Feb 05, 2019 City Council on 2019-02-05 1:30 PM

Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday February the 5th 2019. We do have a quorum I will now call the meeting to order. It is 1 33 p.m. We'll go through our agenda. Work session citizen comments on consent agenda items. Do we have any cards for citizen comments on consent agenda items? We have none. Request for clarification excuse me of agenda items listed on the agenda for February the 5th 2019. Anybody over here on my right? Any clarifications? On my left? Yes Councilmember Armitage. Microphone please. Thank you. I'd like to have an explanation about G&H. G&H is the authorizing for SWOT equipment grant and these kind of go they go together so I'd be fine having a and my main question about it and I had asked I don't remember if you were here when I when I had asked Chief Dixon a similar question about a similar item we've had some of these I just wanted to kind of ask again you know there's a lot of concern about the Department of you know Homeland Security and whether or not this this group with this grant compels the debt and PD to you know be at the beck and call of Department at Homeland Security last time the answer was no I'm assuming that's what it is now but I thought I would just I would ask again just to get clarification for members of the public have expressed concern. So Bobby Smith assistant chief of police didn't PD yes ma'am that's right this is we're not at the beck and call of federal agency or anything like that this is this kind of these equipment is meant to bolster our equipment that we have to make us more prepared to deal with whether it's terroristic activity in our in our city but also just to be just where our normal things that we do from a SWAT standpoint there's all kinds of call outs that can happen yeah excellent so this is just for in other words normal city city police operations yes ma'am that's for normal city police operations preparedness okay thank you very much if I could just ask you one clarification question on that have you ever seen a grant such as this place any kind of conditions that are above and beyond just what it's being used for our use for our local department from these type of grants no sir okay I appreciate that thank you very much okay any more clarifications of agenda items all right we'll move on then to our work session reports so we have no agenda items to pull from what I can understand is that correct need to make sure that this consultation is not about that question okay all right thank you so I just need clarification from the attorney on yes yes yes that item M is about our new didn't municipal court judge and that's gonna stay on but I just want to go ahead and say welcome aboard box yeah thank you appreciate that Councilmember Briggs any other comments well I'm gonna hold the room just about five seconds longer before we move on so that I'm just kidding because I think when I go down to work sessions the whole room is going to clear out is that right all right okay thank you all very much we're going on to our work session reports 3a just the police officers okay well sorry to call you gentlemen out okay fantastic it means we got a we got a robust set of work session items agenda item 3a is receiver a porthole discussion and get give staff direction regarding the development of the coal and hunter ranch master plan communities in southwest Denton so I'm sorry for hate see how the other person but I also want to just apologize in advance if I seem a little spotty just taking some meds to get over the flu so sometimes they can affect your brain a little bit so if I seem a little disjointed you'll know why I'm not on anything but some drugs okay okay thank you councilmember Duff appreciate that comment and comment yes prescribed absolutely yes prescribed thank you mayor it has been Brian Langley deputy city manager has been rough and tumble discussions over the last couple weeks as you can tell we can tell for calling hunter ranch appreciate the introduction yeah thank you do want to spend a few minutes to with you today to talk about these two large developments we talked to you last about this in January we've got a lot of information coming back I'm going to try to go through some slides that I have very quickly and then Brian Karlok and OC vest from Stratford land and Hillwood are also here today and they'll be taking you through some additional information as well again I want to give you some follow-up information some of the questions that we heard from me in January January 15th the developer is also going to give a presentation and then we'll be looking for some direction and next step from the council I think there was some questions in general about the process that would be followed for the MMD legislation the the resolution of support for that legislation and the different agreements that we were talking about so we put together a pretty simple graphic which shows how we see this envisioning how we envision this to flow through the process the first would be if the council decides this is a project that you want to move forward with the council would be asked to approve a resolution of support for some legislation down in Austin to create the municipal management district that MMD legislation would then go through the state legislature and assuming it gets passed there would be three other agreements that would have to be approved by the council for to proceed the first would be a city consent ordinance to actually establish the MMD the next would be an operating agreement between the MMD and the city and the last thing would be the developer agreement between the developer of the property and the city itself so lots of different pieces here but this is kind of how it would flow over the next several months and a key piece of this is the sunset date for the MMD we did have some discussion with the council on this and one of the things that we'd be looking for some direction on it at the end of today would be whether you wanted that sunset date if you did decide to move forward to be May of 2020 or December of 2020 that'll be a decision point that you'll have so additional follow-up from the January 15th meeting one of the questions was how does this fit in with the 2030 plan the basic answer to this is that it's consistent with the 2030 plan those large master plan communities on the west side of the city are consistent with that vision we do have some folks here from the planning department that can answer that more specifically but just wanted to bring that back to you and indicate that that was consistent with the 2030 plan another question that we had were can the tax incentives be offered when the MMD by either the city or the MMD that's certainly something that could be done if the City Council wanted to do that it's also something that could be restricted through the operating agreements for the developer agreements of how those things would be managed so that's a decision point down the road that the council could have if you wanted to restrict that at some point certainly the city for our tax rate you can always have an incentive for any type of economic development incentive at any time but this would be for the MMD's piece of the tax rate that 55 cents okay so that was my question yes for discussion purposes let's say for some somehow something gets approved where the city tax rate is the city tax rate we can do with that tax rate like we would any other development yes sir but the MMD could either be restricted to give no economic development tax incentives on that portion or they could have the authority to give incentives but only on their portion that's good not in any way affect the city tax collection that's right that's right and so the city could decide we wanted to do a separate tax abatement on our tax rate okay chapter 380 agreement whatever it might be but that would be independent of what the MMD was doing okay another question was what's the cost of the infrastructure that would be required for the site these are all from the developers the off-site infrastructure cost they're estimating at 65 million the regional infrastructure is about 240 million and the on-site public instruction public infrastructure costs about 300 million all of that together is about 605 I do want to point out these were all figures from the developer we have not audited these or looked at these in any great detail this is something that we would have to do as part of that fiscal impact analysis that we've been talking about so these are all the developers numbers at this point okay was it previously estimated of 485 million and if that's right you know what was the what was the realization that was missed I don't know the differences of those two numbers I can look at that and try to get you that answer during the presentation but I know that was a separate number they may have that as well I would just reiterate that staff has not been able to go through and through all these numbers and find detail to form where we would agree with these numbers at this point so not not only is there a little bit of difference up front in terms of what would be recaptured but we would certain this would be one of the first things that we would do is start verifying that our definitions of these particular areas match I guess I'm not so much after a number you know as just if there's an insight that you know and looking at it that we realized that might be you know meaningful to us if not not so the the clarification on that figure the 485 is the reimbursement amount the 605 is the total cost okay 45 is how much was being reimbursed so apologize for that confusion thank you another question we had were what areas of development could be served by DME and I think maybe the colors are a little bit easier to see on the screen than in here but we have these shaded so you can see which areas are dual certified triple certified or this area in the white I think you can see here it's hard to see on my screen this is not served by DME at all can't be served by DME the white the white yes sir that area right there a big square so the other areas all have opportunities for us to serve and it certainly is part of the operating agreement the developer agreements we could require that it be served by DME could you outline what the cursor what because I'm is it the I see that yeah I'm gonna try to do it here because it's not showing up on my screen but this this white area here that big section there because that's all not gonna be able to be served by DME okay we've had several questions from the council about donation of land for public safety facilities or even the construction of those facilities themselves parkland trees gas well sites setback distances affordable housing a variety of other decisions that kind of came up through the work session last time basic answer to those is those can all be included as part of an operating agreement if the council felt like that was it those are important issues be negotiated as part of an agreement and they're gonna have the developers will have some additional information about some of those topics in their presentation that you'll see a very similar slide to what we had back on January 15th just to kind of give you again an idea of conceptually of how this would flow through the process the vote would of the MMD of the vote on the resolution of support for the MMD would occur at the beginning we would then have additional work sessions with the council on the operating agreements all these different provisions that we talked about to try to see what consensus of the council had what items were important to them and then at the end of the process there would be that vote on the consent ordinance approval of the operating agreement in the developer agreement so that would be kind of the process that we follow over the several months this is this is my last slide this will be the direction that we're looking for at the end of the presentation today I don't need necessarily answer this to this right now but I just wanted to let you know these are the decision points that we're looking for is obviously the first thing is are you interested in moving forward with this project if not is there other information that you need additional facts information that we can bring forward if you are interested in doing that then we're gonna be bringing forward two separate things for you in the near future to consider the first would be that resolution of support for the legislation that could occur on February 12th or the following meeting after that and then the second thing would be to approve an escrow agreement and this would be funded by both Stratford land and Hillwood for us to do the fiscal impact analysis that I've mentioned to you before as well as fund our legal costs to review all these different agreements as we we've worked to develop these these different agreements and different items as we go through the next several months so that's kind of where we're going in the next as we go through this discussion those are that's the information the direction we're gonna need back from the council this is gonna sound very nuanced okay you're bold as is council interested in moving forward with the project for me that's a different question because to decide to support the resolution based upon the facts that we present are the questions that we ask isn't necessarily my approval of the project it's saying okay let's explore the details to see if I want to continue to move forward and I know that's nuanced but I think these are sort of new things for us and okay and I think it's important for me to understand exactly what what I'm agreeing to and what I'm not yeah so thank you so I want to give my direction and it kind of explain why I'm opposed to even asking for permission from the state legislature for this and I understand you know that some might think well what could be the harm in that that's just extending the conversation I see without going into a full review of American history you know the concept of taxation without representation and representing officials who are going to represent us and be able to decide on taxes this is really important to you know democracy in this country and I know that this process is legal I was surprised to find that this was even a thing when I first heard about this but I feel that if we even ask for a permission it's to to have the the Texas State Legislature grant us permission we are showing the taxpayers who have entrusted us who aren't trusting us with the the awesome power of of deciding on taxes we we are have we are considered we are showing them that we want to consider even the possibility of turning that authority over yes for a finite amount of time but you know to private entities without full representation and so I kind of see that as roughly equivalent to you know it's handing your trot your child over to a corporation right if somebody said you know asked me if I wanted to consider that I would say I don't even want to have that conversation because that sends the wrong message so anyway so that's how I feel and that's why I think it's it's important for us to say no to even letting this go forward and you know no disrespect to this particular project it's just how I feel on principle about taxation without representation well again this this is just some comments I had the developers going to go through a presentation here with you and then these are questions I'll come back to you the whole council to try to get some idea of where you want to proceed as a group at the end of the presentation so with that I'm gonna ask Brian Karloch to come up so that's remember that has a comment first or a question I'm sitting here listening and I'm not sure what I heard okay okay we ready for the presentation mayor city council thank you for having us here again appreciate your time and really staff as well appreciate the time being put into evaluating this opportunity real quick want to start at a real threshold topic and that is really what are we trying to accomplish here what are we as the applicants wanting to do here and really in a quick sentence or two to make sure it's clear what we are trying to do as private developers is to develop a world-class master plan community in Denton Texas that brings jobs commercial retail and well above standards in terms of housing amenities and lifestyle so that is really we'll make sure that is our objective with this whole effort if you accept that for a moment that is what maybe what most of us want to see is that objective one way or the other you get into well how do we how do we do it given that we know to create something that's well up and above it's gonna take well up and above the cost and expenses and effort so the question is how do you how do you get there a couple of options kind of listed three here you know one is the city could do it the city could build all the infrastructure to the property through the property that as we've discussed is probably not an option but it is an option the city just bears the burden to bring in all this additional stuff parks amenities things that are public but we're gonna put that to the side and say that's really not an option the other option is that the developer does it all standard you spend the money you load it into the lots into the real estate into the homes we'll talk a little bit about that but that also is not economically feasible to load it all in as a matter of fact on the very front end of the project the first large percentage of the project we would be selling homes well over a million dollars which is not market and not a sustainable practice for sure in this market which really takes us to a third option and that is this idea of creating a public infrastructure funding mechanism in this case we've discussed with staff and talked about the tool of call what's called a municipal management district we'll spend really the front third of the conversation here talking about what that is and maybe what it is not the presentation really is to answer questions that came up at the January 15th hearing and also questions that came afterwards several of you will you as a counselor asked to submit questions to the city if you have questions so we field questions that way in some of you clarified questions through conversation which was very helpful to really understand what the issues are what the confusion might be how does this all really work so we appreciate the dialogue what we're gonna do is settle in on talking about this where the developer spends 100% of the money and gets reimbursed after they spend the money and after they create the value that's what we're gonna focus on and that is the definition of this municipal management district as we're proposing it through the draft legislation we hit several of these but the threshold question and two is of why municipal management district you might just say why public financing you can read some of this but as I mentioned the first phases of these projects given the infrastructure burden we won't go through the civil engineering side of this but their burden to the point where we would be well into the million dollars to be able to sell the homes not economically feasible to finance it and certainly not economically feasible to have a project at that price point but this does allow is this mechanism of reimbursement of private dollars that keeps the project and the price points of the homes in a range that we think are marketable and appealable appealing to people moving to or living in Denton Texas one thing that we wanted to make sure is clear and we were asked to talk a little bit about the process just to make sure that we understand what it is and what it is not when I hear words like private and taxation without representation it probably tells us that maybe we don't fully understand haven't gone through the process and not not to say that you should know it so we're here to explain a little bit about it to make sure we touch on critical particularly constitutional issues and breach thereof and the lack of that so we want to talk a little bit about that I've asked clay Crawford who represents the district and districts like this to come and talk for just a minute about a few critical parts of the the creation and the administration of this district good afternoon I have a outline I'd like to speak from but I'm gonna keep it pretty quick and would say that will be available to go into greater detail during a question and answer period but what we try to do is to outline the process of district creation and district financing and basically how it works and if this district were to be created through the Texas legislature it would be a governmental entity it is a political subdivision of the state of Texas so it is a governmental entity and subject to many many of the same statutes that that your city is subject to but essentially how this would work assuming that the bill was created with your permission we would enter into a consent agreement and the other two documents we discussed that basically set the limitations on the district and its powers its purpose its functions the district would have an organizational meeting to organize and to approve the principal documents that would control how it would work and to call the necessary elections this district will need elections to actually confirm the initial directors will need an election for it to be authorized to issue bonds secured by taxes and we'll need an election to authorize a maintenance tax to fund its operations I want to spend a little bit of time talking about these elections the basis for them basically is in our Constitution we have to do this so there's a legal basis for the requirement of the of the election there's also a practical basis for the election you've seen the hundreds of millions of dollars that the developer is expecting to advance if this project were to go forward no developer or a lender to developer is going to do that unless they have some sort of assurance or mechanism in place where they earn their reimbursement back so there's a practical reason for these elections in addition to the constitutional and legal election now if our elections yes we're gonna let Councilmember Armitage pose your question but if we could get through sort of segments of the presentation I will go ahead and ask your question then questions for him let's save them and as we go through segments we'll sort of let the presenters go through yeah go ahead so I wanted to ask can people outside of this special district vote no ma'am okay so that was my understanding and yet what so when the and correct me if I'm wrong here when the MMD goes away because it's not it's not permanent correct yes ma'am unlike in an HOA when it goes away then it will be the city and the taxpayers of the city who will be doing the maintenance and operation for that infrastructure well well actually the discussions and again we have no we haven't reached agreements yet this is early in the process but the proposal that we have made is that this district is going to fund the construction of all this infrastructure and and when it's completed and again it's going to be constructed pursuant to the plans and specifications directed by the city and once it's completed we will convey that to the city this will be at the city facility this will be an extension of the city's existing water and sewer system and an extension of their existing road system to maintain and operate as they see fit yes ma'am now the initial elections I mean we have a situation here where why is the district needed well the district is needed to put an infrastructure so there's nothing there most of these districts are created where there is a vacant piece of property usually it's farmland or ranch land where there are no inhabitants so we need to have voters and and so what we need to understand these voters have to be qualified and it involves the creation of residences in the district for the initial voters these residents will have to be constructed in accordance with city building codes and the city zoning code and then there must be residents that move in and they must meet certain qualifications and I'm prepared to go into this in greater detail but the these voters must meet the same qualifications basically as voters within your your city limits that vote in your city elections now the process is going to be I'll go into this I guess in greater detail because I want to go through the entire process but essentially the oversight of these elections our district as we do with with many of our districts in Denton County we will contract with Denton County elections administrator to actually conduct our elections but our elections will be conducted in accordance with the same election code that your elections are held with when they're held where they're held the notices that must be given and again who administers these that's going to be the county elections department and then who votes as we just said it's only the qualified resident voters within the district okay and the election code is very clear on what the requirements for residency is and these electors have to meet those residency requirements and then at the end of the day who oversees this process when this district goes forward with its first bond application again to even get there we'll get there in just a minute what has to happen is there needs to be the election the board will have to come to the City Council to go forward with the bond application of the TCEQ it has to get TCEQ approval we come back to the city then we have a public bond sale and that process will have to be approved by the Attorney General and the Attorney General has established very very specific affidavits and requirements for voters at these elections and unless the voters of these elections meet the Attorney General's qualifications the Attorney General may not approve that bond issue and so what does that mean what that means is if the initial direct elections are not handled correctly that puts the developers right to reimbursement at risk so it's incumbent upon the developer to make sure along with the district and its consultants that these elections are handled properly so now to get back into this wheel once we have our elections passed then what will happen is the developer will advance monies to the district which the district in turn will spend to construct the water the sewer the drainage and the road systems that have been agreed to between the city and the district and the developer okay the district at some point in time there will be enough assessed value for the district to put together a bond application to TCEQ to make sure that this tax rate this this how we say target tax rate of fifty or five cents why we think that we will make that we will put together a bond application which the city will have a chance to look at that will review that will show the project can be financed at fifty five cents okay city okays it we file the bond application with TCEQ TCEQ does a legal review an engineering review a feasibility review to confirm that they issue their approval then that's when the district would prepare their bond documents present them to the city certified to the city that all of the agreements that we made in the consent ordinance that the city might adopt all the agreements that we made in the mud the MMD operating agreement have been met we certify that we provide your bond documents and then that the city would vote to let us go forward with the financing we have our public sale we sell our bonds we close the transaction we do an audit to reimburse every dollar to be reimbursed to the developer and then we actually reimburse the developer and then we convey those facilities to the city for permanent ownership operation and maintenance every step of the way it's a public process the public's involved all the records all that relates to the creation of the district to the bond financing to the reimbursement all that goes through the Attorney General for their review and their approval then the process starts over with the next phase of development so it continues until the district is developed and then ultimately the district will have served its purpose at some point in the future when the city desires it dissolves the district and the project is complete that is that conclude your portion of the business any questions on that I think I have a couple but they may be too detailed I guess I'll go ahead and ask them up front because I think it's going to be germane to moving forward it's my understanding that to issue the bond well first of all I wanted to take note that I realized there's two really points that the city has in this process to have some concerns or to exercise its discretion if there's an issue so I want to make sure I have a clear understanding of that the first one is if if if the resolution is approved then the city and the developer enter into some kind of negotiating agreement operating agreement of what we expect the development to look like the amenities the elevations all of that whatever we all can come to the meeting of the minds on if we don't the process stops right there but I remember reading in the template legislation that the city still has to consent to the first issuance of the bond to the first bond issuance after that you don't have to but you still have to gain a consent on the first one is that correct well I think it's no okay what what how we're proposing this is that the every bond issue will come back to the city every bond issue will come back to the City Council we'll have our bond documents and we'll have our certifications that we are in compliance with the city ordinance consenting to the creation of the districts that sets out a lot of the conditions for the bonds that we are in compliance and that we're not in breach of the terms of the operating agreement between the district and and the city okay and if we do that then we've earned the right for a perfunctory vote from the council to go forward with the bond issue okay so all right so when you say perfunctory I like to think of it as it's more of a ministerial or administrative act because of what if somehow there's a disagreement in your certification and some council this is a long-term project sure so there's all different kinds of council council makeup council terms so what if there's a disagreement are you saying that there's no opportunity for a council to deny that it's more of a ministerial kind of administrative act stamp of approval I'm gonna give you my opinion but I want you to listen to your city attorney's opinion too it seems to me if there's a good faith disagreement and if there's a good faith issue whether we are in compliance or not in compliance I think that that gives the city the ability to call timeout on the process okay thank you appreciate that so then on the it's my understanding that before you issue bonds you have to have assessed value sit ten times the amount of the bond issuance is that is that correct well no sir not necessary okay okay but that's what we shoot absolutely that's what we shoot for because what we wanted it is to make sure that this financing is the most efficient as possible for us to be able to get credit enhancement for us to get a bond rating we need to be at that ten to one ratio so is that something that can be built into the absolutely so so that I understand and people here understand so that means for instance if the initial phase of the infrastructure to get the primary infrastructure out to the project water lines sewer lines major roads that are part of this agreement let's say for discussion purposes let's say you want to issue a 50 million dollar bond for that it's probably gonna be too high but let's say you want to issue a 20 million dollar bond to get the process started that means somehow there's gonna have to be enough assessed value of the project to equal approximately 200 million dollars that's correct and you turn and again the TCEQ is what the first throttle for that process mr. mayor is the consent agreement and the mud operating agreement right okay now I'm I don't want to negotiate for the developers on on terms but that is something that could be put in the document no my point being and that number can move my point being that that's part of a protection for the city because if you if you've got 15 million dollars worth of bonds you want to issue but there's certified documents audits appraisal district files that say there are there's a hundred million dollars worth of assessed value on this mud district that's being proposed already then that means number one if that's assessed value those are city taxes that the city is going to be collecting in the school district in the county on that assessed value before there's any one dollar reimbursed to the developer through the mud so it's saying we need to make sure that there's enough revenue stream coming in and assessed value to not only support your bonds or your financing but also it means that you do have assessed value growth within the district yes sir now what I'm saying to you is that that process is in place with TCEQ but what we're proposing is even an additional process up front yes with a more solid number TCEQ is a little bit more hey is this look about right with the number I would object to that sir because I would say we have to provide them a certified tax rolls and sort of certificates right but they don't have this 10 to 1 or 5 to 1 they just look at and say is this based upon those numbers a feasible or reasonable amount that's correct okay I just want to understand the process because this is this is going to be important as we move forward I think okay yeah oh yes sure going back to the mayor's question about the ability for the city to say timeout when there's a dispute or a disagreement is to future issuance of debt financing you had mentioned that we would have the ability to do that what you're referring to is how that is actually drafted in the operating agreement or in the legislation they'll be in the operating agreement Aaron okay and again what it what our hope is obviously you know that you've seen the hundreds of millions of dollars that are proposed to be advanced by the developer again the developer has to earn the reimbursement through the creation of value through a successful project okay so we'll have to so negotiate the actual process they're gonna want certainty they're gonna want some certainty where they're gonna want to know what the rules of the game are and they don't want to be subject to no I don't mean any harm here but they want to make sure there's criteria that everybody can agree with on how we do this okay great yes to your knowledge do you know if ever a bond issued through this MMD process has has been canceled by a you know future City Council in that kind of scenario so no the projects that I've involved in the the cities have been very happy with the process and so that's never actually been tested then not to my knowledge thank you appreciate it absolutely thank you thank you Clay what I will mention on this process too that you should maybe get some satisfaction with is that there are approximately 1,500 of these districts type districts operating in the state of Texas right now as we speak all across it so this is not a new idea this isn't a new process it's I would call it tried and true everyone's a little different in every city whether it's in the city or in the ETJ or in the county alone but there are 1,500 of these successfully running without a default on any debt ever since the late 80s legislation and the law change around how these are run so just wanted you to know that so now I'm gonna answer a couple of questions that came out either written or verbal there was a question about the MMDs how many how many should there be how many can there be how many should they be limited to when the proposal was made to the city we said hey probably about 500 acre districts or generally what are created 500 to say 700 we propose eight per district that ends up making them about market I'm sorry six six per district talk to staff we've talked about this a little bit we think we can minimize that to four I want to make sure everybody's clear on that so while say hunter ranch is 3,000 acres it will be chopped into four districts maybe not exactly the same size but just say for the moment they are the same size the reason you do that from a practical standpoint a little bar graph here at the bottom tries to demonstrate the idea that those are really four districts so the idea of the first group if you will it starts off at a tax rate of 55 cents but and issues it's dead as it starts to pay off debt the tax on that portion that first district starts to slowly lower to the point where once all the debt is paid back there is no more debt so the the debt burden if you will on the property made up through these districts will really go away phase by phase by phase because the objective is is to reimburse the public infrastructure so that the property owners once the debt is gone will just end up with ordinary water soup or city county school taxes so I want to make sure that we demonstrated this that the idea is to levy the tax issue the debt on that and then pay it off so that those really those first year property owners aren't burdened with an MMD tax indefinitely because the tax across a district has to be uniform and equal so the idea is in this case 750 acre districts levy a tax issue debt but then pay it off if that makes some sense so the point there was can we minimize how many there are we came with six per project so a total of 12 and we've discussed maybe make them a little bit larger we think we can manage that to where they would be four districts per project so total of eight so just make sure we're clear on have a quick question on yes sir so I make sure I understand what you just said so let's just use your example for districts district one puts in their infrastructure tax rates levied at 55 cents it starts paying down got a question on the amortization but that's too much in the weeds so district two then comes online I say three or four years later whatever it's five fifty five cents so you got a district that's at fifty five cents and you got a district that may be at 48 cents and it's time marches those go down yes that is that correct yes sir that's what we were trying to demonstrate so then what you could have then is you know in the same general area you could have different districts that have different tax rates which can affect marketability and things such as that but I mean I just I didn't know reality that is a reality that you might have some disparity within each district we get comfortable with that from a market standpoint because that district that say you went down to no tax compared to one that might have say it has a remaining 15 cents but you know that infrastructure in the first prod first MMD is maybe 25 years old at that point or 20 years old really compared to the other one that might only be 10 years old so I think they're okay we've never had a problem with that marketability part of it but that is and that I was just saying the concept I wasn't so much concerned about that issue but just the concept yes right okay for example I think Lantana maybe has 750 acre districts down there in comparison thank you yes a couple questions actually what would the relationship be between these boards and City Council what would the oversight relationship be just I'll probably have to lean on clay a little bit of what the relationship might be these would be elected boards elected by the qualified voters within the district they would be subject to the same ordinance that created the initial district it would be subject to the same requirements in the mud operating agreement part of the process for the division if you will would be the fact and this is what we propose to be put in the statute is that it would be subject to the ordinance and subject to the original municipal district operating agreement so I get that they're elected boards but I'm not sure I understand from your response what the relationship would be between that board and the seer there or is it kind of entirely it'd be the same identity it'd be the same as the initial board they would have the same relationship which is what they're autonomous they are autonomous autonomous it's a separate yeah it's almost like a separate little city yes okay and and I'm gonna I want you to be careful about saying they're a separate little city because they're very limited in what they're able to do they don't set their they don't have their own police force they don't have their own fire so it's it's they're subject to separate entity entity yes separate yes I got that separate city I thought I heard yeah an independent layer of government that has authority to very limited very limited authority it's there they were designed by the Constitution and state statute to deal with water sewer drainage roads and I don't know if you know this in advance or if it's part of the proposal or if this is standard but are there terms to their the board yes yes and and it can you know these are these are boards made up of five individuals they serve four-year staggered terms we have directors elections the first Saturday in May and even numbered years so the first May coming up in 2020 there would be two up for election and then 2023 up election and any of the residents can that are qualified so I can run can't run in those positions absolutely okay thank you again trying to answer questions that came up about cost to the city does it is this costing the city anything is there any subsidy so quite quickly is there any subsidy of any kind required by the city no is there any burden on the city to administer these MMDs know is there any way impacted by the debt being issued no and is there any negative impact on cities taxes or services no and we'll talk a little bit about that and we'll prove that to you here in a minute well the city have to spend any funds to subsidize the coal hunter projects our assumption that lots and homes will be 350 thousand dollars if you take that assumption out and you compare it to the breakeven cost of service we the city needs to go through and really determine what their cost of service breakeven household is we've agreed to use 250 as a reasonable number at this point with staff but if you compare the 350 projected in our project to 250 breakeven this actually becomes a fairly significant positive for the city from a cash flow perspective so we're going to talk a little bit about the impacts to the city real quick overall impact to the city through 2062 which is our projected build out of the entire project you can see the overall value for the project is right around the 14 billion mark when you add up ad valorem taxes paid to the city as well as additional revenues that will go through you get to about 3 billion paid to the city at that point and then they're forward so we'll talk a little bit about each one of those but ad valorem taxes 1.5 billion on a go-forward basis at build out and then the other revenues around 1.7 million and you can see what those are made up of but we'll talk about those in just a minute more in detail property tax we've talked about property tax a bunch 350 thousand dollar houses projected out at a 2% growth takes you to the point where you're at 80 million dollars at the end of the project again the end of the project shows as 2062 a city tax right now and I mentioned before I think collectively the two ranches probably paid three thousand dollars a year to the city of Denton they're an agricultural status but we probably paid somewhere in that neighborhood so significant impact the question is is does it pay for itself great that's a lot of money but is it costing us money this graph is designed to indicate the solid line as it goes up and comes across the top of the yellow bars is really the break even if you built the same subdivision the same community at 250 thousand dollar houses growing at 2% per year you get to the top of the yellow mark the gray at every point the gray is always excess cash flow from just the ad valorem so at build out the project will generate up and above break even about 25 million to the city every year on a go-forward basis another key point I think is very early on in the process so we talked about subsidy very early on in the process in this case it's almost immediately you can see we get into excess cash flow for the city based on ad valorem so a little bit about the additional revenue a lot of people focus on taxes but really the additional revenue is important too won't go through all the assumptions but here's what we've considered is the impact fees paid water revenue sewer revenue electric assuming that Denton electric is servicing two-thirds of the property drainage fees and garbage collection these are all fees going back into the city at build out you can see that's another 75 million of overall revenue coming into the city from those sources so collectively we're at about 150 million to the city in terms of ad valorem and revenue yes ma'am so so you're talking about the revenue that is coming into the city meaning the government the city government any department yeah under that big umbrella but as far as the residents in this district who will be paying as long as the MMD is in operation they'll be paying more taxes than anybody else in the city because they're paying regular city taxes plus correct you know tax these taxes on top of that so would you say that is the benefit to those individuals who are paying more taxes than others in the city are you saying that that's kind of a trickle-down effect that the this revenue to the that the extra revenue the city gets will benefit these individuals by kind of trickling down to them or how how would you make the case in other words that these residents are gonna benefit economically as well well I would argue not only are the residents of the district gonna benefit but also the rest of the city is gonna benefit that gray bar that I backed up to there that is excess revenues to the city to be used outside of the district so in some ways this project because of the additional value coming off the ad valorem because of the value of the homes that we anticipate nothing to do with the taxes which is the value we expect they're willingly and knowingly paying more because they see the value of the quality of this master plan community we'll talk we have a few slides here on the market to kind of speak to that point but as they knowingly and willingly pay more for that home and knowingly and willingly pay the additional tax it creates the surplus of ad valorem which again is for the city really to be able to use wherever maybe someone's been on the district I don't know where but really it will act I think as a subsidy for the rest of the city sure just and you know my so I have a different way of seeing that which is that the whatever money might be perceived as revenue for the city coming out of this you know we don't know what the costs are going to be going forward for the maintenance and operation so you know like kind of like someone who's been given a you've been given a free house I'm not saying this is free and you're stuck with it so the city would be responsible for this after the MMD goes away and that's what I'm I'm concerned about that plus plus the the you know not quite seeing what the value will be to the residents I was just saying I mean just as we project forward the additional value or also and even in this example projecting forward the cost of maintenance that $250,000 house clearly grows to being to being more so I think the cost of service doesn't grow with this analysis it assumes that you have you know 2% growth I guess across these projections haven't been verified by staff yet either so correct but they would at some later point if it came to me yes it's actually part of the fiscal when we get to the end we'll talk about what gates do we pass through if council elects to move forward next week or the next week but one of those important things is a fiscal analysis as a part of the process a couple of additional questions that maybe don't fit neatly within the MMD the question was how much money is going into the project this is total investment into the project not counting any kind of a land cost so public private all in all we think it's right around a billion dollars of investment we think using the 480 number I think that was used before which is really probably our best guess at this time we think it's approximately 50% of the dollars expended will be potentially reimbursable if we create enough value to