Feb 04, 2019 City Council on 2019-02-04 11:00 AM

>> Good morning, presence. I will call this meeting of the Denton City Council to order at 1104 at City Hall East Classroom on February the 4th. The first item on the agenda is work session reports. Receive a report. Hold a discussion. Give staff direction regarding City of Denton's application to the Texas Commission on the Arts Cultural District Program. >> I'm laughing a little bit because I'm behind y'all. If you would like me to come out in front of you, I have a Britney Spears style ear line. So, really, if it's uncomfortable for me to stand back here and talk, please let me know when I can step out. I'm Caroline Moose, Director of Economic Development, and I am going to be giving you an update on our cultural district application. So, as I said, I will be providing that update and also seeking some very important direction from all of you about the boundaries of the district and also the government structure so that we can move forward with our application process. It's been about a year since I was reporting, talking about cultural district processes and the application. So I just want to remind everyone that there's a lot of work that needs to be done. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. And I'm going to be giving you a brief update on that. So you mentioned on option one that the area there is that a minimum area for approval or is there, do they have requirements for that and what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. And what is typically the requirement for approval. So, there's not really a straightforward answer to your question, but based on the conversations I've had and the feedback and the research that I've done, smaller appears to be more successful. And so, if we go with option one or option two, is there a way to change the boundaries later on, or is it once you've created it, it's created? I think that once you've created, it's created. Okay. But I can follow up with the Administrator and ask if they've had districts change their boundaries later. Thanks. Council Member Meltzer. I appreciate your consideration in option three. I just want to point out the premise was what's walkable and interesting kind of from the start, and the one piece that I mentioned that we aren't seeing here, and I'll just raise it for others to hear at least, it's also including Silk Stocking Row, essentially the Okay Korea Start District, which I think is interesting for visitors. Okay. I'll go ahead and do this one. The other significant item that I will need council direction on today is governance options. So, there has to be in the application a virtual organization that's named as the Administrator or Oversight Committee for the district. And we are presenting two options for you today. The first one being the existing couple art committee, which is a council-wide committee consisting of nine voting members and an ex-officio representative from GVAC. Thanks for two-year time currently. And if this is the option that... Okay. [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] Council Member Bowser. Yeah, just a little difficult, you know, seeing the colored lines at a distance. And I assume the answer is obviously yes, but I had mentioned Oakwood as like a kind of a question mark, but my primary interest in that direction was Fred Moore Park because a lot of cultural events take place there. And is it the case that if you go to Oakwood, you're including Fred Moore as well? I just couldn't see it. No, and I can email you the map where I drew my little additional squiggly lines. I was trying to get an updated version of the official proposed options, but the GIS system is down, so I apologize for not having that for y'all. But no, my options went to the border of Oakwood on the east side and didn't extend to Fred Moore Park again because of the walkability issues and because it's already continuous to that smaller boundary. But whatever you guys would like to direct me to do, I'm happy to do. Well, that's, you know, a comment that I'd offer, and I'd be very interested in hearing, you know, reactions to it if others cared to offer. But my thought was, you know, what's interesting to walk to from the square where cultural events might take place, because I think part of the benefit is the ability to get grants for things, including cultural events. So, you know, hence Quaker Town Park where the arts and jazz festival takes place. That seems like an obvious one to include. And along similar lines, Fred Moore. Silk stocking row is kind of our, you know, one of our most interesting historic areas to walk through. And then I included IWF because I've just been told that at some point it's probably a very good candidate for like a self-guided walking tour. There are veterans of, you know, so many important conflicts that are there. You know, people have kind of interesting histories. So I offer those as rationales for including those in the cultural district. Councilmember Armitage. Yeah. So I actually like option one because it includes both Quaker Town Park and the area where Quaker Town was forced to, where the community of Quaker Town was forced to move. So it really, yes, it's a big area. It certainly looks big on that map, but it really does cover original Denton. And so much of Denton history can be told within that area. What I'm wondering is if it were to, if we were to get feedback, like say we submitted option one and we're told that that's too big. Do you mean option two? I think option two. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I meant my number one, which is the bigger one. Sorry. Thank you. Option two is my number one. So if we were to submit option two and then we're told it's too big, you've got to scale it back, is the process fluid enough such that, you know, there's a kind of negotiation? No. So it's kind of, it's your, it's accepted the whole package or rejected and then back to the drawing board. Right. That is the case. And I have, they seem, the administrator is extremely helpful. He seems reluctant to say that is too big. I believe that he is hinting around in every way possible that that is too big. We actually have to submit the distance between the farthest points of whatever the proposed boundaries are. And the big boundary, option two, is 2.4 miles from east to west. And it takes 48 minutes to walk according to Google Maps. It's 1.7 miles from north to south, which would take 33 minutes to walk. So again, I will do whatever council's direction is. I just feel like we're getting told in not so many words that that boundary is too large. Yeah. Yeah. May I also say, I think it's also important to remember that we can potentially consider whatever this district shapes up to be our first cultural district, you're not limited to just one. Yeah. So there may be a way to say, okay, this is our first one, and then we would look at another area as our second one after we've got some experience under our belt with getting one down. Yeah. So I would love to see, so I wasn't aware that we got so many strong hints, you know, to that effect coming from the entity that we're applying to. You know, I would love to, if that person who you talked to was here today, I would love to ask them, okay, how could you imagine, you know, it would be possible to, you know, forget the red line, but to connect kind of along the way, because I like the way that Council Member Meltzer is thinking, and I definitely like that number three solution. It's my second choice to kind of include the, you know, Solomon Hill area and to have some kind of proposal for, you know, an argument for how important it is to have connectivity across the tracks. Could that, is that, I mean, you spoke with this person, is that a kind of conversation that you already had, or do you think that was, do you feel like that's precluded by the hints you were given? Well, I, either, any of the three options go across Bell and the railroad tracks. Yeah. So, I guess, I guess it's a question of how far. Far, exactly, exactly. Because they all, they all do it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Other questions? I'll just make a comment. I like the option one, the purple boundary, but my first reaction was that I think it's too small, and we're leaving out some really cool areas that we could have, like, you know, artist shows and just, I'm afraid that we're limiting it, and so I would like to see that expanded just a little bit. I do agree the red may be too large for now, and another separate district later on, you know, in different parts of the city might be better, but I don't know what to tell you as far as how far to go on the purple. I would definitely like to include the parks. So, I see maybe going out to, what is that street? Wood Street, so extending the purple line out to the red one here a little bit, and then down to following the bottom red line where I00F is included, and then up to where the yellow is, where Quaker Town is, and kind of just make it, make it like that. So it encompasses what Councilmember Muntzler requested, but it also gives us an opportunity to have some areas there, newer areas to look at. That's not just downtown. Thank you. Would you say that the primary function is that grant funding is that kind of, kind of you pointed out in the slide, it's your, it's a marketing, is that kind of? Marketing is the primary function, raising the profile of the district, and then the secondary benefit is the grant funding, and you know, as you're well aware, you know, having the thoughts and the grant funding is great, but it's a competitive process, and applying for a grant doesn't mean that you're going to get it, not to be discouraging, that's just the reality. So really the primary idea behind this is to raise the profile and bring new awareness to visitors outside of the community primarily, that we have a cultural district and here are all the things that you can do or see or experience within that district. Right. So I understand the, I don't understand the functionality, the actual pragmatic approach, the application to the Fred Moore Park component, just because there's two events, so there's Juneteenth, there's Easter, most of the events are Quaker Town Park, which you capture, and then also to have that connectivity is key to redevelop those areas between downtown as a focus to then draw as a secondary that next leg, if you will. So I see it as option three, including the, because a lot of events are held at Quaker Town Park, so I see the functionality there, how that can practically be applied, and then use that boundary as option three would convey to, as a catalyst almost, to say, okay, now we've brought you this far, let's then go the next step, and then you could, because then that next step not only captures Fred Moore Park, but then you can get into the splash park, you can kind of connect to the courthouse, and there's some other kind of methodologies you can apply there, and so, and looking at it just short term, so we'll redo the senior home, the senior, the Legion Hall, you know, we'll redo that component organically. The new playground is already in place. The football field is done. You know, so there's just, there's been a lot of investment in that park that I don't know what else we could do to enhance its profile once that building's redone in the short term. In long term, there's plenty, but short term, it's been pretty well renovated. So short term, tied in with a perspective of enhancing the space between those two, and then long term, coming back and pairing those together. So I would lean towards staff's opinion for three, just because I don't know what value add there is to extend that further at this point. I think the value is bringing people on the other side of the railroad tracks and continue to redevelop that and maybe target some development between the two to initiate that foot traffic. So, that's -- Yeah, I think I'm definitely with option three. I like the ads, I think. Definitely Quaker Town makes complete and total sense, because that is our cultural center, so to speak, with many of our festivals. And on the -- I believe just keeping the board that we've got in place, maybe making some adjustments would