 of what was in this item.
 But it did.
 If Atmos here did a test year ending December 31st, 2021,
 entitled to an additional system-wide revenues
 of $141.3 million.
 But yet, the ACSC consultants concluded
 that it should be $95.8 million.
 I don't think that's something you should compromise on.
 The compromise is $115 million,
 because no matter what the bottom line is,
 we, the residents, are gonna get another increase,
 which is not fair to us.
 We're getting increases everywhere.
 And then this is on the agenda today,
 but I received my Atmos bill yesterday,
 and on the back of the bill, it says,
 "As summer comes to a close and we begin preparing
 for cooler temperatures this fall,
 Atmos Energy wants you to be aware
 that the cost of all energy sources has increased."
 So what that means, another price increase for us.
 So what I'm asking is to think real hard
 before you approve this, before you vote yes on this.
 A recommendation is exactly what it is, a recommendation.
 And it is not always in the best interest
 of the citizens of the city of Denton.
 Thank you.
 - Thank you.
 Oh, no, no, they resolved that.
 And then Tracy Duckworth, come down.
 - And while she's coming, for those tracking along,
 the last speaker that's on the agenda
 did not need to speak.
 That was able to be resolved before they spoke.
 So if you can give your name and address,
 you have four minutes.
 - My name's Tracy Duckworth.
 I'd like to keep my address anonymous.
 - Certainly.
 - I'm here to ask again for a solution to this,
 for a solution to the overflow of people
 that cannot get a bed in the shelter.
 Even for inclement weather, when they put cots out,
 it's not enough.
 There's people everywhere.
 If you drive around, there's people everywhere,
 all over the place.
 And there's repeated people that cannot get a bed,
 cannot get a bed on repeated nights.
 Whether we open another place,
 put up more cots and more space there,
 whatever, there needs to be a solution to it.
 I know there's another facility opening in December,
 but it's not open now.
 And there's people out there suffering now.
 It's hot.
 It is hot.
 It's gross and sticky and insect-infected.
 And I don't know what to tell people.
 I don't know where to tell them to go for help.
 I really don't.
 And so that's why I'm here asking.
 If the one shelter is full, there's nowhere else.
 That's it.
 Every bed gets reassigned on Monday.
 If you're not there by about two o'clock,
 three o'clock at the latest, you do not get a bed.
 And they fill the beds, they assign them all,
 and then it's cut off.
 There are 18 beds for women.
 18.
 That's definitely not enough.
 No, we're close.
 I would also like to ask that there's a lot of my people,
 people I deal with, unsheltered,
 that want to meet with y'all, want to be heard,
 and they don't know how to go about doing that either.
 So I propose a meeting, a get-together,
 between council and unsheltered people
 that want to come and be heard,
 get to know them, because you can form any kind of committee
 that you want about trying to get the best ideas
 about problem solving for the homeless problem in Denton,
 which really does exist, I promise.
 But the people that know what the problems are
 are the ones that know it like I do.
 I know the problems of being homeless in Denton,
 because for a year, I had them all.
 I dealt with it, and so people just want to be heard.
 I'd like to email everyone when I get this put together better
 with a date, if the date's not okay, or time's not okay,
 I propose that y'all get back to me
 and we work something out, where these people can be heard.
 They deserve that much.
 Everyone deserves to be heard.
 The only thing else I know to add to this
 is it doesn't matter what kind of money
 we put into this problem, it doesn't matter.
 Everybody that won the lottery in the future
 and in the past could put all their money toward it,
 to solving homelessness in the world.
 And it's like my mom used to tell me,
 when you're cooking, you can put anything in the kitchen,
 in that pot of food, but until you put love into it,
 it's not gonna be right.
 And I didn't understand that until recently.
 We can put everything into the homeless problem,
 and the issues that we want, until somebody cares
 and we put love into the issue, it is not gonna change.
 Thank y'all.
 - Okay, thank you.
 But I do wanna, for the record, I don't know if,
 City Manager, you wanna speak on the reporting
 we get each day, because just as a point of information.
 - Yeah, Tracy, I'll go back and talk again to the MKLC,
 'cause we do get the numbers from them every day
 about the number at the shelter.
 And I'll go back and talk to them again
 about the number of beds for women
 and see if we can increase that.
 We also do have the Salvation Army
 that's for women and children,
 and they have had vacancy.
 But I'll talk to them again at the number of beds,
 and then I'm gonna talk to them again
 about total number of beds, okay?
 And you're welcome to call me here anytime.
 - Okay, that concludes,
 that section takes us to the consent agenda.
 We have one item pulled, and then we don't,
 we're not all here, so you'll just have to raise your hand
 to get your attention, so I'm gonna ignore the screen,
 just so that I can catch everyone at the same time.
 But, so first, we'll address the consent agenda,
 but for the one item that was pulled,
 one name in section, in item B,
 but I'll take a motion on the consent agenda,
 but for B.
 Is there a motion?
 Council Member McGuire?
 - I move approval, pardon,
 of the consent agenda accepting item B.
 - Okay, and it's that one name in B,
 but yes, just so we're on the same page.
 - Accepting one portion of item B that has been pulled.
 - Mayor Pro Tem.
 - I'll second, because the clarification
 is just the word that was put on it.
 - Certainly, okay.
 Motion by Council Member McGuire,
 second by Mayor Pro Tem.
 And any other discussion?
 Seeing none, Council Member McGuire, how say you?
 - I.
 - Mayor Pro Tem.
 - I.
 - Council Member Watts.
 - I.
 - Council Member Byrd.
 - I.
 - Council Member McGee.
 - I.
 - And Mayor Hutspeth is an I as well.
 That passes six zero.
 Yeah, that takes us to, there is no presentation.
 So the item, so item B, I'll call that ID 2213189,
 and it's an appointment of Dave Zoltner
 to the ethics board alternate position three.
 And so I'll turn it over to the staff.
 - Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
 Again, I'm Rosa Rios and I'm your city secretary.
 We do have for the board of ethics,
 David Zoltner was nominated to the alt three position
 by Council Member Beck for the unexpired 2021-2023 term,
 which covers the period September 1, 2021
 through August 31, 2023.
 This position would come up for either reappointment
 or for a new appointment again on any time before
 or after September 1, 2023.
 And that position again would be an alternate position.
 - Okay, so any discussion or questions for staff?
 Seeing none, then I, yeah, is that Council Member Beck?
 Mayor Pro Tem Beck.
 - I move approval.
 - Is there a second?
 Second by Council Member Byrd.
 So motion by Mayor Pro Tem,
 second by Council Member Byrd, discussion?
 Any discussion?
 Seeing none, I will say that I'm not going to support
 this nomination and I think it's important to say why.
 The board of ethics does not have a method
 by which a person can request who sits.
 There's an obvious conflict provision,
 but there's not a provision for conflicts otherwise.
 And that's concerning to me for this particular appointee
 because of the history he's had.
 And also I have concerns with respect to this body
 and it's in his activity in the past
 with respect to resigning, being reappointed.
 And then there are some other concerns,
 but it really goes down to the public trust.
 And that's admitted in his statements
 and in the public statements.
 And I think it's important that if you're sitting
 on that board, that you not have a record
 against the document that you're supporting,
 that you're using as your guiding light.
 And he's on the record of saying
 that he could not support that document.
 And so that gives me concern.
 And there's no mechanism for which someone
 to go before the board would have an ability
 to raise those concerns and have them heard
 by a neutral party.
 And that is what gives me concerns.
 And I'm gonna go back and try to advocate
 that we put that in place so that it's not an issue.
 So that if you go before the ethics board,
 you have an opportunity to raise concerns
 and neutral party would hear those
 and then make a decision.
 Well, Mayor Pro Tem.
 - I'm gonna do what I've done before.
 I'm gonna caution the members of this dais
 to be careful about making character statements
 about people in the public.
 - Well, I'm not sure who that's directed to.
 I gave factual information, but thank you very much.
 And so we have a motion by Mayor Pro Tem,
 second by Councilman Byrd.
 And no other discussion.
 Mayor Pro Tem, I'll say you.
 - Aye.
 - Councilman Byrd.
 - Aye.
 - Councilor Watts.
 - A nay.
 - Nay.
 - Councilor McGee.
 - Aye.
 - Councilor McGuire.
 - Aye.
 - Mayor Houspeth has a nay, passes four to two.
 That concludes the consent agenda.
 Takes us to
 items for individual consideration.
 The first is item A, ID 221653,
 consider adoption of ordinance of the City of Denton,
 determining the public use, need, and necessity
 for the acquisition of various
 permanent sanitary sewer easements
 and temporary construction easements
 generally located near the intersection of Corbin Road
 and the east line of I-35W, then northeasterly
 to the west line of Bonnie Bray Road, situated in west,
 survey asterisk number 1174.
 I'm close.
 Sir, hey.
 - Good evening.
 - Oh, I'm sorry.
 I see why you were, yeah, I got you.
 Go ahead, go ahead, and then we'll come back
 to the other stuff.
 - Thank you.
 - Yeah.
 Sorry, I turned too many pages.
 That's why there was a delay.
 So, we'll take up six and then we'll go back
 to the public hearings.
 (papers rustling)
 Oh, and if you're not, if I can go through the other stuff.
 I'm sorry, I didn't give you any time to ramp up.
 So, if I need to just put that down at table at.
 - I didn't know if you were going back or?
 - No, no, no, yeah, go right ahead.
 And then we'll come back.
 We'll go back to the other stuff.
 Sorry.
 I gotta start putting Post-It notes
 or something to flag the sections.
 (papers rustling)
 Is it right?
 - Sure.
 There you go.
 - It's item six, items for individual consideration.
 Item A.
 - It's not going to formal.
 - Good evening.
 My name is Mark Laird.
 I'm the Senior Real Estate Specialist
 for the Development Service Department.
 The item before you is related
 to the Dry Fork Sanitary Sewer Project.
 The Dry Fork Sanitary Sewer Project
 is for the construction of a 24 inch sanitary sewer line
 and related purposes.
 And is generally located at the intersection
 of Corbin Road, I-35W, along the east line of I-35W.
 It extends to the east line of Bonnie Bray.
 It is for accommodating the growth
 of the area it will be serving.
 The project requires sanitary sewer improvements
 to be constructed to provide capacity relief
 and address the wastewater demands of the developing area.
 In order for the improvements to be constructed,
 sanitary sewer easements
 and temporary construction easements are required.
 The easements are planned to cover
 three different property owners
 of the project's affected area.
 Staff recommends approval of the item
 as it would authorize the city manager, city attorney,
 to acquire the necessary property interest.
 Also, in the event of negotiations fail
 or a settlement cannot be reached,
 it would allow the city attorney or the designee
 to file intimate doping proceedings
 to acquire the property interest.
 Upon the reading of a favorable motion and a second,
 staff will begin displaying the legal descriptions
 for each property interest needed for the project.
 I stand for any questions that you may have.
 - Okay, is there any questions for staff?
 Seeing none, I'll take a motion and I'm not sure.
 - You went to grab it.
 - Yeah, the motion was sent to council online,
 but we're running a little bit behind.
 You went to go grab the motion,
 so I'll be back in a minute with those.
 - Got it.
 Okay.
 Councilman McGuire.
 - I move that the city of Denton,
 after having made the offers required by state law,
 use the power of eminent domain if needed
 to acquire various permanent sanitary sewer easements
 and temporary construction easements,
 generally located along the east line of I-35W,
 near and north of Corbin Road,
 extending northeasterly to the west line of Bonnie Bray Road
 situated in the West Sadgavis,
 survey abstract number 1174 in the city
 and county of Denton, Texas,
 and being more particularly described in Exhibit A,
 to the ordinance now under consideration
 on the screens overhead,
 now being displayed for the audience,
 all of which are for a valid public use
 necessary to provide for the construction,
 operation, and maintenance
 of the municipal sanitary sewer system improvements
 necessary for the dry fork sanitary sewer project
 to serve the public and citizens
 of the city of Denton, Texas.
 It's coming.
 - I'm sorry.
 - It's coming.
 There we go.
 - My apologies.
 - Sure.
 Okay.
 Is that, that's everything you're ready to flip through?
 Right.
 Okay.
 Yeah.
 - Sorry.
 All right.
 Parcel one, sanitary sewer easement.
 Parcel one, temporary construction easement.
 Parcel two, sanitary sewer easement.
 Parcel two, temporary construction easement.
 Parcel three, sanitary sewer easement.
 Parcel three, temporary construction easement.
 Parcel four, sanitary sewer easement.
 Parcel four, temporary construction easement.
 And that is it.
 - Okay.
 All right.
 So we have a motion by Councilman McGuire.
 Second by Mayor Pro Tem.
 Any other discussion?
 And you need, so just help me orient me.
 So we need to.
 Yeah.
 Okay.
 Got it.
 All right.
 So Councilman McGuire, I'll say you.
 - Aye.
 - Mayor Pro Tem.
 - Aye.
 - Councilman Watts.
 - Aye.
 - Councilman Burke.
 - Aye.
 - Councilman McGee.
 - Aye.
 - Mayor Huts, with an aye as well, that passes six zero.
 Thank you.
 Appreciate your flexibility.
 Sorry about that.
 Takes us to our public hearings, 5A is the first and it's ID 22252, hold a public hearing,
 receive citizen input on fiscal year 2022-23 proposed budget.
 - Good evening, Mayor, City Council, Cassie Ogden, CFO.
 Here to give you a brief presentation regarding the proposed budget for FY23.
 So you've seen this slide several times before, but we are proposing a $0.56 tax rate for
 the next tax year.
 So slightly between our no new revenue rate of $0.51 and our voter approval rate of $0.60.
 You can see the tax rate history on this slide, we've slowly been decreasing that tax rate
 over the last several years.
 The average tax bill will be increasing based on the average taxable value of homes increasing.
 So the average residential property owner will see about a $13.75 a month increase on
 their city property taxes.
 Again, just to recap, the annual increase is about $165 a year based on the average
 taxable value of $307,283.
 No rate changes proposed for FY23 for any of our utility funds.
 So water, wastewater, electric, and solid waste rates will remain the same for FY23.
 You saw this last week, just an update of the general fund forecast based on our certified
 values that we received.
 Increase does include funding tiers 1 through 4 as we discussed previously, does not fund
 tier 5, leaves approximately $6,000 of net income staying above or at the fund balance
 targets that we have set.
 And substantial increases projected for, not substantial, but increases projected for sales
 tax based on current year collection rates.
 So we've discussed these in depth multiple times now, but again, tier 1 includes several
 positions, community services, police, police officers tied to the study that was conducted
 in 2019.
 So we have been increasing the number of police officers based on those, the study recommendation.
 Tier 2 jailer positions, a business partner for HR based on the increasing needs of the
 city, increasing staff.
 Tier 2 includes positions for fire, police, legal, community services, and libraries.
 Tier 3, again, planning to be funded, positions for planning, building inspections, public
 safety dispatch, and parks.
 And those positions with an asterisk do have an offsetting revenue associated with them.
 And then tier 4, council opted to fund tier 4 during our budget workshop in August.
 So the additional 1% COLA increase for FY23 for city employees, bringing that total COLA
 increase to 4%, and then increases to our cash sponsorship program and then our in-kind
 co-sponsorship program.
 As I stated earlier, tier 5 remains unfunded.
 So several 5.5 positions for libraries, police, and parks.
 You'll likely see these coming back next year during FY24 budget discussions.
 Just briefly wanted to give you an update of our utility funds.
 So based on the discussions we've had with General Fund and the additional 1% COLA, we
 have updated the utility forecast.
 We've also updated the end of year estimate for FY22, so wanted to provide that just briefly
 to you.
 So electric fund, you can see the estimate for the current year.
 We are anticipating a budget amendment.
 That should be coming to you next week for review.
 But did increase the personnel expenses for the additional 1%.
 Same for water, again, just updated that estimate column for 2022 based on where we're projected
 to land the year this year, and then added that additional 1% in the personnel number
 for FY23.
 No other changes for the water fund.
 And then same for wastewater, updated the estimate column for 22 to end this current fiscal year.
