Dec 18, 2018 City Council on 2018-12-18 12:00 PM

Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, December the 18th, 2018 it is 1201 p.m. I want to pose a question to the council. We've got posted is our first agenda item are closed meetings. I've had a request that we move the consent and maybe clarifications for agenda items before that because staff's here to open the meeting. But if we don't do that, then they've got to come back for the consent and clarification. So the chair can make unilateral decision. But given that some of these have an opportunity for public input, I didn't want to necessarily make that unilateral decision on my own. So I wanted to run it by the council, see what you all thought of that. And we're going to try to make sure we don't have this type of process just so that we can ensure the public has an idea of when an item will come up and also that staff doesn't sort of have to hang around. And watch the meeting. But I know they do watch the meeting when they're in their office when we're having meetings. So anyway, any comments, any objections to that moving that forward? All right. Seeing none. OK, then what we'll do is we'll go to our first item on the open session agenda, which is citizen comments on consent agenda items. Seeing none and then request for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for December 18th, 2018. Yes, Councilmember Briggs, I would like to request to pull H item H for a brief presentation and a timeline. And I do need to let the council know that item H is going to be continued until the next council meeting. So we will have a presentation right at that time. That is the only one. So we'll just go ahead and post that as an item for individual consideration in the next agenda posting. OK, all right. OK, anybody else? Yes, Councilmember Briggs, I'm sorry. So just a follow up question. There is an item here to purchase a boring machine. And I just wanted to clarify that that was the best technology available on that machine that we're getting currently. Which item is that, Councilmember? Do you know? D as in David? Yeah, D. OK. Mayor, members of council, Terry Cater and fleet superintendent. The directional boring machine is a very specialized piece of equipment and it's used to install underground utilities in a manner so that you don't have to trench and you don't have to tear up pavement and concrete and sidewalks and curbing. So there are only a couple of manufacturers that make that type of equipment. And we've chosen the best piece that we thought would do the best job for this department. OK, all right. Thank you. I know the technology is improving and it's coming along the way. So I didn't know if if that was here yet. This is the latest and greatest machine that's available to my knowledge for that purpose. OK, thank you very much. OK, any other questions or any clarifications of the agenda? Seeing no. All right. And what I may do, Mr. City Attorney, if this is if this is OK, is when we go back into our open session, if there have been some citizens who come to make comments on the consent agenda item, I'll go ahead and recognize them at that time. So we'll be basically just doing that twice. That's OK. Fantastic. We'll now move into where's mine. We'll now convene the closed session at twelve o five. We will consider the following items. Consultation with attorneys under text government code section five five one point zero seven one deliberations regarding real property and text government code section five five one point zero seven two and deliberations regarding personnel matters under text government code five five one point zero seven four. I understand that council member armature will be recusing on item B only. Is that correct? OK. All right. Thank you. Welcome, everybody, to this meeting of the Denton City Council on December the 18th, 2018. It is three eighteen p.m. We've just completed our closed session and we are now moving into our work session. I wanted to go back and revisit to see if there's any citizen comments on any consent agenda items. Seeing none. We'll move on to work session item number three eight, which is received report from staff hold a discussion of staff direction regarding the funding and improvement plan of the cemetery and related infrastructure. Mayor City Council Gary pack and Director Parks and Recreation. Happy Holidays. I'm sorry I didn't wear my holiday outfit today. I wanted to go through and give you some updates before we do that. Just some brief cemetery history of I double left first burial was in 1860 was deeded to the city in 1933. That did include a restriction of burial for of non whites in 2016 City Council passed an ordinance twenty twenty sixteen thirty five declaring that it was illegal to prohibit non whites from burials in there. So there's just a little bit of background information. In May of this year we created a cemetery improvement plan and that included items such as headstone mausoleum crick maintenance and repair fencing road maintenance historic structure which is our storage shed which is built in the 1950s. Signage and beautification efforts and then eventually mapping of our cemetery so that just outlined some of the things that we felt needed to be done. Obviously it can be moved and shifted as needed or as funding is available so we can constantly work on that effort. At that same time we came to you back in September with a donation of a hundred thousand dollars to I double of cemetery and that really started some efforts to do for specific projects out there and fencing was one of them. That's the area that you see in yellow and then the blue line represents water line. The red is wastewater and the green is street improvements. When we were at that meeting we gave you an update on the money that was going to be used in the effort that was going to be used with that money to make improvements in the cemetery and there was some discussion about I double of street needing repairs. So we've included repair the street as well as the infrastructure underneath that street as part of this presentation and there's some staff here that could could chime in on that in regards to some more detail. But from a funded improvement standpoint have this broken down into currently funded and then unfunded. So again the I double of donation of hundred thousand dollars and then we have a balance from phase one of the fencing which we did all at Oakwood and the frontage of I double of that leftover was approximately thirty five thousand dollars. So we have one hundred and thirty four thousand nine hundred fifty three dollars available to use one item that was part of that donation is the donor wanted to see some more beautification along the frontage. And this really will match up well with the improvement of the fencing and then eventually the improvement of the building. So everything you see at that gateway right there to our community and this is the I guess the northern section of the entrance to the cemetery where you could see where there's going to be some enhancements. I have two questions one that the trees that are there are going to stay. Correct. Okay. And then the other the landscaping isn't going to be a bunch of shrubs that's going to cover up the beautiful fence that we just installed right. Yeah. So would they be low. It'll be low. I mean I don't know the exact height on all of these. There's two edition three additional trees that will go in the front there but we don't want to cover up the wall either right regards to that. So that's kind of part of the accent background. complement each other. Thank you. So this just gives you an idea some some designs that we have for that space. Fencing was another. We have budgeted $25,000 from that original donation to match up with phase one. We are looking to start at Highland with what we had left over. I know there's been a lot of discussion in the past about the fencing and at the time, the frontage was completed. And in July of 2017 staff had some design work done that included the ornamental fencing. The rest of the fencing was chain link as it was designed. So we are intending on going back with chain link and there's some discussion there that I can touch base on the cost to do the the chain link fence for the entire it's about 3500 linear feet is $138,000 and some change the cost to replace with ornamental fencing is $207,000. So it's roughly $70,000 difference between the two. Some of the the challenges with this specific location on Highland as well as I double off between Highland and Elm is those the the highest rate of vehicular incidents on our fences. Unfortunately, we did have an incident two weeks ago off of eagle that hit the new fence. So that's being repaired. It's three sections of fencing so roughly 30 feet and that's about $3,000 for that repair. Is that covered by insurance like the person that are the accident and will that cover minute it's insured correct. Yeah, it was a hit and run, but we did find out who it was. Okay. And so on the on the fence. Was there a historic landmark Commission decision on the fence. So our recommendation. So, just some some general backgrounds that we do have a historical marker that it's an honorary in nature, it's not. It's not a historical designation of the property. And we also have the historic Texas cemetery designation and we got that in 2000, and neither of those create or require a Texas THC review. It is, it's not a local designation either. Oakwood is when the, when the fencing process went through in 2013 staff did go to the local historical group to get feedback on Oakwood, and that was approved. But I will have didn't need that at the time they did ask for recommendation. I think there was some discussion about the ornamental fencing in there. I couldn't find anything specifically in the minutes that said that this all had to be ornamental I know there's been some some discussion about that. In addition to that, the DDC that developments working on does have a few things in there that I think we need to consider at this time. And that is the fact that we are exceeding 50% of fencing that's being renovated on property. This chain link fence is not on the approved list of fencing. So that is something that we may want to look at, as well as it's in the right away. So that would probably create some discussion of coming back with an ornamental fence as opposed to the chain link. Um, you said there's a $70,000 difference between the black vinyl coated chain link and the ornamental and on the ornamental there's been a concrete base to it is they both include, they both include that okay because I'm looking at this picture I see the maintenance issue of trying to we'd eat there. It's just so close to the street that's right up against the curb and I double off. There's, there's no curb the the asphalt for the street kind of goes right into the fence in the parking lot the same so cars back into it and just nudge it and all of a sudden it's out of line and it starts to look bad. Sorry. I'd like to see a comparison of the two different kinds of fences just aesthetically what they, what they look like. That's a close enough point that I, if it would make a big difference to have the more costly one, then I'd be for that, but I would have to see the difference or, or just go with the, you know what the, what the consensus is. And then my question about was actually about the reason for, for so much fence damage from accidents, and maybe you can answer that or maybe, you know, traffic engineering staff would be best to answer that but is that do you think simply because it goes all the way up to the curb if there was more of a sidewalk there or some kind of easement there would that make a difference. Yeah, so I think if there was more of a buffer that would help. Yeah, I mean you can see these polls are pretty much on the curb, and especially with texting and driving people can't swerve a little bit and they hit a curb, they're hitting the fence, both here and on I double o f so it'd be great if we could push it back and there's some areas where we can't because the headstones are right there. Yeah, between the curb or the road, the fencing and where the headstones and what about I mean so there's pushing it back. Is there any good reason not to push it forward with that make the street to too small is that street too busy that that that would. I guess there could be some consideration if it was one way. I don't know how much space there is to really tighten that. Yeah, street up a little bit. That's something we could, we could have engineering look out. Yeah, just curious. Thanks. I see Todd wanting to move. So I'm happy to hear what you're going to contribute on the subject of potentially narrowing the street. I have a couple of other questions for Gary. To the city engineer so narrowing the streets. One item, we would just have to get into that see if that's even on the table at this point so, but you do have some consideration that the fence is already close to the back of curb which is causing some of these instances we don't know the root cause we will find out if we have some accident reports will investigate further. So if we push the fence all the way out to the curb. There is parking along that side available it's not restricted parking on that side so you do run the into the scenario where people are running doors into the fence itself. Pedestrian park parking or pedestrian walking down that corridor they lose their refuge if that fence is right on top of the curb. So we would be very hesitant to move it all the way out to the back curb. And there's really not a lot of room to then move it away from the back of curb because then you are getting into the burial areas. Sure, go ahead. Yeah, so it sounds like you might want to think about whether the narrowing is a possibility. We can absolutely look at that. Thanks. I actually had a couple questions for Gary. Just just really clarification points. I understood you to say that in the coming development code, the chain link fence isn't going to be permitted anyway I guess we could change that if we wanted to, but we would have to then. So that kind of doesn't that that might be determinative by itself. That's all a question and then but then also I didn't really understand your point of view about it being in the right of way. How does that bear on the issue of which type of fencing. We, to my knowledge, we cannot put chain link fence in the right away itself. Just to follow up council members question about the fencing the appearance, we would replace, if we use the ornamental would be the same ornamental that's there now. So, so that's the same we'd go with that consistent. The black vinyl would be similar to this, but it's coated with a black vinyl itself and then painted. That's the same fencing that's being proposed at the dog park. We have a green vinyl at the dog park at Lake Forest, can't remember if you have a question. I thought I saw your hand. Yeah, I do. Oh, did you. Then I'll add then then then I would recommend making it consistent. The consistent fencing with with what is already on the other side. Yeah, I wanted to start by saying that I am, I am not against vinyl coat chain link fence. I think they're awesome. And I look forward to seeing that come to change in the future. But I do think that in this instance, it should match and be consistent as well. Is there, I wonder is there lighting on the street and it would lighting help. Maybe people not run into the fence. Yeah, I'm not sure if there's lighting on that on the on Highland itself and have to go back and look at that. Okay. Okay, any other comments. So, it sounds like we have a couple I mean I'm for keeping it consistent with what we just put up. And then, as far as if I'm understanding this correctly that we're going to knock the curb out, pull the curb out reposition it if we're making the street narrower and then move the fence out more or put a walkway in that that's that's going to be. If you're talking about moving the fence if you're just saying we're just going to strive something say you can't drive here. Is that, I mean, I don't, I'm okay with it staying right where it is with an ornamental with an ornamental fence. Now I don't know if you could put up, you know, sometimes they put up these welded, you know, if you can make it ornamental to where somebody hits it, they're hitting the concrete pipe instead of hitting. Yeah, originally, I think in the early November late October we sent an ISR and we had actually quoted some pipe railing. Yeah, that was going to be that heavy duty to protect the fencing. But we ran into the same issue there was enough to put it. So I'm okay with the ornamental fencing on this stretch. Has there been any traffic counts on highland to see, you know, I'm just kind of throwing this out there because you've got cemetery on both sides on one section of it is, is it something. What would the cost factor be because you'd have less fencing if you didn't have to do both sides of highland where you've got cemetery on both sides of we shut down highland. If the traffic counts didn't warrant that it was necessary. So that's that's a good question. I don't know if we have those again just thrown it out there is a thought I need to see the data on it first. But we could we could get that data. That is always important. Okay, any other questions about I mean you're needing direction on the type of fencing right. That would be fantastic. Yep. Okay. Well we've got three for the ornamental fencing. Where is everybody else for you. Okay. Okay. So I don't hear any objections from the other so we'll move forward with that. Just some additional information as part of that donation we're putting funding towards the improvements and the restoration of this building. We are using guidance from our historic preservation officer to complete that it's just the shell improvements nothing on the inside at this time. A few years ago we did replace the roof. So that is in the works as we speak. And then phase three of our headstones we completed phase one and phase two for a total of $152,000 and we adjusted and repaired 249 monuments. Phase three is a little over $26,000 and I'll be an additional 43 monuments that are being enhanced. These are this is one that was completed that we considered dangerous. So in summary $130,000 of funding you could see the anticipated costs. You can kind of eliminate the $59,000 here for fencing replacement because that was for the chain link so you can disregard that. So that's getting all four of those amenities from that donor active immediately. And then the unfunded improvements. Well the remaining fence this was the remaining difference of the chain link. So all the items in yellow would need to be completed with the ornamental fencing. We did get an estimate in October for that it was $207,000. That was good for one month with being at that level we'd have to go out for bid with that but we wanted to get a price to see kind of where that was. So you could subtract $59,000 from that so we would need a balance of roughly $147,000 to do all the ornamental fencing at one time from what we already have. And then the streets and these guys other staff can jump up here if there's any specific questions. But the cost to redo the street from Highland to Eagle is $210,000. And then from Highland North is $190,000 so a total of a little over $400,000. That's just to replace reconstruct what is there not necessarily coming in with curving or sidewalks or anything of that nature. And then from a utility standpoint, the utilities underneath the road is shallow and it's old so staff didn't want to recommend replacing the street without doing that first and getting all the utilities repaired so that way it didn't break and have to rip up a new road. And then Eagle to the dead end of IWF North of Highland is a little over $250,000 for the water and then wastewater from Eagle to West of Highland is $150,000 so a total of $425,000. So an amended version of this, it would be roughly a little over a million dollars, about, well, almost $200,000 million for the repair and replacement of all the fencing and entire property, the streets and utilities as presented. Councilmember Amich. Is there any of this funding that could come from any of the bonds for parks that have been voted on but haven't been applied yet? Well, as of right now we still have a couple projects that are bonded that are still outstanding, that are under construction. We could surely go back to the bond committee if they were interested in doing that. My feeling in working with the short time I've been here is that they want to stick to what was on the agenda, what was approved by the voters. You know, unless we had money left over, I guess it could be re-appropriated, but since we have some projects that are still outstanding, we may want to try to consider getting those done first with the bond money. So, go ahead. You finished? Yeah, I'll just add, yeah, thank you for looking into that. I would really like to see that looked into. And those, the two unfunded bond projects, if you could just remind me, that's the dog park and the tennis? No, it's actually the tennis center. We have a couple playgrounds. What else do we have? Southwest Park. Southwest Park, that one. So we have a handful of them, but I could get you a list for the Friday report. There's probably not sufficient bond dollars left to cover all those projects, so I think it's highly unlikely they'd be willing to sign off on that and make that recommendation until those other projects are planned and move forward on. Well, thank you. Yes, go ahead. I'm not sure I understood the kind of answers I got by way of preparation on the streets and utilities aspect. Why wouldn't that have been part of our overall look at streets and utilities? And if I can just tack on a little more, and if, you know, you're going to help me understand why it wasn't, could it not be part of a future, you know, kind of a next round of capital projects? Because I think it's important and worthy, but not necessarily urgent, unless you tell me otherwise. No, I think it's a good question. And, you know, bond committee, when they go through and size these bonds, there's an acceptable amount of debt, they believe, or total bonding that the community will support. And so there's projects, as you saw here, it was a little different. You had one street that was a 28 OCI, and the other was a 54. So when you see a 54 number, it's highly unlikely that's going to get moved up there. But they have to make decisions on, you know, what are the worst streets out there? What are the most likely to get done? What can we do in five or six years? So these probably just did not level up, given the traffic counts versus other city streets. I didn't notice the OCI. That explains a lot right there. And you're absolutely right. If they wanted to include this in a future bond package, they certainly could. There's dollars right now available if the council wanted to get a head start on doing the utility underground work. The street work is something that would take us a little bit of time to either put into a bond package or find the funding. But I can tell you that water and wastewater, if we wanted to get that done and out of the way, we could try to figure that out here shortly. What would the consequences be of doing the water and wastewater before the road? Does that mean the road stays torn up until we come back? We would work through that with our city engineer and try to get all of that staged. But no matter what happens, those underground utilities are going to have to be replaced before we would recommend doing the road. Just wondering if it might, you know, if it's going to happen in some future time, would it be better to do that kind of more or less all at once? Unless it's like an urgent issue that hasn't been raised. But as far as we understand today, the utilities themselves still function. So they're not in imminent danger of collapsing. Our concern would be that if you went in and started repaving that roadway, then there would be a lot of extra stress on those pipe. That's where this came into a more complete scenario. Let's do the utilities if we're going to do the road. If we're going to hold off on the road, it may be wiser to hold off on the utilities until we're ready to do both. Okay, so to sort of wrap this up, this portion of it. So I need some help understanding. You talked about $138,000 for a chain link fence and then $207,000 for an ornamental fence, which is a difference of $70,000. But then I see a cost breakdown and the chain link fence is $59,000. So I need some help with that math. So we have $134,000 right now. We have $25,000 from the donation that's kind of penciled in towards fencing and the $34,000 that's left over. So that's where I'm getting the $59,000 that we have in the budget right now to do fencing. Okay. So I'm taking the $59,000 and subtracting that from the $207,000 to get that balance of what we would need to do everything. On this list? All the fencing. Okay, go back to the fencing, the yellow, the thing with, okay, right there. So why are we thinking if we do the fencing on the highland and north side, the big square, not the little small part. You're saying that that $207,000. $207,000 would cover everything in yellow. All the yellow. Yes, sir. All the yellow, okay. All right. The $59,000 that we have, we had a quote to just do highland, both sides of highland with chain link fence. So since we only had that funding in hand, we were going to move forward with that. Right. So why wouldn't we do potentially the ornamental, because you have two sections of the cemetery. You've got the one that we've got half of it covered with ornamental and now half chain link. Right. And the other one's all chain link, I believe. Is that right? Yes, sir. So if you were to split it, I mean, I'm okay with doing the $207,000. That's $140,000 added to that $130,000. I don't know why we're even talking about the road reconstruction in this. I mean, is that dependent upon putting the fence up? We were asked last time this came before you to take a look at the roadway and the underground utilities, because there was a concern that if we put in this nice fence, the construction might damage the nice fence. So we looked into it and just bringing you back the cost of the roadway, but that was the fear. Okay, okay. All right, that's fine. I get that. But I don't think we need to do a million dollars worth of road. I mean, there's a million dollars we could put somewhere else in road and utility improvements that are going to be more beneficial. But I would say move forward on the fencing and see if we can't find the additional $147,000. So if you go back to the list of what the project, that list, right there. So in essence, it would be $270,000 to do everything on that list. I'm adding $140,000 to the $137,000. Roughly, yeah. Right. And so that puts fencing replacement on Highland. That would make that ornamental. Or actually, it would be around the whole thing. The rest of it would be. So that $59,000 would go towards that $207,000. But that's for the whole fence. This is just fencing replacement along Highland. That didn't include the rest of that little small section. That's correct. And that was chain link. Yeah. So the $140,000 extra added onto this, which is the $207,000 minus the $59,000, would be $280,000. Right? $140,000 plus $137,000, am I missing that? $180,000 basically. Project expenses, $280,000. So $140,000 difference. But that gets you ornamental all around that other small section, the three sides that were still chain link. It would complete all the fencing in the entire park. Yeah, I don't even know how we could not do that. I mean, quite honestly. I mean, gosh, we had -- it was $300-something thousand for the two sides, I think, just for -- no, that's for oak and this. Yeah. So for an extra $140,000, we're getting all of what you just showed us plus all of that fencing is ornamental fencing now. Right. I'm okay with that. I think we can -- then that would complete outside -- you know, the monument. You know, we've got phase three for the monument repair. But that would complete basically this particular cemetery. Right. We would close out all the improvements that the donor had, which would be great. It would be a pretty aggressive timeline and then complete the fencing on both cemeteries. Yeah. So we'd have to come up with another $145,000 based upon total funding and the total expenses. Yeah. Okay. Now, that would have to be formally bid so that -- It may change. Yeah. Yeah. So I would be okay with that. I mean, who was it that said there's change in the couches? Was that you, Councilmember Hussbett, okay? Yes, it was. We've basically quoted him every day. Okay. Change in the couches. Yeah. I need you to come over to my house and find some change in my couches. So is that direction that the council is okay with? Yes, Councilmember. I'd just like to know if staff thinks there's any validity to the concern about the eventual road work damaging the fence, or could it be done in a way that doesn't damage the new fence we're going to build? By golly, I hope we can construct a -- don't we have insurance? We got liability insurance? Yeah. On ourselves. Yeah. No, I think it can absolutely be done where you don't damage the fence. It would just be a little extra care on that side, but, yes, it could be done. Okay. Thank you. All right. Fantastic. Thank you. Whose couches are you all going to be looking at? Okay. Never mind. Can't answer that. Yeah. So direction on that was as stated. So I think -- oh, we got to do item B. Sorry. You're standing up there. Come on, Mayor. Read the next item. All right. Agenda item 1B is receive a report update from staff, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the design and construction of the new North Lakes Park dog park. Mayor, City Council, we presented back to you in August with kind of our kickoff design and kind of our approach on how we're going to move forward with gathering information, feedback from the community, doing some research, and then coming back to you with some options. The project goals are still the same. I highlighted the one in yellow in regards to it's a place for both people and canines at our NRPA conference this fall and some recent publications. The discussion was dog parks are one of the most social areas of a park system. Because while they're called dog parks, they're really the dogs are the medium to create that social interaction between