also be good. Is there any other differing council member Briggs? I'm okay with the public arts board as well. I like the idea of having -- either one having a new board, and, you know, if the public arts board might feel overwhelmed. You know, so I can see -- I can see pros and cons of both if others feel more inclined, you know, to stick with the public arts. I just wanted to add that I did speak to the chair of the public art committee, and he was excited to hear of the opportunity and was not concerned about the additions of the board vote. Yeah, then I like that idea. By the way, the person who you talked to at TCA, was their name? Jim Bob McMillan? Yes. Okay, I got -- I just got in real time a message from somebody saying, you know, I spoke with Jim Bob McMillan, and he approved the plan. So anyway, I don't know. It sounds like this was a conversation that was had before your conversation. So my conversations with Jim Bob have been based on the current application, which is new, as of 2018, and that helps. Yeah, I think -- yes. So this is somebody who -- I think you know who this is, who had initiated -- had been one of the initiators of this project. Okay, great. So that's the same person. And the process is different, and the application expectations are different. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I have a question about the board. So if we do -- because we can't change the boundaries, but we can add later on different districts. And so if we do that, is it possible to add and go with your option to on a new board to maintain and grow all -- and monitor all those districts? I think that that is a decision that's probably totally within the purview of the council. Okay. If we start adding districts and there needs to be a separate committee that's devoted solely to all the districts, that seems like that would be something the council would decide to do and shouldn't affect the existing districts. At all. Okay. They just -- the primary thing that they want to know is making sure that there is a body that is, you know, devoted to overseeing and monitoring the plans that are put in place and, you know, helping make decisions and implement things. So I think it's less about who it is as long as there's a good plan behind it. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Nelson. Yeah. I'll make, you know, one last pitch for consideration of including Fred Moore. Actually, because of all those investments that have been made into it, you know, what's missing is just bringing attention to it and people to appreciate, you know, the resource that it's -- that it's become and maybe more, you know, more events would be there. And then as far as governance, you know, I think it's sort of amazing that a community like Denton that is so much about arts, plural, you know, not just public sculptures, doesn't have a body that considers those kinds of things. So, you know, I would favor kind of expanding the scope of public art to, you know, arts and culture and that eventually we'd want to migrate its composition to have expertise, you know, from the performing arts community and film and so much else. And so -- and then also reason to keep it in one body is I think at some point, you know, we're just multiplying tasks for staff in terms of managing all these different groups. So I think, you know, that also argues for keeping the remit in one place. Other comments? So what I'm -- Councilmember Briggs. I just want to say here, I'm reading about community benefits of cultural districts and it -- one of the last sentences says they also create places for educational and social development. And so I think we also need to consider those two as well. I mean, it's about arts and culture, but that also helps create social development and educational purposes. So it's all encompassed in that as we make our decision on boundaries. Councilmember Dott. Yeah, I'm pretty much with the -- I think the direction we're going. I'm good. Uh-oh. Are you going to change your vote after you take that call? No, option three. And I don't think we need to have a point -- another group to oversee this. So I'm good with the consensus that I'm hearing. Staff's recommendations? Yes. Option three. I think we pretty well get consensus on that. I think it's a tie, right? The staff consensus is not what -- it's not including -- or is it including what you recommended? Well, my only -- the only differences between what I'm suggesting and option three would be including not all of, you know, Hickory Street and Oak Street, which is that near-end, you know, Silkstock and Rowe, which is I think basically defined by the Oak Creek Historic District. In other words, just that sort of yellow ochre color there near the center and Fred Moore. But, you know, that's my input. I'm cool with the general direction that we're going. And I would -- yeah, second that, I like that idea and I support that. If option two really is not feasible, then I prefer -- what would we call that, option four or 3.5? Yeah. I do like that better, but option three for second choice. I'm great with GDAC. I mean the Public Arts Committee with GDAC oversight. We have three that are completely behind staff and three that wish to add on to the boundaries of option three. Just a little bit. I mean, my feeling is I could see a second cultural district on the west side that would incorporate the current two historic districts and there's a third one that's trying to form up in the northern part of that, that that would be a separate cultural district for future. Once we get this one up and going, this is the heartbeat of our cultural center with this. Then we can add additional districts down the road would be my preference. Once you get it into one, you can't take it out to add back into this one. So now you're going to -- if all you added was Oak Hickory Historic District, when you go to add another one, it's not going to be the three historic districts, the two existing and the one new. It's going to be just two of them. So that's my argument for not putting in there at this point. I can -- I'm ready to be recognized. Yeah, I can