get them reimbursed so just to make sure a little bit straight on the money we anticipate potentially one half or so of the profit of the investment to be returned but this is all private dollars going in approximately a billion dollars of private money I just want to make sure I'm tracking so so what's the 605 you know that the 485 was what you are estimating I realize this is all estimates that's the what you expect to be reimbursable the 982 is what you think the actual expense would be what's the 605 I don't know what the sick let me make sure we're talking before I speak at a term 605 Brian was I think the subset maybe the it's part of the onside public infrastructure costs I mean it's yeah if you put the list back up you would see that it fits into probably one of those categories this is an excess because there's a lot of money being spent to create the high quality amenities and lifestyle and other things that aren't reimbursable this is this is the total capital spend so when the question is how much are you spending developer and how much are you getting reimbursed it is important I think from a policy standpoint that the private developer be well invested and that the opportunity to get 100% reimbursed or anything close to it isn't really the benefit of what we're talking it's not the benefit of the bargain that we would expect so approximately half which by the way we talked about comparing to Viridian City of Arlington as it turns out that's about the same math on that particular project well this is this is all the money that's going into the infrastructure and all of that it doesn't include the value of the land there's no land in this equation yes sir there's no land in this equation okay there's all in there and there there is a there's substantial value in the land question we're asked about the the trees there there's you're familiar with your environmentally sensitive area there's the ESA's were agreed on this as we went through zoning been particularly asked about pilot knob pilot knob is within an agreed upon ESA and will stay preserved I'm not sure who had that question but it won't be developed as a terrain feature the topic of affordability and affordable housing has emerged we've talked to staff we've had a brief discussion here at the last workshop bottom line I think on affordable housing is it is our objective to create price points across the spectrum this is a big complicated question that every big city in the country is struggling with what we're committed to is being a part of the process as we go through this if we can work with the city understand the city is starting maybe some task force to really deal with this on a more macro or city level which is probably where you know some of the policy needs to be said but we're in with participation is what I can tell you but again there's lots of things that may be decided is this for sale is it for rent how's it administered how do you qualify anybody that cares about affordable housing knows that it is a very complicated difficult but probably worthwhile discussion to have and seeing if we can play some role in participating in it we don't have the answers right now we're committing to be a part of it whatever whatever that means will public will public safety sites be provided yes we've committed and it's not in the zoning but we'll commit as we go through this process that we will donate sites free of charge to the city for these facilities to be built wherever they need to be placed and we'll have to mutually agree on where they're best needed and suited depending where the needs of the city are gas wells so gas wells has come up from a from a few different people so we want to talk about that very specifically currently on the 6,000 acres there are 19 drilled and or permitted sites and on coal there's 14 drilled and or permitted sites on the property where because the zoning occurred at different times and really different applicants are in our invested entitlements are a little bit different between the two properties we'll talk about that we are going to propose or we are proposing some additional constraints around our gas wells as a matter of understanding maybe the importance of this to this council and other people who are interested to see if we can make some some movements and agree your current gas well ordinance as you know your 2015 ordinance basically requires 250 feet from the gas pads as I mentioned the coal and hunter gas wells we have 19 and 14 respectfully there's a provision about the direct access but what we want to get to is kind of what are we proposed to do so coal I will tell you has 200 foot setbacks really in their base case as we know ordinance is 250 coal has 200 they are prepared to move from what they are entitled through their zoning up to 250 Hillwood went through a process several years ago in amending our gas rights we went from 80 planned well sites to 19 maximum we also agreed to several four to be specific for well sites that would have two times the then current setbacks so we went to 500 feet on specific you can see them in the in the round red circles but largely they were the ones that were adjacent to or in any way impacting maybe more Robeson and country lakes what we'd like to propose is that up and above coal going from 200 to 250 that we agree that any protected use library hospital school that there's a two times current ordinance to 500 feet to those protected uses as additional constraints thank you for all this information so this is the the numbers of gas pads and so within the pad there's the wells and the sites and so there could be you know five or six wells on there could be none or there could be five or six right correct so this is the number of the pads do you have the number of the wells I do not and and will they be allowed to be fracked once the people are in in the homes are developed or is this max this is all you're gonna get whatever's there that's it no we would continue to reserve our rights to further drill in accordance with with the ordinance or zoning that it has agreed to so I don't want to communicate that all the wells out there are the only wells that are going to be out there or that a well might not be refract at some point in the future but it would be subject to setbacks and requirements that are in place either through this agreement or however we agreed to it so thank you yes a number of items have been mentioned as you know potentially negotiable and in the process of the work at the operating agreement is this well this is very consequential obviously because it has to do with how much land you can develop but are these setbacks so picked into the business case that this is basically what it's going to be that's not area where you would envision being able to be able to have discussions well not being able to enter into a detailed discussion with maybe any policymaker that this is you know a significant issue with this is really our come out offer per se so if it needs to push and pull a little bit given maybe the location of ones a well pad or two or three just again just like we agreed to in our prior amendment we agreed with largely the ropes and ranch residents and the country like residents that hey we would double the setback in those locations so I wouldn't say this is this is it take it or leave it but this is intended to be a good faith movement towards you know represent that you have oodles of wiggle room on this I'm sorry but you wouldn't represent that you have lots and lots of wiggle room on this I guess it just depends on how we define that yeah right if you're gonna say two thousand foot setbacks where there's not much there to talk about question about the parks we went through a little bit of a park plan last time really a key ingredient to a master plan community we'll talk a little bit in about the in some market slides coming up but parks trails all that is critical whether you tell us to do it or not we're going to over park and over trail this particular community so but that'll be agreed to in the document that we'll talk about here at the end related to the developers agreement so that you know what you're getting as a city in terms of quantity location our objective is the same as your objective and that is to have fantastic world-class parks and have them reasonably close within 10-minute walks that that is the plan didn't include the slide where we have the circles but largely anybody should be 10 minutes from any type of park I threw this up here just to show you that obviously the parks will be cited as we go through specific planning but different levels different hierarchies of parks from from large parks large regional parks down to pocket parks and some in between of course was asked about lower prices I think your financial advisor Hilltop looked at this too should we expect lower prices because of the MMD tax we have seen and we'll have a few slides here in a moment but we have seen strong evidence over many many years that the tax itself does not at all deter people from from paying higher prices if they're seeing the tax that they're walking into and they're also at the same time seeing the benefit of that tax everything ought to be much better than a place whether or not paying that tax parks landscape on-site schools trails all of that ought to be better but if those are matched up the quality is matched up with the tax we don't see ever we never see the disparity and we never see any issues I have some comments on that but I will save it later okay thank you just be sure and catch my attention when you have a member yes so I just want to clarify so when you say that the people who live here you know yes they'll be paying more on property taxes but the the parks and amenities that they'll be getting it will be nicer than will be better than the parks and amenities in the rest of the city of Denton correct okay so yeah I think I think our parks are really nice but thank you let me let me go ahead and address that and this is this is for my information you know I've heard the said that the reduction of the value of homes and Hunter Cole because of paying back the MD MMD over years currently Robson Ranch has an HOA fee of $3,170 a year per lot included in an HOA fee is an amenity fee $426 a year per lot and that's going to last for about 40 years the amenity fee pays Robson Corporation back for the amenities it's kind of set up differently than the MMD but it has the same effect the point I'd like to make is the HOA fees have no effect on the appraisal value and property taxes on homes and ropes and ranch in fact homes and ropes and ranch are valued at 25 to 30 percent higher than comparable homes outside of Robson the higher value is because of the amenities the MMD payment will have little effect on the property values in Hunter Cole development the appraisal by DCAD is determined by comparable homes sold in the past six months and amenity fee are you mean it's hardly a factor the overriding factor is does the buyer want to live in that area and what are they willing to pay thank you councilmember Nelson we just sort of understand this by asking a different way would you say then if you were rolling either you know all the infrastructure cost or some portion of the infrastructure cost you know into the price of the home rather than having the MMD tax you would charge you'd you'd sell the property for the same amount even if your costs were higher I'm not saying that I guess I'm saying that you would never be able to deliver all those additional we'll call them bells and whistles but things that are way above the standards that we would be obligated obligated to do under standard subdivision ordinances in Dent we would never be able to deliver any of that on top of this in this particular case we would never be able to finance or pay for the additional infrastructure that happens to burden this so it was a combination of up and above standards within the community and also the infrastructure burden those two combined you've got to figure out a way to pay for it if you don't have a reimbursement mechanism and I don't believe I can sell a million dollar houses and a whole bunch of them then no you wouldn't then doesn't work but the market wouldn't support I'm not saying no houses but you're saying the market wouldn't generally support this level of housing you know just in a pure free market you know at development at what price well I'm in any standard if you if you were not covering see now I kind of question the million dollar figure because you're saying that there's 14 billion dollars ultimately in value that you know will ultimately be developed and you know you're sort of in the range of like 3% of that is what you're looking to get reimbursed on so why would the homes be you know sort of triple to cover 3% do you understand why well I do it may be impossible to have this exchange without having the benefit of some some analysis the million dollar house and north of is really a function of financing as much as anything there you'd never be able to get a loan to go spend that much on infrastructure nor really what it bank finance a million dollar housing project to be honest with you but we're absolutely happy to talk about I know hilltop has looked at that same maybe equation for you as well but we'd love to dig into it I know there's some detailed questions that you have but go ahead go ahead well and this is based upon I think some questions that were offered in the backup that we had that I read and I have some just very strong objections to some of the assumptions the point being from what I understand and the assumption of those questions was well the developer number one may build it could build it without the reimbursement of the MMDs and I guess I want to ask you do you have any inclination that without any MMD that you would be able to build anything that would even come close to resembling the amenity package and everything that you had put in without that opportunity for some kind of reimbursement zero percent chance okay so then it just becomes a matter of what is the the the value and the agreements that if we can have a meeting of the minds between the the city policymakers and the developers on what kind of subdivision is out there right that creates it so we could have a very detailed discussion about that question those questions that's I don't think that's the purview of this particular meeting we're gonna have those if it gets to the point where we have a resolution and I look forward to that but I think councilmember Duff's example which I know firsthand is a very good example that the housing price is out at ropes and ranch comparably on a square foot basis are much higher than prices in the city of Denton that don't necessarily have access to those amenities that people pay for those amenities at ropes in fact one of the biggest complaints I would get as a councilmember representing that district was how do we get the valuations at the appraisal district to come down on our houses out in ropes and ranch because there's so much higher than the valuations out in the other areas of the city with comparable homes simply because they're still selling comparable new homes in that area for those prices and because of those amenities and because of those choices so yeah we see that and we'll show you a slide in a minute that's consistent throughout master plan communities assuming that the master plan community is delivering a higher level of quality people are almost universally willing to pay a little bit more for that a higher higher level of service yes councilmember Duff yeah I I can tell you you know you look at what this this community is going to be people are going to pay more money to live there than they well outside the area it's not going to be the 25 or 30 percent because the amenities there are amenities there there's the parks there's the I mean it's going to be a very nice place but it's going to be houses are going to be valued higher in in this development than there are outside of it so let me address the park comment if you'll go back to that slide because I just received a briefing from our parks director as a original request originated from councilmember Briggs about a national association that advocates for city parks to be within a 10-minute walk we don't we haven't achieved that we in the city and so that's going to be something I can't think come before the council but here what you're saying is with this development it's not a requirement necessarily from the city now but you know it's good practice to create that kind of environment and space so I think that's really what I'm hearing it's not that you're saying anything derogatory about our parks you're saying you're gonna have an opportunity to create a park system and a trail system that right now the city of Denton for whatever reason it's not good or bad it's just the way it is doesn't necessarily have that level but we're striving to get to that level so I think we both have the same common goal in providing that kind of amenity for us and maybe the key point is that we're prepared to commit to it in a document in this case called a developer's agreement to memorialize that back amendment and those park lands would be available if people were out there from the public visiting they can use it this isn't this is public park they are public and this these would be lands that would be I guess donated to the city as parkland in the development agreement or is that something city pays for that that's correct it would be donated and we would do the improvements within those parts which is the other key factor councilmember Briggs did you have a question oh I was just wondering if you had a map with the gas pads overlaid next to the parks so I could see I don't I don't and again this is that's schematics a little schematic intending to show our commitment to this 10-minute walk and also the hierarchy of parks from from large to small but we do need to balance that and proximity and we do in all our master plans we're very familiar with planning and developing around and I appreciate your 10-minute walk goal right it just a fundamentally great practice if you can afford to do it councilmember armature so thank you yeah so I'm really excited about that we at the city or that are have this about to unveil this you know 10-minute walking distance part goal and so I think it definitely is a great practice I just wanted to just verify again that so when the MMD goes away that all these these parts which really truly do look love seem lovely to me and I love this idea it will be the city of Denton and our parks department that will be maintaining these these beautiful parks after the MMD goes away I would say I would say it depends there are some cities that choose to keep the MMD in place for the sole reasons of specific maintenance for example in this case you may keep a five-cent tax out there solely for the reason of having a maintenance fund to be able to fund additional improvements related to these really up-and-above improvements sure sure but I'm saying when the MMD goes away well I'm just saying you don't have them it'll be the discretion of the city at that point does the city want to keep it in place or do they not want to keep it in place if they want to keep it in place it can be limited for example I think the sole function of landscape maintenance or park and maintenance but that'll be really up to the city but at that point yes it would be turned up without an agreement like that it would be turned over the city remembering the ad valorem and the property taxes that the citizens are paying at that point they're paying full freight and probably more so at least than the average break-even point of 250 per home thank you yes the question was is a tax rate that we've proposed as a competitive you can see from the the blue arrow on the top that it really puts us you know really right in the middle of the tax rates are being charged for master plan communities in the DFW area with similar size and scale so a couple of questions were asked about and we've hit on a few times are people prepared to pay do they really pay more for master plan so I wanted to just hit a few slides up Ted Wilson principal residential strategies he is the he is the expert in this business he is the one that Brown quotes in the Dallas Morning News he is the one the Wall Street quotes in the Wall Street Journal we rely on him on our for our objective information he pulled a few things together he actually did a survey of master plan communities in the Dallas Fort Worth area and then added a few a few pieces of commentary for us on this but the purpose of this couple next couple of slides is to see do people really pay more for master plan communities in districts what's the perception of a master plan community which then leaves you are they really prepared to pay more and why and then just one little slide on affordable housing meaning kind of how how affordable can you really build a house and given current rates for material again it's important to understand what a master plan community is people throw that term out like they know that everybody's talking about the same thing it is different in the context of this discussion a master plan it really has to have all these things that are on our list which really has most of the subdivisions in a market like like DFW really not even qualify for consideration brief snapshot just remember 2006 we had this peak in the DFW market of about 50,000 home starts and I wanted to mark the trough somewhere in 2011 where we hit about 13,000 home starts the other question posed was how do master plan communities hold their value as we go through downturns like we went through a few years ago we picked one particular project because it was one that started way back in oh one oh two oh three that has gone through and finally developed out after the recession identified the peak and trough the blue line indicates this particular master plan community it had a financing tool called a PID in the city of Fort Worth the red bar marks the average Fort Worth home value so you see the spread the chart on the right kind of and it takes the spread in this particular project there ended up being anywhere from 80 to where currently there's a hundred and ten thousand dollar spread between the average city of Fort Worth home in that sub market and heritage which is very much a master plan community with all those things that were on the list that I just showed and all the things that we're talking about doing in coal hunter but you can kind of see that spread if you follow out we call out the peak we call it the trough clearly everything has a little bit of up and down but you can still see the separation that maintained throughout with the master plan community and also the other the other area homes for sale in Fort Worth a couple things too about why people pay more this is you know when you're when you were searching for your home and I'll take you to the punchline these people paid more for their houses but kind of what were you looking for in your home actually like 71 72 percent of the people will talk about the amenities in the community we like to think we're important as a developer maybe the builder thinks they're important but if you go down to the bottom there talks about how important was the developer to your decision to buy and you know it's 40% but the large percentage the most influential thing that caused people to decide where they're gonna buy really is the level of amenity within the community question was kind of asked to a large group of consumers if you had $10,000 to spend what would you spend it on kind of just circled in red just the top top maybe one half but those are things that you build really if you if you're a developer you build it if you have the money available and without something like this on this scale you need a financing tool available in this case the MMD to be able to not just check the box and deliver trails and parks pools and lakes and a community center some of these are private some of them are public but this is what people say influences them to make buying decisions and they're saying it's worth spending their money on so what entity do the homeowners send their check to for this special tax it's collected by the county I guess clay first off all the values are established by the Denton County Central Appraisal District the districts have nothing to do that we typically contract with the Denton County tax assessor collector Michelle French to collect our taxes and we typically use the same delinquent tax attorney law firm that the county uses in most of the taxing entities we want to make sure that our bill gets on the same bill that goes out the master billing for all the taxes that will go to the to the residents okay so it's not it's not a third party or is it is a third party that collects it just goes straight special district tax yes ma'am and go you will write your check check to the Denton County tax assessor collector and then they will send the district our share the district share of the taxes okay okay similar to what the city does now because on your your property tax bill you get an atomization of each taxing entity but they're authorized to collect well I asked because in Corinth there was an issue where those checks were going to a third party and they didn't actually get was this the old old mud many many years ago off 535 yeah that that was a huge mess that's totally different animal it was a huge mess about 25 30 years ago yeah that's true this slide I think is I probably could have jumped straight to this but this is generally in these major projects that are going on in Dallas Fort Worth almost every one of these I think there are three exceptions I don't have some form of public financing call it a mud call it an MMD call it something a PID these are master plans with financing you can see the Delta I think last time I was here I mentioned maybe 20% is the spread between what people will pay for master plan projects and those not in master plans 17% happens to be the average as you can see there y'all are probably familiar with several of those I think you just answered my question yes overall average is not the name of a community it's not fire the marketing firm so how many of these are how many of these are in cities and how many of them are not do you know on this list if not don't worry I can get back to you with that some are in and some are out how many of these are developed by Hillwood and or Stratford do you know on this list Harbor up Harvest is the and Liberty okay our R2 on this list right now and I think y'all have one out in Little Elm don't you we did Union Park Union Park it's just it's just not on the list I probably should have done it but I didn't again Little Elm is by four or five years old these are really more mature to make us get better data yep all right thank you a little bit about the breadth of what we're looking for again while we're all talking about great exceptional home values price points we really do balance that with affordability it's important to understand where the market is this is data through the end of 2018 shows you that fifty point three percent of all DFW new home sales were in that 300 to five hundred thousand dollar bracket it also points out how difficult it is and really how little activity there is below two hundred thousand it's not because people don't see the value in producing a two hundred thousand dollar home it is it is physically almost physically impossible to produce a home less than two hundred thousand dollars just pure material cost so the target average for for colon hunter of course is right at that spike or we need to be right in the middle as our target average but we really have to provide a spectrum of housing going all the way from that two hundred thousand dollar house all the way into the 750s that is our range but I would be surprised if our distribution at the end of the day you know 40 years from now doesn't end up looking a lot like this because this is really where the market segment is and we really want to propose housing opportunities across the board from first-time home buyers to to those who are empty nesters we're down to the last few slides I think this is a little bit of a reinterpretation of what Brian presented in terms of the process is the same thing with a little more detail but I just want to point out a few things the thing at the top is this thing called a support resolution which we're suggesting council approve at the next council meeting and that relates to this template legislative bill you can see in the box right below that those are kind of things that you would expect to see in the in the template bill those are the agreements or the components that would be in there because the question is as we talked about all this stuff between trails and parks and tax rates and constraints and obligations the point of this is everything we talked about is going to be memorialized in some document there's an appropriate document for everything that we're talking about so the bill which we call template bill that your legislature calls it a template bill will contain those things kind of boxed in black when you drop down and go through the process you hit the yellow bubble there you see things like fiscal impact reports things for the city to understand what is the cost of service and we're all getting certainly more into the details once we know really at least in a box what are we agreeing to as a developer what's it going to cost us as well so what we do in our own fiscal impact report at that point but the three documents at the bottom are really what govern the agreement you have a developers agreement you have this MMD operating agreement and then you have this consent ordinance I would ask you in your free time to look at the components we can talk about any of them now but underneath each one is a component is kind of what I would call a deal point it has a place in the right document but those are things that we need to negotiate if you authorize us or actually authorize representative Stuckey to be able to submit this bill then we get into the other business points and as the mayor said if we don't agree on really one or any of these documents then it is really there's nothing that becomes in effect we really need to agree and we have to agree to the whole package why is that the structure of the flow what prevents us from you know doing the whole process of getting to essentially deal points released outlines of deal points before agreeing to pass legislation why are we being asked to enable the project without having determined you know you know whether to all of us you know it'd be compelling well quite frankly I think it's maybe some of it is just where we are in the in the calendar right now the legislature is now meeting they are entertaining bills the subcommittee this would be one of them that needs to be submitted in the next 30 days or so to be acted upon with this particular legislature because of the support resolution that we're asking you to entertain in February 12th the very last paragraph said in no way does this authorize it as this to be misinterpreted as a consent to create the district so really that process is efficient to kind of run that process along with the other one so we see it as a logical way to to proceed given just where we are today in in February during the legislature as we mentioned we talk about a escrow agreement all expenses related to this I'm sorry councilmember Duff yeah well you know the state legislature only it's only there for 140 days and you know it I think after it gets submitted there's another 30-day wait on it and you know if we don't get it in and get it through the legislature then it's gonna be two years from now before they can even come back with this again that's correct I'm down to a last couple of slides I did want to throw this up here and I'll tell you that I have not contacted one of these mayors or city council or city managers but I'm confident if you picked up the phone right now call that number and ask them about Hillwood the project and what made it successful we would get rave reports these these are all Hillwood projects across the state of Texas operating under identical or similar to structures to what we're talking about and these city officials who've been living this for many years have been living with these projects love what's happening the residents love what's happening that have moved in there we've created the value we've delivered exactly and more of what we promised in the form of a legal document but I would challenge you to contact at your discretion any of these people and talk to them about their experiences with this district these type of districts Hillwood the community and did it live up to expectations so I wanted to put those up there sorry are there any questions on this the only thing I would say is back on this note is in your free time we have one project right down the road on 380 it's called little Elm it's an in-city MMD in the city of Little Elm structured identically to what we're speaking to I would encourage you talk to the mayor city manager drive down there and talk to it but I'm gonna flip through a few slides I'm not even gonna say anything but I will tell you none of this is possible and as proud as we are with our city parks I love my I live in the city of Fort Worth you love your city parks and then this level of service is not possible without some form of enhanced public financing these are this happens to be one at one of the many parks get a feel for the housing behind it again you see great parks trails if you get on the ground you would see high quality this is a private amenity trails open space pools and I don't expect you to know our business but I will tell you this is far and above average deliberately of these type of me this is why people pay 20 25 percent more to live in these communities and are able to pay the all-in cost of ownership so I think I am done okay I tell you what we've been going for an hour and a half let's let's go ahead and we're gonna get into the question phase let's take about a 5-10 minute break and then we'll come back just questions thank you welcome everybody back to this meeting of the Dent City Council we're going through our work session reports it is Tuesday February the 5th 2019 at 310 we're we can adjourn we are back on a work session item 3a for questions so if we could have Brian if you'll come back to the well either one yeah councilmember Armitra I believe you had a question yeah I had a question and for the developer actually it was based if you can the so those pools that you showed are those you see you'd mentioned before that there we go and so the parks you had said will be public accessible to the public anyone can come with their family have a picnic there or birthday party right are these pools also they're not these are private okay so they're so the pools are private but the parks are public that is correct okay thank you I don't know if you have the ability to break this out at this point but of the infrastructure cost is there a portion of it that you could identify as being sort of the regional costs in other words the ability to get services kind of to the site which would have the benefit as you pointed out previously to the city of being able to do further development from their commercial and industrial and so on and outside the boundaries of the six thousand acres so yeah right obviously some of this is for a kind of the local infrastructure and some of this is to get it there right do you have any idea how that would break out yeah we kind of break the infrastructure out into a couple different buckets one is as you described just wherever it is it may be two miles to the east if you just brought it and stopped it at the property line just stop it and say it's at full capacity 18 inch line stop it at the property line that's what we kind of call regional off sites then there's regional on sites because we you know we're mid-block so those big water sewer roadways they not only come to the property they come through the property to service the property but also property to the West property to the north property to the south we kind of call those on-site master infrastructure or regional infrastructure and then we have what we might consider pod development or in tract development and then we have landscape amenity things that are largely private but not everything so those are we have amenities landscape things like in parks in track development meaning the the development costs within a pod itself on-site regional infrastructure those regional things that pass through and are on top of the property and then off site so we haven't been in those buckets generally speaking so given those buckets your question was microphone to get more to the point how much of the of the 55 cents would you say is supporting that regional to the site part of the infrastructure expense I don't know if we can break that down and I'm not even sure if that is even possible if that logic quite quite follows because even if you said hey we're gonna allow 50 million dollars instead of the 485 to be reimbursed it may be hard to relate that 55 cents to the 50 you can still have the 55 cents but it's only going to be reimbursing 50 million dollars the same 55 cents could reimburse over a much longer period of time the 485 million so I don't know if you can break slice the 55 pro rata per se I take a point just to put another way what what percentage of the of the total reimbursable pot falls in that to the site regional infrastructure I'd have to get the numbers but I believe it's 65 or 70 million just to get the pipe to the edge of the property per se Councilman Briggs and the mayor protein and forgive me this may have already been covered at least in some presentation but Duff mentioned that in Robeson they have high they have HOA fees up to $3,000 a year would there be an extra added HOA fee for the homeowners so it would be city MMD and then HOA fee and then if so what's what's the typical in your other communities the HOA fee and then also and how does that work if some of your amenities are private and some are public is that just how does that divide it up so we have a very strict wall between what's public and what's private so the MMD tax that is being generated from the from the MMD cannot be used to pay for in any shape or form what you're seeing on the screen all these private amenities have to come out of another bucket of funds and that would be the HOA due so the answer is yes there will be an HOA due on top of the dues and the fees we're talking about that is 100% true for all the master plans that I showed you before and I think every master plan that exists on the planet because you have to have a separate private source of funds commonly it's an HOA the public funds which would be that little sliver of the 55 cents five or ten cents will not be used for debt service it will be used for maintenance service to maintain parks and other public things that are within the district itself so did that answer your question okay well because you mentioned that parks were public and then when they pay city taxes part of that goes to our parks which would in turn then be to maintain those parks so I'm curious about what the maintenance is between the public entity and then the governmental entity on the for parks for example and I think it's a little bit different on on every deal that'll be part of the discussions on what does the MMD maintain because again it's public it's it's city I mean county resident everybody can go there it's a public facility so there's an agreement that needs to be made on what does the MMD maintain as it relates to the park and what does the city maintain if anything so that's part of the MMD operating agreement and kind of spells out what are the rules that we're going to play under but these lovely amenities that we're seeing here and then all the parks and trails all of those are paid with with the HOA so not the parks only the pools anything I like to think about it anything within a gate anytime you need a key fob or a private pass to get into it that's an HOA if you if it doesn't take a key to get into it it's public and anybody in Denton can use it okay can you can you back up to the slide that's it's got the the list of the Hillwood properties it's just one or two slides back that's okay right before yeah that that one there do you know roughly how much the MMD tax rate is in each one of these districts it goes from a dollar fifty in Houston on the Pomona track that's manville actually Jan our financial advisor may know better than I do I believe the pecan square I believe is 68 cents because that's an in-city MMD in Northlake harvest I believe is a dollar thirty it's an ETJ project okay if somebody if somebody knows could you just come on to the mic yeah oh no wait to get behind the mic because yeah we can't hear all right I may be off a couple of pennies but my recollection is on Union Park the MD's tax rate is 51 and a half cents right now and harvest it's a dollar and pecan square it's 70 and a half cents come on oh he's right dollar fifty and then Wolf Ranch I want to have a hard time remembering I carry I know it's an in-city district just like we're talking about here so it's a lower rate it's 65 but I could be okay thank you yeah yeah councilmember does can you kind of tell us a little bit about your experience with Alliance and why you started putting in subdivisions there I think you just kind of housing so well if the question is why we started doing maybe residential development I mean very specifically it's because when we had this great idea about building an airport in North Fort Worth to attract and create a kind of multimodal transportation facilities we were trying to attract big companies the American Airlines Nokia's Fidelities to this market they all responded there's no quality housing so we really couldn't convince them so mr. Perot said I can solve that so he created our group and all we do is master plan community development so we bought 3,000 acres about 3,000 acres in North Fort Worth and created a project called Park Glen and then heritage which really serviced as the high quality master plan community residential opportunity so now that when we're talking to fidelity you know whoever here's what you have quality housing available in the area and that's kind of where we took off you know from there so it's satisfied a need those companies started relocating and that that's really the origin of our of our group but there was some resistance to moving to North Fort Worth without a place to put their employees one at one of the comments that I've heard I haven't heard it directly from the president of UNT but the fact that they have not they have had professors they could not get them to come to Denton because there wasn't quality housing for them and you know we have all of that land up to the to the northwest where we can put a you know a lot of a lot of businesses in there but they're not going to come here unless they have quality housing there's another question about the pools so if you could go back to the picture again at the pools I just want to make sure I understand because it's also about kind of the definition of where the boundary is between public and private on these properties and I'm and I'm thinking my question is really more about use than about how it gets paid for right now so where is I'm looking especially like on that aerial view you know where is the gate around the pool you know because you mentioned if you need a key fob to get it or something to get in because I'm thinking so I go there with my family and we have a picnic and a birthday party you know how do I say okay don't go over there I'll back up a slide to show you that maybe maybe this one might be a little bit better so I'll stand behind the podium and try to explain this well actually yeah mouse are dying so this facility and those pools that we were looking at are nestled into these trees all through here sorry the mouse is a little jerky but largely that is the gated area everything else on the screen is public and so where's the gate well you just can't see it but it's sorry it's it's it's around here it goes all the way around you need a key fob it's an iron gate it goes all the way around so this is I think a better demonstration that there are large open areas for public use with amazing parks but only private residents we honestly would love to tour anybody who's interested in touching this project is not far away right down 380 so part of the agreement seems like there's a concern how does the public know where the private areas are and the public areas are so if we if that's a concern during the discussion of the operating agreement we can certainly stipulate that those pot okay gotcha councilmember husband that was gonna be my question I just kind of want to understand where we're going right I mean if we're the discussion to be had first is precedes where the fence is so absent absent that conversation it matters not where the fence is because we don't have a fence so I'm actively ready I have the conversation sure about the about the yeah I mean are there next steps I mean because everything we've talked about probably for the last 40 minutes or so is post right where we are today understand so I do have one question it's going to be about a 40 minute conversation on all the things that we're going I'm kidding you I know that Hillwood owns all the land that they within the Hillwood development but it's but with this Stratford group I mean that's coal ranch slash Stratford I think my concern or question or curiosity is is that if I don't know how else to put this and this may be a proprietary question that can't be answered because if that's not entitled to Stratford land in other words if it's a contingency contract based upon the acquisition of entitlements how do we guarantee that that transaction occurs or in the alternative are there two different resolutions of support two different MMDs so that as one as Hillwood moves forward because of the continuity of ownership and the consolidation of ownership if somehow in the process of the private contractual arrangements that whatever exists if any with the Stratford group and the owners of that land if there becomes some contention there then we could theoretically wind up possibly worst-case scenario first of all no agreements with anybody or Hillwood we could come to some arrangement on because we have a meeting of the minds and the collaboration of the benefit of the bargain but there could be some dispute privately with the other organization that doesn't really affect us but it affects the discussion on that second MMD so it might be a technical question but I think it's good to understand the workings of that as we move forward I think it's theoretical but I think it's maybe theoretically maybe correct or that it could happen that way there could be something between the city and Hillwood or the city and the Coles and Stratford that would cost for some of the reason I can't imagine what it is some reason not to go forward with that I thought you were gonna ask the question how could we rely on whoever the developer is whether it's Hillwood or Stratford how could you rely on getting the benefit of the bargain so I flipped back to this slide well that's documents will know the documents you know the signs to the benefit I mean so the signing clause and all that no I get that I'm talking about in the so technically and it's not even a disagreement with the city and each respective developer it's if some have something happens where Stratford changes their mind because of just something going on there Stratford and Cole after the resolution is passed then it just all just sort of crime I suppose it's certainly a property owner right to say you know what I was I don't yep like what I'm hearing and I'm not gonna agree to whatever if there's 2,000 foot setbacks on wells and they won't agree to it hypothetically and Hillwood would which we wouldn't but just say we would on something like that then it is possible there's a deal point that causes one property owner to not go through okay but I think the city would have to know that both properties are certainly large properties and because of access or independent if they had to be considered that way we're not at all thinking that way but I guess technically yeah we're really looking at yeah you could have one that mirror image between the two property okay okay councilmember Duff did you have a comment you're right okay any more questions on the I guess the work