people. So that's -- No, I'm sorry. Council Member Hudson had a real quick question. Well, real quick, just because how much feedback we've gotten. First, I want to thank the city manager, but those watching, if you'll draw your attention to the bottom left corner so that ID number and that date ties to the slide so you can take a screenshot or break out your camera and take a picture and then email that in, and that will help staff and other council members key in on the subject matter versus going to the city website and trying to find what presentation it was and then represent it that way. So you can use that number to kind of help us dial in to help you. So I just wanted to say that because there's a lot of feedback to get on this topic. Sure, thank you. Appreciate that. So we actually went to a dog park last night on the way home and looked at it, and there were 12 dogs in this one space, and everybody was congregated around one bench, all the people, and they were just talking and the dogs were playing. So it's a very social environment for people, and the dogs create that icebreaker, I guess we could say. So at the August 14th meeting, council provided some great feedback. They asked us to identify opportunities to reduce the overall cost, eliminate the theming aspects that we presented in the initial draft, provide feedback from the public meeting, which we did in a Friday report, as well as your packet today. Consider phasing of the facility and parking lot. Coordinate with the Parks Foundation, which we are. Consider using future 9/15 and 16 funding, which I'll address here in a few minutes. Consider naming rights. That's on the schedule for a future work session to present to you. Add amenities to the existing dog park. As in concert with this, we're looking at that as well. We did some improvements earlier this summer. How was the original budget identified for construction? I haven't seen any designs related to what was thought up originally, other than the parking lot design. And then what was the cost of Wigley Field to construct, and that was $200,000 at the time in 2004, 2006, and then we added a parking lot a couple years ago, which is about $140,000. So roughly it's $340,000 to do Wigley. Just to give you an idea, all these red dots represent dog parks across the Metroplex. There's a list there of just some of the ones that are a little more closer. Eddie, one of our employees, did quite a bit of research on our dog parks across DFW, which I'll get to here in a second. But just from a standpoint, we have 136,000 residents. The 2030 plan anticipates $207,000. NRPA, which is National Recreation and Parks Association, uses a measuring stick of 41,500 people per dog park. I don't know exactly how they came up with that, but that's just a tool that we can use. And then we did research with NRPA and then a couple other dog-related websites and associations. Roughly, households between 44 and 48% are dog owners. But from our research, we reached out to 37 dog parks, 28 municipalities, so there's some cities that have more than one, that were built between '04 and '18. The average size between all of those is 3.32 acres. Top five recommendations is a minimum of three fields, shade, water fountains, benches, and adequate parking. You could see we took all of those construction numbers. It's not apples-to-apples by any means, because like us, we built a parking lot 10 years later. So some places already had parking, they didn't need it. So that could flaw the apples-to-apples comparison in regards to the budget. But it would at least give us an idea of what people are spending in this area. We took those construction costs and calculated it with a 4.2% compounded inflation and came up with a rough estimate of about an average $619,000 per construction. And that was an average of 3.32 acres. From the public meeting, we had a little over 65 people in attendance at North Lakes Recreation Center. They were excited about the dog park. They wanted large spaces for their canines to run. They wanted shade. They liked the adjacency to the animal shelter. They wanted to make sure we had enough waste disposal areas. And specifically, we're enforcing rules to make sure it was being cleaned up. If you remember earlier this year, we had some pushback from the community that wasn't being maintained very well. And we've hired a contractor that comes on Wednesdays and helps us clean that up. Some places actually charge a membership fee for their dog parks, and they actually DNA the dog. And that's actually used to enforce those rules, and it kind of self-polices. But there's some communities that do that. Water features, event space, eco-friendly parking lot, combination of natural and artificial turf. They asked for restrooms. They were concerned about traffic with a vela being built and the dog park coming out that same light that it would back up. So that was something that we were going to look at. Enforcement of the rules I had mentioned. And then there was one family that was concerned about North Lakes Park being overdeveloped. Yes, Council Member. So on this slide, yes, the waste is an issue. And I've heard that it still kind of is over at Wigley Field. My thought is that it's just so overcrowded because we only have that one. And so when we have another one, hopefully it will spread out and we won't see it as big of an issue. But how are we enforcing it? I mean, is there -- I'm just curious. I mean, are there signs posted probably, I'm sure, that, you know, it's against our ordinance? And are we writing tickets? I mean, can you explain that? There's not much enforcement. There's signage. You know, we can do stuff on the Internet. We can probably do a better job at promoting it on social media. I haven't really heard any feedback recently since we started the third-party collection. That could be increased as an opportunity. But I think it's one thing about dog parks that organizations and departments struggle with the most is doing that. And that's why some people have gone to the DNA so they can identify who's not cleaning up and then they write tickets from that standpoint. But it sounds like that almost self-polices itself where people realize, okay, I got to make sure I do this. Right. Well, you know, a marketing thing, too, may help. People may not think that since they're in a dog park that they have to actually still do the job. We could do a better job at promoting it. And on this as well, there's two things here, water features and washing stations. Well, one of the other complaints I've heard at Wigley Field, the water gets turned off there as well as everywhere else. But then it's still 70 degrees and it's warm for the dogs and there's no water for them to drink or any station. So I'd just like for that to be a consideration. I don't know if we can leave those on a little bit longer or I don't really know how to address that. But it wasn't something that I had thought about as being an issue until somebody said that their dog got overheated because the water wasn't on. I think we can take a look at that. That's because of freezing concerns. Yeah. But there may be a better way we could deal with that. Thank you. So from a funding standpoint, I provided an update on your table that has some updated figures that are different from what you have on your computer. Our current balance in the project is $377,000. We identified $50,000 from park gas funds that could be utilized. We've identified additional $186,000 in the 9/15/16 funding program, and that's the half mile to a mile area basically from developments that capture North Lakes Park. We just got access to a new map that technology services helped us. It's been very challenging identifying where all the money comes from because it's really within a distance of that development you create that circle. It's not the area around the park. So you have to go development by development. So this interactive map lets us look at the development, click on it, and tells us how much money is left from that area. So it's been great. So it's helped us find this additional money that's out there. Plus, we've gotten some new money in over the past year. So that brings our total funding available of $614,000 if Council chose to use all of that. So going into the options, option 1 and 1A. Option 1 is the basic design of what we provided to City Council as that initial draft discussion point back in August. Option 1A is a phased approach of that. So you could see that only half of it's being built. So we could grow into that as an option. Option 1 is the most expensive design. This does include a parking lot coming off of Animal Services. Option 2, we did this one as a reaction to the Council meeting to try to provide something different originally back in August for the public meeting. And this is just a different design, still provides the same amount of spaces, two and four spaces. But it's circular as opposed to more square. But again, still has a parking lot. Option 3A is basically we took option 2, flipped it and reversed it, and used the existing parking lot at the airfield. So we didn't have to build the parking lot. That's a big expense. So we're utilizing that existing lot that we have. It's a decent sized lot, so we feel that that could be utilized to help save money. So you'd be coming up from Windsor to get into the park. Council Member. I'm going to have a really big issue with that. We already have a lot of development happening along Windsor that's going to bring a lot of traffic there to that intersection. And so I feel like it's just it's not going to be it's not going to go over well if we add that much more traffic and then there's going to be more development down. No, Bonnie Bray. So I would like to see something different for parking. This this one does have four spaces as a little spot here that when we design this, we create this little nook. And then this one obviously is missing this version here that could be built at a later date. So you have three spaces here in the airfield parking lot is down here towards the bottom of the screen. And that highlighted area shows you where that's at here. Glenn created a video of this just to give you an idea. And we chose option three because that's what Park Board had recommended. They chose they chose option three option three or a modified version of three B, which would eliminate this area here. It saves us about twenty thousand dollars from the budget just to give you an idea. But this is a little flyover that Glenn created. This sidewalk has concrete edging with crushed granite in the middle. We did that to save money. You can see that stops here. The rest is just crushed granite with no edging. This feature here in the middle is a piece of art that could be put in a later date. We're coming up. This is Highway seventy seven right here. This concrete sidewalk is the existing pathway that we put in a couple of years ago. And this is the existing pathway that will go down to basically the future tennis center. And then option four, we put this together because some discussion about Wigley Field. We basically dropped the same design that Wigley is onto the property to give you an idea and what it would cost today based off of the base amenities that we're proposing is about five hundred sixty thousand dollars. So those are the seven options that we're providing for you for consideration today. You can see the cost of the base budget as well as amenities in your packet. There was an outline of all of the expenses for both the base cost as well as amenities broken down by option. The base amenities include shade structures and concrete. That seems to be the majority of the expenses. One shade structure we budgeted twenty thousand dollars for plus some concrete for a base agility equipment waste stations benches and picnic tables water fountains and park signage. Now, all of those don't necessarily have to be. I mean, we buy the way stations. Those are very minimal costs. But all of that doesn't does not have to be in the park when we open. So we could we could buy that a little bit at a time if we decided just to go ahead and build the base cost. So a breakdown in regards to the cost, you could see the options here. Total base cost is what's on the designs that I just showed you minus the funding that we have in place. I just use the whole six hundred fourteen thousand dollars that we have. So you could see what was available and what was what was still needed if we wanted to move forward with any of these. So the items in red are overfunded items in black still need additional funding and then the base amenities. These fluctuate based on the size of the dog park. They in discussing with the Park Foundation, they felt that they could generate maybe one hundred eighty thousand dollars in fundraising. That was before they lost their director. So that's that's in a transition. So that could be delayed. And then based off of if they were successful of the whole one hundred eighty thousand dollars that we would achieve all of that as well. One hundred eighty thousand dollars could be aggressive, but if it doesn't have to be done all at one time as well as if we could go after naming rights, that could be an option to help offset some costs as well. Now, the base cost and the amenities include a 10 percent contingency in those in those numbers. I'm gonna let him get through the presentation because I think he's almost through. So for your consideration, there's there's multiple options here, but I broke it down by option one is if we did a full build on one, two, three or four, which was everything at one time. Option two is more of the phased options if we wanted to kind of grow into the park. Option three is go back, make some modifications and create a new design concept for for council to consider. And option four is we don't want to do anything at this time. The park board did recommend option three three or that modified three B, which is the elimination of that small little nook that could be built. I believe Councilmember Meltzer and then Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to make a comment that I'm not especially concerned about the traffic there because I don't think it's going to generate trips, or at least it would happen at a time. Sort of at the exact opposite of when, you know, people are going to work and so on, right, because it's leisure time. So it's, it's, you know, it's weekends, evenings, early mornings. So I think it's kind of, you know, clever to use the existing existing parking lot, which I'm not aware of ever seeing particularly trafficked. So, you know, I see the, I'm inclined to agree with the, with the, with the board on that, you know, toward leaning toward option three. Okay, Mayor Pro Tem. On the options with the parking lot, is it a poured concrete or is it similar to what we're doing on the north end of South Lake Park? It was similar to that. It was eco-friendly where it's porous. Yep. Yep. Okay. Yeah, because I like the idea of that and I like the idea of the granite or crushed granite walkways because it's actually easier to control the dog if they can't get the traction, which on a temperature is a little cooler situation. Yeah, as well. Temperature as well. Which option do you think? I'd like for us to, to do the maximum that we could within the budget means that we have. So we can go back through the list. The option three was the option three, three a is what Park Board recommended. Yeah, I like the idea of the separate parking lot though. I do think that people are going to be more inclined to come from. They're going to know the animal shelters there and that's the direction they're going to come into to go to, to a parking lot. So I'm, I'm inclined to do a option to Okay. So first I want to address a point. Can you go to the consideration slide. Just to make sure for the minutes. Sorry, the very last slide that that says, yeah, that one. Just for the minute so there's not confusion, there's kind of a, there might be a point of confusion where we've got these four options considerations and among them. We've also have options one, two, three, four. Right. So just if it's anyway, just to make sure for the minutes, even if right now, even though right now we all, you know, you know what I'm saying. If you take the minutes. Now we understand what we're trying to, trying to line up. There's like 10 different options. Yeah, probably should be a, b, c, d. So option one was the full build out kind of concept. Yeah, yeah. So, and then, and a question can, can you tell me again, what is the, what was the cost of Wigley field without the parking. You had mentioned it started construction in 2004 open in 2006 it was, it was roughly $200,000 we, we, that money was hard to track down but we did the best we could. So it was roughly $200,000 that was built all in house by staff. Fencing, grading, sodding, irrigation, everything. We do have in some of our costs outsourcing a lot of this concrete as a contract, the fencing was outside quotes irrigation was an outside quote, although we may look at doing that inside gives us our staff an opportunity to kind of train from the very beginning of a full project. So that might save us some money. But majority of it was outsourced. We were more serving as the general contractor. Yeah, so as to where I stand, I support, and I want to be clear, so I support whatever option c or d that is on your final list of options. Option three, design a new concept or option four, do not proceed at this time. So again, for the minutes, I'm not saying the design option three or four, right, but either design a new concept or do not proceed at this time. I would prefer, and my main concern is budget. I mean, these are lovely designs. I prefer a budget closer to the budget of wiggly field adjusted for inflation to set as a challenge, you know, instead of doing the design and budgeting it out to kind of set a budget and try to work within it. And I understand that people want a dog park. I love dogs. I'm a dog person. But, you know, as I stated before, when we were talking about the first and most costly option that had come before us, I put people before dogs and I see so much need, including in our parks, for, you know, watering stations and for people. And so we've been talking about getting the water started back up at quicker town park, having bathrooms at quicker town park. I know that's in the works and I really appreciate that. But as far as budgeting, thinking holistically, as Todd's always reminding us, don't say yes to things without saying no to other things. You can't say yes to everything. So as much as I love dogs, I'm going to have to say no to any of these options. But again, I'm not against the dog park. I know that's what the people want. But I would like a much smaller budget. So my first option is option 3A. 2A would be a close second. And I'm okay with the, as I understand it, I'd need to see it again or maybe drive it. But as I understand the traffic flow, I think it functions okay without the parking lot, you know, because I think it directs people so that new development coming in off Windsor is one end and then we're on the opposite end to kind of get to the other parking lot. I like the idea of kind of that functionality as well. Park and walk to the soccer field, walk to the, you know, to the animal shelter or to the dog park. So kind of one central location for cement and then the rest is kind of grass, greenery, that sort of thing. And then kind of get people out and about the trails there. So I like kind of that to kind of foster that walking in the area. The one thing I didn't mention is you could see on the option 3, we do have a little trail that would connect the animal shelter to the dog park areas. We didn't want to lose that connectivity. Whether it was just a mowed grass trail or actual crushed granite could be determined. And then this open space here, we would look at putting wildflowers in there to kind of fill that space up. And also, what an outstanding presentation. So again, great find in that work being done and so really been a treat to see his work come forward to thank you. Okay, any other comments on preferences. We're sort of all over the board here. So there's no consensus breaks. So I do appreciate going back and looking at these but what I don't see the difference in the cost. I saw that you went back and you found extra funding fund the really expensive dog park. When originally it was like whoa $600,000 for a dog park, and I'm glad that you found the funding, but it's still really expensive for a dog park. I like 3a but again, with the parking in the airfield, I just, I have a real big issue, mostly because I got 50 or so emails from the neighborhood across from there who's going to experience a lot more traffic than than they're used to. And then we're going to add the tennis center in there and that tennis center is also going to need that parking lot. I think that we're not doing any favors by not planning ahead and having to go in at some other point and put in a parking lot which we're going to need eventually. So that that's where I am on that. I have a hard time saying yes to that much money, even though it is already funded. But if I were going to choose it would be the less expensive option but then again that doesn't include the parking lot so like the mayor said I'm all over the place. Use the airfield as of now, and see how the traffic is, and how we kind of grow into the space. And when the tennis center comes online kind of reevaluate that. And then, and use, we could, we could actually build, if you wanted to, let's say these three spaces. You'd have to walk a little bit from the airfield during that time, then we could come back and put the parking lot in here, and actually switch the front door. After a few years of seeing kind of how the how the park works. That would allow us to grow into it, it would allow us to defer that investment of the parking lot up front. We could play with that a little bit as an option, and kind of grow into it. Yeah, so just that I'm just afraid that a good project is going to get a lot of negative attention because of the traffic coming through, which originally seemed to be focused going into the in the front now it's going to come into the back and. So I'm just kind of throwing that out there. So, so are you talking about the neighborhood that was concerned with the traffic from the subdivision going across the street at the corner of pinkle and Windsor. Yes. Yeah, I mean, even if we did nothing, there's going to be a lot more traffic there, based upon that subdivision, but I'm talking about adding more to it. Okay. All right, so I don't hear consensus. So if we don't have a consensus that means we basically, we can't give direction to do the project. So, Mayor pro tem. Yeah, and I can get behind option three as well with the idea that potentially we needed additional parking because you do have some parking at the animal shelter that could be utilized during. That parking lots never filled up to begin with so at least there's, it would almost give you parking on both sides, and then if the shelter doesn't have enough that's when we would increase the parking for the. Animal sheltering also probably cost per acre of dog park is the best deal up there at on option three. Okay. Who else was that option three. You were. Okay. Yeah, because if you were to go back to the $200,000 and adjust for inflation, you're not even going to get $300,000 so I mean, we could just, we could literally just put a fence around a couple of areas. I mean a lot of this is infrastructure so we got to decide, you know, what do people want as a dog park, I mean number one is the citizens have asked for this, so we got to consider that. And secondly, I mean, you don't need all this fancy paving and all those kind of things you can put a chain link fence around split it in half and, you know, put a water but is but is, but is that what the community wants. I mean, we can always go on the, the less expensive side but I think I fear that we would be getting also the reverse side of the comments of what is this. So, I mean, I see people on their heads because they know that's the truth. That's the truth. Yes, Councilmember armature. I'll just, I mean, I would be, I'd be happy to take all the blame if that's what we had, just a fence and some poop bags and that's that, you know, water fountains, people can get a drink and then fill a bowl for their dogs. I think as far as the social function of, you know, having places where people and dogs can get together, it would fill that function. North parks is just such a beautiful area. I, I don't see how more is needed than that and again, you know, considering our, you know, our homeless situation and the needs and in our parks across the city. I just don't I, I can't get behind anything more than that and I think that that that is fine for for dogs and for people think it fills fills the mission of a dog park. Okay, thank you. So I want to make sure let's go go back. So for option three. Do we have four for a consensus of option three or three a. One of the scenarios that Gary laid out was to grow our way into some of these and a lot of the expenses driven by these shade structures. So I wonder if there's a way to go in the direction of three without going all the way in the direction of three. And I want to just also make a comment on cost versus other needs. You know, I mean, I had a very similar initial reaction first time this was exposed. I think, you know, Gary's done an able job of showing us. That's kind of what these things cost. So it's not like we're doing an outlandish thing versus, you know, kind of dog parks in general. That said, you know, I starting cheap and adding as we see a need doesn't bother me either. Okay. All right. That's member Jeff, you haven't weighed in. Yeah, we have a dog park at Robson Ranch and it's, it's, it's pretty basic, you know, it's fenced and I think there is one structure in there, and there's really not well one size big dogs one size little dogs. And so it's it's it's very basic compared to what you're looking at here. You know, whether that works for didn't. Well, okay, I don't know. So help me, then your direction is what I don't know whether whether it makes sense to go and really go real small or not. So I probably would go along with three because I think there's a consensus. Okay, so that's your personal direction is three. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Gary. Can you go to Google Maps and maybe we can get oriented that way just I just want to be sure. And so, while he's pulling that up. Yeah, so I'm first the dollars have to be spent in this area as I understand it. So that that addresses part of this, the reason or financial concern. And then I sat in on the presentation at North Lakes. And it is Gary has captured that vision very well and I think he's captured the pulse of the community as a whole, are there segments of the community that would disagree with that pulse. Absolutely. But I think sitting in that that room it was a, I had to stand up as full house. I think he's captured what what they intimated I think the parks board is another extension of that that would have another connection with the community and have a pulse of the majority of the community and kind of capturing that within, I think they they have captured that bringing that option three forward as well. And then so this area is what we're talking about. The new development is. So this is this is Bella here. Yes. And then we have development going on here in here. Okay, and then right there. This entire corner development. Yeah no so that's far enough for my estimation that's far enough, and, and I'll tell you what I hear a lot is that we put too much cement everywhere and don't encourage walkability, and that's what I hear a lot of. And so if we go back up. I really do envision turning that Bella soccer field and that development into a gateway so even if we have to add on to the animal shelter parking lot, ultimately parking on the road that still ask people to pull in park, it even maybe increases the traffic onto 77 which would then we can do some different things with the lights but, but I think that's really what we need to do is concentrate parking concentrate cement a lot of green space I mean that is just there's I mean I'm sitting that meeting and that is that was one of the largest issues is taking out trees for cement or taking away just kind of the natural beauty of the place. And so that was that was stated a few different times so I just would be hesitant to add more cement to area that versus promoting group parking, and then walking. So your direction is three. Okay. Councilmember Briggs you had a question or comment. I do not. Okay. So my understanding is Councilmember pro tem you're okay with three. Duff you're okay with three husband you're okay with three. You're okay with three phased in is three phasing in something that's doable. Yeah, that's that's basically three a where, which would be this, this one right here I can go back to it. You talked about a little bit more aggressive facing. I think it's in your Yeah, I think what you're calling option one on this list. Work with any of the options, but I don't think it's necessary, it could be more more aggressively phased right then what three a suggests so jump I'll jump back to this so this this is building everything at one time and using the airfield parking lot and this is phasing it in. This is all scalable I mean we could take the circle and just reduce it by 10% if we wanted to. But, you know, this could always be built a year from now. You know, we could go ahead and get this going see how how it goes. See how the budget is, and then come back and put it in shortly thereafter. So, option three a would give us the option opportunity to grow into three, or we could just do it all at one time. You know, it's sort of not enough of a delta to feel like it's particularly phased right you could do one circle. Conceivably, some of the some of the initial costs that are upfront is that the amount of trees we have to put in, which is a good thing but it's a requirement. We have to put in the irrigation pump and regardless of the design it's $30,000 and then irrigation is another $80,000. So those three items right there is, you know, a good chunk of change right there. That's $200,000 in expenses just with those three items. You can probably get a lot of people here on board with a $200,000 expense. So Gary on the 3.65 acres and the 2.29 for three a and three. What's the difference. It's this space right here. That me. Okay. Is the site of both of those the site the same size. Yes. So you're just saying that basically we took out the expenses associated with building this. And it's not here in this one. So that's that doesn't have any fence around it no button dog can't run around right. Yeah, the trees are still there, just to kind of give you an idea but the lighter color green. So, I'm just curious, the tree requirement. There's no trees on there. Correct. What is what is the tree requirement I know you got to mitigate for trees but also what. What's the code about if you're developing. I mean we're not putting a bunch of trees on Bella. Obviously, we do have trees going in a Bella. We, by code we have to put in 94 trees. Okay, by code for DDC. But I mean is that because if you have an open space you got to have so many trees per acre so many I mean, what's the just just because of the development, we have to put that okay if somebody could just informal staff report just let me not staff email and understand the code that's associated with that I don't need an explanation now. So, I'm understanding then it seems like there's a consensus for option three slash three a, a kind of phasing approach. Mayor pro tamer. Well, I mean I'm looking at 3.65 acres for 505 or 2.9 for 442. It doesn't make sense for that 60,000 since there is money available to handle both projects. It doesn't make sense because that's, you know, when you come back it's not going to be 60,000 to finish that part off it's going to be, you know, 100. Is your mic on. Yeah, the light stuck Billy if you can hear me the light stuck on so I appreciate the illumination, or it might not be stuck on I might be missing something. My point is 60,000 now is going to be 100,000 to 150 down the road. Right. Okay. All right. Mr. You okay with that or. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, fantastic. Let's take a quick five minute break and it just as a as a heads up, we're going to try to get through with the close that we're not going to go right up to 630 with the work session, because we got to eat dinner and so I think we can get the next two items done within an hour and a half, don't you think, or we're going to encourage it. Okay, so we might the last work session we may need to put off to the next council meeting I'm sorry for those who might be here for that, but we'll know more as the presentation goes forward with the with the next agenda item so let's take a five minute break. Welcome everybody back to this meeting of the density council on December the 18th to 2018 it is for 37pm we are moving through our work session reports we are on work session report. 3C receive report and hold discussion give staff direction regarding report and recommendations from the Denton County homelessness leadership teams shelter planning work group. If we could let's let the staff get through the presentation and save the questions for the end I think they only have 10 slides so I think we can get through that fairly smoothly and then we'll, they'll stand for questions. Good afternoon mayor city council Sarah Keickler director of public affairs, myself and Courtney cross with the United Way of Denton County and the Denton County homeless leadership team are here today to present to you on behalf of the shelter planning work group. We have four main objectives today and we'll try to go through this quickly. The first is to review the purpose of the work group and why it was formed. Second, Courtney will come up and do a short presentation on the work performed by the group just as summary we're going to be reviewing the work performed and then lastly city staff would like to review a city council what are the next steps. So just as way of reminder and the shelter planning work group was formed in August of 2018 and its purpose was to assess the current emergency shelter environment in Denton County. What were the gaps were the needs what's working well what's not working well we really wanted to take a step and say, how is it working today before we start working on next steps and solutions to improve our current emergency shelter environment here. So this group was formed, and it helped for meetings from September to December, and a lot of work was performed during this time so we're very appreciative of all those who participated spent many hours in those meetings as well as outside of those meetings, gathering data as well as administering a survey. You'll see here listed on the slide is the participation from the organizations that included the cities of Denton and Louisville, the shelter provider other social service providers, as well as many other stakeholders. So at this time I'd like to introduce Courtney cross with the United Way of Denton County and she'll take you through a summary of the work performed. I'm getting over a cold so I will try not to cough at you, but if it happens happens. So as Sarah said all of the data we're about to review is within the work group summary report and appendix and I'll refer to it. In the next few slides but in an effort to lay the groundwork during the initial September meeting the work group agreed by consensus on a definition of unsheltered and on standards for adequate emergency shelter so the definition from unsheltered being that people sleeping in places not meant for human habitation, such as a car tent bench or other public place, and the standards for adequate adequate emergency shelter, or that it must be considered habitable is considered a short, excuse me, a short term solution that services and case management associated with the shelter should be housing focused, and that shelter access should be low barrier and have few conditions to entry. This unsheltered definition comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the standards for adequate emergency shelter were proposed and agreed upon by the group. These definitions were subsequently approved by the Denton County homelessness leadership team. During the October meeting on October 11 for inclusion and use in their strategic plan. The work group also developed a shelter inventory matrix we've got a snippet of it here on this slide and the complete matrix can be found in the, in the appendix of the report. As you can see here the current inventory of emergency shelter bed capacity for the county. As a whole, is 150 beds during inclement weather and 134 beds on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the Monsignor King Outreach Center is open and 30 beds, Tuesday through Thursday. Excuse me, Saturday. The average client counts for the Salvation Army of Denton, and the Monsignor King Outreach Center indicate that a total daily average need of 84 individuals seeking shelter so about 84 beds on average per day. Also included in the matrix are specialty shelter and transitional housing programs, serving families fleeing domestic violence and single parent families, the Denton County Friends of the Family Shelter and Cumberland Presbyterian Children's Home respectively. This graph gives just a closer look at the shelter occupancy data that's listed in the inventory matrix so the blue bars indicate the Salvation Army's average daily occupancy by month. And the orange bars represent the Monsignor King Outreach Center. The same information and the corresponding lines of the blue on the bottom is Salvation Army, the orange, the dark orange up above is Monsignor King, those, that's the maximum capacity of each shelter so just a visual there for you comparing the average shelter occupancy by month with the maximum capacity for both shelters. So as the slides indicate the Monsignor King Outreach Center reported one day from September 2017 to July 2018, when the Monsignor King Outreach Center had to turn the people away due to being at max capacity and it was five people, and that was in July of this year. So, in an effort to fully assess the current environment and make recommendations moving forward the work group received presentations from four organizations with plans to expand emergency shelter or transitional housing capacity in the county. Crossroads of Hope, Grace Light Grain Ministries, the Denton Basic Services Center and Serve Denton. A table summarizing the presentations can be found on page four of the workgroup summary report, and the slides from the presentations are included in the appendix. The main distinction here to make is that there's only one of these projects that plans to expand emergency shelter capacity that's the grace like rain project. And it would be to expand emergency shelter capacity for single parent households namely single mother households at the Wheeler house. All of these projects are still on the planning phases so none of them have officially started construction or anything yet. And as the slide indicates, Salvation Army wasn't able to share their information publicly they do have some plans to expand program services here in Denton and then expand some of their operations as well in the Louisville but it's all kind of tied up and legal so they weren't able to share it with us just yet. Section four of the workgroup summary report details the results of a feedback survey that was developed and administered by the workgroup. The purpose of the survey was to provide data to support and inform the workgroups recommendations. Volunteers and staff from various agencies distributed surveys over the course of one week at the Denton County Friends of the Family Shelter, the Monsignor King Outreach Center, the Our Daily Bread Meal and Resource Center, the Salvation Army of Denton Shelter, the Salvation Army of Louisville, and at various unsheltered locations throughout the county. And a total of 92 surveys were completed in total. So the top left box on the screen highlights the demographics of survey respondents. Roughly two-thirds of respondents were sheltered and about one-third reported living unsheltered. Respondents were primarily white females, 14% identified as veterans, and half reported having some source of income. Respondents were asked how they get information about how to access shelter during inclement weather and what their experience was like attempting to access shelter during recent episodes of heavy rain. This survey was conducted right after all that rain we had towards the end of September. 55% of respondents reported getting information through their cell phone and 44% reported being able to get to shelter during inclement weather. 18% reported barriers to accessing shelters such as transportation or just being unsure if the shelter was open. Respondents were provided with a series of scenarios and asked to indicate whether or not they had experienced or a fear or concern of experiencing any of the scenarios presented that might keep them from accessing shelter. They were able to select more than one response and that bottom right portion of the screen highlights some of these concerns specifically regarding accessibility. So 28% reported difficulty finding or organizing transportation, 24% reported a perceived lack of beds, 21% reported incompatible shelter hours, and 20% reported the process of bed assignment as being a barrier. Other concerns and fears around barriers to accessing shelter included lack of privacy, concerns about becoming sick in shelter from other shelter stayers, fears of belongings being stolen, a preference to be surrounded by a personal social network so maybe someone would prefer to stay living in an encampment or somewhere else where their community was instead of going into shelter and being separated from them, and strict shelter rules and short lengths of stay. Respondents were then asked to open ended questions about what they would change about shelter so more people would go and what they would not want to see change or what you know what they like about shelter, and they were able to offer more than a response for each of these open ended questions. When they asked what they would change about shelter 37 people express a desire for increased bed capacity and extended shelter hours. 16 people wanted to see an increase in services offered on site. 10 people wanted to see a change in volunteer attitudes and 10 people wanted to see stronger enforcement of rules. 19 people reported that they would not want to change the quality of shelter staff, and that they were pleased with meals showers and clothing offered by the shelter. And as you can see there's some discrepancies in responses for example 28% reported concern about strict rules and 10 people said they wanted stronger enforcement of rules. Additionally in reviewing the data providers noted some discrepancies in response respondents perceptions versus actual shelter operations for example, the fact that shelter entry, maybe possible after official curfew hours. If someone communicates to staff at their working light that they're coming from a job. They don't want to have to worry about shelter hours being incompatible with work hours and that sort of thing. So, worker members identified these discrepancies as opportunities for improved communication with the people they serve and cited this as a reason to continue convening as a work group to work towards this and other opportunities which you'll hear more about in a few slides. Thank you, Courtney. So the final task in the work group that was identified in the report was to draft an inclement weather plan, and this is really to get common parameters of when the shelter would be open during inclement weather. So there's three that were set and that's when the temperature low is expected to fall below 32. When the temperature high is expected to exceed 100 degrees, or when the city declares an emergency for weather conditions such as ice or severe flooding. In addition to drafting this inclement weather plan we reviewed it with the work group and we also drafted communications to get that information out in advance of the winter months coming. This is still a work in progress and one of the recommendations that I will discuss in a couple minutes is to improve the communications about when shelter is open during inclement weather. So this is the slide where I'll go over the recommendations from the work group. They were approved by consensus of the group at the last meeting on December 5. They're really broken down into two categories, and it's taking all of the things that Courtney just went over all the tasks that were performed in terms of collecting the data, looking at the survey results, talking to the service providers and trying to come up with recommendations. So they're broken down into these two categories. The first is to improve and leverage the current emergency shelter environment, and that's really to work on short term solutions. How can we use better what is already available? What can we immediately do? And then that second category is really looking at, do we need to expand our emergency shelter service level? So we're on the left side, and this is broken down into three items. The first one that the group identified was to reduce barriers to entry to increase shelter use. And this comes from some of the survey respondents reported not being qualified to enter shelter due to entrance criteria as a concern. So looking at potentially evaluating and revising some shelter entry requirements. This might be entry processing, bed assignment, could be sober policies, curfews for those that may have conflicts with working hours, and as well as looking at here and reducing barriers, also other barriers that could exist in terms of not having storage for personal belongings. So it's kind of a broad category of things that we could look at. How do we increase the usage of our current shelter environment? The second item outlined by the group was to increase transportation resources. Again, this is one of the things that we learned from our survey was 28% responded that transportation was a barrier to using shelter. And this was actually the highest barrier reported by the survey, and it's also something that we've seen consistently from the point in time count as well as heard from our service providers. So the group wanted to come up with a comprehensive transportation plan throughout the countywide. What can we do to help individuals get to and from shelters, so once they access the shelter, how do they go back to maybe where they were staying originally? How do we increase routes to the shelters and different service providers that are there right now, as well as increased transportation for those that might be working? And the group had discussed in terms of this transportation plan, not only working with DCTA as a partner, but also SPAN, faith-based organizations, and others that might be willing to lend some assistance. Third item identified in this category was to improve communications and training. And this is another broad category, but really is threefold. Could we improve communications for individuals accessing services? And that's what I was just discussing in terms of the inclement weather plan. Could we develop a mobile app or a text alert system to let individuals know when shelter is open and available, especially since the survey reported that over 55% use their cell phone to get that information. So we thought that was a critical step in order to providing better communication, and maybe if we could have a mobile app that centralized not only information about the shelters, but other resources that are available to them as well. And we thought the universities might be a potential partner to help us develop this application and move forward with it. Second here was to improve training for staff and volunteers, just to increase their overall knowledge and awareness of the housing crisis response system overall, and how shelter fits as a part of that housing crisis response system. And third was to increase just in general community education for the community at large. There's still some confusion about what resources are available, where do individuals go to access service, as well as some misperceptions about why an individual might be experiencing homelessness. So just as in general, how can we increase that community education and awareness. So that's the first category on the left. I'll go into the second category on the right, which is really looking at solutions that would require more planning to expand our emergency shelter service level. So the first item that the group discussed was to explore expanding shelter hours. Survey respondents expressed a need for increased access to shelter and supportive services during the daytime hours. So the group discussed if this could mean earlier opening hours for the shelter, or perhaps it's a long term solution to have a day shelter concept where services could be co located. And they also discussed looking at curfew hours a little bit closer for those that may have conflicts with work hours. The second item here was to explore expanding shelter nights. Looking at the utilization data that was collected, the consensus of the work group was that it did not warrant a significant increase in shelter beds at this time, but they acknowledged that there is a gap for when there's only one shelter operating during the week, since one shelter is open partially during the week and the others open every night during the week. So they, they prioritize seeing how we could expand shelter nights during the week, instead of building more shelter beds. And then the third item was that the group felt like this was a very beneficial exercise in terms of information sharing, looking at our current data, looking at best practices, coordinating what are the future plans of the agencies and they recommended continuing to have a permanent work group through the Denton County homeless leadership team that could work on those items that are identified in that left hand box to get some immediate progress in terms of increasing access to shelter increasing access. Utilization of the shelters. And then to also work on long term solutions with the agencies that might be making plans and really make it a county wide strategic plan for what emergency shelter should look like in Denton County. They wanted to keep it as well through the Denton County homeless leadership team, just in terms of framing it in that overall housing crisis response system since shelter is one piece of our overall system and Courtney had shown on a previous slide. At the same time that we're working on shelter, we have to also make sure that we're balancing and helping to divert individuals from becoming homeless in the first place. That's the most cost effective solution, as well as opening doors for individuals that are experiencing homelessness housing is the ultimate solution. So we need to balance those priorities as we move forward. So lastly, just want to discuss next steps with the City Council. We'd like to continue the shelter planning work group for those reasons I just identified. City staff would also like to reach out to the service providers and see if they have an interest in expanding hours or expanding nights and begin to cost out what would that, what are the options and what would be the associated costs that City Council like to consider them during the next budget cycle they could be included as supplementals includes the presentation. Next member, Mr. I don't remember if I if you may have already said this, and I missed it but is there participation from Denton County government in the shelter planning work group, not in the shelter planning work group specifically but on the Denton County homeless leadership team there is, and I should say the recommendations of this work group were reviewed with the Denton County homeless leadership team at the last meeting on December 13. I wonder if they might be included, if you know representatives from county government can be included in the discussion of budget supplements and, you know, costs of options, things like that. Thank you, Councilmember Armitage. So as you know, you know I mentioned this before we'll mention it again. Well, actually, before that I'll say thank you so much for all this work, wonderful, everyone here involved. I have thought from the beginning that it's crucial, and I still think now to have people who are currently experiencing homelessness in Denton and have recently experienced homelessness in Denton, actually on this committee. You know, not just for tokenism but to actually be for this committee to be able to be the best that it can be. I think this would be a wonderful stage at which to invite additional people on, and I just want to implore the committee to really consider that because people who are living it can really, you know, help you unpack some of those survey answers. Meaning, for instance, you know, why when you can make special arrangements to come into Mn. Senior King after hours and, you know, why people don't take advantage of that. Is it really just because they don't know that that service is available or is it because they don't want to feel like they're asking for special permission or because they don't know, which would be my guess. But again, just a guess, but I really think that that's necessary. And then I wanted to ask about, can you remind me, so the land behind Mn. Senior King is city-owned property, right? Is that, is it because that's floodplain that's not, that the city's not considering, you know, expanding something onto that now? I would have to verify, but I do believe that isn't a floodplain in the area behind, the wooded area behind. Yeah, okay, thanks. Thank you for the presentation. So do we know where the 90 or so average people, it can go higher or lower, go on the days that the shelters are not open? Are the shelters not open? We do not know exactly. It could be a combination of staying with friends, staying in a vehicle, maybe staying outside. It could be a number of different places that they're located. So that's my concern, and one reason I would like to look into expanding the shelter hours or days. I think it would be a great place to start, especially for the stability for those who are working or if it's a family, you know, going to school. And I, if that happens, would the emergency shelter still, would the term still be there or would it transition into another term? Would it just become shelter? I'm going to look at Courtney for some help with this, but I believe it would stay emergency shelter because it's really in terms of trying to find that ultimate solution of housing for a person. It doesn't go to transitional housing if they're in, it's still an emergency shelter. It's still an emergency shelter. Transitional housing is usually a different type of program that provides more of those wraparound services and has a plan for an individual to get. But some of the shelters are going towards an extended stay model where they're also providing some of that transitional housing piece. So it depends a little bit, I guess, so I'm answering it. I'm just curious if the Grace Like Rain would consider, would that be considered emergency shelter or transitional housing? So the Grace Like Rain expansion of the Wheeler House or just kind of renovation of the Wheeler House would be emergency shelter. It would be two to four week stays. So it wouldn't be quite the same as the existing transitional program that's in the Wheeler House right now. It would be a shorter length of time. To your question specifically in regards to more intensive programs within the shelter that might allow for an extended stay colloquially, that's kind of referred to, you'll see referred to as transitional sheltering. But for all intents and purposes, it would still remain an emergency shelter. So it wouldn't count towards our percentage needed for the funding or anything that? I wouldn't think so. I think it would, yeah, stay the same. Okay. And I have just a couple more. I've been writing, taking notes. Okay. So and also I think maybe we can check with Open Data Day on the app. That may be a good project to do in that. And so here's a big one. So we said and we know that the best thing to do if you're in a house is to keep people housed, right? That's what we want to do. But we have communications or we're working on communications for those who are unsheltered to get sheltered. But what about the communications for those who are in need, who need to know what what agencies are available or what they can do? For me, I'm just, you know, it's so the same way that we have developed communication and kind of advertising for our coordinated entry system of how to access shelter or front door for coordinated entry. We can and are working towards something similar for those at risk populations. So I will say on the one hand, our providers have recently been trained in diversion. So more of intentional, like Sarah was saying, finding ways to keep people connected to their support networks, stay in their housing, whatever we can do to keep them from having to enter shelter or, you know, kind of live on the streets at all. And to your point, we can definitely work on some messaging to just make the community more aware of what resources there are for people that are at risk of losing their housing, because it just you see you see that online, you know, when the moms group are in any group, you know, I'm short, I need this or I need that. And it's, you know, there would be a phone number to call or, you know, anything that would help us help, you know, anyone that would be great. Thank you. We had a little exchange about this. Maybe you can share some of this. You know, part of the task of the group was to identify gaps, both gaps in terms of serving the population that currently uses shelters, but also gaps. You know, in terms of serving the population, it doesn't use shelters, which you addressed to some degree, but in terms of quantifying that. So what do we think is the total population, all the people, you know, in the doorways and in the woods and in the parks, minus those who find beds, you know, in the current shelter environment. What's that? What's that gap? And what are the thoughts of the shelter work group about addressing that? Sure. That's a great question. So we did look at that data in terms of what is the number of individuals experiencing homeless in terms of the 2018 point in time count, as well as our housing priority list, which is an ongoing list that is constantly updated. And so we did address that in the appendix of the report and didn't go into too much detail here. But in the 2018 point in time count, just for the general population, there was 209 individuals experiencing homelessness that is reducing those experiencing domestic violence out. Since there is another shelter option available for them, we're just looking at the general population. In terms of the housing priority list, the most recent numbers from October was 403 individuals experiencing homelessness in need of assistance. And so we looked at those gaps and we want to continue to track for those moving forward through the work group. But I think the first priority of the work group was to first see how we could better utilize what is available or expand that service level of what and then continue to track and monitor those numbers. And hopefully, too, over time, they continue to reduce as we work on diversion and as we work on getting people into solutions faster. So it's a little bit of a fluid number, but it is a number that we do need to watch and monitor, and especially as we're working with future agencies that may be developing plans. What populations are they serving? Who are they targeting on our list currently that is experiencing homelessness? Those are all very important factors, as well as the location of individuals and where they're located at. Where is the best solution for them throughout the county? So it sounds like, based on different ways of estimating, it's maybe a 200 to 400 group and there's 150 beds. So you're looking at, well, was 200 one of your low numbers? That was one point in time count? Was it only 200? Yeah, 209. Yeah, okay. So somewhere between 50 and 250, or maybe that population that doesn't get served. Does that suggest that in the work of the group going forward, that at least as a costing exercise, that there might be some additional facilities needed? Because it strikes me that if you're just talking about expanding hours and days at the existing facilities, that's sort of targeted toward better supporting the people who currently go. But that other group seems like, without knowing where the money would come from, that ultimately there would need to be additional beds? Yes, there may be, and that's some of that longer term planning that's just going to require a lot more thought and discussion in terms of the location, the design of the facility, the land. Is it co-located near other supportive services, transportation? Does it serve the individuals in need? Is it permitted use? So those are things that the group does want to continue to work on, but it will take a little bit longer, as well as we want to keep abreast of what agencies might be planning. So the Salvation Army, for instance, they may have some plans in the works in working with them. I'm very curious to hear when we ultimately have more visibility, how many beds we think are coming online from those existing organizations, and how much of that problem does that chip away at? But just where I was going with this line of discussion was we see that the obstacles, the big ones, transportation you've talked about, but then it's privacy, feeling like your stuff's going to get stolen. Well, even if we just take those two. So stuff getting stolen kind of points you toward lockers, is that kind of on the horizon? And then the privacy thing, I don't see you would do it at Monsignor King where they've got the bunk beds, but I toured a facility in LA when I was out there for the National League of Cities conference called, I think it was called Puente, that utilized like mobile homes as a shell. To create dormitory space, but inside there were dividers so that you had a sense of like you're in a cubicle. And you know, it just seemed to make a difference in that very basic feeling of, you know, I'm in a dormitory type situation or I have a little bit of, a little greater shred of dignity. Sure. To your point and to Council Member Armentor's point, the work group members were eager to engage people staying at shelter or not staying at shelter by either going into shelters or by any way to incorporate people into the work group with lived experience so that they can get to some more of these issues around what exactly is it about the feeling that you have a lack of privacy, where does your fear of your belongings being stolen come from, and then using that directly with members of the work group to implement some of those solutions. Council Member Armentor. Oh yeah, I'll just say, yeah, and I really appreciate that and I meant as in coming to the meet, you know, specific people. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Okay, Council Member Husspeth. So a few things. I would, I absolutely would like the group to continue but I would like to get some kind of clear communication from the other county representatives, especially those that would fall along the A train line, where they fall so is Louisville I mean no no shelters in Louisville. And a train that comes straight to Denton. And so it seems like we're sure shouldering a lot of that burden. And I could be absolutely wrong I just want to understand that better, and I'd like to see something from either council or something that they put it in writing where they call on whether they want emergency shelters, or they support that in their city or not I mean, I, I'm a little more adversarial and direct than the most so I'll allow you to fix that. But that would be my point blank question to them. Are you in. And what does that look like, you know, because I think it's just that important to to nail that down because if they're, if they're out, then we need to know that early so that we can adjust accordingly. And then, I think for me, the transportation piece is interesting to me you put together that map for me thank you. The services are really spread out and I've not seen anything in this presentation that says how we're managing that better or pushing those things closer together. And so that's, and that all, to me, pivots on the business community and I say that each time this presentation comes. I've not seen any surveys or anything that says we've talked to downtown businesses and they're willing to contribute. X amount of dollars to help fund a centralized location that would then help those two groups function better together and so I think that's a conversation and needs to be had and I think there's some support there. On both sides, and that then helps with transportation because everything closer together. So, that's, that's really what I'm looking for, or I would like to see is kind of some pragmatic approaches to the concerns that that I hear from both the homeless community and from those that own businesses and and we've seen an uptake in calls and concerns from businesses. And, and, and I just think it's an issue, and we need to have a, again, candid conversation and and kind of work out an agreement between the two communities if you will. So, thank you. Okay, so you've got next steps. I'm good with your direct with the direction of the cost. What we call it cost options. I mean I like what I'm hearing but some of these things are very comprehensive, long term strategic planning, especially with where the other communities in our county didn't didn't cannot solve this problem by itself. I mean, we don't have the money we don't have the resources we can certainly do better. But I like moving forward, how can we look at some of the expansion, and then as we continue to solve that issue, then we can look at what is this gap. What's, where are these people are they primarily didn't are they in Louisville are they coming from Louisville Denton or saying or wherever, because it really is a regional problem. And if we don't continue to address it as such then, you know, it could get overwhelming. So, I'm, I'm okay with continuing it and as you can expand into some of these questions and comments and suggestions that have been made. Or, if that's beyond the purview of the planning the shelter planning work group in the beginning then we can figure out some other methodology or structure that that could do that, and then investigate the cost options present with the next budget cycle. And then we can start contacting and talking with the shelter staff of both of them to see if there's options what are they what do you need, so forth and so on. Correct, so it might be a whole range of options sure. Okay, good. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Excuse me, Council members, I think dinner is ready. Do you want to grab a quick bite to eat and let's get back in here quickly so we can get this last agenda item in before we have our 630 meeting. Let's break in. Welcome everybody back to this meeting of the Denton City Council December the 18th, 2018 it is 518 moving to our, to our last work session item, which is item D receive report hold discussion and give staff direction regarding research on fee waiver or fee reimbursement programs, affordable for affordable housing, and the potential for an affordable housing fee program. Thank you. Danny shock community development. We're here to talk about a proposed grant program for affordable housing. Recently city council members had requested some information about different programs across the metroplex that might be available for waiving fees for affordable housing development. And then in addition to that we also received a request from Habitat for Humanity for assistance with impact fees. As a result of those requests we did do some research on some other cities. We also were identified that we did have a previous program in the city. So we looked at that and then we drafted a program proposal for you for your consideration. The history of the program was there was a program that was developed in 1998. Yes sir. That program was renewed three separate on three separate occasions and did exist for approximately 10 years. The, the history of the program over those 10 years, the budget amount or approved budgets that were approved of those three of those 10 years was about 245,000 of that about 107,000 was accessed on that grant program. And we did provide some information on how those broke out by the different organizations that were could access that grant program. Primarily single family units but also some multifamily units those are with didn't affordable housing court. Those are about up to four plex units so while it says multifamily it's not truly a large multifamily development. In the research we did identify that the 15 cities that we looked at five cities did did not have a similar program and 10 did. And that within the context of those programs they offer a lot of variety and whether they're waivers or reimbursements or grant programs, or some other form of that. What you're looking at, and there's a within the exhibits, you can look at a fuller detail and exhibit for. But within the context of those that a few waivers typically they're happening in set aside areas like neighborhood empowerment zones that allow for those waivers or some other program options that identifies a specific targeted area for that. We did also check with legal to look at what whether or not we could utilize a waiver reimbursement program. What was ultimately recommended was to use reimbursement or grant program, primarily because it gives us a little bit tighter fiscal controls rather than just a waiver we have the opportunity to to identify how the funds are being allocated through the budget process and then track those through an application and budget allocations or transfers. The program particularly that we're proposing now is a grant program that's going to be targeted to nonprofit developers of single family new construction, and that would be our one of our partners to help that humanity. The other would be our city programs would benefit from from these, these is this grant program as well our home improvement our minor repair and our home buyer improvement home buyer assistance program. And then also our nonprofit developer housing program that's funded by CDBG or home currently that's our didn't affordable housing corp there are Chota which is as a designation that's required by our home grant that we allocate about 15% of our funds for that particular program. So we looked at the, the existing program that was that was in existence in 1998, and then looked at some other city programs and have kind of put together some key elements that we think are important if we were to move forward with a program like this. The first is that it should be for nonprofit and city housing programs, and that the assistance would include building permits and utility fees like wastewater and water impact fees. And in the context of those, we would require some sort of execution of an agreement that would ensure compliance, and some of those compliance issues would be about the eligibility requirements for the households that benefit from this program, as well as a program and compliance period over a certain period of time, the unit would have to stay affordable. If it's either a homeowner or a renter unit would also set forth a process for how folks would apply for the program that would typically look like a grant application, and we would establish monitoring requirements to ensure that they were meeting those requirements over time. And then require some sort of report submission to us to monitor that compliance as well. We did propose a budget based on historical fees so within your backup you can kind of see the history of our programs and exhibit five. We did look at what folks have paid over the period of the last since 2013. And so we've identified that for habitat for humanity, proposing about five units the maximum they've paid historically is $12,000. So for five units at 12,000 that's 63,000 within our city programs and our didn't affordable housing court programs these are not new construction these are just renovations, or reconstructions that don't require the higher fees. So that budget a little bit lower for our home improvement program about two programs a year, home buyer and home improvements, and then our minor repairs about 20 households year that we're able to assist. And then didn't affordable housing corporate estimating about four projects for a total budget of just over $75,000. So to conclude, we have some options available to you, and would like to get further guidance from you. Proceed with this grant program as proposed with funding in 2019 to 2020 as a supplemental or to allocate some funding in the current program year should be available. Option number two to not proceed with affordable housing grant program or option number three which is that you may want to provide some additional guidance or direction for alternative program options. I wonder if you have acquired any more clarity on why we didn't just continue it when we had it because we had basically a program like this, right for 10 years. Yeah, no one knows why. No, we have some conjecture, some of it might be related to the economic environment at the time around 2008 where the program might have just been cut. There's been some changes in the organizational leaderships over time that made just the program just got forgotten about our losses as an opportunity, and then just involved there so there could be many or combination of them. And what would the main differences be in in what you would recommend versus what had already have been running for 10 years and read just some small changes I think currently it was really well laid out and it was based on some other cities or some other cities and based there's on ours at this point similar, but probably just looking at two things that would be the most important is to make sure we don't set guidelines that are so restrictive that it can't be implemented but also making sure the guidelines have enough parameters in it so we don't have some unintended consequences that we weren't expecting so I don't see much much projection of change in the current program versus what we did in the past. So thank you for that presentation, and that explains the history explains why I had a few people tell me we used to do that back in the day. So anyway, I know I know why they said that it was actually true. So, I, I support. Number one, I'm moving forward under the, you know, current funding, because of the the current need for it, you know, as for, you know, waiver versus grant, because of the need for more affordable housing in Denton. I'm more inclined towards the way the the waiver but I understand, you know that that a grant comes with some more accountability and checks and balances. So, you know, I, but I would want to see, as you said, that if there is a grant model, that it's not too prohibitive either with the requirements or paperwork, you know, I would, I'd like to see, you know, a waiver with accountability, but I can imagine once you start talking about like that, it just gets into a matter of semantics and, you know, one waiver with accountability could be somebody else's grant, you know, proposal. That's, that's where I'm at, but I'm, I'm really excited about this and I see, you know, these, you know, fees and permit permitting fees, impact fees, things like that, you know, it is yet another, you know, burden that the city passes on to these organizations that want to provide housing and then that is delays the process. And then ends up passing the burden on to the people who are, who are living there. So I see it's a win-win for everybody and just, you know, when one of the many things that we can do to make, make a truly affordable housing more possible with more options here in Denton. So I, I will just kind of continue on that and go, well, although they might be seen as a burden, they also are a burden with purpose, the impact fees, we, we have them, they're not great, but I like this option because it does help and it's not going to make it more difficult for those who want to help build affordable housing. We have an option now and I would like to do the current, get started as soon as possible. But I would also like to know if the historical fees, if the amounts that we're using are the same currently as we were using in the past. And, and on that, like just curious, how much in fees permits does it take to build just one house? I'm just curious. So a couple of things there, there would be one change in the program limits. So the original program guidelines were about $2,400 per home for waiver fees. And so, of course, our fees have gone up since the timeframe of that period. So we're proposing a little bit higher threshold for that. So that would be a change from the previous program. And then what was your second question? Yeah, that's, that's pretty much it. I want to make sure that if we are doing this, it's actually going to help and make a difference at the funding amount that we are. I'm just curious how much typically generally it cost for one to build a house. Yes. In the fees, impact fees. Some of that's in your backup as far as the history. So you can see in the projects, a brief overview. And I should mention that Habitat's here in the room. So John Montoya, the executive director and a lot of the board members are here. So if there's some specific questions you'd like to ask. Well, I do have I do have one for him. I'm just curious how many how many people are on the list in Denton currently for for a home. That's what I would like to know if possible in the potential that we have here for how many homes. Hi, John Montoya, Habitat for Humanity, executive director. So right now we have over 75 families on our waiting list. And that that will just continue to grow over time. So the need is great. And resources are few. And in Denton, the potential how many homes are are potentially built here in the city. I mean, do you have currently. Well, the potential is really right now as far as our current yield for this year. This calendar year is four homes completion. The potential really just depends on how much we can raise and how much support we can generate in the community and how much we can save ultimately on fees like this and partnering with the city really does create a huge opportunity for us to to build more homes. It's do you have an idea. Can you tell me how much say the last time it was at the 99 99 number 99 how much in fees and permit you paid on that one home, the 90 we actually have receipts right here for the total with me. I brought them with me. So, just in case, total. We're at 12 looks like 12,000 $12,611 is what we paid for the home that you went and saw the other day the home on Maddox that yeah that's what we paid, and that was that's not our, that's our, that's our 99th we're working on our 100th right now. And I believe that one was a little bit less because there are already some facilities in place there that we didn't need to pay for. So, okay. Well, thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. That's my monitor. I just, I just want to say for the public for anyone watching that, you know, people might not realize who have people haven't seen habitat homes or rather people who don't know that they've seen habitat homes. You might be surprised to see how beautiful they are. And it's actually and this is true not just about habitat, but a lot of a lot of affordable housing it doesn't unbeautify neighborhoods in fact it very much does does the opposite, it, it adds to the beauty of neighborhoods make them feel more like neighborhoods. And so this is something that that really benefits the whole character of a neighborhood I hope people are saying yes please in my backyard, you know, when it comes to all kinds of affordable housing options so and this is a great way to encourage that so thanks to habitat and you know all the other organizations that that do this. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Can someone from staff. Pull up that map for me please, because that's a perfect segue. It's maybe you can get it from the email. Or I have a picture, I just, if I can email it to someone. While it's coming. That is exactly my concern that what council member armature suggested the pull up a map in a bit, but every almost whether it's outside of Southeast Denton ish within mingo to 77 is 99% of what they build. What they build. District one. Yeah. And so when you're talking about not in my backyard, or you're talking about I hope people say in my backyard. That's far from the current status. We need to turn that around as a community. And so that's why I would advocate for I'm all for the program let's start there. But there needs to be a stipulation that we're not going to, we should incentivize to a degree, maybe, in my mind, as I do the math to per region that we that staff designates, but I don't think it's right to load up one neighborhood with the house. And so while we're waiting, go to 1012 Scott Street on Google Maps, please. So this is Willow Creek area, I grew up there on Scott Street. 1012. Yes. The drive. So we can go street view there. Yes. So that entire stretch of the street. One, we need a different design standard I would advocate for that then allows it to look different. And here's the thing. My. I have three habitat houses next to me in my on my street. So I, I'm absolutely in there, outstanding people in the process is great that you have to that you, you volunteer and earn the right to build your home outstanding, but that we have to stagger the look, and I don't know what that looks like for staff in the presentation how we how we develop that forward. But these houses are, if I look on Zillow, they're about $100,000 less than the rest of the market, and they're currently valued at $124,000. And so let's say when you built them they were at 80 or 90,000. So, one there's not that much equity being earned in them. And two, you set yourself up for gentrification. If you have a giant developer that says, I want to buy property in Denton central didn't, I think, district one is, is, is a jewel, and it's the secrets getting out. So now if you if you're thinking hey I want to invest in Denton, you go wipe out all these houses, because, because the value. And so if you look at this map. So, not, I don't want to interrupt you but we need to make sure we stay focused I know we're getting we're focused on habitat for humanity but it sounds like your general, your general concern or observation is, hey, if we're going to be doing affordable housing for nonprofit organizations that you're proposing that this council look at when the development of the program comes along. Do we want to look at some type of approach where it provides for a even distribution throughout the community or at least to consider it, and we have other council members here that I'd ask them to go back to those areas that they represent and target land options and talk to people that they know and spread the word to say hey we can't continue to put that much pressure and on one area and find other opportunities because I think it's, it's worth it. And so, I think there's a couple of things that I'll conclude with one. This is this map needs to be diversified and so in the program, I would like to build something that diversifies the map. Or, if not, we're not going to incentivize that right I mean that's that's my kind of the thing there. And so, one, and then two, I'd like to see us. There'll be manufactured homes, etc etc. So I want to keep this sentiment going versus not allowing other home options that would help help people be homeless will certainly build those in your direction into any guidelines we draft should you decide to move forward. Yeah, I don't want to get into debate about Habitat for Humanity I just wanted to be about this presentation. Yeah, I just wanted to want to second the importance of, of spreading affordable housing, all over the city. I, you know, my district is at large I don't have but but as somebody who represents at large, I do agree it's important. And I want to recommend to everybody there's a good mini series. I think it's Netflix called show me a hero. It's about the fight a fight for affordable housing in Yonkers, New York, it's a good kind of history of affordable housing. And that is in many ways precisely what it's about how, when when HUD was was was created. The goal was in the idea of affordable housing was to not just located in one part of a city but to really spread it spread it all around and make make it look nice. And, and part of the part of the goal, being desegregation as well you know. So, anyway, I, I think that's extremely, extremely important. So on the on the grant process. Can you get a grant for proposed say you have, you know what you're going to do for, you know, so many homes. Yeah, so in the, in the history of the program, they were agreements for multiple homes at the same time, and then the exhibits were utilized for the descriptions of the properties. So that if they were identified ahead of time there were multiple, multiple projects that could be identified, they could be singular. We did propose to be able to turn applications around in a couple of weeks so I think that those are all options that are doing okay, okay, well that would be good and last question on the list there's there's a few non, a couple of nonprofits would other nonprofits be eligible. Yeah, that's, I think that's the historical list I don't think that's an exclusive exhaustive list of who would qualify for that. Okay, yeah. Just find my correct on that. No, no, there's a list on this on the, on the budget. There's a list on the budget and she's asking is that a, is that an exclusive list of that's the only people that could take advantage of the grant program. And currently because of how they would qualify so we're proposing that it stay limited to single family developers and those who are receiving funding through the city so that would be a limiting factor for any existing so if a new nonprofit came in and met those requirements, depending on how we drafted the guidelines that may be open to to new, new nonprofits but it would be limited to small projects though single family or small multi family, like, four plexes or less. Okay, I've got a few comments on councilmember meltzer. Mr city manager. Do you think we have enough couch money to do it in this fiscal year. questions. We can handle it this fiscal year we'll get the program requirements. Drafted and back to counsel sometime the next month or two. We certainly at that point, we'll get a little bit more of an idea of how much interest there is in this program and be able to hone our budget, 1920 year. Okay, couple, couple of thoughts. Yeah, I think we need to make sure that we, I don't know what you said it's these people who are already doing this and receiving money from the city but a new nonprofit won't already be receiving money from the city so we need to just make sure we have a very clear criteria of how people would qualify. Secondly, I think if we're going to do grant funding. This year that's great but I think we need to look at rounding it up a little bit to about 100,000 in the fiscal year just because what I don't want to have happened and is one particular group sort of get all of the grants in one year. So I think we're going to have to really figure out a way to to balance it out on on how we apportion these we're going to have to have an understanding of who's the one that makes the decision on the grants whether it's one of our current committees or if that's a council committee or if it's the council as a whole or whoever does that. You mentioned low or moderate income. I think we need to look at that because moderate income we had exhausted discussions about low and moderate income and what that represents on the scale of income, and the impact of affordability. So, I'm just going to throw it out there I think this needs to be for low income, affordable housing units starting out. And if it's going to be for moderate I think we need to look at a graduated grant reimbursement I would you don't get the full I mean we just, we've got to figure out where's the need. And the need is not necessarily moderate and there's a much bigger need for low income people needing affordable housing. And hold on just a second let me let me finish my comments. So, I think this is a great opportunity to number one resurrect a program that I think probably was because of the recession. I mean the recession. We were pulling two or three $4 million out of our reserve fund, I remember in one year a couple million dollars. So I think this is a great opportunity and obviously we're going to learn, and we're going to grow with how we implement it and always say scar tissue. There was, if you could go back through this, let me see the slide yeah the on the, the types of providers I guess is the people the graph of the budget. Right, right there. Yeah. So, because, according to, well, yeah, according to this, there's only three. There's there's habitat for humanity, didn't affordable housing corporation which would be rental rehabilitation now typically rental rehabilitation, unless they're, it's been vacant over so many years, it doesn't, it doesn't incur an impact fee. Because you've already got a sewer tap you've already got a water tap there. So this is primarily for for new construction. I would limit it to single family homes. Okay, I would not include starting out. I wouldn't include a four plex in it because the four plex is kind of an investor I mean because if we're really trying to encourage single family home development, then this is our chance, we can always modify it, but this is our chance to make it exactly how we think ideally it should be and if it doesn't work, then we can, we can adjust it. So would that be for non nonprofits yes okay yeah single family, because what that would do is leave out the city programs as well. Well, right, because we're not doing new construction in our projects. Well, but my hunch is, most of the time you're doing those you're not required to pay an impact fee, you may know it's more in the permit. Yeah, you may have a permit fee but the permit fee is miniscule compared to I mean it's probably less than $500 or $600 and you say it's miniscule but compared to $12,000 impact fee, right, that's, that's impactful. So I would do some data analysis on that. Okay, see, see what your permits have cost you and see what impact fees. If you had to pull if you had to pay impact fees for what because I know y'all do. Sometimes you rebuild the whole thing. So the devil is going to be in the details but I think it's a good start. I think it's a worthy program and I think we can, you know, we can make a difference with that. Just one other comment on the 80% just so you know, our housing programs are 80% or below, so we currently allow. Well no I understand that but I think that's, but that's where we get into some difficulty, because 80% right now for a single person is $40,000 a year, 80% of median income it's actually more than that it's, it's 40 something, whereas a 50 or 60%. And those are the ones that can afford, you know, whether single family rental or to buy certainly not to buy. Okay. And we would need to work within our partners to just figure that out. Yeah, I mean that you can't do it you can't do it but I'm just sort of asking for what seems to be the need. So we look at the details that might need to change. Yep. Councilmember Armitage. So I myself, I would object to any qualifications that would, any restrictions rather that would reduce this to only single family homes. We need single family homes, yes. And we also need apartments that are rental units of all kinds that are truly affordable and I see this as a great opportunity, you know, to be able to work into the conditions for rental properties. You know, conditions that make the kind of rent, rents at the level that that we on council that city of Denton considers to be truly affordable, instead of going by, you know, somebody else's definition of what affordability is. Yeah, so I mean I consider that extremely important to have all those options. That's not workable. Because the multifamily project you've got four units at $12,000 a pop you just lost about half of your, half of your, your funds for one. The key is nonprofit. I don't know what nonprofits are building, but nonprofit. If you're a nonprofit in partnership with a for profit developer. This should not apply, period. So, because unless you're building single family but I don't even think it should apply then because if you're a for profit developer a for profit developer should not be able to obtain this if they if they're in partnership with someone because it's benefiting it may be but it's also benefiting a for profit developer so I would have a tremendous objection for this not being exclusively, at least for now, to single family homes, because that's the need we have the need we have is for families. That's the need we have so we will be able to work out that policy decision when the details come back to us. Councilmember Briggs. Oh, yeah, no I agree with that it's. It's one thing it's a it's a beautiful thing to see a family get keys to a home they never thought they would be able to own an afford, so I'm going to get emotional and I, I think that is, it's a great program and I am 100% behind that then when we start talking about. For profit developers. That's a different conversation. And I mean it may eventually get somewhere but right now I am. I am here. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. I agree with you. For the most part the one area that I would. That's why I didn't let that's why I didn't recognize. For four for four speakers. You gotta you gotta get my attention. Based on our previous the last work session item, I would like for us to explore extending this as well to nonprofits dealing with transitional or emergency shelter type situations. As we come up on the budgetary season. We're all giving our city manager all kinds of things to fund and we're not explaining ways to fund them. And that's very important. I don't know I'm sure there's probably legal reason you can't do this but can there be a 1% fee on other permits could there be a $2 fee on any permit that you pull with the city that could go into the fund to to handle this. Yeah, I can answer there is a that's yeah we can't there's a state law against being able to provide to to charge fees on top of for set asides. So linkage fees is what they're titled I don't know the statute but there's some ways in which we can incentivize that. Yes, some creative way to right rather than try our way to fund this right flip it on its head and incentivize it by offering something in exchange for let me get a little clarification from you on the transitional or shelter. What exactly are you talking about. So transition are you talking about something other than single family are you talking about transitional single family, and this is all basically new construction or total rehab where there hasn't been a meter in place if we're talking about impact fee so what will help me understand if you're talking about a ground up where you're going to have impact fees right shelter for, you know, five families six families it's a six month a two year type situation that is managed by nonprofit that there's no for profit involved in it. You know for trying to help our homeless that's one of the. Yeah, this is kind of a twofold you're helping it from both sides both of the single family, and it's almost like you could go from the emergency shelter to a transitional shelter to, you know, start working with habitat to get yourself your own homes. So nonprofits who are trying to assist with the homelessness situation. Exactly. Okay. And so that's fine. I think the big issue is going to be when you start talking about something other than a single family water meter and a single family sewer impact fee. The amount of these fees goes up tremendously so if you're talking about a unit that needs a one inch meter to handle the. So I think we need to also talk about is there a limitation on a per project basis. Right. Okay, we're going to take these two and then we're going to wrap this discussion up. No, go ahead. Thank you. So thank you. So I just wanted to clarify I mean I'm fine limiting it to non nonprofits that that was not my issue. And, you know, I can think of a number of examples I mean, you know, group homes are one if you look at, say, you know solutions here here in Denton that, you know, we might think of that more of a service and not of housing. But, but they, they provide provide short term housing for in, you know, group homes for for individuals we have, you know, and made some well, that's not in city of Denton anyway but but group homes and living situations like that. They're not single family I could imagine a nonprofit I mean if a nonprofit wants to, you know, to, to build something and divided into rental units, I would hate to have something. Prohibiting the those fees from being. I don't think those are rental units for solutions in North Texas. Well, there, I mean, but it's not, whatever you call it, it might not count as a single family home because the group home is my point so I, if we simply limited to nonprofits, you know why. I don't understand why. Even if all the nonprofits who apply end up being single family you know for single family homes. So the, what you're talking about there with the solution site program is not necessarily the renovation of a structure or the new construction of a structure so that would be more kind of public service oriented. Sorry, I mean like when they first built like they, when they, when they first, you know, built, if they were to build a new home, right. Yeah. A new group home. So in other words, keep it up, you know, sure. It, you know, has to be nonprofit, but whatever kinds of restrictions, which we also have the development block grant request application process. And I also love the idea of including shelter and housing because so instead kind of looking at what's the problem we're trying to solve. You know, and the problem is, I think, housing, you know, barriers to this is just part of the big larger discussion of barriers to affordable housing. If I could jump in here, I think with a program like this, the simpler the better. So if we can, if we can kind of put a program like this that's really focusing on housing with income restrictions, that sort of thing, trying to help that segment of community if there's, if there's, if you want to consider, you know, somebody that wants to build, expand a shelter. I think rather than trying to solve these issues that we don't, that we're sort of guessing it sometimes what the market is, you're probably better off putting this in place, see if it's taken advantage of. If the council wants to amend the program down the road because you, there's something out there that you didn't think of, it's easy to do. But for this, it's the simpler the better and get a track record going. If there's somebody who brings a business model forward you like, we can always amend the program and add more money to the grant pot. And I just wouldn't focus on trying to, you know, not forget something, but instead if we have, we can bring it to you and say, hey, somebody's made a request to amend this, are you interested or not? And I think that's the way, the only way you can really get a program like this off the ground quickly. >> Councilmember Melchor. >> Actually along similar lines. What I would like to propose is we approve this as described, single family, you know, just non-profits, doable with couch money right now. And as well, you know, do a little staff work toward, like maybe an ISR, hopefully a work session, with two pieces in it. And I think I'll credit John with both of them. To come up with something that pairs funding of additional transitional housing and emergency shelter with thoughts about possible funding mechanisms. Because, you know, as you try to sort of solve all the problems, you know, with one pot, it's tough to do. But I think acknowledging the reality that a fair amount of funding would be required to do the bigger scope, but that doesn't mean we can't look at what would it take to do that. >> Yeah, and I believe this conversation, we're having this conversation today because it was brought forward for help for affordable housing, for affordable housing. So I'm in agreement with that. It seems like the direction is let's at least start simple. And if it doesn't go anywhere, then we can figure out a different way to do it. But if we start getting requests, because in the grand scheme of a transitional housing project or a new shelter, if all we have to do is contribute $12,000 for an impact fee, we're going to be doing real good. Because I think there's going to be a great deal more need than that. So I'm going to give you the last word. >> I just have a question so that I'm clear. I want to know if I'm the only one that thinks that's a problem that all of them are in district one so that I can document that. >> No, no. I agree, too. >> Okay. >> I would ask that be folded into the quick version. >> Yeah. >> That we don't just get two more in district one before we can have that conversation. >> You can bring that back as part of the proposal and then the council will have an opportunity to discuss that and move forward with that as a policy or some modified version thereof. >> Yes. >> Okay. Fantastic. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Great job. Thank you, staff. All right. Well, I think that concludes our work session. We will now adjourn at 556. And then we will reconvene in the council chambers at 630. [ Music ] Welcome, everybody, to this meeting of the Denton City Council. It is 630 on December 18, 2018. We have a quorum. I will call this meeting to order. The first item is to pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. Please stand if you're able. Our next item on the agenda is agenda item to proclamations presentations. We have none at this time. So we'll move on to agenda item number three presentation from members of the public. If we could review procedures for addressing the city council, please. The Denton City Council has adopted rules of procedure including a code of conduct that applies to citizens as well as council members. These rules were enacted to promote an orderly process and to preserve decorum. Here is a brief review of the rules that apply to citizen reports. Citizens will have four minutes to give a scheduled citizen report and four minutes to give an open mic report. There will be an electronic bell when time has expired. If the remarks are not concluded by that time, the citizen will be asked to stop speaking. If the citizen does not cease and a second request is made, the mayor will request to have the citizen removed from the council chamber. Citizens are asked not to approach the dais. If a citizen has papers or other materials to hand out to the council, please let the city secretary know in advance. For scheduled citizen reports, the council may initiate discussion or questions following each citizen report. For non-scheduled open mic citizen reports, the council may listen to citizens speak. However, because no notice of the subject of the open mic report has been provided to the public in advance, the Texas Open Meetings Act limits any deliberation or decision by the council to a proposal to place the item on a future agenda, a statement of factual policy, or a recitation of existing policy. Citizens are asked to direct all remarks and questions to the council as a whole and not to any individual member. Please refrain from making abusive, personal, impertinent, profane, or slanderous remarks. Anyone who violates this council rule of procedure may be immediately removed from the council chamber. Thank you in advance. Copies of the rules of procedure are available from the city secretary. Okay, the next item is and excuse me, agenda item B received scheduled citizen reports from members of the public. We have Kathy, is it Glashroeder. Thank you. Come on up state your name and your address and your time will begin. Hi, Kathy Glashroeder. My business address and didn't is 303 North Carol Boulevard. All right, I want to thank you for having me tonight, allowing me to speak. Again, I'm Kathy Glashroeder on the board of directors member of the Keep Denton Beautiful program. Back in April, the council did ask us about the status of the mural project on the railroad bridge in Dallas Drive. This this citizens report will provide an update on that mural, the mural site. Where is my up? Let's see. Hang on a second. I got to find our presentation. Don't know where ours is. Is this it. Is there somebody that can. I'm sorry. The pictures are kind of important. Oh, thank you. You have you have a flash drive. Thank you. Jingle bells. Thank you. Here I got it right here. Y'all are going to love these pictures. Fantastic. OK. OK, we're ready. All right. So the Keep Denton Beautiful Dallas Drive mural project update. So this mural site was selected in 2017 by Katie B's Mural Art Committee. Through a blind review of applicants based solely on submitted artwork, the committee and Katie B board selected Dallas based artist Dan Coulser. Earlier this year, Katie B received ten thousand dollar K.A.B. Lowe's Community Partners Grant. This grant allowed the Katie B to jumpstart our mural project. Also, the Union Pacific signed off on the graffiti removal and and mural that was there previously and work was ready to move forward. The city's Community Improvement Services Division assisted through their greedy graffiti abatement program. Then the artist was able to begin work on November 26th. This is what the site looked like before it was starting to fall away. In this slide, the artist Dan Coulser is working on the first day. He was able to get a lot of it drawn. First, he did the sketches out of the mural. And then after that was done, he Katie B wanted to he started in with the color. Katie B wanted to incorporate the local the local landmarks in the mural. The artist took a ride around the city with the board representatives so he could get an idea of some of our important landmarks. He especially liked the central fire station building and the history behind it and the bell tower. On the south side of the wall, it features the T.W. admin building. Here are a couple more photos of the artist at work. The artist did move to the north side of the wall last week. This side will feature some UNT related artwork and you can't really tell from the sketch, but it's got the eagle with the Mercheson and the admin building and all of that there. It's going to be really, really nice. Here are a couple more photos of the mural of that mural in process. Due to weather that we had a couple of days last week, he missed it. He couldn't he couldn't do his work. So, however, we do believe the lane closure part of the mural will be completed by the end of this week. The Katie B board is excited about this mural and the beauty it will bring to one of the entryways into downtown. Katie B would like to express our appreciation for the partnership, the CIS Department. We hope you enjoy the end result of our mural. Thank you for your time. Any questions, comments? Thank you. Beautiful project. Wonderful. Okay, our next agenda item is agenda item 3C, which is additional city citizen comments. This is commonly referred to as the open mic. There's four minutes for the speaker, but council is prohibited from any discussion based upon the Texas Open Meetings Act. Diana Leggett, if you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. Good evening, Diana Leggett, 1019 Aileen. In a city that's 53 percent renters, even with many completely responsible landlords and tenants, we're going to have more than our fair share of landlord tenant disputes. I'm a legal administrator who has helped settle hundreds of these disputes in Denton and Dallas counties. I had the good fortune to attend Councilmember Armator's Town Hall on this topic on Saturday, which had some excellent discussion and also revealed that there's some serious misinformation out there. And there are some very simple steps the city of Denton can take to help reduce landlord tenant conflict and protect everyone involved. Let's take heat, hot water and air conditioning. Basics, right? On the plus side, Denton has some very clear, well-written ordinances. Heating systems must be capable of maintaining 68 degrees in all rooms. Hot water must be provided at 110 degrees. Very clear objective criteria. Did everyone know this? I didn't until I started studying law and operating in that arena. Did everybody know that you have to dig through links and indexes on the website, our website, to find that? You'll find state law on our website much more readily than Denton ordinances. A straightforward list of tenant rights and responsibilities specific to Denton in an easy-to-find spot on the website would help all parties. Tenants in Denton have a right to a free inspection for code violations, and retaliatory evictions are expressly illegal for six months. Wouldn't it encourage responsible behavior if that was clear to all parties up front? Again, a clear statement of Denton-specific tenant rights and responsibilities could be extremely helpful. Now, air conditioning. Our ordinances say if you include it in the lease, it has to be working. If you include it in the lease, surely we can all agree in 2018 in Texas that air conditioning is a basic requirement for health, safety and general welfare. I'll bet you assumed it was required. It isn't. Dallas ordinances require it. Our city should have the same. Working air conditioning in the blistering Texas heat, proper heat on a cold day, clearly these are all things every tenant has a right to expect. And what good landlord wouldn't want to provide them? Let's get the air conditioning ordinance brought up to date, and let's get a clear statement together for Denton's particular tenant rights and responsibilities. Thank you. We have any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right. We'll move on to our consent agenda. Agenda item four. We don't have any, I believe, that were pulled. Well, I think it was continued. Was it H? Yes. Yeah, it was continued. We weren't going to hear it today anyway. Council member Husbeth. So do I need to exclude H and or is it captured in the? Yeah, just say. Okay. Is that how he needs to make the motion? Okay, so move approval of the consent agenda, but for item H, which has been pulled. Mayor Pro Tem. Second. Okay, let's vote on the board, please. Consent agenda carries seven zero. Moving on to our next agenda item, which are items for individual consideration. Agenda item five, a consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Texas, the Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, authorizing the city manager to execute an individual and aggregate stop loss insurance contract with United Healthcare Insurance Company. Remember the Council, my name is Scott pan risk manager and I appreciate your time this evening. The item that I have before you today is seeking approval from you guys for the purchase of stop loss insurance for the city's self funded health plan. If you'll indulge me, I have a few short slides to kind of go through what stop loss is, and talk a little bit about the solicitation in detail if that would be all right. Sure. First thing is what is stop loss. It's insurance that we purchased to protect the city's self funded health plan from catastrophic losses. Essentially provides a cap or limit on the amount of health claims that the city has to pay out on behalf of the retirees employees independence that are covered under the health plan. Our current carrier is United Healthcare. We've been with them for around five years, and our contract is going to expire with them at the end of December. The rate is basically paid on a per member per month or per prescriber per month basis. And so that's going to fluctuate based on the number of members covered by the health plan on a given month. So how does that protect the city's plan. There are basically two levels to that. The first is the individual stop loss, or the ISL. This provides a cap on each individual covered under the plan. So each employee, each dependent, each retiree, basically each belly button that we cover under the health plan has $185,000 cap on claims. Once the claims exceed the $185,000 level, the stop loss carrier begins to reimburse us. Our current rate with United Healthcare is $101.50 per member per month or per subscriber per month. The second piece of that is the aggregate stop loss or ASL. That provides protection on the plan in totality of the plan as a whole. So essentially the stop loss carrier will calculate what they expect our claims to be. And if it exceeds that by 25% corridor, then the stop loss carrier will begin to reimburse us up to a million dollars. I will tell you, in my experience, we typically have ISL violations on a regular basis. We've never, you know, knock on wood, had an ASL violation. That would truly be a catastrophic health plan year. And our rate currently with United Healthcare for ASL is $5.02 per member per month. Well, like I mentioned before, our contract with United Healthcare is expiring at the end of this year. So through request for proposal 6922, we solicit proposals from the market for ISL and ASL. As you can imagine, there's not a lot of companies that are writing this type of coverage, especially for larger self-funded clients. A lot of them have consolidated. As I'll show you in a slide coming up, we haven't been a great risk for a lot of insurance companies. And so we only received two responses to that RFP. One was from United Healthcare, our incumbent carrier, and one was from Sun Life Stop Loss Insurance, which we had prior to United Healthcare, so they do have some experience with us. Unfortunately, both proposals did represent an increase in cost to the city. The United Healthcare proposal was just under 15% increase over our current rates, and the Sun Life proposal was almost 29% over our current rates. We did ask each of the companies to give us some options at different individual stop loss levels, $200,000, $225,000, and $250,000, and those were evaluated as well. Regardless of which stop loss level we looked at, United Healthcare was the lower cost. In evaluating the ISL levels, we looked at the premium savings that was going to be available by taking on more risk, but looked at the additional claims costs we'd be taking on at each of those levels. We kind of fleshed it all out. It really didn't make a lot of sense for us to look at any different levels and to keep the $185,000 level, and so that's what staff is recommending. This is a slide I alluded to earlier that kind of shows our five-year experience with United Healthcare. In terms of loss ratio, we're looking at basically a relationship between the premium we pay them and the claims they pay us back. So a stop loss ratio of one would mean that for every dollar in premium we pay the stop loss carrier, they return that to us in reimbursements. So obviously not a great business model for an insurance company to be in. Obviously they want it to be below one. Anything over one, that means that I guess we have won when it comes to that transaction. So you can see all but 2016, we've actually gotten more back in reimbursements that we've paid out in premium. So again, we've not been a great risk when it comes to the stop loss carrier market. The numbers there for 2018 are year-to-date through October, so we still have November and December premiums to pay and reimbursements to receive, and I would expect us to be at or over one when it comes to 2018 as well. So with that, I'm seeking approval from you all to purchase the individual and aggregate stop loss from United Healthcare at the $185,000 ISL level. You'll note in your backup that the not to exceed amount does include a 5% increase in each of the years from two, three, four, and five to account for additional lives being covered under the health plan. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. I just have a couple. So I guess that means that our, the PMPM or what was that, the price, the 101, the $101 that we're paying for a premium for the $185,000, that's going up to like $115,000 or something like that. Correct. What does that acronym stand for? The Per Member Per Month. So basically, every employee who elects the health insurance, every retiree who elects the health insurance, we're charged based on that number. It's about $1,430 roughly. So have you calculated what, you know, because we're self-insured, so we have a certain amount of money each year, we set aside our fund via the budget. What does that work out to per member, premium per member per month? Do you have any idea what that, if you don't have it, you can just email it to us. I can look at that for you. Because that's sort of showing us what our medical premiums are, our medical costs are per member. I guess the thing I can do is maybe put in, I guess I'll get you that number, but to put it in perspective, our claims cost are roughly $20 million and this is $2 million. So a fairly small percentage in the grand scheme of things. Sure. Sure. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Mayor Pro Tem? With approval of Item 5A. Council member Melzer? I second. We have a motion and a second for Agenda Item 5A. Let's vote please. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, Scott. Appreciate it. Agenda Item 5B. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing a development agreement between the City of Denton and Marker Stone Realty Partners 1 LLC and Marker Stone Realty Partners 2 LLC. Scott is a lot bigger than me. Good evening, Council, Mayor, Todd Estes, City Engineer. Talking tonight briefly about a developer's agreement with a development on the north side of town. The development is actually two subdivisions, one subdivision to the south, right off of Locust. So Locust is running north and south here. You've got Loop 288 to the north. Evers Way, this would be originally in the Phase 2 of the original development, which is a continuation here, going to the north. And then you have another development, Beal Way, going to the north of that. A missing segment of Hercules Lane was never constructed between both sides of the Locust and the subdivision that was currently put into the west. So as part of this developer's agreement, the key part to this would be the developer would construct the missing lanes of Hercules, so that would tie these sides together. A signal will eventually go in here at Locust towards the end of this project. Then you would have installation of 12-inch water mains. You'll see in just a minute there's a map that actually brings this forward. And then there's also a variety of DME relocations that have to occur as part of this. Now, one of the things that we do not have, and I apologize from staff standpoint, from my standpoint, we have the wrong AIS in the backup. So there was a different AIS that reflects the current numbers as submitted in the ordinance and in the developer's agreement as submitted to you. So those numbers are correct, but the AIS itself had several items in it that came from an earlier version. So the AIS put into the backup is what's on these slides. It's not what's on these slides. These slides reference what's actually in the agreement itself. Just to give you a brief overview of what Evers Way, the subdivision itself, would look like just south of where the future Hercules Lane would go, it brings in several homes to the area. This is the 12-inch water main that runs along Skelton and goes north, and then also picks up an abandoned 12-inch or a future abandoned 12-inch line and connects it back this way. So there is some cost participation on the city's part for oversizing that line from their requirement of a minimum of 8-inch water line. To the north of the future Hercules Lane would be Beale Way. They will be putting in some stormwater improvements. And then this is the northern segment of what that Hercules Lane area would be, so there is a right-of-way dedication that goes in with that, and a portion of a parcel that DME needs to expand the substation they currently have. That provides for future operations and expansion in that area. They're a little constrained on space now, and this gives that to them. Just to briefly run you down on the numbers, the current numbers, the good numbers as described is a total net outlay on the developer's part of roughly $1.55 million. So as detailed, it's $628,000 for Hercules Lane itself, roadway impact fees of $760,000, park dedication of $133,000, with the city's overall commitment to that around $613,000 and a potential credit of impact fees up to a maximum of $760,000 to roadway costs. Could you go back to that, Scott, please? Just a real quick question. Storm sewer constructed by the city. Yes. Explain that for me. So the storm sewer in Hercules Lane was originally going to be constructed as part of the substation DME built. Could you on that map, if you could go back to that, please? Thank you. So when DME built this substation here, there was a requirement to put in storm sewer along this side of the roadway. So DME had that designed already. It was already intended for city drainage crews to build that. So we're just doing what we intended to set out to do in the first place. All right. Thank you. With that staff recommend we move forward with the development agreement as proposed in the backup. And we are glad to answer any questions you might have at this point. The other, I'm trying to pull out, I don't see any, Council Member Briggs. I didn't see any. I couldn't see it on the screen. Could you go back to the picture with the drainage on it? As you know, there's already, there's been some issues with drainage there. Will that be affected with the new ponds that are being put in? Will that help with that? The majority, to a degree it will, but the majority of the stormwater, let's go back to this map. So the Beaway subdivision here will have detention along this area. That's where the water already goes and it goes into a ditch that roughly goes out the locust. There's an existing detention pond that was designed when this phase of the subdivision came in to handle all of this water as well. And that's where that water will continue to go. Okay. My other question about Hercules, will that have to be completed before all the homes start going in? Is there, so that that way they have a way to get in and out? I read the HOA request, and so I'm just wondering if that will be completed before the homes start to be built. They will be pursuing that one as quickly as possible. They're going to be building the roadway with the Beaway subdivision. Most of the Eversway to the south is already, the infrastructure is in, but they are looking to get the pavement done as quickly as they can. Okay. It is the intent to have that built, and that was what the HOA's concern was, is that we don't create traffic patterns down to the south. So the construction of Hercules then would create the means for those cars to have the ingress and egress. Okay. So I've got a couple questions. I'll start with the last one first so I can remember it. Is that part of the development agreement, or is that just sort of a kind of, we're going to do this, but there's nothing really that formally requires that to be done prior to the sale of the homes? There is a timeline associated with the developer's agreement that as soon as it's executed and it's approved by council, then they have a time that they have to get this improvement complete. Okay. And because I remember, I think I remember getting some emails or questions about the drainage, the water, and so the detention pond here down at the right-hand corner of that first phase, right there, you're saying that that was constructed to handle all the water for the current constructed phase and the one to be constructed just, was that north of there? Yes. It was designed to handle both. Okay, so how's all that water going to get to that detention pond? Is it box culverts? Is it, I mean, how's it get down to that detention pond from? So there are storm pipe that was kind of basically, for lack of a better term, stubbed out in the original phase that gets picked up and brought along these streets that come through the area. Okay. Today, all of this area drains to the backs of these homes. Okay. What will happen is, and let's look back over here, instead of all of this area draining to the back of these homes, they're only dealing with the very last 20 to 30 feet of these lots. The rest all drain out to the roadway. The roadway then collects it in a storm service system and then down to the detention pond. So it greatly reduces all the stormwater runoff they've historically experienced. Some of the more recent issues have been that we experienced near record rainfall. Sure. And then you had a stormwater system, stormwater controls, just the erosion controls were overwhelmed by the sheer amount of water. The developer has reached out to correct those issues and work with the homeowners. So then on the last row of homes on the south side of, was that Wilson Way? Yes, sir. What you're saying is, the water that falls upon that land, the natural flow is to the south. Yes. And so the whole lot, in other words, it's not a hill, it's not some drains towards Wilson Way, it's that it all continually drains down that way. The elevation is such that it drains south. Today, it actually drains from the northern corner of the property all the way down this way. Right. In the future, it'll basically split right here along about the back third of the property itself will come south. And the rest of it drains to the stream. Okay, so there's some elevation. Okay. So it would just be the natural water that falls upon a lot that's draining to the south based upon the natural contour of the land. Absolutely. Okay. Council Member Hudspeth. Thank you, Todd. I'm looking at Google Maps, and so does, I don't know how accurate this is, but there's a new power lines to the left, there's the substation to the right, and how wide is the street? Is the street going to split those two, or am I in awe? Are you talking about Hercules? Yes, sir. Sorry. So all the power lines will be to the north side of the road. So can you show me with your, where, how it aligns? So Hercules will run this way. Okay, got it. Okay, helpful. Thank you. So just for my curiosity, because I'm trying to picture all this in my mind, and this is just curiosity, doesn't have anything to do. But where Hercules comes, okay, they're stubbing out, and then Hercules is coming off heading towards the west, right there in the new subdivision? Yes, sir. I mean, not the new one, the current existing one, the Hercules on the current existing one. Oh, back over here. Yeah, right there. Where does that, where does that connect to? What roads are back there? What's the? So this does connect all the way back over to, I'm trying to remember the name, the road up top of my head. Give me one second. Eventually 77. 77? It's the main road that it comes out to. It does come out to Elm eventually. Oh, it runs out there by the OTI plan. Right, it comes and makes a 90 north and south, before it gets there. Part of what we're dealing with out there is you have a lack of good intersection control, and I need maps, sorry. Yeah, Nicosia. Okay. Nicosia, thank you. I know where you're talking, it's coming out there by the. Right, so just for lack of time, bringing it all up. Yep. There's an intersection, there's a signalized intersection at Nicosia and 77 to the south. There's nothing over here, this provides a relief route for all of this traffic in the area, especially when this is signalized. Okay, great. Council Member Hudspeth. One more time. Yep. Gives you no heartburn, that little turn to the, I guess that would be south, to connect the two streets, because it's not a straight shot out of Hercules, best I can tell. It's going to be a little. In which direction? So it's going, never eat west. Back towards Nicosia. Yes. So when you're leaving Hercules, the existing Hercules now, looking at the proposed road, it looks like it'll drop down and then. So this road right here is utilized heavily as part of what the neighborhood that borders Nicosia is dealing with is these folks go this way because that's their only way out. 277 punching Hercules back through this direction and providing a signal here actually provides a great deal of relief, because this is much closer to get here than to go all the way over to Nicosia and then down to the south. This is two ways, so they can go north or south right there at Locust, then get on 288 or they can go south back into town, it will be a relief route and take some of that traffic off in Nicosia they're currently experiencing, but we're currently. We won't open it until the signal lights there we've we've come across that, or you're saying you're going to open it before the signal. No, we'll put a signal light there about the same time they finish up with the roadway we'll have the signal there. Okay, thank you. Because Locust is a state highway, is it? Yes. So we've got to get text up. We have already got text out on that there's actually a phasing plan for that intersection so we'll go with temporary signals early on. We'll have the span wires and wood poles, but there is a plan for as more development comes in the area that we would add left turn lanes right turn lanes and put in a more permanent signal at that point. But that's not required with these two developments. Not with these two developments, they don't warn it based on their traffic study, they did do a TIA, it doesn't warn it and that's one of the things that we worked with text on is as other developments come online, that would be potentially part of their impact fees. A potential credit is them to come upgrade those intersections. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff, Councilmember Briggs, you may have said it and I just didn't hear you, when is, when would be the timing of the light at that intersection, it will be in by the time the roadways complete. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff. Seeing none. Chair would entertain action on this item. Councilmember husband. I move approval. Mayor pro tem. Second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item five be let's vote on the board please. Motion carries seven zero, moving on to our public hearings, public hearings, agenda item six, a and six me are not being considered at this time is that correct. All right. So we'll move on to agenda item six see, which is hold a public hearing consider adoption of the ordinance of the city of Denton Texas amending ordinance 2000 dash 007 to provide for an amendment to the concept plan and approval of a detailed plan for plan development to depict a single family residential development on approximately 78 acres. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. So the public hearing is now open we'll hear presentation from staff. Good evening I'm Julie Wyatt. And I am presenting PDA 18 one to you this evening. Kings Ridge. So the request before us to hold a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance regarding a general concept plan amendment and a detailed plan approval for plan development 115. The subject property is about 78 acres. Located on the north side of town, adjacent to Bonnie Bray, south of the loop and Highway 77 Elm Street. So we don't generally see PDs within the city of Denton into that in the 2002 didn't development code. They did not bring PDs forward, except for 15 specific PDs. So we look to the 1991 code in order for the administration of PDs. The 1991 code defined PDs is something that generally encourages flexible and creative planning to ensure compatibility of uses and superior design amenities open space and environmental or historic preservation. They were generally a two step process. So first you had the general concept plan. That was kind of the broad outline of the PD. It outlined the permitted uses, maybe the general locations of those uses, the boundaries of that PD. That stays in effect and the general concept plan doesn't expire. The second step of a PD is the detail plan. And that really gets into the specificity of the development. It can lay out specifically where the roads are, what the buildings may look like, what the site design is. Those do expire 24 months after approval. So today we're actually looking as part of the request, we're looking at both of those steps, both the general concept plan as well as the detail plan. So before we get to that, we'll just take a brief look at the background of PD 115. So it was originally approved in 1986. It was rather large. It encompassed all of this area plus property to the north. You may remember a recent rezoning case that actually zoned that property to the north of this subject property out of PD 115. So in 1986, the general concept plan was approved. It was for a mixed use development. The general concept plan was modified in 2000 to reallocate the uses. There were two detailed plans approved for the single family uses, one in the year 2000 and one in 2006. Both of those have expired. So briefly, that 2000 general concept plan that is currently under, is still in effect. We'll look at it, we're looking at this general area right here. You may be aware that Denton High School has acquired the property to the south of this subject request. So this general property right here, so we're not actually looking at that today. You'll actually probably see something coming forward fairly soon on that. But the general concept plan for the subject property included single family uses. They had some areas of 5,000 square foot lots, generally in this area and this area. They also had 7,000 square foot lots in the center. Multi-family was proposed for the north part of the property and then commercial and office uses adjacent to Bonnie Bray. So as part of this new proposal, the applicant is requesting amendment to that general concept plan to only permit single family uses at a maximum density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre, minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet with those lot dimensions of 50 by 100. Setbacks that are fairly consistent with what we see in the Denton Development Code and single family developments and a maximum lot coverage of 60%. So the second step. Just go back to the last slide. And it's really not that late. So I don't know what I'm confused about something. Minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. Minimum lot dimensions is 50 by 100. So they couldn't have a 50 by 100 lot. They couldn't. They would either have to have something larger in width or larger in depth. We're also looking at a proposed detail plan amendment, and this gets into more specificity about what they're proposing. Just broadly, the detail plan amendment outlines the administration of the PD, the uses and dimensions, mobility, open space. They're proposing a minimum of 13.38 acres as well as buffers, landscaping, perimeter fencing, and design. So we wanted to kind of compare what they're proposing versus what a development could do under the current Denton Development Code under an NR4 zoning district. Under NR4, the maximum density is four dwelling units per acre. They're proposing the 3.6. The Denton Development Code doesn't have any minimum open space for single family developments. They are proposing that open space area. We also don't have any requirements for perimeter fencing along arterials. They're proposing masonry wood and ornamental metal in various locations along the arterials. Tree canopy and open space, not something we require within the Denton Development Code. They are proposing an average of 40% canopy in their open space, and that's a combination of tree plantings and preservation. They're proposing entry monuments, off-street trails, 600 feet of all-weather off-street trails, minimum masonry requirements, not something we have in the Denton Development Code. They are proposing 70%. Also perimeter street trees along arterials and neighborhood street trees, and then they're right of way with it would be consistent with current engineering requirements. So here is a map of what they're proposing. This is the detailed plan that they're proposing. You can see there's a central area of open space. There's also some additional open space on the southern edge, as well as buffers along the perimeter. It shows that the locations, more specific locations of where those internal streets. They're also proposing some traffic calming, particularly on those longer streets to make sure that they're safe for pedestrians. We got a couple questions. Sorry, Councilmember Briggs. On the open space, is that ESA? Is that an ESA? They will have to do an ESA. It's not currently on our ESA map, but they will have to do all of the investigation. If this concept plan and detailed plan is approved, they would then have to go through and make sure that they're complying with all ESA regulations and all drainage regulations. Okay. Thank you. I had a question about the previous slide. I think maybe it was the one before. Yeah, that one. So just so I understand, take the entry monument. That means just some sort of structure at the opening of the, yeah. So currently, none means there's no requirement, but it doesn't mean it's prohibited. Correct. Now, so they want to change it to up to four. Does that mean you have to have, does that mean there's a minimum of one and a maximum of four, or can you have none? They are proposing to have the monuments as kind of an entrance feature, both on Bonnie Bray and on that southern arterial. They've proposed up to four. They have indicated that they're going to put, at least they want to put four. So that's what they've indicated. Yeah, so that's not, it's not, so none of these things are violating the current zoning. Correct. Yeah, okay. Correct. I wanted to make sure, especially about that, that the entry monument, that it wasn't changing, that it wasn't saying that from this point on, you know, in this site, there has to be a minimum of one. They would just, they have a maximum of up to four. Correct. Exactly, maximum of four is the, okay, thanks. You bet. Thanks for helping me understand it. Council Member Bouncer. Thanks, Julie. You talked here about the percentage of tree canopy in the open area. What does the profile look like as far as tree preservation, if you look at the site as a whole? They haven't gone as far as, they haven't gotten into the specific details about their tree preservation plan and their tree survey on the site. So their intent, by my discussions with them, and we'll just, we'll skip ahead, is the areas that are within open space to preserve those areas, and they will have to meet tree preservation requirements. So even if it's outside of the open space, they would have to meet those tree preservation requirements. But to maintain that 40% as a combination of preservation and plantings within those open space areas. So the same tree preservation requirements apply even within this special district? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So I have a question on this map here, because you'd mentioned that right now, currently, let me back up. The little blue part there, which represents, I assume, a detention pond of some kind or something like, what is that? That is, so you could see right here, there's actually an existing pond there. It's really showing that existing pond, and they do intend to use that open space area for drainage. Okay. But you said it's not currently identified on any ESA maps. Is that, was that correct? It is not currently shown on our ESA maps to be an ESA, but they would have to do an ESA assessment as they move forward with development. When you say they, that means they provide information to staff, go out and confirm that, or how does all that work? They could do one of two ways. They could just make an application that would give staff permission to go out there, out to the site, look for the biological markers that indicate an ESA is present, and then also the limits of that ESA. Or they could hire their own consultant to do that work, and then we would review that and make sure that it met the requirements. So then it's my understanding, because I thought wherever there's usually water, either drainage or a creek or a pond or something, that that usually typically is indicative of some kind of ESA somewhere, either the drainage channel to get to the pond or leaving the pond. So then that's not a rule that I need to, I mean, that's not necessarily accurate. Well, that is, you know, that's my shorthand as well, when you typically see water that you assume there's an ESA. I don't know, I know our ESA maps are conceptual, that they're based upon kind of that moment in time. And so that on the ground assessment is really important to ascertain whether it is in fact an ESA. You know, ESAs can regenerate if left alone to grow. I think we have our ESA expert here in-house, just by coincidence. So if you want to come down and just give us a brief sort of understanding of, you've heard our questions. Good evening, Deb Revere, Environmental Services. Most of the PDs were pre-existent before the development code was adopted. Therefore, many of them were not subject to the ESA regulations. However, because the amendments that they're making, now they will have to be full compliant. So we will review it and make either do the assessment for them, or we will review assessment for their consultant. Okay, good. That's very helpful. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Clearing that up. I see that the requests, the request to speaks are still showing up. So y'all don't, do y'all, okay. All right. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Yeah, that's all right. Go ahead. I'm sorry. All right, so we'll get down in the nitty gritty in the landscape. Well, first of all, this is just a general overview of the proposed landscape plan. We'll zoom in on some specific areas. So on the south edge of the property, as I said before, the Denton High School is proposed to go on that south part of the property. And so we were really sensitive to that edge. We wanted to make sure that there was a buffer and that there was some transitioning and screening for the traffic that's going to come in and out of Denton High School. So as part of that, they are proposing a minimum 15-foot landscape buffer. Some areas are thinner than would get larger in these areas. As part of that perimeter, they are proposing fencing on the 15-foot areas, so wood fencing with masonry columns in these general areas that would be on the sides of residential lots, and then ornamental metal fencing where there's a larger open space to preserve those views. They are proposing street trees every 45 linear feet at a rate of every 45 linear feet. They are proposing to potentially cluster those for a more natural setting. Monument entry signs, as we discussed earlier. Turf or native grasses and landscape beds. They're also proposing some berms, particularly in these larger areas, once again to minimize the visual impacts of traffic from the high school. And then a sidewalk. So is there going to be a road there on that side? There will be, yes, sir. But we don't know who's going to be responsible for that, or that's something the school district and the developer are going to have to work out? Yes, sir. They would have to improve the perimeter street on their side. Along Bonny Bray, there's proposed to be a 20-foot landscape buffer with, once again, street trees at a rate of every 45 feet that could be clustered in order to provide a natural look. A perimeter fence of a 6-foot masonry wall along that arterial. Monument entry sign in about this location. And then turf or native grasses, as well as a sidewalk. And then the internal open space areas are proposed to have some all-weather trails, five seating areas made of natural stone, a shade structure, dogway stations, tree preservation, street trees per one for every 50 linear feet, and then one tree per residential lot. Councilmember Briggs had a question. I want to clarify that Westgate will stay closed as we're talking about the entrances. And I didn't see it on there as a way to exit, but the two exits I saw were on the road that they're going to have to pave. Is that correct? They actually, I spoke, because that was a question that came up at Planning and Zoning Commission. So typically in a development, a developer only improves those streets that are adjacent to their site. Because of all of the impacts, particularly the Denton High School, I spoke with Engineering, and they are looking at solutions to close this piece, because they believe they're going to need the connectivity for this road, so that this road will connect and go to the access road of I-35. It will not, however, connect to this Westgate. So this neighborhood will not be connected. Okay. Thank you. Connection to Westgate. I just wanted to make sure that the one through that area was going to be. We have some street naming, because this street is named Westgate, and it was, this is Westgate, and this is Riney. So I'm not really sure how it's all going to be named, but it won't be connected to that neighborhood. Okay. Thank you very much. These are some examples of the houses that they are proposing. As far as the design of the houses, they're proposing to comply with the parking requirements of four spaces, two in the garage and then two on a parking or on a driveway. In the PD, they also have embedded architectural variety. Any attached front entry garages will need to be constructed of wood, synthetic wood, or stained fiberglass to look like wood. Once again, they're proposing the 70% masonry, and then 50% of the front yard would need to be landscaped. The criteria for approval is something that we look to the 91 code for. The criteria for approval for the general concept plan has one criteria, and that is, is it in harmony with the plan for the entire district? As we talked about earlier, PD 115 was intended to be a large mixed use development with commercial office and residential uses. Although this proposed amendment narrows the permitted uses, the PD has actually shrunk to a smaller size. The surrounding zoning really is maintaining the mix of uses, so it's really maintaining the intent of that PD. The proposal is an extension of that land use pattern that was established prior that it's just really an extension of those single family uses. The detail plan has four criteria for approval. Does it comply with the general concept plan? Yes, this detail plan does comply with the proposed general concept plan. Does it provide for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties outside the plan? This is intended to be kind of a clustered single family development that's oriented inward toward that common open space. They're proposing buffers along those arterials to separate the development from the adjacent properties and those traffic impacts. And as I said before, it's not connecting to that nearby single family residential neighborhood, so it wouldn't create traffic impacts for that group. Does it provide adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic? They're intending to comply with all engineering regulations for the streets, and they're also proposing traffic calming. And is it in substantial compliance with the landscape signs, subdivision, and other regulations of the city, or if not, does it offer corresponding benefits? The 1998 landscape code required essentially 15 trees per acre, and that included both preservation and planting. So in our discussions with the applicant and applying that '98 code, they're proposing a 40% average canopy in all those open spaces, which exceeds what the current code requires, and one tree per residential lot, as well as street trees along the internal and perimeter streets. Mobility is a big question in the area because of so much going on. You have this proposed development, potential commercial development along the loop, the Denton High School, other residential developments, there's a regional park, there's the UNT property. So the applicant, as a part of this request, provided some trip generation analysis. They actually assumed a larger development of 350 dwellings. Those 350 dwellings were anticipated to generate about 3,300 trips per day, AM peak hour of 230, and PM peak hour 338. In order to accommodate this, as well as the surrounding developments, there are proposed improvements to Bonnie Bray, from university to north of the loop, that includes capacity, storm, water, safety, and utility relocations. It's intended to be a four-lane divided arterial. It's currently under design, so engineering doesn't know the final alignment yet. But the target construction beginning date is late next year, and the target completion is late 2021 in order to coincide with the opening of the Denton High School. Notification for the request was sent out. We haven't received any responses. They also did have a neighborhood meeting. It was attended by some people, and really, their questions seem to be centered on what are you proposing. So the applicant discussed with them what their proposal was. So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of the request, with the condition that it conform to the general concept plan, the detailed plan, the landscape plan, and text that we went over tonight that was in your backup. And I'll stand for any questions. And the applicant is here. I have opened the public hearing. Is there anybody, don't have any blue cards, but you don't need a blue card for the public hearing? If there's anybody like to speak on this agenda item, please come down, state your name, address, and your time will begin. I know, twice in one night. Diana Leggett, 1019 Eileen. I'm a wildlife rehabilitator for the state of Texas. This area is where I used to release a lot of our native indigenous wildlife. So I would just implore you to please bring in a wildlife biologist. I know there's sensitive areas there. That whole area was, we had everything from fox to burrowing owls to all kinds of incredible creatures. So just please, from my heart to yours, be considerate with this space. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Warren Corwin, Corwin Engineering, and I'm here representing the applicant or the owner tonight. So Julie did a wonderful job of giving the presentation. I'm not going to rehash what she went over. I'll be glad to answer any questions, but just give you a quick snapshot of what we've gone through. A year ago this November, we submitted our initial application for 230 acres, and we're excited about having a 230 acre development. A couple weeks later, we got thrown a curveball from the DISD saying they wanted to purchase a portion of the property. So after that went through its cycle, we ended up with the north one-third of the property, which is the boundary of Westgate Drive. We, as Julie said, we had in our existing zoning, what we could have done was multifamily commercial and single family. We felt the better use for that multifamily commercial would be north of our property, which borders the loop and Highway 77. And then we would have a transition of single family between that district and the school district. So that's kind of the evolution of how we came to our plan. So I just want to give you an idea of our thought process on where we are today. Do you have an idea of what the starting price of your homes will be? I don't, but one of the owners. And also just to the previous speaker, we're all aware of all the habitat for the wildlife that are on the property. Is that part of why there's open space? Well, the open space, we had a consultant come in and we had to do a Waters of the US determination. And that stream section through there with the pond is Waters of the US. So we're going to leave that area natural and enhance it with trails and the items that Julie mentioned. Sure. But yeah, it's the pond is going to stay and we're going to leave it and it's try to leave it as natural as we can and still be a benefit to the community. Good evening, Mayor and Council Jack Dawson since you're in American Development 1800 Valley View Lane farmers branch 75234 to answer Ms Briggs question is currently the lots are not under contract with any builder, but what we're anticipating is somewhere between 1600. To start square foot to, you know, 2900 3000 something like that area. And then the price point probably around the start to 40 to 35 to 40 and get up, you know, the low 300s. So on. Sure. So do you do you plan for some lots to be bigger than others. Well, you're going to have some that are bigger anyway, but then, you know, the minimum correct me if I'm wrong is 50 by 120 is what is the typical. Okay, we'll have some that some that are bigger. Thank you. So I have a question for either one of you gentlemen or maybe even for staff. I know that in the criteria in the conditions or your proposal is 80% masonry 70% 70% Yeah, no, no, that's fine. We can make it. I'm just kidding. 70% and the photo show on the sort of elevations examples not that you're held to those elevations but that most of the front is masonry that we think of as brick, but I so I don't know if our code defines cement fiber board as masonry. And or stucco as masonry so that's that's a question I have. And or, if you are saying that the 70% masonry as far as you're concerned, is what we typically think amazing that's brick is that is that sort of what you're thinking about because that's what was depicted in the photos was primarily brick. Well, we're, we're thinking 70% overall but if I'm not mistaken, any masonry over would, or is, is some kind of hardy plank side. So, cementitious siding would be considered masonry as well as, as, as stucco. Okay. And so that leads me to sort of the thrust of my question is that the photo show your typical brick for masonry on the on the front elevations, and if it's 70% masonry. What I what I wouldn't want to do is say we're going to approve a 70% masonry. And since cement fiber board and stucco is considered masonry that there's hardly any brick on any of these homes and there's there's cement fiber board and Mason and stucco. Does that make sense. Yes. What our antennas is either brick or stone, but if there's anything above, above the 70 above the wood. It would be, it could be a hardy plank material above the wood meaning like above a garage door that's recessed in, or where those elevations. I don't know how to do this. Is there a way to zoom in on that is there a way to enlarge that picture. This one right here. Because I can't really see. What our antenna is to kind of show you is, is, you know, this would be masonry, but then up, up here, right, it's recessed in, there's really no play no way to no no I understand that yes no I get that the intent is to, you know, have brick or so all the facades that are sort of, I'm going to say connected to the ground, but I mean, if you're building straight up, you have some continuity there, like over the garage, you can put your angle iron and put your brick on but if you're sort of isolated in some portion of the roof or something else, where it's not surrounded by, yeah, and that's why I wanted to ask that question because your elevations sort of indicate and illustrate primarily brick or stone, and then in some dormers or something like that you might have some wood trim because you can't really get brick or stone up there, I mean, realistically in the construction process. Okay. Okay. That's I just wanted to clarify that. Okay, any other questions for the applicant. Oh, Councilmember Duff. We're not saying that you can use that 70% cannot be Hardy board right. I mean, I'm pretty familiar with that and that's, that's not brick or stucco. And I can tell you that if you don't have it excluded you'll have somebody come in there and and build with with Hardy board and I don't think that's what you want. No, no, we want. Yeah, so you should basically this is a fair representation of what we're expecting through the HOA docs and so forth. Yeah, you can you can. Yeah. Yes. So would you have any opposition to in the 70% masonry condition of that being brick or stone. That that being defined as brick or stone and then on the other 30% you do whatever I mean you do masonry you do Hardy board you can do it, it would it be okay to include that in the, would you be okay with us including that in the condition. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, any other questions for staff or not staff or applicant and owner. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing, anybody else wishing to speak. Please come down state your name and address and your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak. One more call. Right, we will now close the public hearing. Councilmember Hudson. I move approval. I would like to ask if that includes that condition that the masonry is 70% masonry is brick and stone. Reluctantly yes. In that case I second. Okay. All right. That's so let me repeat the motion motion is for approval of staff recommendations or recommendations of PNC, we had some recommendations on there. In addition to the masonry requirement of 70% being restricted to brick or stone for that 70%. That is correct. Okay. All right. We have a motion in a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Oh, I didn't know if that was for you. Okay. No, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, if we'll pull the vote back off and then Councilmember has a few comments. Yeah, just wanted to say I appreciate the applicant because we've all been involved in land deals, and for them to work with the school district in such a way to get this in front of us so fast is commendable, because that is a tough process when you have a plan and that gets derailed a bit. And I appreciate the fact that this will ensure around the high school we don't have similar multifamily to do or not to do down the road I think it gives us a solid base on that north side of the school to work from that allows us to have a good continent continuity and those kids will hopefully eventually go to the high school I think it'll be a great development for that area. Thank you, sir. Okay. Any other questions. Yes. I couldn't push here so no no you're good. Yeah. Will there be sidewalks within the community. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I think that that answered. All right. Any other questions I can't see if you've requested to speak because the vote is up on the board so anybody else wishing to speak. Okay, let's go ahead and vote then. Motion carries seven zero. Thank you, gentlemen. Moving on to agenda item D, which is hold a public hearing and consider adoption of the ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas approving a specific use permit to allow 70 foot monopole monopole tower with a 10 foot lightning rod. I want Julie before. Before you start. Let's see what. Yeah, we've been doing that. Let's go ahead and take a really quick break. We've been going for about it. Sorry, I don't know what I'm saying. Welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on December the 18th 2018 it is 747. We're moving on to our agenda item D. I've called it but I'll call it again hold a public hearing consider adoption of the ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas approving a specific use permit to allow a 70 foot monopole tower with a 10 foot lightning rod. So as the mayor mentioned this is a request to hold a public hearing and consider approval of the ordinance for a specific use permit to allow a freestanding monopole tower and associated equipment room on the property you see outlined in black on the map. It's located at 816 frame Street. So with an issue P as you've seen many times before we do have a compatibility analysis that's required by our criteria for approval. So we look at compatibility between the proposed use and surrounding properties, and that includes rather or not this would impede the development of surrounding properties, whether it would have adequate parking and access, whether there'd be any nuisances that would require prevention or abatement there and then is there appropriate architecture landscaping and screening. In addition, our code does have some wireless telecommunication requirements that were also analyzed for this request. So looking at what's proposed here, you'll notice this is a site plan for an existing self storage warehouse facility on frame Street, the property or the pole location would be within this red circle. There are three existing units here that would be removed to accommodate this pole as well as the associated backup power generator and equipment. Looking at a little more detail here you can see how that would be laid out with the pole on the end and then this would be the generator location and then other equipment. The pole itself would be 70 feet tall, and then there would be a lightning antenna on on the top of the tower that's estimated to be about 10 feet. Looking at the compatibility of this, the site is, as I mentioned already developed with a self storage facility it is adjacent to a railroad track so it's separated from frame Street and the homes across there also by this railroad right of way. This location would minimize any potential nuisances as well as minimize the visibility of the equipment associated with this tower. The code does require a setback at a three to one scale based on the height of the tower so they are meeting that 210 foot separation from any single family use. Notices were sent regarding this request, we did receive two responses in favor from the properties that are shown in green on the map. The required public hearing signs were posted on the property along their two frontages on a frame and Paisley Street and the planning and zoning commission as well as staff recommend approval of this request. I'm happy to stand for any questions. Any questions for staff or open the public hearing. Councilmember Meltzer. I'm just curious with the nature of the favorable comments where is it because their cell phone coverage would improve or. I don't recall any specifics on there, I apologize, stepping in for Cindy Jackson who was ill today. I can certainly look through the material and see what those specific comments were. We'll find it later, not that critical, but curious. Councilmember Briggs. Does it generate any noise? My understanding is that the generator, the backup generator would only be used in a power outage and it would have about 60 decibel level as the noise which is kind of an average conversation level. Very, very low level wouldn't likely be heard from any surrounding properties. But other than that, there's no other kind of. Not that I'm aware of. Nuisance, frequency, vibration, any kind of weird. No, not that I'm aware of. Councilmember Duff. Is this going to be a 5G or do you know? I'm not aware of that. The applicant is here with the presentation as well to provide more of those specific details. Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff? Thank you very much. We'll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak, please come down, state your name and address. Your time will begin. Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Kayla Bryson. I'm with Vincent Gerard and Associates representing Verizon Wireless. To answer, let's see, the people who supported the tower, they didn't have any comments. They just said they were not opposed. I have those right here from the last meeting. And yes, this will be a 5G site. So I'll run through this quickly. Please stop me if you have any questions. Again, this is the location of it. It's a very good location. This is just a close-up showing the 210-foot radius going around the proposed tower. This is a capacity site. There are other sites in the vicinity. And coverage is pretty good in this location. However, with the exponential growth that's happening and everybody using, you know, navigation, the weather, everybody using their smartphones now, this is going to offload capacity at our other existing sites. And they are just working constantly, trying to keep up with the future demand growth. Right now, this is all the green. That is all in building coverage. And that's what we want nowadays. So you can see there's a little bit of yellow here. And that really needs to be addressed, especially for the university. So with this site, I know it doesn't seem like there's too much of a difference, but it really will help improve. And as I said, it'll take off, you know, it'll offload the capacity of the surrounding towers, which are identified with these little black circles there. These are showing the other cell towers in the area. And as Haley stated, you know, we meet every bit of the code, the unified development code here. It'll be inside the facility. And it's a really nice storage facility. If you haven't seen it, we've got a couple of photos here. So that's the entrance. And then that's a really nice screening wall that they have around the property. And then just another one showing the radius, not meeting any residential homes. So any questions, any questions for the applicant representative? Councilmember Duff. Yeah, this is a 5G. Does that mean you're going to be putting in the the local smaller? The small cells. Yeah, the small cell. Honestly, I'm not sure what their plans are for small cells. I haven't worked on those. Well, those small cells will only reach about a thousand feet, though. But this is a much bigger tower. Right. Okay. I can find out and get back to you. Yeah, I'm interested in that because, you know, the way I understand it is those small towers are going to be put around everywhere and they're all going to talk to each other. And, you know, but it's going to take a lot of them. Yeah, this is a yeah, this is a we're getting close to outside of posting. Councilmember Meltzer. Not a question, just to comment that, you know, if you got to have something like this, it's hard to think of a better location than the middle of a storage facility across railroad tracks. You know, I think. Right. I feel good about it. Councilmember Armitage. So the wall will be visible to people driving down Mingo, right? Well, the wall, this one, this is what's surrounding the storage facility. So when you look at this picture, this is the entrance. So you won't be able to see anything from the public right away. Oh, I see. So that's the wall that's already there. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thanks. Councilmember Briggs. So will the maintenance be done by Verizon? Yes, ma'am. Maybe once a month, maybe twice. Okay. So not many trips generated. Okay. And if it's no longer in use, will you come back and remove it? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any other speakers for this agenda item? This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to come down, state your name and address. Your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Councilmember Melser. I move approval. Mayor Pro Tem. I second. Okay. We have a motion to second. Let's vote on the board, please. Excuse me. Motion carries 7-0. Moving on to agenda item E, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of the ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, approving a specific use permit to allow quick vehicle servicing with conditions in suite number 110 and 111 of a self-storage facility located at 2820 Virginia Circle. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. All right. Good evening. So to continue the trend, another SUP for a self-storage facility. This particular request is a little different in nature. The request is for an SUP that would allow for quick vehicle servicing within two suites of an existing self-storage and office building. The property is outlined in yellow on the map. It's located at 2820 Virginia Circle, which is just south of University Drive. Looking at the site plan for this facility, as I mentioned, it is existing and has been in place for a couple of decades now. The majority of the property here is self-storage. However, this front building was built with the intent of housing 10 office and warehouse suites. The two that are in question tonight are outlined here in blue. And then the parking for this, the office and warehouse portion of the site is located here. Some parallel parking along their frontage accommodates 12 parking spaces. So a little bit of history. The site was plotted and developed in 1985. In 2002, this property was rezoned as part of the citywide rezoning from commercial to neighborhood residential mixed use. In 2010, a CO was approved to allow for retail sales of automotive electronics in suite 110. And then also in 2010, a CO was denied for an auto repair use in suite 111. However, subsequently, a CO was approved that designated the site for office only. Since this case has been in processing, the original occupant of suite 111 has actually vacated the site and it's now, both suites are occupied by the tenant from, originally from suite 110 only, which is Haney's Auto. In 2017, a complaint was received about the auto repair facility operating without a CO. And over that past year, through investigation with our CIS department and then eventually coming to development services, we've landed here trying to remedy that issue by getting the SUP. So to give you a little bit further background, these were some photos that were taken during a site visit in February of earlier this year. As you can see, there were substantial parking issues on site. All of the parking spaces at the front were occupied on this particular day. It was their understanding from speaking with people on site that those were all vehicles there for the auto repair use. You can also see overflow parking was being accommodated at that time on an adjoining lot that's graveled. And just a couple of other angles here showing the parking and then these two end units are the ones that are in question, the auto repair facilities. These are follow-up photos that were taken November 28th, which was actually the date of their P&Z hearing. So this originally went before P&Z in October. At that time, the P&Z commissioners had substantial concerns about the parking on site and how that could be rectified since the site is fully developed and there's not room on site to accommodate additional parking. The applicant, well, one of the applicants, Mr. Haney, did willingly postpone his case for a month to see what he could do to rectify that issue. And it was in that interim time that the one tenant vacated the premises and Mr. Haney took over the additional suite. So you can see from these photos, the on-site parking is now limited just in front of their units and the off-site parking has been entirely cleared up. As we just mentioned on our last case for an SUP, there are several criteria for approval that primarily deal with any nuisance generation and consistency with development of the surrounding properties. So we'll now go through those in a little bit more detail. You can see from the zoning on the side. Haley, Councilmember Briggs has a question real quick. Yes, sorry. The off-site parking, does that belong to the storage facility or is it a private lot? I mean, who is that, who does it actually belong to to use? It's my understanding it's privately owned by a different entity, not anyone associated with the self-storage facility. Okay, thank you. All right, so the zoning for the property is neighborhood residential mixed use. So quick vehicle repair is only permitted with an SUP within this district, which is why we're before you tonight. As I mentioned earlier, the site was developed in 1985. It does not currently conform to the standards of the NRMU district. So at that time, for example, there weren't standards that dictated the maximum lot coverage. So the site is currently non-conforming for lot coverage, as well as the use and the parking, as we've discussed. Another one of our criteria refers us to the Denton Plan 2030. So this particular site has a future land use designation of community mixed use. That does promote a variety of commercial sites so that these particular uses are not necessarily out of compliance with that designation. The types of uses and scale of development within NRMU do generally conform to the goals of the community mixed use designation. Looking at surrounding properties, existing land around the site is undeveloped on several sides. So you can see here on the aerial, the area that was that gravel lot is located here for reference. So it's surrounded by undeveloped sites, and then this landscaped area or natural area to the south is actually a common area for the Audre Heights development. So that buffer is located there between these uses currently. Notices were set regarding this request. We've received no responses in favor or opposition to this case. They did post the required sign along Virginia Drive. And November 28, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of this request, subject to several conditions. Their first recommended condition was that a new certificate of occupancy for the correct use, quick vehicle servicing, be applied for and approved. The second one is that the specific use permit would be limited to quick vehicle servicing operations by Mr. Chris Haney within the two particular suites that we've discussed tonight. That's suite 110 and 111. The third criteria is that the specific use permit would be limited to the use description and floor plan that were provided in Exhibits 10 and 11 of your backup. Fourth would be the overnight outdoor storage of automobiles be prohibited. And the fifth condition would be that no more than two customer vehicles per each business be parked in the parking spaces in front of the building during business hours. And staff, actually in discussing this today, we did recommend perhaps that that be changed to suite since it currently is one business, just to clarify that condition. And I'm happy to stand for any questions. So has the applicant been familiarized with the recommendations and okay with them all? Yes, these were the criteria that staff had recommended at PNC with a few minor rewordings through our consultations with legal, but they are aware of these conditions and seemed in agreement. And I believe Mr. Haney is here this evening. Why is overnight outdoor storage of automobiles prohibited under their recommendation? The intent there was just to clear up the parking out in front of the buildings, allow the other tenants in that area to have parking available to them. And overnight vehicle storage is generally not permitted for most uses in the city, so they would pull those inside. It's my understanding they can accommodate up to five vehicles inside the building. Thanks. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you. I have opened the public hearing. So the public hearing is now open. Anybody wishing to speak, please come down, state your name and address. Your time will begin. Anybody wishing to speak? Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, Council, Chris Haney, business address 2020 Virginia Circle Suite 110. Really, I just came down here to answer any questions you might have that you're not familiar with. Really, there's not much to speak on other than the fact that as you saw the first pictures, there was a lot of cars. The land adjacent is owned by Billy Stevens. I had a rental agreement with him to use the land to keep all the yard mode, all the land itself mode and up to code for the city so that there was no city violations. I was able to park there with permission on the gravel, off the grass, as long as I kept everything mode. That was our understanding. A lot of the cars did belong to the former tenant of 111. So with him leaving, basically he was running a repair facility too. When he left, I bought him out. So all the tools and everything that was in that facility became mine and I'm renting that as well just because I didn't know where this was going to go. There is room for nine vehicles inside the building. So with him gone and with the way I'm using 111 to store cars, we can fit nine vehicles inside the building. There shouldn't be any vehicles parked out front overnight. If there is anything out overnight, maybe somebody breaks down at midnight, they call a tow truck, have it towed. It would be put in one of those parking spots until in the morning. Basically, I think that's all I wanted to clarify and clear up in case you have any questions. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Seeing none. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Why does it keep doing this? Okay. Did you have a question for the applicant? For staff. Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak on this public hearing? Come down. Please state your name and your address. Seeing no movement, we will now close the public hearing. Council Member Melser. Yes, Haley. Are there any other businesses operating out of the self-storage facility or is the rest of it all self-storage? It's my understanding the front building here is all occupied by small businesses, offices and other things. The self-storage is all located in those, I believe it's five back buildings that are located horizontally on the site. This front kind of triangular shaped building is where all the office uses are located. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Briggs. I move approval with the recommendations. Mayor Pro Tem. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval with the recommendations as proposed by I think it was staff or P&Z. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Moving on to agenda item F, hold a public hearing regarding the 2018 water and wastewater impact fee study. Well, this will be exciting. It will be exciting. I'm excited. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. My name is Kenny Banks. I'm the general manager of utilities. This is the public hearing portion of our 2018 impact fee update, and I know that it's getting late in the evening, and so I'll just move right along to introductions of John Atkins, who is with Kimley Horne, who is the consultant on this project. He's going to go through a brief presentation to just refresh everyone's memory on where we're at with the impact fees, and then staff will be here to answer any questions that you may have. Appreciate it. Yes, I'm John Atkins with Kimley Horne and Associates. Let's see here. I'll do something real quick. Make it a little bit easier. Okay, let's start out. What is an impact fee? It's a one-time charge for new development to cover a portion of costs related to specific capital improvement program necessary to accommodate future growth. The code that authorizes this is Chapter 395, the Texas Local Government Code. It was actually initiated in 1987, and it was actually sponsored by the Home Builders Association. It's required that it's updated every five years, and the City of Denton actually implemented impact fees in 1998, so this is the 20th anniversary of the program. The purpose? Facilitate growth paying for growth. Remember, we're focusing on water and wastewater utilities, and then we're talking about the facilitation of that portion of infrastructure and the growth paying for that. The update includes land use assumptions, the impact fee capital improvement plan, and then the 2018 recovery fee. Land use assumptions, the first portion. We just focus on 10 years of growth. That's required by the law. The growth projections are based on the North Central Texas Council of Governments, the COGS, and the Sending to Planning Department's projections. It utilizes the City of Denton's future land use plan, and then the growth projections are consistent with your current water and wastewater master plans. And then lastly, the boundaries for your water and wastewater are based on your CCN boundary. This is an exhibit of your current land use plan. You see the green areas on the outer parts of the city are rural areas, the yellow that you see more towards the central part are low density residential, and then the commercial is kind of the purple stuff that you see. The boundary, now we'll move on to the water specifically. The boundary here that we define is the CCN boundary. That's what's utilized to create the service area boundaries. There's three for water. They're shown here. There's service area 1A, which is the central portion of the city, 1B, which is the outer ring around that area, and then Area 2, which is more rural area to the southwest portion of the city. The summary of the population projections and the SFE or the single family equivalent or the service unit calculation for those particular areas are shown here. As you can see, service areas 1A and 1B are a little over 7,000 single family equivalent units of growth, and then service area 2 is rather small, it's about 10% of that, of those two areas totaled just 642 additional units with a total of a little over 15,000. This is what the water impact fee CIP exhibit looks like from the study. The highlighted areas are existing facilities that are in the ground today that you're able to recover fees for. That's kind of like the line you see here, and the colored projects that you see are future projects. From a cost standpoint, the total cost of those projects are valued at a little under $400 million, with about two thirds of those being existing facilities are in the ground today, and the other one third being future projects planned for the next 10 years. This is a summary condensed version of the exhibit that's in the report of the table it's a little busy to look at here. What we're illustrating is the projects, the percent utilized in 2018, how much will be utilized in 2028, the 10 year window, the difference between those two, the recoverable cost in that 10 year window and then the total project cost. $400 million that we talked about, and over the 10 year window we can, the city's eligible to recover approximately $66 million of that. I'll give you some examples of three projects we've highlighted here. I'm first going to talk about the 54 inch water transmission line, and then I'll talk about the combination of the existing water treatment plant at Ray Roberts and then the future expansion at the plant, we're going to kind of look at a little brief timeline. For the finished water, 35% of that projects utilized today, 25% is eligible for recovery in the next 10 years, and then beyond the 10 year window an additional 40% is eligible for recovery. Okay to look at the Ray Roberts existing plant today along with the future expansion, 60% of the plant is utilized today, and then 40% of the plant can be utilized over the next 10 years. The expansion of the plant hasn't been built yet so there's no recoverable value at this particular time. As we go five years into the future, we gain an additional 20% of recovery from the existing plant facility. The existing plant expansion hasn't been built yet so therefore we're still at $0. As we look at the end of the 10 year period at 2028, we're able to fully recover. We're going to fully utilize the existing plant, so we're 40% of the value is recoverable. In the five and 10 year window, the plant is designed and built in the city will utilize about 4% of that so in the 10 year window the future plant can recover about 4% of its cost with the 96% can be eligible into the future beyond the 10 year window. Okay, we'll jump to an example calculation for service area. 1A of the water to run through the calculation on how we get to a impact fee per service unit will run, I'll run through the math here that the cost of recoverable, the recoverable impact fee cost for the area for service area 1A is about $25.7 million. There's almost $9 million of financing costs for those particular projects. The utility's existing fund balance you deduct that out of the value. And then the interest earnings on the borrowed money, you deduct that out, and it comes up with a pre credit recoverable cost about almost 28 and a half million dollars. And then there is a credit for utility revenues earned during that period of time that's almost $1 million that gives you a sum of about 27 and a half million dollars that are eligible for recovery recovery over the next 10 years for service area 1A. When you divide that by the projected growth of the 7,712 additional single family equivalents or service units, you get a value of $3,569 per service unit that's eligible for recovery for that particular area, or for service area 1A. To summarize all three areas using that same exercise, here's the $35.69 we just talked about for 1A. The summary for 1B is the $53.52 and service area 2 is the $76.38. The additional information you see on here is what the eligible recovery fee number was in 2013. And the council at that particular time set the rates that you see here. We have a question, Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. Looking at this slide, the amount that area 2 has increased dramatically, recovery fee 2013 to now, in the service area 2 is only 4% of what we anticipate in growth. If you had about a 1.5% shift in where that growth actually took place, then they're back below what 1B would be in their recoverability, because you're looking at, when I did the calculations on it, based on what we're looking to collect and the number of households. 