buy into that vision that eventually there's a bigger kind of west side district. So, Councilmember Briggs? Okay. Okay. I just keep wanting to say west side. Yeah, I mean, I still prefer -- yeah. However, I prefer option 3.5. But then it looks like there's no longer ties. We have a majority now for three. Can I just say thank you for working on this? I appreciate all the hard work, and this was brought up a while ago, and I know it's been a lot of work so far. And it's going to be a lot more to come, but I appreciate your time on it. Thank you. I think it'll be really great. It's been fun to work on. I appreciate you saying that. You, too. All right. So I think we're good. All right. Thank you very much. Best recommendation. All right. We'll move on to item B, Receive a Report. I'll hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding potential polling locations for May 4th City Council election. All right. Good morning, Mayor of Pro-Summit Council. I'm Rachael Wood, Chief of Staff. I'm also joining on day four as serving as city secretary. So I'm going to do my best to channel Jennifer Walters today, but do my best to answer your questions as we go. So the intent of today's presentation really is a continuation of the conversation that you had with Jennifer Walters on January 7th regarding polling locations for Election Day. And just as a quick reminder, for the May 2018 elections, there were two polling locations per city council district. I won't read them out, but they're listed on the screen, what those locations were. And the additional polling locations in 2018 cost the city a combined estimated total of about $6,000. So the May 2019 elections, Election Day will take place on May 4th, 2019. Elections will be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And the city is responsible for setting the polling locations on Election Day. Early voting will take place April 22nd through 27th from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and April 29th through 30th from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The county is responsible for setting early voting locations, and they will not have early voting locations finalized until around March 13th. But the county has confirmed that the Denton Civic Center will continue to serve as an early voting location, with the exception that the Civic Center will be closed on April 27th as a polling location due to the Denton Arts and Jazz Festival. And my understanding is that's pretty consistent with what's taken place in years past, and it's just because of parking constraints during the festival. The city is required to have four polling locations, one per city council district, and those four main polling locations include MLK Recreation Center for District 1, North Branch Library for District 2, North Litz Recreation Center for District 3, and Demia Recreation Center for District 4. Now, during your conversation with Jennifer on January 7th, we received a staff general consensus from council that there should be two polling locations per district. What we heard was to try to keep those polling locations as close to, if not keeping, the polling locations that we had for the May 2018 elections. So staff went back and confirmed that all locations, with the exception of Bryan High School, are available to serve as polling locations for the May 4th election. Bryan High School has a university interscholastic league solo ensemble contest on May 4th, and so they said parking is going to be extremely limited. They're saying this is a big statewide draw for that competition. And so Denton ISD has volunteered for us to use their Annex facility, which is on May Hill and very close to Ryan High School. So the thinking is, if someone showed up to vote at Bryan High School, they could really easily make it over to the DISD Annex building if we cover the same precincts. Can I make a comment on that? I just want to comment on that. You made it sound like it was just a piece of cake, but you were back and forth working really hard. We went through several different options and finally came up with this one. So, I mean, I appreciate you working on that. It took a while for us to get settled on the Annex. Thank you, and I really appreciate DISD being so flexible with locations. It's been really great to work with on this. So following the conversation that Jennifer had with council on May 4th and 7th, we did receive a significant amount of community feedback. Some of the feedback we received included a desire to have a location either near or on the UNT campus. We discussed this with Denton County Elections Office, and they did express some logistical concerns based on past experience they've had at UNT, particularly around parking. But I'm actually building with Brady Grimes, with the county elections office to UNT tomorrow to look at potential locations. We're going to be meeting with Melissa McGuire, who's the associate vice president over student affairs. We've expressed to Melissa McGuire some of the concerns that we've received or that we've experienced with UNT serving as a location in the past, and she said she's going to do everything she can to be as accommodating as possible. In talking to the county, it sounds like Denton County is very open to having UNT potentially serve as an early voting polling location. So based on our ability to identify a viable polling location, Denton County said that they would be willing to commit having UNT as an early voting location. Other feedback we received was to consider having the civic center serve as a voting center on Election Day. Voting centers essentially operate the same way that early voting centers do, where you don't have to vote with your specific precinct, because you can go to one single location and any precinct can vote there. According to the election code, because Denton County's polling equipment is not fully electronic, we cannot have voting centers in Denton County, and Denton County would have to move to fully electronic equipment in order for us to do that. The other feedback we received was to consider using TWU as a polling location, and in