 You can see that net income of $9.3 million, that's again, that cost participation for
 the projects.
 And then again, expensing it in FY23, we did include the 1% in personnel costs for 23,
 the additional 1%.
 And then for the solid waste fund, you do have some items later on today's agenda for
 some agreements for solid waste.
 This per format includes those agreements.
 So just wanted to give you an update of what those revenues would look like if council
 approves those agreements later tonight.
 And then just a quick recap, I know we've talked extensively over the summer about the
 capital improvement plan, but again, proposing all types of different projects for general
 government.
 So you can see our fleet and additions and replacements.
 We do have, we are requesting to replace our ERP system, which is our accounting software.
 And then facility projects, as well as parks maintenance, streets and traffic.
 Which has some miscellaneous projects as well as tech services.
 So proposed new funding of 86 million for general government.
 And then you can see the breakdown of between revenue funds, impact fees, and then GEO and
 COs.
 Again, just a recap of the utility fund capital improvement program, $229 million proposed
 for FY23 for electric water, wastewater, solid waste, and airport.
 And the capital budget is available on our website along with the proposed FY23 budget.
 And so following today's public hearings, council's scheduled for budget adoption next
 week on September 27th, and I'm happy to take any questions.
 - Okay, questions for staff.
 Councilman Watts.
 - Yeah, Cassie, on the, and it may bleed into agenda item B, but just for the public's education.
 I remember a couple of years back, state legislature, everybody was talking about property tax relief,
 property tax relief, and they capped the amount that cities or municipalities or political
 subdivisions can raise their property taxes percentage-wise before it has to be put before
 the public for a vote.
 And I think that cap was, was it 4%, 5%, what was it 6?
 - 3.5%.
 - 3.5%.
 Well, so, and Mr. City Attorney, if I'm out of some type of posting, just let me know.
 So ours, according to the agenda item posting, is 10.28%.
 All right, so that's an increase of 10.28% from last year's budget.
 So if somebody looks at that and goes, "Wait a minute, why is this not having to go before
 the public for a vote?"
 Could you or someone explain just very briefly that there's a provision that if you don't
 hit that 3%, that somehow you can roll over that excess to subsequent years.
 So that means we didn't hit that cap however many years back.
 So is it, could you just briefly--
 - Yes, we have not used the rollover rate in the last three years, so we are applying
 it this year, so we are not going to meet that voter approval rate, the 60 cents.
 We're going down to 56 cents, which is why it's not require a vote by the public.
 - And that rate is because we're getting some relief from the previous years where we did
 not exceed that or we did not come up to it.
 So I just want to make sure that somebody might read it and go, "Okay, wait a minute."
 And just to educate the public on this is why we're doing this because we held the tax
 rate lower for the last two or three years where we didn't hit that cap.
 - Yes.
 - Okay.
 All right.
 Thank you.
 - Any other questions?
 Just one.
 The white papers that city staff created, are those online or are those where, if someone
 wanted to kind of dig into the details of the numbers, where would they, is that posted
 or...
 - They are available through the agenda backup posted on the website on the budget workshop.
 So August 6th, 2022 meeting, they are a separate exhibit called White Paper Supplementals.
 - And that's August 6th, 2022.
 - Yes.
 - Got it.
 Okay.
 Good.
 Thank you for that.
 Any other questions?
 - Just one follow up.
 - Sure.
 - Maybe for the next meeting, which is when we take the vote, if you could maybe provide
 just a real brief slide of maybe the last two or three years, what our tax rate, what
 we were at and then why we're able to go up, just sort of give a roadmap of how we're
 getting there.
 That'd be great.
 Thank you.
 - Okay.
 Anything else?
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 And takes us...
 And just note on these public hearings, staff has condensed the other, well, after the budget
 has condensed the presentations because of the amount of other public hearings and individual
 items for consideration.
 So just, that's why, please ask questions, they are prepared, but the slide count has
 been truncated a bit.
 All right.
 So that concludes A, takes us to, oh, we got to open the public hearing.
 Is there anyone that would want to speak on item A?
 That's the presentation you just saw on the budget.
 Anyone want to speak to the budget?
 And no need to fill out a card in advance.
 You can come up and speak and then fill it out afterwards.
 - Eva Greco, 802 West Oak Street.
 I'm just going to speak briefly on this.
 I thank you, Chris Watts, for that explanation and clarification for the public, which we
 were not aware of or we might've forgotten about that.
 He's ignored me when I spoke earlier and he still voted for the at most increase.
 So I'm going to try again.
 Just because you can raise it doesn't mean you have to, or doesn't mean even that you
 should.
 As a citizen in this town, I have, let's see, the rent went up because my landlord's expenses
 went up, groceries went up because the price of groceries went up.
 So that expense went up.
 So that expense is thrown on me.
 Gas is more expensive.
 So that expense went on me.
 So everybody else's expenses are coming onto me.
 Who do I give my expenses to?
 Nobody.
 And you're going to sit here, mayor and council, and say, "Well, we didn't raise taxes, property
 taxes for two years or three years, how many every year, but we're going to raise it now
 on top of all the other expenses."
 Where is that fair to the citizens and the residents of this city?
 Thank you.
 Is there anyone else who would want to speak on item 5A?
 Do I have to give my name and address?
 Yes.
 I mean, if you're going to, I have to ask, you can ignore it.
 Christine Bray, 1204 Cordell Street.
 I just wanted to maybe put in an ask for next year's budget.
 When I review the budget, one thing that is difficult for me is trying to understand where
 the city's money is going is that debt services covers a lot of sins.
 I know that there are different portions of the city that rely more or less on debt funding.
 And I would love it if it were possible to have debt funding receive a breakdown of,
 we are spending this much on servicing debt for this department.
 Because as it is now, I see that Streets is spending 19 million, and frankly, I know that
 that does not accurately reflect Streets spending.
 Much of that is buried in bond issuances for capital projects, and it would just be great
 if I could see what the breakdown was on that.
 So just a suggestion for the next one.
 Appreciate you all.
 Thank you.
 Is there anyone else who would care to speak on item 5A regarding the budget?
 Great.
 I'll close that public hearing, and nothing to do there, right?
 I mean, yeah, no action for us.
 Got it.
 So item B, ID 22253, hold a public hearing on a proposed property tax increase that will
 not exceed 57 cents per 100 valuation.
 The proposed rate will exceed the no new revenue tax rate of 51 cents per 100, but will not
 exceed the voter approval tax rate of 60 cents per 100.
 And I'll open the public hearing.
 Good evening, Cassie Ogden, CFO.
 Just briefly, same slides you have seen previously.
 So again, the assessed values, we did receive a certified estimate this year instead of
 certified values in July.
 So the CAD has been keeping us updated through September as the assessed values change.
 So right now we have the total assessed values at $16.9 billion, with 2% under review.
 And so same slide you saw in the previous public hearing, again, overall tax rate has
 been decreasing over the last several years, however, the average taxable value obviously
 has been increasing.
 So we are projecting an increase to the average residential property owner of about $165 per
 year.
 Just again, while the tax rate, based on the average taxable value, property owners will
 see an increase.
 Utility funds are having no rate increases proposed for next year.
 So water, wastewater, electric, and solid waste rates remain the same for FY23.
 And again, Council is expected or is planned to adopt the budget next Tuesday, September
 27th.
 And happy to answer any questions you have.
 Questions for Seth.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Considering the occurrences that happened at the Denton County Appraisal District, do
 we expect any timeline delays or should the citizens expect any date changes from the
 occurrences?
 I don't want to, I just lumped them all together.
 But can we expect any delays or everything's going to proceed smoothly from the city standpoint?
 For going forward?
 Yes.
 For next year?
 Yes.
 Or just from this point?
 Well, from this, for this year, but also going forward.
 I haven't heard anything.
 They did provide an email this week about a new proposed budget that they are, that we
 will be sending in an informal staff report to council this week.
 So, but I haven't had any other communication with anyone from the CAD about any timelines.
 Okay.
 But what you know will be coming out in an ISR that the public and council will be able
 to read this week?
 Yes, on Friday.
 Okay.
 Excellent.
 Thank you.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 Councilman Watts.
 Thank you, Cassie.
 If you could go back to the slide that shows the breakdown, I think it's one of your first
 slides.
 Sure.
 Just for the public to, let's do the next one, where you showed the app right here.
 Now, when you say average taxable value, is that everything or is that just residentially
 flagged accounts?
 It's residential.
 Okay.
 So then the 165 a year or the 10%, that's just on residential accounts.
 Correct.
 Do we have what the commercial was as far as the increase?
 I don't have that off the top of my head, but I can find that for you.
 Okay.
 And just so that people understand, this is an average.
 So that if you're assessed values, even on a residential, if it's not your homestead,
 well, if it is your homestead, it's capped at 10%, given the certain rules.
 So that's what you're capped at.
 Others, if you went up 20% or 30%, your taxes are going up 20 or 30%.
 So I just want to just clarify that this is the average and that not everybody's assessed
 values stayed at 10% increase.
 Some went down and then some went up considerably more than that.
 So just want to try to put that into context.
 Thank you.
 Okay.
 Any other questions?
 Seeing none.
 Thank you very much.
 Appreciate it.
 That takes us to item C. Oh, there is a public hearing.
 Is anyone want to speak on item 5B?
 Item 5B.
 Seeing none.
 I'll close the public hearing.
 Take us to item C, which is Z210019A, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of
 ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification
 from razor ranch overlay district to mixed use neighborhood district, thereby amending
 the razor ranch overlay district concept plan and zoning map exhibits.
 And I'll open the public hearing.
 Good evening, mayor, members of the council.
 It's not sharing, I'm sorry.
 Okay, good evening, mayor, members of the council, Mia Hines, associate planner.
 This item is a rezoning for two parcels within the razor ranch overlay south campus.
 The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcels from the razor ranch overlay district
 to the mixed use neighborhood district.
 The property is located just west of Bonnie Bray between Linden Avenue, I'm sorry, Linden
 Street, Linden Drive there to the north and Panhandle Street there to the south.
 And as a part of this request, these two parcels will be subject to the straight MN standards
 as opposed to the razor ranch overlay standards.
 So this would effectively amend the exhibits approved with the razor ranch overlay district.
 So the full analysis was provided in your backup, but just to hit a highlight point
 for staff's review of this rezoning case, the proposed request from the RRO to the MN
 zoning district is consistent with the Denton 2040 comprehensive plans future land use map
 designation of regional mixed use.
 Specifically, that district is meant to provide for residential along with other items at
 the highest level of intensity.
 Given the existing single family zoning district and a development to the east of this property,
 this mixed use neighborhood district would serve as sort of a more cohesive land use
 transition from the density provided within the razor ranch overlay district to that existing
 subdivision there to the east.
 And so as a part of this request, staff did perform public outreach.
 And at this time of this presentation, we have not heard any responses in opposition
 or in favor.
 And with that, staff is recommending approval of this request as presented.
 The planning and zoning commission did also hear this and they recommended approval as
 well.
 At this time, I'll take any questions or comments you may have.
 Okay.
 And is this your first time?
 Yes, sir.
 Yeah, you did great.
 Thank you.
 Very good.
 All right.
 Thank you very much.
 Welcome.
 Okay.
 Questions for staff?
 Seeing any questions?
 Nope.
 Okay.
 Right.
 That's right.
 Heck yes.
 And then, so I have a card for the applicant and they have, if, Amy Bassett, if you'll
 come up, you have, is it 10 minutes if it's just one?
 Is that right?
 Am I right?
 I promise I won't take that.
 Okay.
 Very good.
 Mayor Hatsbeth, council members, glad to be here tonight.
 Amy Bassett, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201.
 I brought a brief presentation, but I heard you say truncated slides, so unless you need
 me to put it in and show you, I'm not going to.
 I just want to say briefly that this project is really to facilitate a neighborhood scale
 pharmacy and some medical offices, which would both be permitted in the Razor Ranch Overlay
 District.
 However, by zoning out of the Razor Ranch Overlay District, we do have increased landscape percentages
 as well as tree canopy coverage and some lower parking counts, which Razor Ranch has a significant
 amount of parking and we don't feel that is all necessary in this specific development.
 It is right along Bonnie Bray and we did mail a letter out to all the neighbors that were
 within the 500-foot range and invited them to reach out with questions or concerns and
 did not hear from anybody and I'm happy to answer any questions.
 Okay.
 Questions for the applicant?
 Councilman Watts.
 Amy, good to see you.
 You too.
 On the, so based upon the staff presentation and the backup, the request for rezoning is
 sort of a, it's going to be just a regular type of zoning classification, which means
 any of the uses that are present in the code for that zoning classification could are permitted
 by right unless they have a SUP designation, is that correct?
 That's a great question actually and that was included in my slides, but the property
 owner is deed restricting it to medical office, medical clinic, and medical related retail,
 i.e. a pharmacy.
 So you say deed restricting it, but are you saying that they're willing and would be agreeable
 to if in a zoning case that, because there's a lot of uses other than that that could be
 there, and they're just saying, "Hey, we don't want any of those other uses.
 We're willing to say this is what we want there and this is what we'll restrict it to."
 Is that what I'm hearing?
 That is what you're hearing.
 We believe that's an appropriate scale and use for the transition to the neighborhood
 to the other side of Bonnie Bray.
 The property owner is here with me if you'd like to ask him directly Virgil Strange, but
 all of my conversations with him have been that this will be deed restricted to those
 uses only.
 Okay.
 All right.
 Thank you.
 Okay.
 Any other questions?
 Seeing none.
 Thank you.
 So I will take, well, it's public hearing.
 Anyone care to speak?
 You're more than welcome to do so and fill out a card after the fact, so anyone would
 care to speak on this item?
 Seeing none.
 I'll close the public hearing.
 I'll take a motion or additional questions.
 Councilor Watts?
 Just a real quick question.
 Yeah.
 It's my understanding the backup, this past planning and zoning, I think it was unanimously
 whatever the count was.
 I think four, five, six, zero or something like that.
 Is that correct?
 The planning and zoning commissions was?
 Yes.
 Yes, sir.
 Did they put a restriction in the recommendation coming to us of the medical facilities and
 the like as Ms. Bissett had stated, or did it come with all these uses that would be
 available under MN?
 It is with all these uses, it would be the straight MN district.
 I will add there is a gas well to the south and so some uses are restricted based on our
 setback requirements, but it would be, they would be allowed to develop any use permitted
 within the MN district.
 Okay.
 Thank you very much.
 Appreciate it.
 Great presentation.
 Thank you.
 Mr. City Attorney.
 Yes.
 Mr. City Attorney, as far as, because I think we ran into this with, because of our new
 code that we can't really restrict zoning cases to specific uses as we used to that
 somehow it's got to be something different.
 So is that, where are we on that or like, I mean, she said he's willing to do a did
 restriction.
 I'm assuming that also if we're able to do it on a zoning restriction.
 And I just want to verify that they're okay with that.
 If we're able to do it on zoning restriction, because I don't want to do something that's
 going to hurt the applicant.
 So I just want to make sure that we're clear on that.
 But I don't know if we're able to do that based upon some of our prior experience.
 Maybe I can cover the backwards in time and Tina can speak to what's coming.
 Yeah, that's correct.
 We got rid of the overlay concept with straight zoning.
 So it would have to be a plan development in order to put any condition on that.
 We got to do something because I mean, nobody wants to come in and do a plan develop.
 I mean, I don't want to go back to a plan development on this.
 So I mean, I trust this, I trust the developer they're going to do what they said they're
 going to do.
 Yet I'm just saying in the future, how do we, if they're saying they're willing to
 restrict it to that, how do we do without going through this whole plan development
 issue?
 Well, and happy to address that.
 So Tina Fergens, deputy director of development services and planning director.
 So you obviously the applicant is proposing to deed restrict the property and as you're
 well aware, if we do not enforce deed restrictions in this case, again, when we're evaluating
 zoning districts, we need to look at all of the uses that are allowed within it.
 My recommendation would not be to limit the zoning just to allow one or two uses on that
 property.
