Nov 13, 2018 City Council on 2018-11-13 12:00 PM

Good noon. Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday November the 13th 2018. It is noon, straight-up noon, 1201. We'll go through our work session. Well first of all on the agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items. I don't see any blue cards. I don't see that we have any. So we'll move on to our next agenda item which is request for clarification of agenda items listed on today's agenda. Request for clarification on agenda items. Anybody have any clarification requests? I know that Councilmember Briggs will be back here shortly so I'll sort of see if she has any once we'll come back around to that so we'll leave that one open as well. So then we're going to move on to work session reports 3a receive report hold discussion provides direction on the land use assumptions impact fee capital improvement plan and the impact fees for the five-year update on the water and water wastewater impact fee study. Good afternoon there City Council my name is Kenny Banks I'm general manager of utilities. The item before you today is to take a look at our land use assumptions and the analyses that we've done regarding our impact fees. Denton has had impact fees in place since 1998. One of a couple of kind of housekeeping items just to point out there is a requirement by state law Texas Local Government Code chapter 395 to have the capital improvements advisory committee the council established our planning and zoning commission as that CIAC plus a single ETJ representative. There have been several meetings of the capital improvements advisory committee during the course of working through this this update and we are also required to have a public hearing on this item and want to point out that item G of your consent agenda today which is 18-1900 is to establish the that public hearing on December the 18th. So without any further ado I'd like to introduce John Atkins who is with Kimley Horn and he is the consultant on the project and he'll be giving the presentation today. Thank you. Before you okay that's the presentation because the presentation on our backup is the last PDF I think is that right? Exhibit 9. Okay all right good I'm sorry go ahead thank you. Thank you. Thank you Kenny. Yes my name is John Atkins I'm with Kimley Horn and Associates we were hired by the city to help do the study portion of the impact fee update and this is the presentation information you see here is what's similar in your packet plus a little bit of the information that Kenny's already given you and we'll go through that. The one thing that's kind of unique on impact fees you it only gets visited about you know once every five years so sometimes there's some newness to what is this really all about so kind of the first part of the presentation is a little wordy it's got a lot of words and definitions we talk about purpose the law a little bit of that kind of stuff and then after about six seven slides we'll get a little bit more specific about the update and the real the real meat of the visual of what's what you guys are going to be making a judgment call on in a decision on your update. All right okay so definition what is an impact fee? A one-time charge for new development to cover a portion of cost related to specific capital improvement program necessary to accommodate future growth. Future growth is kind of that key thing there. Provides funding for new facilities or expansions of existing facilities. Helps recruit eligible capital improvement costs that have been constructed with the capacity to accommodate new growth so existing facilities you already have that have been oversized to some level to accommodate future growth and then the law allows impact fees to be only be limited to water waste water roadways and drainage facilities and y'all have water and wastewater and that's what this updates about. Quick question I believe this might be for the city manager or the banks. On the recouping of eligible capital improvement costs do we have data on if we're doing that now in other words we've built things and we're applying our impact fees to that if we could just get a summary of that to the council just so we can sort of I don't think that was in the backup I didn't see it anyway yeah yeah just some data on that of so things we've built that we're now recouping sure some of those costs and how that impacts the impact fee yeah fee right yeah okay thank you one of the exhibits here may show you a little bit about the projects that y'all do have that are oversized okay be highlighted yep thank you okay alright some other legislative basis for impact fees like Kenny talked about it's authorized by chapter 395 of the Texas local government code it's pretty specific we have to define we did clearly have to define the items you see here service area boundary which will show you here in a minute the service units is what the law states from the previous studies in this one too we also use a term single-family equivalent so you'll see those two service unit and single-family equivalent terminology used interchangeably it's really related to the base meter that the city uses for a single-family resident and so single-family equivalent that equivalent is equivalent to the service unit so just think about those two terms interchangeably it's the base meter size that you use for water and sewer okay capacity analysis which is done through your master planning land use assumptions which comes from your comp plan and then we just and then also cog growth numbers there's an adoption of the public hearing that's this is part of that process that it's very spelled out in chapter 395 and then administrative rules on how you administer it as you collect fees and that sort of stuff it's actually been around for 30 years the law was first enacted in 1990 and 1987 and it was actually brought forward by the Texas Home Builders Association do the fact that they were wanting to be basically treated equitably and fairly across all cities throughout the state as far as their proportional usage of infrastructure and how they would maybe be impacted on their cost to develop okay principles and purpose for impact fees capacity the capacity needs due for from new development should pay for paid be paid for by those developments not by existing rate payers it's kind of the fundamental of fundamentals of why you want to consider to do impact fees allows cities to recoup costs for providing improvements to support that development provides a systematic structured approach for assessing the fee and then kind of the summary statement is is it facilitates growth paying for growth here's some of the assumptions that we use when we go through the study land uses land use determines your growth growth requires additional capacity in the form of capital programs water and sewer infrastructure is what we're talking about water wastewater system models determine additional capacity needs types of projects to meet those needs and also the timing of when those projects would take place capital cost estimates are identified and defensible the population estimates that we used in the land use assumptions are based on your current land use assumptions and then utilizes the North Central Texas Council government's population projections and then lastly what I talked about a little bit ago the service unit that is defined in y'all's study is a 5/8 by 3/4 inch meter which is the smallest meter that's utilized by single-family residents and so typically used by single-family residents and we talked about it also defined as a single-family equivalent so if you see service units and single-family equivalent or SFE you're talking about the same thing all right a little bit history Denton has had impact fees since 98 the state requires that it gets updated every five years so that's the point we're at here we're at the 20th anniversary and as far as the areas the zone served in service areas is divided into three zones for your water system and we'll show that an exhibit of that here in a few minutes and then one large service area for your wastewater okay quick things about what's what can what impact fees pay for components that can be paid for construction survey and engineering services land acquisition debt service on borrowed monies for those projects and then studies and updates for example our the fees for our project here roll into those numbers too and y'all can pay for the study like we're doing here through the impact fees items that aren't eligible if the capital improvement projects aren't listed in the study they're not eligible so if there's a maintenance capital improvement project that would not be on this list so I repair operation and maintenance activities for existing aren't eligible upgrades to existing service and then administrative cross to actually operate the program aren't eligible okay now we're gonna get into the specifics we're gonna start with water is the first part of this this is your water CCN boundary basically it's the defines the limits of where you can serve and this becomes the basis of the service area boundaries for the impact fee so the next next slide is this water service area like I mentioned a minute ago is divided up in three key areas you have service area one which is the central part of the city here which is 1a 1b is the outer ring around that area in the service area twos the pretty open undeveloped area that's to the southwest portion of the city to give you a little bit of summary of the land use assumptions portion this is the growth that the cogs growth projections but then what we really focus on is the growth projection over here of the single-family equivalents which it because it's focused on water and wastewater usage it entails both population growth but also non-residential growth is in that value so the population number and the SFV number don't directly correlate because we when we do the SFV growth projection it's also taking in the demand that's occurs from non-residential usage okay this is the CIP the impact fee water CIP map that's in the study oh you're we were talking just a few minutes ago about existing projects that are in the study that are eligible those are kind if you see the lines here that are highlighted look like a little highlighter shaded over those those are actually projects that exist in the city today that are eligible for recovery dollars the ones you see the different colored projects you see throughout the city are future projects also eligible in the next 10 years and then into the future beyond that to give you an idea of the dollars that's associated with that you got just under 400 million dollars of total project costs associated with the 32 projects you saw on the map as you can as you notice here almost two-thirds of those projects are actually already in the ground and are operational in the city today and then the other third would be built in the near future equating to the just under 400 million dollars worth of infrastructure now not all of that value is eligible for impact fee recovery yet and I'll explain that in a little bit more detail did you have a question I think I'm gonna get it in the detail here it was about the recovery so one question I had then to make sure I understand so these are the projects all the sort of blue tabs with the project names those are the ones since the last time or those are we're not trying to convey any more information in this map other than you have to ship list the projects out that are eligible whether it's an existing project today or a future project the labels in blue are just all the product just label no I understand that but in your in your in your next slide you showed that two-thirds of them were already in the ground and done well dollar wise yes right as far as yeah not two-thirds of the actual projects but from the dollar perspective yes and so that's sort of what I'd like to get an idea of is of that you know which ones are eligible for impact fees and if we're allocating impact fees to them how does all that work in other words you know it's money's fungible so is it just an accounting thing is it truly so just sort of the process on because I've always struggled with impact fees quite honestly because they're very nebulous and kind of but if we can get specific about what's going to what that would be great to know we can certainly do that yes okay okay get in the weeds a little bit more I won't go into a lot of detail in this this is just an example of the project list we get various project specific in the report this is the project list for water and what you see across the top here is existing capacity used to date what's going to be used in the next 10 years the difference between those two so example I'll just take the top one real quick if you see 90% of the lake being used today 100% in the next 10 years the difference between those two being 10% over the next 10 years and then you see the recovery cost and the total project cost and so what you see is the total project cost being 153 million 10% of that 153 is 15 million so that's that's the that's what the table is telling you and that detail is much more laid out in the report I'm not I can I'm gonna get into some examples of this a little bit more that may ask answer some questions so I'll just keep rolling and then if we and that's it and this may be a question this is just off the top of my head because when I see Lake Ray Roberts 90% capacity 2008 or 2028 it's gonna be at a hundred percent existing that doesn't mean that we can't draw any more water out of there that's that's there's something else that that's referring correct what is that referring to all right Tim would have to get in the specifics probably well if it's too if I just I guess for me it's just that doesn't mean that in 2028 we can't be getting any more water out of Lake Ray Roberts that's all I need to know yeah okay fair enough thank you yeah I'm gonna give you a couple of examples here I've highlighted here that I'm gonna show you a little bit of how this process goes that might help answer some of these questions I'm gonna talk about project three first the 54 inch finished waterline and I'm going to talk about the combination of the Lake Ray work existing what Ray Roberts plant along with the future expansion of the plant facility out there okay of the fit of the 54 inch waterline project as of today 35% being utilized okay so it's not eligible for recovery dollars because your current citizens are using that over the next 10 years 25% more of that pipeline is going to be utilized okay so that becomes the dollar amount that's eligible for recovery over the next 10-year window and then as you go into the future the rest or the additional 40% will be eligible for impact fees down the road as you next five you do this five years from now it rolls to the next 10-year window and those you can recover some of those dollars a little bit more I'll just keep keep rolling here sure okay now we're gonna look at two projects kind of in combination over the next 10 years looking at 2019 which is next year a five-year snapshot and then the 10-year snapshot what this shows you is the existing Ray Roberts facility is 60% utilized today with another 40% as eligible into the future the expansion of the plant hasn't been built so none of this is a projection for future expansion none of that's eligible today because it doesn't exist as we look five years ahead we just travel through time a little bit and an additional 20% is utilized in five years with another 20% eligible as you travel through that five-year window and the expansion hasn't been built yet so it doesn't it's not eligible and then lastly what you see here is now we're looking at the 10-year time frame 40% is eligible in the 10-year window the plant's been built between 2023 and 2028 and 4% of that gets utilized in the 10-year window and that's the eligible recovery values of that particular facility we'll keep rolling yeah we can keep rolling okay how are impact fees calculated well I want you to jump down here to this simple equation first before you get bogged down in all the numbers in these graphs just above it the actual formula for it for I'm using zone 1a in the water is an example the mathematical formula is fairly simple it is the impact fee per SFE or single family equivalent or service unit is the recoverable cost divided by the growth that's the mathematics there okay so there's 27 million divided by a little over 7,000 units gives you a dollar per SFE eligible for recovery within that zone okay so that's the math now if you jump back up the table above the top table you see is zone 1a and it talks about the additional service units over the next 10 years in that zone would be 7712 and then you see B is 7014 and then you see zone 2 we talked about in that real undeveloped areas were fairly low and this is these are projections over the next 10 years of what the growth potential is for Denton and then the lengthy information you see here from a cost standpoint is how we come up with the 27 million dollar number so we have a recoverable cost of 25 million for that area there's financing cost because you're paying some of this project some of these projects with debt money so there's financing costs associated with that you have an existing fund balance today for impact fees so you take that out you have interest earnings on the money you have in the bank so you have to take that value out that adds up to a total of 28 just shy of 28 and a half million dollars and then there's a credit for utility revenues there's a slight portion of your revenues today that pay for future growth but not very much and you can't so what you have to do is take that dollar amount out of your utility revenue and not put it as a part of your impact fee value so if we subtract out the utility revenue portion that's been paid for growth and then that equates to your final number your 27 number so does each zone have its own existing impact fee fund balance that's correct yes okay and the summary here's the summary of the three zones so the recovery number that I showed you for service area 1a just this this is it right here the 3569 the summary for 1b was the 5352 and service area to 7368 to give you some additional information y'all's recovery free in 13 you can see right above it the 3167 5250 and 5753 the council at that particular time made a decision to charge your action the fee that they they actually charge is what you see here the 39 3100 3900 and 4500 so real quick question on this one and this has always been a question and I know we're gonna go over the sewer rates you're gonna have the same presentation for the sewer West it's a lot quicker it's just yeah no but I'm saying there's gonna be a number there too and I think looking ahead I think it was like the similar or higher so just to make sure we understand that if I build a single-family home in either zone 1a 1b or 2 depending on which zone that before I turn one piece of dirt get my permit this is probably a question for planning or that as part of that permit fee is going to be wastewater and water impact fee if there wasn't a meter there before there's not any of those mitigating circumstances it's here it is it but it's so it's gonna be about seven to eight thousand dollars if not more and that's in zone 1a that's sort of what we're talking about this is what we're saying we're gonna charge whether it's a single-family home or if it's a business that has ten single-family equivalents then it would be that times ten if it's a two-inch or whatever it is okay all right you're understanding yeah what's up here that's the key yeah put it out there because it's gonna be a large number yeah it's gonna be a large number and so I'm sorry good okay that's fine now this is councilmember Duff I'm sorry you know if you if you come in and put a development in with say ten units okay are these impact fees paid up front or only when you get the meters it's when the when you go pull a meter it's paid up front it's it's when the meters the developer pays it up front no well all I know is when I pull my meter is paid up front so is somebody I'm talking about the developer that oh before they asked before they've even before they've even pulled a permit for the building well it you develop it okay and then you come in and sell lots it's permit based you pull a permit and you pull a permit to build a structure okay okay yeah just just to clarify you you pay that fee at the point of getting your building permit issued correct so not just yes not for it not for the development itself that is correct when you're pulling building permits is when you're gonna pay your party you're in that so I had a case in South Texas where I had to pay it up front but well as a developer but that's a different situation yeah okay that's it that was a depending on the timing of that it was 90 maybe 96 98 when the law changed where they did the law at one time said that it had to be assessed and paid up front and then the law changed so that's now depending on the timing of a friend in South Texas and when that happened yeah we're not in South Texas so we're gonna yeah yeah so it's a non issue sure councilmember councilmember break so just for clarification because we were talking about development developer in large areas but this also applies to one individual who has purchased land and wants to build a home so that is an added you know close to eight nine thousand depending on how many plots of land they have that they have to come up with just before they can get started building their own home so I just wanted to put that out there as well that it's not just a developer issue okay yeah that's correct thank you okay we're gonna jump the wastewater it's a little bit quicker because we have one service area and y'all seen the information this is a CCN boundary for wastewater that clearly defines what this wastewater service area boundary is for fairly simple it's one service area for the whole whole area so we're looking at one area population growth in that particular area is a little bit different and then the SFA SFE calculations a little bit different because we're focused on wastewater demand in that particular area here's what the impact fee CIP for the wastewater looks like similar the lighter colored the highlighted yellow or the existing projects the other ones in color our future here's those cost of the 40 projects about 156 million dollars worth the total cost once again proportionally it happened that it's about two-thirds existing and one-third future this is an example of just the spreadsheet I'm not trying to convey any more than this is the information that's in the report one example project we will talk about again here's the south wet weather lift station and detention pond similar type exercise today 48% of that is being utilized over the next 10 years an additional 14% is going to be utilized in the 10-year window making a little over $200,000 eligible for that specific project for recoverable impact fees and then as you move into the future you can recover a little bit more because it's oversized for greater than just the 10-year window and the summary I won't go through calculations again but here's the summary of the recovery fee for 2018 47 16 the number in 2013 when the study was done five years ago was 28 51 and y'all are currently charging 2200 and so that's the summary of water that's the summary of wastewater and then here the last slide is the CIC went saw this exact presentation and these were their recommendations for recovery so it's the capital improvement advisory committee's recommendations so that's the PNC plus one which is a person from the ETJ outside your city limits and it's the fee it's the recoverable fee is the value that they recommended I understand thank you so I'm are you done with this okay next slide is gonna be questions so this is really where it's open up to staff and yourselves to discuss and have questions and I'll step away from the podium well don't step too far away question for you so so first I want to say that you know I appreciate the attempt to in impact fees to not make rate payers you know pay for the cost of this essential water infrastructure but I'm concerned about what I have both heard anecdotally and read some studies on about the effect of impact fees on housing affordability not only for low low-income housing but even for moderately prized housing and you know I'm concerned that from what I've seen these these fees increase the cost of housing in a way that that government has less control over rather than if we did it if we just had it paid for by rates or in some other way through the through the general fund so that's you know that's my concern about about impact fees and additionally and I'm wondering if you respond if you could respond to this or these concerns which I'm sure you've heard as well I'm also concerned that an impact fee plan for future development considering our growth that the rate at which we're expanding would lead to or is kind of leading to a piecemeal development plan that is depending on on up you know private infrastructures instead of being able to again you know have the control you know that that we could if we had this come from a general fund or rate payers and that's something also that I've heard you know from from some people who have been impacted by in fact fees as well so I was wondering you probably heard these before I could see you squinting I'm wondering how you'd respond to that yeah yeah the latter one I've kind of seen less proof for but I've heard that that's been expressed to me and so I wanted to bounce then that's why I mentioned that second because I know however you do infrastructure it's gonna be one by one you're not gonna magically do it all at once yeah so anyway I was wondering if you could respond to those concerns it's you're not you're correct your first one especially as a common question or concern that gets asked it really becomes a you know I'm not gonna dance I'm not dancing around this but it really becomes a business decision the council may that's our policy it's the all's policy decision I there's I have no pro or con to that statement you know so it's really as a body y'all making a decision on the direction of how infrastructures paid for in the city yes it really comes down to that yes yeah but so you've heard I guess those concerns and you don't have any immediately yeah I mean that you're presenting just to study describing a policy discussion it really comes down to y'all's discussion yes on direction of the city and the city manager probably can do a better job than me I'm talking about the direction sure and thank you so much I just while we have you there since you're an expert I wanted to know before you step down if I'm helping Frisco update theirs we got their meeting in two weeks they're looking to be a little more aggressive just to give you an example of what their anticipate the council hadn't set a number yet but they and it appears they are going to be more aggressive on setting a higher number than they have in the past just an example of a comparative city in your in your area that's high growth so anyway thanks so councilmember Duff yeah I'll serve this area too you know it's a considerably higher number what happens if we all of a sudden get a huge development come in there which is which is quite possible you know this is what they're gonna have this is what they're gonna have to pay and maybe that's maybe that's reasonable because there's got to be a lot of infrastructure put in when they when they put it in I think it depends on the size of the development and what huge is you know if it was a if it was something like ropes and we would certainly take it probably out of this process and do a direct development agreement that contemplated the cost of servicing them and there would be a direct contract for that really what the what this is considering is some of those just you know the average developments where they're doing their best to project population growth based upon what's in the pipeline what what our planning staff is currently seeing in terms of development trends and it's a real simple equation here the money's got to come one way or the other so you know for a developer to build whether it's one house at a time or a hundred houses at a time the infrastructure has to be in the ground to support it if it's not there and available they can't develop and so it's a it gets down to do you bake it in the rate base which would mean spiking everybody's utility bill in this community to accommodate new subdivisions or do you have them or do you put the infrastructure in place ahead of time and gradually recoup it as it's being used but the thing with both water and wastewater is a little different is you know state laws will require you to plan out you know five to ten years ahead of when you're going to need this growth it's not a question that we're asked and it's not an option a city is given it's a mandate from the state you know once you start you hitting certain amount of your infrastructure that's being tapped out you must be in the planning stage and you must start incurring these costs if we were to try to put tens of millions of dollars of projects on the rate payers to accommodate new development everyone's rate in this city would go up substantially so it's sort of six one half a dozen the other how do you want to do it as far as the and I know some of you are very concerned all of you are so you know about the impact on affordable housing and we've had a number of questions on both building building fees impact fees that sort of thing you know our legal team has done quite a bit of research and you can't just waive these fees it's an illegal gift under the Texas Constitution as I understand it however you know one of the ideas that Aaron's staff has proposed is you know setting up some type of a grant application process that if the council wanted to set aside some some money let's say as a two hundred fifty thousand dollars is to seed money on both water and wastewater to see you know in order to assess you know the viability of this to help affordable housing you could certainly do that if you felt the projects warranted it so that's kind of a way to get you there if the affordable housing issue is the issue but on the on the other side you know we're putting you know millions of dollars of infrastructure in the ground so you know incrementally support growth and is it really appropriate that the current ratepayers fund that bill or should there be an equity contribution from the developers as that capacity is used and one way or another the dollars are still the same well you know once you start looking at a 1000 or a 2000 then then you go back and take a look at that differently yeah I understand for sure very much so question for Todd following up on on what you just said so I'm as I understand it and and from what I've read the city of McKinney and also the city of Arlington has policies and and I think they're not the only cities maybe Little Elm - I was just looking to see others that at least