talking to the county, due to TWU's proximity to the civic center, the civic center and TWU are actually in the same precinct, and of course the civic center is an early voting location that we've already confirmed. The preference from a logistical perspective would be to have the civic center over TWU serve as a polling location, if that was the direction of council. So tomorrow night you're going to be able to call the election, which would just be formalizing the fact that the election will take place on May 4th, and we've also got a resolution for council to consider the eight polling locations that have been confirmed by staff. I should, by tomorrow evening's meeting, also have at least a verbal commitment from Denton County, if they are willing to have the location, if once identified at UNT, have UNT serve as an early voting location. And then the other option that we've identified is of course council can consider alternate polling locations to address concerns expressed by the community. We are under time constraints, so if we were going to get direction from council regarding how to proceed, we would need to have those decisions made relatively quickly just because we do need to get those milled down and begin the process of advertising polling locations to the community. With that I'll wrap up my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Council Member Meltzer. Do you happen to have the map of the districts and polling locations available? So I just want to point out that you have a very unusual situation with respect to District 3, where for whatever reason people prior to, I think just about everyone sitting here, elected to go past Deena, which you might argue has maybe more of a community of interest with the other neighborhoods around UNT, and append the more southerly, closer to District 4 neighborhood of Robeson Ranch to District 3. So it makes it kind of a bit of a torturous map, and I completely see why we would need to create that extra polling location to be near that distant, relatively distant part of District 3. But it makes it a kind of unique situation versus the other districts in terms of election day voting, and I personally think that it's different enough that this idea that there must only be two locations per district is not the overwhelming consideration. The kind of convenience and openness to the voters is the greater consideration. So I agree with the extra location down by Robeson Ranch, but I still think you need the two, you know, in the in-town parts of District 3. And I understand the argument for continuing with North Lakes, because if you want to actually beat Jennifer, you have to say that location was there when dirt was new. But, you know, having a more central location to that part of the district as well on election day, like at UNT or nearby, I think, you know, just is logical. Councilmember Duff. That's my district, and I really don't agree with you. I think Robeson Ranch is good with Fire Station Number 7, and I think you have the northern location, you know, and probably a majority of people are going to vote early anyway. But I think those two, I don't think we need to spend more money on adding any additional May voting places. Councilmember Armitage. I think, you know, respectfully, I think it looks bad when we have this opportunity to expand our voting locations right before we're about to redistrict if we were to say, you know what, that would be too expensive or too much voting. You know, I think that it sends the best message to the public that we're saying, look, yes, there is a cost. It's really not that much. This is how democracy works. It's hard to think of anything more important than democracy than voting. And as Councilmember Meltzer was saying, you know, when you look at the peculiar shape of District 3, I think it's pretty clear that, you know, when it does come time to redistrict, it's actually long overdue. I think something's going to happen to that. You know, it's not going to look like that. So I know that at the last meeting I tried where we discussed this, you know, I had suggested, well, why don't we just make it even and add UNT and then find an additional voting location in each of the other districts. But if that's too much, then it does seem fair to me to have additional voting in that one district because it's not going to be one district for very much longer. And I also wanted to add that there's a bill, House Bill 375, that's being proposed that would require -- it's just been proposed, obviously, but it would require that public universities with 10,000 students or more have a voting location on site. And the thinking, you know, behind that is, you know, even if -- and I do understand and I respect that a university campus can feel not as accessible to people who aren't, you know, part of that community. Obviously, you know, the university would do what they could to -- and we got a note from staff saying that -- from you, I think, you know, that you had been talking about these possibilities and that UNT is open to that and excited about that. But, you know, the idea being that universities are like districts on their own, you know, because of the numbers, especially one of this size. So just as, you know, a place like Ropes and Ranch, which is, you know, a community that is kind of enclosed, kind of not, you know, you can go in. But that's a sizable enough community, you know, to merit its -- you know, a polling place right there and universities are similar. So it's kind of a different way of thinking about, you know, the people who work and live at universities. So I think in that spirit that there's no such thing as too much voting and we've got this bill already, you know, being proposed. I'm strongly for a polling place at the university. I think this is the way the state will be going in the future and hopefully the nation, too. I want to add one more thing and that is that, you know, you mentioned that Jazz Fest, because of the parking, Civic Center is, you know, is not accessible for voting. Jazz Fest, precisely because it's so crowded and I realize it's not just Denton