session is to give direction on whether we move forward to put the resolutions on the agenda in support of legislation so chair will take comments councilmember Duff I guess it won't surprise you that I want to move forward on this councilmember Husspeth I think you acknowledged yes yes so yes I want to move forward but only to have the detailed conversations and nailed down you know my saying is I want to understand what I'm saying no to and so under that vein I just want to have the opportunity to explore those details and see the value adds and and see how it affects our citizens and then I am absolutely sensitive to the fact and it's just a fact that this project has been ongoing for a period of time so it's not like they anyone was late in their due diligence it's quite the opposite we the city manager and staff have been working to make sure there have some level of comfort to bring it to us and then no one here has control over when representative Stuckey is in Austin that's set in stone and that's not going to change and so working with what we have to work with here's the window but it's not because there's some things that come to us late and it's because we didn't get started early this is not that and so I'm comfortable understanding that everyone's been working hard and we're just the timing of it says this is this is the window we have and at the same time I think just to go a step further I'm happy with the latter date I think was December 2020 to give us plenty of time to nail down all these details and it circumvents the May election cycle and you know using that as a weapon all that solidified and we're having real conversations and again eyes forward for citizens and to get the either the best deal or no deal without those those pressures and so your question your addition is a good one that I was going to clarify so the direction also is I think there was a couple of dates for the sunset which was May of 2020 or December of 2020 you elected for December 2020 I believe and you I did December 2020 okay all right I actually prefer 2021 but okay but 2020 works 2020 works all right yes okay we just going around the horn one possibility that we haven't really explored is just focusing on the aspect of this that would create infrastructure to the site you know we talked about a little bit my question because you know clearly to answer the question that I have which is is this making 10 better just bigger you know that opens up lots of opportunities obviously enables this development but you know creates the possibility of some commercial and industrial that you know that could help subsidize the city so I'd certainly be open to moving forward on enabling legislation focused on that piece of it as far as the rest you know I'm just I'm really struggling out you know what the I think the intent of my questions has probably been misunderstood what I'm what I'm mostly looking for is whether there's something that that will be so distinctive that it will add to the value of Denton as a whole and you know there are pluses and minuses and everything and in this deal some of the minuses are you're gonna grow the city very decisively with a group of people who are gonna be double taxed and may be disinclined to support other things we need and we know that we know there's action coming in the legislature to make more you know taxing requirements have to go before the public you know we need things like fire you know police expansion and so on so you know we kind of need people who are willing to have skin in the game so so so I guess I'll stop there you know absent I'm not I'm not I'm not compelled that this makes Denton better not just bigger but I do think that that piece of infrastructure does so that that's where I'm at okay just do that piece of infrastructure and if that's finance to an MMD because we probably wouldn't shell that out you know on our own you know and that helps this go forward and also has other benefits and that's structured through an MMD you know I could see doing that so you know I'd support that okay well I'm not quite sure understand what your direction is so if I'm wrong correct me what I thought I heard you say was you're okay with supporting legislation if and only if it has within the legislation a limiting factor of the discussion on the MMD is limited to the regional infrastructure and does not include any of the other things that we've talked about that if it doesn't include that then you're not for support of moving the resolution forward yeah okay so my understanding is from the two of you that that restriction is not within your direction okay I think we already know where you stand okay yeah anyway so I'm definitely no okay as a matter of principle and I actually there are a number of other smaller objections that I haven't stated but the really biggest one is matter of principle okay so thank you I skipped myself I'm in favor of moving forward with the discussion I mean I think even the question and councilmember Melcer has good questions and I think those can all be addressed at the next stage and if this council or whatever council is present decides that so if they want to limit this MMD to then that's exactly what can happen councilmember for my protein I feel the same way and I can tell you from regional transportation council when you look at the map and they've got just service roads on loop 288 because there's no plan for any growth out there right now this is the type of thing that can spur us regional funds as well is not just not just the effect of what they do but what having that growth will do for the city in many ways councilmember Briggs what already looks like that there's four for it but I'll go ahead and state that that I'm actually not in favor of continuing the discussion as I was during the original meeting because there were some things that I thought would be really interesting that we could work on and after today I I kind of gather that those are are not really there's not really much wiggle room there and hearing that there's you know 51 active gas wells in this area with not much wiggle room on setbacks and there will be continued fracking within 250 feet of someone that's paying a double tax and an HOA I just can't consciously agree to something like that thank you okay all right councilmember Duff right now I've got 2001 about 500 people there exactly that and they're paying the HOA and you know they're paying the freight before we get into a this is all just a matter of personal politics and policy so I appreciate that I don't want this isn't going to turn into a gas well setback discussion we've had that before we're probably gonna have it again the they have already entitled to they've stated what their ordinance says I appreciate your honesty in that regard and your upfrontness and your transparency I'm gonna let you respond councilmember Briggs but go ahead no I still have others oh I'm sorry go ahead yes okay and so on that part of the other conversation was that it increases home value and people are willing to pay that home value which is great I appreciate that but as we've seen in Rosen that created the the tax freeze so there are people who are unhappy with the amount of taxes that they already pay other other options are other things the one about the trails lakes and parks I think that's great and fantastic but one of the things I wanted to do was make sure we saved historical pilot knob and you mentioned that a lot of this area is already ESA and you're not going to be infringing upon that and so that's another kind of thing I was willing to to look into so I appreciate you leaving those valuable assets well yeah well again I think it's all part of the forward discussion and one thing that wasn't mentioned that I think is worth mentioning and this is part of my my reason to move forward in the discussion is I 35 W is being expanded and Luke toy 88 is being expected to come around I mean that's actually they're in the design phases they're in the preliminary stages of doing that and I think it's important that if they're going to be doing that for the city of Denton to be well poised to be able to take the most advantage of that infrastructure coming down to pick the sites where if you're gonna have on ramps exit ramps intersections bridges and things such as that you know with a project that is good for the city I forgot what your tagline is it's better for the city not bigger and it and it provides some efficiency it can also that in and of itself can add value to a project and I think that given who the developer is on these projects really can have a an impact based upon their reputation and their willingness to work with the governmental entity so I think that's worth exploring whether or not we get to the end of the road only time will tell but I think it'll certainly be an educational conversation and you know maybe there's some things that pop up that other people that people who've expressed objections based upon the negotiations from those who haven't may may enhance those opportunities where there was some objections so I think you have direction city manager on that Brian yes so I think we have direction about the resolution and the escrow agreement to bring this forward I think the other question is is the sunset date of the MMD right I think it's the I think it's the end of 2020 2020 is the direction okay yeah great I have a process question yes when will the infrastructure cost actually be verified and confirmed and agreed on by the city well we we have not actually had a chance to sit down and go through once the once the resolution is filed the operating agreement project agreement will start being negotiated and I guess to put councilmember Meltzer a little bit at ease the way that I intend on breaking this down is to come to some agreement on the regional infrastructure I don't think we're there right now so we've got the regional infrastructure you've got the internal infrastructure and then there's the business plan in terms of how the what percentage of the tax rate would actually fund parks that sort of thing value-added so you'll break it down that way so the council clearly understands the argument there you've already got one goalpost set with 55 cents and gives you some some discretion in terms of what you're willing to support at that time my guess is that's probably a three to six month process you know we until we actually sit down say okay how would we how would this site ideally be developed where would the looping go for the water mains what can we define as regional what is what is not those that's gonna take a while for us to agree on that same thing with the roadway projects you know there's going to be a the baseline is going to be if this was any other development what would it cost for that current condition and then you negotiate amenities on top of that so this is this is something that's going to take us three to six months of negotiations my guess in conjunction with that I know Councilmember Armitage brought up several times concern about the development paying its own way that'll be a given I mean one of the things I've talked to the city attorney about already is some type of a performance based agreement that if if proformas aren't reached or whatever that might not trigger the next MMD expansion so there's lots of ideas that we've got moving forward to try to address some of the concerns and ensure that this sub this development is not subsidized by existing taxpayers I think for the for the foreseeable future we would negotiate in some belt and suspenders language if it ever went forward such as operating costs being integrated in that MMD until the subdivision can be proven it's supporting itself and lots of those types of business cases so a lot of good feedback a lot of the same concerns we have we are you know we've just got we've got to get the agreement in place first they are development the developers have been unwilling to really spend a lot of money assessing the site until they knew whether there was support to at least move forward so it's kind of hamstrung us a little bit in terms of answering your questions it's not the way we like to bring these things forward but at least we know that that there's four of you that want to move this forward we'll start you know getting through these issues in a granular manner well and I think I think this process because that you know councilmember Meltzer you asked why are we doing it this way why couldn't we do it in reverse and for me what you just said and I would think for you also mr. city manager that why in the world would we want to spend three to six or nine rounds of a tremendous amount of staff time and developer time trying to figure this out if there's not some indication and of course you can say well that's putting the horse before the card or so forth so on but you still have places in this process where you can jump out so it just seems like a better efficient use of time and resources given given what absolutely the process is okay staff has direction appreciate that all right thank you very much you bet okay we'll move on to our next work session report which is work session 3b receive report hold discussion and get give staff direction regarding a request for a resolution of support from a developer applying for a 9% housing tax credit with the Texas Department of Housing and community affairs who's doing that presentation sir keep okay here's Danny and Sarah okay all right she's right there yes you you ready that's okay just wanna make sure hi Danny Shaw community development we're here to provide a presentation for a request for 9% housing tax credit resolution of support from a developer that was received by the city and just to give a little bit of background the housing tax credit program in the state of Texas that is administered by the Texas Department of Housing and community affairs there are actually two different tax credit programs the 4% and the 9% the 9% is what we're referring to today it is competitive so there is a financing schedule and a application schedule that we're trying to meet in order for this request to be applied and just as a reminder this program was approved for the application and policy by City Council in May of 2018 we were able to test the policy and application in the previous year and it did want to make reference to that specifically for this one because it was a project that was brought forward it's the same exact project that was brought forward in 2018 with just a couple of slight changes so it was one that you had previously approved the deadline for this resolution support of City Council chooses to make it we have to provide that back to the developer by March 1st all right we did provide some just additional information about where multifamily developments are and where tax credit properties are it's in your backup it's easier to see in that but just wanted to kind of share that information and in this particular project I did mention that it was previously submitted there are a couple of changes to it and one of those is a developer structure we have a co-developer structure now with Reva Switzerland which isn't an existing developer in Switzerland who is now wanting to develop in the United States so this particular project along with a couple of others will be their first projects in the US and they're partnering with Casa Linda Development Corporation and then the pladium which was the previous applicant is providing consulting services on this project we did provide a list of some of their experience and development of housing tax credit properties and just for your review I just wanted to mention to the pladium has a current project that received 2017 housing tax credits and will be seems to be on schedule to be developed around September of this year so there was one slight change in this slide from your what's in your backup just some additional information that we collected on the zoning requirements so this is a hundred and twenty acre unit proposed on six point eight four acres and at Teasley and Hickory Creek Road it will be multifamily is permitted under the CMG currently and so there any questions about that Ron McGee is here this particular project there was some flight changes in the site plan too but it's a three story community with one two and three bedroom units they range from 804 square feet to 1154 square feet any changes though and any of the additional review process will obviously have to go through planning and zoning in the P&Z process so we're just here to talk about the housing tax credit resolution support today all right this is a unit breakdown that was provided by the developer in the application they are proposing thirty point eight percent in market rate another thirty three point three percent is sixty percent AMI fifty at a fifty percent AMI there's twenty eight point three percent and seven point five percent of thirty percent or AMI or lower any I've got a question yes sir and refresh my memory at sixty percent and below see sixty percent is low income is that right and fifty percent is very low very low or extremely low so you got a streaming low very low low and then moderate all right so the thirty fifty and sixty are extremely low very low and low yes and seventy percent of that project is guaranteed to have those kinds of proposed that the unit mix right now is proposed that this line is guaranteed all right thank you mm-hmm yes councilmember Briggs and so when we're talking about percentages so and would it be 80% is that what is considered workforce housing like in that percentage or lower okay so so these are but yes yeah as the mayor was well yeah I mean prior last discussion 80% and above is considered moderate income 60 to 80% is considered or it might be diverse but from 60% and below is true low income on down so market rate is 80% or above or something like that technically moderate goes from 80 to 120 percent okay my thank you so on the estimated rents so the high rents most likely represent the market rents it's that estimated rent a range 389 - so the low rents represent that range represents going from the 30 to the right depending on the family size and depending on the unit size you would see some variations okay yes the majority of the lower end would likely be and is that the total rent that's not the the tenants adding additional rent to that that would be there looked at their income do the calculation based upon HUD calculations and this is what the rent correct right okay councilmember Armitter can you explain what that means by length of affordability on the project and then in addition to that can you explain and how this the 35-year window is is determined is thought who decides on that on the 35-year yes so the developer hasn't it's a 15-year affordability and then it extends to another 15 years for 30 years total the developer can actually propose a project at 35 years and receive additional points in the application process that helps helps them score especially in the competitive application process okay thank you yes there was just some information we wanted to provide and we do collect it in the application process so that you all can get a kind of an overview of what they might be offering both in resident services and property amenities so and these based on the way the QAP the qualified action plan works they score points on these amenities and these services that they provide and how they provide them so they provide resident services like social activities they're they're proposing to plan a health fair food pantry youth organization programs etc and then the amenities it's also in your backup you can kind of see what the project is proposed to look like what they're offering on site yeah I'm sorry to go off with a question to percolate my mind from the previous slide yeah what is the sort of status of this rental grid is it just sort of a concept or is it a you know binding aspect of the plan so I can go through the guidelines but it might be better for the developer to offer some realistic perspective on how the unit mix might change over the development process so if Scott would you be willing to come up yeah hello mayor and counsel so I repeat your question one more time well I just want to understand how we are to understand this rental grid is it is it a concept of how you're thinking about it now or is it a sort of structural part of your you know the performance that you're committed to yes it's a it's a definitely a calculation within our pro forma okay so the tax credit industry previously doesn't really didn't really promote market rate units within a development Riva Switzerland has a philosophy that market rate units definitely absolutely positively need to be in the development so that if the income level of a resident increases while they are a resident they don't necessarily have to be pushed out because they make too much the developments are typically you know a properties and typically the wait list is six to eight months on a typical property so once people get in they really don't leave and the market rate component just ensures that they don't have to even if they make too much money but the split of number of affordable units I understand the market rate part and and for its worth I like personally have to like the idea of mixing market rate with affordable but but the the percentage that are going to 30% 50% 60% and market rate are those it's the idea that those hold for when people initially come in how they might vary is based on people's incomes improving but but that there's some way that you're always sort of tacking to these splits oh the splits are in the splits are set within the light tech rules and guidelines okay that was my question thank you sorry about that sorry didn't ask it more clearly they may vary some as the development goes through or they may make adjustments but once it's locked in and the agreement Councilmember breaks had a question my question is about the amenities so it says there's some community center Wi-Fi will there be will there actually be a computer room where kids can go into that community center and do their homework yes okay thank you let the record reflect the answer yes go ahead I didn't want to answer for the developers any more questions yes I'm sorry and just for consistency I'm assuming these amenities are private to the to the project yes that's my understanding okay that was mine too any other just go ahead all right thank you and so really that's the end of the presentation is to to you all to give us direction on whether or not you'd like to approve the resolution of support you also have the option of proof approving a resolution of no objection or not to approve either one so I want to approve a resolution of support in favor of this and I also want to add to that that and and I'll be happy to forward to you I'm gonna be asking for opinion from our city attorney about it you know there's some legislation that's been going on kind of challenging at the state level challenging this whole process under the Fair Housing Act of why it is that these kinds of decisions have to come before City Council so I think it would be neat to see you know a staff report from the attorney's office kind of updating on how that that let how that you know those actions are coming along in legal opinion on those I happen to agree you know that as much as I love being able to ask ask questions about this I don't think it should be up to City Councils to to make these kind of decisions about low-income housing credits I am in favor of a resolution to support and this is a truly affordable project and I appreciate the the breakdown in the rents especially a three-bedroom for you know 500 close to $600 a month for a family is is a really great and can provide opportunity for for our residents and also doing that by staying on on the city taxes is fantastic so I appreciate that and I appreciate all the work that you've done I have a question for the city manager is is it inappropriate or a different point that we would take up sort of the usual questions of compatibility and how it fits in next to the areas around it all those kinds of issues yeah if it if this were to get funded they would have to go through the planning process and the site plan would be brought back before you so you would definitely get to view it from that perspective as well and I just want to answer Councilmember Armitage points on I don't think I don't think that the council process here was not set up to make a decision on whether or not a project would necessarily was good or not when the agencies that do submit these do look for a resolution of support or objection from the communities that as long as that's in their rules that's something that the council can weigh in on this point was not to necessarily draw it conclusions on a project it was set up purely for transparency purposes because we had projects coming before the City Council where developers would not answer the questions what the intentions were how it would operate amenities being provided so about a year and a half ago we set up a process in place just simply to communicate more with the council the public what the intent was it's not necessarily to make a you know a judgment on a particular project but it was intended to be more transparent so just thank you for helping me understand the process it's in Phil meets a meets a class of housing that we need I'm in support knowing that we get to look at you know all those kind of zoning type questions later absolutely yeah I'm in support option one I did have one question though and this might be more of a wrong question if there's anything been submitted yet on their plans site plan drawings or anything the answers now okay all right not going to until they get approval okay it's a lot of money spent on that a lot of time option one yeah option one for me and I want to echo the city managers comments these are state these are state options given to City Councils and I think for transparency and I understand some of the concerns that councilmember armatures discussing or talking about and none of them at least that I'm aware of her directly regarding this is regarding some codes that the city can pass that may that there's some lawsuits and things fringing on that so the state can the state can decide that one yes yeah so yes just to add yeah that that that this is a my comment was about the the state sure policy that makes this possible yeah we'll let that just to clarify that's federal and then state will stay in federal yes so it's federal if the federal legislators made a decision then it would affect the state's decision on how they develop the rules and guidelines about that decision and I would just add the different the box that the council's in I mean if they change the rule that's fine but the box the council's in is if you don't support the resolution support they conclude that there's an objection so it's sort of an interesting you know conundrum you're in until they change that rule okay all right any other questions you have direction yes option one approval and resolution of support thank you appreciate it one last work session agenda item which is 3c receive report hold discussion give staff direction regarding the feasibility and cost reducer and or eliminate poles along Dallas Drive and Teeley Lane good afternoon mayor and council George Morrow DME general manager I'm not the guest of honor today but I'm going to introduce the guest of honor so Jerry Fielder who's DME's manager of distribution engineering he's put together some information for you regarding hey how can we clean up the poles that are on vicinity of Dallas Drive and Teeley Lane so just a little bit of background on Jerry just real quick he's been with DME about six years came to us from co-serve where he had a similar position so he's got got a lot of background and knows the neighborhood so without further ado Jerry and if we could I think he's got about a 20 minute 30 minute presentation 15 10 minute presentation I'm just teasing you Jerry so if we could if we could hold the questions until the end that'd be great yeah just to let him get through it because I know sometimes it really can fragment the presentation yeah you cut it down in about halftime now well good afternoon first of all let's go back through some background DME had been told that there had been some money funded to put a park at the intersection of Dallas Drive and Teeley and that there was some interest from the city standpoint to consider what to do about cleaning the area possibly putting some stuff in underground so we've done some study on that and we've also extended that area basically from Smith Street down to I-35 and then up along Teeley Drive for a little bit of space on that part of it can I let you know what we've done so far DME has met with representatives of frontier in charter we did this on January 4th 2019 the two options that we discussed with them was transferring of all their existing plants other existing plant on top top poles to the DME poles that are existing along these roads and then we also talked to him a little bit about a conversion of their overhead plant to underground so at the request of DME charter has already transferred their assets off of the what we call stub poles over to DME poles and this has allowed us to remove at least five poles thus far along the road and so as soon as that was done DME went ahead and initiated the removal of those five poles so we've gotten five out of the way so far but we are still continuing to work with them to get more of the poles moved over so this is kind of an ideal the study area that we took into consideration we got Dallas Drive from Smith Street southeast to the I-35E entrance ramp and then Teeley Lane we took it from just south of Woodhill Camino del Sol apartments entrance northeast to about 200 feet of Duncan Road that's the study area and to do that I've split that up into seven different segments to talk about the cost and the work that's done about it and we'll go over each segment the first segment which is the one that's a directly adjacent to the park it can be independent it is an independent study so in other words we can do this one and we can clean up just the area around the park the rest of the segments would just add to the overhead underground considerations that we have up there so kind of an ideal if you think you guys already know most of this is that the current conditions that we have out there is you DME has some double circuit overhead lines on the south and the north side of Dallas Drive and we also have single circuit lines on the east and west side of Teeley on that part of it there are a number of stub poles out there that frontier and charter had had connected to and you can kind of see that in some of these pictures right here these are the what I'm calling a stub pole and these are directly adjacent in some locations to DME's existing poles and so the area kind of looks a little cluttered when you start looking at all the poles that you have out there okay so this is kind of the options that we talked to with charter and it's actually frontier instead of horizon we got the names finally worked out from my standpoint we talked to them about removing how we could possibly remove all the stub poles along this area and so because of that again charter has moved all their equipment over onto the DME poles we've been able to get rid of five poles Verizon frontier is still looking into that and as you'll see we really don't have a plan or a cost that's been provided by them yet for that so five poles magically gone so option one these are some graphics that we did to kind of show you some ideas for option one which is the removal of all the stub poles if you kind of look at this thing what I'm going to do is I'm going to click on this graphic and it's going to show what the road looks like without the stub poles on it so there is a great amount of clear up that could possibly be done if we could just get rid of the stub poles and get these guys to move over to our poles so I hate to do this but I'm gonna do you like I do my optometrist okay when they say is this clear or is this clear so if you could go back to the way it was before okay this is before before okay okay one more time I'm just trying to get an idea because you focus on one I'm trying to look straight down the road okay one more time okay all right okay yeah I take some out in the foreground and that one over on the left okay all right all right yeah right yeah yeah that's just this image of course there would be more poles that would actually be taken out we just when we did these simulations we just we just appreciate that areas we didn't get the entire roadway so for option one the information that we've gotten back from Frontier that they have told us that it's only feasible for them to eliminate only two stub poles due to cable slack and splicing boxes that they have existing in that area and they said in their email to us at the cost underground the remainder would be quote significantly expensive unquote and as we've mentioned charter spectrum has already worked with us and moved on all their equipment over to DLE poles so that's the option one that we talked to them about you'll see this a couple time for option one the projected costs associated with this for DME it's going to be minimal DME will has basically taken on the actions of that as soon as poles are cleared up we'll pull them from the ground and get them out of the way but charter and Verizon as I said we really haven't gotten any information back from them yet on how much it would actually cost to do that again Verizon Frontier has said that it would be significantly expensive for them to go underground and they can't really go on to our polls that make it sense and that would be at our cost whatever their cost is to do it with it we don't know they haven't said yeah we've never talked to them about cost or who's gonna pay for what so we really don't know okay what's gonna happen at that point well all right okay so option two is the undergrounding option and this option is DME initiates a partial or full conversion of its overhead assets to underground and Verizon and charter will have to fall suit with their assets just to kind of give you an idea of this area and it's important to DME this is a major junction for our reliability switching that we have out here I do have substation substation transformers and a number of feeders that are connected in this area and all the switches you see are switches that are key for us to be able to swap load whenever reliability comes into play or we need to open or close and move people around so it's a fairly major area for us when it comes to reliability and that means that we're gonna have to do a lot of work to maintain that reliability and that's switching and etc that we'll have to put in the with underground facilities to maintain that same flexibility of switching so option two this is just the park the segment one is just the park area that could cost at a cost of about 1.2 million dollars to do that area what you'll see on the right hand side and I'm not going to go over each one of these bullet points is all the work that will be associated with doing that to kind of give you an idea of the extent of the work that's needed to move this area to underground so got more graphics here so but we have done some graphics to kind of show before and after the park area this will be dramatic should be so segment one this is this is the first view this is before take it out this is the after again the before and the after okay different side view this is kind of looking towards i-35 on Teasley you've got the before and you've got the after okay hold on hold on hold on okay let's if I'd seem like there's a lot that changed underneath the canopy that other than the pole so so is that included in the 1.2 million all that is that would be the park okay that's the park okay I want to make sure okay I thought holy cow man yeah wow all right no the parks department okay very much with kind of giving us so what I would love to see is that park image on there with the current overhead so that's I mean we don't have to do that now but I'm just I'd be just curious yeah he was pretty good when you do that okay all right so let's do that one more time so I can get over the shock okay and there's the after all right so now does what we're looking at here let's say the overhead is still there does that change the way that these trees are planted and all this landscape in other words do is there some encroachment that it will not look like this if those poles stay I don't know if I can answer okay but I mean our poles would just kind of be on the outside we really wouldn't go on the inside yeah they would certainly design around the poles but this generally is the concept that we're thinking of even without the pole right okay councilmember yeah but looking at this modified view the signal lights are changing now right there I saw the foundation yes sir yeah so where will they be because that's that's where they are currently they're gonna move I'm afraid I can't answer is where the signal lights are gonna go I don't know what they're gonna put them do you know Brent well yeah we need somebody can you get that back to it I mean because you're saying that even if everything stays the same because of the park and all that these signal lights are gonna be moving somewhere yeah yeah so I just I just say that it does not account for the new configuration that's going on now okay not that matters I mean the parks great and everything so it I just wanted to know yeah even with all this configuration of the overhead there you try to overlay what we saw on the trees and the the part I mean it's get the cones out of there screen the gas station so you auto park that's you kind of want to see this but yeah how it looks yeah yeah that's a million bucks yeah I mean for a intersection so the truck will have to be left okay anything else on now no I think we're good okay and then this is the last one that we want to show this is actually up Dallas Drive for a little bit because we can't exact we have to have enough space for down guys and for our what we call polarizer so that we can go from underground to an overhead conversion the extent of this would actually go up the road a little bit up Dallas Drive a little bit to about where the tire shop is right now and so that would go from looking like this to looking like that okay one more time okay it's all the construction cones there I mean get those yeah oh yeah that makes huge difference just right there yeah yeah yeah okay all right okay okay yep so that's about that's the last of the fancy graphics I have for you option to segment two which is the north side what I'm going to call the north side of Dallas Drive basically from the park all the way up to Smith Street again on the right-hand side is a list of all the actions that we'd have to take to get that put in underground that would come at a cost of about 1.9 million dollars to do the south side of that same road at that same position it would be about another 1.1 1 million dollars to do that if we move up Teasley so in other words you go from the park up Teasley to about where Duncan Street is to do that works about two hundred and twenty two thousand dollars for that cost segment five would be basically from the park area down to Hopkins this is going towards I-35 to get that converted to underground is estimated to cost around five hundred and seventy thousand dollars to extend that all the way down to the I-35 access road an additional one point eight nine million dollars and then to take it from basically the south side of the intersection down to where those apartments entrance are to put all of that in underground an additional one point zero four million dollars so here's the shock slide to add all these things together to do that entire area and put an entire area together you're looking at around one point seven point eight million dollars and we still don't know what charters cost if they would charges or any cost from frontier would be that would have to be included in this on that on the pricing associated with this project so this is kind of putting them both together option one just getting rid of all the stub poles the cost of DME is minimal and that would get rid of about seven poles that we have in that area but option two which would be the total undergrounding would get rid of around 93 DME poles and 31 of the stub poles at the cost of about seven point eight million dollars only for DME not including the cost for charter or frontiers work to happen if they charge us for that so some of the key points just to let you know kind of reiterate DME has initiated conversations with both the Verizon and charter to eliminate the top-down poles along Dallas Drive and five of them have been removed so far the projected cost for DME to convert our overhead plants to underground just at the corner of Teasley and Dallas Drive is estimated to be about 1.2 million and the projected cost for DME to convert our entire overhead plant in the study area all seven segments is about seven point eight million dollars so the next steps if option one the step pole removal is chosen by the council DME will continue to work with the telecommunication providers to scope the project in further detail and implement the plan is practical in other words we will continue to develop our relationships with the telecom companies to see if we can't facilitate more the pole removals in this area for under option two which is the underground phase one we would do detailed engineering and cost estimations just for the segment one work at the that's the intersection of Dallas and Teasley Drive and further work with the telecommunication providers to find out what it would take to get them to also go underground in that area and at that point if everything worked out and we were told to go with option two and everything looked good and the council so chose and we would look at the additional phases segments two through seven to be considered for implementation to put those in underground so that's where we kind of at right now is the discussion point what we kind of are asking from you guys is consolidation of the telecommunications and DME overhead facilities adequate to accomplish the desired aesthetic objectives that the council has for the road or two does the council prefer to proceed with a detailed design of option two segment one the undergrounding at the intersection of the part that should be councilmember Briggs has a question well no I appreciate this because I originally asked for this item and it came back to us in a Friday report and the Friday report had some different information than what you're presenting so and originally I just want to get the reason I asked this is because we were focusing on entrances to the city we are upgrading several areas where people come into the city the first thing they see we approved a park here on the corner there at Teasley in Dallas Drive when people are coming into our city off 35 they exit Dallas Drive to go down most likely to downtown and driving that exit I noticed I think there was just so many poles there are three poles on you know right here and then over here it just looked crazy and chaotic like we had no control over anything that was going on and so I appreciate that five poles have been removed but I think that there are over a hundred poles in this little area and section my request wasn't to spend seven million dollars and bury all of this stuff it was to get rid of all the little extra poles that only one thing was connected to so that and I don't know what option that is that would likely be the option one we would continue to work with the Verizon and Charter and try to work with them to find out what it would take for them to clean up some of those stub poles to move over or put their stuff in underground we certainly have no problem with doing that I mean there are numerous stub poles what I call stub poles along that that entire route that cleaned up I mean once those are out to clean up that roadway in my opinion and so option one would get rid of the 42 stub holes we would work to get rid of the 42 in that one area I that is a lot of extra poles yeah just okay so yeah that that's the main goal just to clean that up and make it look you know like we know what we're doing a little bit when people come into our city and I'd like I'd like to temper that a little bit I mean we definitely will start talking to them even more about doing that but it it's gonna be a solution there's gonna be a lot of discussions between us and them before we start coming to agreement on getting rid of those poles and how they can best be gotten rid of and the cost estimate here that was in our Friday report November 21st was 1.2 million for electric to do this and 350,000 for frontier yeah frontier had given us a preliminary cost several months ago okay and when we were you're talking to them about renewing this thing right here they said well we're not sure that we can really do that we need to read look at that so that's why I put to be determined in there because they weren't sure that that's a value that they could support the 1.2 million is the same value for just the corner of the intersection that we'd give this of those match oh that was to go underground yes ma'am yes ma'am all right thank you so I'm for for option number one this sticker shock of option number two it sure was interesting though to see that but I'm definitely for option number one and I had a question and this might be something that you can't answer now and I don't need the answer to it now but I would like to know at some future point maybe in a staff report on kind of why you know what what your your sense is of why there's such a disparity between you know charter and Verizon you know their their response to this request is it that and obviously how they respond was not the city can't control that you can just dream and just try to to you know deal with them but but I'm just curious about the Verizon's claims about I forget exactly what the terms were but there's this and that you know cable infrastructure blocking everything charter apparently doesn't have that that problem you know is this has this been confirmed that this and I forget the name the names for them but but but that this infrastructure is really blocking this possibility or you know is that I don't know if there's something you can't speak to emails that they sent me so I mean that's that's really the only thing that I have is just what they tell me from that standpoint yeah because that's just interesting I just be curious to know you know why is it because we're talking about the same general area right and there's charter and Verizon in that same area I'd be interested to know why the charter and there might be very good reason you know why is chartered discharging or have these obstacles if Verizon does yes we can definitely impressive graphics remove the cones at landscaping option one I hope this frees mr. Fielder up to continue focusing on the battle against squirrel to wasn't it recently squirrel day or something like that so no I just I want to understand I guess can you help me understand what we're asking because it it seems like it again to draw a parallel it seems just like another conversation we just had where we're we're authorizing a conversation that's gonna go down the road with untold costs and untold staff time but we're saying that's okay I mean because they're gonna have to have conversations with the rising and these other carriers right yes and then ultimately that's gonna come back to a conclusion that ultimately we may say we don't want to do that and so that time in invested is for not at that point if we don't so I'd like to see the conversation go a different way what what are we willing to spend time money and give staff that authorization to I'd like to take it the other way I mean and I thought that was that's what we just did in another conversation that that was that was what gave some people heartburn but maybe that's changed but to me to for consistency purposes I want to I don't want to authorize authorize that conversation unless this council's on board with spending some amount of money hours etc to to allocate towards that and at the at the detriment of some other project I assume I mean I'm assuming they're not just you know at their desk looking for stuff to do so it's gonna take away from something you know and I'm all for that but I just want to give clear direction if that's the case well I think first of all you know we were asked a very specific question that is how