 If the zoning is appropriate for MN district on this property, then it should be appropriate
 to allow all the uses that are within that zoning district.
 If council were wanting to restrict that, it would have to come back as a plan development
 district request related to that.
 We are currently in the process of working on some amendments to the DDC to be able to
 address opportunities for plan development districts.
 But in this case and with any other case, I would not recommend to council that we,
 as part of a zoning action, limiting it to one or two uses on the property.
 Okay.
 And I appreciate that mayor, if I could, yes, when I look down through these uses, pretty
 wide ranging.
 I mean, I see a city landfill can be put on here on this use and they said, I'm looking
 at the right ones as a landfill city owned permitted.
 Is that right?
 No.
 Okay.
 I've got the wrong chart.
 Yeah.
 Okay.
 Okay.
 No.
 I think we normally require public.
 No, no, no.
 I'm sorry.
 I was looking at the wrong chart.
 You got some blanks.
 You got some non blanks.
 I'm trying to figure this out.
 Okay.
 So yeah.
 So you're looking at bringing something forward that helps us navigate these waters a little
 bit better.
 That is correct.
 Okay.
 Good.
 Yep.
 Thanks.
 That's all I have.
 Okay.
 Any other questions?
 Seeing none.
 I don't know if I close the public hearing.
 So if there's any public comment, seeing none, I'll close that just in case I didn't close
 it before.
 I'll take a motion or additional questions.
 I'll move.
 Councilman McGuire.
 Oh, sorry.
 I move approval.
 Councilman Watts.
 I'll second.
 Motion by Councilman McGuire and second by Councilman Watts.
 Any other discussion?
 Councilman McGuire, how's that you?
 Aye.
 Councilman Watts.
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Aye.
 Councilman McGee.
 Aye.
 Councilman Burke.
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutsworth, it's an aye as well, passes six zero.
 Thank you very much.
 That takes us to item 5D, Z22004B, hold a public hearing, consider adoption of ordinance
 of the City of Denton, Texas regarding an amendment to Razor Ranch Overlay District
 by amending the development standards regarding the number of locations of multifamily dwelling
 units within the Razor Ranch South Campus encompassing approximately 257 acres generally located
 south of West University Drive.
 Good evening again, Mayor, Members of the Council, Mia Hines, Associate Planner.
 This item is a zoning text amendment within the Razor Ranch South Campus regarding development
 standards and the maximum permitted amount of multifamily dwelling units permitted within
 that sub area.
 Currently, as the code is written, up to 1,800 multifamily units are permitted within the
 Razor Ranch South Campus mixed use district.
 The applicant is proposing to increase that from 1,800 to 2,000, so it's a 200 difference
 there.
 As a part of this request, they aren't proposing to allow for multifamily to be developed anywhere
 that it's not already permitted, just further clarifying the language and then of course
 asking to increase from 1,800 to 2,000.
 And so again, the backup or the staff analysis provided the criteria for approval and staff's
 review items for this case.
 Of note, just wanted to mention that the future land use map designation for this property
 is regional mixed use and again, that is to allow for the development of residential at
 the highest level of intensity.
 So if there is anywhere to ask for increased density, it would be where we want to promote
 the highest level of intensity and density for those uses.
 And so this request is in line with that future land use map designation.
 As a part of this, staff did do public outreach and we have not received any responses in
 opposition to this request.
 We have received one in favor, the owner of the Razor Cottages, which is a residential
 development within the Razor Ranch South District, but other than that, we had not received any
 responses.
 With that, staff is recommending approval and the Planning and Zoning Commission did
 review this case and are recommending approval as well.
 I will stand for any questions that you have at this time.
 Okay.
 I'll open the public hearing questions for staff.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Thank you.
 So this is to increase the unit count up to 2,000.
 In general, from the earlier plans, what concept areas were we wanting to take the 200 from
 is it single family, is it retail?
 What was sort of the old concept to the new concept for that?
 Was it Section 2?
 I think it was.
 Anyway, it doesn't matter.
 What's the new concept versus the old concept?
 So as a part of this, they are not changing the concept plan at all.
 So the multifamily permitted or where the multifamily was designed and conceptually
 designed to go before, it would be in those same general areas.
 This is only asking for that density to increase, so for more units to be permitted within those
 areas.
 So is it smaller units, taller units?
 If we're not changing anything, how are we getting more units?
 That would be up to the applicant.
 I believe she would be able to answer that question as to how they intend on designing
 that and developing that piece.
 I'll add that the site plans are designs for each site, so it isn't that we have established
 site plans for the entirety of the Razor Ranch South Campus.
 It's just conceptually this is where we had approved for multifamily to be allowed, if
 that makes sense.
 Yeah.
 I think, I mean, in general, it's not a big ask, but I was just curious conceptually what
 we're thinking to adjust to get 200 units.
 I think the applicant can answer that.
 Okay.
 Any other questions?
 See none?
 Okay.
 And so, Amy, if you can come up and you'll have 10 minutes.
 Thank you.
 I am going to display a slide for this, just I think it will help visually, but I'll be
 quick.
 I don't think I did that right.
 Can you all see my slide?
 No.
 No.
 Ron should be close by.
 Oh, there's Steve.
 We're good.
 Perfect.
 All right, Amy, visit again 109 North Elm, Denton 76201.
 Just to kind of boil this down for you very briefly, what we're asking for and how it
 affects the overall concept plan for Council Member Beck, the Razor Ranch Overlay District
 is an incredibly complex set of ordinances that's over 200 pages, I believe, at this
 point in time with many, many amendments, but when you boil it down to the kind of base
 of where it began, it is 15 pages of text, and within that 15 pages of text, the various
 land divisions were identified, the marketplace being on the north, the south campus obviously
 being what we're contemplating today, a portion of that, criteria for approving a site plan,
 development standards, and each sub-district also called out the allowable land uses within
 that sub-district, and there were three primary sub-districts in the south campus, still are,
 the town center, the RR2 district, and the south mixed use district.
 Among those three districts, the south mixed use district is kind of mixed use, meaning
 each parcel had its own list of land uses, if you will, and so to answer your question
 specifically, there are three parcels that had a number of land uses listed that we thought
 might develop in a commercial way or an office way that are more likely now to develop in
 a multi-family type setting, and so it's not that we're changing the land use on any specific
 parcel, it's just that we think that a few of the parcels that had some flexibility in
 them may be more likely to develop with multi-family considering the current market and climate.
 To talk a little bit more about that, we are looking at increasing the density by 200 units
 within the multi-family density zone, which is a district or an area that's defined within
 the south campus that is intended for a higher concentration of dwelling units, and we're
 looking at the increase going within that zone specifically, and I think an aerial may
 help with that in just one minute, so we're looking to amend just that 15 pages, within
 that 15 pages there's a couple of sentences in there where we would increase the total
 allowance from 1800 to 2000.
 Those 2000 must be within the density zone, and then we're also looking to clarify some
 language that we all believe was the intent of the ordinance from the beginning, which
 is that other sub-districts that say multi-family in the list of allowable land uses, we're
 just clarifying that if it's outside of the density zone, the remaining number could go
 there, or they could go within the density zone.
 It's considered a corrective text, so just to kind of give you a feel for what the density
 zone means, this is the 10-acre park, public park, that was dedicated by Razor Ranch to
 the city of Denton, and it's interior to the site, and you can see the multi-family development
 occurring around it, where all of the park amenities, trails, pedestrian amenities are
 within the interior, kind of the donut hole of that site, intended to provide the rooftops
 that will support the commercial and retail that surround it and are closer to 380 and
 I-35, and that is my very brief presentation, but I'm happy to answer any additional questions.
 Thank you.
 We'll go back to you, Mayor Pro Tem.
 Any follow-up?
 Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
 So, I guess what you're saying is that you don't think that the distribution is going
 to support retail and the other uses that might have gone into that section.
 You really are just wanting to target the ... You're not really locating it to a specific
 area per se, but just by taking it to 2,000 multi-family and saying, "Okay, we're really
 just clarifying where we think the market is going," but correct me if I'm wrong, that
 actually precludes the other uses from coming in if we now say that it's 2,000 multi-family?
 It does not.
 It does not.
 The same list of allowable land uses applies to each lot, so any of the potential developments
 that could have occurred there previously still can.
 We're just seeing the demand, especially on the interior lots.
 They just don't have a lot of visibility or frontage for a retail or high visibility type
 location that they might be looking for, and there's quite a bit of that that still remains
 in Razor Ranch that is showing that retail and commercial interest, so it's not going
 away.
 It's just we're looking at how the distribution is occurring, and we believe that a little
 more density inside that zone that is intended for the residential is how it's naturally
 unfolding.
 Okay.
 Thank you very much.
 Okay.
 Any other questions?
 Councilor Watts?
 Yeah, and first of all, if none of you have been out to the park, of course, heat of the
 summer gets a little difficult with the watering, but that is a wonderful amenity out in that
 area, and I can see why people want to go there because of that particular amenity.
 I think as the density increases, and you probably can attest to this, you will see
 an increase in retail or some type of restaurant desire because you've got more people.
 We all talk about walkability.
 That's what you've got there.
 You've got a major grocery store there.
 You've got restaurants there.
 I think you'll get other retail spaces there, so 200 units in addition, I mean, those will
 fit on what, 10 acres, or depending on how tall they go up, but you're right.
 It doesn't preclude, like if the demand increases for other uses, they just won't get built.
 You just want the ability to do that if that demand continues to be there, so yeah.
 I think it's, I mean, when you look at the units that are being built out there, I mean,
 those are nice units.
 Some of them are senior living.
 Some of them are, so yeah.
 They are, and they're really elevating the quality of diversity in housing that's available
 in Denton, and I think that's not a bad thing, and I can tell you that I represent other
 property owners in Razor Ranch, and we're definitely seeing a lot of retail and commercial activity
 as well.
 Yeah, good.
 Thank you.
 That's it, Mayor.
 Okay.
 I'll say this, and this is just personal, from a conversation I had with the, and I
 can find his email from about three years ago, the gentleman Fidelis that talked about, hey,
 the need to add the residential component, so not new.
 What is concerning, though, for me, and staff puts it on their presentation, that road that
 runs from University Drive into, what is that, Town Center Boulevard or whatever, I was told
 that was going to get put in, and no dirt has moved, not one ounce, and that's a problem
 for me.
 I can tell you that those civil plans are almost approved right now, and my client Fidelis
 is dying to turn dirt out there, so it is coming.
 Yeah, I hope so, right?
 It's one of those things.
 You're told something, and I get it.
 I'll give you two years for the pandemic, but it's been over that, and I'll find the
 email and forward it to you when I met with him and walked it and talked all those things,
 and we sat down, and he explained, hey, the Town Center concept doesn't work, and it's
 lots of parking, and here's this area where it's not working.
 I remember the conversation succinctly, but Jeff Pritz stood before us at the hotel and
 said, hey, people for Google Maps can't get to us, and I go to him, and I say, hey, I'm
 advocating for Jeff.
 Can we at least get this through put?
 Is this going to change?
 No, it's not going to change, so we can put the road in straight away, is what he told
 me.
 We can put the road in straight away because none of this is going to change.
 Here we sit, and even a staff picture with it superimposed, I'd rather it not be there,
 so we could still see and be reminded that nothing's happened.
 That's a pain point for me, so I'll be watching closely, but I'll just tell you, I feel like
 I was sold a bill of goods, and that is what it is.
 It's not enough to hold this up, but I was tempted, and I'll just tell you, not excited
 about it, and that goes back before them to RED development, and RED, I had a great relationship
 with them as well, but when they said something, it got done, because I was talking about other
 issues in that development, obviously it's been around for a while, and it got done,
 so I would encourage them to move as expeditiously as possible on that stretch of road that they
 committed to, and I'll find the email from the meeting just so we can document the timing,
 but it's been a long, long time.
 Absolutely.
 I will share that their zoning compliance plan was approved at Planning and Zoning Commission
 a couple of months ago, and that they have a building permit for a very large retailer
 in review right now, as well as their civil plans to put that road in.
 Yes.
 No, I don't disagree, but I would just say I was told the road could be put in because
 what they were planning wasn't going to affect that, and you have one of your tenants, and
 we have a vested interest in that.
 The better Embassy Suites does, the better we do, and so the fact that, and raise your
 hand if you use a GPS to get to where you're going, that's everyone, and so I think that
 concern was valid, and I think for them to fail to address that for a major tenant, for
 major use in our city over three years, again, I'll give you two for the pandemic, but that
 doesn't excuse the rest of it for nothing to happen, right?
 That's the frustrating part for me, so anyway, again, not enough to say no, but enough to
 be irritated.
 Yes, sir.
 Understood.
 All right, so any other is open, hearing anyone want to speak, see movement.
 Dana Zoltner, 610 Emory, I'm not up here to go off on this particularly, but I do have
 some major concerns about you all with planning and zoning changing what's going on, because
 while this isn't an enormous change, I've personally watched one neighborhood that the
 planning and zoning changed it, and it went from being a low density to a high density
 simply because the first developer ran out of money and it got sold and yada, yada, yada,
 and so I'm concerned about the mixed usage, adding extra, how many apartments do we need
 in this town?
 We've got them looming over Hickory, we've got them looming over McKinney, we've got
 a whole slew of them over by the animal shelter, we have a ton over by the mall.
 I just hope, because I don't trust planning and zoning to have the best interest of the
 people here in Denton, and I know that you all send letters and I know that a whole lot
 of people come home from work and dump everything, don't even bother to open stuff.
 So I know when maybe not necessarily the multifamily because it's already expected, you're adding
 more density, the mixed usage, people, and thank heavens at least Bonnie Bray's wide
 enough to accommodate it, unlike McKinney and Hickory, but I think you need to make
 a bigger effort than just sending letters because the community, when it all comes down
 and it gets started, they're going to be upset because they didn't know or it was misrepresented
 or something.
 So just be careful, just because planning and zoning goes 5.0, 6.0, oh, it must be
 okay.
 They're not trustworthy.
 Okay.
 She's talking about the board.
 Thank you.
 She's talking about the board.
 The board.
 Yeah.
 Okay.
 It is public hearing.
 Anyone else care to speak, please, you're more than welcome to come down.
 See none.
 We'll close the public hearing.
 Any other questions, comments, or I'll take a motion.
 Councilman Watts, I move for approval.
 Is there a second?
 Councilmember McGuire?
 I second.
 Okay.
 Motion by Councilman Watts, second by Councilmember McGuire.
 Any other discussion, questions?
 Seeing none.
 Councilman Watts, I'll say you.
 Aye.
 Councilmember McGuire?
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem?
 Aye.
 Councilmember Burt?
 Aye.
 Councilmember McGee?
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutspeth, there's an aye as well.
 That passes 6-0.
 Thank you.
 That takes us to item E, which is Z-22009B, hold a public hearing, consider adoption of
 ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification
 from residential to district to heavy industrial.
 Hey, welcome.
 Good evening, Mayor and Council.
 Okay, good evening, Mayor and members of Council.
 This is a rezoning request for a 10-acre tract of land from residential to heavy industrial.
 This site is approximately 400 feet east of Western Boulevard and 1,400 feet north of
 Jim Crystal Road.
 The property is currently undeveloped and has not previously been developed.
 To the north of the subject property is existing general office zoning, and to the south east
 and west of the subject property is heavy industrial zoning, which is also undeveloped.
 A full analysis for approval was included in the staff analysis, however, some highlights.
 This was reviewed in accordance with our standards as set forth in DDC sub-chapter two.
 The heavy industrial zoning designation is consistent with the future land use plan,
 which calls for the area west of I-35W near the Denton Municipal Airport to develop as
 industrial commerce.
 The purpose of the rezoning request is to align the 10-acre tract of land with the broader
 heavy industrial zoning located at the northwest corner of Western Boulevard and Jim Crystal
 Road for the future development of an industrial use.
 The industrial use would be consistent with the development pattern in the corridor and
 would be compatible with the intent that this area develop as industrial and manufactured
 uses.
 Should the request be approved, the development would be reviewed in accordance with all of
 our DDC standards, including landscaping site and building design.
 Public outreach was conducted for this property.