people, I think it would be great if there could be some sort of polling location at Jazz Fest. Either -- well, I don't know, even outdoor, you know, I don't know how it could be done, but I know that there are some possibilities, so I'd love to see that idea explored. I hadn't quite realized that that was the reason, although it makes sense that we don't have the Civic Center voting then. But I think that would be a neat way to encourage vote and go and also to help spread the word about Denton, how great we are. We've got our voting and our arts all, you know, all together, our politics and our arts, so. Other comments? Yeah, mine just hinges on that tour and to that point, to the parking concern, that would just be my -- I mean, that's been an ongoing issue and so whatever conversations early and upfront would be my preference to make sure if someone decides to go there that's not walking, that there's some kind of prohibition for $35 tickets. And whatever that is, I just don't think that's right. I think if it comes from the city budget, obviously everyone has access to it, and so it's not -- I don't see it as a walkability issue as much as I see it as a -- if anyone in that particular district wants to go to that location, obviously they have every right to, and UNT needs to be respectful of that process. And I don't know what that looks like for them. I don't know whatever locations they identify, but as you're looking at those locations, if you could probe that question, you know, what does the parking look like? So let's max it out. Sure, we have great participation. 100 people an hour show up to park there. Where do they go? I've got a couple of comments on it. You know, right now we've got three early voting locations, most likely Robeson County hasn't announced whether they're going to do Robeson or not, and that's way out, you know, on the edge of town. So it does make sense. They generally had a lot of people overrun Argyle in the past, and that was their reason for adding that one, I believe. The other two are central to our city. The Civic Center is central to the city. It is in District 1. The other one's in District 1 as well, but that's the county level, is the reason that they have voting at Election Administration Building. So again, anybody can vote at any of them throughout. Both of them that are in one that are going to happen are very close to District 2, and Civic Center is actually not that far, just a couple of blocks from District 3 as well. It is on a bus system, and so then I start looking at my district. I've got nothing down there. So if we all start saying, "Well, I need a little more, I need a little more," we're going to end up with a bunch. What we have to remember is on the day of voting, you vote by precinct. You have to know which one you go to, and the number of times I've seen people at polls show up and they get sent away, and they say, "I'm not going anywhere." So when you start adding more and more locations, you start creating more confusion for those people, because they don't know which location to go to, because it is precinct only. Early voting, let the county put them wherever they'd like, but on the day of, we need to make sure we're not splitting it and confusing people and making people mad, and they walk away, and I have seen that happen where they say, "Look, I'm done." But again, I'll get off to you all in just a second. Whatever the county wishes to do is fine with me, but as far as trying to add additional, you start breaking up what precinct numbers go where, and that was one of our issues last time was just trying to figure out which precincts we were going to have both at each polling location. I think it worked out well, but we did still have some that ended up coming down to LA Nelson that actually need to go back over to Dena that said, "Well, I'm just going to go home. I'm not messing with it." Councilmember Amator. Oh yeah, so just to respond to your point about confusion, I don't think that's the case in this case because we're adding another option for people who are already in that district. So you're not saying, "You can't go here. You have to go here." You're actually saying, "You can go here or here." No? No, it's precinct only. It's not district. Oh, I'm sorry. I meant precinct. You're talking about the county precinct. Yes, on day of. Yes, for election day voting. I think there's only one place you can go on election day. Am I right that if there were three, some precincts would be assigned to this one, some precincts would be assigned to that one. Oh, I see. I see. Okay. I see. I see. Okay, I got it. So then there would be, whoever is at UNT, that would be where they would vote, right? And that then, I think, would be fairly self-evident for the people who are at UNT. If you're at UNT, you get to vote at UNT. So apologies for not understanding how that would work with the university voting and the county precinct. But I don't think that that would cause any confusion either, because if you're at the university, that's where you vote. I don't think that, you know, when it was, when there was in the past a November location, November voting location there, I didn't hear of any confusion. It was there's voting on campus. So, anyway. Mayor Pritzker, if I may, just to add on to that, the surrounding neighborhood would be a part of that precinct. And so there would be members of the surrounding neighborhood who would in turn have to vote at UNT if it was identified as a polling location. However, if UNT was identified as an early voting location, it would operate just the same as the Civic Center or Ropes and Desks as early voting, and it wouldn't be precinct specific. So anyone that resides in Denham County could vote if we identify a location at UNT for early voting. Councilmember Briggs, do you have a? Yeah, well I wanted to voice my support for early voting location at UNT for sure. I think we have to do that. I think it's important. I'm curious about a polling location at UNT the day of and what I'd like to specifically now talk about what precincts would go there so that we could we could look at that