as they describe it wave impact fees for certain kinds of development either for economic develop certain kinds of economic development or low-impact housing so how and and they're very public about it right so do you know offhand you know how that doesn't is is legal I'll defer to city attorney on that one typically I'm not familiar with those cities but I'm familiar with Austin's as part what Austin does with certain developers is that as part of getting economic development dollars they'll actually put in the the agreement that a certain percentage of citizens set aside for affordability and that so that's a different way to go about it they're not just doing it directly through impact fees it's part of a larger economic development incentive agreement with these particular developers okay thank you so I and I had I mean early on when I had asked for a work session on waiving permitting fees and impact fees for low-impact housing I had brought low income housing I brought an ordinance from McKinney and you know they use the term wave and so you surely know better than I do you know kind of how that term can be used illegally you don't have to get into that now but I would like to see either you know in a personal email or in some other form you know how that is how that is possible how these other cities McKinney Arlington it looks like here you know or at least McKinney and Arlington have have are able to use that term okay good councilmember Nelson yeah some observations and a question so infrastructure costs money it's going to affect the affordability of someone my question is just who's affordability and you know I think there's a strong argument that it that if the expense matches the growth you know but it's making it less affordable for current residents because new residents are coming doesn't make you know all the much sense to me and I also observe that even if you live in a rural area you know I grew up you don't expect water and sewer to be free you still have to put in you know your well and your septic and you know that stuff just costs money but some of the rub that I'm picking up is the idea that it's got to be paid for all at once and I wonder if there are structures well first of all does the expense really hit the city all at once it's it's kind of a long run cost right you know are there structures where you know maybe some of it is upfront and some of it is over time or and then just make a lot I'd like to hear answer to that one but just the last comment that I think it's an entirely separable issue whether or not we want to subsidize worthy projects you know if there's a low-income project or whatever reason I know I know the TIF has has made grants to offset impact fees when they're worthy projects within the TIF so my question goes back to is there a way to structure the payment so it's not a big hit all at once we've tried to it's a good question we've tried to basically do some revenue funded capital for the current projects in the system that are replacement that are have already been paid for by our residents we're not we're not probably funding of the extent we need to on that but we're making good progress on the new projects are most entirely going to be debt-funded given the size and scope of them you talk a large intercept remains as you know you saw up there we've got we're about 10 years away from a tipping point where the plants gonna have to be expanded another 20 or 30 MGD which is gonna require we think somewhere between an 80 and 90 million dollar investment so the idea really is you know try to try and it's gonna take you know millions of dollars in design costs just to get that next trip expansion up which again would not be needed if we weren't growing so that's really the fundamental issue but yeah we typically always match it up these big expenses with debt so it does make sense and they in the practice has been utilizing the impact fees to either do small projects or actually pay part of its respective debt issue back as well sure there's a way to match the cash flows in a sense right yes and that and that is the idea I think the projects that you saw up on the screen that kind of outline what the impact fees be based on you you know should those projects actually come to fruition this is a proportionate share should we not experience as much growth the projects won't be necessary so there is sort of a proportionality to it and in terms of the affordable housing issue that I think that's a fairly simple fix to set up should the council decide to go down that path you know give some administrative discretion of certain projects hit meet certain guidelines or if there's a large development that came in that wanted to you know to access a grant dollars that we set aside and what one way or another even if it's a grant I still would view that the same as waiving him because it's still coming out of the rate base so mayor pro tem had a question I guess this is two part of the first first part of is do we charge impact fees if you have an existing meter and you upsize you get charged the difference between the two impact fees is that correct I'm gonna defer this window Kenny yes if you have an existing meter and the uses is not changing in terms of the type of use then you just paid the difference between the upsize meter and what you originally had you're not we don't charge twice for the impact fee if an impact fee has been paid on it and you get a larger meter you only pay the difference between the original impact fee and that larger meter okay in in that's where I've got some concerns on impact fees in particular you look at the downtown area and we would love to get all those buildings sprinkler downtown but the cost of that impact fee for them for water that won't be used unless there's a fire is as much as what the actual cost of putting in the sprinkler system itself water water taps for fire are not metered there is no impact be based on those okay good okay any other questions so the the recommendation is the 4716 across all zones for both the way to the wastewater and water impact fee is that correct is that what the is that that's what that's a recommendation from the CI AC okay yeah the values you see here are what recommendation was her zone okay do you got does staff need direction today on this councilmember a couple related requests one I'd like to see a list of impact fees of comparable comparably sized Texas cities and you know how we how we compare maybe there's something like that already out there and apologies if we anticipate that question so okay yeah I'm not predictable yeah so yeah so I would like to see that and also you know and I'll leave this to you to staff kind of how to you to formulate this but I would like to have some estimates I realize it's it's all estimates and you know playing with numbers on for a homeowner even you know even outside of low-income housing just for moderately priced housing however however defined what the difference would be in how much you would pay in rate or what the increase would be in rates for impact fees versus the impact on either on a monthly mortgage payment say or whatever the costs and I realized depending on you know whether it's a homeowner who's living there you know depending on what kind of housing they the costs for for the property owner or the renter which I'd also like to see are impacted differently I wouldn't know you know I don't have the skill set to make those calculations I've been having a hard time wording it but but I would love it if there could be a figure that you know you could look at where you could see okay it's a choice between my rates going up this much or my monthly rent mortgage payment whatever going up this much I'm not saying I want to be up to that it should be up to the individual but some sort of way of comparing these impact I've looked at some studies about you know kind of the US generally but something more Denton specific specific we did have a water impact fee comparison here and so and so you can these are divided by the individual zones and we've got the 2013 existing in the green the 2018 is in the real is the full recovery from the 2018 study zone 2 is the highest zone as was mentioned that is driven in part by the amount of infrastructure it takes to service that area and also by the currently relatively small growth projections it's only about 4% of the single-family equivalents that are anticipated in the city in this period so let me ask you just clarification on this slide yes so we had those calculations of zone 1 zone 1a or 1b and 1a and 1b okay and zone 2 right then the recommendation was a number smaller than both of those combined so when we're comparing these these are the numbers from their studies these are these the ones that are actually being charged by those cities these impact fees that these are the actual impact fees from the cities themselves that they're charged that they're charging well then so I don't know if we can I don't know if ours is correct on here because what we're charging is $4,700 which is the Denton zone 1a I don't even know if it's that so if we if we put that somewhere in there at the 40s I don't know if this is apples to apples is what I'm saying if this is what they're actually charging but on the graph is what our study indicated for the three zones right but if we put in if this council for discussion purposes said hey we're gonna go with the recommendation of what's 4717 or something like that or yes yeah oh I thought that what the slide said wastewater and water wastewater is one zone water you've got three zones so it's additive so okay here you go so like if you were in service area 1a your impact fee would be 80 $200 okay got you so that's how that works okay fair enough so then back to your slide that was just the water then okay fair enough I misunderstood the slide my apologies and and I would like to to point out again a lot of these are are not city there's a few of them that have individual zones but if you took a look at all of our zones combined on the water side where we're looking at the combination of 1a 1b and 2 that number ends up being around 4,188 dollars so you can see what our 2013 full recovery look like and then our 2018 full recovery looks like in comparison so it's just another way of viewing the information so I think I could guess but I'm curious what of these cities here listed here you know which are roughly comparable to Denton in terms of population and growth projections because there's some there's quite a bit of variety to you that's why I'm you know that's why I'm having a hard time with it even though I appreciate and find this useful right generally and this is a very general statement you're going to see the higher impact fees associated with areas that are experiencing more rapid growth because you've got a lot more capital projects and then you have a tendency to see the lower impact fees associated with those areas that are getting built out and that consumptive capacity is is not being taxed as much that's a very general statement but I think that's the the easiest way to consider kind of the relative differences in the spread that you see between these these areas there's a lot of factors to some some cities are members of more regional water co-op and they may be baking those rate you know those fees into the rates so there's some communities will make a policy decision that we we don't mind if our rates go up a little bit in order to bring the impact fees down so there's not a right answer it's just sort of what you're seeing here it's it's trying to separate the accounting as much as possible and basically show you should should you take the approach of not of making growth pay for itself completely here's where your impact fees are anything less than this means that some of it gets slid into the rate should these properties come to fruition and there's just not a right answer it's just what you're comfortable with so so could you go back to the slide that shows the wastewater where I got confused so that I can then look at it differently okay so what we're saying then based upon this is in zone 1a if you build a single-family home your impact fee is going to be eighty two hundred almost eighty three hundred dollars yes thirty five sixty nine plus four seven sixty but on the wastewater because if you have a multiple unit you know a four-inch sewer pipe is going to handle more than one year but is it fixture basis how many fixtures are based there on that one line yeah there there are for a multi-family multi-family we we have within our code as point two six single-family equivalents per unit gotcha and then so you'd multiply that times that's that's correct gotcha all right okay depending is that point two six depending on whether it's a one bedroom two bedroom or three bedroom or however many baths or there there are fixture based calculation okay good because I was gonna say you could you could get around you could correct be interesting okay yes I'm not sure who to ask maybe you direct banks is our billing system sophisticated enough to do something like spread an impact fee over let's say 60 months regardless of change of ownership the difficulty in that is that because it's it's collected or supposed to be collected at permitting if you have a change of ownership how would you guarantee except through a deed restriction or a lien that that would get paid because if there how would you secure I guess would be my question on that payment if the property transfers then if there's not a lien on it it's not gonna get paid off at closing and then if there's not a lien on it then somebody's not gonna have to you're not gonna be live you don't need you don't take it subject to the lien so I guess I guess you're implying a lien would be the way you'd have to do it right well yeah I mean to really want to do it yeah if you wanted to do that but yeah it could be very interesting but yeah yeah any other questions yes I'm gonna ask a question that I think that you had started seemed like you had started to ask mayor which is kind of this this the last time this is coming before us this staff need direction now will this be coming before us again this seems to be more kind of informational focused but if I could I can go over the next steps the the as I stated earlier you have in your consent agenda item G to an ordinance calling a public hearing on this item what we're seeking is direction from the council as to what rates you would like to establish so that we can complete the backup for that and call the public hearing and so that's what we're what we're asking today that doesn't have to be a formal recommendation a consensus would work we just need to have the information available for the backup okay so our current fee is less than what the proposal is here and what was our current wastewater fee current fee is 2200 here so we're basically more than doubling that that's correct yeah I'm gonna be I'm gonna struggle with $8,000 in zone 1 and then 13 in zone 2 and I don't know how to come up with a number that has some kind of basis rational basis to it I mean this obviously is but that that's you're going from 5,000 roughly 5,500 currently to a little bit over 8,300 so our our service area too is 57 53 recovery fee but 4500 is what we're charging right and then you could add to that the current fee of 2200 so which is about you're looking at six thousand seven hundred dollars for zone 2 now right but if you took these recommendations on zone 2 you're looking at seven six three eight plus four seven one six that's correct which is 12 something which is almost double correct yeah all right yes Councilmember Hesbeth thank you so looking at the if I understand the chart right from 2013 round numbers 78% is what they of the max is what they applied so I think as a launching point maybe we we start looking at that so the the number is adjusted for cost and the percentage is static and what that looks like you know then the other thing for me when we're talking about low income I'd like to hear someone talk about how that savings is attached to the in cost right because ultimately you could produce a savings that then produces profit for for a builder builder you know you how do you how do you that's not a straight line so hi I don't understand how does that right right and then also I think in an instance when we're talking about a specific entity like a habitat where we know their materials are discounted or donated that sort of thing too but that would be a component for me because ultimately what if I if I take the first number that you were working with the eight thousand two hundred eighty five in the average house and Denton is two hundred thirty thousand dollars that's four percent of that house cost that's that's that's not what your problem is you know as far as it's the dirt it's the lumber markup labor etc etc is where it gets to be real numbers if we're talking about getting the home prices down or affecting them that so that that's kind of my question what I'd like to hear so short answer for the question that staff is asking that would be mine my process to see what seventy eight percent of the max looks like and then then I just I'd like to hear staff someone explain what if other people do it how do you pass that ensure that savings get passed along and I don't know that that it sticks right even if you insure it the first time that ship sails the second time and I don't know that there's a second time to be able to manage that but that's my concern with what not concerned but that's my fear of that savings getting to the to the intended part I think your second part that's probably a little easier to answer and then I've asked David to show you a slide we put together just showing you the impact of to the rates of reducing for every hundred dollars that you reduce the impact fee what that eventually means in terms of being passed through the rates just so you can have that in context but as far as your affordability side of it the habitat I mean at the end of the day any any grants any reductions in fee just get spread on the rate base so the you know the habitat one that's pretty easy as long as there's some building permit clearly shows that its habitat council wanted to head that direction we would grant some impact fee relief there through a process that we would determine with the other question it's a good one in terms of the affordable housing developments itself and probably strongly advocate for an application process and some kind of a an ongoing financial reporting that they would agree to share actual costs rate of return that sort of thing as a quid pro quo for having the the fees reduced and just kind of an annual reporting mechanism for whatever period could be a ten twenty year period wherever the council felt appropriate but I'm not sure there's any other way to handle it other than that was some kind of an you know attesting that these are the facts and I haven't had a chance to talk to Aaron about that at all but that would be my recommendation in terms of I just wanted the council to understand the decisions that we make today and what that means the rate base because we have these discussions at budget time we're very concerned about you know keeping our rates under control and that sort of thing and I wanted to ask David to give you just a quick overview of how this works what the trade-off is to the ratepayers David games assistant director of finance but we want to just show what this chart is obviously the impact we we've been discussing is a full recovery fee this is the fee it would cost it would that we would charge to fully pay for all of the all of the growth related infrastructure this is a very high level and there's there's caveats that go into it in the sense that rates are affected by many factors especially as we look over a five to ten year period but at a basic level well what this says is for every hundred dollars that you decrease on impact fee there's gonna be a corresponding rate increase by this percentage affected and that's just simply looking at the total amount of rate revenue we bring in versus the less revenue that we get from the impact fees so that's the intent of this chart to say if you go down $400 it's a 2% increase and in total rates so let me make sure I understand the man here yeah so what I thought I heard you say was you've got in these zones these this individual impact fee that is meant to collect recover a certain amount of money let's call it ten million dollars and so what you did here was to say well for every time that you lowered a hundred dollars which translates into X amount of dollars at the end of this ten year period whether it's a million or two million how much would it take in a rate increase over a ten-year period and the water rates to just create that much more revenue is that same amount of money so over ten years that is that what this charts about yes okay yeah okay over ten years it's about 60 million dollars roughly in impact fee revenues so if we're not getting those from impact fee revenues we have to make up for them somehow and so the truth okay I just need to understand how this are being calculated all right all right okay so one more question clarification so let's say we did no impact fee right so then my understanding is that over a ten-year period your rate would have to go up it looks like a little less than fourteen percent correct based on this again there's there's other I don't understand that but yes that's fourteen percent a year is that fourteen percent over ten years which would be about an additional one and a half plus whatever you're gonna have to raise on top of that is that based on this chart it would be fourteen percent per year you would have to increase your fee fourteen percent okay that's for water only okay but that's your understanding that this is a fourteen percent increase yeah annually that's the magnitude of the debt that would be incurred given the plan that's in place and the improvements that are necessary if all those dwelling units are built so forth so I'm a see on the whatever the thing is so the data is important so then so what it so 1% of water revenue would equate how much money per year if we if it's just one percent of water rate revenue yeah any idea four hundred thousand four hundred thousand so what you're saying is fourteen percent what is that for what's that math that's got to multiply that times 14 so that's five hundred that's five point six million dollars a year so you're saying you would have to create okay that doesn't make sense to me because it helped me understand that is that just for the debt service on 60 million dollars basically look at our if you look at our forecast right now when we tentatively plan our 10-year forecast we're estimating about six point eight to seven million dollars of impact fee revenue if we adopted the fully recovered fee that's just an estimate in water so if you lost that revenue you would have to make up six point eight to seven million dollars in rates so so when a couple of questions so first we have different kinds of water fees right there's the I mean what a rate rate payer groups rather you've got your commercial and you've got your residential and so is this this is assuming that the increase in costs would be the same for commercial and residential yeah well again we're looking this is very high-level just saying total revenue yeah what would it be yeah so it could be and I don't have a specific proposal here to throw out but I just wanted to confirm that that you know it could be divided differently between the the two different rate payer groups I mean I think that would just be part of our annual discussion on rates when you get to the part one of the yeah we talked about rates all that would go into it and whatever decisions made at the council level on what rates for would got it yeah and so that that makes sense and and then kind of and secondly what I'm struggling with and I guess this is just kind of more of a comment or where I stand now on direction after hearing the whole discussion and I really appreciate the discussion I so I have a hard time approving the recommended impact fees but I know that you know I myself don't have these skills to come up with a figure a proposal partly because even though this is extremely helpful in doing that and I don't on the one hand I don't want to see rates go up because you know people are struggling with rates but people are residents small-business owners in addition to struggling you know paying water and water bills and wastewater electric are also struggling with all other kinds of costs right and at the end of the day you know people who are struggling I don't just mean low-income you know even moderate everybody who sees the cost of living go up and wages remaining stagnant if your cost of living is increasing at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much where that money is coming from whether it's from city taxes or federal taxes or or you know county tax for just as it used taxes it is an example so I would I would need to see you know some sort of comparison chart and I realize it's so speculative you know but to be able to come up with the figure I also second you know councilmember hud spits you know concern about you know how can we you know what what happens to that to that savings you know but we can save save that for that for that discussion when that comes to the comes to the table at the very least however you know we can be pretty certain that when the impact fees go up it's either cost will go up or maybe safer to say that they're not gonna go down because that's a huge member armature what exactly I mean are you are you want needing more information or okay exactly yeah and I was just I was trying to to add to kind of what I had said before to tweak it a little about the kind of information that I'm looking for with the understanding that it I understand it's very speculative but and I'm fine get being on board with it something going forward to a public hearing but I feel like if we so if we if we approve this to go forward for a public hearing at a certain date the appearance is that this is that council is okay with this and we're well I don't know about that I think I think that I mean dr. bank stated that we he has to have something to put in the backup yeah to present at the public hearing so I mean this council is made you know given direction or just given some kind of data that they need so I'm just trying to understand do you have an understanding of what she's asking for do you want to see a comparison on what it would do to the residential and commercial to water rates in more detail or are you referring more to the kind of cost of housing yeah that's really the thing about rates is a separate issue that that that I understand and agree as you said that can could be discussed when it's time for us to discuss rates and that'll depend on whatever gets just voted on decided on impact fees but I want you know some sort of look at a comparison on projections as to as as impact fees go up by each you know something like this where we could see as impact fees go up how might that hypothetically impact you know low low-income rental housing you know moderate income you know rents and you know property owner costs if I could I mean yes my one concern with that is you know we've seen we've seen numerous development proposals over the last 12 months some some folks come in they won't do it they'll do a project they won't do a project unless there's a 20 or 25 percent rate of return others will come in and say you know we'll do it at 10 to 12 percent we're assuming that it just gets passed right on to the cost of a the end user but it really depends on what that developers pro forma is what it's you know how much profit is enough profit to make a deal happen and with a really hot market you know you're gonna have a very different answer than if the market cools and and so I think that we're taking a lot of mathematical liberties and really not realizing that the market is not consistent and you know there could be some developers that we're just gonna eat that in order to get the house done others I'm just not sure it's ever that clean that we can give you that answer with any level of certainty so of course of course and I'm just saying I know because I've read these studies now I don't it's not entirely clear to me how they come up with these calculations right but but I know that there are kinds of you know high-level hypothetical formula and I don't and maybe that's not for even for staff yeah I don't really I mean I think that's really outside the scope of this count I mean that's so speculative to find that those answers I mean this body is going to have the information and if you need the information they might can get it for you but we we haven't even given direction here yet so if the direction is to move forward with with the numbers proposed then that's what the direction I guess that just seems very speculative to me it is it is it is back yeah and I don't know if I want to ask staff to waste their time on speculative things that in some ways aren't even able to be verified and it's based upon who knows what kind of assumptions and things such as that so and I'm happy to writing to some of the authors of these studies giving them figures and asking staff they can plug them in okay but you know there are people who do these these high these you know high-level calculations but you're absolutely right it's speculative and it's absolutely not certain but I just I don't feel comfortable approving and you're gonna have an opportunity to say that I mean you've said it so I guess we've got six other people who couple I know that want to make a comment and then we're gonna give them direction thank you yeah councilmember husband could you walk me through using because I'm not sure I know how to use your chart here so so if I use the numbers provided and the max and I subtract out 78 percent of that so if we look at I think it's zone 1b and the number is five thousand three hundred fifty two so if my math is right I take one thousand one hundred seventy eight dollars from that where does that what number do you need to show me how that impacts the rate it's a it's either a 12% make sure that's right to 22% discount right or it's one thousand one hundred seventy eight dollars so that except this is an average this charts an average of all the rates so it's it's hard to but I can say that we've looked at it if you went with about that 78 about the same percentage it'd be a on this chart about a two point eight percent of change to the rates so two point eight percent up for the for everyone at the rates to hold that line if you did this 78 percent right the current total okay thank you that's helpful councilmember Briggs so I'm okay moving forward as is for now to get it to a public meeting and I think some of our best feedback comes from the public those who actually have been developing or have had situations that they have been through with it but I would I'm more comfortable personally starting at like the 