 Notices were mailed out to property owners within 200 and 500 feet of the subject property.
 At this time, one response has been received in favor.
 Staff is forwarding this to you this evening with the recommendation of approval.
 Planning and Zoning Commission did consider this at their August 10th meeting and recommended
 approval five zero.
 With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 And well done.
 Welcome as well.
 Thank you.
 Yes.
 And so questions.
 I'll open a public hearing question for staff.
 Any questions?
 Seeing none.
 I don't see that there's a another presentation and I'm missing anyone that would have a presentation
 for this project.
 Great.
 Then I'll take a either a motion or further discussion and I'll close the public hearing.
 Councilor Watts.
 Yeah, I just had a couple of questions.
 I'm sorry.
 I was looking up the zoning use map.
 I just had a couple of questions about that.
 So this is heavy industrial, which something comes to my mind when I think of heavy industrial,
 which a lot of these zoning uses aren't what come to my mind, but then there are some.
 When I look, if you'll pull up the map that show up, I guess it's the, I think it might
 be the aerial.
 Yeah.
 That's it.
 Are we able to enlarge that a little bit or that just is that is it?
 Is that it?
 No, I think I can enlarge.
 No, that's good.
 That's good.
 Okay, there you go.
 So is that the old cell in school track there to the sort of the north of that is it looks
 like that's a water feature upon to just the right of the square.
 If I'm looking at it, is that correct?
 Yes.
 That is where that was located.
 Okay.
 And, and that's the, I'm just trying to get an idea.
 So that's the old cell and school track up there off of three 80.
 Yes.
 Okay.
 How would, I mean, I know that that water feature doesn't have to stay there.
 So again, whatever the zoning is, but if it's not developed, how is that protected?
 If it's still, if it's there by the time that a heavy industrial user, which could be all
 kinds of uses, how or is it protected from, you know, the storm water runoff and those
 kinds of things?
 Or is it, I mean, we've got code for that, but is that an ESA area?
 I mean, what helped me understand that?
 Sure.
 So I'm sorry, this keeps on sharing, but the property to the North where the school was,
 has been rezoned to general office and there is a civil engineering plans as well as building
 permits in review by city staff for the future development of two industrial buildings along
 those tracks.
 And that property does contain that detention pond area that you see there.
 So those plans were and are being reviewed in accordance with all of our DDC standards
 that would require any offset of drainage impacts that might have.
 Yeah, and so I hear that, so that, that blue area there is probably a pre-existing, I would
 think, tank for the land use or for the school uses.
 Am I, do we know if it's, I mean, I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's probably
 stocked, it's probably got wildlife in there and so how do we, I mean, I guess with it
 currently being zoned, if somebody needed to, they could drain it and do something different
 with it.
 But it's all been reviewed and approved, it's under construction and largely preserved.
 Okay.
 All right.
 So it's intact separate from this project.
 Okay.
 All right.
 And so then this project, just by our code, has to have certain off-site water retention
 or something, so you're not putting water onto other people's adjacent land.
 That's not the natural flow.
 So with respect to that pond, again, Tina Fergans, Deputy Director of Development Services,
 so from what I understand, that pond will remain and it actually has ESA that surrounds it.
 So there are existing regulations in place that protect that existing pond that's there.
 Okay.
 Any development that would happen in the vicinity of it would be responsible for complying with
 all of our development requirements associated with that and that includes our ESA regulations.
 Okay.
 Great.
 Thank you.
 Appreciate that information.
 You're welcome.
 Thank you.
 Okay.
 Any other questions?
 Any comments?
 It is a public hearing.
 Welcome to speak.
 Seeing none.
 I'll take a motion.
 Council Member Burt?
 I move approval.
 Okay.
 And is there a second?
 Council Member Watts?
 I'll second.
 Okay.
 Motion by Council Member Burt, second by Council Member Watts.
 Any other discussion?
 Seeing none.
 Council Member Hussay you?
 Aye.
 Council Member Watts?
 Oh, aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem?
 Aye.
 Council Member McGee?
 Aye.
 Council Member McGuire?
 Aye.
 Mayor Husspeth, there's an aye as well, passes 6-0, thank you.
 Takes us to 5F, which is PD 220001A, hold a public hearing, consider adoption of ordinance
 of the City of Denton, Texas, regarding a change in the Zoning District and Use Classification
 Residential R4 District to Planned Development District on approximately .88 acres of land.
 And from Highway Corridor District to Planned Development District on approximately 2.52
 acres of land.
 Good evening, let me share my presentation.
 And I'll open the public hearing as well.
 Thank you.
 Good evening, Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton.
 I am presenting PD 22-0001, the Reserves at Magnolia, I'm going to try to be as brief
 as my colleagues.
 I may be a little longer-winded, but I'll try to be as quick as possible.
 So the request before you is to rezone the subject property to a planned development
 with a base zoning of R7 to accommodate a multifamily development with 60 dwellings.
 The subject property is outlined in yellow on your screen.
 It has an irregular shape, and it's situated in Ardenia neighborhood in between some established
 single-family residential neighborhoods, as well as some commercial development that was
 developed when I-35 was constructed.
 So it's been there a while.
 Those commercial properties are also going to be impacted by text-dot expansion plans
 for the future.
 You could see that black dashed line, that's going to be approximately where that new right-of-way
 line is going to be.
 So those commercial properties in this general area is going to be impacted by text-dot.
 And the current zoning is a combination of Highway Corridor and R4.
 Highway Corridor permits multifamily with a specific use permit.
 So just wanted to point out that existing zoning.
 So as I mentioned, this is a PD, and remember, there are two parts to a PD.
 There's a text and that development plan, that map.
 We won't go over the text that's all in your backup, we're just going to get where the
 rubber meets the road in that development plan.
 So as I mentioned, they're proposing multifamily development with 60 dwelling units, a 45-foot
 tall building, and it's centered in the center of that site, kind of the widest part of that
 side.
 It's outlined in purple on your screen.
 The purpose of that location on the site is to allow for those increased setbacks to the
 adjacent residential properties, as well as from text-dot.
 So it's pulled away from that text-dot right-of-way.
 They've designed the building to emphasize the entrance for residents, and they've pushed
 it to the south so that it is integrated into that existing neighborhood.
 They're proposing two vehicular access points, one at the outset, and that would be connected
 to Willowood, and then a future access point, a stub out to the property to the west.
 That's an undeveloped tract, and it will have to extend an existing roadway, so it'll connect
 to that site.
 The development plan also includes a landscape plan.
 Those on-site amenities are included in that.
 As I mentioned, that tree-preserved area adjacent to I-35, where that building is pulled away,
 so they are proposing to preserve those trees along I-35 and install a pervious trail as
 an amenity within the site.
 Also a playground that's outlined in pink on your screen, and a fenced dog park.
 The entrance is enhanced.
 They have their detention pond in that location, but as an amenity to that, they've included
 trees around that, as well as shrubs and some landscape boulders to provide that gateway
 for the project.
 They're also providing open space and new tree canopy.
 The criteria for approval for a PD is in sub-chapter two.
 I won't go over all of them.
 We're just going to hit some highlights.
 By staff's analysis, it does conform to the criteria for approval.
 First we'll talk about the comprehensive plan.
 The subject property is in a future land use area of neighborhood mixed use.
 The intent of that is to provide a variety of housing types, as well as neighborhood
 serving retail and service uses.
 We don't just look at the future land use map.
 We also want to look at the entire comprehensive plan.
 I've just got a couple of areas I want to touch on.
 First, I should mention that the proposal is consistent with that future land use designation.
 It's also consistent with our infill.
 How this surrounding area developed, this property never developed.
 It's left a gap in that neighborhood fabric.
 By constructing this project or having this project come forward, it would fill in that
 gap in that neighborhood fabric and provide housing choice for the surrounding area, which
 meets our housing goals.
 It meets our infill and our housing goals.
 It also meets our urban design goals.
 We worked with the applicant as it went through the review process to make sure that we hit
 those urban design goals within our comprehensive plan.
 Things like connectivity, they've got sidewalks throughout their site, as well as connecting
 to the sidewalk on Willowood.
 Legibility, it's that one building and it's that highlighted entrance, so people can find
 their way around the site.
 Building scale and orientation, that building is in the center of the site and set back
 away from the existing surrounding properties.
 Then the landscape and open space.
 The additional map on your site shows where we currently have affordable projects.
 This is proposed to be an affordable project.
 This map shows the surrounding or the affordable projects within the city of Denton.
 As you can see, the subject property is a star and there isn't one in this location,
 so this project would meet those housing goals in providing that variety.
 As we analyzed this project, we also took a little deeper dive.
 We wanted to really understand the surrounding context and how this proposal would fit within
 it.
 We've got those underperforming commercial properties along I-35, they've been there
 a long time, and they are going to be impacted by future plans for TextDOT, which will leave
 remainders, parcels that are going to be difficult to develop.
 We talked to the applicant and how this project would fit within there.
 We looked at really two things, either the project could be a catalyst for redevelopment
 within the area, or it could present barriers for redevelopment.
 We really ended up, ultimately, that it would provide that catalyst, not only because it
 meets our overall comprehensive goals, but also the way that they set up the project
 with the connectivity and how they sited the building structure on site.
 There is adequate public facilities and transportation within the area.
 There is capacity on Willowwood, as well as the property is within a half a mile walk
 to Borman Elementary and our regional park, or DeNia Park, within the area.
 Public outreach was sent out.
 We received one letter in opposition, and the applicant did hold three neighborhood
 meetings, two virtual and one in person.
 The in-person came about at P&Z, there were concerns that there should be additional neighborhood
 outreach, and the applicant can provide more detail related to that.
 Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval.
 It was also presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and they recommended approval
 of the request seven to zero.
 I'll be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here with the presentation
 or to answer questions as well.
 - Okay.
 Questions for staff?
 Mayor Pro Tem and then Council Member Watts.
 - Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
 So as I'm looking at this concept plan, it looks like of the original grove of trees
 to the north...funny I'm gonna ask about trees, right?
 Of the original grove of trees to the north, it looks like TechStot is taking a chunk,
 but they're predominantly maintaining that.
 If I'm reading the notes right, that's about 27% retention?
 - Yes.
 Well, 27% open space, so that wouldn't be a 27% overall canopy.
 But they are meeting the tree preservation goals.
 In fact, they were exceeding it as it's currently proposed.
 TechStot has already actually acquired the frontage of this property adjacent to I-35,
 that frontage road.
 So that little area that's adjacent to I-35, that's not a part of the request.
 So this property is set off of I-35, and that was something that we talked about with the
 applicant, that's a really nice stand of trees, and it provides a really nice natural
 existing buffer for not only this site, but just the neighborhood as a whole.
 So we did work with them to pull that building away from I-35 to keep those trees there.
 - And if I might, Mr. Mayor, I'll just follow up with another tree question on that one.
 To what extent, when we do something like this and set off a grove of trees to preserve,
 to provide better quality for whatever goes in there, in this case, multifamily, when
 TechStot is building the expansion, a concern would be that their development would impact
 what we're trying to preserve.
 So can you talk about, or can someone talk about the interplay between our preservation
 efforts and TechStot's expansion efforts?
 - Not specifically.
 I can tell you that the code does require that TechStot projects follow our development
 code tree preservation requirements, so that's something that we look at with any roadway
 or expansion or public improvement.
 TechStot hasn't come in with any plans for this particular site as of yet, so we haven't
 been able to review it.
 But we would make sure that as they develop, that they provide that protection, particularly
 adjacent properties, to make sure that those existing trees aren't damaged.
 So that is something that we look at, and we do ask that TechStot follow our tree preservation
 requirements.
 - All right, thank you.
 - Councilor Watts.
 - Thank you.
 So what is TechStot's, I mean, when they say they've got another phase in here in that
 black line represents what they've already purchased, are they saying that we're going
 to put another lane of highway in?
 Is that what the plan is?
 - I have a very tiny schematic on my presentation I can bring up if you'd like.
 - Well, the only reason I ask that, because that was a good question on, if there's going
 to be pavement and construction all the way up to the property line, this yellow line
 that's adjacent to that black line, and there's trees there, then they're going to be impacted.
 I mean, if there's construction, but if they're just putting in another lane and there's going
 to be a buffer of 10 feet or 20 feet from there, then it's much more mitigated.
 So are they developing all the way up with pavement up to that black line?
 - TechStot has not.
 It's not a fully designed project.
 - Right.
 - Let me go ahead and share my screen.
 - It'll be forever before they do that anyway.
 - Yeah, it could be a while.
 Let me, that is the wrong problem.
 - Yeah, and that's, I mean, that's, if you can't find it, that's fine.
 That's not a big deal.
 I think it's just trying to make sense of, you know, that they're, if they're going to
 build all the way up to that, you are going to have an impact, but they usually don't.
 - I think Julie, in your slide, what is that, seven, right?
 - So here we go.
 - Okay.
 - There is, if you can see it, I apologize, it is small, but the area in green, that will
 be the frontage road.
 I believe there will be additional travel lanes.
 There, of course, you know, it is, there will be impacts in the area, but that blue line,
 that is kind of where that black line is.
 You can see there is a little bit of offset, so it won't be right up on that property line.
 - That's not going to be built for a long time, you know, that's going to take a while.
 Okay, back to, if you could go to the aerial, because I'm trying to get an idea, I'm very
 familiar with this tract, so I'm trying to get an idea of where, if you could go to the
 aerial that shows the yellow property outline.
 I think it's slide, what is this?
 I guess it's just second slide.
 - Does that work?
 - Yeah, that's it.
 - Yes, sir.
 - Okay, so first of all, I hear that they're going to take an access road eventually out
 to Oakwood.
 Is that what, I thought I read that somewhere.
 - Yes, so Oakwood is actually in this location right here, and it actually turns toward the
 south.
 Our Denton Development Code requires that when a road is stubbed out, that that road
 does have to extend.
 So we anticipate that eventually when that adjacent property develops, Oakwood would
 be extended to come back.
 - Are you talking about the church property?
 - I'm sorry?
 - That's a church right there, or it has been.
 That building right there off to the, you're saying when that develops, that that will
 be stubbed out, or how are they going to get from their yellow boundary to Oakwood currently?
 - So Oakwood actually turns toward the south in this location right here.
 - So there's a road right there that runs right adjacent to that property with the church.
 - Yes, sir, there's a public right of way, absolutely.
 - That is so confusing.
 So now, help me understand the building is going to, you know, I see the schematic with
 the building, and I'm trying to see where it's going to fit in here to see exactly,
 because the, what is that, the southwestern part, that little rectangle, there's no trees
 there.
 And you're going to preserve those in the northern part.
 So is the building going to be sort of close to an alignment with the church building,
 or is it going to be more with that right angle that is the southern part of that church
 lot?
 I mean, exactly, where is that going to fit on pursuant to this area, or do you have any
 way to give me some idea on that?
 - Sure.
 So it will, it will kind of hug this corner right here, and maybe this slide will show
 it a little better, because I am, I superimpose this site plan.
 And so you can kind of see where that building sort of hugs that southeast corner of that
 existing church property.
 - Right.
 Okay.
 Yeah.
 All right.
 Thank you.
 And then, and this is, I think this was one of the affordable projects that was at least
 the, whatever we give, approval or permission or on what they need to apply with the state.
 So this was one of those that was passed back in February of the six or seven that were
 passed.
 Okay.
 All right.
 And refresh my memory, is this a 4% tax credit project or-
 - It is a 9%.
 - It's a 9%.
 - Yes, sir.
 It's a 9%, if I recall correctly, the area meeting income that they're required to meet
 is, do you know what that is?
 - I don't know offhand, but the applicant will be able to-
 - Okay, good.
 - Answer that question.
 Yes, sir.
 - I'll say it for the applicant.
 Thank you.
 Appreciate it.
 - Okay.
 Any other questions for staff?
 Councilman Burton.
 - I didn't have a question, but I just wanted to clarify something on that, that screen
 that you had up at those lanes in there, for the sake of knowing the tech stock did note
 to the mobility committee that we should look forward to toll lanes coming up through Denton.