and see what the impact would be. Because I'm looking at the map and I see maybe two precincts and then I also have some other questions about voting as a student if a student has their their registered to vote in their the city that they used to live, but they live on campus in a dorm. Would they be allowed to vote at UNT? Would they need to change their voter registration to the UNT? Just some just some actual voter questions. I have to get confirmation from the county elections office regarding what specific precincts would be voting at UNT if it was selected as a polling location. I'll confirm in answer to your second question that I believe the student would have to change their registration status. I'll confirm both of those. Yeah, just so that I can get out of the way of the conversation. Yeah, I'm okay with early voting location. Obviously, that's easy. But but to talk about a specific polling site, this short notice would be problematic for me. I just not to say that I don't value it. I just say that we would have to have a series of meetings to then figure out answer to Councilmember Briggs question. Inevitably, there would be more questions. I think that that is absolutely the point she raises significant because you can be on UNT and it is not as succinct. If you're a student at UNT does not mean you're registered to vote in that precinct that it encompasses. And when you're talking about frustration, I'm on campus. I want to go vote on campus and I get there and I can't I have to go off campus. I mean, it just it adds a level of frustration for a populace that we're trying to make life easy for. And so I think when you're talking about turnkey. Hey, if you're here, you can vote here. No problem. You have these and you have a series of weeks to get that done. But then to talk about day of where it is kind of more succinct, we'd have to work with the elections office to nail down what precinct goes specifically to what location on UNT. I just think that becomes I mean, we're only a few months out. So that to me is, you know, to hold up marketing and advertising the polling locations that we have for the prospect of potentially adding one is problematic for me. Councilmember Meltzer and then Councilmember Duff. I think the potential frustrations described are minor compared to the frustration of having to walk five miles to vote. Councilmember Duff. Yeah, I'm good with the, you know, asking, making sure that that we have early voting in UNT. I'm good with that. I see no reason to complicate things. We have two voting locations that are not that far from anybody. And I don't see any reason to add any on voting day. Thank you. Could you give me the early voting? How many days is that? It's a lot. So that's five, eight days round numbers all day. Right. So do I do I understand you correctly to say that eight days all day to vote on campus is not sufficient such that you need another location for one day for some of the people on campus to be able to vote there. Am I tracking? I'd like the access to voting to be relatively equal. Sure, but just help me understand your concern. Eight days all day is not sufficient. Well, everybody has eight days all day to do early voting. Yes, sir. In any part of campus. I'm just asking you if that's sufficient. I just want to understand your point. I think early voting, the length of early voting described by the prescribed by laws is adequate length of time for early voting. Yes, I agree with that. Okay, so. Mr. Pro Tem. My point remains that I think just as an individual to provide a student on campus with eight days all day to say at any point in these succinct days from let's say from round numbers eight to five for eight days in a row. So work around your class schedule, work around your work schedule to go and vote at any point you want on campus is absolutely meeting and making that making that available is meeting that need. And so, I think it's, it's not right to characterize that is burdensome to say on the day of that changes because that's the same in every other instance there's plenty of times where if you miss that early voting window, where you can go anywhere in the county. Matter of fact, if you miss that window, then yes, it becomes complicated on day up for everyone. So I think that is absolutely proportionate, because if you had, I've heard plenty of horror stories of hey I was supposed to go to grace temple church I went to MLK. But you know I went to first Presbyterian whatever that is I mean those are real things and that's why people are encouraged to vote early, and I just, I need someone to help me understand why eight days all day is not enough to accommodate students I just, I need help understanding that not saying I'm, I'm, I'm missing it just don't understand. Yeah, I don't, I don't have an answer for you for that but I'd like to ask Miss would on the precincts because I'm looking here at the, the divisions and if we take Oak Street as a as a dividing line and 35 and Carol, then you kind of have a little area there and there's two precincts that if we did have a location at UNT. That would be voting there at UNT. So I would like to have more information on 4045 and 4039. How many registered voters are in those two precincts, so that we have some idea of who would be needing to use that polling location on the day of that that would help. Thank you, Councilmember after yet so I'm on to address a couple points that have been raised up our one about you know the timing of this. I don't see this as too late to be having this discussion, because there's a reason why this is the time of year where we when we have this, this discussion, you know this is the time where where we decide on polling places. You know it's important that every year we can reassess and re evaluate is this working do we need anything extra. I wanted to add, you know that universities and this is a big part of the spirit of this, this bill that that is being proposed. Bill was 375 is that you know universities are unique in that they're pretty self contained, we might not think about it that way because there's not an actual wall