2013 level and then working our way back up a little bit from there then then jumping right in but that will come in in time but I would also like to see creative ways that we can offset some of these with the affordable housing like you mentioned and maybe if there's a a different calculation we could do on an individual homeowner who may not have as big as an impact as say a full development would have I don't know if that that's possible or not but okay so you're saying that the numbers that were presented as stated you're okay with at least going to the public hearing with those understanding that you're not saying that you're in favor of those that's just to get to get it to the public here oh yeah they will definitely come to us for sure yes anybody have a different I know councilman Amater does don't put words in your mouth I know that that's not what you want to necessarily say so any everybody else okay with with that yes I'm fine going to the public hearing with these numbers I think we need to recover the full class that suggests that the chart we were just looking at where we see the impact against rates should be shared at that time as well I'm personally not in favor of subsidizing new development on the back of the rate payers but I'd also like to ask if staff can spend you know more than the 30 seconds we did here on the fly to see if there is a practical way to spread the cost you know that's done in lots of industries insurance you know but I think it merits at least some thought sure yes customer husband thank you just to understand what I'm saying what councilmember Briggs said I thought I heard her say 213 rates start with those not the new rates did I hear that wrong that's where I personally stand and will come out as a public hearing goes but I'm just saying for for the covering cost and for the public hearing sake we can start with what staff recommends and then we can always work our way down that's fine that's it okay I mean I'm okay with that I mean I share the same but yeah well we're gonna all have a chance to discuss this again once we have the public hearing and then make a policy decision about it okay great thank you very much appreciate it thank you Dr. Maynes all right we'll move on to our next agenda item which is receive report hold discussion give staff direction regard is it this is about probably a long one I would think let's just take a real quick break before so we don't have to take one maybe in the middle welcome back everyone to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday November 13th 2018 it is 125 moving through our work session reports we're on a work session 3b receive report hold discussion give staff direction regarding didn't development codes of chapter 17 good afternoon Richard can only development services department what I wanted to do be sort of before we get sort of dive in just kind of go a little bit into the approach that we took in in developing the draft that's in front of you if you recall there was an ISR I think we did around the first part of the year it kind of talked about sort of how we method methodically how we were kind of kind of go through updating this and sort of looking at looking at it in with four major components one the inventory of what we have today which was completed in 2016 again setting goals to sort of give us direction moving forward and then established the methods to achieve those both from from from a regulatory or private perspective as well as sort of programmatic from from the public side and then looking at how we how we evaluate and and establish metrics and moving forward to see how successful we are and so we organize this presentation again sort of following through the the the different categories start with sort of a background past and present get into the again the the the meat potatoes of kind of the regulatory or private side goals making sure we comply with the local government code increase mitigation habitat and quality trees and then get into kind of a best scenario you know if if everyone was extremely happy today and gave me the go-ahead what what's the best case scenario we would have in bringing this forward conversation on on the tree fund changes potential changes to the fee and just sort of how that bridges then into the programmatic or public side with respect to the forestry plan land acquisition right away plannings and parks and and other facilities so again just starting with the background this all started back in 2003 some of you may recall flow hospital site redeveloped there was an outcry with respect to quite a bit of oaks that were removed as a result in 2004 the the current tree preservation and landscape requirements were adopted almost a year later there was a committee established to update those regulations in order to to tighten the ordinance and so from that time over this 13 year period we have been continuing bringing forward numerous iterations of drafts of the tree coat both from from different committees consultant staff members one thing I wanted to point out which I've highlighted kind of in yellow is around that same time this is when we're at the state legislature has been with respect to trees and and regulating it and so it started 2005 2011 bill failed 2013 that was the if you believe your tree was going to cause a fire or had the potential to cause a fire you could remove it without without mitigation 2014 council council directed staff to update and then accomplished three objectives again streamlining the code aligning it with city standards and best management practices and provide for a more robust code that will expand and protect tree canopy including planting of trees on private properties with expenditures from the tree fund and so in 2015 ordinance 2015 252 was adopted that that made some changes to the to the tree fund specifically deleting that that it had to be done on on public property as well as a lot of allowed for some other expenditures the the study was complete and then again through 16 and 17 in multiple multiple drafts of the of the ordinance were brought forward there was a work session in 2017 regarding the purchase of property I think there were five properties that were under consideration at that time and then again in 2017 there was House Bill 744 which ultimately didn't didn't get put in put into place but there was a special session where House Bill 7 was signed into law creating 212095 of the Texas local government code so that's sort of a little bit of the of the past history present where we are today back in in May I'm sorry April and May both City Council work session sealed committee on the environment we had we had presented some policy items for discussion from that time we had an initial discussion with the DCRCR development review code committee just kind of on the framework of the of the language and then from about sort of the end of the summer from August up through just last week we've we've gone back and forth almost every month to to both CEO committee on the environment and planning and zoning Commission with drafts looking at addressing some of their some of their comments and concerns so the draft that you have in front of you today really for a discussion draft this it sort of takes into the input that we've received to date again looking at increasing preservation but but also making sure we're going to comply with with local government code that was recently put into place and so let's sort of talk about that what what does that mean so House Bill 7 was passed in 2017 there were certain prohibitions within that bill one the C's cannot require a homeowner to pay mitigation fees for removing trees under 10 inches in DBH and DB H's is measured at four and a half feet above and then you can't require any mitigation or or regulate removal of any diseased or dead trees or any tree that poses an imminent or immediate threat to a person or property and then there's also a language with respect to mitigation fee credit that a municipality that imposes a tree mitigation fee must allow someone to apply for a credit to offset that fee for planting and then the planning planning on the property for which the tree mitigation fee was assessed obviously their own property or on a mutually agreed upon by the municipality and the person and then whatever plant whatever tree is planted as a replacement must be at least two inches in diameter at the point of the trunk four and a half feet above the ground which is DB H so is there anything in this new law prohibiting the mitigation fee being used to purchase treed land for preservation no no okay that's good to know thanks and then on the mutually agreed I just sort of pulled this out because I thought it was a little interesting sort of where I have underlined at the end the city and person may consult with academic organizations state agency or nonprofits to identify an area for which tree plantings will best address the science-based benefits of trees and other reforestation needs of the municipality and so it almost seems like the intent there is to have some sort of finding if you're going to require it there there should be some almost finding which which I think we've started with that 2016 study and then we also have a study that will be furthering further advancing that there's also additional credits residential credits at least 50 percent of the tree mitigation if the property is a residential structure or pertains to the development construction or renovation of a residential structure and the person is developing constructing or renovating the property not for use of the person's residents so it's really anything that has to do with with residential so it's either your property or if you're building the property for someone so how does that apply to a subdivision development I'm gonna get I'll get it yeah yeah cuz I know I saw the example that you used on the cost yeah and we've taken a very liberal liberal interpretation of it we've looked at at two municipalities that have since adopted their their their code to address this one being Irving which sort of took a liberal sort of a liberal approach which we based ours off of and then Flower Mound which almost adopted the exact language of the of local government code and and interesting when we still call around a lot of the a lot of the sort of our peers are still trying to figure out how to how to implement it and what what the intent was so again we took a very just for discussion purposes just a very sort of liberal interpretation of it of how that how and what that credit should should be again based on where Irving adopted theirs and then for non residential it's 40 at least 40 percent and so looking at the goals for this for this concept for this sort of unified approach of conservation landscape which would be obviously our ESA landscaping tree preservation ensuring that we comply with local government code limit clear-cutting increase preservation require mitigation for trees removed for all trees removed and guide priorities towards preserving larger and quality trees tree stands and habitat promote a multi-age urban forest with native and quality trees and then balance that with with reasonable development and so along with that we had we looked at other other goals with respect to canopy and I know this was something that had been discussed through the through the the multitude of drafts and should it be based on canopy should it be based on on DBH tree preservation we looked at at being based on on DBH but that still doesn't doesn't negate the fact that we still look at canopy overall as part of our landscape standard and tree preservation is just a component of that and so at one point there was a 30% goal and and canopy goal and so we we dug a little further and into where that where that even came from and we went back to what the US Forest Service recommended and and it was 40 between 40 and 60 percent of forest area forested areas and 20% for grassland areas and if you kind of look at the map it's almost like the divide of 35 through the city which on the on the west side is more more prairie like or Grand Prairie on the east side is more of the of the cross timbers and so what we looked at is is through the discussion of those meetings is looking at establishing those goals canopy goals on the east east of 35 40 percent west of 35 at 20 percent so I'm just curious why the 40 percent and not 50 or 60 that was what we could we were originally at 30 percent and I think it was sort of a blended right you know the average of the two it initially at 30 and as we just as we kind of went through it we looked at what we could what we could reasonably achieve based on the landscape requirements and we think we think 40 percent is achievable where we are right now we're at 33% and 16% if you if you look at the canopy requirements for each zoning district and then apply that citywide it starts to bring our numbers up it still doesn't get quite get us there but but there's there's a number of outliers there it doesn't necessarily include any any public planning so again this is just on the private side but what we also what we also then looked at was all of the properties that have either an RD 5 or RD 5 X zoning designation which typically are all ag use anyways which are are exempt even if they were to develop under the RD 5 for say their minimum canopy requirement would be 25 percent and so what the trend has been is that the line share of these properties that that usually are annexed in usually go to a residential district whether it be our two or three or four all of the residential state all of the residential districts have a 50 percent canopy coverage so once you start you know making some assumptions that the RD 5 X will most likely at some point of time convert then then we then we start to we hit we start we start on the west side we hit our goal on the east side I think it brings it up to about 37% and again there's a number of variables as we annex more land in depending where we annex that number could increase or decrease thank you very much councilmember Briggs had a question well just for clarification when we did this because the larger side from the east is is heavily populated with trees and so there's the grasslands and before it was just an overall city goal of 30% which means that the the canopy could be shifted into the grasslands but then we had a concern with the changing the habitat and the natural landscape so we have to be considerate of that too so if we focus and increase the canopy where the canopy is then it just makes sense and so what we did is rather than dive too too deep into every every line what we try to do is really give a summary of some of the some of the major changes and considerations and sort of organized them in applicability tree type preservation providing other options for tree tree preservation and habitat and then and then into into the mitigation and so the first one that that I'll I'll hit on is the applicability section and what you see in bold is again that language from the local government code as we went through the various drafts it just seemed easier to just put it right right up front as opposed to having it buried somewhere and then one of the discussions we initially had is whether whether or not the city and or municipal facilities should be exempt in the past there were certain certain exemptions but the discussion both at COE and planning and zoning Commission sort of the the gist of it was if we are if we're gonna be requiring it of individuals we should also follow those those same those same regulations and just to add to that a lot of the canopy is on city property and so if any of these things were to be developed then we would be losing we could lose a significant amount of canopy if we didn't require any that's correct correct yes this wouldn't preclude any maintenance obviously of any of any of any electric lines it's just facilities going in clear cutting there would be mitigation required or preservation and then getting into into tree type and mitigation this has been probably I think one of the one of the most debated items that we've had in in putting together this this initial draft what we really try to do is pare down the number the number and type of trees that we have currently we have secondary large secondary secondary tree stands quality quality tree stands protected and so we tried to we tried to sort of reign that in and really focus on what what do we what really makes sense to to to preserve looking at both using that 2016 study as somewhat of the basis but then also looking at what are we promoting both both for you know within our manuals but also for for trees that that we give that we give credit for for some of our some of our planting programs and so we had a straight 30% minimum preservation and if you look on the the way this is set up landmark heritage and quality trees would be comprised of that of that 30% minimum preservation secondary trees which we have labeled as boat arc hack barrier cottonwood again between 16 and 17 inches there's no preservation requirement but there would be a replacement value so if you if you under the current code there's sort of a replacement almost a multiplier per inch and that ranges from point to five to I think to under this under this scenario based on the type of tree there it was a higher replacement rate again the intent with the intention of trying to preserve those larger or quality quality trees if you look under heritage post oak and blackjack are there at with a DBH of four inches so we put it again a greater a greater value on on certain species but then at the same time allow for a credit so as your as you're trying to work work your numbers through your site again give a higher give a higher credit for what's what's preserved so on this this is I have issues with with this part because we have the exempt trees now and the secondary currently we have a secondary list and it's applied differently than say that this feature one would be and and I asked what we have the percentage currently in the exempt and secondary trees and the exempt trees make up 15% of the the population right now and on that we currently in this draft there's no mitigation required or preservation of any of those correct that's correct and with the secondary ones it's 21% of the population for the the graph that I have here and I don't believe that unless they're a certain DBH right they can be completely cut down clear cut without mitigation on this on the secondary on the secondary we sort of kept it similar to what it is today so if it's between six inches and 17 inches there there's no preservation requirement but there is a replacement requirement so again they could be clear cut down and then and but and it's a tree for tree now if that secondary if that secondary were to be 18 inches or greater then it falls into the heritage category and so if it's a smaller tree there would be there would be no minimum preservation of either the hackberry or cottonwood or boat art unless unless it was a larger larger tree so so I feel like we still have a conversation here to be had on what the the purpose and intent of when we list all these trees separately if if the functional value is the carbon second I can't say that word very well yes avoided runoff pollution removal carbon emissions reduction pollution removal and also for water quality then I think these have just as a greater just as great a value as any of the the other trees that we are asking to be protected thank you yeah I wanted to second that and to say yeah I myself would certainly want to see because that is stating stated as a value that carbon sequestration yeah and you know to the to the extent that that trees are infrastructure and that we can see them as infrastructure like our you know you utility poles and and and sewage you know when you look at it that way the differences in certain categories of trees don't matter as much when seen through that perspective and so I certainly would want to see more of an emphasis on preservation for precisely that reason to meet the stated goals and then these would be the the sort of the non-protected or exempt trees and so it would be the mesquite any any size again unless it's part of a preserved habitat or conservation easement and I'll get into those those two categories or options in a minute the thorned honey locust multi-trunk crepe myrtle any diseased or dead again right from from local government code trees that pose an imminent or immediate threat and then any tree listed on the Texas Department of Agriculture or noxious or invasive plant list so that's that's what we have as as except and then talking a little bit again getting back into that that those tree canopy requirements both landscape area and tree canopy coverage again allowing for the preserved trees both to count for for landscape and for canopy and then by requiring the new plantings again looking at that at that diversity of species but also multi-age species another component that we have in here is low impact development standards now this was something that was part of the part of the DDC update so as we were again working initially working on this sort of in a bubble that's where it sort of made sense to really look at this holistically make sure that we're looking at ease and landscape tree preservation all is one another is removing the the pervious area credit if you recall when we discussed the parking we had we had removed that ability for accounting as open space for a parking area there's also the ability to use pervious pavers and count that it could even be a drive-out account that as your landscape area in the current code and so we would propose to eliminate that as well as eliminate the credits for for canopy and landscape area from from from ESA so make sure I'm understanding what this is telling me this is our current code or this is the draft this is the current code and we will we're proposing to just carry this carry this over but refine how it's calculated so when I read this I see already five I should do NR 1 NR 1 says 70% landscape area now that's 70% I've got a 10,000 square foot lot all right I'm gonna put a house on it is this telling me that I've got to have 70% of that 10,000 square foot lot in landscaped area that's 7,000 square feet yes but I think the lot size might be larger for NR for NR 1 I think it's and landscape area is grass is that correct 30 to 30 and aren't so 30 32,000 okay 32,000 but landscape area is also if it's some type of turf grass or something correct all right so tree canopy cover define that for me what does that mean there there's a there's a square foot number that that that we have in a manual and so for each large tree the number that's used is 1,256 square feet and so every large tree that's planted that's sort of the value that's assigned to it when you say large tree that's playing you mean it's going to get large correct right correct okay so this is a tree canopy coverage is the anticipation of a tree that grows to a certain level of maturity will provide X number of square feet per coverage correct okay I just want to make a point that there's no pervious area credit that's going to be allowed in the new in this draft no right which I think has become a an issue for for somewhere instead of landscaping you could put a three or four little bricks in your driveway and get credit for that and so that part is going away yes yeah the pervious parking they were providing based upon our code and some other parts of our code they were using that for landscape area meeting that percentage and you're saying that can no longer be done yeah both the pervious parking has already been removed right but then there's this other component where you're allowed pervious area and it's sort of a really loose definition it's actually I don't even think defined but there's no minimum or maximum and so it's been applied differently through throughout the years so I guess the question is if you if someone wanted to go to an arid type of landscape like you would see out in the southwest either crushed granite with some you know low water usage plants cactus whatever I mean you know what I'm talking yeah is that allowed or I believe it is I'd have to go all the way through the low impact development standards but that is that is the ability people can do that and get around these high requirements if they do it according to some standard correct and it follows the eyes kind of the I swim okay yes and just to add to that also if you do do that low impact development zero escaping then then you aren't required to install sprinklers except for temporary until you can get your landscaping established and then the credits that we talked about eliminating currently within any essay you can you can sort of double down on your credit if you will there's a tree canopy credit so one square foot of tree canopy for every square foot of ESA tree canopy and then you can also get a landscape credit two square feet of landscape for every square foot of preserved ESA canopy or one for every non wooded preserved preserved ESA and so we were proposing that that this be eliminated these credits be eliminated but then look at sort of an alternate approach to to to ESA's and that kind of takes us into sort of these options and looking at what we're calling a development impact area and so there this is called a number of different things I think flower amount has it called buildable area I think Dallas recently adopted a new code and they have another name for how they how they manage this but it's basically based on the area that you're going to disturb and so I so using the the ESA example the ESA area would be excluded from your development impact area so both your preservation requirements your landscape requirements and canopy requirements instead of being based on the entire lot would only be based upon that development impact that development impact area so it's not going to count for you and it's not going to account account against you one of the other one of the other components that we added to this as a way to continue that preservation of habitat is to allow for exactly that what we're calling preserved habitat and if and if that would be the case what we were allowing is to incentivize it is to allow the the minimum preservation requirement to go down to 20% in addition allow all trees and understory so if there's a habitat that's already there as part of that ESA and it contains a mixture of mesquite or or honey locust in this scenario you would be able to count that that DBH toward towards meeting it so so you would not disturb that that sort of natural area and so it's sort of just a way to incentivize it anywhere else it would be again non-protected except it was if it was a continuation of either preserved habitat or or within a conservation area and then that 20% DBH would need to be within either the greater of 10% of the total site or a minimum of 5,000 square feet and then conservation area follows the same obviously just wouldn't be adjacent if it wasn't if there wasn't an ESA we looked at it kind of carrying this forward for other for other for other opportunities and then so what I'll do here is I'll kind of take you through three different examples both residential single-family multi-family and and non-residential now the first one 2401 Bonnie Bray I'm sure I'd be familiar familiar with this one this this was a recently approved for a hundred and six lot single-family development and so what we did is we looked at trying to do just a from-to analysis and looking at what the current code requires and what the proposed would require now now this site contains primarily secondary secondary trees mostly mostly hackberry but a lot of of of mesquite and so they they preserved I think there were third almost 3300 inches DBH total of all of all species they preserve 461 which was the equivalent of about I think 44 secondary trees and five quality trees and so just under 50 trees total and so what we've done on the map is at least identified where those where those trees are identified or were preserved with the red dots the lion's share of them were preserved on this on this sort of outlier lot in in in this corner and again those were all primarily hackberry and and and mesquite under the current or I'm sorry under the proposed because it would just be the one one for one not not mitigating on on an inch for inch basis the preservation would actually be substantially less just because of the type and quality of trees out there so 73% less than what the current code requires but looking at mitigation where you'd have to replant back those what I'll say a quality tree one thing to note also within our with our planting manual we define those the secondary species as undesirable species so you can't get a credit even if you were to replant those based on based on the current the current manual so their mitigation DBH is that 28287 and then then total DBH again still still slightly slightly less but when you start to factor in the required trees both for for street trees and then providing one one tree per lot it ends up being an overall 5% increase basically from what's what's required today to what what's proposed so I'm just gonna call attention to the the proposed in the current the preserved part so that's pretty significant change there when we take out the exempt or secondary trees and that's one of my concerns is that if you get a large lot and it considerably makes up those trees which now we have which add to our canopy into our infrastructure and to all of the other wonderful things that that they do in our city we're just allowing them just to completely be wiped out and then to be replaced with tiny baby trees that may or may not grow to be as as big or healthy as we see a lot some trees don't always make it so I'm just gonna leave that there that that's part of my concern and and although I mean I think this is really great the draft we've done a really great job here but again if our goal is to preserve it this is just not doing it right here going to the going to the multifamily example a slight slight slight decrease what 1% decrease in the preserved mitigation goes up substantially and then total DBH obviously is is a substantial increase this again is is is one of those sites that used the majority of the paved area for credit towards meeting meeting landscaped area so while they might have have obviously much more mitigation requirement there would also be more challenges associated with with developing this site under the new code just based on on the fact that that that ability to count that pervious area I'm sorry the paved area Purgis paved area for landscaping and I know you had asked about that 50% credit how it was being applied and so I didn't touch on it in the last but what we did is we one of things we also included in in this draft is really the the sample sort of mitigation worksheet so it's clear and how to how to calculate it but once you calculated that that we're calling calculated DBH so that would be the the DBH removed plus I'm sorry with the multiplier added up