do we clean this area or some options so we get real clear direction that undergrounding it is not necessary which puts the staff at ease in terms of in terms of options I think what I'm hearing from the council is if you can you know diplomatically work with both of these carriers to you know co-locate on our polls we're okay with that because it manages the cost if they're not willing to to work with us in that manner we'll be back with you with some budget numbers and I think that's kind of what Jerry's saying is you know so far if they've been cooperative I mean it's challenging with with issues like this in other states you wouldn't deal with this because you'd be regulating their franchise agreements you know in Texas it's not an option so they really are down to can they can they negotiate and perhaps make some trade-offs to keep the cost down and if not can we get a budget number from them and we're happy to look at that but we've got a very clear direction now I think before it was just sort of like what what are some options for us to consider and we'll do that with anything yes so so what is the what is the what do you envision the time and cost but not not necessarily cost but just hourly like how long does that process those conversations generally what do you think that investment is we will know within a few weeks whether or not they're gonna cooperate with us on you know further I think based on you know the direction we receive today it's gonna be real clear asking them for specific a specific ask you know can we do will you cooperate in locating and cleaning up the corridors we see fit or if not give us a budget number if they end up giving us a budget number we'll be right back to see you and for exactly the reasons you're articulating is how much time and money do we spend okay okay councilmember Briggs did you have something what you could go ahead and I'm sorry I'm sorry yeah see I just told y'all to forgive me early on yeah you know I don't know how long it's gonna be before 5g gets here but when it gets here the cables are gonna become irrelevant but you know that's in the future and that's not right now yeah I'm just curious about about who owns the poles like are they the property of the like frontier and charter do they they own the poles or do we own the poles and their stuff is just attached to it like I'm not I'm just trying to figure out say so if they don't want to and we say okay well we're gonna do we have the right to move their line and attach it to our pole the poles are owned by both I mean DME can own a lot of poles and frontier of Verizon can own poles also I don't know the exact mix out along this area but because back in the old days Frontier Charter all these other folks used to put the poles in the ground themselves they've stopped doing that but there's still poles that are owned by them in the ground we've just taken upon ourselves that once the pole is clear that we'll go ahead and remove that out now moving their facilities to our pole there's a huge amount of liability that could take because if you're moving a main trunk line and it has the fire department police department on it and something happens to it within there's that liability associated with it so our crews typically do not like to move their stuff to another pole they won't they don't it's concerns from their part we throw two cents in so a lot of the poles that we call stub poles were DME poles previously where we upgraded our facilities and we moved them like here on on Dallas Drive we moved them a little further away from the roadway that way there in the future the roadway could be widening those kinds of things so we topped off those poles and this will become stub poles that by definition but they are our poles and you know in the all fairness of operating between electric companies and telecommunications companies they should move over to the new poles that we put in place yeah but they aren't and they have it so you know we'd just like to reenergize as Todd mentioned and and I'd be you know we're happy to take that on to work with those companies and see if they can get off of our poles because it does create that you know creates a little bit of a blight and it wasn't our intention that they stay on those poles right we're having to update our agreements with those companies so there's a little bit of a little bit of work to do and I don't know if I made it any clearer no I appreciate that that we those are our poles there were most of those many of those were our poles if we could we just say we're taking our poles down you have like yep we'd have to as Jerry said we'd have to lay that on the ground or because they're probably not and that's a big big issue so and they kind of know that that we don't have a lot of so we're going to use our while in our our negotiating skills and and see what we can do thank you yes same problem well obviously I'm for option one but do you have any idea what the life left in those lines are are they relatively new is that I could see us wanting to kind of convert more to underground as we have to replace the asset but not just to clean up the area yeah a lot of the electric in those in that area are fairly new you know in the order of five or six years so you know if you look up Dallas Drive from that intersection you see the pole lines looks actually looks fairly new the creosote still dark and and they stand up nice and straight but you know if there was a you know a larger greater purpose we could we could look at doing something different but it'll cost some money yeah I guess what I'm saying is as you get ready to to replace lines in the city you know that's when bring it to us ahead of time so that we can make a decision at that point as to whether we do you okay because you're already gonna have to spend money to replace the line so what is the difference between replacing them and putting the new poles and put them underground on any individual project all right thank you so it seems like option one continued the conversation on a basis that it achieves some kind of number somewhere but I think is Councilmember Huss but it had stated that you know it's not like we're saying go out there and you know pin them to the ground with a with a number but you'll work on it as time permits and we'll begin our conversations again in with Verizon and charter to make sure and I'll get you a picture of the poles with the parking place okay you don't have to I mean just send it out via staff reporters I had it's good that's a good thing to always see okay thank you thank you I'm gonna go ahead and call the closed session then we'll take a quick break I will convene the closed session at fourth 427 we will consider the following items consultation with attorneys under Texas government code section five five one point oh seven one deliberations regarding real property under Texas government code section five five one point oh seven two let's come back in about 5 minutes okay welcome everybody to this meeting the Denton City Council on February the 5th 2019 we do have a quorum I'll now call this meeting to order it is a six about 31 p.m. please stand with me if you're able to pledge allegiance to the US and Texas flag next item on the agenda is proclamations and presentations which we did not have any at this time we'll move on to presentations from members of the public our first agenda item there is 3a review of procedures for addressing the City Council 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 our next item would be agenda item 3b which has received scheduled citizen reports from members of the public we have four I'll call these in order the first one will be Matt Farmer regarding the development of coal ranch slash hunter ranch and the environmental impact yes hello are you guys gonna time me or do I need to do that okay yeah my name is Matt Farmer I live in district 3 I live at 2042 scripture street 76201 Denton Texas okay so I've attended both the work sessions surrounding the coal ranch and hunter ranch developments and I just want to start by showing my appreciation to council and to the mayor for how delicately and cautiously you guys have been in your approach to moving forward with these projects because it's a big deal and there is a lot to consider before signing off onto something like this what I want to talk about is the environmental impact of the proposed developments and not just how these developments are going to impact the environment but also how the physical geography of these sites will have a direct impact on the developments if you choose to move forward with them partially because these things were kind of barely touched upon at the work sessions so as you know it's a huge plot of land it's over 6,000 acres and both of the proposed developments sit on a 100-year floodplain now the maps that were provided by the developers during these work sessions were actually really basic and very minimal with regard to the floodplain it's just a tiny font like at the bottom barely even marked on and they leave out a lot of important details my girlfriend's actually an environmental specialist so we were looking at the site analysis map from the presentation alongside maps provided by publicly by FEMA and compared them so in coal ranch there's actually a significant portion of the development site that is marked as a regulatory floodway and or it's also called a hazard area by FEMA and that actually wasn't labeled in the presentation and that's a big deal because FEMA won't even approve new developments or new development projects and areas like this because of because they know that it's a waste of time and money and because it is actually really dangerous if you look at the map to you can see that like the airport was specifically built avoiding that area ropes and ranch avoided that and it's it's because it is it is actually really dangerous and it could actually drive the cost up a lot you know somebody mentioned I think Paul mentioned last time and the first meeting that we need to you know make sure that this development will be beneficial and not just another cost in the end and I'm a bit worried that if you do decide to move forward with the MMD and making it so that once the MMD is over and the city will have to bear the cost of the maintenance and the infrastructure repair that the the estimated cost will actually be a lot higher than it appears right now on paper because of that regulatory floodway in the hazard area because the fact is the you know the the highest hazard for flooding is 100 year flood plain so statistically speaking these developments would have a chance of flooding at least once a year and not only that there are also three identified environmentally sensitive areas in the site for Hunter Ranch a huge portion of Hunter Ranch is also marked as ESA's and that can mean a number of things and they didn't really touch on that either I just but I do want to remind you guys that in 2001 there was a watershed study done and at that time the city of Denton actually vowed to protect our watershed so I'd hate to see us go back on our word on that with regard to these developments you know I remember during the state of the city you did say Mayor Watts that we are going to be anticipating something like 60,000 people in the next five years so I do know we are going to have to embrace new developments and we're gonna have to anticipate that growth but like for me I just don't think these developments are proving themselves to be beneficial to us as a city in the long term and that's that's all I got. Councilmember Armitage. Thank you for for sharing your concerns would you be able to send to the city secretary the link to the FEMA map you're talking about and I'd like to also request it as a staff report a transposition of the FEMA map onto the the coal hunter ranch map with that shows you know where the housing is going to be where the commercial is going to be the parks the pools etc. transposed onto the the FEMA flooding map. We probably we can certainly impose the FEMA map over that right now they haven't laid out the site that's something that we could certainly require that they do none but we can certainly impose the FEMA map over there the site plan and send that out. I'm sorry the site itself. Yeah that would be great yeah it would be great if the you know staff could maybe at least ask that of the developer and they might not be in a position to do that now which is understandable. Thank you very much. I have them saved as images or I can send the link whichever is easier. The link would be fine and if somebody's needing that that we can ask for the images I guess yeah. Sure. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you guys. Yes sir. The next speaker is Rena Hardeman is Ms. Hardeman here if she's on her way so what we may do is move her down to the bottom of the list and if she shows up before we call the open mic or even before we call this agenda item in general we'll let her speak. The next speaker will be Ed Sofe regarding City Council action on disclosure and reverse setbacks. State your name Ed or should I begin? Thank you Mr. Sofe. Oops okay my name is Ed Sofe I live at 1620 Victoria Drive in Denton. The presence of existing gas well sites and the potential for future drilling in a dangerous proximity to the proposed Windsor apartments raise a very important question for future developments such as the huge Hunter Ranch and Coal Ranch communities in which there are also many many existing gas wells. That question is when will the Denton City Council act to ensure equal protection notification and disclosure for all residents? Currently new wells drilled in existing neighborhoods must be at least 1,000 feet from homes to protect families from the well-known hazards of gas well sites but new homes in new neighborhood developments with existing wells have 750 feet less protection from those hazards a reverse setback of only 250 feet. City Council continues to justify this inequality by its lack of consensus and failure to discuss and establish a proactive long-sighted policy that protects all of Denton citizens equally. Fear of lawsuits and legislative retribution must not be used to justify the denial of citizens rights to equal protection from the from the known surface hazards of gas well sites. There is no state statute that mandates a 250 foot reverse setback. There is only our city's ordinance. There is no state statute that prohibits developers and realty agents of new developments to directly inform buyers and renters of the proximity and possible dangers of gas wells. There is only our city's ordinance that denies that right to know. Residents have suffered enough thanks to the presence of wells grandfathered under older ineffective ordinances. Future residents will inherit this same lack of protection notification and disclosure if council does not act now to pursue policy changes in the current ordinance and I'm going to show you a that's that's the vintage neighborhood with and we know how close that was I'm also going to play a video for you of of something that a responsible ordinance what a not would not allow happen back in September whenever shortly after the side drilling sites went out my wife and I were driving down vintage and we were passing the model home at the D.R. Morton neighborhood and we just decided to go ahead and call the the model home just to see if they could give us any you know shed any light on what was going to be happening and how long these drills would be going and the representative at the model home said oh you know it's not a problem you know they just went up and they're going to be gone in a couple of weeks and so you know here that was September and here it is February 5th and or February 4th and they're still up so what else did they tell you about buying a home I mean they didn't you know really say anything other than it was you know going to be they were going to be gone shortly in the next couple weeks so but it just it kind of alluded to the fact that you know it wasn't going to have any effect on the home sales there and you know the home values there so it's kind of the impression that we got from that call and what would you say about the value of your home honestly I'm scared to look at the value I mean I'm if I were looking at homes now and you know I wouldn't even go considering the looking at the home that back up to a frack inside or was in a neighborhood you know anywhere near what's the name of the one that you live inside thank you very much thank you appreciate it thank you mr. so the next speaker will be Diana let oh I'm sorry if councilmember armature has requested speak mr. so I apologize so yes we're not supposed to give statements to ask questions I have two questions for you the first is do you know happen to know that I agree with you a hundred percent on this you might not and you don't have to answer if you're not sure but that was my first question my second is how how do you feel about requiring schools that are near gas wells to to tell to notify the parents and families of the kids who attend those schools such as Geyer you know that's between gas wells that of the proximity to gas wells to the school well I think it's I think that they should especially if it's a case where a student is known to have already has have asthma problems where because of the problem with them any any well emissions but if we had an ordinance we wouldn't have to worry about that all our protected uses would be protected and by that you mean if we had better if we had a reverse setbacks bigger reverse setbacks I just yes and I just would hope that you would open and have a have a policy discussion about this that's all well thank you very much thank you and I look forward to our next policy discussion on this thank you all right thank you thank you mr. so again the next speaker is Diana Leggett regarding SUVs and SROs excuse me state your name and address and your time begin short person has to lower the microphone Diana Leggett 1019 alien Street good evening council I hope you know that when I come before you and speak that I speak with words that are simple and brave and that I don't bring criticism I bring solutions there are a lot of important items on the agenda tonight but right now I would like to take a moment to focus on what Denton will look like in the future as growth comes our way specifically I would like to take issue with two parts of the proposed Denton Development Code 2030 these are the little things that may not sound so exciting will have a big impact on Denton over time first the proposed code introduces the idea of minimum lot sizes as opposed to stipulating a maximum number of homes per acre well why should we care about that well the benefit of planning for a number of homes per acre without forcing a minimum lot size is that it allows homes to be clustered without and leaving room for open space this arrangement smaller lots and more open space may well suit the homebuyer market the two biggest groups of home buyers are young families and retiring baby boomers both groups prefer less maintenance and more amenities so why not at least leave the developer the flexibility to offer the amenity of more shared open space more nature maybe with walking trails or other landscape features that make life more pleasant the proposed code with its 6000 square foot minimum lot size may prevent inventive developers from meeting a marketplace need and potentially making Denton more livable in the long run the other item in the proposed code that I would like to address has to do with where we put multifamily developments apartments Denton definitely needs more housing and more affordable housing and where appropriate we need denser housing but how do we decide where it's appropriate it's an important question because let's face it nothing affects the look and feel of our residential landscape quite as much as where we put multifamily one important tool for doing this is the SUP the special use permit that allows for a public hearing so neighbors interests can be heard and our civic leaders can weigh in let's take the example of the SRO plan for Scripture and normal in my district if SUPs were required for all multifamily we would have been able to consider if that five-story development would be appropriate between two historic districts today sometimes SUPs are required for multifamily developments and sometimes not well the new code proposes to completely remove the SUP requirement for multifamily developments in certain zones specifically NRMU and NMR NRMU 12 I questioned that I heard the work session discussion about student housing a few weeks back trying to come up with a durable definition of an SRO well that's really hard to do I feel the cleanest path would be to simply require SUPs for all multifamily projects after all one of the main objectives of DDC 2030 is simplification what could be simpler than uniformly requiring SUPs for all multifamily projects much of the planning for a livable future Denton comes down to consciously managing density encouraging density where it will create opportunities for open space and making careful decisions about density where established neighborhoods are at stake thank you I'm sorry I don't always ask questions for everybody so you know thank you for that and I was wondering if if you're aware of the the potential for you know violation under the Fair Housing Act if there's a SUP required for all multifamily well I figure we could work around that code you know the Fair Housing Act does have some flexibility within it and I think it's something worth talking about thank you okay thank you okay is did Rena Hardeman show up yet okay well we'll just go through the open mic and then we'll call her one more time all right now we're going to move to the open mic portion we've got two blue cards wishing to speak the time limit is four minutes and because of the open mic nature council is unable to respond to because of potential violations with Texas Open Meetings Act so the first person will cause George Ferry if you'll come down state your name and address your time will begin hi my name is George Ferry I live at 2932 Stockton Street in district 1 good evening mayor council I'm here today to stand in solidarity with my Carrollton LGBTQ+ community right now they have a City Council meeting happening at this very moment deciding to pass policy that includes sexual orientation gender identity and gender expression into a law to protect discrimination from my community as you can see we're all wearing purple I wore my favorite purple shirt and I'm down here to make sure that we realize that we have plenty of work to do here or I'd be in Carrollton speaking on behalf of them right now about six months ago in August you read the HRC's MEI index score which I believe we are now at a 52 out of 100 excuse me it's nice that we in our city have proclamations to recognize pride month transgender awareness week however we need to be doing the real work we are dying at alarmingly high rates being harassed discriminated committing suicide at alarmingly higher rates and it's even more increasing with in terms of people of color within the trans queer and non-binary communities we send our LGBTQ+ youth to public schools and public programs funded by the city I don't have inclusion policies and education we're bullying we are a city that loves to say Denton loves everyone everyone is equal not in my backyard we hear these terms all the time when talking to people who are very active in the community and that want to come actually show up to vote however in our community we hear and say there's that preacher saying really terrible things about my community in our local paper these are the people being harassed in their workplace and there's no compensation these are people being fired from their jobs denied housing with no legal recourse because it's incredibly difficult to prove and you don't have a policy by our city standing behind these people I appreciate allies that show up to our events that and I commend starting the conversation but it's been six months so I'm just here to remind you that we're waiting and we're growing impatient so please know that today I'm asking but tomorrow and every day after we're gonna be fighting like hell to work for inclusive policies and putting people in place who will support us thank you thank you all right the next speaker will be Carol self come down state your name and address your time will begin my name is Carol so I live at 1620 Victoria this is a picture of the cherry orchard spelled ch-a-i-r-y the cherry orchard is a small lot at the end of our street which is filled with chairs of all kinds it was designed by Judy Smith who lives next door to it it is intended for people to stop by and sit for a while it is a quiet peaceful place for the community to gather when it first was designed teddy bears were placed on some of the chairs to share the space with the children and friends recently the Bears have disappeared the city told Judy that the Bears are indoor toys and to remove them which she did I am glad the city is looking out so diligently for the welfare of the Bears it occurred to me however the same concern is not being given to Denton residents who live near gas wells just like the Bears are being protected by the city from the elements a gas well ordinance should protect the public from the danger of gas wells I am asking the council to please open a public discussion to strengthen our current gas well ordinance to better protect the public thank you thank you Carol okay we will it did miss Hardiman make it all right if you have a if if you have a contact number for her just let her know that if we I think we might on the carpet I just would hate her to try to make it up here if she if she couldn't make it so yeah okay all right we'll move on to our next agenda item which is the consent agenda I don't believe we had any items pulled from the consent agenda so we will consider the consent agenda councilmember Briggs I move to approve mayor Pro Tem second we have a motion and a second for the consent agenda all in favor please vote on the board motion carries 7-0 let me make sure if just hold on just a moment we're going to maybe have a really small slight agenda change ask counsel for a little accommodation that's was it we've got colleagues we've got city managers asked we've got three items on individual consideration BC and D which are just work projects staff presentations it'll take about five or ten minutes that what my understanding is and wanted to see if we could just move those up real quickly and unless I hear objections we're just going to sort of snap those out real quick and I'm staff is hearing this so staff will know that we're gonna be snapping those out real quick I haven't seen any objections so first of all I want to thank the public's indulgence for that councilmember Briggs which items I have individual considerations items 6 B C and D I'm not sorry not yet is it BC and D correct and which one yeah I will do the E denominations which are just the nominations for as I'm not sure I have one but but yeah it's BCD and possibly E and is is that because so that they can leave and go home or yeah each of these items is about five minutes as long as they're here they're out almost every night this week at neighborhood meetings so as long as it's quick yeah yeah we'll make it quick and again really want to thank the public for their indulgence and accommodation suit if we're gonna go ahead and call then of individual item 6 C which is considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton Texas home real municipal corporation authorized instead of manager execute public works contract for Jagle public for the Hickory Creek widening project do we have staff here okay all right okay so it's B it's B did I call C I saw I'm sorry I called C I apologize my apologies transmission charges 6 B sorry about that pre-tem no pre-tem you here you want to go ahead judges in here okay go ahead go ahead we're gonna do C yeah so yeah if staffs here when we call it we'll do it if not we're gonna wait go ahead okay I'm not I'm not sure if there's a presentation here loaded up or not okay I'd rather I'd rather wait just let's move on then we'll move on let's go ahead and move on go back to the regular schedule okay yeah all right yeah Todd just texted me and he's still in another meeting all right so no we'll move on thank you that was quick appreciate that yeah that's how it's good how these things work out all right so then we're gonna move on to the public hearings we'll call the public hearing for agenda item 5a hold a public hearing consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton Texas regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification from regional center commercial downtown district to employment center district with overlay conditions on approximately eight point seven acres of land agenda item 5a I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing just so I don't forget so no come on up staff just that's just more of a procedural item so public hearing is now open good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and tonight I'm presenting to you Z 1823 B Worthington truck port the request before you is a rezoning request from two zoning districts the first one regional center commercial downtown to an employment center industrial on approximately eight point seven acres and then a rezoning of regional center commercial neighborhood to employment center industrial and approximately seven point seven acres of land so the existing zoning is on the map on the left and as you can see on the on the north side of the subject property the subject properties here in black it has a zoning designation of our CCN and that's that pink area the southern part of the tract is the purple and that's got that RCC D area so the total acreage is about 16 acres the surrounding zoning includes several districts we'll just take a quick look at them to the north is RCC in and to the south you have an ICG in this location that's industrial center commercial or I'm sorry industrial it's one of our industrial districts and it's our it's one of our general industrial districts across Worthington is an ECI and that is that employment center industrial to the to the west of the subject property we have NR 2 and that is one of our low density residential zoning districts and then to the north of that we have our RD 5x the applicant is proposing to extend that existing ECI so that ECI that's across a Worthington would extend if this was approved to the subject property and and that map would look like like this map here the applicant does have a proposed concept plan the southern part of the property is developed it's developed with two buildings that are multi tenant buildings and you can see those here and to the north of the property they would like to kind of extend that existing development and have potentially a small warehouse and then a self storage use to park trucks criteria for approval is in sub chapter 3 of the Denton development code first is it conformed to the future land use element of Denton plan 2030 and then the second criteria for approval does the proposed rezoning facilitate the adequate provision of transportation water sewers schools parks and other public requirements so we'll look at those criteria one by one first one dent plan 2030 so you'll see there is a map here that shows the subject property in black and it is embedded within a business innovation future land use designation and you can see the surrounding property has that business and a bit business innovation future land use designation the intent of this is to to encourage well-planned larger scale office and appointment parks but also have the supporting uses like retail or services and high density residential in order to support those employment uses the proposed ECI is one of those districts that sort of fits within that future land use designation of business innovation it's one of our employment districts and it provides a wide variety of commercial as well as some industrial employment type uses just take a little more look at this map you'll see that there the property adjacent to it has a low density future residential low low residential future land use designation just to the west of the subject property to the south is industrial commerce future land use designation that's a little more intense industrial and then you could see to the south east of the subject property it's got regional mixed use that captures that that razor ranch development so you can kind of see how those those future land use designations work together in the area we also looked at some other parts of the Denton plan 2030 as we analyze this request and one area we looked at was the focus areas so we have a map of those focus areas here and these focus areas in the Denton plan are these key intersections and destinations within the city and it includes things like centers corridors gateways and also travel travel centers the subject property is is within a travel center focus area and the intent of that is to for land uses to support the freight industry but they also have design principles in that to make sure that those those are properly screened at the right-of-way also that the development would be oriented to reduce conflict with adjacent sensitive uses and also buffering a criteria to includes that adequate public improvements portion as part of the request the applicant did provide some trip generation numbers for the proposed use of that that storage that that yielded the analysis that I yielded about 95 trips per day for that 24-hour peak day and about 20 trips for that peak hour so it did not rise to that threshold for that traffic impact analysis where that generally look at about a thousand trips per day we also looked at the the the roadway network around the subject property and it does have adequate access but one thing we did look at it it doesn't have access to that neighborhood to the West and so that was one thing that we looked at there is a there's a railroad corridor separating the subject property from the residential and so it does provide that physical barrier and would prevent vehicle access to the to the adjacent residential neighborhood there is also adequate water and wastewater other findings we looked at this is this proposed rezoning is a logical continuation of the surrounding zoning and use pattern as you can see here in this map if it were approved it would really just extend that existing ECI that's that's already begun in that area it's also would be a continuation of some of those vehicle type uses and and light industrial uses with that that surround the subject property but we also wanted to look at that relationship with this subject property to the residential area there is a there is a large lot established neighborhood adjacent to this property and we want to make sure any development adjacent to that is sensitive to that neighborhood and so we took a little bit deeper dive into that analysis so the subject property is is is separated from that residential area as I said by this railroad corridor it's a little bit elevated with an earthen berm so it does provide that physical barrier and it that railroad does sort of separate these this area from the residential area so as you can see it's it sort of cloisters it away from it and and as the these properties have developed between the railroad and I-35 you've seen a lot of commercial uses that have developed along I-35 you've got some hotels along that they take the advantage of that visibility on I-35 but as it steps away from I-35 toward the west you do have more of those lighter industrial or vehicle type uses the industrial uses within ECI are generally a lower impact it's more of the light industrial or warehousing type uses and then ECI has a comparable development scale with what's existing on the property or what the zoning the existing zoning on the property and then we also have design standards which in sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code and particularly things like required tree canopy which would help soften any development on the side and and mitigate any potential noise or light impacts so we'll take a we'll take a look at how that that looks in our use tables so in sub chapter 5 of the Denton Development Code it does have the the dimensional requirements of any development on the site and this this first chart right here shows the RCCN and RCCD which is existing and then the proposed ECI under the current zoning there's a maximum density of 80 dwelling units or 100 dwelling units on the existing property because those do allow higher density uses those would not be permitted if if the zoning was approved ECI doesn't permit any residential uses also the maximum lot coverage under existing zoning is is 85 percent and 90 percent if the ECI was approved it would cap that maximum lot coverage at 85 percent maximum building height can go anywhere between 65 and 100 feet under current zoning if the ECI was approved it would max out that building height at at 65 feet and then also the minimum tree canopy under under the current zoning for the RCCN they would be required to plant 30 percent tree canopy and then RCCD would be 20 percent if the ECI was approved it would have that maximum or the minimum 30 percent tree canopy as I said before the there are no residential uses permitted in ECI so if it were approved no residential uses would be permitted on the site all of the existing zoning districts as well as the the proposed zoning district does allow some commercial land uses these tables only show what the differences are if they were if they were consistent with the existing zoning I left those off but that is in your backup but for instance under under current zoning motels and movie theaters would be permitted if the if the ECI was was approved those would not be a permitted use something like self-service storage or vehicle repair would be a permitted use ECI has more industrial zoning does uses than than the existing zoning as I said before these are more of our lighter industrial it doesn't include the heavy industrial or things like auto salvage but it does permit things like craft alcohol production or general warehouse kennels and then light manufacturing and then also ECI does permit some institutional land uses notification was sent out on the request we received six in letters in opposition those are shown here in the red because of where the 200 foot buffer fell that only equates to a 1% opposition the planning and zoning this item was presented to them in January and they did recommend approval with the following conditions first of all that the electric substations and switch stations would not be a permitted use undercurrent zoning that use has a limitation that that requires some public outreach the proposed zoning permits it by right and so planning and zoning felt like that was maybe a little too intense being so close to a residential neighborhood so they they requested that that use be netted out and then also that a type B buffer would be would be constructed along that Western property boundary a type C buffer is that is a 15 foot planted strip and that includes six trees and 20 shrubs per 100 linear feet staff also did recommend approval of the request it is it is consistent with the future land use and the Denton plan and is consistent with with the existing zoning pattern and and uses in the specific area I'll stand for any questions that's my breaks you showing question well you answered one I've wondered about the railroad track and so that is the on the back of the property which is a separator and you mentioned that they wanted to continue storage on the on the next lot do and it would be for trucks you're correct so do we know what size trucks in the like the hours of operation the applicant is here and they can probably speak a little more about how it would operate but it's my understanding it would be the large 18-wheeler type semi trucks okay yeah I would just like to know I mean because it's you know they're loud and they you know cause a little bit of pollution and so I'm just curious of the hours of operation that would be my only concern so you had mentioned that under the new under the proposed designation hotel motel would be prohibited so I take it on here that okay so it's a group homes now so shelter yeah so there would be no shelter of any kind permitted no temporary shelter no I mean there's not any residential uses under the new designation but currently that would be permitted as would a motel hotel currently a group home could be would be permitted with a specific use permit and then the RCC in permits motels and I and and so so that wouldn't be permitted under ECI no no group home is just the same as I mean it's the same as a single-family dwelling isn't it yeah it's supposed to be considered the same as a single-family well they are different uses within our use tables but often they are within a single-family home but but that use in some zoning districts does yeah so that so that's just in the city code okay thank you any more questions for staff okay thank you I did open the public hearing first applicant first person to speak to the applicant name you visit if you'll come down state your name and address your time will begin Amy visit Northbridge consultants 212 South Elm Denton Texas I do have a brief presentation with just a few slides it's nice to be here this evening I will not repeat what Julie said but I do want to clarify a few things that came up during the planning and zoning Commission meeting as well as prior to that and I want to I want to make sure there were some misconceptions with ranch estates that's nearby about what the applicant is is planning to do here versus what's already on the ground today so I do want to point out first of all that this is a rezoning application for two separate properties 2401 and 2501 Worthington 2401 is an existing developed property today with two multi-tenant warehouse buildings as you can see a floor a floor plan on the screen in front of you roughly 30,000 square feet each there's some vehicular parking as well as in the back there is some semi truck parking and many of the tenants that are within the warehousing space that exists today and have semi trucks that are that are parked as a part of their lease agreement today so and this property was built in 2007 and acquired by my client after it was constructed my client is and here's a picture of what it looks like what's on the ground today and my client is looking to purchase the property to the north of it and it's in contract today and essentially expand the existing use by adding roughly 84 semi truck parking spaces along with a small warehouse building and that the 84 spaces would be on a flex base so it would be pervious and which means that there'd be very little of the site that would actually be paved or constructed upon and this is essentially an expansion of the existing use there is in this area as you all are aware there's and Peter built in many supporting vendors and suppliers for Peter built they produce roughly 150 plus trucks a day those trucks once they come off the line have to have a place to be stored and then hauled out all across the United States and so there's a demand for truck storage and truck parking in Denton that is significant and if we can find appropriate places to meet that demand such as in an industrial area near Peter built then it prevents those trucks from being parked in places where they really shouldn't be so my client has recognized this need and has seen it with the tenants that they have in place currently and that is why we're proposing this particular expansion we did hear right before the planning and zoning Commission meeting that and city staff had heard from a few of the neighbors at Ranch Estates and maybe three or four of them are within the 500 foot courtesy notices and so once we got phone calls that they had expressed some concerns we went ahead and mailed out an invitation to everybody within Ranch Estates and went and pulled all the parcel IDs and held a neighborhood meeting the week before the planning and zoning Commission to have an opportunity to have some dialogue with those neighbors hear their concerns and try to mitigate some of those concerns and we had three in attendance and I additionally fielded roughly four phone calls and emails I do want to talk to you a little bit about what the concerns were that we heard and how we hope to address them the primary concerns that we heard from the neighborhood were related to drainage impacts noise and visibility encroachment of their low density residential neighborhood and zoning and then potentially the extension of Windsor Drive and some had seen in the mobility plan a potential East West thoroughfare that could cut through their neighborhood and specifically on Hampton Road which is their northern thoroughfare through their neighborhood and as you can see in terms of encroachment and it is a low density single-family residential neighborhood that is surrounded by some industrial and commercial uses with highway 380 and I-35 right there it's naturally going to draw some higher density and some commercial uses we do believe that the railroad is a good barrier and in fact my client does not support any East West mobility into their neighborhood whatsoever we think that barrier is important to protect against encroachment and don't see any reason for that to be something that would threaten them in the future and it would not be something that my clients tenants would be utilizing in terms of drainage and noise and visibility I do want to point out and as you can see on the aerial here there's an existing regional detention pond that was constructed on the northern side that's intended to be be more than enough capacity if it was fully developed including mostly paved which in this case we're proposing very little paving and we've also committed to a type C landscape buffer to provide some additional noise and visibility mitigation for the neighbors that is all I have for you the my client the property owner to the south and the one who has the the property and contract to the north is here to answer any specific questions about hours of operation or anything else that you'd like to visit with him about thank you any questions for the applicant seeing none thank you thank you next speaker will be Dan height if you come down states your name and address your time will begin my name is Dan height I'm here with my wife Rebecca we live in the ranch estate subdivision we live at 3800 Hampton Road we've heard over and over throughout this process that we were informed we were invited we were brought into the loop but we live right here at this little house right here and we're kind of on the outside of all the squares that you see so we're never included in anything but luckily our neighbors inform us of what's going on and we did get to come so we had concerns we came to the zoning Commission meeting we had concerns and voiced our concerns about what this property was going to do and what it was going to affect us I'd like to start with reading a little bit from the city's articles on noise and odor declaration of intent it is hereby declared to be the policy of the city to minimize the exposure of citizens to the potential psychological and physiological harm of excessive noise and to protect promote and preserve the public health comfort convenient safety and welfare it is the express intent of the City Council to control the level of noise in a manner that promotes commerce protects the sleep and repose of citizen promotes the use value and enjoyment of property and preserves the quality of the environment section c2 it shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character intensity or continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities regarding odors it shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any unreasonable noxious unpleasant strong odor which causes material distress discomfort or injury to the persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof it shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any odor stench or smell of such character strength or continued duration is to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons and ordinary sensibilities so we've been concerned but of course business has to go on commerce has to go on we get the use the current use of the properties there this part which she was just talking about here the parking lot is already existing the proposed area that they're going to pull in 50 spots here 80 plus spots in the new area