 So it's gonna definitely widen the highway all the way up past through Denton and hopefully
 all the way up at some point up through to Oklahoma.
 So we can just look forward to having wide freeways coming through our town here in the
 next several years.
 And it shows that on that screen there, that pink there, that is pretty much those additional
 lanes that you were looking for.
 - Thank you.
 Yes, that helps.
 Thank you.
 - Okay.
 Any other questions?
 - May I just have a quick follow up, if you don't mind?
 So on the buildings that are to the, whatever that direction, East, Northeast, that the
 black line or the yellow line is going through on your slide with the, is that a hotel right
 now?
 - Yes, sir.
 This is an existing hotel.
 - Okay.
 So it'll be gone.
 - And this is a gas station.
 - I mean, whenever they start developing it, they'll probably buy that and there won't
 be much of a remainder left, I guess, just a parking lot.
 - Well, part of our analysis, we worked with the applicant to see if they could acquire
 additional properties to get it all under control so it could be master planned.
 They weren't successful and they can provide more detail as to how they reached out to
 these adjacent properties, but the eventual redevelopment of this area was something that
 staff really looked at and thought hard about.
 - Right.
 And then the buildings to the South of that, those four, are those hotels as well?
 - That's actually a multifamily development.
 - That's what?
 - A multifamily development.
 - Oh, okay.
 I know which one that is.
 Okay.
 Okay.
 A little bit older.
 Okay.
 All right.
 Thank you.
 Appreciate it.
 Thank you, Mayor, for your indulgence.
 - No problem.
 And so I have, it's a public hearing.
 Before the applicant comes down, I think it, I'll take the, let me think, wouldn't be easiest.
 So if we can have the applicant present, then you'll get, you have rebuttal.
 There's an opportunity for rebuttal if something's said during a public comment.
 So if there's two speakers, it's 20 minutes.
 One speaker, 10 minutes.
 I think that's right.
 Yes.
 So, so you, yeah, if you're the applicant, you can come on down and then if you'll give
 your name and address and whatever presentation, you can get, if you need help with that.
 - I might need a little...
 - Okay.
 I hear Steve's footsteps.
 - I'm so sorry.
 - I know.
 - I know you're fine.
 They told me to do it earlier, but better safe than you do it than me.
 The technology may not help me.
 - There we go.
 How about that?
 - Thank you.
 - You got it.
 - Got it.
 Yeah.
 Great.
 - You said it full screen.
 Does that work?
 - Yeah.
 I do believe so.
 Yes.
 - Matt Gillum.
 I'm one of the managing partners of Overland Property Group, 4141 West 72nd Terrace in
 Prairie Village, Kansas, 66208.
 - You're not in Kansas anymore.
 Sorry.
 - I'm not in Kansas anymore.
 - You have to do it.
 It's getting late.
 - It's the only time I've ever heard that.
 No, I...
 - Thank you.
 - I appreciate your time this evening.
 Thank you for allowing me to be here.
 Again, this is something that we've been working on for a while as the council member brought
 up who were before you in early February for a resolution to support.
 Again, I think it's always important to understand who you're doing business with and who's asking
 to be a member of this community.
 So a little bit about us at Overland Property Group.
 We started off in my hometown of Salina, Kansas, and we concentrated on developing relationships
 with communities.
 So we were developing in rural communities where most developers were overlooking and
 they weren't understanding the need for housing, whether that be affordable housing or luxury
 housing, whatever it may be, they weren't understanding that need.
 So we started the business off and we've grown over the years simply because of that relationship
 driven approach that we do take.
 So we are in a few different states now and we're doing everything from affordable housing
 in mountain communities like Steamboat Springs, Colorado and Keystone and just areas outside
 of Vail to rural communities still in Kansas, obviously all over in Texas.
 We're doing things in Fort Worth and in urban areas.
 So the company has grown, but our core, how we believe doing development has not changed
 since the very beginning.
 We're very proud of being recognized for that work, whether that be in historic preservation
 or whether that be in affordable housing.
 Some of our communities, just to give you a little flavor of what we do, all of these
 communities that I'm showing you are ones that we've developed.
 We are not a turn and burn developer, so our business model is not to develop and sell.
 Our business model is to develop and retain.
 So this is one of our communities up in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
 This is the first one.
 We partnered with a few different groups locally to get this done.
 It was the first affordable housing development done in Steamboat Springs, Colorado in 35
 years.
 This actually was the first of three.
 We're under construction on our third right now, so one of the best resumes I can give
 when we talk about being good partners to the community is being welcomed back.
 Obviously, you don't develop in somewhere like Steamboat Springs, Colorado and be welcomed
 back without doing what you said you were going to do, and we're very proud of that.
 Again, just other communities using the exact same financing mechanism that I'm showing
 you tonight here in Denton.
 So that is in Wolford, Texas.
 This is in my hometown of Salina, Kansas.
 This is actually where Lee Jeans got their start.
 So we're very proud of that because not many people know that Lee Jeans got their start
 in little Salina, Kansas.
 Again, this is development number two in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
 This is up all the way in Pella, Iowa, where Pella windows originate and are made.
 That brings us specifically to the important item for us tonight, which is this development,
 the reserves at Magnolia.
 So again, this is something we've been working on.
 We've been working closely with staff.
 Again, I'm the least important person here tonight.
 Our experts, our architect Maggie Gillum with Jones Gillum Runs Architects, Douglas, who's
 here representing NMA Engineers, which is our civil engineering firm.
 Andrea is actually the brains behind it, but she is home with her newborn, so doing very
 important things.
 And then April Ingstrom, our senior development associate here as well.
 So Reserves at Magnolia is a community-sized or neighborhood-sized multifamily development,
 so it's 60 units.
 It was, the financing for this was secured through Texas Department of Housing and Community
 Affairs, a very competitive process, and through that we were able to successfully get it.
 I don't think the video looks here to be play.
 This is a drone sitting at 45 feet, which is the absolute maximum height of the building.
 So again, you can see the reason we want to preserve the trees, because we want that buffer
 along the highway.
 So we really made sure to drive our tree consultants, our civil engineers, our architects to design
 this site plan to maintain, preserve those trees, make the site be a good community member
 to the neighborhood, which is why we tried to get so much community outreach.
 Again, here's another site plan.
 Again, you've got that really nice tree buffer up along the highway.
 As staff did point out, we did reach out to neighboring property owners, our broker, Wayne
 Bergdorf is here, and Wayne tried to track down a lot of people.
 We were pretty unsuccessful.
 Anybody that we were able to track down valuation-wise on surrounding properties were a little on
 the unrealistic side.
 So unfortunately, we were unable to secure a larger land size, but again, whether it
 be a larger land size, this is the size that we liked for the neighborhood.
 Again, just some rendering specifically, because this is a PD.
 We worked with staff to make sure that we were very ... We articulated exactly the plan.
 We put that plan on the paper.
 Again, this is fully funded.
 We are required to prove up zoning to Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
 in the next six days.
 So this development is fully funded and would start construction as soon as we can get through
 the permitting process after tonight, if we're successful.
 I always like to talk about why we chose a site, because we're very specific on the due
 diligence in choosing a site.
 So as you can see, the walkability, the access, the schools, the parks, and the neighborhood
 in general, those are all reasons why we specifically choose sites.
 Again, there is not affordable housing in this area.
 There is naturally current affordable housing, but affordable housing, which is developed
 for the purpose of being affordable housing for that entire period of time, there's not.
 As already has been highlighted, the two different zonings that exist on the site, and then obviously
 a list of the amenities that we are bringing onto the site when we specifically develop
 it.
 Same thing in the units, everything from Energy Star on down.
 Our architect and I share the same last name, and there's no coincidence there.
 We are related.
 My brother, father, cousin, and my grandfather are all architects.
 My grandfather's deceased.
 It was his architecture firm.
 But it's something as an owner in our firm that I take pride in, which is developing
 affordable housing communities that look just like luxury do.
 There should be no difference.
 There is no reason for there to be a difference.
 Specifically with this financing mechanism, there doesn't have to be.
 Again, here's the different layouts for the one-, two-, and three-bedroom units.
 21 bedrooms, 28 two-bedrooms, 12 three-bedrooms, and as one of the council members asked earlier,
 the different area median incomes that we're targeting.
 So 30%, there will be six units at 30% of the area median income, 22 units at 50% of
 the area median income, 26 units at 60% of the area median income, and then six market
 rate units.
 We like to see that spread because we like to have that mix, as I always ask.
 You don't know what your neighbor makes.
 You don't know if they're fixed income.
 You don't know what their financial situation is.
 You just know that they're your neighbor.
 You know that they're a good neighbor.
 That is like the way we like to build and develop our communities, which is not income
 in mind but a community in mind.
 So again, trying to be as brief as possible, and again, I apologize because that's sometimes
 hard to do when you're passionate about these things, but I did want to highlight our community
 outreach because it is something that's very important to us, and we will continue to do
 well after this is built is to engage in the neighborhood.
 So we started reaching out right before the end of December of 2021, emailing a neighborhood
 group, trying to start some of those conversations, did meet with our council rep back early January.
 We were in front of council, obviously, for resident support on February 1st, started
 the rezoning process almost immediately after, sent out mailing, certified mail to the surrounding
 neighborhood on April 15th, had the neighborhood meeting May 10th.
 Same thing, sent out another group of mailings for another neighborhood meeting on 6/1.
 The first meeting, we did not have anybody attend.
 The second meeting, we did have one person attend.
 That meeting was held on the 21st of June.
 And then, as said, at P&Z, it was brought to our attention.
 Maybe everybody doesn't know about this in the neighborhood.
 And so we had another neighborhood meeting in person to, again, if anybody had mixed
 out to get that information out there.
 We did hold that neighborhood meeting on September 14th.
 So again, I'm trying to be as brief as possible because I value your time, but happy to answer
 any questions you have.
 Okay.
 Thank you very much.
 Any other questions for the applicant?
 Councilman Watts?
 Yes.
 Thank you so much.
 If you could go back to just a real quick question on the rental, on the spread, on
 the unit mix.
 Sure.
 Do you have an idea of what the unit type is for
 those different percentage breakdowns like on the 30%, six of them, are those all one
 bedrooms?
 Yeah.
 And I'm sorry, I didn't include that graph.
 I forgot it on my laptop.
 So on the 30% units, two of those are one bedroom, three of those are two bedroom, and
 one of those are a three bedroom.
 Okay.
 And then on the 50 and 60%, do you have that?
 Yeah.
 On the 50%, so again, 22 units, seven of those are one bedroom, 11 are two bedroom, and four
 are three bedroom.
 Okay.
 And then 60%, 26 units total, nine one bedrooms, 11 two bedrooms, and six three bedrooms.
 And I didn't see it on there.
 You had a rental range on, I don't have to exactly-
 Yeah.
 So the 30%, again, it does depend on the household size, but 30%, rents range of 494 up to 672,
 and depending on household size, 50%, you're 859 to 1179, 60% of 1,042 up to 1,432, and
 then market rate, which is 1,206 up to 1,671.
 Okay.
 How many market rates do you have there?
 We have six market rates.
 Okay, there it is.
 Yeah.
 And I'm sorry I didn't get that breakdown, but the breakdown of market rate is two one
 bedroom, three two bedroom, one three bedroom.
 So consistent upon all the bands, we don't like to say, "Oh, we're doing market rates,
 so let's make this all three bedroom.
 We want to be consistent."
 Sure.
 And you had a slide that showed Oakwood, I mean, the one in the presentation, Oakwood
 doesn't even look like it's a road going down south.
 You showed an aerial of-
 Area.
 Where is it?
 Is that it?
 No, it's not.
 Yeah, I guess.
 Okay.
 Yeah, that'll show.
 So Oakwood is up here at the top.
 Yeah.
 Well, first of all, I don't even see how that's a road.
 It's a pretty rough gravel road right now if you even want to call it that.
 Yeah.
 A pretty big call for us.
 But is that road adjacent to your property line?
 Is it a butt to your property line or is there-
 It is.
 It butts up against it, am I right?
 Yeah.
 Because when I looked at the other slide from the staff presentation, it looked like there
 was a...
 Okay, so right there, so that's a dirt road.
 This is me drawing lines in a presentation, but I think if I...
 There we go.
 I think...
 Yeah, there we go.
 You can go.
 See it?
 Yeah.
 It shows it a little bit off.
 See where Oakwood Drive takes that corner and comes...
 If you connect that on straight down, it's going to be a little bit off there.
 So is that a required connection?
 So we are not building Oakwood.
 It is that property...
 So you can see this vacant lot of the very top of the screen.
 We did try to acquire that, we were unsuccessful.
 But that is what would spur the additional Oakwood connection in the future.
 We are on our site.
 We are dead ending that potential connection for Oakwood's potential build out.
 So something that we're connecting to Willowood and Oakwood over on that side, again, is something
 I believe...
 Is that right?
 It would depend on the build out of that other parcel.
 Okay.
 So then you're not going to have access to the highway/service road right now until TxDOT
 develops.
 So you only have one ingress and egress, which is out Willowood.
 Is that correct?
 That's correct.
 And this will be a follow up question for staff as far as the code on that.
 But also, because Willowood, that's a little two lane road.
 So that's additional...
 But I will say this, I appreciate your information on the unit mix and affordability because
 that's been an issue that we've had in this community to try to figure out how do we hit
 some of those lower percentages and not just 75 up to 79% to keep under that 80% threshold.
 So I think that's very promising.
 And how many bedrooms total is it?
 60.
 Well, so 60 units total.
 Yeah.
 Do we know what...
 Because I'm just trying to figure out what...
 Have you done a traffic study?
 Traffic...
 So we did do a traffic analysis, our engineering firm did and provided that to staff.
 So that traffic analysis, I'm glad you brought it up because it's something that I missed
 trying to be too efficient.
 But traffic is something that we're very aware of and we're very concerned anytime we look
 at developing something.
 So in this case, because it's 60 units, our overall was basically 300, I believe it was
 like 353 and 70, I've thought my head, trip generation total over 24 hours, which is obviously
 less than one car per minute, it's half a car per minute.
 And during peak travel hours, in the AM you're talking, again, I'm off the top of my head,
 I know it's in your report, but I believe it's 19 cars in that morning peak travel time
 and it's 25 cars in the evening peak travel time.
 So you're talking about really, again, as Steph has in the report, it was not affecting
 traffic flow in that neighborhood because of the size and the cars.
 Again, even though this is multifamily, because of it being affordable, we typically see 30%
 of our residents as seniors on fixed income.
 Again, with the connectability, the walkability, that's something that we encourage with our
 residents.
 And quite frankly, multifamily has one of the lower traffic generation parents and obviously
 most of this is highly commercial, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to answer that
 traffic.
 I mean, it's a single, it's two lane road and it's traveled a lot, you got a school
 zone down there, down at the bottom of the hill.
 I know that sometimes there has to be, I don't know if it's off-site improvements, but like
 you've got some road frontage on Willowwood, are y'all going to have to, it's not much,
 but are you required to, or are you just, that's not under the code, we're not required
 to do that even?
 It's something that we always look at, whether it's in code or not.
 And specifically with this, because of the trip generation, it wasn't something that,
 we thought, oh, doing a deceleration lane, certainly if it's something, again, whether
 it rises the code, we want to make sure that our residents have good ingress egress.
 And so, if there's an opportunity to make that easier, we do do it because, quite frankly,
 you're not talking about a lot of money, but we do have a pretty limited window there because
 this site is kind of a weird shape.
 Very weird.
 Yep.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 Thank you, Mayor, for your indulgence.
 Yep.
 Questions for the applicant?
 I'm going to stop sharing in case that ...
 If you could give me, just to complete that thought, if you could look again for the 30%,
 what is the room mix?
 On the bedroom unit?
 Yes.
 The 30% are, so they're all same percentages of ones, twos, and threes of each.
 On the 30%, it is two one-bedrooms, three two-bedrooms, and one three-bedroom.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 Oh, there we go.
 Okay.
 All right.
 Council Member McGee.
 Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
 I just wanted to echo what I said when we spoke about this project.