together would give you your total calculated DBH and then that 50% credit would come off that would come off the top and so that's how we that's how we looked at that and then again dependent on the type of tree that you're preserving writing that correct writing an additional credit back in again with the focus on preserving quality or heritage heritage trees going to the non-residential example I think everyone probably knows knows the site this is off off the loop almost all post oaks and I know this is you know at first I wasn't going to use this site but I thought it's probably that the best to show everyone's familiar with it to give you an idea of the what the current code did and where the proposed is this would require 80% more DBH than what the current code is mitigation slight increase but overall DBH about a 50% 50% increase and again this is this this site almost contain almost all post oaks there were some heritage trees on on the site but obviously the more that would be required to be preserved obviously the more the greater credit that you would get so I have a question on this and we can use this just sort of as a discussion example so basically it seems to me that we have a couple of let's set the boundaries that not extremes but sort of the opposite ends yep one is cut them all down nothing happens the other is you got to preserve them all and so if you got to preserve them all then you may or may not be able to even put anything on that piece of property so there's somewhere in that range and I think that's what you were talking about is how do we find that balance given all the different ranges of interest and ideas and and and and perspectives on it how do we find that so this this is one of those where we're trying to avoid either one of those ends but trying to find some common ground that really maximizes as many of the interest as possible that are represented at the two different at the two different sides correct and then again focusing on particularly post oak in particular because they're not not necessarily commercially available and and so what how can we how can we then further protect and enhance this type of preservation you know it's funny how that the old adage one person's trash is another person's treasure I was visiting a friend in Missouri and we were just somehow talking about development and tree preservation and all that I was telling about the post oaks and to them post oaks weren't they didn't see them in the same light that we did because they had so many other different trees that were of what they would consider better caliber of quality so it's just interesting different different places mean different things and so now starting to kind of get into that into that bridge before we before we get into the public discussion that that Gary will step in want to just kind of dive in a little bit into the into the tree mitigation fee our current fee is $125 per DBH and I think this this has been the fee since that the ordinance was originally adopted what we had what we had parks put together was what does it actually cost us again based on based on on how we establish it fair market value materials labor reasonable cost for maintenance and irrigation for a period of three years and so our actual cost is 317 inch 317 dollars per DBH per inch what we were looking at for proposed I know the draft says 195 but since we've done it the price has gone up like everything else right we've tried to tie it at least to some some professional method so there's a there's a landscape and tree appraisers society that has a sort of a Texas Texas guide some of the other codes within within the Metroplex referenced that and so we thought that was a that was at least a good starting point for us rather than to just make up the fee but also should we consider what it what it actually costs I just want to underscore this still doesn't include this still assumes you have land onto which to plant the tree correct correct you've got to acquire land that's not in here correct whether it's through the acquisition of land or or planting it within the right away or within within a park so if the tree fund is for preservation as well as replacement then why is the fee calculated according to expenses for replacement as opposed to you know something to do with with preservation the cost of preservation okay maybe I'm having a hard time understanding your let me finish please you said that the mitigation fund tree mitigation is for preservation and mitigation that's where I'm sort of not understanding the mitigation is what you pay into if you're not able to preserve am I right on that that I mean the mitigation fee is based upon if you're unable to preserve that for you to take that tree out this is what you have to pay because you're doing that so I don't know how so preservation the mitigation fee exists if you don't preserve if you do preserve there's nothing there's nothing else there and can I follow it follow that up so so yes so I'm distinguishing between mitigation and the tree fund that the definition of the tree fund the tree fund is the fund where all that money goes and I was just looking at the the definition of how that that fee is is calculated in the in that section of the code if you if you could I mean it's based on on that on that replace on that replacement value yes yeah yeah so it does and yet the tree fund is used also to preserve existing urban forest correct it could be and I'll get to the next slide that has sort of the the list of the list of items that the tree funds can be used you may be about to respond to this sort of anyway but I want to sort of build on your councilmember Armitage thought you know I'm not sure how I feel about this whether it should you should be able to plant a new tree somewhere or essentially you could to replace a tree cut down by a tree that's already standing somewhere right you could conceivably think of that as if you if you accept that as a form of mitigation you know that could be a cost right I can pay three hundred seventeen dollars assuming I have some land to put a tree in or I could buy land that's got a tree on it essentially right so that that that could be a way you might think about preservation now now whether or not you know we think that's a that's a good policy or not I don't know I really don't know how to think about that I'm still listening like preservation seems like a good thing but it doesn't add to the number of trees that trees already standing doesn't increase your canopy but it still seems like a good thing so anyway I hope that hope that helps in some way that you if you accept the idea of preservation as mitigation that could be a way you calculate that cost it's cost to buy land that has a tree on it and I have that kind of moving forward in a couple sides when we get to the discussion on on purchasing property you know one of the one of the items is and I've seen this is is whether whether there should be consideration for tree mitigation bank I've seen them for other for for wetland mitigation banks where city purchases property or a wetland area and you can someone can buy into credits it could be onerous to to to manage obviously there there's an as a tree grows do those credits increase and and how does that you know is that a continual funding item for for the tree fund to purchase other land I mean there's there's a multitude of different scenarios but that's certainly that certainly could be an option if that's maybe what I'm just gonna I am in favor of the increased the proposed tree mitigation adjustment fee of 202 and I will say that we've had a a fee for a while and it came to my attention that it necessarily wasn't always being charged correctly in the past in a different projects different ways and so I think this will be a good kind of start fresh start over and do what we say we're gonna do draft my intent would be to if that's if we're gonna use that method then bring that back annually with with sort of the our fee our annual fees and have that calculated and so moving forward everyone knows and it's not going to change every you know every month we do a cost of service for every other department and every other thing that we do so it makes sense I would just like to understand what the argument is for not recovering the actual cost it certainly could be it's just a it really comes down comes down to a policy decision should we should we underwrite that that cost or should the cost the true cost be be be calculated on on what's what's being what would be required to replace it I know that there's some we don't really like to talk about what other cities do but is there a consistent amount that other cities do for this mitigation fee you know interestingly some of the most recent ones that I've seen three years is sort of what I think what I'll call the normal standard however what I've been seeing within the last couple I think Dallas Irving maybe Arlington I'm trying to recall off memory they're actually looked at on a two-year to your basis and so whether or not we want to consider that we are recommending currently was just like let's let's kind of stay with stay with what we're at on a three-year but again I just think it's important just to know what where we are what it actually cost and what has been the method based upon the actual cost what kind of calipers are you talking about it says material and labor I'm assuming the trees part of that that is and I think it was a three inch three three inch and where it gets a little where it gets a little confusing is on on planting it's not necessarily measured by by DBH it's measured by caliber which I think is six inches or a foot above the above the base so it's a little bit of a different measurement I just had two other two other considerations as as we're starting to talk continue discussion on the tree fund this is something that we had we had brought up staff had brought up it wasn't necessarily well received from both CoE and and and planning and zoning but I have seen it now in a couple other a couple other municipalities that we've been looking at is should should should payment be allowed for those circumstances where whether it's a site characteristic an issue with construction where they can't plant a tree rather than going for a variance should that should they be allowed again as a last last case sort of scenario option be allowed to pay into the tree fund for not being able to do that again this would be for rather than planting the tree or seeking a variance not to plan it currently you have the ability to do within the current code there's alternative buffer requirements they're not they're not as as strict as they probably could be I know in the in the new code we're going a different route but but one consideration we thought might be might be beneficial for certain instances particularly as we do infill is if there if it's if it's too much canopy on on a certain lot or they physically just can't fit it in due to easements crisscrossing the property should they go for a variance or should there be an opportunity to allow for payment into payment in lieu of providing so I have a question it's as much for you as in fact probably more for my colleagues are in the committee on the environment you've had more more discussions on this but now I'm trying to figure out you know what would be the objection to the payment in lieu of required plantings if that payment could go to tree to tree preservation or me to a you know theoretically to a bank of the kind that you a preservation bank of the kind that you mentioned you know I'm thinking of scenario I remember you know seeing one kind of development where there were some trees that had to be put in and it you know in a place where they they really weren't the trees weren't thriving very well you know but they had to according to the code so they had to spend a lot of money to put trees in a place is the place where they didn't weren't gonna do that well where you know if there was an alternative to put money towards preservation then it could better serve the actual goals of tree preservation so that said I'm curious to know what the thoughts of those on the committee are and that might change my mind so council member Braves I'm just here yeah I'm just gonna say that mitigation isn't preservation and I feel like the more that we talk about mitigation it's the only thing that we could do is preserve stands of trees with that tree fund which we have not done since it's been in existence so I'm having a hard time they're not they're not one in the same preferably our we would be preserving trees but if not they would be paid into this tree mitigation and I I don't know if how the development code allows developing or development without landscape I mean that would have to be a consideration to go along with this consideration I don't know how you currently do that so in the section in our backup that covers penalties for unauthorized removal of protected trees it appears that the dollar amounts for penalties are roughly twice what our current rate is would would that if we change the rate would that also reflect in the penalty section would that be adjusted as well more than likely yes and that was another consideration is for those enforcement actions that was kind of part two should those should those funds for for taking out trees that were supposed to be preserved or just just clear-cutting without and it happens without seeking approval and sort of asking for forgiveness should those funds be allocated towards back in back into the tree fund I don't know if we've I can't recall where we've assessed a lot of it but again just a consideration going back to the slide where you show the current canopy versus the goals east and west of 35 right so we're below the goal both east of 35 and west of 35 right so to get to the to the goal we have to add trees so I like the idea preservation I just I needed an aha from somebody an insight because the idea preserving existing trees is very appealing but I don't understand how to square it with the goal of adding trees right because unless we don't actually care about adding because everything we've talked about so far is basically allowing people to reduce trees by some amount so that's going to take us further from the goal so unless you put more trees in somewhere you're getting further from the goal you're not getting closer to the goal so you know and some I'm sure you're already anticipating you know my question about you know he's been working on some analysis to say if we develop all the land that's currently zoned you know according to the proposed policy and if we if we want to achieve the goal how much planting do we need to do and where will that go presumably some of it will be mitigated on private property and we have to make some assumptions some of it will go into street trees some of it will go into landscape trees you know we have to make assumptions for all of those and then you know what's left and where does it go you can't just sit in a bank account called tree fund that's just a bank account that's not trees you can't go into tree education that's education that's not trees so you know ultimately I think we ought to you know grapple with that and have some kind of point of view about how much reforestation are we talking about and where might it go but that still leaves me with that question of like how do I think about preservation which doesn't add trees but I'm I'm very interested in hearing how others think about go ahead so just to answer that that point I don't see it as and I think the way that that are laudable goals are listed where it's not an either/or preservation you know versus upping the number of trees it's a balance of the two and you know both aspects meet different and in some cases intersecting goals on that list of goals but as far as the extent to which trees are infrastructure existing trees and existing urban forests are infrastructure and perform an important function for air quality and number of other important roles that they play in our ecosystem and our health and our lives a the planting of a new tree is not going to you know you use the term reforestation planting new trees you know it is not is not necessarily creating a new urban forest right it's not they're not gonna be able to play the same role infrastructurally that a grown tree has so again I'm not saying it's one I'm not saying it's one versus the other but that they're both very important goals and and we need to understand how they work together and have some sort of plan that that that accommodates using the tree fund for both and it seems to me that there's definitely the potential to to do both without them competing against each other is that is that correct the same pot of money though yeah if you take is that yeah no exactly yeah so you work out the balance you work out a balance so this is I just wanted to kind of bring this up this I guess sooner than later this is under the current regulations what what the what the tree fund does or how the city shall administer the tree fund purchase plant maintain trees preserve wooded property remaining in a naturalistic state in perpetuity perform and maintain a citywide tree inventory educate citizens and developers and then support programs for the public purpose of increasing the tree canopy within the city is approved by City Council I want to ask you a question it sort of goes back to something else because this is a very interesting discussion so let's take the 101 houses that were on that 24 27 acre track that we talked about about the pre tree preservation the new code how compared and all that you don't necessarily need to go back to the slide but so that's gonna have about a hundred lots on it now our residential code so let's say they didn't do anything with that lot so all those trees that are there are there now if we have a hundred lots is there not a requirement that you probably have to have at least one tree on a residential lot and if not then that may be something we have to look at under the under the current code no only street trees under the proposed that's where you see that increase of from 138 okay 324 because you're requiring that where I mean even on that piece of property where there's not one tree for a pretty large spans if you got five or six or seven lots in there you're gonna be planting new trees so this notion that the only way we have folks if we didn't if we said you can't cut down one other tree in this city and you don't have to plant another tree in this city we're going backwards I mean so this this idea that if you cut down a tree because it's infrastructure that somehow if you plant other ones that that's not infrastructure not take may take a little bit of time but that's the whole process I mean if you if it when they cut down a forest to provide paper what do they do with it they reseed it so that in 20 years they can harvest it again and so it's sustainable we're just trying to find a sustainable process for balancing the interests of what trees mean and then also balancing the interest of individual property owners and property rights to develop their property that's really what this discussion is about because my understanding is and correct me if I'm wrong in the current proposed code there's nothing that says you cannot cut down this tree is there a provision that says let's take a heritage tree let's take a heritage tree if I remember correctly up there there was a minute there was a replacement you had to replace either 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 or something like that so there's nothing in this code that says I've got a piece of property I can't cut down this tree is there anything in the code that says that we were initially looking at I think requiring a hundred percent if it's a if it's a historic or if it's a landmark tree if it's historic or on the Texas big tree registry okay which means we have none currently actually there's not one in Denton County that's on that list again there there may be we just we put it in as I just was curious because I hadn't really heard that okay I'm sorry unless it was a historic tree then then no you could cut it down okay I'm not saying I advocate for that I'm just saying that I mean what we're trying to do is increase that if you're going to do that we're gonna say if you're going to do that you've got to contribute more to the sustainability of this infrastructure ecosystem that we're describing here than what we've what we've required in the past correct is that correct is that a fair sort of high level through through and the way this is written what kind of when we first approach is it's it's what you know what do we want what is that what do we really want to accomplish do we want it do we want to have more trees planted replacement trees planted and give credit which we're kind of forced to do under the local government code or do we look at it in a way that that brings in more more dollars into the tree fund I mean you can write you can write things a number of different ways right and so we really took the approach of let let's try to look at how we could how we can accomplish more more planting again focusing on that on that multi-age where we're we're as we looked at this in totality ESA tree preservation landscape you know a third and third and a third if you will is on preservation what do we want to preserve what what gives us greater value what provides more of that of that functional value or structural value type of tree but then also and then what are we requiring people to replant so when you start to look at what we currently have required requirements for replanting and what we have as kind of discouraged species and so that's kind of that that's kind of weird of course of course yeah all right thank you okay this is I guess a good point to transition from the pub the private or regulatory regulatory aspects of the tree code to the public in the parks planting preservation strategy process just a step backwards in regards to the the tree fund in addition to that it can't be used for any regulatory aspects so if you're required to put a tree if we're required as part of a park development to put in 10 trees we can't use the tree fund to plant those 10 trees if we wanted to put 20 trees in there we could use the tree fund to plant those extra 10 trees so that's just in addition to the the tree fund regulations so in regards to the tree fund history since 2015 you could see we've used over the course of the last three years 467 294 279 thousand dollars towards trees and infrastructure the revenues that have come in from the mitigation side from the the regulatory side from development services average about two hundred and seventy six thousand dollars a year so you could see that and that difference between what was coming in and what was going out the current balance and it's not the year's not final yet but as of October 1st with two point two million dollars just to give you a current kind of balance in that this year we did have seven hundred fifty thousand dollars budget in this year for the tree fund for tree improvements we did anticipate some additional plantings and infrastructure more infrastructure than typical with irrigation being put on some of the medians and for instance Mayhill was one of those that's going to be done as part of the project so we don't have to do that and then also University University is we have a grant from the green ribbon program to do that infrastructure so we don't have to pay for that so that that won't be used as we originally intended when we were doing the budget process so this year and actually recently we shared with you some changes in our organization where the urban forester was moved over to parks and recreation and part of the budget was seventy five thousand dollars to do a forestry plan and we are aggressively moving towards that process we originally were going to shoot for January we're actually trying to get it started in December if we can so get it get it started in the second quarter and that would take approximately five to six months to complete that so we can come back to you a few a few meetings ago we had talked to you about our tree contract and there was a lot of discussion about the tree fund and our strategies in regards to where we plant trees our current strategy I guess was twofold one was to plant trees where we could reach its maximum use and that was specifically for shade purposes if we could plant them around areas where typically people are congregating within our parks specifically our trails and that's what we've done over the past few years is try to put as many trees along the tray the trail so in ten years twenty years we have nice shade where people are generally congregating or if it's around areas where they're watching sporting activities that type of thing and then also on highways and working with textile to put trees on University 377 any of those roads in the roads that are coming that are haven't even been drawn yet trying to anticipate how we're going to get infrastructure in those assets placed within that infrastructure and that construction improvements so part of that forestry plan will include that but some of the outcomes that we're writing into the scope is staff training and personal development opportunities review and recommendation to prefer tree and plant species for our planning initiatives identification and prioritization of planting areas not only in our parks but preserves as we have discussed areas that we may have large grows of trees that we may want to look at for future conservation future urban forestry opportunities where we could take part parts of our park spaces that aren't typically or maybe advantageous for general recreation if there's a grade they can't go out there and play soccer whatever where we could say we're gonna designate for designate that space for future urban forestry so in 20 years from now we have a grouping of trees that we could preserve so I have a question about kind of decisions about the comfort of cost in as you said can putting trees in a median say along the highway versus you know trees in a park you know you mentioned the the infrastructure cost meaning the irrigation right and and I take it that the the cost for that generally in those locations on a highway median or made on a major road are more than say for a park is that correct tree by tree for the most part so so the cost really for the infrastructure is much more because you have medians and you have long stretches of concrete and then median so you're literally boring underneath certain lengths of concrete to get to get the irrigation down the street as opposed to putting meters every yes yep and then coming from the side of the right away so that has to be kind of strategically placed and how the best utilize that so yes the boring the conduit and getting the irrigation to the trees is challenge yeah so got it so and then so follow-up question so given that then as far as kind of maximizing the tree fund is concerned you get more trees for you for your buck if you place them at least yes exactly as opposed to and and I'm not advocating for net you know nothing no greenery in medians but you know maybe looking towards kind of low low water required because it's it's for it serves some traffic safety purposes in creating a sense of division between the the different lanes and slowing down traffic but it's also for beautification correct whereas you know in parks you've got shade and you know all those other advantages and then so anyways since since planning them in parks instead would enable you to do to plant more trees for your buck I'd be in favor of kind of exploring right so so the one thing that from a funding standpoint you know we we've used the tree fund over the past few years for tree plantings and that was a kind of our go-to funding source but from here forward we are going to be aggressive and trying to find grants to help support that so the green ribbon program is specifically designed to beautify in plant landscaping and trees on text dot related highways so when we do those highway programs we'll try to I mean it's a competitive process so we're not guaranteed that money but we will plan to put a strategy together to use those types of funding sources when we can as our primary focus where we have park development going on that will integrate trees into the capital project so trees are included in that so it's not like we're gonna build a park and then use a tree fund to offset that and then if we just want to plant groupings of trees or enhance our current park then we would possibly lean towards the tree fund or general fund allocation whatever it would be. Councilmember Briggs. So yes I understand the concept of street trees but honestly they're not ever gonna get as big as they need to the roots aren't gonna get the light the water that they need to to grow they're gonna be small they're gonna be pruned they're gonna be they're not gonna be reach their full potential and so I feel like spending it could be at what $200,000 on a sprinkler system for a tree that won't ever reach its full potential is kind of a waste in my opinion and so I would I would like for council to have a conversation more in-depth about tree fund use and if we want it to be you know for text dot sleeves and an infrastructure and if that's the intended use when there's all these other wonderful things that we could be doing as far as you know using that that money. That's correct putting in putting trees on you know highways it's a harsh environment all the heat the traffic you know they do hit trees vehicles so they are subject to a lot of things that that can cause them challenges as opposed to growing in a park. Councilmember Meltzer. The purported benefit of street trees beyond beautification is air quality mitigation and I think we you know I would be interested when we have that conversation and understanding you know if we get I don't know if we get ten times the benefit or just 25% more you know what how much more is the benefit in mitigating exhaust you know in particulates in a street location it may not be worth the cost you know that that's that's possible but I think that's the factor to be weighed. All right so some additional outcomes recommend industry best practices for maintenance cycles staffing budgets those type of things so we can see how we're measuring up to other industry standards. Strategies for tree canopy preservation expansion and best benchmarks some of the things we've talked about here this afternoon. Inventory management and then data optimization looking at our inventory where our trees are where new trees need to go based on our tree canopy expectations and goals as well as future development branding and outreach and education not only what we're doing as a city but also in regards to in working with Katie keep that beautiful in regards to educating the community in regards to how they can help improve our tree canopy by planting trees and then tactics in for monitoring and measuring our success to make sure we're on the right track. The