1B is $39.7 million, if that number is in the family equivalents, hit the ground, and you're only a little over 4 million, or 4.9 million, actually almost 5 million, in service area 2. How accurate are these numbers? I know they're always guesswork, but just the fact that we only anticipate 4% of our growth to be in that service area 2. We received the information from both COG and the City Planning Department on those values. I can't speak directly to why those are what they are. Obviously, it's significantly lower growth value, so that's a very small number in the denominator and the calculation. Therefore, you have an impact fee that appears significantly or calculates mathematically significantly higher, because you've got a fairly decent size capital improvement that's needed. It's kind of unique when you take a very small area and the amount of infrastructure that's needed to kind of kickstart an area can be high relative to the actual number of units that come in. An example might be, let's say you built a kind of a high-end commercial district that has a very high fire flow value. Maybe it only creates a very minimal number of service units, but you have to build significant infrastructure just for fire demand. Their domestic flow might be relatively low, so the infrastructure is not that significant, needed for just domestic. But because the fire demand is so significant, you might have the amount of infrastructure needed kind of kickstarts helping the area. But the burden falls a little bit on kind of the first users in the area, because there's such a low growth of additional units coming into the zone. And I understand that I'm just seeing the dramatic change, and based on the math I did, out of 15,000 new homes, if 274 moved into zone 2, their recovery rate should have been calculated at what 1B had. One good thing about it is if you all start seeing a significant growth over the next two to five years, you can always come back and revisit this and do the analysis and redo the numbers. Just because it's required to update every five years, you can do it every year if you hypothetically wanted to. So if you see a significant change or are concerned about those kind of things, you can definitely give direction to staff to bring it back and update that. Thank you. Councilmember Duff, do you have a question? Yes, I do. Can you go back to the first map, you know, where it defines 1A and 1B and 2? Sure. This one, yes. Good, I'm curious down here in the bottom left-hand corner, what? Okay, that's in 1B then. Okay. So it's in 1B. Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Okay. Do you want me to just kind of wrap up and -- Well, you still got to go through the -- Well, wastewater, yes. I guess it's not wrap-up. It's continue. Yes. Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and jump to the wastewater. The service area is defined by the CCN barrier area. We have a single service area, so it's a little bit simpler math. We have a growth projection of about 12,000 single-family equivalents in the area. This is an exhibit of the map. Once again, the yellow projects being existing and the colored projects you see in here being future. Summary of the cost, total project cost, about $156.5 million. Once again, we see about two-thirds existing in the ground and the other third are future projects. Summary of the similar type table, the 156 being the total, and the recoverable over the next 10 years is the 49.7 million. To give you another example project here, Project 1, it's about 40% utilized today. Over the next 10 years, we can recover another 14% of the project cost, and then beyond the 10 years, we can recover the rest, a little over 36%. And so the value, the recoverable fee for 2018 is the 47.16. Back in 2013, it was the 28.51, and the council at that particular time set the fee at 2200. So I'll have a summary of both the water and the wastewater here if you want to look at those. Here's a way you can see both on the same page. This is the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee's recommendation was to set the impact fee at the 2018 recoverable fee value. And that's it. Any questions? Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. Does Section 395 of the code that sets this up, is that how we determine that we've got a 1, a 1A, 1B, and 2, is there something in that that determines that or is that something that's arbitrary? That was done in 2013 originally. Is that right, Tim? 08. 08. Okay. So y'all have had that for 10 years now, those service areas. I couldn't speak specifically on what brought about those. I don't know if Tim or one of the groups want to elaborate on that? Is that something you need to, I mean, is that a question you have on how they originated or what? Yeah, I guess I'm just trying, as I look at the map and I see how close the 1A central is to the 2, and yet you've got stuff up on the north side that's not classified as 2, it just, to me, it just seems arbitrary. It's almost like, well, we just don't want anything here, and that's what we're going to help. Yeah, I can address that. Essentially, the central area of town was demarcated as a separate zone just in an attempt to try to lower the impact fees in that particular zone and encourage infill development. And then you had the additional remaining city and then a recognition of the very far southern portion that required a different mix of capital to get infrastructure out there. So it was really a decision to try to address both the idea of encouraging infill development and a recognition of that southern portion of the city. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, and this is a public hearing. We'll now open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this item? Please come down, state your name and address. Anybody wishing to speak? Seeing no movement, we will now close the public hearing. Councilmember Meltzer? According to homeadvisor.com, total expenses for well and septic system drilling and installation range between $5,000 and $22,500. I think this is a reasonable deal for well and septic, especially considering that the city covers, you know, for water and wastewater, especially considering the city covers all the maintenance. Average home values, immediate home values in 10 are up 9%. And our docket always seems to be full of people tripping over each other to come and develop more. So I don't think that this is an area where we need to provide a subsidy. So I move that we approve the impact fees at the full 2018 recoverable amount. As based upon the presentation of this chart here? Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Let's remember. Second. We have a motion to second. Let's vote on the board, please, for agenda item six. Motion carries six to one. Move on to agenda item six. G hold a public hearing, consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton amending the waste, the water and wastewater design criteria may have updated, etc. Open the public hearing. We've got several of these coming up. So that's it'll be a succinct presentation. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members, pretend they smoke deputy city engineer. And yes, I'll be covering under the same presentation. Next three items, items G, H and I. Let me just go ahead and call those and we'll just vote on them separately. G is hold a public hearing, adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton amending wastewater and water design criteria manual. Did I just do that? I did. H is hold a public hearing for the amending the stormwater design criteria manual and I is hold a public hearing, consider adoption of ordinance amending the standard detail drawings. All right. So a little bit of background, starting with all the criteria manuals. This evening, there are three criteria manuals. As you read out, there are three different ordinances. The first one is water wastewater criteria manual, second, the stormwater. And then last are the standard details. Each of these were updated, significant updates overhauls. Last year, October and August, we did water wastewater and standard details. And early this year, March, we did the stormwater design. We at the staff level are trying to bring these criteria manuals. These are living documents. We want to continue updating them, clarification, some editorial changes, as well as new technologies and new equipment that comes in. We want to make sure our manuals are really updated. So this is an effort to continue. Every year, we'll bring manuals and we'll make sure that they are up to date, consistent with new guidelines, new criteria. So in doing so, this is the timeline. We have to follow a public hearing process. We started with a 30-day public period back in October of '15. It went through November '15. Within that public comment period, we also held a meeting with our local chapter of engineers. About 50 consulting engineers attended that. And we discussed all the changes for the criteria manual with these engineering folks and received input from them. Next step was to take it back, make all the revisions. For the next 10 days, we did that. And then we came back for another 10-day public comment and review period between November 26 and December 7. PNZ, we presented this similar presentation back on December 12. It was last week. And here we are for our final public hearing. So moving forward, we can get this adopted and in force implemented starting the first of next year. So start with the water/wastewater. As I mentioned, there are minor editorial and clarification comments throughout the document, just real cleaning up the document. Major changes pertain to some of the piping. We're looking for higher or thicker piping casing to improve the reliability, long-term reliability. Also, we're expecting an additional coating to prevent it from corrosive soil activity. And then last, we are expecting a plan from a contractor to flush and disinfect water piping. Previously, there was a requirement, but there was no requirement to present a plan in advance. The contractor would show up without any plans. So we're making these tweaks. These are major upgrades within the criteria manual. The next one is stormwater design criteria manual. Again, minor changes, clarification throughout the document. Major paragraph that was included, and you can see on the right in red, is what was added. This more pertains to erosion control and sediment control. How best practices are used and how it references to the ice swim, the integrated stormwater management manual from COG. How some of these practices are brought forward and the current criteria manual references to that. And then last, the last criteria is the standard details. Again, minor changes, but we wanted to make sure that this is more in sync with the other criteria manuals. What standard details are essentially drawings and detailed depictions showing how connections are made for water, wastewater, or transportation cross-sections. So it pretty much ties all the criteria manual and shows standard details. We wanted to make sure they're consistent and there were some minor modifications there. I think these are all the changes if you have any questions or other staff. Council Member Briggs. Sorry. Yes, Council Member Briggs. You okay? Yeah. So on all the comments that were made, did you make changes appropriate to the public comments, or were there some that you just took and weren't able to incorporate? No, I think we made all the changes and clarifications and we were able to incorporate. What we did is we went through a whole year of collecting comments from consulting engineers as well as internal staff that was having a hard time clarifying some of the actual language. So it was more of a major effort to internally clean up the document more so than getting public input. I think we received lesser comments from the public. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? So I need to open the public hearing for all three. So we will open the public hearing for agenda item 6G, agenda item 6H, and agenda item 6I. So the public hearing is open now for those agenda items. Anybody wishing to speak on any of those agenda items? Please come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. I would just suggest people form a line and not rush the voting. Yeah, I'm concerned. Anybody else wishing to speak? If not, we will close the three public hearings for agenda item 6G, H, and I, and we will take these up on separate motions and votes. Council Member, Mayor Pro Tem Ryan. I move approval of item 6G. Council Member Briggs. Second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Agenda item 6H. Chair would entertain Mayor Pro Tem. Move approval of item 6H. Council Member Briggs. Second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. And then on to our last public hearing item, agenda item I, 6I, Mayor Pro Tem. I'll just make it a trio. I move approval of item 6I. Council Member Briggs. And over here to the festive ones. We'll just wrap this up with a second. Okay. Got you. All right. Yeah. We have a motion to second for agenda item 6I. Let's vote on the board, please. I guess I should hit. I'm just sitting here looking at it. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes our items for public hearing because agenda item 6J has been postponed. Did I miss something? It was postponed from November 6th. Oh, gotcha. Okay. I'm sorry. No, we just move on. I mean, forget it. We're going to move on. Okay. We're going to go ahead and go then to agenda item 6J. I'm just seeing postponed. Hold the public hearing considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton amending the Denton Development Code specifically to update the zoning amendment procedure. All right. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting DCA 18.5 tie vote procedure. The request is to hold a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance regarding proposed revision to the Denton Development Code specifically to update the planning and zoning commission procedures as they relate to motions resulting in a tie vote. So as you may remember, there was a rezoning case over the summer that resulted in a tie vote. In that case, the city council rules of procedure in the code of ordinances applies and that's section 229. That matter is voted on by a city council which end in a tie vote shall automatically be placed on a subsequent council agenda until a full council is present. So this rule applies to the planning and zoning commission. In that particular case, that tie vote resulted from a recusal. So there was a permanent voting block of six members and four votes and either the affirmative or negative weren't possible. So it was essentially immobilized. City council looked at this issue at the September 11th work session and at that time there were four options presented. First, there could be no action or the second, remove tie vote provision for all boards and commissions including the city council. The third would be to remove the tie vote provision for all boards and commissions excluding city council. And the fourth option was to, the most targeted option was just to amend the Denton Development Code to address only the planning and zoning commission to allow cases to move forward as a denial. As you're all aware, if a planning and zoning commission recommends denial on a request requiring a public hearing, a super majority is required at city council. So six out of seven members would be required to approve that request. Because the planning and zoning commission didn't, the intent was to move forward with language that because the planning and zoning commission didn't have four votes in the negative, that the super majority requirement wouldn't be in effect. So on October 24th, staff brought forward the language upon council's direction and that language was any motion resulting in a tie vote of the commission would be automatically deemed a denial recommendation to be forwarded to city council for a final decision. Such tie vote is not subject to city code section 2-29. The denial shall not require a three-fourth vote of all members of the city council qualified to vote. PNZ had concerns about the broad application of this language. They felt like the amendment should be targeted to cases where there is a recusal or a long-term absence. They were worried about that broad application. Staff went back and looked at the concerns again as well as the planning and zoning concerns and how to approach this. You know, we looked at those cases where there's that long-term absence and we felt like we kept, there were too many what ifs. Well, what if one member was out one, you know, for two meetings and then they came back and the next member, it could really go down a long road of what ifs. So we looked at focusing mainly on process. We felt like that was the more logical approach. So the new language as proposed is after closing the public hearing, should a majority of voting commissioners fail to recommend either approval or denial of the proposed amendment or approval of a modified amendment, the staff is directed to place the matter for a vote on the next available planning and zoning commission agenda as an item for individual consideration. A second failure of a majority of voting commissioners to recommend either approval or denial or approval of a modified amendment, such shall be deemed a recommendation to deny approval of any amendment. Such failure is not subject to City Code Section 2-29 and shall not require three-fourths vote of all members of City Council. So this is just an illustration of what that means. So the proposed change would be applicable to all cases that follow that zoning amendment procedure and how it would work is if there are six permanent voting members for whatever reason and there's a tie vote, that item would be put on the next schedule, planning and zoning commission. If once again there's another tie vote for whatever we have, six members, that tie vote would then go to City Council as a recommendation of denial but not requiring the supermajority. So the consideration staffs looked at regarding the revised language is this really does provide a clear process because it does focus on the process. We wanted to make sure we maintain the integrity of the public hearing process, but we did want P&Z to have another opportunity for a bite at the apple, gives them one more opportunity to come up to a majority decision. It also lays out a clear path. So not only would applicants know the end point, that there would be an end point, but also concerned residents or any stakeholders. They would know what the clear path of that case would be. The amendment would prevent leaving projects in this indeterminate state that we had over the summer. Since the tie vote is a failure to reach that majority decision, the supermajority requirement is still left out of that language. However, we understand that we want to make sure that the planning and zoning commission's discussion and concerns are communicated to the City Council and that's why we provide the City Council those P&Z meeting minutes and we also provide that discussion in the AIS as well as the final vote, so that City Council is aware of what those concerns and discussions were at P&Z. So based upon the recommendation of planning and zoning commission and staff, we do recommend approval of the revised language and I'll stand for any questions. >> Yes, memorandum. >> Can you go back to the slide that has proposed change? They all do, sorry, the one, let's see, before that one. >> Yeah, okay. >> Can you explain, so why are, on the column on the right, why are these ones not applicable and what that means for a tie vote in those cases? >> Well, within the debt and development code, those aren't, don't follow the zoning amendment procedure, so the standard rules in the code of ordinances would apply to those cases. This would only apply to those cases that do follow that zoning amendment procedure within subchapter 3 in debt and development. >> Okay, got it. Okay, so this is not part of the change, this is just explaining. >> Correct. >> How it would apply, got it. >> Correct. >> Okay, thanks. >> Sure. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> Thank you, Mayor. I think this question is probably more for legal. We recently passed a resolution for council that if we were in a tie vote situation where it was in limbo on hold, that no council member would meet with the developer. Did that resolution or ordinance, did that fall to the P&Z as well or did that just affect council, do we know? [ Inaudible ] Yeah, I think I would be in favor of this, but I would also probably want to extend that resolution to cover them as well. >> All right. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you. We will open the public hearing. Couldn't remember if I had or not. So we will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this item, please come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. Any staff have any comments on this? Any public comments? It seems to be what's left here. Okay. All right. We will now close the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem. >> I move approval as amended. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> I will second. I appreciate the different language. I wasn't in favor of the first time and going through two times to P&Z I think makes it a lot better. So I appreciate that. >> All right. We have a motion to second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Moving on to concluding items. Concluding items. Councilmember Hussbett. >> Yeah. We're going to draw. So I want to thank staff for their wisdom in the news. I don't know if you saw it, but the scooters, the electric scooters descended on Frisco. And I just want to thank staff for pointing that out. His true words were hey, they'll do it if you're not careful. So I appreciate that. It saves a lot of headaches when y'all set us up for success like that. Also I'd like to ask staff to monitor and interject ourselves in the conversation. I guess Uber is starting to offer flights, you know, short hopper flights. And I think Alliance is in line to be part of that. So if you're -- I don't know if it's businesses or individuals, but they're offering, you know, chartered kind of flights using some of the regional airports. And I'd like to see if we fit their -- whatever their requirements are and if we could be interject ourselves in those conversations. I want to thank staff and Parks Department for Fredmore Park. That's coming along great. Two other things. Staff did a great job on the MUSE presentations. I dropped by there. That was last week, I think. It all runs together. But a lot of good turnout and a lot of good questions and very receptive. So I thank them for that. And then lastly, I need someone -- I got to get up to speed, but I guess we had Ann Cushman that was on Jeopardy today. She's from Denton. So I'm curious to see how she did. Yeah, it's awesome. So that's it. Thank you. >> Okay. Councilmember Briggs. >> Just an update on the red light cameras. Pilot, I know that we removed one off of an intersection of that last conversation we had on the contract. And I'm just curious if we can have an update on where that is. >> Okay. Councilmember Armitage? >> Okay. Yeah. So several things. First, I want to thank traffic engineering and staff and our pedestrian and bike coordinator for all the work they've been doing. But I'm thinking especially here in kind of looking again, continuing to look at the issues regarding pedestrian safety on the square and the lights there. So there's been some, you know, emailing back and forth and discussion on social media. And so thank you for realizing that's a work in progress and working on it. Let's see. Number two, I wanted to ask for a staff report about ADA accessibility issues regarding -- I mean, sorry, ADA compliance issues and beyond that, handicap accessibility issues regarding dumpsters on sidewalks. I got an email. I forget it was addressed to all of Council or not. But this is, you know, it's a concern for people with disabilities. And I know I've heard concerns about the aesthetics of it, but disability -- disabilities as an issue. So staff report on that would be great. And also I'd like to propose to ask for a staff report on the possibility of -- what would be the pros and cons and if any other cities have policy like this, Texas cities, a policy whereby certificate of obligation bonds couldn't be offered without a public vote. I know they don't require a public vote. But of course it's possible to have a public vote on those. So I'd like to see kind of what the pros and cons would be. And similarly, and this could be in the same staff report or two separate staff reports depending on, you know, if there are different kinds of arguments in and for or against. I'd like staff to look into the possibility of an ordinance that an incentives package -- let's see, an ordinance whereby an incentives package of a certain amount or incentives packages in general would have to go for a public vote. This is something that a constituent brought forward to my attention. I thought it was a good question. And so I'd just like to see what staff has to say about that. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> Thank you, Mayor. I just want to reiterate that I'd like to see a resolution come back before us similar to what we passed for ourselves on not speaking with developers when there's a tie vote to have the same apply to them. And since this is our last meeting of the year, I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. >> Great. Yeah, I visited DEC yesterday and spent quite a bit of time there. And I've seen the machines down in Edinburgh. And I tell you what, that whole plant is really awesome. And I'll tell you somebody else that's really awesome is Jason Brown. He really has his act together. And I met several of the people that are working there. And they really have that thing under control. And I think that thing is going to be a big winner for us in the future. >> Thank you. I have one. And I think we used to do this. But if staff could just give us an informal staff report on, we have curbside collection for bulky items for residential. But as you know, we've got a horrible problem certainly during specific times of the year where people just dump items at commercial dumpsters all over the city, you know, green, you know, apartment buildings and the like. And if we could look at what would it cost to develop a program where, you know, people can call, owners can call instead of having to load it up, haul it off, haul it to the dump, create all that traffic, all that extra work, if there's a program with charges that we could implement that they're driving around collecting things anyway, what it would cost to maybe implement something like that. Or just what are the pros and cons of that? I think we used to have that. I don't know if we still do, but it just seems like a waste of -- it's not very efficient to have everybody taking their things that people dump that is not theirs typically when -- if we've got people driving around. So I'd just like to get some information on that, what staff thinks about that. Seeing no more concluding items, we will stand adjourned at 852.