over the last few weeks we started experiencing something new which is going to tell you what's coming for us in the future an incredible swooshing sound followed by an incredible smell of gas now we're all from Denton so we we're kind of used to dealing with the train right so like a sheeple I ignored it I didn't know what the sound was but I assumed it was the trains you know they park every once in a while they're working on something that gas smell was so incredible but I assumed everybody was on top of it assumed assumed assumed you see this problem I have got this went on for the last week two weeks until Saturday I couldn't take it anymore Saturday about ten o'clock in the morning started and went till 530 at night this is my backyard can y'all hear that that's a normal day in my backyard it's normal day it's nice I know I live right there by that industrial area I know it's a horrible place to live they keep saying low-impact residential if you live there you'd call it your home wouldn't be a low-impact residential area or low density sorry low density residential area Saturday and in the many days prior to that this is what we got our after our after our we finally called the cops they said if you smell that gas smell get called the fire department that's the truck part and I misspoke that was the not city no and that was the time so if you could wrap it up real quick real briefly because we've got a lot of public speakers tonight that's all I've got I just asked for y'all to if you do approve this thing you've got to protect us there's got to be a more than six trees and 20 bushes to protect us from this sound those were methane gas trucks that they were releasing the methane gas in that yard day after day after day with the wind blowing it into our subdivision all right thank you any questions for the speaker seeing none okay thank you mr. I appreciate it next speaker will be mr. Willie Hudson if you come down state your name and address your time will begin my name is Willie husband I live at 623 sure glad that the homeowner came up here and some of the questions that I had about this that I have concerns that and I plead with you City Council members to really look into this and make sure that the public is protected it's just so much information that was given heck I couldn't keep up with it all it took me a while to figure out what the location was but I'm thinking and that neighborhood should value it should be valued I drive up 380 sometimes in that area and if you're gonna have 84 more trucks coming in and out of there I don't know at what rate and the ones that's coming from Decatur right now is a nightmare I just can't imagine that kind of traffic and you said the railroad is a buffer well it's buffered from east to west but what about that north and south movement that's gonna happen there you answer the question that there won't be any schools the possibility of needing schools there because there you're gonna restrict the the the what's actually gonna be there you mentioned trees I I need to go out there myself and just see how many is there right now you usually mention that you say well we're gonna add more trees but that didn't mean nothing those little small twigs that you put up there would take forever to grow in anything that became that resemble the canopy but if the trees there now some thought should be given as to how you can preserve them again talking to the council members who are representing us all and trying to make sure that things are done appropriately I gave an excellent example of why I'm concerned why that I think the council should really look at to look into what they are what's going to be proposed here in this this development you're grabbing your mic anyway so that there was that there's a good example of what where I trusted you yeah if you'll set it down they'll go ahead and they'll go ahead and pull it up yeah okay I trusted you to take care of some some situations having to do with the ordinances that you that you pass so this is why I'm concerned you told me that I can't feel my trash cans up a certain height and I said well don't just single me out everybody should apply to use the same have to work within the same rules well this is a trash can that's not mine and what I was told is they won't enter my trash well that one's over full and it's all over the place they emptied it this one's over full they emptied theirs and that proves that there's a table that was in front of it before and there's another one same area that I'm in they told me they wouldn't empty mine and they didn't put the empty this so you got to play fair we're depending on you to make the right decisions for this this this neighborhood there's no way I can live with that noise I don't know what that was I wish he had more time so you could have to sit here and listen at that noise like he has for four days and hours perhaps I'll just go out there and just see for myself and then I'll come back with a different report thank you thank you sir we have a card this marked wishing not to speak but is in opposition Rebecca height right those are all the cards we have but this is a public hearing anybody wishing to speak on this item please come down state your name and address and your time will begin anybody wishing to speak on this agenda item one more call seeing no movement we will now close the public hearing councilmember armature thank you let's see I am going to be voting no to this I look at the question of compatibility with with the area and also the question of housing you know does this bring new housing and not only does not bring new housing where we're talking about prohibiting and we're talking about a zoning that prohibits you know any kind of residential development bless you in this area and that is adding noise and pollution to the extent that and again if you can imagine you know think back to that map and you could see where the outline is of this district saying that this is this district is not fit for residential and then you have right across the street residents who you know apparently like across the street it's not fit for men or beast you know I mean we have the same problem in many ways with our gas well awareness but that's a whole other story but yeah so that's why I'm this is a real pretty easy no for me thank you councilmember Briggs I have questions for the applicant Alex pain yes so you heard earlier I was curious about the hours of operation how frequently is it a 24-hour operation where people can roll in at night or well the nature of some of our tenants is that they are long-haul truck drivers and so if they live in the city of Denton or somewhere nearby and oftentimes they're not they're not permitted to leave their trucks in the neighborhoods and the streets or you know the apartment complex they live in and so they leave a vehicle there and so just really depends on what time of night they come in and you know would would swap out park their truck and leave and so as far as as far as the video that you saw you know certainly it's news to us it's not a facility currently that we operate that that looks and seeks out tenants that are going to stay in there in the truck and either sleep or anything like that and I've stated in the P&Z hearing and would do so here again tonight that as a matter of management we own the property and we we manage the property and have a really good property manager we were notified this week of that potential truck although all we ever saw was a was a picture was provided to us of what was about three trucks I hadn't seen the video that's again first I've seen it I guess I would welcome if we have a problem tenant that we would be notified and do our best to not be a nuisance to our neighbors or honestly the other businesses in that facility I think if if something like that loud obnoxious was going on we would we wouldn't allow it and would you know basically terminate their lease if it was if it was an ongoing problem so so the individual the the methane trucks that were releasing isn't necessarily something that you condone or would allow on your property I don't even know what that means I've never heard of such a thing and then if there's some truck that that's renting from us and just sitting there releasing a gas again that's not something we support or condone we would we would certainly bring that to our property managers attention and if the individual who had the problem wants to contact us in the future we'd be happy to to correct the issue we just don't even know who it was what truck it was and so we'd be happy to look at that in the future yeah so you're saying that with your rules having maybe in do you maybe having a no idling policy for certain we could implement something that essentially states that they're not allowed to leave the the vehicle running over extended period of time again with the in our lease document with the tenant yeah we would we would be happy to do something like that I don't know without having talked to you know some of the tenants how problematic that might be if you were to say five minutes I don't know that that could be a but if it was a you know less than an hour or something like that I think we could live with that yeah I think that might that might help the the situation that we just saw was pretty concerning and I'm sure for you too yeah and I again I don't he didn't finish the video so I'm not sure it was necessarily us we also have a neighboring tenant I'm not not ten in a neighboring use to our south that's a heavy industrial the one that was zoned ICG and that's my understanding they run three shifts out of that facility and it's a heavy manufacturing of they thread large pieces of metal into into bolts that hold up wind towers and I think it's quite loud and you know they run a pretty pretty lengthy shifts and so and then blow their horn for shift changes and things like that so what we're for the most part we this is news to us and not something we we would look to have in our park with the what you what you heard and saw that's really just just a storage use of those trucks and and then some of the some of the facilities in our or some of the tenants in our current facilities they service RVs or vehicles and so when they have too many on site they have to park them back there until they're ready to bring them in and work on them when I first saw this I thought of RVs because I know that the city requires an RV to be parked on concrete and there's not a lot of space for somebody who owns a home sometime to do that and so that we wouldn't be we would not allow this to be a use in which living occurs on property so again if there was an RV kept on the property would just be in a storage capacity parking yes I think yeah so I would be I would be more inclined to hear about you know the make sure that we you don't condone methane gas releases on your property and that you know idling trucks for longer than an hour that would that would be a good thing I think to have just for the neighbors and in good faith and I would also like maybe for you to give your information to the couple over here so if something like that does happen they have a direct contact be glad to yeah we don't we intend to own these properties for a long time so we'll we want to be good neighbors we develop other properties in this city and we tend to think we do quality development and operate in a professional manner and want to be good citizens as we own a business here and and live here so thank you any other questions for staff councilmember husband here reaching for your oh yes councilmember I was on the fence yeah I guess I have a question for for staff were you provided the video I was yes okay and when do we receive it yesterday okay and so for me that it does I just I'm so I'm asking your input because it doesn't seem logical that a truck would release gas for five hours right I mean that just it seems inconsistent that they would they don't it's it's a it's a profession that is hinged on efficiency that's how they make their money you know every mile every speed and so it just kind of is I'm concerned about the sound but I'm also concerned about getting to the origin of it so it does us no good to be reactionary this evening and not fix it right that that that looks great now but it doesn't fix it and so looking to get to the bottom of it that just does not compute that a truck would sit parked and release gas for five hours better part of a day that just nothing about that makes sense to me and so do you have a read on I mean again we've had one day notice so I'm just asking if you have any thought I know that our our fire marshal this was sent to him and they're looking into it to make sure that that in the future that there are no violations with any of their regulations that our environmental group looked at it and and I'm not aware of of how that works within a truck or the trucking industry but it isn't something that we would have a permit for so that that's really from the city's standpoint that's I just I don't have I don't have the knowledge base to know what that was or or why no thank you yeah so all right thank you okay Councilman Briggs I think you just kind of answered my question I was gonna maybe ask legal about truck trucking industry and permits and like environmental like gas permitting do we do we not require that is that something no that's not something that we require and now that we've looked consulted with Dr. Banks you know there's nothing in regarding TCEQ requirements on trucks venting methane it may be possibly a DOT concern but that continues and we continue to look into that to see if there is a permit who is the issuing entity and so would our other ordinances we have the noise violations or any other code of ordinances that we have with those make up for the lack of the ordinance that we don't have for this yes we do have existing noise ordinances for that apply to both not just residential but commercial industrial and they do exist in our code of ordinances and so that gives our officer some tools to go out and if they witness a violation to find that person that is correct okay Mayor Potem has this already been platted do we know the northern lot plating would be required okay and as part of that planning we would include the detainees so that wouldn't be able to be built on and so you got much larger buffer on the added parking than on the existing parking correct correct okay do we know how big that is I don't have that exact square footage of that detention area yeah I don't have the site plan necessarily to pull up or maybe I can but that detention pond is a regional detention pond and a drainage easement and it serves not only our property it serves the property that we own to the south that owns serve several properties to our east and so it's basically in place and is an existing detention serving other developed parcels we can't ever build on that okay and so if I understand correctly or from thinking this through correctly the reason for the rezoning is for the purpose of storage because it is a separate lot that that wouldn't be allowed in the current zoning and so the only plan is to add the parking on that northern part and everything on the southern part will pretty much remain the same there's no change to the southern portion it was just something that we felt probably is better suited for what type of development we have there you know I wouldn't say we're that we're non-conforming it just seems to it seems to be a more of a fit of what's what's out there and so it we just thought let's zone it now and while we're zoning the other parcel and quite honestly we we with the current allowed the current zoning commercial parking lots were permitted but if we were to build a commercial parking lot as a primary use it would have had to been a the concrete parking lot and we were trying to do it as a for a couple of reasons to do it as a flex base for the majority of that site for pervious surface and cost and so that's why we're proposing a small building that and quite honestly one of the existing one of our existing tenants who also owns the property over here this doesn't show it but there's been a new building constructed here pro pro built is a company that customizes Peter built trucks they rent spaces from us and they're interested in leasing the entire parking lot just for storage of and staging of trucks for their facility and quite possibly renting the building that would be constructed as well so if they were if they were the sole tenant there really wouldn't be any truck drivers that are that are using it at all if he in fact leases the entire property thank you any other questions I guess my comment would be obviously in a zoning case you can't add business details that you've talked about but I trust that you know as you said you've been in business here a while there's last thing you want is people calling the mayor and City Council members with methane gas releases given you know our city and our history and the health effects of that so so this is going to be simply you're going to lease out each one of those spaces either as a one single lessee or possible eighty four different ones we we've designed it and and and planned for it to be rented out to whether it's you know each space to one individual driver but if the guy who sure wants the whole thing will pay the price that we that we need he he may rent the whole entire property for a long term so okay I mean there's also companies in town that just deliver trucks and they're always looking for places to stage brand-new Peterbilt trucks they'll stack them three deep and and come get them when they need them sure okay all right okay thank you appreciate it any other questions comments councilmember Armitter yeah I guess I'll just add since there were you know questions and comments about the the video and this is you know and no disrespect to the I'm glad you showed the video and I I am sorry for you know whatever inconvenience that was regardless of what the cause was for me to take away from that what I took away from that regardless of the cause is here we've got a residential neighborhood that is right across from right next to an already pretty industrial area and to zone it this way the way that's being proposed would ensure that it's going to get worse for the people who live there and so I don't you know I don't want that to happen if there weren't if there wasn't a neighborhood already there if there weren't already people living there then I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it but I just wanted to make that make that clear councilmember Briggs so you're saying that we can't we can't really put business conditions upon this zoning like planning and zoning did with the conditions for the the types of uses no what I meant was what y'all were discussing and what he was proposing or things it would be actually in a lease document a business lease document whereas what planning and zoning is is proposing some of those conditions are more of a policy sort of with the land the zoning that that would be more of a lease issue I see and if we were doing this as an SUP that could be a type of condition I'll defer to the city attorney okay so I was thinking a little bit so this is just probably a good faith type more than likely would be okay and for me I feel like there's a lot of things that could go there that would be if you take away the the pollution if they have the non idling policy and no overnight sleeping there's some conditions that can be put on that property where if it's just a RV parked or a truck parked temporarily there's not going to be a lot of noise besides the starting and the stopping if you remove the methane releasing I'm I'm not sure but you said that was the first time that that happened okay so that's if that one can be addressed and not allowed on this lot and it's previous paving I'm I'm okay with it with the good faith in the rental agreement that these things will not continue and infringe upon the neighborhood considering what other types of businesses and industrial businesses can go in this zoning that's already allowed I mean we're not we're not asking to put like a it's not going to be Bucky's type situation here so I am just going to take your word for it thank you what is the distance from the I see the purple line where it's the lots of line between the existing detention pond and the the new property for the parking lot what's the distance between that and is that Marshall Road that's coming down the east side of Ranch Estates do we know what the distance of that is I see him pulling up hopefully our nice handy dandy zoning application that can measure distances we measured it at planning and Zoning Commission and I want to say it was 450 does that sound right Julie but we can pull it up and measure it so it's four to five hundred feet probably something like that sure if it doesn't take that long he's got it he's got it we get the overhead please get an app on my phone that measures the distance the green dot to that location not really 821 feet to Marshall Road okay from the back of the back of the the burned area before it slopes off into the detention right okay all right okay well if staff could put up the notice map is the detention pond part of the property okay never mind I just I knew that it was about 400 feet extended into that so it's coming from the edge of the detention pond all right got you okay thank you any other questions before recognizing the movement seeing none councilmember Melser I suppose I do need a little clarification so without having an opinion about whether it's expressed in rental agreements or not are we prohibited from having a condition that idling for more than an hour is not permitted on the property some cities have actually put some type of restriction like that on the idling especially on the tractor trailer in that context above residential neighborhoods the the more practical problem is that you know what I've encountered is idling sometimes is required for the engine for the actual tractor trailer I'm not an expert in that and that has always been the issue about limiting the idling and so I'm really more after the legal question because the applicant is yeah already saying that you know for practical point of view that you could be able to impose you could impose that as part of the condition of this application but there may be some practical issues involved with enforcing that I'll take yes for an answer all right so I move approval subject to the conditions as well as two additional actually three additional conditions one is a prohibition against idling on the property for more than an hour and I've just gone through the list of permitted uses that wouldn't be there under the current zoning to see if there's anything else that might be smelly or loud so this might sound a little odd but I'm going to also include in my motion excuse me a prohibition against craft alcohol production and kennels cast my monitor okay I'm pretty sure I'm gonna be the last thing I say on this one I just want to say so we're talking about trucks and trucks are smelly trucks are loud trucks stop and trucks go and that's what they do and so we can't if it's gonna be trucks there I don't see I mean that's what we're gonna get we're gonna go we're gonna get smell loud stopping and going so I just want to be clear you know that that we know what we're voting on that's all okay question for the applicant if you don't mind what are your what's your feedback or thoughts on the conditions made on the motion they have no idling for less than an hour for more than an hour no kennels and no craft beer productions I know you've been willing to put a I have no issue with the the craft beer production or kennels I guess the only concern that that mr. Liao brought up was whether or not a trucker would tell me that I have to idle for some I don't know but if I had to idle it for an hour before I go I don't know if that's if that's if that's wrong then then I have no issue with it but if it eliminated every ten and a half from operate from being there I guess I would hate to have agreed to that but I'd sure I don't know how to I don't want to table it and come back so I certainly don't unless unless there's a mechanism why I could come back and tell you that produced an issue for us I guess I would be okay with it okay all right councilmember barmiter is that just from it okay that was just forgot councilmember husband yeah can can I get some clarity where did how did you arrive at one hour based on what and then what does craft alcohol and kennels have to do and what what type of kennels are you talking this question for me it has to be yes okay so the hour came from the exchange between councilmember Briggs and the applicant which you know in that exchange as I heard it they went from five minutes to an hour as a sort of a safe outside figure and I just as I said I went through the list of what's won't be permitted under the new zoning that that is not presently permitted to look for items that would be potentially they're very odor producing or noise producing so that that that's where those came from that's it not that I expect they do it but you know it does happen from time to time that you change the zoning on a property it ends up with a different owner and they have a different idea now what they want to do with it so we've got neighbors who you know don't want to hear you know extended noise and don't want you know don't want lots of smell so it's just an ounce of an ounce of prevention so if I may yes sir I'm I'm absolutely not up to speed on crafting alcohol fact but isn't that is there this flame associated with that right there's you get a fight you like something right I mean so flammable and diesel trucks gas you think though I just don't know that those go to I don't know that I think those take care of itself just because someone doesn't want to explode more so than a prohibition from the day but that that's okay I'm not gonna support that because I just I just organically I don't like winging it from up here and having an applicant have a conversation trying to be transparent and then we take his feet and nail him to the floor I think I trust Alex to make it right I trust the family there to let us know if he's not making it right and there's a police element that we can fix that and we're what I'm gonna do is just drive right and go over there and see if it is the other industrial building then all this is for not and we have a different conversation to have but I just don't think nailing someone down on something that may or may not be the issue for whatever reason is is the key the key is the zone it's industrial and I don't to consider houses in that area I that's a bridge too far certainly but when you're talking about the industrial uses that are put before us today the fact that they're factoring in the runoff etc etc in the in allowing them for that accounting for that is significant and so for me I just want to drive and find a problem and not hope you may be punitive to someone that's trying to answer a question honestly and us say well you said one hour so I'm gonna I'm gonna hold you to that how about we do some due diligence do some research and work afterwards and come up with something that is found on sound investigation versus winging it from up here so I'm not going to support that motion and if it if it fails then I'll make a clean motion that's a member of mayor pro tem Ryan thank you yes there's no there's no second yet so we're still in discussion I've got a question I'm not sure who might be able to answer it but when it comes to refrigerated trucks do they have to have their engine running and is that considered idling in order for that refrigeration system to stay on I don't know if there's anybody out there that can answer that that question but that becomes an issue if you restrict the idling that if someone is parking there with a refrigerated truck for you know for an overnight while they go home take a shower get eight hours sleep and they have to let it idle that's where where I have the heartburn with with the no idling more than an hour type situation so I don't know if anybody knows that or not applicant have an answer that does the staff have an answer that you don't it's okay if you just shake your head you don't have to come up tell me okay all right the the nods are in the negative councilmember Briggs well I feel like there's a lot of questions now that aren't answered and that we don't know and so I guess since I'm not the original mover I can't motion to postponed but no I think a motion to postpone takes presidents over a regular motion okay well I would like to make that motion so that we can do the investigation that councilmember hudspeth just asked for and we could find out what's really going on and Alex can actually get more information on all the types of trucks that are coming and we don't want to put a condition on there that is going to limit the people that you can rent to so I feel like it's probably best and if we vote on it now I'm gonna have to vote no I mean unless we do the the control idling because of what we found out now and I don't have any other information so that's just my motion so if I could just have some clarification on that okay when you said because of what we found out now you're you saying because of the video that we saw of course that wasn't idling that was something far different from that but okay all right so we have a correct me if I'm wrong mr. city attorney we have a we've had a original motion councilmember Melcer have not had a second on it we have now I'm of course that's I guess my question becomes if there's no second it's not really a I mean the real motion if we get a second on the motion postponed not only because it's superior but also it would only be the real motion on the table because we don't have a second for the other one that is correct okay all right so we have a motion to postpone that's been proposed by councilmember Briggs the board is set up such that we can't really if you want to second that motion you're gonna have to get my attention somehow councilmember Melcer go ahead yes so I'll second the motion to postpone okay so we have a motion to postpone has been made by councilmember Briggs and seconded by councilmember Melcer councilmember Hudsbeth I have a question for Alex sure is there something you wanted to say yeah I would actually I would actually rather the the motion has proposed carry forth originally and then if it became an issue such that I determined it made our our leasing problematic is there could we come back to it for an amendment to our zoning and get the get the if the supports there for for Paul's motion because I don't particularly have any issue with the kennels or craft production then I prefer the vote take place okay all right okay thank you so we the current motion is motion to postpone so we have a motion to second no more discussion on that I don't see let's vote on the board please okay can I withdraw my motion we haven't voted yet if that's what you'd like to do okay so the motion to postpone has been withdrawn from the movement second it occurred I guess the second doesn't have to concur with that do you know okay so we're back to zero we're back to zero so councilmember Meltzer do you want to what do I need to just reinstate yes yes you do okay first of all I want to clarify the all none of this action requires trucks as the business so you know there's no scenario where we either anticipate nor don't anticipate trucks and brewing at the same time that's just sort of absurd but yeah so I move that we approve this motion subject to the conditions expressed in the document provided by staff as well as including a prohibition against idling for an hour or more as well as prohibitions against craft alcohol production and kennels okay all right do we have a second on that motion councilmember Briggs I'll second all right we have a motion in a second let's vote on the board please motion carries six one we're going to take a five-minute break and then when we come back I see that staff is here so we're going to run through them real quickly and then we'll proceed on so thank you welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council it is 8 13 p.m. on February the 5th 2019 we're going to move through our altered agenda right quick very quickly go return back to agenda items 6 B C and D we're going to plow these out agenda item 6 B consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton authorizing the expenditure of funds for the payment of wholesale transmission charges and total amount of 4.65 etc a million dollars mayor city council George Morrow DME general manager so pretty straightforward item tonight the Public Utility Commission of Texas oversees reimbursement to the electric utilities for their transmission costs we pay some entities that we use for transmission and they other entities pay us it's all overseen by the PUC they develop exactly who charges what amount of money historically we just paid those things because they were a regulatory requirement but we thought for transparency and visibility we would take the big numbers to you today so what happens is I mentioned some folks OS we owe other electric utilities so the billing is done on the net basis whoever owes is owed the most actually issues the invoice so there's there's six invoices that we're bringing to you today that exceed kind of what we would call our normal authority 50,000 these are all turned out to be over 250,000 this is the last they're they're mentioned several times in the ordinance it's about 4.6 million we're also going to pay 11 other entities some smaller amounts less than 50 what I actually thought was interesting is here's what folks owe us and we're issuing these bills and these are some these are some pretty pretty good numbers so there's actually I think 11 folks on here over 250 K that the same time we're paying that 4.6 million we're issuing these bills for 28 million and there's also 68 other entities that are going to be paying a smaller amount so so you know we're we're not the 600 pound gorilla but we're getting we're getting there and because we we manage a lot of transmission that's important to the aircott grid for moving power from West Texas through this area into into other service areas so again just wanted to it's a lot of money wanted to make you aware of this and looking for looking for a authorization to pay those six invoices councilman breaks so we are paying 4.6 million and getting 28 million yeah it's actually more than that when we add up the small amounts on the bottom we're going to be paying a total of 21 something million and we're going to be getting 40 million so you know we're actually going to be netting more money but it's not found money per se because it's just it reimburses us for the cost that we incurred for those projects you know the debt that we've issued and the operation of maintenance that we incurred so during our discussions for substations and transmission lines that we were talking about and we kept hearing we were going to get reimbursed for some of this project this is the the item where we're we're seeing that this is how it happens okay so all the costs are put into a big bucket in their peanut buttered I call it to all of the different electric utilities because you deal with the law of physics these electrons are going all over the place and so everybody kind of pays a proportionate share of the whole pot of money and we've got a lot in the pot so we're getting more back and that's where I'm helping us to pay our bills well I appreciate this presentation and the transparency of this I can't remember the last time I saw a detailed list like this to vote on so I appreciate it all right well thank you thank you for that it comes up every year at budget time so just ask George to go ahead and bring it before council hopefully it kind of helps educate the public how all this works thank you mayor pro tem move approval council member Meltzer I'll second motion and a second for approval of agenda item 6b let's vote on the board please and thank you for moving us up in the calendar appreciate it thank you motion carries 7-0 agenda item 6c consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton a Texas home rural municipal corporation authorizing the city manager to execute the public works contract with Jagle public company for construction of Hickory Creek Road widening project for the city of Denton community mayor and council taught us to see engineer we recently bid the project for Hickory Creek Road this is the limits of construction from Teasley Lane FM 2181 all the way over to River Pass you'll notice there were actually three different colors here we bid this in alternates because we were not sure based on the original funding the mouse has gone crazy I apologize for that we originally bid it as a base bid for the area and green because that's what we had funding for as of this time last fall but subsequently their CEOs we were able to get the funding to complete the project the bid came in less than expected on our based on our engineers estimate and we were able to go all the way to River Pass as originally defined in the 2014 bond that's gracious so we did have one bidder on this contract Jagle public as I said they were less than the engineers estimate we had fully anticipated we're budgeted up to six million dollars to do this project Jagle public came in at 5.3 and council is recommending that we award this contract to Jagle public to complete this project all right any questions for staff chair would entertain them a motion council member husband move approval mayor pro tem a second we have a motion and a second for agenda item 6c let's vote on the board please motion carries 7-0 we'll move to agenda item 6d considered option of an ordinance of the city of Dent Texas a home rule home rule excuse me municipal corporation authorizing the city manager to execute a public works contract with quality excavation for the construction of Hinkle and Windsor paving and drainage projects this project is another project that's been in the making for quite a while it's combination of multiple projects the primary I don't know why it's scrolling on its own so the project itself is a combination of paving project which is partially Windsor Drive from locust all the way over to Hinkle and then Hinkle itself all the way south to University Drive then you also got the stormwater improvements that are a phase 2 we had done some of the stormwater improvements originally through this part of the neighborhood and this picks that up and connects it down into this creek here one of the interesting items on this project is that we had an alternate bid here as well the alternate bid was for a concrete line channel which would have cut across the Good Samaritan property here along the east side of Hinkle we also bid it out as a large culvert with a shallow natural line or grassline channel as the base bid but just to make sure that we were covered on the cost and able to come in with the budget estimate we had hoped to get we put both bids out there so we had both options to continue to go forward when we bid the project quality excavation came in as the lowest bidder for both the base bid and the alternate bid even though the alternate bid or the base bid was just a little bit higher we're still recommending that option as the preferred option all of those options were below the original engineers estimate and then tonight we are recommending approval of the contract for six point three million dollars with quality excavation to do this work. Councilman Briggs. So can you clarify the recommendation that you're going with was that for the natural earthen for the base bid yes it's the natural line channel with box culverts underneath to handle the high flows okay I appreciate you putting out the second bid and that it was affordable for us to do on this because this is a well-known area of Denton and he goal has been in need of repair for a long time do we have a timing of this say it's approved tonight what what people can look for and expect to drive on right we'd have to get the contract executed by the contractor that will happen fairly quickly and as all of that comes through that typically takes about six to eight weeks to mobilize it could be quicker depends on how quick things move and then of course weather could push us out so I would say realistically we're potentially looking to April but I'll be able to give you a better answer that as soon as we get past tonight and then get the contractor on board in the pre-con and so the drainage will go we'll start first is that the first part of the drainage and utility relocations thank you a councilmember husband thank you my question Todd do we have the results back from the soap from the base and in the depth and and kind of the foundation for streets is we have that I know you were doing that study a week is that back and so these paper tell yours analysis yes sir we do have that back we have it back in a rough draft current staff is currently evaluating the results they do look to be potentially what we expected we are evaluating quality the results they look good so we should have a final draft coming back for council as a work session item here within the next month or so in general they confirmed what our current standards are those are the standards we updated about two years ago so the pavements that we are putting in for both Hinkle Windsor Hickory Creek the roadways we're putting out today they are recommended to be the current standard for us so thank you very much answer and I move approval Councilmember Briggs I'll second we have a motion to second for agenda item 16 let's vote on the board please motion carries 7-0 I made a comment when we first started the work session that coming off of an illness in my mind might not be working as well as it should so we're going to reopen agenda item 60 with no presentation I found a blue card wishing to speak Emily Meisner if you let me call this item one more time consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of didn't take this home room in this corporation authorizing the city manager executed public works contract which age old Jagle public company I apologize for that that's what happens when you sort of switch things up so we will revote on this as well after the public comment hi Emily Meisner 1700 Cordero court done in Texas 76210 thank you for listening to me this evening I wanted to come and express my thanks to council for collaborating with the county on this Hickory Creek Road issue that is the county property I also want to say since I am a d4 constituent it's so important that we're heard that our voices are heard and that these student advocate voices are heard who brought this issue to our attention they want to feel that their council members hear them and take their thoughts into consideration so thank you to those of you who have been proactive on this issue going forward I'd like to look to things like how we can collaborate with the county and the city and the future to avoid potential issues with road safety initiatives and Geier students have expressed concern about the walk ability to Geier high school with the Teasley traffic so I'd just like to have a little more collaborative proactive approach and make sure that all of our community members voices are heard when they come to us thank you thank you any questions for the speaker thank you and I apologize thank you councilmember Hudsbeth move approval mayor pro tem second all in favor let's vote on the board please motion carries 7-0 our next item then we'll move on to is agenda item 6e I don't see one here agenda item 60 do we have a presentation on that madam city secretary okay I do have one nomination and they have filled out an application application is for the committee on persons with disabilities it's Sonya red wine who's with United Way so I would make that nomination for that committee do we need a second on that okay all right any more nominations yes oh yes I would like to nominate Randy Weinberg to the animal shelter advisory committee I think that's it one W E I N B E R G Randy and have they filled out an application do you know for the it was a recommendation so I think so okay and I still have one I need to get on that and I'll get on that next next meeting any other nominations for any vacancies because my monitor so I wanted to ask the the DCTA alternate position is that when are we set to vote on that we will either put it on the next agenda or the one on the 26th we've been working with the DCTA legislation quite frankly once once that legislation passes one of you most likely the mayor at this point or one of the council members will be serving on that board so I'm not anticipating a member for DCTA pending the legislative outcome being on there for more than four or five months at the most and then the legislation has been written allowing our elected officials to serve as board members on DCTA which was our preference so that's that's why it hasn't been an item of urgency once Sarah Baguera was put on there okay so that preclude so just to confirm so that precludes it doesn't preclude however it could be like it could be a three or four month appointment as a backup and it's it's really up to you to determine whether there's value to that we've got three three meetings or four meetings left until that legislation probably passes yeah we're way out of posting on that I think is that right I mean it's not listed on here well it just says about nominations well it's a city boards commissions and committees that's a yeah but but that's good information no no you're fine that's good information well we'll get that figured out maybe a memo on it or something okay so we have councilmember Briggs I move to approve these nominations do you have mayor pro tem a second we have a motion and a second for these approval of these nominations according to agenda item 6e let's vote on the board please motion carries seven zero all right back to the agenda public hearings we've got agenda item 5b which is hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton Texas assigning an initial zoning classification and use designation of nr4 on approximately 86 acres of land and a rezoning approximately six acres of land from existing neighborhood residential nr2 to nr4 I will go ahead and open the public hearing thank you mayor council members for the record I'm Cindy Jackson with the development services department and what we have before us today is a request request for an initial zoning designation on 86 acres of land of nr4 and a rezoning of approximately six acres of land from nr2 to nr4 this is the subject site right here here's a look at the current zoning map as you can see the 86 acres has a holding zoning designation of our d5x it was annexed into the city back in November of 2018 and the site also includes six acres right in the corner here in the upper northwest corner that is already within the city it has a designation of nr2 at this time and they're requesting to rezone that to nr4 you can see here the zoning map the proposed zoning map this is what it will look like should this application be approved and as you can see it's a logical extension of the nr4 zoning that is located to the west across the railroad tracks as well as the nr4 zoning that is located to the northeast sub chapter 3 of the Denton development code contains criteria for approval of a zoning request these criteria are the proposed rezoning conforms to the future land use element of the Denton plan 2030 and the proposed rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of transportation water sewer schools parks and other public requirements and public convenience the subject site is designated a low residential low residential encompasses the zoning districts of nr1 and our two nr3 and nr4 it supports a density of up to four dwelling units per acre the proposed nr4 district is consistent with the future land use designation there is water available to the site from an eight inch line located up here along Creekview and the site is also served by a ten inch wastewater line along Creek Dale the applicant will improve Hickory Creek Road along the site frontage on the south side of the site which you can see right here as well as extend Creekdale Drive along the frontage the traffic impact analysis which the applicant has worked on includes the moving of Hickory Creek Road the Hickory Creek Road alignment the mobility plan currently shows it curving through the site and the traffic impact analysis and indicates the best alignment for Hickory Creek Road would be along the south