around it. But you've got people who are living there, who, you know, either don't have a car or if they do have a car, it's it's part, you know, far somebody else somewhere else. And this kind of includes it's not just about the students, which is another thing it's about the staff. The faculty, and the people and as Mayor Pro Tem pointed out, because you that the people who live in the surrounding community who if you ask them where do you live they say, by UNT, or people who live at by the T W. And it and anyway there's a reason, you know it might seem obscure because we're not used to doing it but there's a reason why this is being proposed statewide because it really makes sense because of what universities are within their communities and I really don't see when we have people from that community asking for more voting. Why we would, why we would say no. It's, you know, in my views, it's kind of the easiest decision to make. If anybody, so I represent at large. But if anybody from any district can make a case that they need an additional polling location in their district, I would support it. It would be a really easy sell for me. Again, because, because of the importance of voting in representative democracy that that's how it happens. So, again, and I'm thrilled that it looks like there's consensus now for the early voting for for UNT, but I strongly encourage election day voting there as well again not just for the students but for the people who live right around there in this relatively self contained community where people do a lot of walking it's one of the most pedestrian parts of the city. I would also point out that of the other three early voting sites, the Civic Center election headquarters and robeson, none of those will have an election day polling site. None of those are on our list of where you're going to vote on election day. All of those are no matter where you live in the county you go there to you can go to any one of them to vote. We have a lot of students that don't live in 4045 and 4039 that if you have it again. They say oh you can you can vote at the university during early voting, then they miss it, and they're over in district one or district four is where they actually live. They're going to go back to the campus because they're going to see that there's a voting location there on the day of and that's part of that added confusion that only people in those particular precincts can vote there. You're not attracting others to their afterwards. That's, that's the argument. Plus, you are now adding a third location in one, one district, and not in the other three so that that does not make sense to me either. So, yeah, thanks for pointing that out because I, you know, you will notice I have not asked for voting day in robeson ranch. And just as much reason to ask for that as you have to put it up at UNT. I don't think I need it. I don't think anybody needs it there. It's not that far to fire station number seven. And, you know, it's not like UNT is miles away from the other two locations. I don't think we need them. Councilmember melts. Isn't that the whole point of fire station seven is that it is near robeson ranch. It's not that near. And, and, and most of robeson, or much of robeson ranch, as you pointed out, votes early anyway so it's yes. So, so, I mean, I think you're arguing that that location is not essential I'm still for keeping it, but just in point of fact, the other locations are miles away. Yeah, I think it's important that we don't see this as a matter of, you know, one, one district getting more. If you feel that so you know Councilmember Duff mentioned, you know, well you could have asked for a election day polling place at robeson you decided that wasn't necessary. It just so happens that, you know, we've been getting a lot of emails from people who, who live in this area, who, you know, in the UNT area who would like a polling location they're not just for early voting but for election day so I think that when it comes to voting, wherever there's need anywhere in the city that's expressed by voters. It's our job to meet that need I really feel that way. And I would strongly encourage others to see it that way too because we need to serve the voting needs of the city, no matter where in which in which precinct, those needs are being expressed. So anyway, I will, I will back up anybody who's who wants, who has a case to make for additional voting voting location in their precinct in their district because I want the voters to feel like they have accessible voting. Well, it appears that we are at a deadlock of three three on this, so this item is there is an item for individual consideration tomorrow evening on our agenda, and hopefully the mayor will be back and will resolve it at that point. Sound good to everyone. We will move on to item C conduct a walking tour, police department and public safety dispatch I believe city manager would like to make an announcement. Chief Dixon and his staff will be leading us through on a tour we don't expect it to take more than 20 or 30 minutes. If we do have anyone from the public or from the press would like to accompany us just up front, a couple of things, only the city council and small groups feel out into the evidence rooms. That's one of those areas that we really want you to see what the, what these folks are working with, but it's got to be very, very small groups very contained since you're all represents the city I think we can get you there in small groups. We can go for dispatch as well. So, I just wanted to make that up front we can all go on the tour together, but it's going to be a chief and our dispatch manager in terms of how they work the group in, and in what numbers to those two areas so just so everyone Yes. Can we leave our stuff here. Yes. Resume our meeting. We just finished up, item C, conducting a walking tour, and move on to item D, we were at 111 p.m. item D is receive a report hold a discussion give staff direction regarding the current future space planning needs for the city hall. Thank you very much. (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible)