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

November 13, 2018 City Council
Full Transcript

47207 words Download SRT Download VTT
             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

        
Back to Meeting