side of the strike the site straight removing all curvature the applicant will coordinate off-site improvements such as road widening sidewalks and turn lanes with the Hickory the city Hickory Creek Road project regarding Ryan Road an area-wide study will kick off soon for Ryan Road similar to the one that was done for Sherman Drive FM 428 up to the north and as you know there are two CIP projects planned for Hickory Creek Road we anticipate by the time this site is ready to develop these projects should be well underway the TIA that the applicant provided will need to be updated prior to the submittal of the preliminary plat at this time we have not received a concept plan which shows lots and street layouts once we know what that is the TIA will have to be updated during the annexation presentation proceedings DISD stated that the district could accommodate the additional students that are gently were generated from that by this site and that's been a question that has come up frequently however they say they will be able to accommodate them we did send out notices for this site we received two in favor that you can see here along the western edge these two comprise seven percent of the land area within the 200 foot boundary and signs were posted on the site the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request with a vote of five to two the one of the commissioners were opposed to it because of the traffic situation that exists in the at this in the site right now however since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting steps have been put in place to improve that situation and I wasn't able to discern why the the second recommendation for denial was staff also recommends approval for this request it is compatible with the surrounding property and consistent with the objectives of the Denton plan 2030 and that concludes my presentation Councilmember Briggs yeah so I think the second one descending was also for traffic reasons it they took the vote on the night of the accident and so I think that had some impact on their decision so that kind of goes to my question because we saw that the suit the two CIP projects and we we've already approved some of those tonight and so I'm just you did say that they would be underway I'm curious when will they be complete well that that I'm not sure I know that the first phase that you just approved what is expected to be completed in 12 months the second phase which goes from the the edge of that down to country club they are saying that the design should be completed within 24 months after getting the the contract approved with with the engineering firm that will be doing the design work the there's a concept engineering plan that should be on your agenda next Tuesday and that will cover three phases of Hickory Creek the first phase will be from River Pass to Country Club phase two from Country Club to 377 and then to 35 so we'll be asking your permission to move forward with that contract next Tuesday and I would expect concept design on that first phase not to take more than 12 months or so but there's there's a number of environmental clearances and that sort of thing they're gonna have to be worked through because there's a couple of creeks that have to be crossed so city manager by by approving this item we're not saying that more than more than likely the the situation would be significantly improved so that we're not putting any more people in danger by approving a development on this road boy that's pretty so there's there's two things happening the concept design is gonna be necessary in order to try to get the funding squared away the ultimate build out of that roadways about forty million dollar projects so the reason we're doing it this way is to try to access state dollars and we're also in discussions with the county to try to kick in so once we get the concept design in place my guess my guess is between the concept design phase one construction we are three to four years out if we can really get moving so there's a couple of the second part of this is I've asked mr. Estes to come back within the within the month and we're put we're currently working on an expedited road package for the council to consider in this next budget cycle one would include the ultimate build out of hooker Creek next one's going to include Ryan Road from Country Club to Teasley which I'm not sure why that hasn't been widened Sherman Drive which is we're getting a lot of concerns about from the loop up north and then Jim Crystal Road so that package will be brought before you with those roadways to expedite design and try to get them built in the next few years so we'll be ready with the subdivision beat the road it's possible but it won't be too far behind if we can get things moving okay thank you councilmember Armitage okay yes so this is a question for legal actually that would it be possible to to get into to get a friendly amendment into this zoning change that the zoning change doesn't become effective until the improvements to Hickory Creek are complete for safety reasons I'm not aware of any case law that would prohibit you from doing that but from a practical sense of the developer that would throw off their timing that might raise some legal issues for the city and this council which I would not I would advise to advise you in closed session yeah I can imagine thank you I can imagine yeah I mean I mean this sounds like a nice really nice project and the I'm so happy that these improvements to Hickory Creek are finally coming as a result of the city collaborating with the county I'm glad this is finally happening I like both these things however the timing the timing I don't like and so I would only feel comfortable voting yes to this if we if we could get get something in there you know postponing just further development in this year I mean or at least you know postponing this zoning change until the the roadwork is incomplete if the roadwork is complete the applicant is here and she can answer questions yeah we've got a whole public hearing we're gonna have on this so let me let's get through staff presentation and then we'll open the public hearing those questions can be addressed any other questions for staff seeing that thank you I believe I've opened the public hearing if I haven't I'm opening the public hearing we do have a couple of cards but this is a public hearing so anybody wishing to speak will the applicant I believe is that you ever are you the applicant okay come on down and if you have a presentation and then we'll take questions from the dais and then we'll have our second blue card speaker Abra Nusser PO box 93211 South Lake Texas 76092 I'm with ideation planning I'm the applicant here tonight representing four star and this project is for lakeside place so this is the same project that we came before you talking about annexation so this will look familiar to you and we did hold a neighborhood meeting in September we had no negative comments about the proposed development specifically just existing concerns regarding cut through traffic which have been discussed in multiple venues through since this project started but not specifically about our development annexation was completed in November like Cindy was saying the traffic impact analysis will be finalized when we have a lot layout this is just straight zoning so that lot layout has not been finalized in any way nor have any street alignments or anything like that so we will be assessed our public improvements at the time of plotting not at not at this time but it will depend on how many lots we put forth PNZ recommended approval in January so process here would be zoning then platting then building permits so four star believes in building sustainable communities with a true sense of place we are kind of familiar with where this is at this point but I'd like to show you some pictures and a concept so this is our preliminary concept as you can see we are preserving a significant amount of open space or we're proposing to there is an environmentally sensitive area on the property that we are proposing to maintain and preserve and we talked about cluster developments earlier but really pushing those lots up into the northeast corner to preserve as much open space and environmental assets as we can so these are some photos of some beautiful assets on the property that we would be proposing to maintain we're really looking to make a special place a special neighborhood that has a value that's not anywhere else which would be those natural assets that people can enjoy right in their front and backyards so next steps and I want to talk about this for a moment because there is a question about timing so the in terms of timing we're finalizing we're proposing to finalize the zoning tonight and then we would go into the plotting process the plotting process does take it can take a couple of months a few months just depending on the staff process and revisions and whatnot so there would be a preliminary plot and then there would be a final plot so that process would take it you know at least from the time of preliminary plot to the time we turn dirt will be probably at least a year and a half so just there's a lot of things that get going between plotting and turning dirt as we call it that will take some time so it won't be an immediate we go out and clear and grade and you know we're ready to go full construction so there will be a delay on our part in terms of when houses actually start to be constructed and it full build out could take a couple of years or even a few years just depending on the rate at which the builder would build the builder has not been identified yet so that's also a process that would need to be gone through after entitlements and with that I will take any questions any questions for the speaker seeing none thank you next speaker will be mr. Willie Hutzpeth no okay mr. Hutzpeth declines those are all the blue cards that I have let me double check this is a public hearing anybody wishing to speak please come down state your name and address and your time will begin anybody wishing to speak okay we'll close the public hearing council member armature so question for staff about the process you can actually you don't mind just can just leave this on there so so just to be clear so you know as this is we proceeded into these next steps because this is just the zoning right and and at any stage along the way as concerns arise we can weigh in you know council the things that come before council we get to weigh in on I mean you know some of this is let's see I know the platting and the building permits I mean is this is kind of our this is this is our last chance right there are a lot of steps that weren't this is a simplified version yeah they still have to complete their impact analysis and they after they complete their preliminary plat they will have to have their construction engineering plans approved and that is a long process from what I understand and then they will have their final plat approved so the fun the planning goes before PNZ building permits are approved administratively as our traffic impact analysis and construction plans yeah okay yeah so this is okay well thank you I guess I'll wait to see what the what the movement is is for if there's a timeline line in it like I said is it lovely and compatible once we get the traffic issue fixed and it is a comfort to me knowing and it makes sense that that you know without knowing a builder that you know this process does take a while anyway the applicant is asked if they can make a point of clarification they misspoke on time I think yes I would love to hear just to clarify a clearing and grading permit for the area of construction we would start those type of site development activities but it would be approximately 16 months a year and a half before a the first home would be ready so just there would be activity on the site but in terms of people and homes that activity would be in the future thank you for clarifying question first city attorney I in this one particular circumstance would it be permissible to apply a condition that that the platting come to council after P&Z which is you're not the ordinary procedure over here just because you know we would what you know I think everyone's picking up on is that we want an opportunity to say yes but hit the brakes if the timing doesn't align well with the safety improvements and the Creek Creek chapter 212 of the local government code basically sets forth who the admin the approving body of any plants are that's set forth so when when the city created the planning and zoning Commission many many years ago they are the body entrusted by state law to make the final decisions on preliminary or just plats in general we bifurcated to preliminary and final plan to remove that power away from P&Z to here would violate state law thank you that's the members so so we are these questions for staff yeah I'm just gonna we're still in the public hearing I know we did not close the public hearing I did close up public hearing yes okay I'm sorry see it's getting late even though it's not that late council member Rick sorry we had just for clarification on this because this this area this neighborhood what we're doing it's the kind of development that we've been asking for it's the open spaces the natural creeks the clustering of the homes and it's fantastic it looks beautiful it's all that we could ask for but we just want to make sure that when we put someone there in that home that when they leave their home they're safe and I think that's the concern right now that you're hearing on council so I just want to clarify because we heard and we know that all these projects are lined up we approved one tonight one's coming to us next week the one for the county has been been approved there's temporary things or there's things that have already been put in place like barriers and lights and so there's already some things happening so by the year two if you could just because you talked about phases and so by in two years I'm just trying to get an idea of how far along we would be I know you mentioned it earlier and it's really hard to to say because of weather and time but I just want to make sure that when I vote on this I'm I'm comfortable with the the timing I think concept design and a lot of it's gonna depend on budget and how we try to access federal funding the reason you go to 377 and I 35 W is to do this once and get as much federal funding in as we can get so we're probably looking at at least at 18 months to 24 months I will check with Todd on the Todd Estes on that first phase to country club it would be helpful as I was just talking to mr. can only be helpful to get some assurance or have a discussion with the petitioner whether they would hold off the preliminary planning at least six months to get us synced up with our engineering that's our biggest concern at this point is making sure that this is done in a coordinated fashion there there there has been an ingress egress plan that had been contingent upon accessing Ryan Road to the north through a new subdivision that recently been built that's certainly not going to be our optimal solution it would work for a while but I think that that first phase we're probably two to three years out if we can expedite the thing that's making this one more challenging or the environmental clearances because you've got two bridges are gonna have to be built and that's going to delay the timing a little bit more it's not just a simple road project this is going to take a little bit longer so if we could get there assurance that would work with us on on truing up that that engineering schedule to where we have a better timeline by later this summer that would be helpful so I have a question for legal is that something we can do here can we ask that they delay their preliminary plat for six months you can certainly ask the applicant and it's going to be up to the applicant to see their agreeable I don't know any about the financing plans the applicant may have any outstanding contracts that may have a time deadline associated with that that that would be the issue and so if the applicant is meanable to that then that would be great let me comment first if you don't mind I really appreciate the concerns the safety concerns and the timing issue but look I mean I'm going to be pretty candid here and that's because I'm against the project I I'm struggling with the project because of the density not just because of the issues but when you're talking about a 40 million dollar project that you've got to work with text dot on that you're probably gonna want to work with the county on on funding with two bridges and things such as that I would just really hesitate to place your cards if safety is really really your issue it six months it doesn't matter I mean we all know how complicated this is and we're saying 40 million dollars right now we've seen in the past how depending on the timing that that can jump so I'm not saying to not support the project I'm just saying that we need to look at this realistically and I appreciate the city manager being candid as well but we've had conversations and this is a very beginning process of this so I just want to put that out there to let everybody know that there's a lot of things we can say and we would try to commit to but we know how these processes go and things can really bog down for a lot of different reasons which we have absolutely zero control over so I just put that out there as some facts to consider not to persuade anybody to vote against it for that reason but I would hate to think that you're going to vote for it based upon some kind of statement that in no way has guaranteed a timeline that seems to give some cover to vote for it and in three or four years we're still struggling to get some movement and those are my comments so yes you can come forward so a couple things we are responsible for our fair share of the public improvements and those public improvements need to be roughly proportional to our impact on the traffic system and on the city as a whole with that those public improvements are assessed at the time of platting I have worked with this staff extensively in the past and in the name of life and safety they require quite a great deal when we come forward with a plat those life safety concerns traffic design concerns will be reviewed extensively if you have a development in the hopper that is required to pay their fair share of those public improvements we can help contribute to the cost of the Hickory Creek Road improvements without us coming in you won't have the ability to have that participation at this time so and I would love to hear a staff perspective on the life safety type reviews that happen with the platting process specifically the traffic impact analysis that is required at the time of platting the traffic impact analysis takes into consideration the impact of the development on the vicinity and the city so those types of impacts will be reviewed and we will be held to a standard that staff will not let us put something out there that isn't safe that's part of the review process so I would love to hear with your if you guys are interested on the staff perspective on that life safety review I do have a request if you could put up the slide that shows the development and you mentioned because when you start talking about contributing to perimeter streets or public improvements I want to make sure because it seems to say that well we can contribute to this 40 million dollar project but when you start considering the the length of that it's gonna be very minimal it's not going to be y'all gonna be contributing 10 or 20 million dollars to our impact and definitely not 40 million dollars but so my question becomes because that's in our mobility plan but that's not necessarily what your perimeters street perimeter requirements may be and I thought you said when you had up the map that we have to improve this street or that street for the development did I miss that or was that on the hill and Hickory do you have a slide on that I'm sorry Cindy had to slide on that so yeah staff if you'll come up and address that average question about the life and safety sort of review at the plotting process of traffic safety issues but also just what exactly would they be required to contribute to improvement of perimeter streets for that slide you had a slide where to say that one more time this one yes okay and is there a way to blow up that map or enlarge it excuse me I'm not sure oh there thank you all right that's fine okay so so which roads quote-unquote would they be required to add they will be required to do Hickory Creek along their frontage they will be required to connect Creek Creekdale okay okay to the north east west and try to remember what else that was all that was all that was in their conditional TIA right now right so if you could maybe move the map up there you go so when you say they have to improve Hickory Creek on their frontage it goes from Creekdale to where right where the where's their property line right there the property line is right here all right okay which that all right thank you appreciate that so now you can answer the questions of traffic safety impact review and then the the traffic impact analysis looks at traffic safety it looks at number of trips it looks to see what kind of impact it will have on the surrounding area what types of improvements will be required with regards to street improvements traffic signals stop signs things like this what what if they need to have some sort of special dedicated turn lanes to prevent any issues with somebody slowing down to make a turn and causing a collision because people behind them weren't paying attention left turn lanes and right hand turn lanes dedicated just for that those are the kinds of things that will be determined with the TIA when it's updated okay and you had a comment I think to address that any other questions for staff while we have her up councilmember Riggs doesn't usually win that I don't like this for zoning come to council we have the TIA already yes we do have the TIA ready when there's a certain amount of trips however this one is only been conditionally approved because we don't have a lot layout and we don't know what the street layout will be yet often I say oftentimes people will come with a concept plan that shows a lot layout and things such as that especially if they're trying to acquire a certain density based upon exchanges of there's a lot of flood plain and there's a lot of open space so four units per acre is going to mean more units per acre because they're getting offsets but we don't have that sometimes we do have that right we just recently in the past few months I guess just this past year been requiring the TIA prior to the preliminary plat typically a TIA is part of the preliminary plat process but because of the traffic infor issues that we've been running against with our zoning we have been requiring to have the TIA submitted early with zoning if there are certain number of trips generated from the site did you have a comment well I was initially gonna ask the council to delay this a week so we could get and talk to Todd but he's just texting me he says that that major roadway swing to the north is off the table right now they're considering going straight down Hickory Creek and lining it up that way so I just want to be sure because the plans that we've seen up till now had anticipated a kind of a north westerly swing like you're seeing in the dotted line there but it looks like they're looking at Hickory Creek going more of a straight direction down straight west so that changes things a little bit but I still think it will be wise to have him address this if the council is concerned about it yeah that was that was in a finding of the early TIA was that this alignment wasn't working and the TIA recommended a straight alignment for this development yes but what you're saying is for the ultimate fix for Hickory Creek Road I mean so that that's obviously in flux obviously right now yeah it is okay any other questions for staff all right thank you did you have a comment based upon what you've heard or because I recognize I had the comment about timing but yes clarify one thing that Cindy said any assessment of public improvements at this time is premature we do not have a lot count we do not have a lot layout we will not be maxing out density just due to the product and type that the developer in the you know market is demanding so there will not it won't be maxed out on density so any assessment of exact public improvements at the time of zoning is premature just if we're talking about specific contributions the second thing is we do have a real estate contingency that is contingent upon platting should we receive any delays that would be blown out of the water so you know it waiting six months waiting a year waiting two years that's not feasible for this project so just appreciate that thank you any other questions council member husband yes so I'm gonna move approval and I'm gonna comment that for me I think if better said safety is paramount and so with that that comes with more than just lending comments to that it's as this body we can assign more dollars we can fast-track that project we can work with the county earlier we can pay that price and so whatever that's 40 million that could be 20 million to do half of it whatever it is but it's one thing to say it's important and then not be willing to take the steps to back that up or you can say yes it is important and yes we're gonna do the things that we need to do on our end and hold ourselves accountable into a higher level to fulfill that project or work with the county and not be beholden to other entities I mean you just kind of take that initiative and move the ball forward as best you can within the rights provided to us and so with that I move approval understanding that when it comes to those times if that they it's easier for me to say that we're going to take a leadership role than to predict the weather in two years that's just that we're trying to say hey we're going to have these caveats and these things that we have no control over versus saying let's start a pace now that says we're gonna line up all the couches we need and I can't find all the money we need to to be in position to fix this issue and not kick the can down the road or not and so that's that's where I fall on I respect that the nr4 versus nr2 but for me looking at the surrounding areas of ETJ I'm comfortable with nr4 I'm comfortable with the project I'm excited that it's not maxed out I'm excited that they are saving some trees and maintaining some of that that beauty that natural beauty that's there and I just I think we'd be remiss there's there's other developers there's other people to come before us that we have a great relationship with the city understanding Abra used to work with the city that that to me earns some consideration that she she gets it and that she would be considerate and respectful and mindful of the things we have to do and then ultimately come to a to a good resolution but but so that's my thought behind moving to approve. All right thank you Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you Mayor and I agree with Councilmember Husspeth and just wanted to add to that that one of things we need to to make sure that we get done we need to get that mobility plan updated and we need to get these projects ready so that we can have the voters vote on them in November to get these things rolling as quickly as possible because we only have twice a year that we can send them to the voters for a road project of this size to be approved and with that I will second. Councilmember Armitage. Yeah so I just want to address the issue of kind of expediting the Hickory improvements I of course I completely agree with that good to do the expedite the the funding and everything else about it as much as possible however as the city manager said recently I mean there's some there are a number of aspects of the plans for for Hickory Creek beyond the funding issue that will make this take a lot of time there you know engineering problem solving issues and so it's not just a matter of money and so you know for that reason I'm gonna have to be voting no to this although I I do hope that you know no matter what happens we can get this done as as quickly as possible but it does make sense to me that it would by this I mean the Hickory Creek road improvements but it will take a lot of time that does that make sense to me and I appreciate the honesty and transparency on that that issue and also you know from the developer the honesty and transparency on you know how it does take a long time so and you know you don't have all the time to to wait so I understand that councilmember breaks so smile my last comment I'm gonna have to to vote no on this which is heartbreaking because I really love the development but again I I'm concerned and the mayor like the mayor said it's it's really a concern for me and I have been pretty consistent in making sure when I vote for something that the infrastructure is there and that it can handle what's coming and to be honest we don't have a true TIA we don't know what's coming we just have you know a pretty picture and and without the postponing of the plat then I just can't get behind it right now okay any others just briefly I stated my concerns it is maxing out on the number of units per acre allowed under the 2030 plan I mean rule was it rule residential or low low low residential low density residential it's at the high end of that so you've got nr2 that you've got nr4 that can be filled in the middle you've got nr2 that's adjacent to it on two sides as well and then you have nr3 and I just think that it's just personal preference it's just looking at the density understanding that we don't have a lot layout understanding that some of that's in the floodplain which you can use as offsets there's just a lot of questions that I have that I would like to have answered but that's also not necessarily at this point of the process just some people in the past have brought that forward to try to bolster the presentation so I'll be voting against it but not necessarily for those same reasons as far as Hickory Creek Road I think we're gonna do Hickory Creek Road we're gonna do it as quickly as possible but understand now with a new change we don't know how that impacts the the costing and then environmental studies and engineering so nothing against the project would certainly entertain a different zoning classification or different density but those are my comments any others okay we have a motion and a second for agenda item 6b let's vote on the board please motion fails for okay I didn't could you there it is up there motion fails four to three moving on to agenda item 6c hold a public hearing and consider adoption of notice of the city of Denton Texas approving a specific use permit to allow for multifamily residential use as a part of a mixed-use development on approximately 31 acre site generally located on the north side of Windsor Drive east of I-35 North frontage Road this is a public hearing so I will now open the public hearing and we'll have staff presentation all right good evening I'm Haley's Gursky with development services so this case is s-188 for the Windsor Drive apartments the request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance regarding a request for a specific use permit to allow a multifamily development outlined in yellow on the map is the total 31 acres which is the subject property it's located at the intersection of Windsor Drive and I-35 the property is currently zoned neighborhood residential mixed-use within the NRM you district there are two requirements for multifamily one is a specific use permit and then the second is limitation for limitation for does have kind of five options the first of which is the SUP and then the others including mixed-use developments or prior approvals in this case with them going for the SUP they would be satisfying both of those requirements the specific use permit does have numerous criteria for approval outlined in the DDC I won't read through these they're enumerated in your backup but in general it requires a a compatibility analysis to see if the proposed development would be consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses as well as seeing if there are provisions that should be put in place to prevent any nuisances being generated from the proposed use so just looking at an overall picture just this is turned sideways so north is off to the right side of your screen here this development the multifamily portion is just under 17 acres out of that total 31 the remainder of the property is intended to be developed with commercial uses at some point in the future so that would be kind of phase two of this and there are numerous commercial uses such as hotels that could be permitted in this district to fill in those spaces at a later date some of the existing conditions surrounding the property the the purple shading on your map here which you see covering the subject property and the property to the east is an existing gas well plot the city approved back in 2003 within that plot there were two wells permitted both of those wells are in existence today and in operation those are the red dots located within that area they're called out on the map as the pain number one and two wells and because these wells are existing there is a 250 foot reverse setback required for this development since multifamily is a protected use so looking in a little more detail at the proposed site plan that was provided to you the as I mentioned the multifamily is just on a portion of the subject property 16 and a half acres roughly out of the 31 the site plan proposes 336 units a mixture of one two and three bedrooms that puts the density for this development at about 20 and a half units per acre the maximum for NRM U is 30 so they're well below that what they're proposing is just over 315 thousand square feet of building area that's on this plan shown to be 16 buildings that are each three stories they are providing a parking in accordance with our code so 632 spaces total shown on the plan and the access to the site would be from two locations one here would be on the north end of the property off of the frontage road the second would be a connection here at Windsor that would align with the existing drive to the south there is an existing access point for the gas well that's currently here in what would be the future expansion of Windsor Drive so that access is proposed to be relocated directly over here so there would be a gas well access road going due north off of Windsor Drive looking at the landscape plan for this development what the site plan and landscape plan reflect is approximately 49 percent lot coverage 51 percent landscape area those are both well within the parameters required for NRM U because there are those gas wells which are considered an industrial use on the adjoining property to the east they are required to have a type D buffer between the residential use and the industrial use the code would require that be a 30 foot wide area with eight trees and 20 shrubs for every hundred linear feet the landscape plan as you see here does reflect an alternative which the code allows the planning director to approve or it could be approved as part of this SUP that would include the minimum 30 foot width with a lower number of trees and no shrubs and in place of that would be a six foot opaque fence the plan reflects that they would do intend to meet all the internal landscaping requirements for the parking lot street trees and just general landscaping they also call out on the plan that they do intend to have open space amenities such as picnic areas and dog parks but those locations were not specifically shown on the plan there are multiple elevations that were provided in your backup so I'll just show a couple of the samples here they are proposing a neutral kind of earth tone and gray tone color palette with a combination of hardy siding hardy plank and stucco as the building materials so just another of the sample buildings that they provided so in going through those criteria for approval all kind of pretty quickly through our findings so consistency with the future land use plan is one of those this property is designated for business innovation as we talked about earlier that's kind of our office and employment park designation but it does also call for supporting commercial uses and higher density residential uses for the employees of those office parks so in this particular area we do have low residential pretty close surrounding the property to the south and the east so this residential use would be kind of a transition between those higher intensity uses called for in building innovation or business innovation and the low residential so we found that the proposed use provided that fitting transition between the commercial development she would typically see on a highway the higher employment and industrial type uses permitted in business innovation and the surrounding residences this site does not immediately adjoin single-family if it did there would be a lower buffer requirement in place so because there is that industrial use a higher buffer is required and there would be no immediate connectivity between the multifamily development in any adjoining single-family multifamily isn't unlikely used to generate any nuisances in terms of odors fumes noise or glare they are proposing to provide adequate access and parking and they would be required to comply with the DDC site lighting requirements the scale of the development as they proposed it is consistent with all the NRMU regulations and is generally consistent with what we would see in a highway location such as this there is adequate infrastructure in place at this time in terms of water and sewer you can see on the map the blue lines indicating existing water lines in Windsor and along the frontage and then there is a sewer lines available along Windsor that they could tie into and bring to the north Windsor road dedication are and improvements are expected with this development for the frontage of the property public notification was sent regarding this case we received no written responses the neighborhood meeting was held back in September and there were approximately 15 to 20 residents in attendance at that meeting for what I recall and the applicant could speak to this as well they didn't express any general concerns with the development as it was shown on the plans so in your ordinance that was provided to you in your backup there are numerous requirements based on the plans that we've seen here that we have written into the text of the ordinance to enumerate those in perpetuity in the event that the plans you know over time became illegible the the general requirements of that would be called out in the ordinance as part of that staff is also recommending that staff have the ability to approve increases or decreases of less than or equal to five percent from any of the amounts that are enumerated here so I won't read through through those specifically but I'm happy to answer any questions regarding them and then following that staff is recommending four conditions that are also outlined in your draft ordinance the first being related to the text on access to the property the second is related to landscaping third is regarding the gas well setbacks and then the fourth is that the city would reserve the right to require the amendment to the SUP in the event that there was any changes proposed that were greater than what is outlined in the ordinance and again I'm happy to answer any questions regarding these PNC did hold a public hearing on November 28th and recommended approval for three with staff's recommendations and conditions as outlined here and that concludes my presentation but I'm happy to stand for any questions Councilmember Armitage can you can you say remind me how close to the closest home the gas wells will be to the multifamily development yes yeah how close to the exterior wall so what you see here the the red circle surrounding the southern well is is the 250 foot radius from that existing well site and then on the north side you can see the the red call out there being the 250 from the proposed boundaries if that site were to expand in the future currently they would be at three to four hundred feet between the pad sites and the structures themselves because of the agreement that's in place with the operator that requires nothing be within that 250 foot setback for the southern well mm-hmm yeah thank you yeah for that for that reason I'm gonna have to say no to it because of the proximity to the gas well but it makes me sad to say no to more multifamily housing we certainly need it but thank you got some member breaks what I'm just curious about the outside structure why there's not any stone or brick or any type of something on it that would make it look a little bit more like not like a hotel certainly so currently the DDC requires 40% stone brick or masonry for multifamily and the historic interpretation of masonry has been that because hardy board and hardy plank or cementitious products and stucco is also cement based that those would qualify as masonry so they are technically meeting that requirement it would certainly be within councils purview if you found it to be more compatible that they use more traditional residential type materials I would think and on the well so you're saying that it is an active well but there's potential to go back in and have more wells drilled currently based on the gas well plant they were permitted the two wells the operator and negotiations with this developer did express an intent that they may in the future seek to use the city's gas well site plan procedure to obtain more wells on the northern site as I outline in your backup because the northern side is located within a floodplain fringe that would be a lengthy process they couldn't just go through the normal staff approved gas well site plan they would have to seek a watershed protection permit which in itself requires a specific use permit be approved before that permit could be approved and then because of their existing proximity to protected uses they would also have to seek a waiver through one of the mechanisms outlined in the code in this case they expressed that they would most likely seek the individual property owner waivers from everyone within the 500 foot radius so they would have a lengthy process to expand that site but it is possible either of these wells I know that one in this area caught on fire or was that either one of these correct that the mouse is finally working that was the well that's currently existing on this northern side so it's the one that that we're looking at correct there was a lightning strike there in 2015 I believe okay thank you any other questions for staff I've got one that I wanted to check with rest of the council members I'm confused a little bit on the these gas wells so I see the pretty defined circle in the southern one and that circle represents the 250 foot setback correct from the pad site boundary and in in most cases development could occur within that so long as it were not protected uses the operator requested due to their limited confines that nothing be placed within that 250 foot setback and the developer agreed to that okay so this one up here that just for references had the lightning strike where I see sort of a radius as it goes into the property so then I see that red line what helped me understand where that line is that boundary is so what their site plan reflects this this red boundary is the roughly the outline of the pad site as it exists today okay the operator as I mentioned expressed intent to someday expand this site and maximize their potential there so you're saying to expand that pad site boundary correct all right so from that pad site boundary where's the 250 foot we don't have shown on here the 250 from this existing this line reflects the intended expansion of that site someday okay and the agreement that's in place between the developer and the operator stipulates that they measure the 250 from that future pad site boundary so that's the red line that goes to those buildings okay so the intent was to show that currently they exceed the setback if that expansion were to occur they would still be in compliance with what would then be the operators minimum setback okay and so these these additional rules that they would have to follow for an expansion or within the setback that they could get a waiver and one of them would could be and that's I mean it's one of several one of them could be the owner of the multifamily project and everybody else is within 500 feet correct the one of the three options for a gas well setback reduction is that you receive written consent from all owners of protected uses within and protected uses within subdivisions that are within 200 or within the setback so in this case that's a 500 foot existing gas well drilling and production site setback to protected uses so everyone in the 500 foot radius that has a protected use would have to provide written consent so that's a that's an additional requirement to I mean it's 500 feet because we've got a thousand foot setback and we have a 250 foot reverse setback where's the 500 feet coming from there's a there's a third criteria a third type of setback that is an existing drilling and production site setback and that's 500 feet for new drilling and production sites the minute or the setback is a thousand feet okay all right and so that 500 feet do we know how far it extends down into the sort of cul-de-sac not cul-de-sac but the neighborhood that's listed here that's immediately east to the southern port southern part of that that southern well I could I could pull that up for you I don't have it in this presentation at the moment but well it's the only reason I ask you substantially I believe if I could get the mouse to cooperate I've this being the 250 foot line I believe there's about 375 feet between the existing pad site and these lots so the 500 foot would go roughly to the middle of the subdivision I estimate so that he would have to get one of the options is to get waivers from all of those homeowners as well as okay correct okay and that's 500 feet in all directions I believe it also hits the subdivision to the north off of Westgate okay all right thank you appreciate that any other questions for staff seeing none all right we will now open the public hearing we've got two cars but this is public hearing so after we hear the speakers from the cars we will take public comment our first speaker is the applicant Lee Allison if you'll come down and it looks like you've got to speak on behalf so the applicant gets how much time is it 10 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes I don't I don't remember it's 10 minutes for one speaker and if they have more than a certain number it's over 20 minutes okay one speaker okay well I've got one client here with me representing I'll try and keep it short but I don't want to under represent no no of course of course yeah you bet all right I'm Lee Allison without an engineering group 24 15 North Elm Street Denton Texas we're here looking at the Windsor Road land development tonight's presentation this is an example of some of the projects they've done in other places this is not a presentation of what we're doing at this particular site but it is things that have been done in other locations to get a feel of their work we're here for the 31 acre site but looking for an SUP for apartments on a part of it we did go ahead and put the entire site in the project and notices and therefore our mailing and notices went beyond the entire site boundary not just that of the SUP as you've seen on the site earlier we're on the corner of Windsor in 35 we got vacant land highways as residential subdivision and we are located within a gas well plat and you can see on here the pain number one site that was being discussed earlier in the pain number two right behind these houses in this location and their access road going along this way we're looking at changing it so the access road just goes here and this becomes the extension of Windsor we've had two neighborhood meetings one in September with approximately 20 residents comments we heard were primarily they want Windsor Road completed I'm trying to remember the name of the other road to the east but from Interstate 35 back to the east long before Bonnie Bray I'll show you another map but there's two gaps in there that