the map on the on the left is actually a trust for public land map for parkland needs. We're still working with them in regards to making sure this is accurate but this was just a sample that I cut out and the red indicates areas where parks are needed based on a 10-minute walk and I put this in here just for reference so we could use something like this almost like as a heat map to identify where trees need to be planted to help improve our goals whether it's right-of-ways streets medians or parks. The map on the right is a rudimentary map just showing some of the areas from a highway standpoint that we're looking at and there's some parks in there as well in regards to where we could plant trees for tree planting efforts to help with our canopy goals. Gary I'm glad you hit this this slide I really would like to see parks develop a I don't know if it's a criteria or a a look at what is valuable park land. I see it often you'll have developers that find a piece of property that they can't use that then attach park as a buzzword to it and say oh we're gonna dedicate this to the parks and as though it's some sort of benefit you know and so I really would like to see some sort of threshold even if it's just a key that I could use to then as if I'm sitting down and speaking to someone and they're like hey I have this piece of property I can't use that I'm gonna throw in as a park you know to then evaluate that and say well it doesn't have these three four core things if not then then you need not entertain that option or you may face some challenges right so do whatever but but here's the things that parks what would qualify that with and so if that exists I really would like to see that kind of push forward and advertise because I think it'll it'll beat back some of that or at least tell communicate to people early what are qualifications for a part we're just not gonna take whatever you want to give away you know it needs to meet some requirements needs you know that sort of thing so I don't know what that looks like but I really would like to have that information to one disseminate to use as as kind of a tool as developments come or just opportunities come that we could say okay well instead of calling parks department I can just know hey here's some this just site first glance this doesn't line up with what something that we would entertain taking over so that's a great transition not only for parks but also for tree stand space whether it's you know based on its location the type of species that's in there its connectivity to neighborhoods or other parks for trails for wildlife habitat to connect to to other corridors those are all criteria that we can look at when we're looking at selecting land for recreation or preservation and is that going to be in a will that be part of our parks update master plan yes that's something separate as part of our parks master plan we'll be looking at where we need to place future recreation land and that's kind of what this this map would help us with and to identify that 10-minute walk as a standard and that's something we would ask council to adopt so we can officially do that but then from our forestry plan we'll also look at tree stands or preservation areas that would be value to preserve from a forestry standpoint and then integrate the forestry plan into our master plan okay transition back to Richard and so kind of as a segue into into land acquisition what we try to do is find almost like a matrix or decision tree that other cities maybe have used and to be quite honest we could not find it that was specific to it so what we did is we tried to model it off of a very a number of ones that we saw that that started to kind of make sense one thing that I that I also wanted to add in one of the in one of the first I think initial drafts we had we had looked at I think it was even as part of the initial policy discussion was whether or not we could use park park for the park dedication fee to allow for a credit as it relates to land for conservation or for or for trees as we brought that up as part of one of the discussions at DCRC the outside council time at that meeting it stated that you have to be very careful because of the proportionality test with respect to park dedication park impact fees and so at this point in time we chose not not to pursue that not to say that that can't be pursued later but again we were we were our main focus was again getting this getting this consolidated draft move forward talking proportionality test and a whole new study and park impact fees that I didn't I didn't make that part of this that sort of discharge but again just some questions as as we have this policy discussion on uneven land acquisition when is it appropriate at what point in time should we start looking at at acquiring land we're looking at having a PD or plan development as part of the new development code is is that a point in time where through that discussion that that should occur as you know we recently had that the the Creekside pre-annexation agreement there are a number of other large parcels wanting to annex and and and and explore going that same route is that should that be a time that we look at discussing land and and and property or components of that property that may have a large tree stand should it be through the development review just as as we go through the process or should we look at it more of being a partner and by that I mean as as a dedicated easement where we're not necessarily the owner but have some control over it or just outright owning the property or all the above so it's just sort of considerations and then where and what is it is it is it a tree stand is it vacant land to plant trees should it be an ESO or conservation area or should we buy just straight-up market land that that has a tree stand that that we think would be beneficial to preserve again all all offer different opportunities or considerations no on the ESA and conservation area I know in our draft ordinance we have where you know it's counted as a separate and we're trying to at least preserve those for wildlife and habitat and if there are certain areas where we could go in next to it and purchase a little more to make that a little bit larger I think that's something that we should also look into and then and then what is the cost and kind of where Gary Gary kind of sort of left off how should we look at this annually for the tree fund should it be a fixed amount every every year or or as funds get it deposit into that should it be based on a percentage of the fund or not should it just be free flowing or should it be should it be dedicated and then should should the loss of current and future tax revenue be a component of that decision tree as well as or or looking at at should it serve as a mitigation bank as I kind of touched on touched on earlier so this was kind of what we put together sort of a decision tree or matrix in considering a policy discussion on land acquisition with with with the proceeds of the tree fund getting getting back sort of on on the education side this is something I think is important as we move forward once the once the plan the forestry plan gets adopted is really looking at at some metrics and evaluating sort of our annual report card this is a this is one that I pulled from from the city of Portland I think they do a good job in in in keeping track they they they have it arranged in in street trees parks and in school trees private trees and an emergency removal so it looks at inspections completed the number of permits issues the number of trees permitted and just to start to keep a keep a track on how how are we getting close to meeting our meeting our goal and where where are we deficient and and so we can kind of you know look at this on an annual basis and adjust if if need be but again making sure we're meeting those meeting those goals and then we put together sort of a timeline again best-case scenario if we were to move forward with this as expeditiously as possible when when can we when could be considered for adoption and the soonest would be the 15th of January again this is a this is a an expedited fast track this is again a discussion draft so we still need to go through a full full legal review as well as get it out both to the development community as well as I did initially meet with with a representative from from the County AG Master Gardeners Association but again I want to make sure we get back out to those groups I know the the Builders Association is very interested in seeing seeing the draft last couple times that we've gone to P&Z we've discussed it in work sessions where they've asked it that we can do it sort of in public so we can start to get additional comments so we're planning on doing that on the 28th but then getting starting to really get back out there sort of November December and so again these dates will probably it I would assume adjust unless you direct direct me otherwise but work with the holidays we do want to get out there as best we can to at least get input from from the stakeholders got a couple of comments just on the actual backup material we've got one thing that concerns me on the tree protection protection requirements during construction 35 17 2d the way that I'm reading this we're actually encouraging people to take out trees as opposed to potentially having two sets of trees on a property we've got the trees that are set for saving and the ones that you'd like to save but I've got to take it out because I've got poor concrete drive within five foot of that so I can't put my drive someplace else that trees gonna have to go the way that I'm reading this it's it's encouraging that because I know that if you put certain types of construction within so many feet of a tree you you're not getting credit for it so is that what you're saying that if you're not getting credit for it well if I'm not getting credit for it I might as well just take it out are you saying what is it absolutely is it actually within sort of something in your site plan that prevents you from being able to preserve it the first line on here is property owners shall adhere to the following protection measures on all construction sites and then you get down through where you put put the fence around the drip line right and you can't put concrete in that drip line it doesn't say that this only pertains to the trees you are planning to protect or you're you're using as your your credit yeah right you've got to do it with all trees so unless we've got something in there that allows that this to these regulations to only fall into place for trees that they're using for their credits if they've got to put that if they've got their driveway going here and there's a tree right there that they can't move their driveway but yet they've got to do this protection they're gonna take that tree out we're telling them they have to take that tree out as opposed to that's what I'm saying I just I just think we need to kind of look at yeah tweaking that a little bit that was on page 14 mm-hmm and then back this is a very minor one on the top of page 10 the very first line there it's just a typo it should be 35 17 for each instead of 19 I searched for a half hour to find 35 19 that's it okay on the question of preservation versus mitigation I perceive in councilmember Briggs comments a concern about where the dividing line is between quality and secondary right because with mitigation you're replacing something with a skinny tree and maybe 16 inches is not a skinny tree so I wonder if you know we might want to relook at just just moving that moving that measure down maybe there's still some skinniness of tree that would be okay to mitigate with other skinny trees but maybe it's not 16 inches that's just a thought to the question of preservation this has been you know helpful for me to just sit here and hear your comments and and think about this one question you'd ask rich was whether we ought to take into account loss of loss of future tax revenue I think if you check in with economic development they would tell you that the city does not end up net positive on residential development we've got a cost of service versus the taxes so you know if anything you know I'd say you know you kind of end up ahead of if you take stuff out of you know out of what's zone for for residential but you know I would say leave that at least leave that out of the equation but I finally hit on at least a start of a way to think about the value of preservation if we if if you if you will ultimately do as I've as we've discussed right and come up with a point of view on our total reforestation need based on what's zoned when you when you buy land to make it parkland or or urban forest or whatever you're reducing the total reforestation need right because the total reforestation need is based on everything that's zoned not what's built what's what could be built so if you buy if you buy a piece of property there's some percentage of that would that would in the future need to be mitigated if you preserve it you don't so you know the savings is basically that amount of mitigation so I think that that's a way to think about potentially you know how to use tree fund money for land acquisition yeah I have a question about the definitions and in the in the draft there's the root protection zone there's critical root zone there's canopy area and drip line and are those all different definitions do a couple of them mean the same thing and if we could just if you could just go through that and follow up and if some of them mean the same thing or the intention is to mean the same thing just use consistent language so it's not so confusing yeah two things so one I would love to see you know moving forward some way of codifying because I think this it seems like this comes up in a number of different issues in the the items in the draft ordinance some way of ensuring that that the tree fund can only be used for trees and not for you know other things that are admittedly important but not but that aren't trees such as landscaping you know education education being extremely important which we should spend money on but I would say you know tree fun goes to trees and other kinds of costs so you know just kind of looking through making sure that that language is is consistent and so that the the tree fund won't be misused in the future by people who are just looking at this ordinance on paper you know and who aren't able to go back to the intent of it and then number two just to suggest in moving forward about when this is presented to the public in whatever form it takes at that point you know you had mentioned you know builders you know lobbying group you know I understand you know that there's concern you know in the development community because people don't want to see increased costs so I would advise packaging that in a way that while of course being completely honest shows how we are decreasing costs decreasing permitting costs and improving permitting time in other areas well yes increasing the the tree preservation code I'm sorry increasing the tree mitigation fees so obviously this is a separate issue and will have it has its own public hearing and that's the way it should be but that there be kind of some way of describing how this doesn't mean that your costs are going to necessarily go up when you fact that your total costs when you factor it in with if we can now again if we go forward with that with that huge raise in impact fees then that doesn't apply but I should say you know and that's one reason why I myself and you know I'm for raising the the tree mitigation requirement fee requirement and I want to scale back on the mitigation they sorry the impact fees because I I see the total cost holistically because that's how they're experienced by the people paying those costs anybody else customer breaks yeah so I want to just kind of piggyback on that a little bit too and as far as the tree fund and just kind of add in there that that I I believe that it should not be used for employee salary on a yearly basis or or labor I don't know if that was something that was going to be thought about but that's I just want to kind of add that in there and back to the mitigation fee I've been thinking about it and I think that it should be actual costs or at least I think we should start out with it when it comes to the public as the actual cost service like we do with everything else and see where where that goes correct me if I'm wrong I thought I heard you say you didn't want the tree mitigation fund being used for labor labor on what to plant the tree well just parks labor well I don't I don't think it I don't think it is but so if we purchase a tree out of the tree mitigation fund and parks plants it in a park there's labor associated with that they usually buy the tree and the labor comes with the tree so you're saying that's okay yes okay but separate separate on because there had been you know with since this is moving to parks and parks is getting a little bit of the department I just want to make sure that those lines aren't blurred again with like the tree fund and and staff time okay I'm just trying to make sure that the fund is used for actual thank you fund questions comments customer barmiter so I just want to so to clarify sir so are you saying when you're saying cost of service you're saying moving from the 202 to the full 300 to start with yes I think that should go out to the public and to everyone to to review and if we have documentation that that is our actual cost for service I don't have issue with that but I also just wanted to follow up last comment on the the public feedback because it is I kept hearing you say push through push through get and it's very important for our city and to get this passed I understand that but it is during the holidays and so is there a way we could put on our website the draft and then have a spot for public comment so that someone at home or on vacation could go online review it and leave a public comment I think we did that with the code absolutely at some point and then those comments could be shared with us at COE and council in case you know somebody can't make it to a meeting during you know Christmas time I would like that thanks okay anything else because remember this this is I mean I just having asked that question I just wanted to have the opportunity to say I support that with going with the full cost of service I don't know if anybody else would want to weigh you know weigh in on that but I support that with the understanding that the costs that we're looking at the big picture of costs and that cost can go down in other areas I wouldn't necessarily support that if the costs were going to increase in so much in other permitting fees but I do support that for the for the tree mitigation fee all right any other questions if I can just ask for one clarification sir on on on the tree types I know we've had that you know the discussion on the secondary tree do we still want to look at leaving it as is or including that you know requiring a certain percentage of those or within that overall percentage be required to be preserved that's the hackberry boat arc or cottonwood or even the exempt trees of mesquite or thorned locus I'm okay with that with your recommendation I mean personally so that's just me yes I am is this so councilmember Briggs is it now you had spoken to that before and and I support what she was saying before if you got that then I don't then I don't need to repeat it but I think that's a very reasonable argument to me to to revise it in the way that councilmember Briggs suggested councilmember Hudson thank you thank you orient me where are we again go back to the discussion so whether so with the secondary trees at one point we had them we had them completely out but we what we attempted to do is with this latest is still require them as secondary trees again the boat arc hackberry or cottonwood they would not count towards towards meeting that 30% minimum preservation but if they were removed it would be required to be replaced with a tree and so it's two inches and that number comes from from the local government code that two inch minimum so it's a tree for tree but again if they're greater if they hit that 18% 18 inches they fall into that into that heritage category and so they would then fall into that 30% minimum what's what's completely exempt unless you're part of that preserved habitat or conservation easement would be the mesquite or or thorned honey locusts it works okay if there's any interest whatsoever in moving the dividing line down to 12 inches this is gonna come back to us is it not it is yeah this is more just to get out to get out to the public public but I this is probably the most debated understand so that's why I'm okay it may not stay this way that's why I'm because we're not gonna be the ones necessarily all we're gonna make the deciding decision the final decision but we haven't even taken any really public input on this so we got to have a starting point I don't care if this is the starting point it's gonna change just like we talked about the impact fee and but it is the most confusing and it's the the stuffing of the whole ordinance like this is the the whole reason and it's gonna dictate the way that our city looks and the way development happens so it's the most important part of it in my opinion but so no I agree I it'll come back to us differently but so I'm just putting that out there I mean it's very important and it's it's a little hard to understand for someone who's just reading through it and so it would be helpful if you had I don't know pictures of what the DBH would be the types of tree maybe for somebody just kind of going through it what the size would be it just what it looks like yeah thank you all right we will close out this agenda item let's take a 10-minute break we'll come back to agenda item C all right we'll call this welcome back to the meeting of the Dent City Council on Tuesday November 13th 2018 it is three about 320 we're moving through our work session reports we are now on work session report 3c receive report hold discussion of staff direction regarding a recommendation by City Hall West Steering Committee on the rehabilitation and future use of City Hall West so good afternoon mayor and City Council my name is Charlie Rosendahl and I was the staff liaison to the City Hall West Steering Committee I'm before you today to present the committee's recommendation and seek council direction on the future use of the building I'd like to recognize some committee members in the audience we have chair Val Morgan committee member Isabel Cano and Craig Meldy with architect sis who developed the conceptual design included here are some current photos of the building as it sits today this is a brief background on the building it was constructed in 1927 to use as Denton City Hall it is both a recorded historic landmark for the state of Texas as well as a locally designated landmark at the time it was built it included a council chambers that also served as a theater and had city offices and the west portion of the building was used as the fire station the buildings had multiple renovations over the years of different as different departments have used the facility and is approximately 25,000 square feet the building was last occupied two years ago by the planning and development department and has approximately a million dollars in deferred maintenance as they anticipated moving out of that facility so how we got to where we are today his architect sis was hired in June of 2017 to assess the building come up with options and estimated costs for rehabilitation those options were presented to City Council in August of 2017 and at that time City Council directed staff to establish a steering committee to advise the council on the rehabilitation and they also removed from consideration the lower option which was to renovate the exterior only so the steering committee was created in November of 2017 it was a 24-member committee made up of 21 citizens and three City Council members councilmember Duff councilmember hudspeth and councilmember Ryan the committee held a total of eight meetings and also one public meeting we received feedback from the public meeting and 88% of the people that responded were extremely or very in favor of the conceptual design and conceptual business plan here I wanted to show the project goals that the committee had established at their second meeting and they used to guide their direction to the final recommendation so these are potential uses that were proposed either by citizens or brought forward by committee members these were discussed by the committee but ultimately were not included as specific recommendations in the final recommendation by the committee so overall the committee is recommending renovation and operation of the facility based on the conceptual design and conceptual business plan it was included in council's backup because the building would be considered a multi-purpose community cultural center with uses including performing arts music community meetings exhibits and gallery halls as well as private rentals for weddings or corporate meetings so the next few slides are the floor plans the committee's recommending here we have the site plan some of the main feature of the site plan include an expanded terrace on the Elm Street side of the building for use as a gathering place for the performing arts theater or as well as expanding the aesthetics of the building on the north side of the building there's a courtyard for use at the events in the events room as well as it would double as parking in the at the times it's not being used the area highlighted in blue are the exterior renovations that would occur to put the original bay doors back on the building that has since been bricked over and there was the addition of loading zones and some minor improvements to the sidewalk sidewalk around the facility as well so this is the lower level of the building this would be mainly used for the events facility that includes a catering kitchen kitchen in the courtyard to the north there that was previously mentioned this level would also be the ADA entrance as well as having ADA facilities and the committee has added additional ADA compliant parking spaces right there on Pecan Street at this level too there would be some storage for the event facility as well as offices for the building manager the main level here would have access from the terrorist entrance off of Elm Street this entrance would be to the lower floor of the auditorium the auditorium would hold between 200 and 250 people there would be 115 fixed seating in the balcony and flexible seating on the lower floor that could be rearranged depending on the use Councilmember Malzer I was going through the individual comments from the public input something I picked up regarding this space were need for green room dressing rooms and also that the performance stage space be sort of dance dance performance quality spruce was mentioned and I guess a certain amount of I don't know soundproofing or thickness but but in terms of the green room and dressing dressing rooms I couldn't tell from this if that's been accommodated or you have a comment on that yeah there were areas that would also serve as the green room and dressing rooms on this level I think in the design it had the the restroom is being used also for the green room and dressing room for the areas since they're on this level there's one you can't see it here but you can see it in the back there's some room here on this this side here I'm sorry also on the lower level the there would be a ticket office and a box office that would be there at the entrance for ticket sales to performances and there would be managed at offices for the building manager the upper level would be office or artist studio lease space and it would include a shared conference room for use by the lessee or for other city uses as well and then the top level would be the balcony entrance and include a projection and sound room for use during performances so the estimated cost for rehabilitation based on the conceptual design is six point six million dollars this includes five point seven million for construction five hundred sixty thousand for design and three hundred eighty for furnitures fixture and equipment the total project timeline would be approximately two years for six to nine months of design and 15 to 18 for construction and currently there's no funding that's been identified for the renovation the committee requested that the financials be refined before holding a public meeting so the city hired Joanna San Angelo to develop a conceptual business plan she developed this based on a citizen survey that she sent out earlier in the summer and then direction given by the committee the consultant recommended that the building should be managed by a third party rather than a city the benefit of that management model is this increased access to funding from private funding donors and grant opportunities as well as increased volunteers the estimated revenues are less than the estimated expenses for the building so the business plan assumes a minimum contribution of the city of 260 thousand dollars annually council member Amitra has a question and then council member Melcer so I had a question and you don't have to back up the slide but it was about a previous one that you mentioned that no funding sources had been found yet would to your knowledge with the the National Historic Registry that is underway would would that be able to to be used to help subsidize this or does this not not qualify somehow because of the use so it's my understanding that because it's a city owned facility then it wouldn't qualify for the tax credits through the Texas Historic Commission okay thanks not necessarily advocating this but tell me if this is true that in the sort of detail level of the business plan a lot of the expenses associated with administrative positions and that if if this were able to be administered by some existing organization you know that without kind of additional positions it looked like it was sort of break-even do you think that's true the consultant felt that there would need to be three full-time employees and a part-time employee to oversee the facility as it's being operated so that that was their recommendation and the committee agreed if it could be used by another nonprofit and somehow flux resources it may be a possibility yes councilmember I have a question on the floor plan and you may have gone over this and I just didn't hear but when I added it up all the rooms for storage it's 925 square feet of storage just different and what what is that intended for because that's a lot I mean you have the bigger rooms the smaller rooms where those blocked off or something did I miss that so the storage would be used to have some of the performance hall items as well as the seating that when it's not being used in the auditorium at least on the bottom levels just basic storage there's five different five different storage rooms yeah correct Craig you might be able to tell where more of that storage might be used state your name and address please yeah my name is Craig Meldy I'm senior principal in firm of architects is in Dallas yeah we developed these plans according to a similar project in Dallas a salmon Center for the Arts and we found that storage seems to always be one of those things you never have enough of and so we work with Joanna San Angelo to identify storage areas for furnishings potentially particularly furnishings down in the lower level of the multi-purpose room so that you could clear it out or but also musical equipment seems to need to sort you sort of accumulate it over time and and use it so she felt like these storage areas are very important for the functionality of the building so we just place them around I think the plan certainly as a conceptual plan we will you know as you proceed further with development of that plan we'll hone that down to get it exactly where it needs to go okay so they're just I just wondered if there was a plan for what was going in there it's primarily furnishings and like Joanna said there's always things you don't think of that you need start she ran out of storage at the salmon Center so we're very attentive to that that's quite a few square feet for storage it is she felt like we'll use all of it so but again it is a conceptual plan right as the plan gets firmed up and modified as you would go forward you can hone that down and get it exactly where you would need it okay thank you okay just again this is the same slide as earlier the committee's recommending a conceptual design and conceptual business plan that was developed so we were seeking counsel direction on the next steps moving forward for the future use of the building staff is also recommending that funding be included three hundred twenty thousand dollars for replacement of the windows next year be included in next year's budget so the windows right now have some damage around the outside and it's a wood a wood window and it's causing some leaks to the interior and so if we can include funding in next year's budget that would give us time to develop specifications get approvals through the historic Commission's and then go through the solicitation process I'll go so that I can be quiet the rest of the time it's a great experience with with a great group of people I am the ideas grown on me to an extent I think it becomes a financing thing for me how to best manage that I think my absolute primary concern is the ongoing 200 whatever that deficit is and no hope for that to end the if you'll notice that didn't dwindle didn't phase out it just kind of and so for me I could see funding it and and moving forward as long as the veterans Hall of Fame can vote component is in there because I think it draws people off the square it activates that side of downtown I think there's a lot of room for growth on that side of downtown with what is that the one business daybreak day something has moved out there's a large section of downtown that's gonna be revived redeveloped and I think it kind of moves us down that way so I think it's the location's grown on me I think it the utilization can I stop you for a second yes sir could you repeat that please the location is grown on me and so really that I think that veterans component is what if there's just the average Joe that's downtown didn't I think that draws them down that that side of the street I think it draws people to didn't and that really is is going to be the component that seals the deal for me because I think it makes up that deficit I think the volunteers are there they're going to be they'll have it is played golden triangle mall from November 21st through January and they're going to staff it the whole time I mean it's just that it has a resource component that most groups don't have they have the support of at the state and federal levels that are willing to to participate to some degree and so they've done a lot of the groundwork so for me I like the I like the fact that we will have the plan to then shape mold I think the veterans component needs about 1500 square feet I think they can staff it to a level so it may eat up some of the costs that we would have for employees that sort of thing and I think it draws so that's my thing so I'm okay with the with the window needs I'm even okay with fast-tracking that because I don't want it to deteriorate you know so if it if that can be sourced faster I get it and I can get there and then the rest of it I'll just kind of see where everyone else makes. Councilmember Armitage. Yeah I strongly support the steering committee recommendation as is with the additional staff recommendation for the window repair I don't see any conflict in those two so it seems really sensible and I just wanted to thank the committee so much I know that there are some members of that committee here and I know that so much work went into this so so thank you I think this is going to be one of these things once it's done that we won't be able to imagine downtown without it so thank you very much I'm excited about it. Thank you Mayor. Yeah I agree with Councilmember Housbeth it was a great experience a lot of hard work went into this there were a lot of split decisions going down the way one of them that I still have a hard time getting wrapped around is the the variable seating versus fixed seating if you put in fixed seating you lower the FTE is required to man the place because you don't have to set up before every event and it takes away from the original character of the of the way that it was and this is supposed to be about historic restoration of the grand spaces in there and to me we need to go back to the type of city that was originally in there you know we also in this is something council can decide is the fires the fire truck that is right now owned by the county but they're willing it's simply in possession of a citizen here to have that displayed on that lower level most of the time would brings back the history of that building again so granted it uses up a little bit of space but it this is about our history I do believe we have a number of organizations that the city works with that we currently pay for office space in other areas of town that would would be a great fit for this building keep dentin beautiful as an example you know the I think the the convention of visitors bureau it got confusing as to what was being talked about and part of what was being talked about is what they currently office in the chamber the Chamber of Commerce bringing those offices over into there not bringing the visitors bureau off the square over there because of the the need for the space the question of is to are we paying for space as a city paying money to the chamber in a roundabout way by doing that if the CVB was located in that building it's it takes that question mark out of there you know in again I'm sure I'm missing several organizations that were mentioned but there's great ability to to collaborate the Main Street Association could potentially have an office in there those are the types of things that would promote our our us as a city us as a downtown that I think will work well I wonder if the committee had any conversations with some of the existing organizations in town that that that run space for cultural activities now GDAC campus theater which is just to take away that administrative overhead think you know they might be able to do I'm you know at the extreme I might be able to cover all those activities within what they currently do and then maybe you got a breakeven operation you still got to find a way to pay for the renovation though I don't have a magic answer on that yet but I'd be very comfortable certainly supporting getting the windows done and preserving the asset and just say one last thing and I said this in the earlier presentation I think all the veteran recognition kind of exhibitions you know make are very appealing make sense for the reasons you say but could could be part of the programming of it without necessarily locking up the space 100% of the time you know if you've got six different events a year you know what I mean you could you don't necessarily have to dedicate space to that to to get those benefits and meet that need yes so I'm in favor of the recommendations and the window replacement I would like to start I would like to see the building start going through renovations as soon as possible if we could identify funding for it and I'm just curious if because I hear that the firetruck was a bit of a conversation a lively one at some point so I'm just curious if the there's room in the fire station museum that we actually have for the fire station like I don't know if if that's been discussed or if that is even I mean it seems like an appropriate place for it I don't know let me address my comments that might help you with that anything else well I appreciate the work that the staff did I have to be honest I was disappointed in some of the reports that I heard from how some of the members were treated by certain members I like councilmember Hutzpeth I think that we I don't know if y'all talked to Gary Steele about the veterans Hall of Fame here in Denton but it's quite a remarkable thing I had some time with him the other day and he was sharing with me some of the things they want to do the fixed seating I agree with the fire station I have to be honest I'm just sorely disappointed that we talk about historic preservation in this community we talk about all kinds of things about historic preservation and we have a building that has a historic designation on it Texas historic designation we have a firetruck we got rid of that the county bought and now it's been restored primarily restored probably about 70 80 percent and we can't even find a way to put it back in the building that it responded to calls from in our city so it's very difficult for me to understand how people and not everybody is advocated for that based upon this I mean some people don't care whether this has necessarily historical significance outside of the exterior and that's fine but for people to advocate for the historical preservation of culture and properties and things in this city and to not see the value of that to take up a little bit of space in that one Bay Area that might diminish the amount of event space that could be there which might decrease the revenue a little bit it just seems very short-sighted and so I can't support this if we don't make accommodation for that if it goes in the museum that's not where it was that's not where it responded from so I get it so to me it's just a matter of this was the building that represented City Hall police station fire station and I agree with the fixed seating because that was really the whole point that's the only reason I even brought up this idea was how can we make this a sort of a living historical representation of our city while also being able to use it functionally either through third-party organizations or not and I think in some respects that's been honored somewhat but in somewhat it hasn't been honored and that's disappointing so what I was glad to hear that this is conceptual in nature that this council ultimately will have the decision on some of those items that are still up for discussion I'm certainly in favor of the $320,000 on the window cost as far as the business plan I was a little curious on a business plan that's created by someone who works for a facility in Dallas which is very different very different I really don't think that this property is going to make us two hundred and sixty thousand dollars a year is that what it was scheduled to be cost that much well yeah how much how much was the performant revenue 156 hundred and fifty-six year one well I can take no matter what it is it's going to cost us more than two hundred and sixty thousand dollars a year I mean it never things never work out the way that they're budgeted unless it's the city budget by our illustrious city manager so I'm good with the concept I think there's some things I'd like to see that would restore or really emphasize that historical character of that building as it's represented in our community and if there's certain things that that aren't able to be reach a consensus on this body then we all just sort of have to decide how we're gonna vote as we move forward so I wanted to address that first before he had a chance to address the fire station issue yes go ahead so I mentioned that not not as a alternative to this but as an immediate type thing we have this fire truck seems to be extremely important it's not in our possession there is a museum that we have and this may not ever happen so sure is there a way to get this fire truck protected and in our possession before and if council never can come to an agreement on this building first of all I really appreciate you saying that it's important I think it's important because it's been brought up in the conversation I mean we've we've known about this for many many years so I appreciate that thank you yeah chief hedges just wrote me back and said that he's watching that it will not fit in the station so in the museum so he wanted to make sure you had that information okay so I think the direction is conceptually with some minor tweaks it looks good the direction on the estimated cost of the windows is 320,000 I think the direction has been to probably take care of that sooner than later and my hunch would be mr. city manager if there's some way to if we have some discretionary funding or something we can do a refunding and take it out of the general fund or something depending on how much damage is occurring because of the damage windows I don't know the extent of that staff does and you do so just use your good judgment on do we wait another year you know cock it or do whatever we need to do to it or do we just go ahead and take care of business I mean we'll bring something for it to you we really don't think it's a good idea to wait another okay good it's fantastic councilmember now sir and then I suppose the renovation could ultimately be part of a future bond package yeah councilmember Hudson there's a guy that has an infomercial that has that tape that's waterproof I mean he can ride a boat yeah that's right yeah no I think for me I can absolutely get on board with the fixed seating but I would prefer it not to be but I understand the value of it being there I would ask mr. city manager that that that I'm gonna task the the fire chief I think there's a way to get that one we have to make sure we can get some sort of access to the truck I think that process can start because that's a lot of the question too I think it does belong in the fire museum I absolutely understand I understand the concern but for me the the committee went debated it feverishly and sold her out of respect for that process and that opinion then I use a word plus it up with my selfish opinion but I do think it is an asset for sure and I think with all the other fire memorabilia I think that's that's fantastic if there's a way to and I know they have that fence there now but maybe if there's some sort of shelter where it doesn't have to be moved it's there and it blends in my opinion but we'll see when that comes back and I think they're yeah the programming of it and and we did look at some of those organizations and I think you're spot on I think that is if we could find a third party to manage it I think to me if we find another like rail ventures that's doing with stoke I think that is ideal I don't know if they're where the consensus is with that but I think there's a lot of value that we talked to the gentleman runs a black black box theater that sort of thing and then so there's a lot of value in that and we've kind of rattled that around so yeah I think it'll be I just look forward to future conversations okay anymore cut councilmember armature yeah I'll just add that I think if they would be interested that G deck would be great choice to management to manage the building if they had the interest when it comes time for that discussion a lot more decisions to come appreciate it good presentation seeing no more questions on that we'll move to our next agenda item which is agenda item 3d receiver report hold discussion regarding the history and overview of the proposed Park 7 project located on south side of scripture Street between normal Street and Bryan Street I just want to make sure that we understand what the purpose of this discussion and what the purpose is not of this discussion this discussion based upon its posting is not to be council trying to redo the project so I'm gonna rely heavily upon the city attorney to keep us you know on track because I know there's a lot of discussion around this project but I also know that this project right now if it conforms to code that it's been vested in this council doesn't have a whole lot of well actually I think it probably has no authority to to change that in any way it doesn't mean you know maybe some questions here and there but yet if it's if it code applies if it is a is built according to code so I just want to just sort of give that kind of encouragement of what this is going to be it's not going to be a rehashing of this project I mean I don't think the city attorney will allow it and I as the chair if it gets to a point where that's what's happening we're gonna have to have a discussion with city attorney in closed session on that because I what I don't want to do is have us as counsel somebody could make an argument are we unduly influencing a process that somebody is entitled to by right and I don't want to cross that line and so as I said we'll rely heavily on the city attorney to to keep us sort of focused on that with that hi I'm Julie Wyatt I'm senior planner with the city of Denton and I am presenting the the proposed park 7 project overview to you today so just briefly what we're going to talk about is first just a quick summary of the proposed park 7 project zoning and development history of the subject property as well as the surrounding area and then finally we'll just go over briefly the project timeline just to give you just remind you of what has transpired over the last couple years so just to just to remind you where the property is it is located on the south side of scripture between normal and Bryan streets and the property is about three acres a summary of the project it is a proposed mixed-use collegiate housing development as part of that development they are proposing about 1300 square feet of commercial space in this area 183 residential units and that includes a total of 546 bedrooms 546 structured parking spaces 28 bike parking spaces and then amenities for for the project that includes a rooftop pool sport courts and a gym the rooftop amenities are proposed to be on the parking structure in this general area that parking structure is also proposed to be wrapped with with apartments here to reduce the visual impacts of a parking structure on the street it on the north side of the property the proposed height is 55 feet feet on the southern part of the property it is proposed to be 45 feet the pedestrian facility improvements with the with the project would include an 8-foot sidewalk surrounding the property on on all the streets normal scripture and Bryan as well as street trees planted every 45 linear feet per didn't development code requirements just this has that site plan it just a word of caution it's still under review so this is not an approved site plan it's still going through that review process so it's subject to change yes the commercial space is that is that in there because of the the zoning that it has or is that just something that something that they added in there it the the use doesn't require the mixed use component in there in the governing zoning district so it's just something that they've added in there and just a general question because we did have another development recently with apartments that had commercial space how does that affect the parking requirements does it add to them it would they would have to add to it so our didn't development code sub chapter 14 requires that any use on the site be parked in accordance with the square footage associated with that use so so within their site plan and as part of the review we're reviewing to make sure they meet all of the parking requirements not only for the multifamily but also for the for the commercial spaces and would that have to be I'm sorry yeah go ahead is a general question on well no I mean it was just a general question because we recently approved an apartment complex that had commercial in it and it had several parking spaces and I didn't know if the parking spaces had to be a certain distance and this is in our maybe in our code from the commercial like or is it just in the general vicinity not if it is within the same development but we do have a provision in the code that if there was a shared parking agreement between different developments it would have to be within 300 feet but when it's just on that when it's enclosed in that one space there's not a distance requirement so we'll talk about the zoning the current zoning it has a split zoning the property does of DCG and dr2 multifamily is permitted in both districts with a limitation that each bedroom equals one half a dwelling unit so if it's a one bedroom unit then it would be half a dwelling unit if it's a two bedroom unit then it would be considered one dwelling unit if it's a three bedroom unit it would be one and a half dwelling unit so that's how the the density is calculated in both DCG and dr2 DCG is on the north side of the property and the maximum building height this 100 feet maximum density 150 dwelling units per acre dr2 is the southern portion of the property and the maximum building height is 45 feet with a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre so now we'll go into just the zoning and development history of the property in the surrounding area so we researched back to 1941 and at that time there were three zoning districts that we're in the city of Denton we had dwelling go back to that in our in our new development code we're gonna go to three zoning districts we had dwelling business and manufacturing the dwelling zoning district permitted a ran the gamut of the residential uses so it went all the way from single-family up to apartment and boarding houses it was just a residential district the maximum building height in the dwelling district was 35 feet although the height could be increased with larger setbacks and you can see I kind of pulled from a zoning map that the the subject property as well as the surrounding area all had that that dwelling zoning district that applied to it we skip forward to 1957 at that time the corner of normal and business and scripture was rezoned to business so this little portion right here with the hatch marks that permitted commercial and residential uses so so didn't at that time had something called cumulative zoning so the the higher zoning classification permitted all of the uses for the for the less intensive zoning district so the business included all of the residential uses the manufacturing district included all of the business uses as well as the residential uses so within that the business zoning designation it permitted commercial uses as well as residential uses those residential uses included apartment house hotel boarding or lodging house the maximum building height in that new business area was 50 feet and then the dwelling remained or retained that 35 feet building height additional height again was permitted with larger setbacks and apartment houses over four stories required one square foot of open space for each two square feet of gross floor area then we go to 1969 the two zoning districts affected the subject property as well as some of the surrounding area the the portion adjacent to scripture was designated as office multifamily one was this southern portion this little tail of the property as well as the property to the south the office in extent extended to both the east and west it was also across the the street where flow hospital is and so office permitted multifamily dwellings and there were no maximum building heights however multifamily one did restrict the building height to that three-story maximum 1991 we're getting more recent the zoning was was fairly consistent to the 1969 code the office was still in place a little shrunk a little bit and then the multifamily one was in the southern portion of the property general retail was across the street across scripture office was in the flow hospital area and then there was various other districts around that that the the surrounding area office permitted dormitory boarding houses and rooming houses but did not permit multifamily however there was no maximum building height multifamily one once again stayed consistent with that multifamily dwellings permitted with that three-story maximum height and that brings us to today with the current zoning is so in 2002 when the Denton Development Code was adopted there was a citywide rezoning and it established the current zoning districts you see today and if you look if you look at the property you can see that that's how that kind of the split zoning was established because it really did follow that 1991 the the office area being transitioned to downtown commercial general and then the multifamily one was transitioned to dr2 so some takeaways from just looking at that research and looking at the surrounding zoning pattern is that multifamily and student housing uses have been permitted in this area since 1941 since then there have been several legislative actions there's been some codes that have been updated in some zoning cases that have reaffirmed those permitted uses what the with the adoption of the 2002 DDC and citywide rezoning the maximum height for that property adjacent to scripture was been limited to that 100 feet and and just looking at not only the zoning pattern but in the next slides we'll look at the land use pattern and just the proximity to flow hospital and the NU&T really has informed the zoning and development pattern yes sir real quick question and and if somebody knows this historically but like when we are going to roll out our new code revisions we'll be sending out notifications with the new zoning map to almost every I guess real property owner just letting them know something's happening do we know if they how did they notice that do we know how they noticed that in 2002 if it was a citywide rezoning do we have any idea on that and if not I'm just curious my understanding is because we had talked about it even with with with the upcoming rezoning I think they reached out to previous staff and they had my understanding is they renoticed every property owner in okay okay all right thanks all right so let's look at some aerial photographs these are fun to look at so this is a this is a 1942 aerial map of kind of the west side of Denton just to orient you here is the courthouse flow hospital is here UNT was was a smidge smaller here and then you can see that that the development and Denton sort of radiated out from the courthouse square here's here's oak and here's hickory and it the density moved to the west and then and then became a little bit rural as you moved a little further west in this location so we'll drill down a little closer to the subject property so this is this the yellow is the subject property and as you could see UNT is to the south it's it's not on the aerial but there was a lot of residential development around the subject property as well as some some areas that hadn't filled in yet here's flow hospital we skipped to 1964 so been a lot of development there was a lot of filling in flow hospitals bigger we have more multifamily development in the area we've got a big complex here there's one here something over here and then and then they've just kind of filled in those open spaces here's 1984 it looks fairly similar maybe some more commercial development along scripture scripture I think this I think yeah so this is new or newer in 1984 and then some more commercial development on script scripture as well as around the Oak Hickory area just north of UNT campus 1997 looks fairly similar to 1984 I think flow hospital got a little bit bigger and here's 1999 and then here brings us to today so we could see there were other developments that happened flow hospital has now is now a multifamily development as well as the development along fry Street so now we'll talk about the current project timeline and just go over it really briefly so in September of 2016 the city received an application pre-application for the proposed for a proposed collegiate development that included a concept plan and a narrative and and so in order to start that discussion with with the the proposed developer shortly thereafter they submitted a rezoning request and to to rezone the subject the part that was the dr2 to DCG in October of 2016 the applicant helpful sorry mayor protein well and I'm my question is actually what you're talking about right now because we per we as a city provide them with the list of who to mail out to how do we determine that list we pull that list from what we would use for a public notification for a public hearing so we give them both the 200 foot property owners as well as the 500 foot resident boundary okay well and my concern is this that I've looked through the list that's on there and you have apartment complexes that have multiple units that just say resident at in the address and property owners weren't sent notification on these well and that and and I'd have to look back at that but there there are the two lists there's that the resident and then there's the actual property owner where it goes to the mailing address wherever they get their tax bill in I know because I've got two properties that were the addresses on the list my address was not on the list and it just said resident in their address the 50 units that it went to one to each property nobody ever got it and that may be that 500 foot address but I can go back and look and see ones in the 200 ones in the 500 okay I'll go back in and look and see okay what was what was sent out we get those address lists from Denton County Appraisal District so so that's how we we create our list is Denton County Appraisal District from the certified tax rolls and if I might just make a recommendation I don't know it might be proprietary information that we can't get out but could our utility apartment based on meter addresses could that information be used for the mailing list I mean you don't know how many apartment addresses there are unless you're actually looking at what them where you have a meter located on an apartment complex so if you wanted all the residents in an apartment complex to be notified you would really almost have to be but but the point you brought up though was that you as the owner yes at least what you're reporting is that you don't recall getting an OS which they're saying they get those from the DCAD list right and what I'm saying is in our backup was a list of what they gave them right and I know if one was sent I did not notice it but right it wasn't on their list of what they gave out and they only gave out the street address of the complex and not all the numbers I'm trying to let you speak but I don't want us to get right bogged down in that if we need to look at the process we can go ahead yes this is a it's a procedural question but related to that question so if if one of us like say if I own property in this area within this radius would I have to recuse myself from the discussion I mean I know in the past I'm just what this just occurred to me based on the question I know that you know when we've had discussions about Bonnie Bray for instance we've had people use a city city manager will I mean city attorney will address that yeah if this was the actual zoning item before you yes okay the zoning item is over so we're not discussing anything that would lead to any kind of decision that would cause a recusal okay so okay great so just in an informational meeting it's okay okay thank you so the first neighborhood meeting was held in in October of that year and then a second one was held in December February 22nd of 2017 the planning and zoning Commission the the rezoning case was heard for the first time at that planning and zoning Commission meeting the applicant asked to postpone it so that they could make sure that they understood the the building heights and setback requirements however the planning and zoning Commission there were a lot of citizens in attendance so they they allowed those in attendance to speak on the item but kept the public hearing open so that additional comment could be provided at the March 8th meeting March 8th planning and zoning Commission had the second public hearing regarding the request at that meeting there was a requested clarification that if the rezoning was not approved could the applicant move forward with a development of the site of collegiate housing and the applicant did confirm that yes he could move forward and intended to even if the zoning request failed a motion was made to approve the request with an overlay over the entire site to required staggered of heights they were concerned about the the the maximum height permitted in DCG and were and there was a there was a an overlay proposed to reduce that height however that motion failed due to a on the grounds that there was just insufficient time to craft an overlay at the at the at the meeting so another motion was made to deny the request to recommend denial the request and that motion passed the project went forward to City Council on April 4th members of the public spoke again and once again they had concerns regarding compatibility traffic and and the the use of collegiate housing in the area during the deliberations council did discuss the possibility of the hundred-foot tower on the site there was a requested clarification that the developer did they have the right to pursue the development was it consistent with the zoning and it was confirmed that yes that developer could move forward with a development of the site because multifamily was a permitted use with the PNC recommendation of denial a supermajority was required the the case was denied a four to three vote yeah so again so so at this meeting would people who council members who own property in this area have to recuse themselves because this was a rezoning based on what you said that because this was not an informational meeting yes but this action in order you're right if there was somebody who had a conflict and yes they would have there would have been that but again I don't know I don't recall the exact circumstances but but to answer your question the answer will be yes okay okay so that that's good to know thanks so after the City Council meeting the applicant did submit an application for a replat to to consolidate all of the parcels into one one lot and that was approved by the planning and zoning Commission in August of last year in July of this year the applicant submitted a site plan for staff to review they've gone through one round of comments they've actually resubmitted and and we're supposed to have comments from everybody to compile tomorrow so it is it is under a second review and and so we'll provide comments and if there are any corrections that need to be made will will be submitted to the applicant does a replat request does that does that I guess do you have to do in re notification for that this yes a replat requires a notification in the newspaper only if it's a residential replat is there a mailing notice that's required so this wasn't considered a residential replat per the Texas local government code so it so it was just a notice in the paper okay in July also of this year they the applicants submitted both a traffic impact analysis and a pedestrian and bicycle access route assessment it's start the both of them are currently under review by staff but based upon an initial assessment it's anticipated that the vehicular traffic will be but will be low during the peak demand hours of 9 a.m. to 4 to 6 p.m. and that the primary impacts will be to pedestrian bicycle and transit infrastructure as such staff once they finalize the review is anticipating that they'll provide comments to the applicant in November and that also there there may be off-site improvements that are required to those pedestrian and bicycle facilities as a result of development on the site so and that is part of the next step so the next steps are to continue the site plan review to ensure compliance with all development regulations to provide those comments for the the TIA and the pedestrian assessment and then and then provide those requirements that they'll need for off-site improvements and then also the building permit review once they have submitted for their building permit review and and that's my presentation okay could you could you speak to what kinds of questions will will staff be asking what kind of things will you be looking at as you review or are you looking at as you review the the site plan I mean both you know in this case specifically but also kind of in general because you've obviously you know you've approved the project has been approved right so but yet there to a certain extent or the zoning I should say the zoning zoning sorry the zoning has been approved which is my point yeah so the zoning has been approved so it's not entirely correct then to say right that the so I can't say the project has been approved it's the zoning has been approved but the specifics of the site plan are indeed up for review so so what kind of questions or will you be looking at outside and you did a good job of explaining about the pedestrian and bike access questions but as far as the general site plan what kinds of issues before you answer that because and and I want to respect your question but basically what you're asking is what are the codes to that are applied or that what do they have to conform to the code to have an approved site plan so if you have a specific question but I mean that's what I understood your question is what kind of questions are you going to be asking to make sure that the site prove site plan meets the criteria they're going to ask the questions that are required by the code that we have in order to approve that site plan so if you could help if you could kind of either clarify that or whittle it down because I don't want to get into I mean I don't think I don't want to get into staff being asked what do they have to do to comply with the code because if we if you want to know that I think we can ask that offline simply because this project's been ongoing forever and this is an overview and it's not necessarily to try to figure out exactly what are the specific codes that they have to conform to so yes thank you for your input on that and I think the public would like to know just if you can name some examples just a few examples because the public is not as you know well-versed in the code is as people like like you or you know property owners in the area who are dealing with these issues as they arise all the time so if you could explain just a couple examples for the public sake sure well and maybe for mine too because I don't know it as well as you do the didn't development code guides development within the city and so we you know we top line we look to see and make sure the use is permitted we also look to see if they're meeting the Balkan dimensional requirements so those building heights any setbacks required any lock coverage so we look at those and those are in sub chapter 5 of the didn't development code we also look at at site design requirements so those street trees that they're that they have to plant we make sure that they they've got the correct numbers in and that the placement is in the right spot so we look to see if you know what we work with engineering to make sure that there's adequate sidewalks that provide it that the lighting that they meet all all building orientation and building materials requirements so we really look at it from all aspects of the development so thank you and can I ask a follow-up question that so as these issues arise my sense is that you that there's a procedurally you can be in touch with the the developer as these issues arise and there's a kind of a back-and-forth process right so it is that correct they submit and then we we provide comments and point out the deficiencies and where they need to make corrections in the site and then they go back and they make the corrections and they resubmit again and then we were we review it and it's you know we basically look at the whole site again to make sure that it's it meets the requirements and if there are any deficiencies we give them that list again and then they go back and it follows that process until it meets all of the code requirements and have have any deficiencies been found so far or is it still and they're still in that initial stage of assessing the whole project we have provided we've provided a list for them of what they needed to correct and so that's what they've corrected and then resubmitted and then we're we're in the second we're second review of that to see you know what else needs to be fixed or what's been fixed and so it just goes back and forth and is that lit so that list is private right it's this whole conversation is private or is it publicly accessible or what city attorney would you weigh in on comments that are you know staff review comments that are resubmitted to the applicant and the information resubmitted from applicant to the city staff are those public public documents on all that information is they are public documents and the it with there are some like limited exceptions that apply to whether or not these are types of dog like sealed engineering drawings or critical infrastructure but I don't think that applies here that under the site plan thanks we're gonna go around the horn here because these Councilmember Meltzer I have a few I'll try to be concise did you have access you know where you are to our exhibit 9 the development review committee comment letter I don't where I am but I can I could try to speak to that and well I wanted to ask you specifically about comment f102 okay do you have it's a fire comment so if you want to I will well I'd like to just understand it it's it's on page 7 that's a good way to solve it there we go yeah yeah there you go D nine exhibit nine and it's awesome navigation and big all right thank you Richard and it's on page seven of that document there it is right at the top yep so yeah I mean I can can you explain that the to me is the plain meaning of it is troubling and makes me concerned about you know safety of people and and ultimately liability for the city as well so you know I hope I'm not understanding it correctly but maybe you can kind of tell us how what it means and how that's addressed well I can I can I could try to talk to you about the the conversations that I've had with fire and so so part of their question is regarding the overhead power lines and as part of the development the developer is going to bury those and I actually don't think their power lines are actually I think telephone lines those will be buried so that will not restrict the aerial apparatus for fire in order to access the building and what fire wants to make sure is that they have adequate access to to fight any fires in the building and so so can you can you address the part that says Bryan Street and normal Street allow parking on one side of the street which leaves the clear access under 26 feet in width and that follows a statement that fire access is inadequate so those streets being under 26 feet feet in width part of the conclusion that fire access is inadequate and is there a plan to widen the streets I mean how Scott McDonald director of development services this particular issue was addressed with the office of the fire marshal the comments that were made were not 100% accurate upon investigation both from the office of the fire marshal myself the site will be in compliance the point that they were attempting to make was that of the overall the overhead lines whether that be electric and or cable phone those wires are all going to be rerouted any of the electric lines will be underground so where it is that they need access with aerial equipment they will have that access was this comment incorrect as far as addressing the industry incorrect on what was noted and certainly that was the initial comments subsequent to this that those the comments were addressed and that can be corrected as far as the record it just was not corrected in the record but but I did I personally spoke with a fire chief and went out there myself it is it is not an accurate it's just not an accurate comment we're gonna okay we're gonna go around a few others you know just general questions if you want me to you know kind of go through them yeah go through quickly yeah because we have several others yeah is is the parking you know we see that the parking is four stories and above ground is the I don't even know where frankly I've heard this so this could be completely wrong but is there also an intention to have underground parking yes sir and does that have fire risk associated with it it would be sprinkler in accordance with the fire codes and so so we talked to fire today and they it conforms to their requirements okay thank you now the infrastructure required for over 500 bedrooms for people for water and sewer must be substantial you know is that is there is there an impact on the surrounding areas wealth both for construction for what period of time and also just for capacity how will I guess make to make it a concise question how will the upscaling of the infrastructure for water and sewer for this project impact the surrounding area they will have to demonstrate as part of the development that there is adequate capacity to facilitate the development also is with their building permit they will have to pay impact fees associated with any development any provide any taps that would accommodate the the the number of fixtures within the building just a couple more quick ones thank thank you trying to blast them out here there's anecdotally there's flooding on the sidewalks now on the sort of downhill sides on Brian and normal and presumably adding all this impervious you know structure is going to you know it's going to exacerbate that is there a drainage aspect of this project yes sir they will have to they have to do an analysis of the drainage both the pre-construction and the post so that will all have to meet engineering requirements and it's part of the site plan review as well so engineering is reviewing this in addition to planning and and and fire and and has to make sure that it meets all of their requirements as well just lastly do we know I mean I don't think that they're required the developers required to tell us but do we have an idea about how long this will be under construction and whether this will affect the habitability of the surrounding rentals I do not know how long it will take up in their TIA they're anticipating being complete in 2020 but I don't I don't know if that's just a a just an assumption that's made I don't know how long it's gonna be that's something that typically that the city does not for her to give the answer would be speculating as to what in the fact the construction would have on surrounding properties as far as habitability as you ask that's not typically something the city will look into as part of this review site plan review process that's it for now thanks councilmember husband thank you I'll lead with that that a 2017 P&Z commissioner set was probably the most dynamic in the history of Denton I think they did a great job now I think I think my understanding were you the five or the two so my understanding is the retail and I learned this at NLC actually the retail component helps the financing right and just for what it's worth you know that's just my understanding of of those groups and so that I think that is I found that to be consistent with this but my question is can we pull up Google Maps for that area please and thank you I'm assuming the site yes please and I guess you could go it's like 1600 block of searching and then yes can you help me understand so they have to widen the sidewalks or they're going to would it have to go into either way where would that terminate so they all sides but how far down would their responsibility go well just in terms of strict development it would just be on their property however with with the traffic impact analysis and the pedestrian assessment there may be anticipated off-site requirements that so I don't know what the limits of that would be right now okay so for sure just their portions what we understand so just to note that would be a sticking point for me because if we have this brand new sidewalk at the top of the block and then we get down to the and it narrows that that kind of defeats the purpose so whatever that cost is to to normalize that all the way down to oak would be my preference just as a note you know I just don't want to have a brand new sidewalk at the top of the block and then it it narrows back to what's existing and then another note I would ask and I know it's going to come into study so I'm just asking my understanding is if they're anticipating that much foot traffic which is debatable but if they're they're expecting that much foot traffic I'd like to see a hawk the flashing light crossing at normal and oak I mean just again all that'll get flushed out and then so let me let me ask so I just want to make sure that in our comments because we we have to be careful to ask for things if we're asking for things that aren't necessarily required in our code so that's and I don't know if that is or not I'm just I just want to and just point that out so no no and so let me reshape that because I don't want to miss I don't want to mislead anybody I want the city to write any deficiencies because the neighbors don't don't deserve less because of whatever right so my my thing is if there's deficiencies my notice to the city and city manager staff hey make this right yeah you know so that that's my not so much for the development yes and then can you help me understand do we have the new review platform in place in our re-reviewing now in 3d or 2d that's just a question I have because we have the new software that we budgeted but I don't know if it's in place the plans we actually get are all just they're laid out in actual 2d plan sets now most modeling regardless of how they set it up would have been done in 3d we're requiring them to do the same surveys that we would do on capital projects that's just requirements a fundamental of what they're doing now whether or not they're using 3d modeling software or not that is purely at their prerogative it's nothing we have a requirement on the 3d comparison of that is is what we do as we go through the review of the process if it has a vertical component so yes and I'm just I'm just focusing on our end of things are we reviewing in 2d at 3d we review everything in 3d but if what what I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this is do I have some software solution lets me look at with the magic lens and it's all stretched out in 3d to where I can twirl it and play with it no we don't have that it's not something we typically have and most software solutions are very very computing intensive to get to the point where you have that kind of horsepower to do it got it is it in the near future yes do we do these things in three dimensions yes the software we do does absolutely do in 3d three dimensions I can depending on what they're using they can actually spin this stuff around and look at it on a screen in three dimensions but yes so yeah and so that's great because here's where I'm going and this is my concern mr. city manager or not not a concern just to ask understanding the sensitivity of the project it's going to be crucial that you're at peace with the end results and that we don't have a narrative that was misstated that we got to go back I understand that that's currently but understanding the the public scrutiny we got to get it right right and so that that's gonna be my ask that it yeah it's just got to be right you know and that's every project I know we're dedicated to that but but there there's differences and and I think this is one of those that I just want to make sure that I understand staff is at peace with it but I also want to understand and make sure that you're at peace with the narratives etc and in the work product that we don't have a unclear segment or if we do have an unclear segment that there's the there's a name associated with that that can be pinpointed and traced etc etc because I think that's just that's going to be required of this as it goes forward so that's just my thinking out loud and so that's why I was asking because I think that environment allows you to that 3d environment where you able to move things allows you to see at a different level and I'm absolutely ignorant to it I'm just going by what I understand those in the business to tell me right and so I think that allows another level of scrutiny to kind of see things in place differently or at a more enhanced level to catch things in advance because catching things afterwards is going to be problematic we we don't disagree and we do do that analysis now the way you see that in the plan sets as you typically see that in both a plan view and then what they draw on the page is basically the whole thing cut in half so we can see those things line up it's very hard to put us an engineer seal or an architect seal and signature on a 3d model and that's what they're going to use to construct it do we use that internally between the professionals to analyze and evaluate did you survey in the right place and are we all in the right elevation and yes we absolutely thank you very much thank you very much member Duff and then we'll come across you know my question was on the underground okay parking and you know as long as it's good with the with a fire department you have plenty of access into it then that's member Briggs so I have a few going back to councilmember Meltzer said with the the fire truck and so I know that we've had and this just isn't about this project it's about other projects and it seems like a reoccurring conversation with street size and and safety and I know that a couple years ago we had an apartment complex near TWU catch on fire and and we redid our codes then for our streets to make sure that fire trucks could get there adequately and I just want to make sure that the 26 inch or that the that the roads all around because I know that we talked about aerial I just want to make sure that actual infrastructure is in place to hold the large fire trucks that have the aerial apparatus and I'm sure that has been discussed fire has discussed it and and worked with Scott to make sure that there's adequate access and there's there's adequate space for it for their streets okay and the the wastewater and sewer system we talked about that but going to our conversation earlier about impact fees and this is just a question that I want to know because I when we talked about it development earlier we talked about single-family and then one spot how does this work with impact fees when you have over 500 people going to be in one small section do you do you just do the 14,000 because it's one small section or do you apply it per person it's it's applied per single family equivalent so okay yeah that SFE calculation that Ken Banks was talking about is basically used to standardize with whether it's commercial multifamily residential that's how the fees are calculated so I'm not sure how many SFE's would be required out of this development but it'll be calculated based on that formula and that's how the impact fees are derived and so from my what I understand earlier we're not charging near enough for those and I know that the water waste bar sewer systems in that area are really old so does the money that we're going to recapture from impact fees is that going to be enough are we going to be the city going to be paying for the upgrades well we don't have we don't have the updated impact fees program right now so basically that money is is escrowed with for use in this particular zone for any projects because in theory the major transmission lines plants are required to service this so we'll go towards the any of the upgrades that are required in those areas and as well as the interceptor projects the new standards would not apply here yet because this project is going to be grandfathered in it's going to it's going to be developed before you adopt the new fees and so back to Councilmember Hutzpeth's question or just conversation about infrastructure thinking when we do regular developments we do the traffic impact analysis and we use cars and there are some cases where we require lights to be put in through developers or to make sure that that works and I'm just wondering why we don't do that with pedestrian infrastructure with say the hawk or certain signals to make sure that the pedestrian since we are increasing that pedestrian traffic significantly why we don't require developers to put in that type of infrastructure we'll take a look I'll ask Preetam to take a look at what impact it's going to have on that particular intersection and whether there's anything that needs to be done to increase the safety at Oak and Normal or Bryan so and that might be a higher conversation we need to have as council on policy and codes and why not but I think you know it's something to think about yes several questions one about the the fire assessment that was done did that when when when those kinds of assessments are done the second time around was it understood that there would be a one-to-one parking space you know ratio parking space per resident ratio and was it considered what would be the impact on street parking of people in those SROs you know presumably a lot of students right having overnight guests you know how that will impact the parking in the area and how that in turn would impact fire accessibility sure Scott may jump in but parking on normal and Bryan there's there's only parking permitted on one side of the street and so the fire assessment was based upon full line of cars on one side and then and then and then the travel lanes okay yeah okay thanks so so it would it would obviously go if say everybody there had a guest there it would be way down way down that street I was wondering in terms of the history talking about the thing the buried oh in you don't have to go back this back to the slide because there's not a slide on a slide on it but this is just about kind of local history and precedent you were talking about the birthday buried telephone lines and it is there is there precedent for that in the city where a developer has proposed a project they could only be feasible if there were you know telephone lines had to be buried underground and they had to pay for it and ditto same question I'll just throw this in there for the for the underground parking garage is there precedent for an underground parking garage for a residential development in the city of Denton specifically in a historic district like this I am not I don't think it happens often that they bury the the lines adjacent to the development I think that typically they don't go to that expense to do that as far as underground parking I am not aware of an underground parking garage within this city I'm not sure if it's if it's normal but obviously it you know they've run the numbers on their pro forma they've addressed all of our site permits and as long as the geotechnicals support it and I believe it's safe from a fire perspective and a code perspective we it's something that we will permit I guess I just kind of go on the record with all these developers very clear very clear that there's you know every every possible code that that we have on the books that they are going to be held to there's been absolutely no attempt to get us to waive anything they would don't even ask they know that we will not do that so any area that there's been particular concerns about they've addressed immediately and staff has not been asked to do anything you know to give them any relief at all they've made it quite clear they'll be held to every letter of every code thank you and and then my the following question was having to do with the underground parking garage it has there been a study done of Atmos gas lines in the area and and I'm sure water has been considered you know city infrastructure but the private infrastructure cable but especially at most because of the fire hazard I wouldn't know off the top of my head what they've done currently but anytime before anybody digs they are required in the state of Texas to identify all those lines and find them uncover them and be aware where they are before they do anything and do they do it I mean obviously you do it before you dig yes before you break ground but is it involved at all is it required at all as part of the this site review process we want from the city standpoint yes where all of our infrastructure is yes they request that typically in the form of as built center GIS maps where we show where those locations are then we want them to verify that before they go any further now with the franchise utilities a lot of that just depends on what are they tying into are they doing it up front I don't know the city of Denton for a long time didn't until here the last year or so when it came to identifying where those were on just our own capital project so smart developers they do the homework they go find it early by and large that's it really is up to the developer themselves as to whether or not they're doing it the state requirement is that they have to call dig tests before they dig and find out where those lines are of course yes thank you and I would just say you know moving forward this doesn't only apply to this project but any project where there's a substantial digging going on that that the builders should consider what happened over near first United Methodist and we had a mislabeled at most line and you know some of our workers and the people in that church I mean everybody was fine but there was a crisis of near crisis situation when that line was was was hit so I would advise increasing their radio I forget the the footage but there's a certain kind of radius that they have to mark and I would kind of double that to allow for the safety of the workers in the people in the neighborhood all right councilmember Briggs we're gonna let you have the last question because we're gonna we're gonna wrap this up well it's really not a question more of a request because I do know the Wells Fargo had an underground parking garage several years ago and it was deemed unsafe and they had to close it up because they couldn't go down anymore and so I just would like for staff to research that and find out what the issue was and if it has to do with the soil level ground level and make sure that that's not gonna be a situation an old parking garage I mean built back in the 60s right well just those were a lot different but yeah that's reasonable thank you okay all right thank you all very much that will close out this section this session we will now move into closed session for convening a closed session at 5 4 47 we will consider the following items consultation with attorneys under text and code government code section 551.071 deliberations regarding real property under Texas government code section 551.072 and deliberations regarding personnel matters under Texas government code section 551.074 and deliberations regarding certain public power utilities competitive matters section 551.086 okay all right everyone thank you so much for joining us back at this meeting of the Denton City Council on November 13th 2018 we've completed our closed session and now we're moving back to our special called meeting we do have a quorum we'll call that meeting to order our first item on the agenda is the consent agenda we did not have any items pulled from the consent mayor Pro Tem I move approval councilmember Briggs so we have a motion and second all in favor of approving the consent agenda please signify by raising your right hand passes unanimously moving on to agenda item 2 items for individual consideration consideration of the use of eminent domain to condemn real property interest consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton determining the public use need necessity for the acquisition of various permanent easements and temporary construction easements along John Payne Road to Bonnie Bray Street etc. Good evening mayor council members tonight before you for your consideration is an ordinance regarding one of our upcoming water transmission line projects it's located out in the southwest quadrant of the city at all red and John Payne Road it's going to be connecting our booster station at basically at the subtly end of this blue line you see here on the map we'll connect that booster station over to an existing 20 inch line at Bonnie Bray at 377 it's about 14,000 linear feet of line it's really necessary to increase capacity pushing water out toward the southwest quadrant of the city the pb met yesterday and recommends approval this the ordinance for consideration authorizes staff to move forward with making offers and if those offers are refused and and we hit an impasse that we can't acquire the necessary easements with using eminent domain so this is not authority ordinance okay so you're coming back down what's true there's all red and Joe John Payne okay and that's for the development of what well it's actually just a connection just so right now with the city's we have a booster station that's situated here that pushes water out you know to ropes and ranch and this we have a 20 inch line here in South Bonnie Bray and so this connection will just allow more more water so it's coming that booster station is getting fed from somewhere else and this is just going to be an additional supply into that booster station yes okay all right okay fantastic all right now so I'm sorry go ahead just I can go through we have some little site maps here just kind of show that different so that's what we're playing to and I about fell out of my chair but that's okay really these will be really fast yes okay I promise Jane that I would move right through right so so here we have in blue is the permanent easement we're gonna be seeking from this tract as well as a temporary construction needs more work work easement to allows to do the work this is just a track and just north of the booster station you see here so this is one the other one here is primarily most a lot of this waterline is going to be built in but John Payne Road the north-south segment but there's little places we're having to depart and to get into the booster station in here to basically honor the future widening at 35 we've kind of pushed it the water line outside of that impact and this is where John Payne turns and comes back and goes into all red and then this other tract is just we're going to be placing the constructing the water line on the north side of all red road and upon a favorable motion mayor I will proceed to who's who's designated to read the motion there Pro Tem you and read the motion I'll read the motion okay 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 easements and temporary construction easements generally located along John Payne Road north of Park Place Drive along all red road from John Payne to South Bonnie Bray Street and being situated in the BBB and CRR survey abstracts numbers 158 and 159 city of Denton Denton County Texas and being more particularly described in exhibit a to the ordinance now under consideration on the overhead screen now being displayed to the audience all of which is for a valid public use necessary to provide the construction operation and maintenance of municipal water system improvements as part of the all red and John Payne water transmission project a project to serve the public and citizens of the city of Denton Texas and just let me just let me know when we've displayed those enough to okay all right so chair would entertain a second if there is a second comes member duh all right we have a motion in a second for agenda item 2a all in favor please signify by raising your right hand motion carries unanimously going to agenda item 2b or not to be that I'm sorry I'm sorry it's Dalton's not here so I had to I had to pick up his considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton determining the public use need and necessity for the acquisition of various permanent easements and temporary construction easements generally located along the southbound I-35 service road from us 380 to the southside lot line of lot one block two of the caliper collision addition etc mayor council members Paul Williamson capital projects again another one of the waterline projects we have in our current campaign located it's a bore across I-35 just south of 380 with several easement tracks that we need to acquire up in this area it's kind of a project overview it's going to be 20 inch water on a transmission line as well as some 16 inch water transmission line again this project's necessary as part of the planned capital improvements to help with the water system and capacity out in the west side of Denton this this matter went before PV yesterday public utilities board and they recommend approval just a little bit more detail here project plans indicates the two locations were actually going to be two bores that go across 35 here so it's two lines to two pressure planes separating the water system my understanding so I have a quick question on that is this because I know one of the things that we've realized is that around 2449 and all that we didn't have a major water transmission line across the highway so with this coming across the highway there does that help facilitate to some degree getting better water infrastructure on the west side of our 35ers it's just really particular to what we're looking at here so the short answer is yes it does both I mean a part of it is we need to expand utilities knowing that textile is coming in the very near future to widen facilities as well as provide for the ultimate capacity needs in the future on the west side okay all right good thank you and I will need somebody to read you have you the file folder at your at your desk or your place there and we've already read the first one there in order so when we get ready for a motion if somebody would want to you'll read that okay all right thank you councilmember Armitter just tell me Paul when you're ready okay 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 a various permanent easements and temporary construction easements generally located along the southbound I-35 service road from US 380 University Drive south to the south lot line of lot 1 block 2 of the caliber collision addition running east running due east to the northbound I-35 service road along the western and northern boundaries of a lot 10 r2 block a razor ranch town center addition with us 380 being the northern boundary line and being situated in the BBB and CRR survey abstract number 192 city of Denton Denton County Texas and being more particularly described in exhibit a to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screens now being displayed to the audience all of which is for a valid public use necessary to provide the construction operation and maintenance of the municipal water system improvements as part of the highway 380 to I-35 water transmission project a project to serve the public and citizens of the city of Denton Texas what happened to the mayor I proceeded through the slides okay so there was enough okay all right just want to make sure all right so we have a motion we have a second mayor pro 10 second all right we have a motion and second for agenda item to be all in favor please signify us by raising your right hand motion carries unanimously to us to see consider adoption of the ordinance of the city of didn't determine the public use need and necessity for the acquisition of various permanent easements and temporary construction easements generally located along the southbound I-35 service road north of the old right-of-way line of Jim Crystal Road etc. mayor again this involves another one of our slated capital projects for water transmission line the the ordinance that was part of your backup we've had a correction to one of the the roster of product of actual land rights we've had an inadvertent error we we've found that we want to act actually correct that so we have a new substitute ordinance for your consideration that we can circulate okay is does the motion have to be changed is the motion that we're reading change no sir the the legal descriptions were all correct okay it was really just an inadvertent error on the roster okay okay you can proceed to your presentation okay this project is a traversing I-35 with another water line out there at scripture and Jim Crystal 20-inch water transmission main connecting a 20 an existing 20 on the located app scripture across the highway and then connecting to an existing 8-inch line on the west side of the highway again this is necessary to increase water supply for the west side of Denton and went to the public utility board yesterday and they recommend approval just a little illustration of the project plans this is a little a little less of a undertaking than the one we just saw just south of 380 but necessary none the least we've got identified tracks here just so you kind of understand the what we're doing okay and who would like to have the honor of reading that motion councilmember husband I move that the city of Denton after having made the offers required by state law use the power of eminent domain turn your microphone on please it is oh yeah okay they're slowing the trigger okay all right the city of Denton after having made the offers required by state law use the power of eminent domain if needed to acquire a very acquire a various permanent easement and temporary and construction easement generally located along the eastbound pardon me southbound I-35 service road north of the old right-of-way line of Jim Crystal Road running north approximately 300 feet then east under I-35 to northwest corner of lot one block four of razor rents South Edition and being situated in the BBB and CRR survey abstract number 192 city of Denton Denton County Texas and being more particularly described in the revised exhibit a to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screens now being displayed to the audience all of which is for a valid public use necessary to provide the construction operation and maintenance of the municipal water system improvements as part of the scripture to I-35 water transmission project a project to serve the public and citizens of the city of Denton Texas all right so we do have that motion with the necessary language to accept the amendment that was passed out so we have a motion second we have motion to second all in favor please signify by raising your right hand motion carries unanimously thank you all thank you mayor thank you moving on to agenda item three items for individual consideration agenda item three eight consider approval excuse me consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton Texas the Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation authorizing the approval of an extension and and amendment to a contract for the management of cities Stoke Denton Entrepreneur Center etc good evening mayor and council members Caroline booth from economic development I'm gonna go through this pretty quickly since y'all just had a work session on it and getting the nod of approval from the mayor so you will be considering adoption of an ordinance to extend the contract for management of Stoke I think I can skip this unless y'all have questions this is just the background about the RFP saying that they've met all their contract terms to date as you heard during your work session no city funds are spent on the contract with hickory and rail ventures they will begin paying a portion of the rent and utilities for the next 12 months should the contract be approved and then that will increase to two thousand dollars a month in months 13 through 26 of the contract and there's a projected savings of over two hundred and forty thousand dollars over three years that we anticipate with the contract can you just can you remind me where the money goes that they pay for rent where how that would what fund that goes into there is a revenue fund that has been set up specifically to take that in to take in revenue from Stoke just like we have set up a fund for expenditures specifically related to it so that we can track it easily and so that will just go in and then the expenditures will kind of come out of that fund the expenditures come out of a different business unit but they have to take revenue in under a certain fund and revenues expended out of a different business unit but they are both only dedicated to revenues and expenditures first okay thank you during the October 16th work session you heard a comprehensive presentation about Stokes operations for the past year and council did direct staff to extend the management contract and requested that the item be presented for individual consideration so what you're considering is a contract extension through February 28th 2021 which is the end of the city's lease term for the facility and to address the comments from council members about wanting to make sure that the council and the public continued to be updated about Stokes operations we have built into the contract that they will provide a semi-annual written report by June 1st of each year which will then be provided to you as an informal staff report as well as an annual written report and presentation by November 1st of each year so that's now incorporated into the contract amendment to ensure that everybody stays updated and gets a chance to have a conversation with the management company key points HRV has met all the terms of their current contract under the extension they will begin reimbursing the city for a portion of rent and utilities each month the extension is through February 28th of 2021 and the extension does require them to provide operational reports and come to visit with you once a year in person I'm glad to answer any questions I have you remind me the the extension is to do what the end of our lease is right yes I'm building that's correct thank you I'll second all right we have motion a second for agenda item 3a all in favor please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign so the motion carries six to one thank you thank you agenda item 3b consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton Texas in support of seeking legislative authority to allow the city didn't to consider creation of a tourism public improvement district providing an effective date hi still Caroline still from economic development I'm gonna give you guys the opportunity to consider approval of this resolution related to creating a tourism public improvement district and we do have a couple of folks in the audience here should you have specific questions we've got some of the local hoteliers here as you heard during your work session teapots are a tool used to create additional funding to attract convention and group business to a city in which hotels pay a self-assessed fee on each room night that's sold typically that's a 2% fee the funds can be used for marketing and providing services to groups before and during their events authorization by the state legislature is required for a city to be able to create a tourism PID Dallas Fort Worth Austin and Arlington already have these in place they have their authorization and some of them actually have active districts Frisco Allen Irving Waco and Amarillo are planning to request teapot authorization from the legislature in 2019 the hoteliers approached city staff in October regarding seeking support to request teapot authorization and you did hear a presentation from Zach Glenn and Scott Joselove from the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association on October 23rd at which point you gave direction for staff to bring back a resolution in support of seeking this legislative authority in order to clarify exactly what roles the city of Denton and the THLA and local hoteliers would play in requesting this authority we had a call with mr. Joselove and you can see the division of responsibilities here I won't read through all of them but the lion's share of the responsibility for the activities necessary to seek passage are gonna fall on the THLA and local hoteliers the city of Denton has three responsibilities to fulfill and I hope none of those are a surprise to you I wasn't here during the first work session but I did watch it on TV so anybody have any questions about this I guess the only question I have is that so the TH is this gonna be substantially the same as what the current legislative proposals or laws that represent these requests in other words this is this is sort of a template just putting in different name yes in essence okay yes I'm gonna be voting no on this for reasons that I had mentioned last time but it's not an outright rejection it's just because I didn't feel that I had the and still don't feel I have the information at this point to feel comfortable voting and similarly for the last vote I had voted no without comment because I had already made those reasons clear at the last meeting when we discuss this on the 16th so thanks as stated during the work session on this once this all comes to pass I hope we'll hear about options to make it accountable to City Council but very comfortable with the idea of getting the legislative authority to do it and I move approval and so just for clarification and so other people know that this is just for the legislation that even if the legislation passed it has to come to council and we work out all the details and that it just doesn't release any authority from us that it will still be a decision made here at this council that's correct this gives you all the option but not the obligation to create one of these districts when all of the details have been presented and you have full information to make that decision and I will second motion the second for agenda item 3b yes all in favor please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign motion carries six to one going to agenda item 3c consider adoption of the ordinance of the City of Denton Texas home room home rule municipal corporation providing for author for authorizing and approving the execution by the city manager or his designee of a power purchase agreement between Denton and Samson solar energy LLC thank you mayor City Council George Morrow general manager of Denton municipal electric here tonight and happy to be here tonight to present to you two solar projects the first as the mayor introduced called the Samson solar project we were participants with four other municipalities in the state to jointly issue a solar RFP and we had a great response go ahead George do you want to present C and D together so I need to go ahead and call it and then we'll vote on it separately is that okay absolutely I have separate presentations you do okay let me just go okay go ahead I'm sorry you when you said never mind my fault yeah I kind of like I linked it a little bit just no problem to bait the audience around but so we had it was a great RFP process we had lots of participation here's some description of the different proposals that were received and we're bringing to you today I just call it the cream of the crop basically and the first project that we're looking at here under this agenda items called Samson developed by Invenergy you might be familiar with Invenergy they developed the Santa Rita wind project for us 150 megawatts that went online June 1st and it's operating perfectly this project is located northeast of the Dallas Metro which is kind of nice you typically think of solar in the West but that they've got a great location there gives us some diversity we're impacting different transmission pieces so there's a better reliability of supply it will be delivered to us here at the North Hub and operational in no later than June of 2022 15 years a very competitive fixed price we're involved at the 75 megawatt level to put that into context our peak load this past year was 370 megawatts so this is a significant acquisition for us in this project as this utilities in the cities of Garland and Bryan are also participating and here as I provided some additional information to you previously asking for your adoption of an ordinance approving this solar project any questions for staff I move approval we have a motion and a second for agenda item 3c all in favor please signify by raising your right hand passage unanimously agenda item 3d consider adoption of an ordinance of the city council of the city of Denton a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation providing for authorizing and approving the execution by the city manager or his designee of a power purchase agreement between Denton and Engie long draw long draw solar LLC mayor thank you again this is the second of the two solar projects developed by ng development and called long draw it's located I believe it's about 280 miles west of the Denton area in Borden County so we've got a very nice solar regime out there and and there's actually a little time differential between you know that part of the state when the Sun is actually up versus here and that's going to be a nice benefit for this project it's the earlier project that will be in service by summer of 2020 which fits a very nicely with our other portfolio of projects again 15 years fixed price and we're also at the 75 megawatt level for this project and we're bringing with us partners from the Bronzeville's Garland and Kerrville so also asking for your approval of that power purchase agreement councilmember Briggs I have approval may protect oh yeah I'll second we have a motion to second all in favor please signify by raising your right hand thank you motion carries unanimously we'll now move on to concluding items councilmember Melcer I always liked everything about the Stoke project except for the actual project you know that what was offered in the terms of the deal but the the objectives of it I think were great and I would love to add to the work session list to rank order and I didn't just have a conversation about alternative strategies to encourage high-tech entrepreneurship and then from our discussion earlier during the tree presentation mr. Packen put up a map and said that the goal or what he would like to see come to council is an ordinance or a resolution for a 10-minute walk to parks come to council and I'd like to get that on an agenda for us so we could go ahead and get that moving for him so he can start whatever process it is that he needs to start and also I would like to to see and this may be a discussion for a different committee but having a internal staff commenting portal so that if there is an officer or anyone in any department could go on and leave a comment or a recommendation it could either you know because I've had people an officer say you know this would we really need lights here or just some way where that information could can flow back into system and somebody can immediately see it would be really great so that it doesn't have to keep you know following you know person after person so first I just wanted to announce and to that there's a press release I hope it'll make the paper and thanks for staff for making this possible about warming centers that we have all over town too many to list here where people during the day can go to get warm in these dangerous temperatures I know it's on my my personal Facebook page but there's also an official press release so I wanted to encourage people to spread the word about that and I would like to request a staff report on what it would take to implement in city of Denton a sobering center like they have in Houston and San Antonio I would like chief Dixon to write the report I know he's familiar since I asked him about familiar with sobering centers they actually just recently implemented one in in Austin and it's a great way to take care of people divert people from jail and save the city a lot of money also as Scott from Solutions addiction treatment center knows a lot about this this too he was the one who the first kind of educated me on the subject anyway so I would I would love to see that and second I believe this is something that I had requested in writing but not publicly I would love a staff report on the the possibility of establishing some sort of citizen tenants committee for that concerns of renters in Denton we have a little more than 50 percent of residents in Denton are renters not homeowners and their their costs tend to be more on a monthly basis than than many of us who are homeowners and I want to make sure that that their concerns are being addressed on a number of city issues so we wanted a staff report on that as well finally you know I wanted to announce if people saw that a Glenn's pawn shop after 41 years believe 41 is is shutting its doors it's been kind of a Denton staple and it's a bittersweet moment but it comes from a decision to retire but you know a number of musicians wouldn't have gotten their start word we're not for places like that and I would like to have staff to look into the possibility of having some sort of locally owned music shop day proclamation where we can I just to kind of publicly commemorate our locally owned music stores who have done so much to help our local music scene thanks oh was thank staff and and city manager and the parks department for the work they're doing with the parks as far as a work in Fredmore parks underway and then Dean I think is on the way on the way as well so really really appreciate that that'll be fantastic for the kids to have and then want to share with those listening that there's there's been a running Thanksgiving luncheon on the 15th there the MLK Center from that's from 11 to 1 this this week and so that's always a lot of fun it's potluck style it's a well attended and so and I'll be speaking there so don't let that deter you but it's it's a lot of it's a great event and then I have a an idea that I wanted to ask you to look into mr. city manager I'd like to the city to establish some sort of program that in incentivizes people to have either the ring doorbells or exterior cameras on their on their homes I don't know how that works or what that kind of process would look like but I really do see a lot of that when you're talking about crime issues oftentimes they're going to people's private cameras to kind of get that insight and so I'd love to see a way for the city to incentivize people it could be strategically placed it be facing the street will help you or will partner with you but I think that that will provide valuable video as needed you know with just different as a city grows different crime issues if there's a way to kind of start a program like that to motivate people to to share that data with us so that's that's it thank you thank you mayor I just want to remind everyone that this Saturday at 9 a.m. the 36th annual turkey roll bicycle rally which helps raise funds for the Denton breakfast Kiwanis will kick off from the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church there's five routes running anywhere from eight miles to 67 miles you get to choose which one you want so for all the bike riders out there come out and join us so I had one note here that I left off but in the last few presentations with water and wastewater I saw the word boring a lot and we're doing a lot of boring under streets and when we were in NLC we heard Elon Musk speak and he has a new boring company and he talked about the operations and how the technology we currently use is really expensive and so there's better and there's newer technology that's advancing and so I just like a staff report or engineering to kind of let council know you know how much that that part of it cost and if there's a way for us to look into newer technology what the the cost of that would be anybody else have any I've got just one bus you I wanted to give a shout out to Billy Matthews for his reminder and his innovation with this dome lights that when we have our microphones off that he lets us know so that we can relay that because it is very difficult it's very frustrating as I've watched some meetings on council when they don't have their mic on because you can't hear whether we're at the dais or whether we're here so shout out to mr. Billy Matthews for his innovation and creativity to help us solve a problem that you know is not that often but it's certainly troubling and inconvenient when it happens so thank you Billy for that and I expect the light to come on in in celebration of that if you can hear me all right we'll stand adjourned