 I applaud you and your entire team for the work that you've done along with our staff.
 This for me is an example of excellent development.
 So thanks for your work on this project.
 I really appreciate it.
 Thank you.
 Okay.
 Councilman Watts.
 One more follow-up.
 On the parking lot that backs up to the single-family residential, what's that buffer?
 Sure.
 So if you have, obviously, security lighting, is it going to be in the parking lot?
 Is it secured to the building?
 In other words, how are those residences going to be-
 Sure.
 -buffered from the light from the community?
 I'm scared to turn into the other.
 You can kind of see here ... How do I do that?
 As you can see here, we do have a full buffer on that along that as trees, but we also do
 have a full double-sided privacy fence, so we're not putting the lesser side to one.
 Obviously, it's part of the PD, we're going to fully perimeter fence this.
 So as of right now, actually, there's quite a bit of trash on the site, it's obviously
 there today, and we'll be cleaning all that up.
 It looks like some dumpings may be occurred, but the plan is to fully perimeter fence this,
 and I shouldn't say plan.
 We are fully perimeter fencing this, and we will do landscape buffers, as you can see
 with the tree plantings.
 What is that distance between the ... What is that buffer distance, Pete?
 The park is 15 feet.
 15?
 15 feet, says our engineer.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 All right.
 Any other questions?
 Seeing none.
 It is a public hearing.
 I have one speaker so far.
 So Jennifer Lane, if you can come give your name and address, you'll have ... How many
 minutes?
 Jesse, help me out.
 Three?
 Four?
 Three?
 Four.
 You have four minutes.
 Hi there.
 My name is Jennifer Lane, and I live on Willowood Street in Denton, 76205, and I appreciate
 the detail of the questions.
 I also appreciate the detail with which this developer presented the project, and how at
 the last minute, when people hadn't heard much about it because of the summer and so
 on and so forth, that the developers quickly formed another community meeting, and people
 in the area were able to at least ask questions through the few people that were able to attend,
 and also to look at the situation and become aware of it.
 In my opinion, this will probably surprise some people on the council.
 This is, for me, a model example of the sort of development that Denton should take an
 interest in, that the approach to the community that this developer has shown is ideal.
 Clearly there will be some specifics, and I appreciate very much Mayor Watts for really
 digging into it because he knows the neighborhood as well, too, asking the questions about the
 really, really granular details of the property.
 There have been concerns raised about exactly the same things that you have regarding just
 the management of traffic ingress and egress right there at that area.
 There is another, interestingly, small apartment building nearby.
 The reason probably that there weren't many that attended the community meetings is because,
 by and large, that area, although single-family homes, is a lot of rentals, so people may
 not feel that they are really the ones that are invited, actually, the owners.
 They may feel that it's the owners that should be there.
 Who knows?
 In any case, this company presented to the community a design that was something I'd
 like to see more of.
 A while ago, I went driving through that area on Fort Worth Drive, which is so nearby, and
 we talked about how this certain part of Fort Worth Drive might make for an ideal overlay
 district because there are local businesses.
 There is a grocery store that really matters that will matter a great deal to tenants that
 live in this building, should it be built, that matter to the local residents.
 It strikes me that a great relief, I know there's one letter against the project, but
 I haven't been able to see it because the attachments don't open on, I guess, my upgraded,
 my operating system, so they won't open.
 I'd be curious to know what the concerns were expressed.
 I suspect they were probably along the lines that others have expressed, particularly regarding
 traffic.
 Oddly enough, the traffic there, people use Willowood to drive really fast, and they drive
 up the hill and you can't see them, and for example, myself, if I'm riding my bicycle
 and I'm coming out in my driveway, which is a bit of an uphill, it's a little dangerous.
 It's dangerous for a cyclist anyway to turn left, ever, ever, ever.
 To turn left going up a hill onto a road in which people are coming uphill and driving
 fast, it may, oddly enough, actually help that road if there are just maybe the right amount
 more traffic that causes it all to be a little slower.
 I don't know.
 It could make it more dangerous, but if people stop whizzing through there, it could make
 it safer.
 Hopefully, whatever TechStat does, doesn't take out too many trees because the developer
 has expressed, I mean, again, it was a granular discussion regarding trees, regarding feral
 cats, regarding ... Rarely have I been to a community meeting with a developer where
 I believed them, and I really felt that this developer was somebody who belongs here and
 the kind of work that they would be doing here in this community is something we'd like
 to see more of.
 We've seen so many just sort of step all over you kind of development things that we feel
 that we can't stop because of the laws in Texas and we have to take maybe draconian
 practices such as the city could say we don't need this engineering company's work if they're
 going to be so disregarding of our community, but that's really it.
 They really are what we want.
 Thank you.
 Thank you.
 All right.
 It is a public hearing.
 If anyone else would care to speak, you're more than welcome.
 Anyone?
 Nope.
 So, I'll close the public hearing.
 I'm going to go ... I'm going to skip ... Council Member McGuire.
 Thank you, Mayor.
 I just want to call something out.
 In particular, you know, obviously staff ... Every time staff brings a recommendation before us
 for a zoning change, it's because in their opinion it meets the requirements of the comprehensive
 plan and our future land use map.
 And I just want to call something out in particular that our comprehensive plan and our affordable
 housing action plan call for the construction of about 18,000 new multifamily units between
 now and 2040.
 And that ... The reasoning behind that is because, you know, we're already in a period of intense
 inflation.
 Cost of housing is skyrocketing.
 And if we don't ... If supply can't meet demand, then that cost is going to become really,
 really prohibitive for a lot of our folks.
 So I'm really thrilled to see us adding 60 more units toward that 18,000 goal.
 Mayor Patu.
 Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
 Yeah, I think what you're seeing is ... I mean, and let's just ... Let's call brass
 tacks.
 Jennifer Lane and I are known for trees, trees, and more trees.
 And so one of the things that I think you're seeing on this development is an attempt to
 get trees.
 But then the mix, the scale's the right size.
 The mix is good.
 The affordability mix is better than many that we've approved.
 It's infill.
 It's maintaining connectivity of a potential property that otherwise might lose it from
 text dot development.
 By the way, they did a southern development.
 So I think this is a ... They dotted a lot of I's and crossed a lot of T's.
 So I think this is a good thing to move forward.
 Okay, any other questions?
 Seeing none, I just have one question, Julie.
 On Oakwood, if they're going to stub, they're going to build their portion along their project,
 is that right?
 Yes, sir.
 So there's not going to be a gate or anything, bars there?
 Yes, it would have a gate for right now.
 And then if and when that adjacent property develops, that they could then connect to
 that street.
 We don't have a design for that adjacent property.
 Our intent was to set it up to allow for that additional connectivity for the future.
 What is there currently?
 Is it just dirt road or what's on the ground?
 There is nothing there ... Oh, yeah, they're just building the stub out.
 They're not building Oakwood.
 So along their property, they're not building ... No, sir.
 So they'll just pay into ... How does that work?
 Oakwood would be off of their site.
 So when that adjacent property develops, that's when Oakwood would be extended.
 It wouldn't have anything to do with this project, it would be that future adjacent
 property.
 What we wanted to make sure was that this site was set up to connect if and when that
 adjacent property develops and Oakwood had to extend.
 Does that make sense?
 It does, but isn't there ... So whatever street fees, right?
 There's some fees that they would pay into a larger, right?
 Yes, sir.
 They will have to pay impact fees, yes, sir.
 Yes, sir.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 Got it.
 And there now ... So we have the public right of way, but what is there?
 Like ... Nothing.
 Nothing's there.
 So Oakwood is ... There's not a public right of way adjacent to the site now.
 It's north of that adjacent property, but our code requires when a street stubs out
 to your site, you have to extend it to the next intersection.
 So when that adjacent undeveloped property develops, Oakwood will have to extend toward
 the south to connect to Willowood.
 Got it.
 But ... So I'm trying to get a day in the life, right?
 So if ... Wherever they have to stop at their property line ...
 They'll stop at their property line, yes.
 Right.
 But if I'm driving from their ... What stops me from ... So I just ... I'm trying to understand
 is Oakwood ... It shows as we have a public right of way, but is that ... Can you drive
 on it or no?
 Do I pull up a map?
 Right.
 It's gravel.
 It's gravel.
 It's gravel.
 It's gravel.
 Right.
 Like what would prevent me from leaving their property and driving ...
 It doesn't look like roads.
 Yes.
 There's ... It'll have a curb.
 It'll be stopped.
 You wouldn't be able to extend or to drive further.
 And right now, it's just dirt next door.
 Right.
 And I guess that's my thing, right?
 So for example, we're speaking of I-35.
 If I-35 backs up, you see people drive across the median, right?
 People are willing to drive.
 I see what you're saying.
 You know what I mean?
 That's not the problem.
 My question is, if we own it ... Not we don't, we don't own it, we don't own it.
 But I'm saying if it's ... If it's not private property, and it is a public road, the future
 will be built, what's to foreclose someone from driving on it?
 Okay.
 So if you can see from this arrow, and hopefully ... Let me find the cursor.
 Can you see where my cursor is?
 Yes.
 Okay.
 So this right now is right of way here, but the applicant does not have a responsibility
 to build any of this at this time.
 No, no.
 I understand.
 When this property develops, we would work with this property to get the Oakwood connection
 to come down, because we see value in that, in helping support the access and circulation
 within the area.
 The way this has been set up is that this development here could potentially connect
 to Oakwood when it comes down, but the developer of the multifamily does not have any responsibility
 for constructing anything of Oakwood.
 We're absolutely ... We're absolutely clear there.
 Okay.
 Back to Alex.
 I'll just drive it.
 It's okay.
 I understand that, but ... So I'm getting to the second point of your question, though,
 regarding what would stop somebody from trying to drive across this site onto here, and basically
 drive across the grass and the gravel there.
 Basically with parking lot designs, we would have a curb there.
 If the applicant finds that vehicles are leaving their site and people are trying to cut through
 it, then I would anticipate that the owner of the multifamily development would try to
 put some other barricade there to prevent folks from being able to drive that direction.
 But I guess that's my question.
 Why can't they drive?
 I know it's not improved, right?
 People would say a lot of our roads aren't improved, so I understand that.
 What I'm saying is, why can't they?
 If it's a public right-of-way, it's not private property, why can't they?
 Real easy question.
 It's private property.
 We don't ... There's not a road there, and we don't own the right-of-way.
 You're talking about Oakwood being already there, but it's not.
 The developer of that property will have to extend and provide the city with right-of-way.
 We have no right-of-way on that additional property, so there is no road there that is
 a city road.
 Oh, okay.
 There is no right-of-way.
 That was said earlier.
 There is no right-of-way.
 That's the issue.
 It's a private road.
 Ideally, when the church site developed with this right-of-way here, they would have had
 a responsibility to construct this roadway adjacent to their site, but we're talking
 about development that's happened here that's been there since the '60s, so I can't speak
 as to why Oakwood was not turned to the south and constructed here because then you're right.
 When the adjacent property develops, there would be the opportunity to extend that roadway
 and we would work with them.
 I'm sorry.
 It's taken...
 I'm taking too much time.
 I got it.
 Okay.
 This is...
 So, Scott has...
 Oh.
 We're going high-tech here, Mayor.
 I got it.
 It's a private road.
 I understand.
 Got it.
 Thank you.
 They just spoke earlier and they said it was a...
 We had a public right-of-way, so I got it.
 I understand now.
 Thank you.
 Any other questions?
 All right.
 Seeing none, I'll take...
 Councilman Watts?
 Make a motion to approve.
 Mayor Pro Tem?
 I'll second.
 Okay.
 Motion by Councilman Watts, second by Mayor Pro Tem.
 Council...
 No discussion.
 Councilman Watts, what house are you?
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem?
 Aye.
 Councilman McGuire?
 Aye.
 Councilman McGee?
 Aye.
 Councilman Byrd?
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutspeth is aye.
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutspeth is aye as well.
 Passes 6-0.
 It takes us to item F, right?
 No.
 Was that F?
 That was F. It takes us to G. It's DCA 22-0003, hold a public hearing and consider adoption
 of ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending the Denton Development Code, specifically
 amendments related to two new uses, data center, modular, and data center warehouse, providing
 a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000 for violations.
 Thank you, Mayor.
 Members of Council, Ron McGuire, Principal Planner with Development Services.
 As introduced in the introduction, this is a code amendment related to data centers.
 Just really quickly, back in 2019 when the Development Code was updated, data center
 was not a use that was contemplated, and in the last year, last year 2021, 2021 that is,
 there was interest in data centers in the city.
 As such, staff started working with the DME staff members who were getting these requests
 specifically because of the need of those energy needs for data centers.
 So the code amendment here is to develop or create appropriate use categories and type
 for data centers, both modular as well as warehouse.
 With that, we also wanted to make sure that we had use specific standards to address any
 adverse impacts that may relate to the introduction of data centers into the city.
 In addition to that, we have new and updated definitions as it relates to the code amendments.
 As mentioned, the DME folks and staff worked really closely to develop these code amendments.
 We also presented and had several discussions with the DCRC on April 8th, as well as on
 May 13th, that is.
 So in summary, the code amendments are to add those two uses, the data center modular
 and data center warehouse to Table 5.2-A, add use specific standards, amend the parking
 requirements to address parking for these uses, and also to add the definitions of data
 center modular, also data center warehouse, and also to update the definition of electric
 substation.
 The next slide here that shows the definition of data center modular, I'm not going to read
 the entire definition, just want to highlight that the principal use primarily are for modular
 structures, including but not limited to pods, shipping containers, cargo containers and
 other similar storage containers, that are used for the purpose of remote storing, gathering,
 processing and/or analyzing large amounts of data warehouses.
 The data center modulars would be permitted, proposed, that is, under the LI, HI and PF
 zoning districts, with a specific use permit and a parking requirement of one space per
 employee on the largest shift would be required.
 The use specific standards are listed here and covered more in your backup.
 You can see that, again, we want to address the storage of the outdoor storage, that is,
 with some screening, additional landscape elements, any environmental noise and vibration
 assessments will be required, maximum noise of 60 dBA would be the maximum measured at
 the property line, and then if there is an electric substation proposed, those electric
 substations must comply with section 7.13.7 of the DDC.
 The data center warehouse is that it is a bigger area, a bigger building, and again,
 I'm not going to read the definition, but it is a building, as opposed to modular use,
 where, again, the same situation as the other data center, where they would store specialized
 computing systems and hardware, again, for the purposes listed there.
 As far as where these data center warehouses would be permitted, they would be permitted
 in the GO, LI, HI and PF zoning districts.
 They would also be permitted in the MR, SC, HC zoning with a specific use permit.
 For parking, they would be required one space per 3,500 gross floor area, or if requested,
 they could also submit under director's determination under section 794E1.
 The list of standards are very similar to the use of the data center use, modular use
 that is, again, restricting the maximum of 55,000 square feet under the MR and SC.
 They will have to comply with the site and building design standards.
 The outdoor storage must be opaquely screened and set back from any residential district
 or residential use, environmental noise, maximum noise level of 65 DBA, and then electric substation
 design, if applicable.
 With that, staff is recommending approval.
 This was presented, again, to the DCRC, as well as the Planning Zoning Commission.
 The Planning Zoning Commission voted to 5-0 to recommend approval of these code amendments,
 and I'll stand for any questions.
 Thank you.
 I'll open the public hearing.
 Questions for staff?
 Let me pull that down.
 Thank you.
 No worries.
 Thank you.
 Seeing none.
 I have a question.
 60 DBA is the equivalent of what's the sound measure?
 That is just normal conversation.
 Okay.
 So that's 60 DBA.
 Got it.
 And 65, similar?
 65 is actually a little bit higher, and I think 75 is more like a low hairdryer, but
 60 is normal conversation noise level.
 Got it.
 Thank you.
 Council Member Timbatt.
 Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
 The DCRC really dug through, especially on that sound question that you had, and we spent
 a lot of time going back and forth between the commissioners and the councillors, and
 Mr. Davis and I and Councillor Byrd were really pushing on to make sure that, you know, given
 the occurrences that had happened out of state at other warehouses that didn't happen here.
 So we spent a lot of time on that with staff.
 So I'm happy to move approval of this item.
 Thank you.
 Council Member McGuire.
 I second.
 Great.
 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem second by Council Member McGuire.
 Any other discussion, questions?
 And none, Council Member Pro Tem, I'll say yes.
 Aye.
 Council Member McGuire.
 Aye.
 Council Member McGee.
 Aye.
 Council Member Watts.
 Aye.
 Council Member Byrd.
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutspeth is an aye as well, passed a 6-0.
 Thank you, Ron, and oh, yeah.
 Close the public hearing if I didn't close it.
 That completes our public hearings, takes us to item seven of our agenda, our number
 seven section of our agenda, items for individual consideration.
 I'll call the first three items because there's one presentation for all three.
 It's A, B, and C. A is ID 221557.
 Consider adoption of ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation
 authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with Frontier Access LLC.
 Then item B, ID 221558.
 Consider adoption of ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation
 authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with Rhino Removal LLC.
 And item C, ID 221559.
 Consider adoption of ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation
 authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with Waste Connections Lone Star Inc.
 Good evening, honorable mayor, members of council, Brian Burner, solid waste director
 with the City of Denton.
 I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today about the City of Denton waste hauler
 agreements.
 A little bit of a primer before we get started, what is a waste hauler agreement?
 In the industry we call it a put or pay contract.
 Hauler contracts with an landfill operator to deliver a guaranteed volume of waste in
 return for some sort of fixed price.
 City is due the money that they contract for regardless of whether the tonnage is delivered
 or not.
 So again, it's a full costing agreement.
 It is a benefit to the city to have these agreements in place because it becomes a guaranteed
 revenue stream.
 It helps stabilize rates for the residents.
 It dedicates revenue stream to capital projects but most importantly it aids us in long term
 planning for landfill operations when we're talking about staffing, equipment and growth.
 About three years ago we entered into our first waste hauler agreements.
 They were three year contracts.
 We had four commercial haulers and two government entities that we contracted with.
 When we went out for this bid three years ago, we had no ceiling on the capacity sold.
 Basically we asked for how much did you want to bring us and they contracted, we contracted
 with them.
 There was no incentive to recycle these contracts.
 The good part about these contracts is we significantly paid down debt that we currently
 had.
 Most importantly we were able to reduce the residential rate that our customers paid for
 solid waste services here in the city of Denton.
 We've listened to not only the community and the council and we've tried to address some
 of the concerns with this original contracting.
 First of all there was a concern about loss of landfill life.
 Over each of the years we've lost about, we've consumed about 90 days of capacity within each
 of the contract years so about nine months over the life of the contract came off the
 life of the landfill and again currently our landfill life is about 55 years.
 With the implementation of a new comprehensive solid waste management strategy we hope to
 extend that significantly in future years.
 Secondly there was a concern about increased landfill trafficking around the landfill proper.
 Currently we average about 520 transactions a day.
 About 25% of those transactions are through our contracted waste haulers.
 Another 25% just city of Denton operations and then importantly 50% of those are just
 cash customers.
 It's either the small contractor or your landscaper that's coming out, you know, mom and pop cleaning
 out the garage.
 That really shot up over COVID.
 It's come back down a little bit but most, 50% of our cash customers are just residents
 of the city of Denton and of the region coming through to dispose of material.
 Also we were concerned, we've heard concerns about the length of the contracts from being
 three years.
 It's just a little bit long from a planning standpoint, not from a planning standpoint
 but from an operation standpoint.
 So what we've chosen to do in these new contracts is actually take that down to two years.
 Under the current proposal we let a notice of intent number 8005 what we did is to capture
 really the value of the asset that we have, we raised the floor of the bid from $27 a
 ton to $35 a ton.
 Now what that does is we're able to capture the value of the asset but also remain cost
 competitive within the region.
 We also set a ceiling on disposal tons.
 Instead of being an open market we decided to say 125,000 tons which is about two thirds
 of what has been delivered historically in a given year.
 What we've also proposed to do is for waste haulers to put a little skin in the game is
 we've decided to add a 10% allowance for diverted material.
 So let's say we contract with you for 100 tons but you are able to net recycle 10 tons
 somewhere out in the recycling community, we're going to give you 10 more tons.
 So you'll have 110 tons that you can bring for diverting that 10 tons.
 It allows you just a little bit of cost, a little bit of benefit for you but also we
 can actually physically identify that metric and show that we're using this asset to help
 promote recycling in the North Texas region.
 We set the contracts to two year terms and there are significant reporting requirements.
 Currently we know what the tonage is, we know who's bringing it in.
 This year we're requiring all the waste haulers to specifically list the communities they
 serve as well as give us volume reports from their MRFs, material recycling facilities,
 that show how much they're being recycled.
 We'll be able to show as part of the reporting and the metrics of our comprehensive solid
 waste management strategy what the benefit of that is as we're moving forward in the
 amount of material that we're diverting.
 When we put this out we actually had four proposals received and the total capacity
 that was proposed was double the tonage that we had wanted to contract.
 So what we did is we selected the three bids that were the best value to the city of Denton,
 the highest cost paid and really what we found is the tonage was actually below the maximum
 contemplated when we dropped it down to the three high bidders.
 So we have waste connections, rattle removal and frontier waste.
 When you look at the tonage that they proposed we're at 105,000 tons with their cost per
 ton revenue was anticipated just in these three haulers is $3.8 million annually.
 If they all take advantage of the 10% allowance due to recycling, that's another 115,500 tons.
 Total potential revenue is $4.2 million.
 We've also had two government entities that we've contracted with this year.
 They've expressed an interest to continue the relationship so we're working on local
 agreements that you should see here very shortly back in front of you.
 We're working to memorialize those agreements.
 We're not including a diversion incentive with these two but we're going to be working
 to create programs in the next contract for counties and government entities other than
 the city of Denton to take advantage of.
 So if these two entities are Little Elm and Wise County, again some fairly small tonnages
 from the bigger but again 5,400 tons for these two interlocal agreements.
 Net revenue $189,000.
 If you wrap everything up we're looking at 110,500 tons.
 Net base revenue is a little over $4 million.
 With that 10% allowance we're looking at potential net revenue of basically $4.4 million
 to the solid waste fund, again to help abate cost as well as to create revenue, to revenue
 fund some of our capital projects that are out there.
 With that I would recommend approval of these three items, ID 1557, 1558, and 1559.
 It was taken to PUB here two weeks ago and they enthusiastically supported that six zero.
 I would be glad to take any questions that you might have regarding this option.
 Questions for staff.
 Councilmember McGuire.
 Thank you so much.
 Congratulations Brian on your new position with Solid Waste Association of North America.
 The Texas one, the Texas chapter, thank you.
 Congrats on that.
 Thank you for, I know that there have been a lot of concerns over the last few years
 about accepting waste from outside the city and about landfill expansion and I think that
 you are showing that you're really taking those concerns seriously and trying to really
 address them in a serious way.
 Can you expand on the interlocal agreements, what led to the decision to not include a
 diversion incentive and what other options are there for incentivizing recycling?
 Looking at the material that these two entities bring us, it's currently bulk and brush and
 it's mixed and the waste hall agreements we're looking at is more programmatic material.
 The things that you would put in your blue bin such as paper, plastics, the material
 they're bringing us does not meet that definition and we really don't have any sort of opportunity
 at this point set up to create that diversion opportunity.
 So in the next two years with the implementation of our solid waste management strategy, we'll
 be finding third party operators that will allow us to divert some of the C and D, better
 compost, looking at non-programmatic materials, whether it be textiles, appliances, furniture,
 things of that nature and then, you know, should we go forward in the next two years
 in some sort of opportunity, we would include it, include that diversionary with these different
 providers for them to utilize.
 Okay, well, can you tell me more then about what the difference is between the waste that
 the government entities are bringing and the waste that these private contractors are bringing
 that would allow the private contractors to divert but not the public entities?
 The public or the private waste haulers, they're doing residential collection very similar
 to what the city of Denton is.
 So it's going curbside, you're picking, you know, one cart is garbage, one side is recycling.
 The government entities, basically, those are drop-off stations for their residents
 to use.
 So, you know, it's just whatever ends up in the can.
 It's not segregated and, you know, really, it's not set up right now for that type of
 diversionary activity.
 Okay, that makes sense.
 And so they, where do Wise County and Little Elm take their curbside pickup waste?
 That's a really good question.
 I would have to follow up with them on that.
 But not to us, basically.
 Not to us.
 Okay.
 That's a good enough answer for me.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 All right.
 Thank you.
 Anyone else?
 Any other questions?
 Mayor Pro Tem?
 Thank you.
 And to follow up with that concern from the public that I know you've heard multiple times
 about how are we extending the lifespan.
 It feels like, and if I read your notes incorrectly, this is me asking this question to figure out,
 you know, how to say this, that any waste will shorten the lifespan.
 But how are you shortening that shortening?
 How are you increasing the time to the lifespan with this kind of programmatic response?
 That's a really good question.
 You know, and looking at the waste haulers proper, again, by providing that diversionary
 option that gives them more tonnage under the contract, it puts some skin in the game.
 So anything above what they're currently contract for, they're going to pay our gate rate.
 So $48 a ton when they cross the scale.
 So it's that $10 a ton difference.
 And again, that's the difference between getting a contract with a small city and not getting
 a contract with a small city.
 So again, it's in their best interest to work to recycle and have that net 10% available
 to them.
 Again, that 10% is optional, but again, it puts some skin in the game.
 They've got some effort and allows us to report.
 From a bigger regional standpoint, it allows us to start those communications with these
 companies because again, with these reporting requirements, now we know specifically which
 customers they are working with.
 So we can reach out to the, whether it be the pilot points, the Aubrey's, the Crumbs,
 whatever it's coming from and saying, okay, you know, we want you to recycle more.
 Here's some resources that the city didn't have online, y'all can use, take them free.
 Because again, most of that, many of those contractors bring the recycled material to
 our MRF here at the city and operate through Pratt, through private contracts that they
 negotiate with Pratt.
 So again, what we're trying to do is just like we're doing here at the city, auditing,
 increasing the quality of the material that's in the cart, reducing contamination so that
 the material that's diverted is a hundred percent diverted as opposed to just sort of
 going through the facility and ending up at the landfill.
 So if I might paraphrase a little and tell me if this is wrong, by sort of being the
 adult in the room, we leverage regional overall diversion higher, even though that might be
 locally a little bit faster from what we would have put into the landfill, but we're having
 a regional impact.
 That is correct.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 Any other questions?
 Councilman Watts.
 Brian, on the, because I think this went out for bids or an RFQ or what RFP or something,
 you know, to get proposals back.
 Correct.
 So we've got Lewisville, that their landfill is shut down.
 Is that right?
 Yes.
 DFW landfill, which was operated by Waste Management is shut down.
 The one out there by the Lewisville Lake out, whatever.
 One of them.
 There's actually two that are back-to-back.
 Camelot, which is owned by either Farwards Ranch or Carrollton and operated by Republic,
 they are still operational.
 Okay.
 So how does the rates that we're charging, according to these proposed contracts, comparable
 to other landfills around us?
 In other words, that real estate is getting more valuable.
 Right.
 And so are we getting a premium, at these $37 and $35, I don't know, is this a premium
 or is this just, eh, it's just, you know, what we get?
 This is slightly above market rate for the region, but if you're a hauler and you're
 working in, you know, Crossroads, Little Elm, whatever, it's easier to get to us.
 So the time in transportation, it's actually cost you less to bring it to us.
 So it's that time and material valuation that we threw into this contract here.
 Okay.
 All right.
 Thank you.
 Thank you.
 Seeing none.
 I'll take a motion on 7A.
 Council Member Weir.
 I move approval.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Second.
 Okay.
 I have a motion by Council Member Weir, second by Mayor Pro Tem.
 Any other discussion?
 Questions?
 Seeing none.
 Council Member Weir, how do I say you?
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Aye.
 Council Member Watts.
 Aye.
 Council Member Byrd.
 Aye.
 Council Member McGee.
 Aye.
 Council Member Hutzpeth, is an aye as well, passes 6-0, takes us to 7B.
 I'll take a motion.
 Motion by Council Member Watts.
 Sorry.
 No worries.
 Is there a second?
 Second.
 Second by Council Member McGuire.
 Any discussion?
 Questions?
 Seeing none.
 Council Member Watts, how do I say you?
 Aye.
 Council Member McGuire.
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Aye.
 Council Member Byrd.
 Aye.
 Council Member McGee.
 Aye.
 Council Member Weir.
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutzpeth, aye as well.
 That passes 6-0, takes us to 7C.
 I'll take a motion.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 I move approval.
 Council Member McGuire.
 I second.
 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem, second by Council Member McGuire.
 Any other discussion?
 Questions?
 Seeing none.
 Council Member, pardon me.
 Yeah, Council Member, no.
 Mayor Pro Tem, how do I say you?
 Aye.
 Council Member McGuire.
 Aye.
 Council Member Byrd.
 Aye.
 Council Member Watts.
 Aye.
 Council Member McGee.
 Aye.
 Council Member Weir.
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutzpeth has an aye as well, and that also passes 6-0.
 Thank you very much.
 Thank you very much.
 Appreciate it.
 Yep.
 That takes us to 7D, ID 221777, consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, confirming
 the appointment of Dove Shoemaker as Chief of the Police of the City of Denton and declaring
 an effective date.
 Good evening, Mayor, Council, Frank Dixon, Assistant City Manager.
 There's no presentation for this, but I stand ready for any questions you may have.
 Okay.
 Any questions for the Chief about the Chief?
 Council Member Watts?
 No questions.
 I'm just ready to make a motion.
 Yes, sir.
 I'll take it.
 Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the resolution.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 I'll second that, and then I'm actually going to repeat Council Member McGuire's joke in
 there.
 Do we still get to call you Chief?
 Sure, you can call me anything you like.
 Oh, that's a great answer.
 Okay.
 That's a motion by Council Member Watts, second by Mayor Pro Tem.
 Any other discussion?
 For those that are tracking, may have not seen it, October 3rd at 2 p.m. is it swearing
 in?
 October 3rd, 2 p.m. at the training facility at the police department.
 Okay.
 What is that?
 That's on?
 601 East Hickory.
 Perfect.
 It's 1019 to beat that.
 Okay.
 It's harder than it looks.
 It is.
 Yeah.
 Got it.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 So, any others seeing none?
 Council Member Watts, I'll say aye.
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem?
 Aye.
 Council Member McGuire?
 Aye.
 Council Member Byrd?
 Aye.
 Council Member McGee?
 Aye.
 Mayor Hussbett says aye as well.
 That passes 6-0.
 Thank you.
 Next item, takes us to FID 221852, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton,
 Texas amending the fiscal year 2021-2022 budget and annual program of services of the City
 of Denton to allow for adjustment to the Tourist and Convention Fund of $375,000.
 Mr. Mayor?
 Yes.
 Are we skipping E?
 Oh, I'm sorry.
 I got ahead of myself.
 Are you here for F and E or just?
 Yes, both of them.
 Okay.
 Should I just call them separate presentations?
 No, I can do Tourist and Convention first.
 No problem.
 Okay.
 What did I?
 Is that what I called for?
 Yes.
 So, yeah, just do, if you'll do F and then I'll come back and E, right?
 No problem.
 Is that all right?
 Sure.
 Thank you.
 Appreciate you.
 Daniel Stamford, Budget Manager.
 Daniel Stamford, budget manager.
 Daniel Stamford, budget manager.
 Daniel Stamford, budget manager.
 Daniel Stamford, budget manager.
 Daniel Stamford, budget manager.
 Daniel Stamford, budget manager.
 Daniel Stamford, budget manager.
 And I have a brief presentation for the Tourist and Convention Fund Budget Amendment.
 So the proposed budget amendment, we're asking for $375,000 to increase expenditure authority
 from $3 million to $3.4 million.
 And the reason for that is to fund the O'Reilly Hospitality Incentive Agreement.
 We are required by the agreement to pay out all of the revenue that we receive.
 And so we have received $375,000 more than we have budgeted for the current fiscal year.
 And with that, I'll take any questions.
 It's a good problem to have.
 Absolutely.
 Okay.
 Council Member Guara.
 So am I correctly interpreting the agreement that we are sort of under a ministerial obligation
 to vote yes to this in order to be in alignment with the agreement?
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 Okay.
 Any questions?
 I'll take a motion.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 I ministerially move approval.
 Okay.
 Council Member Byrd.
 Second.
 Okay.
 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem, second by Council Member Byrd.
 Any other discussion?
 Seeing none.
 Mayor Pro Tem, how say you?
 Aye.
 Council Member Byrd.
 Aye.
 Council Member McGuire.
 Aye.
 Council Member Watts.
 Aye.
 Council Member McGee.
 Aye.
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutspeth is aye as well, passes 6-0, takes us back up to E, which is ID 221663.
 Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending the fiscal year
 2021-2022 budget and annual program of services of the City of Denton to allow for adjustments
 to the Fleet Management Fund of $3 million for the purpose of increased fuel and maintenance
 cost.
 Yes, sir.
 Okay, so I have a quick presentation for you on this budget amendment request as well.
 We're requesting that the Fleet Management Fund be increased by $3 million from $12.3
 million to $15.3 million, and the major expenses driving this are increased fuel costs and
 increased maintenance costs.
 With that, I'll take any questions.
 Okay.
 Questions for staff?
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Come on.
 Yeah, just to be clear, is this money we have spent or money we will spend or a combination
 of both?
 It is a combination of both, so our actual on fuel sales are roughly $600,000 over, so
 we're projected to end the year roughly $1 million over budget and fuel costs.
 In operations, which would be your maintenance and repairs costs, we are currently over budget
 about $400,000, expected to end the year about $800,000 over budget.
 Okay.
 And that sounds good.
 Thank you.
 Sure.
 Doesn't sound good, but thank you.
 Councilman Watts.
 Thank you, Mayor.
 I want to make sure I just thought I heard what you said.
 So this is to increase the budget $3 million, a budget amendment for an additional $3 million.
 Yes, that is correct.
 And I thought you just said, so I might have misheard you, that the fuel right now is $600,000
 over budget and our budget year ends at the end of this month.
 Is that correct?
 The 2021 point?
 That's correct.
 And you're estimating that the fuel costs will be an additional another, not you, so
 this isn't about your projections.
 So their projections are that the fuel bill will be an additional $400,000 to a million.
 So I guess I need some, and maybe somebody can do this in my pair.
 I'm not going to vote against it, but if we've got $600,000 over nine or 10 months through,
 and we're going to incur almost 80 or 70 to 80% of that cost in one month, unless this
 is a different, unless we're talking about a quarter or something.
 Help me understand.
 And I'm going to ask you the same question on maintenance.
 So is this the budget person?
 Who can answer that?
 Come on.
 Come on down.
 Yeah.
 So yeah, that's the question is we got $600,000 through what date?
 I guess is my question that's $600,000 that over budget is through what date?
 We haven't closed the month of August yet, so we still have August and September.
 So two months.
 Correct.
 So you're estimating it's going to go over four, it's going to be 400,000 where we've
 had 600,000 up through October through July over budget.
 Okay.
 But that's a million bucks.
 Right.
 And keep in mind, summer is usually the time where we're spending the most kind of activity.
 Oh, no, no, that's okay.
 Yeah.
 Yeah.
 Whereas so then the, the maintenance is the same paradigm.
 And that is you haven't closed August out and I think up through you're over how much over
 budget
 400,000 over budget currently, and you're expecting a close out 100,000.
 Okay, so 1200 so 1.2 Oh, no, eight, 800,000 plus 400,000 is 1.2 million.
 Am I missing something?
 Oh, we got the 600 plus the 400 so that's a million.
 And then we've got the 800,000 is
 And then we also built in there a little bit of contingency for any year end accruals any
 billing adjustments, anything like that.
 Okay, because they weren't at I was thinking, those add up to about 2 million bucks, as
 we get bills in sometimes, very, very close to the last cut off.
 Okay, so that's what causes that we need to have a little bit of a gap there a little
 bit of cushion, because we end up getting bills in late, and sometimes larger amount
 of bills that come in later from, you know, across
 So this come out of the general this come out fund balance comes out of the fleet.
 But I mean, what if we're not, where do we get that extra cash from
 will do a trip for our allocations and we'll have will charge us back out to the other
 departments.
 Okay.
 When those internal transfers those kind of Yeah, yeah, the, yeah, the fun part.
 Okay.
 All right.
 But, but, but having said that, that that's got to come from, I mean, somewhere cash has
 to come forward.
 So does that come from a, I mean, yeah, we can say, well, we're going to bail out X amount
 to the police department, we're going to bail out X amount to the
 Some comes from general fund, and some will come from utilities, utilities, a big user
 of our, you can imagine with the bigger vehicles, such as solid waste and others, they're going
 to have a large portion of the gas use, but it's also about equipment, when we're replacing
 equipment, bumpers, things like that.
 So it goes out to all of our utilities, but also it does go to the general funds.
 Well, then the money comes from a fund balance for whatever particular end user, I say end
 user, the one that is the final department on the chain that actually consumes
 That's right.
 The fuel, they have to provide some kind of They have, they have funds that they have
 in their accounts, or they'll be charged for those purchases that were made.
 But sometimes it's a true up, correct me if I'm wrong, where we end up having to disperse
 those costs to those departments in a, in a more equitable fashion.
 Yeah, but it's going to be, it's going to push them beyond their budget.
 I guess what I'm saying is actually cash that changes hand to pay for this.
 And it could just along those lines, we do have more budget amendments scheduled for
 next week.
 So electric and general fund will be bringing budget amendments.
 So what would be helpful when you do that is to just show kind of, okay, yeah, the internal
 transfers we get, but that money has to come from somewhere.
 And so if it's a fund balance, or if it's a fund balance for the utilities, if they're
 over budget, with their fuel allocation and their maintenance, let's say for DME, then
 they've got to grab that money from somewhere, which is rate payer, the general fund.
 So that I'm just trying to figure out in the end, where does the actual cash come from?
 Right.
 It'll be different for different funds.
 So DME brought in more revenue than what we originally projected this year, but they have
 increased expenses, general fund is a little different, so it varies by fund.
 Cool.
 All right.
 Thanks.
 Great.
 Okay.
 Any other questions?
 Seeing none.
 I'll take a motion.
 Councilmember McGuire.
 I move approval.
 Councilmember Watts.
 I second.
 Thank you.
 Motion by Councilmember McGuire, second by Councilmember Watts.
 Any other discussion?
 Seeing none.
 Councilmember McGuire, Houseau.
 Aye.
 Councilmember Watts.
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Aye.
 Councilmember Burt.
 Aye.
 Councilmember McGee.
 Aye.
 Mayor Hussbuth is aye as well.
 Passes 6-0.
 That takes us to 7-G, which is ID 221854, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City
 of Denton, Texas, amending the fiscal year 2021-2022 budget, an annual program of services
 of the City of Denton to allow for the adjustment to the health fund of $2,500,000.
 All right.
 So we're requesting 2.5 million for the budget amendment for the health fund.
 Thank you.
 Sorry about that.
 So we're requesting 2.5 million for a budget amendment for the health fund.
 You got to do the full screen.
 Oh, gosh.
 I'm sorry.
 That's okay.
 Okay.
 Try this a third time.
 Increasing expenditure authority from 30 million to 32.5 million.
 The current expenditures for this fiscal year are at $28.3 million, which is 94% of the
 current budget.
 The major driving items for this budget amendment are the voluntary products such as dental,
 vision, Aflac, supplemental life, supplemental A, D, and D, and voluntary short-term disability.
 These do have a corresponding offsetting revenue.
 And then another major driving factor are self-insurance claims, the stop-loss administration
 fee, and the retiree health Medicare supplement.
 With that, I will take any questions.
 Okay.
 Questions for staff?
 Seeing none.
 I'll take a motion.
 Council Member McGuire?
 I move approval.
 Mayor Pro Tem?
 Second.
 Motion by Council Member McGuire, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem.
 Any other questions?
 Discussion?
 Seeing none.
 Council Member McGuire, I'll say you.
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem?
 Aye.
 Council Member McGee?
 Aye.
 Council Member Berg?
 Aye.
 Council Member Watts?
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutzbuth, as I as well, passes 6-0.
 Takes us to our last item before concluding items, which is HID 221902, Consider Adoption
 of Ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, Home Rule Municipal Corporation, Authorizing
 the City Manager to Utilize a Contract through the Lower Colorado River Authority Contract
 Number 5343 for the Acquisition of Electric Maintenance, Repair, and Construction Inventory
 to be Stocked in the Warehouse at DME, Denton Municipal Electric.
 Good evening, Mayor, Council.
 Jerry Fielder, Engineering Division Manager for DME.
 I'm here to present this for you, and I'm not sure I'm sharing this correctly.
 Well, again, my name is Jerry Fielder, I'm an Engineering Division Manager for Denton
 Municipal Electric, and I'm here to talk to you a little bit about the LCRA contract.
 This is a new contract from the amount of $16 million.
 I'm not Randy Key, but I do have the real Randy Key with me in case you ask me really
 specific questions.
 We can certainly answer those for you.
 Just kind of an FYI, the purpose for the LCRA contract is that this contract is really kind
 of a catch-all contract.
 This is a contract meant to handle low usage, you know, kind of one-time buys that we have.
 The city also can use this contract to buy a bunch of things, wire, cable, wire, hardware,
 connectors, spacers, and transformers.
 Transformers are the big item this time.
 So just kind of give you an idea of where we've kind of dispensed the money for this project
 is on the wire.
 We've got $2 million planned.
 Electrical cable is $2 million.
 Electrical components is $8 million, and that's the transformers or anything else.
 And electrical hardware is $4 million for a total of $16 million.
 So the reason why we're asking for this is you guys back in, I believe it was May, '22
 approved a $4 million contract, and we've spent it.
 And the reason why I'm mainly behind that is that the, it's like any electric utility,
 we're kind of going through the pains of having a lot of supply chain issues.
 And so DME is trying to stock up and get items in place so that we can continue serving our
 customers.
 And so we utilize the LCRA contract to buy a lot of that equipment.
 So that's really one of the reasons why, main reasons why we're doing this, but it also
 reestablishes this contract as the emergency contract for us to use in case we need to
 use it.
 And we'll be coming to you guys in the future for contracts for transformers and all these
 items individually.
 But this is kind of restoring the LCRA contract.
 With that, I will answer any questions.
 So I have one real quick.
 So with respect to the transformers, is that Autobots or Decepticons?
 It's the good ones.
 Okay, yeah.
 The Autobots.
 Yeah, definitely.
 Yeah.
 Very good.
 Good answer.
 I had to think real quick about what my son told me a long time ago.
 Although, you know, Optimus Prime is great, but the other guy, the Decepticon guy was really
 cool looking.
 Purple, black, gray.
 It's just kind of a good deal.
 Exactly.
 Anyway.
 Sorry.
 Good answers.
 Questions.
 Councilor Watts.
 Yeah.
 Anyway, I'm sure I'm up on the transformers.
 So this, has this been, has this been budgeted or is this an additional?
 It comes out of our capital budget.
 The capital budget.
 Yes, it's capitalized.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 Okay.
 Mayor Portem.
 So as we, as we have these wires and various components that need to be stocked and ready
 to go and ready to apply, you know, some of the things like, you know, the transformers
 are made out of, you know, they're essentially ceramic or whatever.
 But are we able to resell things that we are pulling off towers and replacing?
 Are we able to get some of our value back out of the dead materials as it were?
 If we can, we will.
 For example, substation transformers, they're high dollar items.
 We've actually, you know, we've retired several substations and several of those substations
 transformers have been put up for auction and sold.
 And so we will try to restore some, you know, try to get some of the money back for those.
 But typically with transformers, if it's repairable, we send it off to a manufacturer and they
 repair it and send it back to us.
 If it's not, it just kind of gets scrapped.
 Okay.
 And, and, and do we get like even just the metal value out of it?
 I don't know.
 I'll have to find out.
 I think on the scrap items, we don't really get anything back for that.
 Now we do have scrap metals and scrap wood and everything else that they do send off,
 but I don't know what the arrangement is as far as if we get paid for that, but we can
 find out.
 Yeah, I'd be curious.
 Sure.
 We're all generally very pro sustainable and I just be curious what we're doing with those
 waste materials.
 Thank you.
 You bet.
 Any other questions?
 Seeing none.
 Councilor Watts.
 I'll take a motion.
 Motion, make a motion to approve.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 I'll second.
 Okay.
 Motion by Councilor Watts, second by Mayor Pro Tem.
 Any other discussion?
 Seeing none.
 Councilor Watts, I'll say you.
 Aye.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Aye.
 Second by Mayor Pro Tem.
 Aye.
 Councilor Spadafore.
 Aye.
 Councilor Byrd.
 Aye.
 Councilor McGee.
 Aye.
 Mayor Hutspeth.
 Aye as well.
 Passes six zero.
 Thank you very much.
 Thank you.
 Concluding items.
 Anyone have any concluding items?
 Councilor Byrd.
 I just want to give credence to the city for the sign toppers that were installed in the
 southeast didn't neighborhood area and to be expanded upon.
 I really appreciated the article in the didn't record chronicle about this project.
 It's just so positive and of course I love positivity in all phases.
 So just thank you all city for accepting this idea and putting the energy behind it and
 meeting with the neighborhoods.
 So I'm really looking forward to getting my little neighborhood set up with sign toppers
 and any other neighborhoods.
 I understand that the neighborhoods have to be registered with the city before you can
 get started with this project.
 So if you have a neighborhood association, you all get together and contact the city
 so we can see or connect with putting the sign toppers in your neighborhood.
 So I love neighborhoods, I love families, I love children, those things are very important
 to me and I think that this is not a whole lot in that terms, but it does give families
 a sense of knowing where they are, knowing where they belong.
 Thank you.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 Thank you Mr. Mayor.
 So two things.
 The Denton County Historical Commission has an archeology fair coming up on October 1st.
 I know we're meeting before then, but I'm trying to get additional word out and full
 disclosure, my wife is helping organize that, so just for conflict of interest.
 But go out and see that, a lot of the Boy Scouts are going to go out and work on their
 archeology merit badges on October 1st, so I'm trying to get that on people's schedule.
 And then the other thing is, Miss City Manager, if you're working with Miss Duckworth who
 talked earlier, I'm going to go ahead and just volunteer to be someone that the community
 or she can talk with about their concerns and needs if they want to talk to council.
 Alright, anyone else?
 Councilmember McGee.
 Thank you Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, this is specifically for you, so I've been blessed this week to
 participate in this national nonpartisan conversation on voting rights, learned a lot of really
 great information.
 So for the second time I met Mayor Greg Fisher from Louisville, who as you know was the immediate
 past President of the National Mayor's Conference and he told me, he said how's it going here
 in Denton, and I said it's going well, but before I got a chance to finish my answer,
 he reminded me, he said hey look, whatever it is, I don't want to hear it, he said remind
 your city manager and your mayor that in Louisville we have 27 members of council.
 So however it's going in Denton, it ain't as bad as it is going other places.
 So he and Mayor Turner extend their thanks to the city of Denton for allowing me to participate.
 They say hello, look forward to rejoining you all next week, thank you very much Mr.
 Thank you.
 Yeah, please tell Mayor Turner I said hello, good guy, right you said Sylvester Turner
 right, that's right, Fisher and Turner?
 Yes sir, Mayor Turner is hosting, he's got a bunch of mayors here and city council folks
 from all over the country, so it's been a really really great and engaging conversation
 on what cities are doing to affirm and protect voting rights.
 Right, yeah, no Mayor Turner's great, thank you.
 Anyone else?
 Okay, thank you very much, appreciate that information, thanks staff everyone.
 So at 1004 we'll conclude tonight's meeting.

        
Back to Meeting