they're of concern to them and they like to have a buffer the residents do such as the apartments that will buffer them from the commercial activities that will happen on this site as it develops we had no other no communication received from any attendees and we haven't had any negative comments from the residents in that particular area this slide shows the issues with with Windsor Road the red area is our site frontage which we're required to accommodate in some way probably construct ourselves the yellow area is right in front of the gas well side panhandle and the black area is this section in front of this home that has not been completed so you have Bonnie or Windsor divided from Bonnie Bray to this point then it goes down to two lanes on one side then four lanes again then back down to two and we have promised the neighbors that we will advocate for working with the city to see what we can do to accommodate or deal with the yellow and black areas as our project moves forward maybe we can get them designed under some kind of a 380 agreement and get those built at the same time possibly oh what do you know the reverse setback for protected use 250 feet as you're well aware and protected use is defined and I think you're completely aware what protected uses are we did want to mention that we are not requesting any variances from Denton's gas well setback ordinances our proposed site plan for greater setbacks required provides for greater setbacks and required by the code I'll show a little more later in order to mention even without an SUP because of our agreement with the operator there are other protected uses allowed in this subject in this zoning district that we can go ahead and get building permits for and apply for and receive today without coming to the City Council so even though some consideration may be related to apartments and not having a protected use there this denying this tonight would not present prevent a protected use from coming within the distances that we're having shown on here such as townhomes hotels elderly housing etc the southern well it is a 250 foot reverse setback for its off for all uses the current code allows parking lots amenity centers garden areas landscaping etc per the operator we've been asked not to have been required not to include any parking lots or landscaping or amenity center so there's zero happening in that area with our setback and our plan we're showing we're 300 feet to the closest multifamily building actual structure prior concept plan on the northern well and I'll show on a diagram from the existing pad site our nearest structure is 433 feet away from it the gas well operator is as Haley mentioned is wanting to expand their site in the future so they ask us to set our 250 foot setback away from where their possible future gas well pad would be provided they can get the approval of all the owners and can come to the City Council and get the approval of the city as well in our agreement all we've done is agreeing not to oppose their request but that doesn't mean we support it or that they're going to be able to guarantee to get it that really has to come before the City Council as you can see on here and this may show it a little more clearly that's the existing pad for well number one that's roughly the edge of it from the edge of the pad to our nearest building is 433 feet they are wanting to ask in the future to expand their pad site out to about this point so we put ours 250 feet back from there which makes us 100 feet inside our property line before we have any structures and of course they've got a corner here and that's why we have the curve and here because that's the shape of this site that's why we don't have a pure circle but kind of an oval area we can't do anything in here no fences no landscaping no parking lot no swimming pool not anything but our nearest building here is 300 feet away from that site if you could sure just question you said that they asked for you to move your buildings back but you didn't agree to that so you're saying that where that red line is is I mean that's right up against the buildings and that's the red lines against it but we did go ahead we did move our buildings back I'm sorry normally under the current rules we would have to be 250 feet from this line right because they want to expand their site to this line in the future we've agreed to be 250 feet back from okay so if they do get approval we'll still be 250 feet away from them if they get approvals sorry to emphasize that so much but that seems to be an important matter tonight I have a question I think for a city attorney if they if by the way I always appreciate how crystal clear your presentations are mr. Allison if if the well operator were to increase their pad site does that essentially mean drill a new well on the pad site that's further out and then if that's so it wouldn't that trigger the thousand-foot setback requirements no not necessarily there are special provisions in the 2015 gas well ordinance that allows a gas well operator to take an existing site because because you remember early on in the presentation Haley had a depiction of the existing gas well plat and so by them coming in to develop under a the 2015 ordinance which is the gas well development site plan process they would be relinquishing all of the area of a gas well plat in exchange for that and then under those rules once they do that they are allowed based on you know as Haley mentioned what are the surrounding uses what could what waivers can they get from the surrounding property owners and then that's going to more or less limit how big of a site does it mean that they are going to be drilling additional wells maybe we don't know their business plan it wouldn't preclude that it wouldn't preclude it but what it does is it provides them the the assurance in it and as was discussed in 2015 that if they did have if they did that process and they were approved and they had the ability to put an additional well that they would be able to do that notwithstanding that five ten fifteen years in the future protected uses would come encroaching upon them and so that is how that process works there's a lot more to it but I'm trying to give you a basic overview of the process all right with all due respect that is because we have to make an agreement with the gas well operator we had to negotiate so we're putting our buildings further back than we would normally want to but we're not guaranteeing them an expanded well site both of these wells are vertical wells which are not very efficient they're not very effective in the Barnett shell so there's a good chance they're going to want to come back and redo those wells and maybe even add some to access other leases rumor is they may want to abandon this one all together and bring it up here but we really don't know not privy to all that that's just here say the best I can say tonight I do want to mention that in this site we've got a zoning that allows up to 80% coverage we're in the concept plans under 50% and with the plus or minus five we would max at 55% coverage a minimum landscaping of 20% and we're in the almost 50% on the landscaping a maximum density if I remember correctly of 30 units per acre and we're at the 20 so we're at a protected use this SUP would allow for a protected use much less dense than what we could do if we came in with a protected use that was not subject to an SUP and we can take full advantage that this does provide some additional if you will buffering our position is that really it should be the offending party not the offended that's required to do buffers but because there's an offending party next door we're required to put the type D buffer there and which we will be doing you know we've presented the alternate plan for that for possible consideration but in addition to that we've got all that parking lot or that extra hundred feet on our property that serves as as landscape type buffer as well there is a provision we would like to see if there's some consideration regarding and that is the plus or minus 5% and we have 16 buildings shown on the site we would like to have a maximum of 16 buildings but if we could possibly get down to 12 buildings that might even be more efficient but we certainly wouldn't want to have a greater increase in the number of units or the number of amount of coverage so with 14 buildings covering 16 buildings covering 112 thousand square feet we might want to have 12 or 14 buildings still covering 112 thousand feet we just have more of it together in a single building to more efficient I don't know if that's even possible but that's something we would like to see and of course the parking would just simply be in accordance with the code that was the intention all along I think there got to be some confusion because we had some in garages and some outside and there was a discussion about that but that's only two things we have and I'll be glad to respond any questions now or later after the public hearing closes question on the what you just spoke of on the number of buildings or maximum number of buildings so if you could pull up your site plan if you don't mind please Lee get right there oh no go back I'm sorry go back to the one that showed the gas well situation sorry okay apologize yeah so what you're saying is the outline that you have of the apartments you'd want that to stay the same as far as the coverage of the lot the lot coverage but if you were going to you may look at different build you know different number of buildings like 12 buildings or 14 buildings would you are you looking to would that translate into less units are you saying you might increase either the makeup of the unit of the buildings to put more units in there less space I mean what's the what's the interest behind that required flexibility somebody's behind you the number of units and type of units would stay the same with the same limitations the possibility would be to take this building for example divided in three and put a third of it with this one a third with this one and a third with that one we'd have fewer buildings but our footprint would be the same square footage just the building shapes might be a little different and that could probably lead to some more efficient parking or landscape I appreciate that thank you yep councilmember Briggs I see that you have the the front part designated for commercial was there any reason why when you were I'm just personally curious why they apartment units weren't pushed up more and on one side and then the commercial I'm just because my concern you know of course is the the gas wells and I appreciate your slide here and all that you've done with what you have and what you what you can do I mean you're not in control of the operators and so and you mentioned the ordinance and I know that is our ordinance but I voted no on it because I didn't think it was sure strong enough so I'm just curious why the the units it's not pushed more up towards the the frontage road towards the highway so that it's further away from these wells the other side of that coin is traffic and transportation and right now as 35s improved the ramps are going to be reversed in this off ramp instead of being here will be weighed down at this location traffic get off and get to Windsor before it gets here these apartments also acts act as a bit of a buffer towards the residential and other things in this area that way instead of having apartments on the front and commercial in the back such as hotels or restaurants it just seemed to make more sense additionally we understand with the city's master thoroughfare plan there's been some discussion of the possibility of bringing Windsor across interstate 35 so that commercial corner is just going to be more and more need of commercial and be better to have the commercial on the front with a heavier traffic there than it would be on the backside going through the apartment complex you ask a great question and it's a double negative on that one I guess when it comes to traffic and separation any other questions for the applicant seeing that thank you all right thank you thank you our next blue card is mr. Willie Hudson would you like to speak mr. wet husband declines to speak on this issue those are let me double check those are all the blue cards that I have this is a public hearing anybody wishing to speak please come down state your name and address and your time will begin anybody wishing to speak all right we will now close the public hearing open for questions to staff do we have council members have any questions I've got a question then and this is on the if the site plan the gas well plat is expanded other than the options of getting the owners within 500 feet to sign waivers what are the other alternatives do we know those there is a well Haley smell more well versed but I believe there's also a ZBA variance process as well yeah there are other option would be to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and then the third option is kind of a as a staff administrative level approval if they are relinquishing a well or a pad site then staff can authorize a reduction it's much less they couldn't get as low as the 250 we could only take them to 375 because it's 50% of the difference between the minimum and the required setback ZBA could grant the authorization down to 250 as well as the the property owner waivers okay so then on the northern well I say they don't get they don't get the property owners one being the apartment building if they you know if it's approved I mean they're gonna they'd have to come to you all to say hey can we expand this and so I would I would be very interested to hear how that would but so when I look at this currently as I remember it being stated from the it's not 250 the current reverse setback is 433 from the current pad site but not the gas well platt correct so if they got an expansion then that red line represents the 250 from the red expanded gas well platt correct all right okay so and ZBA go ahead I was to clarify your other question the the agreement between the developer and the operator contains that basically they're signing off on their waiver for that also they've already signed the waiver it's part of the agreement okay so that they will not oppose gotcha okay well it's different too if you got to get a waiver if you're not opposing the waiver then you're signing the waiver is that is that my understanding I would let Lee clarify that yeah if somebody could address that I mean I understand not opposing it but so if you're not opposing it that means if they present you with a waiver then you'll be signing it I've not read the actual agreement but that is my understanding that by this we are giving that waiver but that doesn't mean everybody else has to give no I understand that we've given ours okay thank you so if it goes down to so I guess I'm a little confused and it may just because it's late it's really not that late but we've been going at this since 11 or what 130 I guess it seems like it's a lot later than that oh my god okay so to get the to the 250 where that new expanded flat line is to get the 250 setback they would need to get waivers from everybody within 500 feet of the current had side okay the math wasn't adding up for me okay I appreciate that thank you you bet councilmember Husspitz thank you Haley can you walk me through this slide again let me because things important to understand so these how far away are those houses on the east side of that what other southern well I believe they're in the range of 50 to 100 feet from the pad site to the houses so complaints concerns not that I'm aware of okay but again those those homes were built after the gas well plot was in place and prior to their being reversed setback requirements okay any other questions for staff okay councilmember Meltzer first regarding the reverse setbacks and that that's the ordinance that that's the law but Texas Supreme Court tells us our power is based on our obligation to protect safety health and general welfare so we have you know a little bit of a contradiction since the time the ordinance was passed there have been additional studies not done in our geology but that are certainly concerning there's a study in the journal environmental science and technology saying that the cancer risk estimate within 500 feet of an oil and gas facility is more than eight times the EPA's upper threshold and studies in Pennsylvania and Texas found associations between proximity to oil and gas wells with chronic rhinocytosis asthma fatigue and migraines as well as low birth weight preterm birth and fetal death now you know what's safe and healthy you know within our own geology we obviously have no idea we have contradictory ordinances you know you do it one way it's in one sequence it's a thousand feet you do it in another sequence it's 250 feet you know we're obviously not based on any local science that said you know the ordinance is the ordinance and I'm okay moving ahead with with some conditions on the principle of informed consent what actually first of all parenthetically I'm fine also the applicants desired of the parking based on the actual units built rather according to the code rather than a theoretical maximum so regarding the informed consent aspect I would move approval given including the conditions presented and the comment on parking that I just made with an additional condition of a notification requirement on showings of the property that would have to be signed and filed with the development you know with the development department just stating what the distance is from an active gas well and now and there's a problem and I know you know some of you may find this you know kind of hard to take but miners can't give informed consent so in my opinion until we have science confirming the safe habitability in the range that's being proposed my condition would be that it not be approved for habitation by dependent miners I've asked for an RFP you know to come for a work session to have an RFP issued to see if there's a sound affordable and swift way to put our ordinances on a scientific basis but that's my motion pending that okay can I have a clarification on one of those conditions councilmember Meltzer when you say that miners can't have informed consent are you saying that that means no children are allowed in this right would not be approved for habitability for dependent miners okay we may run into a Fair Housing Act on that issue is that is that correct that and also a family issue is defined by the US Supreme Court so there might there's some legal issues with that particular restriction you know that's that you're saying might be an issue that that's my motion okay yes sir all right okay we have a motion with the condition stated do we have a second chair will entertain a second on the motion on the table calling one more time for a second if I see no second so the motion fails for lack of second so chair would entertain any other action as desired by the council is there a motion for approval or denial or any denial or any action so let me ask a question if there's no motion made what's the what's the status of the of the item no motions are made then it can either be approved or be denied it just ends at the level okay we need a motion a an ordinate nevermind not to say that councilmember armature so I move to deny okay is there a second on the motion on the table councilmember Briggs a second all right we have a motion and that's a motion in a second with no no conditions for what just for denial yep we have a motion a second for denial let's vote on the board please oh yes if you vote for this it means you're denying the SUV you're denying the SUP yes yes that is correct okay all right the motion to deny carries but what is that up there fit well motion to deny is successful so four to three all right let's take a five minute break and we'll come back and start agenda items 5d do it welcome everybody back to this meeting of the Dent City Council it is 1009 p.m. moving through our public hearing work session or not work session she's me agenda items agenda item 5d isn't David is hold a public hearing considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton Texas designating a certain area within the city limits of Denton as a Tyson sales and distribution reinvestment zone number that's a Roman numeral is that 14 all right for I forgot that from high school for commercial industrial tax base good evening mayor and council members my name is Caroline Booth I'm the director of economic development and I am here to give you a very quick presentation about Tyson as you will recall from the work session the project is a 350,000 square foot automated refrigerated and frozen food distribution center that's going to employ a hundred employees full-time those folks will be benefits eligible and their weighted average wage is $24.82 which is about 12 percent higher than the county average wage the facility will produce two megawatts in annual electric demand there's a map outlining the proposed site in red and the company is also vetting sites in Indiana Arkansas and Utah Denton is the sole Texas site and that site is about 65 acres at the southeast corner of Jim Crystal Road and Western Boulevard that is located within the West Park TERS the TERS does provide a funding or reimbursement mechanism for public improvements in the area and as a reminder that area of town is zoned for industrial development and has been for a number of years just have one slide on the establishment of the reinvestment zone under chapter 312 of the Texas tax code businesses that receive tax abatements have to be located in a reinvestment zone and this item would establish that reinvestment zone number 14 for commercial industrial tax abatement on Tyson's proposed site adoption of the ordinance establishing the zone will then allow council to consider the tax abatement agreement with Tyson and I can pause here if anybody has any questions about the reinvestment zone just for clarification is the zone larger than the area for Tyson so that no it's just specific to that one there established specific to the site itself okay thank you okay that's it yeah go ahead mayor is it okay if I go ahead and go into the rest of the presentation that goes with the individual consideration item let me let me call it okay well let me ask since since agenda item 5d which is a public hearing and agenda item 6a are sort of tied together she wanted to do a joint or a combined presentation so I can call agenda item 6a but then we've got to flip back to the public hearing opening just go through the agenda we can do is that that's correct separate but we can do that okay let me call agenda item 6a sorry about that Carolina agenda item 6a is considered option of an ordinance authorizing the mayor to execute a tax abatement agreement with Tyson sales and distribution Inc setting forth all the required terms of the tax abatement agreement accordance with the terms of chapter 312 of the Texas tax code okay so the incentive request from Tyson that is up for your consideration this evening started in June 2018 when Tyson requested an incentive to offset development costs and also to enable them to apply for an abatement from Denton County as well as a Texas Enterprise Zone program grant from the state of Texas Tyson does meet for priority considerations under the 2018 council adopted economic development policy and those for our business and community investment expanding the tax base increasing jobs with wages above the Denton County average and generating significant new customers for municipal utilities a quick review of the fiscal information the current conditions are that the land has an ag tax exemption so it produces $23.08 total tax revenue to the city at this time if the project does go forward that would pull that land out of the ag exemption and give it an estimated valuation of a little over three million dollars and then the improvements and business personal property combined with that new land valuation would add up to about forty nine point nine million dollars in total valuation what's significant about this particular project within the tar zone is that it does have a substantial business personal property investment at twenty eight point nine million dollars and none of that is captured by the TARS funds so the general fund gets to keep all of the revenue from the business personal property portion of the investment this is the ten-year incentive analysis that you all saw during the work session and just to hit the highlights on this one we are proposing a twenty five percent tax abatement to Tyson on the business personal property portion only of the project for six years however we do a ten-year long analysis for all of our incentives because that allows us to compare apples to apples across different projects so the incentive term is six years but what you see here goes out for a ten-year time horizon the total incentive to Tyson over the six years would be two hundred and sixty eight thousand nine hundred and seventy seven dollars and then they are going to be eligible for a dent municipal electric economic growth rider which we talked about during the work session and that is another estimated about four hundred and fifty thousand dollars in reduction to demand charges that Tyson would accrue over five years in the case of the economic growth rider and then over that ten-year time horizon the city would receive from the project about four point eight million dollars in revenue so that's kind of the bottom line there in the corner does anybody have any questions about that I do have a question or maybe comment just a clarification and maybe confirmation the DME economic growth rider although it's presented here as an incentive and everything and it is but that's one per policy that we have right now in the utility rate structure yes so we're not necessarily voting on that it's presented here just to show full transparency that this is what our policy allows but what we're really voting on on council today is the line that's the two hundred and sixty eight thousand nine hundred seventy six dollars and seventy eight cents that is absolutely correct that is the abatement amount okay thank you to reiterate the city incentive is necessary for Tyson to apply for a county and a state incentive Denton County only considers abatements for those applicants who have received an abatement from their city first and then the Texas enterprise zone program requires a local incentive as well when we're negotiating the tax abatement agreement with Tyson we made sure to insert the following safeguards for the city those include stating that Tyson's operations must begin by December 31st 2021 their minimum thresholds established for appraised value of the business personal property the number of jobs and the weighted average hourly wage it does cap the total amount of the tax abatement and requires submission of an annual certificate of compliance key points here project meets for priority considerations under the council adopted incentive policy the economic development partnership board did recommend approval of the incentive with a vote of eight to one the project would add about fifty million dollars in new value and create a hundred new full-time benefits eligible jobs tax abatement from the city is necessary for county and state incentives and the incentive agreement does contain several safeguards for the city including annual compliance audit requirements and other items so while the total incentive investment from the city would be about seven hundred and eighteen thousand dollars as the mayor correctly stated you are only considering a vote on a total of about two hundred and sixty nine thousand dollars in abatement over six years and that will allow us to secure about four point nine million dollars in revenue to the city over ten years okay so question a clarification on that too because the slides not up there so you just answered if it's so could that bullet point be written this way the two hundred and forty nine thousand or some odd dollars that is the incentive is is go back to the slide if you would the ten-year projection it's kind of small okay so what I'm trying to do is separate out so the DME the DME demand charge that's ink that's included in that four point in that statement that you had the four point something me right that's all revenue to the city including so me revenue right so the two hundred and sixty eight thousand dollars incentive for the 25 percent of BBP and the the funding and so forth that's actually creating the seven hundred and eighty three thousand dollars for sure it's the 1.5 million I'm trying to get it I'm trying to get a comparison of what we're approving here today what does that translate into additional revenue to the city that if we didn't have it number one we don't know if they'd do it but if we didn't have it and all they got was the increased rider it looks like it's about half and half almost yeah so it's it's about eight hundred and six thousand dollars total revenue to the city on the remaining 75 percent of the BPP okay I don't know if that helps you okay okay all right thank you okay stand for questions okay this is this is questions since we haven't opened the public hearing yet we'll go ahead and take can we take questions on both the agenda items that were called and then go back to the public hearing or do we need to take them separate you can do them okay so we'll take questions on both and then we'll go back to the public hearing and open it and just consider agenda item 5d okay and I neglected to mention that we do have representatives from Tyson here with us this evening in case you'll have questions that would be better answered by them thank you councilmember Armitage okay so you mentioned that there's a cap here what's the cap it's two hundred and seventy thousand dollars and two hundred and the cap is 270,000 per in what time frame or total total okay the six years or if it if they arrive at it before that point the cap is the cap okay and and then of those was it a hundred jobs and there's a hundred jobs I recall it the last time we discussed this in the work session there was some discussion about of the higher paying jobs that Tyson has a an internal policy that that those higher paying jobs go to internal hires that is our transfers within the company that they get first dibs am I correcting no I'm getting head shakes okay back row it would be helpful especially if we're gonna ask and you didn't know if that was a question for the applicant when we have the public hearing let's make okay yeah you can clarify yeah yeah you probably know what I'm taking it from there was a there was some discussion about that I was looking for my note so I'll wait to ask that of the of the applicant okay thank you councilmember Briggs my question is about the hourly wage because part of my issue this whole time and in the economic development was the weighted average it is the weighted average and it's it's good but you know it doesn't if you're not looking at the detailed information it's hard to see the amount of jobs that are making a certain amount but I can't find it in my notes and I've asked you this over and over again and I can't remember what our minimum is in the ins is it 2250 or is it 24 it's 2207 2207 is is the minimum hourly wage to receive the incentive correct no that's the Denton County average hourly wage there there's not a there's not a minimum in the policy to receive an incentive but that's just the our average hourly wage for the county and please keep in mind too that the hourly wage figure for Tyson it's a weighted average it does not include the benefits and of course now I can't remember how much HR usually says benefits add on to something it's like 25 or 30 percent I think so it's a you know total compensation is much higher than the average hourly wage if you are benefits eligible okay thank you yeah I think we had that information at the work session and I think probably once we start the public hearing and ask those questions because I think if I recall when you looked at the the job salaries or hourly rate at the the lower level of the warehouse employees it was like 20 or 19 to 20 22 to 21 I just remember it was about 40 to 42 thousand dollars a year which was almost 80 percent of our of our median income for the county so but we can get that information I'm sure they have that yeah thank you mayor Pro Tem thank you mayor on the tours what what's the length of time that that's in place I'm sorry TURS oh the TURS the length of time that the TURS is in place is 20 years okay thank you you're welcome okay any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing on agenda item 5d thank you Caroline we will now open the public hearing for agenda item 5d we do have some blue cards but you do not you're not required to fill out a blue card we also have white cards that are indicative of those wishing not to speak and I'll read the names and addresses and just state whether they're in opposition or support when we get to the white cards first speaker is mr. Willie Hutzpeth mr. Hutzpeth okay mr. Hutzpeth declines to speak at this time mr. Ken gold if you'll come down state your name and address your time will begin yes sure yeah members of the council money just if I'm sorry Ken interrupts you I was just advised by the city attorney since this is the public hearing on the agenda item 5d that the comments be restricted to that particular subject matter on that agenda because then you have an opportunity to speak at the items for individual consideration however let me just remind everyone that to speak on an item for individual consideration you need to have your blue card filled out before it's been called but since I called it we're gonna have some accommodation there so if you want to speak on the agenda item 6a if you wouldn't mind filling out a blue card I'd appreciate that sorry mr. Gold no problem my name is Ken gold I live at 2512 matches Tracy in town and I was kind of expecting y'all to blend these together so my comments are going to be on 5d because it does say the word tax abatement in that so that's how I'm going to weasel into this I've unloaded on you guys before my stump speech on tax abatements I won't go into it at length here but I do want to say first off that I'm not against all tax abatements I'm just against the dumb ones and I don't believe Tyson needs this and a tax abatement is a is a subsidy so you're giving a subsidy to somebody who doesn't need it that's a dumb abatement they're gonna come to this area because of the job market here because of the location you got two big interstates going down to the DFW Metroplex it's a great location for a plant well I don't see why we have to pay them to come here it's a it's a type of extortion the game is played to get other towns to compete but you're only talking about two hundred and something thousand dollars it's not gonna make or break this deal to give these people or not give these people these abatements they're not here because they just want tax abatements that's all I got okay thank you thank you the next speaker will be please forgive me is it I'm in not a viola I apologize for if I'd really didn't do that very well if you'll state your name and address your time will begin yes but we haven't called 6a yes so is that okay to could you just help tell me how to pronounce yeah okay thank you Amina yeah we'll call that here after after this thank you did I pick up the wrong stack I did pick up the wrong stack I apologize that's my fault actually those were the only blue cards we had for 5d I do have some white cards there's no name but it's 722 Fannin Street apartment 114 if somebody could just come correct the card and place your name on it but they're in opposition Sydney hearts 922 Fannin Street apartment number 114 is in opposition that's the same address yeah for 922 Dawson Kinser 3504 Sadu trail is in opposition this is a public hearing anybody else wishing to speak please come down and state your name and address on agenda item 5a 5d excuse me oh man I'm fainting good evening council my name is Eric Clark I reside at 3913 Andrew Avenue in Texas I just kind of want to make a couple comments or observations about this project as a whole or it's not even Tyson directly more about abatements I don't know if I'm not here to argue whether they're right or wrong but apparently that's how the game is played so as a reputation we want to be a city that is welcoming to high-performing companies like Tyson I don't think you want to subsidize a company that is not performing well at a high financial level they're a good company we want good companies here the same analogy could be used are you against scholarships for high-performing students you want high-performing students scholarships for them I would imagine you could want the same thing for high-performing companies I think this tax money that comes in if I understand Caroline correctly you're looking at two hundred sixty eight thousand dollars worth of abatements over the long term here you're gonna get one and a half million over ten years that's tax dollars to come back into our city which is going to roll to our a lot of different places but I'm looking at this from public schools didn't ISD needs more public dollars as well which comes from property taxes you can't build enough households and in our floor to make up for this fifty million dollars of property tax it just it's a simple math equation I mean I majored in sports management this is a very easy math problem for me I mean we saw a couple things tonight earlier today from developments and this is a good one that we want here thank you thank you all right this is a public hearing anybody wish to speak on agenda item 5d state your name and address and your time will be in hello again real tall real tall my name is George Ferry 2932 Stockton Street district one great point let's talk about how good Tyson is if you remember a couple years back we does Denton passed an ordinance in support of SP for lawsuit also known as the show your papers bill which Tyson has a history of exploiting immigrant workers there are articles dating back to oh three through 2018 that will showcase everything I'm talking about they have been fined millions for violating laws such as the Clean Water Act they have disclosed no excuse me they've outsourced sanitation which is avoiding OSHA laws that way they're not required to disclose contractor labor industries and they aren't held responsible look we have a really heavy carbon footprint as it is and right now we want to bring someone into use a whole lot of energy with every discussion on almost every item tonight about gas wells we have a duty to assess this and furthermore with the possible expansion of our landfill there's a lot going on right now with our carbon footprint we should be really mindful of that and also what message are we sending when we give tax incentives to companies who have a history of taking advantage of blue-collar workers minorities and poor folk while we can't excuse me while we can't stop them from coming to our town we can send a message that we aren't going to cut them a break on the bill these incentives in the basement should go to better use to build real job growth in the competitive industry thank you thank you all right this is if we could hold their paws thank you very much I appreciate that I just want to be respectful of the rules this is a public hearing anybody else wishing to speak come down state your name and address your time will begin thank you and I live at 1526 Willowood Street and I don't have a lot to say about this except that the analogy towards student scholarships is ridiculous if you want to provide students with scholarships please do also that would be a far better investment innovation towards Denton the city of Denton if you do that then to give an abatement to a company like this the history of the city giving such tax abatements as we know is pretty sorted of late and I would recommend against it unless you have just absolutely the highest bar met the the further the property tax issue that's struck me as odd what if we're giving them an abatement we're taking our own taxes away from ourselves rather than protecting them and using them for what we need them for so I'm in opposition to this thank you thank you all right this is public hearing anybody else wishing to speak anybody else wishing to speak say your name and address your time will begin I wasn't planning on speaking my name is Chris Wilkins 708 IOF Street apartment B district 3 yeah I grew up in a small town in East Texas with a Tyson plant it was incredibly pollution depleted a lot it polluted the water didn't treat their workers very well it actually didn't contribute overall to the town despite being the biggest employer at the time as far as like giving back and tax money and stuff like that ended up closing ten ten years later so I am I don't know I was just thinking like all the tax abatement this company's good is getting sorry I'm incredibly nervous for some reason I don't mean I was expecting to comment on this but all the tax money that this company's trying to get I just don't get it and they were really successful company they don't really need it I can't stop them from coming here if they want to come here but if they do there should be some kind of standards some extreme standards just from my own personal experience that's all thank you appreciate that anybody else wish to speak on agenda item 5d anybody else wishing to speak all right seeing no movement we will now close agenda item 5d public hearing council members are any questions for staff at least at this point or we'll move on to since we've already had the presentation on 6a we'll move on to the public comment on 6a without if I don't hear any objections okay we'll move on to agenda item 6a I mean not I'd be out a biola I'm sorry I'm mine is just but you're up first thank you thank you for your patience and I apologize for that yes ma'am please my name is Amina a biola and I live at 1702 North Red Ell Street yes good evening mayor Watts and council members my name is Amina a biola and I'm here to represent the 250,000 people who have signed compassion over killings petition against Tyson foods cruelty towards chickens I urge you to deny Tyson it's requested incentive package Tyson's cruelty has been exposed time and time again by investigations and whistle blowers in the last few years alone one compassion over killings investigation exposed Tyson workers punching and kicking live birds and other birds crushed to death by transport crates and run over by forklifts it was followed by another investigation in 2017 that exposed the devastating effects of Tyson's breeding of birds for extremely fast and a natural growth broiler birds a breed of bird used by corporations such as Tyson foods grow so fast that their hearts and lungs are not developed well enough to support their weight of their bodies this most likely always results in heart failure and death broiler birds spent six weeks of their life crammed into small windowless sheds they also live eat and sleep in their own waste which causes them to have respiratory issues ammonia burns and painful eye irritations if we grew at the same rate of these birds we'd be over 600 pounds at two months of age but Tyson refuses to take responsibility for the suffering and instead they have their workers fired and then they wipe their hands clean if Denton cares about its citizens and the livelihood of and freedom of animals it should not use public money to support a company that treats its workers as scapegoats while turning billions and profits from extreme cruelty thank you for your time and consideration thank you very much I appreciate that thank you mr. Willie Hutzpeth mr. Hutzpeth class to speak at this time Dewey Marshall hi friends my name is Dewey I live at one two one five scripture Street so thank you so much for doing this and staying out and for your public service it really means a lot it's actually really difficult to do this and I know that your all's role is really difficult if it's easy to vote for tax subsidy for large corporation I highly highly highly doubt your decision-making process in the first place and I sincerely mean that this is actually has huge major implications and that it's so bad especially with workers rights that I'm literally a vegetarian and I'm gonna let other people speak to the animal abuse of Tyson that's how bad the workers rights violation is it's really bad Tyson actually as of 2011 partnered with the Department of 2001 partner with the Department of Homeland Security for a program called image which is where they literally turn over all of the papers of people that are hired and are undocumented for a company in order for ice to come in and do major raids that sounds like it's simply upholding a law but it actually terrorizes communities it's already done so near Paris Texas that happened in 2018 a lot of us already know that that an ice raid came down through one person in particular quoted to the Dallas Morning News specifically that ice agents came into a community and indiscriminately entered every single door that they could find that sounds terrifying to me the reason why this pertains to Tyson is because that partnership with image actually has very very strong ties to particularly working class level workers not high management so this is all taken all my information is taken by a UNT professor who isn't here but wanted this to be known that in 2017 image this this issue are this program arrested 1,500 people under a specific type of charge that really only affects working-class people not management but yet the rate for management arrests under the same program for employing people who are undocumented or doing so undocumented is an all-time low the first statistic I give I gave was a raise of 800% yeah image is arresting working-class people at 800% the normal rate that they were even just a few years prior but there are a record low arrest for people in management that tells me that people that partner with image literally employ people who are undocumented and then as soon as it becomes efficient or easy turns over all of the information so that the raid can happen but people are always protected at the higher level under this current status quo that's statistical fact which means that even if there's an economic boost that we're still going to have human rights violations like police are out rounding up teddy bears out of Cherry Grove imagine what ice will do whenever we create a Tyson plant I imagine people coming into doors every entrance they could find there will be chicken feathers everywhere human rights abuses out the wazoo it's bonkers and I didn't even get into the specific animal rights that happens to non-human animals by Tyson Tyson obviously doesn't need this we can find other ways to develop the economy within Denton and keep the currency flow in our own city thank you Councilman Barmichael has a councilman Barmichael I believe has a comment so question yeah so um so since you seem to know a lot about the the image awards and it the worst are the image agreement um it's so as I understand it they come in ice can come in without a warrant is that correct is that part of the agreement I'm not sure of whether or not ice can come in with or without a warrant this particular raid was like I don't I don't know how the war in situation happens it's known as ice raise also from I necessarily law enforcement spokespeople have used the term raid that's not my term but there are raids that happened with ice that have been increasing like with high frequency over the past two years so we've seen especially in North Texas thank you yeah and my understanding was that that that under this agreement that they can come in without without a warrant and that's part of what makes it so easy and explains at least partly the well what did you say 800% right and increase so what the the functioning that the image has with that Tyson would actually be mandated to hand over all I nines all documentation of people that are working underneath them even if they are residing undocumented and that's what allows that okay thank you thank you next speaker will be Jennifer Lane if you'll come down state your name in it okay all right you bet thank you ma'am next speaker would be George very okay all right all right okay yeah we Marty Rivers thank you all for being here tonight I want to thank councilmember Duff for helping make this just a little bit shorter since he had spoken all evening we're gonna get out of here before 11 o'clock so thank you very much I love the city as much as anybody and I wanted to just remind you this evening that you have already approved 18 million dollars in city funds that I'm paying for everybody in this room is paying for tonight the previous agenda items added up to 18 million dollars you talked about a 40 million dollar project you talked about a lot of money tonight that you need to spend to help make up this place a wonderful place the best way to do that is not to burden our homeowners with taxes it is to bring in large multinational corporations so that they can pay the taxes and we have a bunch of really good previous companies that have had that Peterbilt Sally Beauty Winco Aldi Target Target distribution center as a reminder this is not a chicken manufacturing plant that we're talking about it's a frozen food distribution center all right it's a 50 million dollar project the ad valorem taxes on the real estate and the business personal property there's been a lot of numbers it's 2.2 million dollars generated over these six years 60% of that money is going into the TERS which is so we're not getting a hundred percent of the real estate because that's going into the TERS that's helped pay for the infrastructure that's out there so it's not coming to us in form of taxes is going towards the TERS to help pay for the improvements that are already out there but it's two point two million dollars and we're talking about a two hundred sixty nine thousand dollar project this evening everybody's right they don't need the money at all they're they're a profitable company they don't need the money we want to give incentives to people that are profitable imagine if we gave incentives to people that weren't profitable where we would end up I love this place and I wish we didn't have to give incentives to anybody I wish people would come here because we're so awesome that's not how it works we're competing with people all over the United States and we have to do this and we don't have as many tools as a lot of people have we don't have an economic development board that has a tax that raises money and spends money and can give people cash or buy property for people we have to do incentives like this so they bring in 50 million dollars and we're going to help reimburse them two hundred and sixty nine thousand dollars that may or may not make or break this deal they don't need it nobody needs it Target didn't need it Peterbilt didn't need it Sally Beauty didn't need it so get that out of your heads none of these companies need it but we want these companies to come here because they need to help us pay for our parks and our improvements that's how it gets done I don't want to have to I don't want you to raise taxes on my house that's what happens when you guys want to pay for everything is we have to have these large companies we have to have a good mix of businesses and residents to be able to pay our taxes have them pay our taxes so that we can have a nice city thank you thank you I've got white cards and these are the last cards will read into the record Eric Clark 3913 Andrew can't read that last one Eric and that's all right in support Matthew Morgan in support Brandon Beach 44505 Chi Creek Lane in opposition Persephone Abraham Abrahamson excuse me sorry about that 722 Fanon Street apartment 1114 is in opposition Kyra Solis is in opposition of 4505 Chi Creek Lane is it Deussen or Duncan Kinzer 3504 Sadal trail is in opposition Sydney hearts is in opposition so thank y'all for your thank you all for your comments and those are all the cards and that we have to register for agenda item 6a so councilmember husband oh I'm sorry I believe that there was a question councilmember Armentor had regarding the she has there are some questions for the wages and things such as that I believe on the salaries weighted salaries or something like that so if if someone from Tyson could come because I think councilmember Briggs had a question too or you okay all right thank you mr. city attorney for that reminder it's Larry King Tyson foods VP of warehousing Springdale Arkansas and do you recall the question or would you like her to repeat that go ahead I'd be happy to repeat the question so at the last work session there was some discussion of the number of jobs that were the highest paying jobs that would be by Tyson policy given preferential treatment to internal workers who are already from inside the company who is so they can transfer so I might be getting the numbers wrong on that but if you if you could just remind me and all of us what exactly that was clarity of that yes we are equal opportunity so team members are allowed to look at jobs across facilities so we do allow transfers within our company they are not given preferential treatment or a first priority it's on a qualifications type basis of the talent that we're looking for what we're interviewing for so it is not preferential and it's not automatic okay so but they do given that opportunity that the team members would be able to apply for jobs internally externally and so how many of those hundred jobs are the are the the kinds of jobs that you tend to get internal transfers for that's hard to answer okay so so I mean Texas we do have a big presence in Texas we we appreciate the state of Texas we appreciate the opportunity to look at Denton here and we've had great success so we do have you know facilities in the Fort Worth area we have facilities in Sherman we've got them in East Texas so you know and all across with some of those team members and I've seen times where a forklift driver transfers from Kansas to Georgia just because of family reason and sometimes facility managers transfer so it's not about the level of job all opportunities so it's given to all opera job opportunities there so we do not preferential treatment though so so within that range so at what wage is the the highest paid job within those hundred jobs your highest paid job pays how much in other words it's not just even wages across the board facility manager will be in that with bonuses and all those type of things is probably going to be in that 150 to 175 probably I mean it's an extreme as a facility manager a lot of responsibility on a complex that size and then at the lowest end hourly okay twenty ish dollars an hour so you know we've been talking about so obviously this is a warehouse facility right it's not a processing plant and yet it's you know if you're looking at the larger umbrella of the company and the is somebody said earlier the you know the performance of the company that performance starts at the processing so do you happen to know you know what the average wage is for the the for workers in those processing plants average wage for processing from there is $15 an hour so that so those workers so in with with the Tyson image agreement for instance so the workers so in those cases where you know if they're undocumented workers and ice comes in though they're undocumented workers getting $15 an hour because that's a lot for undocumented worker ma'am I cannot speak the image or undocumented workers okay yeah yeah and I want to make sure I mean this is regarding a tax abatement saw but there's a lot of things that we could talk about here and we've appreciated the public comment but I really want to keep this confined so if you could couch your questions in that form I'm not saying you can't ask those kind of but help me understand how they tie I'm just trying because because wages are important so I like to look at the big picture when I'm looking at the company and I'm looking at I don't see the warehouse is separate and distinct from the processing operation it's all part of you know the big Tyson company and I'm sure you do too that's how a corporate a corporation works the big picture so I was just curious about kind of what the wages both here at this process at the warehouse and then at the processing plants because you've got processing plants that are elsewhere in the country but this is I understand that this is this would be the biggest is that right you know where warehouse of this kind that you would have this to help clarify that I believe this is the first refrigeration plan of its kind within the company the audit fully automated fault is is that is that the distinction is that is the distinction will be fully automated highest latest technology there to you know for safe environment work environment to take the risk out of the worst place so it will be our first fully automated warehouse not necessarily our largest okay so not the largest is the first one fully automated and how many other warehouses do you have okay we have 14 that is company owned and then we probably probably 125 or 130 that we go through with the third party so we have several warehouses across the United States okay okay and have those gotten incentives agreements to the warehouses in the cities in which they're located we haven't built a new distribution center since 1989 okay so then so yes this is our this is your this is the first this is the first project city asking for incentives for any kind of no no okay for any kind of no no hold on let's let them answer the question yeah let's try not to talk over each other because we can't understand exactly what's being asked so if you'll just ask your question let them answer if you have another question they can answer that facilities or have we made that request yes if you can speak a little closer to the microphone thank you yes we have requested incentives for either expansions of existing facilities or for news facilities so sure I'm just saying let's thank you so and when you say new facilities do you mean a processing plant or a warehouse or distribution facility we have two other expansions of distribution centers going currently where we have asked for local abatement of some kind okay but they were not brand new they were existing but it was an expansion got it got it oh I see it's okay expanding got it thank you okay councilmember husband yeah no thank you for being here pleasure to see you again question well first I just want to have an open-ended question so you've heard public comment and so just want to give you an opportunity to rebut those things to speak back to whatever issues you feel Jermaine I just think you deserve that opportunity to not be impugned without the opportunity to speak to that sure sure you know I guess there are a lot of accusations levied so it's it's difficult to speak individually but I can pick the top ten you know I can just say that you know as a company we come to work and introduce yourself I'm sorry Derek Burleson thank you I'm sure you know we have a hundred twenty two feet talent hundred and twenty two thousand team members you know all over the world that come to work every single day with the attention to do the right thing now are we a perfect company do we made mistakes sure but we also believe in continuous improvement and in about doing the right thing and rectifying mistakes so again it's it's it's it's tough for me to to speak to individual allegations but as someone who's worked for the company for five years you know I can say that I'm I'm proud to be a Tyson Foods team member okay and then my question is whoever would address this because I think it is significant right as as insurance prices go through the roof round number six hundred dollars a month for a family what these the 100 jobs are insurance eligible help me understand what that what that value add is you know I think it's tough to say depending on the level of benefits that the individual team member chooses to to take but you know I can't tell you that you know with full-time employment there be there comes up 401k there is health care there's vision there's dental there's stock purchase plans so I would I would say it's significant yeah no and I would agree and especially when you're talking about vision which normally does not come with some of those packages if you look at the Affordable Care Act it's not included in a lot of those those plans so it does give someone a leg up and then my comments would be simply that the I find it unique that again and I've touched on this before I've never heard anyone from this day is really raised the issue about UNT in our in our in our city and they're great partner but we also have to sue them to get them to pay the utility bill and so when you're talking about issues that that come up do we then say that they're not a good partner no we don't you have these business disagreements and so and we talk about DISD great institution I was just there at their headquarters and they're paying ten dollars an hour which is five dollars an hour less than buckies and it's ten dollars an hour less than what these jobs will be paying here in town without the benefits or system-wide it's five dollars less than Tyson pays on average if I believe their numbers to be accurate so it's interesting to me so to strip out the the emotion of it and just look at the hard numbers we don't it's a disproportionate look at the corporations the entities and the value they bring which is disheartening if we equally are hard on everyone that comes to our city I'm all for it strip out the emotions and say hey if we if you're an institution and we have to sue you to get our utility bills paid then that's a problem and but we don't do that because of the the the emotion of it so for me I look at the incentive and look at will they should they come anyway and look at a test case and I'll give you a test case of Amazon which was they it's semi-relevant because it was in indenting considered indenting but anyway New York two billion dollars New York is a significant city and it's well established and they have a lot of people there and and the two billion dollars is part of it so to to Marty's point Denton is not going to reinvent the wheel from this dais that's just not going to work out for us so then I look at the fact that 60% of the city's tax base is on the backs of houses and that has to change because we're getting notices folks that the sales tax is dipping so sales tax is dipping and we want to continue to incentivize low and moderate income housing we want to pay for extra streets extra sidewalks and so yeah that's going to increase taxes on homeowners that's going to increase rent because homeowners don't apartment homeowners don't that rent don't eat those costs so my as there's more people to talk my motion is to approve this because of the value-add and and I'll leave it at that okay Councilmember Meltzer Mike well first of all I want to thank the Economic Development Partnership Board they're volunteers who bring their expertise to help sort these things through and I don't disagree that they've I agree that they've applied our standards correctly but our assessment process didn't and I think always should include a competitive assessment where do we stand versus the other alternatives that you know that applicants are considering and you know I say that it wasn't included because you know it required a little research after I asked the question and it seems that the most important factor in frozen and refrigerated distribution center businesses is energy cost and we're quite competitive we're we're better than one of them one of the alternatives and comparable to the other but there's a difference too which is that ours is going to be by 2020 entirely supported by wind and solar contracts and I know that Tyson is a company that does you know worked hard in recent years to kind of improve their public image and I think that has a value to them too it also weighs in my mind on the kind of a carbon footprint issue if you're going to have refrigerated distribution of chicken I prefer it to be indent in because specifically it will be supported by our wind and solar contracts now that having been said question of the incentive I think the energy rider is a lot of incentive it's most of the incentive but then specifically on the abatement the problem with these abatements is you just never know if you needed it or not right now we we did one with Wimco and they came but we don't know what would happen if we didn't do it and we did one with target and they came it's a similar kind of operation but you know we don't know what would happen if we didn't do it but in this unusual case we do have an example with a similar type of operation u.s. cold storage where they had already bought the land or made a arrangements to buy the land so they didn't qualify for incentives so we found out what happens in that case we didn't offer an incentive and they came and I believe they came because we're a great place to have that sort of facility so I believe the energy rider is plenty of incentive I have an amendment to offer to the motion but I don't know if I need if there needs to be a second before we would entertain amendments yes yes yeah and we've got three other speakers wishing to speak so yeah all right thank you councilmember Briggs so I just want to kind of go over the numbers because we heard a lot about wages and I started off originally talking about the weighted averages and that's how we kind of go over and we said well we have you know the weighted average is 2482 which which is good but then in the breakdown and this is part of the reason why I am not in favor I've put out a blog on more reasons and I've been as I've spoken about it on the economic development partnership board meeting and the work session so this is not really a surprise how I feel about it but so there's a hundred jobs and 73 out of the hundred make less than the din county average so if we are understand less than what less than the din county average because if the din county average is 2207 2207 is the like $22 is $22 an hour we have 13 employees making that in 2060 employees making $20 an hour so 27 jobs only 27 that's $29 or above and so for me and I appreciate the discussion about all of the other incentives that we gave some I was in favor of some I wasn't but each individual project is different they all have different requirements they all bring something different to the table some are really great and and some I think you know what they need to value our city they need to look at what we can offer because we are fantastic the economic benefit here is great Tyson made 38 billion in revenues and I know you said well sure they don't need it well I mean I would personally like to focus our incentives on established and emerging businesses from around the world and bring them into our own backyard I appreciate your company and what what you do and if you want to come here that's fine we would be really accepting and but I just I'm just not in favor of the incentive I think the DME economic growth writer I think that's what it's called is good enough and it should be enough along with our great location for you to want to come to our city thank you councilmember armature okay so I do I'm gonna vote no I and I do understand that as some people have said you spoke in favor you know if you want to play the game and and you want you know this company to come then you got it offer these incentives that it's not a matter of whether whether they need it or not these you know companies that are that are financially successful don't need it so I think those points were made very well I just as for me you know I don't I don't want to to play that game if if the game entails some of the labor what I consider to be labor abuses and animal abuses and by the way these things are well documented including if you look up Tyson image agreement the first thing that comes up is ice saying you know this is a federal government entity saying yay we're so proud to have this image agreement so this is not some urban urban legend rumor you know these are the kind of things that we're supposed to consider when we're thinking about do we want to do incentives anyway so I am well and saying no I'm well aware that that means they might not be coming here and I'm I'm fine with that because I don't feel comfortable with some of these these practices and actually that was pretty much an understatement you know I will say however that this I think most of the practices that I'm business practices that I'm opposed to are happening at the processing plants you know the jobs these hundred jobs which by the way for seven hundred eighteen thousand eight hundred sixty three dollars in incentives for a hundred jobs that's seven thousand a hundred eighty eight dollars and sixty three cents per job you know you can think of it that way that we're paying I don't it's you know to me that doesn't that doesn't make much sense as an investment but anyway it's it's definitely be much if I had a choice as to whether I wanted to be a worker this facility that's being proposed to come here versus a processing plant it would be a no-brainer you know but I see the big picture and I look at what we're buying into what we're investing in so I have a real you know moral opposition to some of these practices that and again that are you know well well documented by even our federal government agency so that's all I have to say thank you no we're yeah we're in the yeah thank you appreciate that I mean it's not gonna yeah I think people pretty much made up their minds and they're just expressing why they're not gonna change her mind yeah mayor pro tem thank you mayor just for clarification are we doing deliberation on both items because I'm hearing talk about both the public hearing vote which is what's on the table you know and the other let's just get through this okay because I'm on the the towers we set that up as a policy that when someone moved in that area they could apply and they could get it and in that that was to cover the infrastructure that's how we were planning on getting that built out of their time so that's almost a an automatic and in some ways that the TURS would portion of this need though the public hearings part of it will move forward that you know I cannot see any reason not to vote on that part if you don't build it doesn't happen it doesn't matter and I hear a lot of people talking about giving away tax dollars we're not giving away tax dollars we are getting right right from the start two hundred and twelve thousand seven hundred and ninety seven dollars which is let's see subtract twenty eight dollars from that and that's the difference in what we would will get in tax dollars during that first six year period that we wouldn't get otherwise if they don't move here once that six year period is up we're up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in tax revenue is a quarter cent in everyone else's property rate one cent is equal to a million dollars of revenue and so if we don't do if we don't do something like this to encourage them it's it's a welcoming it's it's a it's a minor item you know financially but it's a way to say welcome Tyson to our community that's what this vote is about so once the the 20 years on the TURS runs out we're up to 400,000 that's you're almost up to a half a cent that that we don't have to raise everybody else's taxes or we can drop everybody else's taxes because of what Tyson is bringing to the community there are standards in the ordinance that require that they must meet certain thresholds you know the business property has to be valued at least at X amount and then there's a depreciation schedule over the six years if they ever you know try and fight their taxes to get them or try and fight their price value to get it below what those items are they lose the incentive that's the way it's it's structured yeah there's also if they don't have 95 employees during that that time period they lose their incentive so they're going to do everything they can to fulfill that to try and get those incentives and keep them and again it's it's a welcoming Tyson to the area it's a one-of-a-kind first first fully automated the technology that's involved in that as I said in the work session I'm you know looking forward to the fact that we've got Target and Aldi and the others out there that are customers of Tyson so you know when you talk about the the carbon footprint you're lowering your carbon footprint because the distance they have to take it to get it to these distribution centers has significantly dropped versus what they would have to do if they're bringing it from Utah so with that I'm in support of both of these councilmember Donda I'm kind of having a trouble figuring out where to begin on all this I'm just not going to cover everything yes I will I will do it I will do it very quickly I don't sit here and babble no okay all right you know I think there is a possibility that you would come here if we didn't give you the incentives and I I don't want to take that chance because I want you here to me this is a total no-brainer it's not even close and hopefully we'll get your plant here and you know for somebody back there I mean I don't know where the feathers got in here but I will I will be supporting this okay well good I get the last word so I'm not gonna recognize anybody else after my comments I'm just for warning my councilmember so take that as a yes that's a promise first of all y'all know that one of my mantras is I trust the process I trust the process and people coming out and expressing their views whether from emotion or business perspective on whatever is before the council I appreciate those comments whether I agree with them or not is a different story but I appreciate your willingness to come do it and state your opinions because I think that's helpful to the process I appreciate Tyson coming I'm sure they hear these comments everywhere that they go for different types of incentives so I appreciate you being able to be here and support your business and ask for what you're what you want somebody quoted was it Wayne Gretzky said the worst shot is the one not taken so I appreciate you being a part of this process because this is what makes it work what makes it work is all the deliberations up here nobody's gonna be changing their mind we could talk here for another two hours most people probably came in with their mind already made up based upon the work session and all that I guess I will be supporting the project whether you come or not without it it's to me it's a two hundred and forty nine thousand dollar incentive over six years and we're getting during those six years a certain amount of money 700 and something thousand in the end it's a couple a couple million is that the gamble is that really what I would call a gamble that is a is a sure bet a no bet or is it a gamble I think it's a good it's a good idea it's a good business move I think it's a good move for the city but I understand the emotional arguments and I don't discount those and I don't dismiss those this is a refrigeration plant here people are entitled to take the overarching view they're entitled to whatever value system they had to make their decisions and I appreciate that I'm not going to recognize you councilman Barmiter I'm just I'm just telling you that I said that in the beginning so I'm not trying to be disrespectful but so I'm going to be supporting it I'm sort of surprised sometimes by our discussions because we voted to approve a an apartment building that gave a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar tax incentive to a private developer in a public-private partnership for affordable housing over ten years out across the city two hundred two point five million dollars so two hundred and forty nine thousand over five years doesn't seem too bad of a deal to gain an additional 700,000 or more than that over ten years couple million dollars so I will be supporting the project and we will take individual votes on agenda item 6a I mean 5d excuse me and then agenda is item 6a so councilmember Barmiter I see your request to speak you've had a lot of time tonight on this issue so I appreciate that but I'm going to go ahead and move I just want to say that women don't like being referred to as being emotional just if why I don't think I said women being emotional it didn't okay thank you councilmember Hudson thank you move approval all right councilmember Duff second we have a motion and a second on agenda item 5d yeah I just want to be clear what what piece is this that's the investment zone is that correct 5d is the investment zone yes all right let's take a boat please motion carries five to two all right now we're going to take a motion councilmember Hudson move approval of 6a we have a second second councilmember Duff councilmember Armitter okay councilmember Metso is this yeah this is so I wanted to offer an amendment and I also want to first check in with the city attorney I believe I'm correct in this that council members can vote to support an amendment without it in any way creating an obligation to vote in support of the underlying motion that is correct but ultimately whatever you prove in a friendly amendment automatically gets carried over into the underlying yeah not necessarily assuming it'll be friendly okay might be so yeah I just I want to offer an amendment that I think the folks from Tyson would would embrace easily because I think they you know want to you know want to show their their willingness to respond to reasonable anxieties that people have and you show their good faith toward participation participating in the community so I would offer the amendment that if there are wage and hour worker safety or environmental violations here at this plant that that would void the incentive and secondly we used to have other factors in incentives like community involvement so I want to propose that we include one here that I think aligns well with Tyson's kind of corporate mission which is that Tyson would have community involvement in Denton specifically focused on local food security initiatives funding them at a level of 22,000 a year or more that's half the this actually very small incentive and and I emphasize the or more because I know that this is not a large amount of money to Tyson and I know that they you know may well want to over achieve on that that's that's the amendment so mr. city attorney what's the process of that does he if it well first of all I guess you have to ask it would the movement be willing to accept that as a as a friendly amendment let's go ahead and vote okay so that's a no is that correct yes okay is the next process then to see if the amendment gets a second that is correct and then we take a separate vote on that yes and then if that passes then it does become an amendment to the motion if the motion if the movement desires the motion to move forward that is correct it becomes attached to the underlying motion if it's passed yes all right okay so we've got a motion for an amendment and understood the part about the community involvement could you list those three conditions to void okay okay so counselor Meltzer has restated his amendment is there a second for that amendment I'll second that amendment okay we have a second for that a minute we're gonna have to take a hand vote on this or can we we'll just take a hand vote on it so we have a motion and a second for a meant for an amendment as presented by a councilmember Meltzer all in favor please oh yes go ahead question for legal can we mandate that someone donate to the community and and put a man it just seems like blackmail can you mandate how much they have to give to the community and to where it goes is that in our purview this unlike the zoning items that we have before these are economic consent of agreements and so those are going to be basically what we negotiate or what we want to see in that and and that's it's a different posture for the council at this process as opposed to what we just went through in the zoning there items okay follow-up question then I need someone to articulate to me then that will take them one by one so whoever's in charge of this so if we're voting on wage or our violations what does that mean does that means cases settled or gone to court resolved in jury judgments at a federal level I need to understand succinctly what that is then the next explanation I need is worker safety is that a settlement is that a complaint is that a legal resolution or is that a judge decision and then the third environmental violations is that at a federal level is that at a lawsuit is that an allegation or is that at a judge judgment so I need someone to explain those three to me succinctly well I'm gonna have to ask defer to Councilmember Melzer because it's his motion and those are his items so he would be the one to get clarification on that found guilty without respect to level of government and pertaining just to this facility here but found guilty so found guilty by a judge by a jury by a federal institution that don't I don't have any prejudice on that you know wage an hour worker safety or environmental violations well and that's his motion and if that's what it is then we have been enough information to vote on it so we have a motion in a second for the amendment all in favor of the amendment please signify by raising your right hand all in favor of the amendment let the record reflect that Councilmember Meltzer Councilmember Briggs were the ones that voted in favor of the amendment motions put forth by Councilmember Meltzer all in favor all who are not in favor who wish to deny that amendment please signify by raising your right hand so let the record reflect that Councilmember Duff Councilmember Hutzpah Mayor Watts Councilmember armature and Mayor pro tem Ryan voted against the amendment so now we will move to the original motion which was made by Councilmember Hutzpah and Don Duff to accept agenda item 5d that's the one we're still on as proposed by staff so oh 6a we've already done that's right sorry 6a see there I get confused so we're voting on 6a so let's vote on the motion for agenda item 6a on the board please a motion carries four to three let's take a five minute break because the next one's going to probably be a little bit long as well thank you all right welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council it is about 1134 33 p.m. on February the 5th 2019 we're on our last agenda item besides concluding items agenda item F which is consider approval of a resolution authorizing election day polling locations for the city of Denton Council election to be held May 4th 2019 good evening mayor and council I'm Rachel wood chief of staff and interim city secretary the presentation I have planned for you this evening is largely the same as what you saw yesterday at your city council luncheon so I'm gonna cruise through the first few slides unless you asked me to slow down and then really it's the second to the last slide that's got new information added to it based on the meeting I had today so as a quick reminder your May 2019 elections election day for municipal elections will take place May 4th 2019 early voting will take place April 22nd through 27th and April 29th through 30th as a reminder Denton County establishes early voting locations and the city is responsible for establishing election day polling locations Denton County has not finalized all of the early voting polling locations but has confirmed that the Civic Center will serve as an early voting location during early voting for the 2019 elections the city's required to have four polling locations one per City Council district the four main polling locations include MLK Recreation Center for district 1 North Branch Library for district 2 North Lakes Recreation Center for district 3 and Dean year Recreation Center for district 4 the resolution that you're being asked to consider this evening includes the following proposed May 2019 polling locations and these were established based on the feedback received at your January 7th work session for district 1 MLK Recreation Center and Pecan Creek Elementary district 2 North Branch Library and DISD Annex and as a reminder DISD Annex is kind of right around the corner from Ryan High School Ryan High School had a conflict on election day for district 3 North Lakes Recreation Center and Fire Station 7 and district 4 Dean year Recreation Center and LA Nelson Elementary so quick reminder of the feedback we reviewed yesterday following the January 7th work session there was a significant amount of community feedback that we received part of the feedback we heard was there was a desire for a location either on or near the University of North Texas we also heard that we should consider using the Civic Center as a voting center on election day we confirmed with the county election office that because we are not a fully electronic county with our voting equipment that we cannot serve as a voting center on election day and voting centers work essentially the same way as early voting would where all precincts could arrive at the same location and vote and wouldn't have to vote at their assigned precinct polling locations we also heard that we should consider a polling location at TWU and in consultation with the county because the TWU and the Civic Center reside in the same precinct their recommendation would be if we had to pick one location that the Civic Center logistically would just be simpler because it does already serve as a polling location for early voting so on to the new information today at 11 o'clock I met with Melissa McGuire who's the assistant vice president of student affairs as well as with Brandy Grimes who is the associate county elections official to discuss potential polling locations at UNT we toured several facilities and based on feedback from Brandy Grimes at the county as well as in conversation with UNT the Greek Life Center which is located at 621 South Welch Street was identified as the most viable future polling location at UNT that facility is owned and operated by UNT and UNT indicated that they are very comfortable serving as a polling location for either early voting election day or both so just to give you a little bit of orientation I know there have been some questions around parking this is the Greek Life Center the picture here showing the stairs is kind of the front entrance off of Welch Street there's also a private drive behind the Greek Life Center that's fully accessible there are several accessible parking spaces located directly adjacent to the Greek Life Center and UNT has also indicated that they would make the seven seven-story Highland Street parking garage available and they've even volunteered that they would make golf carts available for people that needed to park there and had accessibility issues so that being said we are still presenting the same two options to you that we discussed yesterday your resolution is to continue with the eight polling locations confirmed by staff or you could consider alternate polling locations to address concerns expressed by the community. Councilmember Briggs. Can you go back to the location you said no the UNT location I'm sorry the picture you said there's stairs but then you said something is accessible so does that mean that it's a handicapped wheelchair accessible in the back is that what you meant by accessible? This is the front facade of the building but on the back where you see kind of that red paver that's fully ADA accessible. Okay thank you. So I have just a question since I wasn't at yesterday's meeting just to get some clarification so my understanding is that when this came up for discussion or deliberation at that meeting to look at UNT and or TWU I think it was from what I remember it was Councilmember Duff, Hutzpeth and Ryan who won sort of the status quo as far as on Election Day voting I don't know what it was on early election but it's Councilmember Briggs, Armatuer and Meltzer Meltzer it's it's it's getting late now that we're wanting to have further discussions with UNT to find some facilities on the campus to enter into some type of arrangement to have either early voting Election Day voting or both is that is that a good summary is it is that incorrect or is that fairly correct? That's my recollection yes. Okay all right okay Councilmember Briggs you're still up did is that? Well I'm in favor of the locations that that you had in the beginning and also the new slide of early voting and this Election Day as well. And we do have several cards so if y'all want to I just want to give you that you certainly state your opinions as you as we go but I just want to let you know we've got a lot of we got several cards people wishing to speak. So Councilmember Armatuer you you okay all right fantastic. Okay any other questions before we hear public comment? All right good okay we'll go with the public comment we got blue cards and yes I'm sorry oh Councilmember Duff sorry I didn't see you. I think the City Attorney knows what I'm going to ask. I think maybe we have some members on the City Council that have a conflict when we start dealing with UNT. Is that correct or not? The the conflict of interests provision in the ethics ordinance has two parts is one is do they have a conflict of interest and the second part is is there a pending matter before this that this board will be or Council's being asked to ultimately decide the conflict of interest in according to the criteria that are listed are definitely met by two Council members on this Council. The question is the pending matter and I guess for me to be able to to get to that point is is UNT already agreeable and is willing to work with the city together to come up with some type of arrangement or agreement to have both not just early well I'm sorry in this case are involved me would be limited to the actual Election Day polling location the counting takes care of their early voting so we're not a party but working with UNT to find the site if they if and this is a question I wasn't at the the site tour but and Rachel Wood and the interim city secretary was if UNT has expressed her that yes we are willing to work with you to establish this we're we're getting into that territory where it is our evil that there is a pending matter now before the Council if it's choosing to wish to decide whether or not to add a third Election Day polling location at UNT again that is that is my opinion the ultimate decision-maker on that is going to be actually the individual Council members but the ultimate decision-maker will be the ethics board if a complaint is brought for them before them or an advisor opinion is requested of them so to answer your question Councilmember Duff it appears that if UNT is saying that yes we'll work with you what let's get let's get it done there's an argument that a pending matter and we have that we're crossing into the threshold of a pending matter which is the second prong of the of a conflict of interest that's required to be met okay all right Councilmember Armitage thanks for asking a question Councilmember Duff just it's that you probably recall mr. city attorney I had actually asked this this question emailed this question to mr. Hellman and you remember if anybody else wasn't included in that asking do I have a conflict of interest so just so you know that I had asked that question because I wasn't exactly sure and this is way back this is before the before the last I think it was before the first work session if not definitely before the second one so anyway it is you know it's as city attorney said it's it's one of those areas that's a little hard to figure out and I just wanted you to know I thought about this a lot myself so thank you and and to let the public know you know I had that same question too I didn't hear anything so I assumed I assumed it was okay but what you're saying now makes sense it's good to hear that now can I clarify a little bit oh sure yeah you know I didn't and councilmember Armitage you are correct you didn't send that an email to the city manager myself at that time you know the the polling locations or what Rachel listed and what appears in the resolution is those four so at that time it was more of a theoretical it wasn't we weren't at the stage where we're now finding ourselves in and in the conflict of interest provision as well the ethics ordinance operates it's not a it's it's not today but tomorrow it may be it might meet the threshold so it's fluid and that's what has happened in the last day that we've we've moved from there is not a conflict or or a pending matter before this council tune now UNT is willing to do that if you were to amend the resolution to include as a third polling location we're not a different position than we were when that email was sent and even yesterday and so I just wanted to clarify especially for the audience to understand how this can progress to that area where it could possibly trigger a conflict of interest under the ethics ordinance okay and can I can I respond sure yeah just respond to that so you know another thing that I have I've thought about and struggled with I don't have an answer to this but you know just for transparency when because we're talking about voting right we've got one two one two three members of council who are up for a reelection two of us have ties to UNT you know so that's five with potential conflict lead leaving two of us who would seem to have a potential conflict I'm not saying clear open shut in on the coin the ethics ordinance but so we've got to yourself councilmember Duff and yourself Mayor Watts who have you know no arguable conflict that I can see so it's something we all have to have to think about and you know and I would welcome members of the public don't hesitate just because I'm here to weigh in on that I don't I don't take it personal it's I'm I'm still trying to decide I and I appreciate your clarification makes sense that it does change when it's a pending matter is there any way so this is a point of procedure kind of question is there any way to separate this vote to have the decision about the whether to have it at UNT or not versus whatever you know details of plans get get work plans get worked out later about the you know the logistics of this and and the and the cost of it is can that be separate with that change anything or if that were even possible you're asking a way to more or less if I interpreted what you're saying is a way to participate today but to then later recuse yourself as we start going into solidifying even further whatever relationship yeah I don't as I look at the at the conflict of interest prohibition it it doesn't it just basically says once that pending matter threshold is crossed then there's the conflict again I'm saying that as the city's attorney I'm not the ethics board yeah who has the final decision-maker or yourselves to determine whether or not you need to to recuse yourselves but I at this point as Rachel as this interim city secretary has said you know UNT is willing to work and has expressed support from their end to solidify a the election day polling location at the Greek like the Greek Center there on UNT campus and even about how they could accommodate all the different issues I think in my opinion we're now in the pending matter okay so now now it becomes a pending matter yes if that is what you what you are proposing or any member on this council is proposing to include that location yeah so okay so you know in that case so I'm sorry if this disappoints people because I've really you know fought fought hard for this to get us to this point and I I think that's a convincing case to make that it's a pending matter I wish I had had again pardon me for kind of thinking out loud but I didn't have any notice this was going to be brought to be an issue I'm sorry what I'm saying you might want to wait until you hear my comments before you make a final decision okay okay council wait till you're pumped full councilmember Meltzer okay mm-hmm my request was to have a polling location closer to the center of the district in fact the location that I suggested in correspondence with staff was the village church which is near UNT I don't care if it's on UNT near UNT I care that it's near the center of the district so I hope we get to the point where we get to proposals here on this calendar day you know I'm gonna propose that a location be added near the center just center of the district and I'm perfectly happy to have staff work out wherever that is okay just and just to address that comment that would take care of a conflict of interest if it was anywhere outside of UNT controlled or owned property if staff decides to put it at UNT outside you know after our decision that's gonna change my decision what I'm saying no no yes I understand I was addressing that there wouldn't be a conflict of interest if a location other than UNT anything on UNT property and it's central to the district as you stated was what you had suggested and yesterday's work session then that then that would take care of the conflict of interest is what I'm trying to tell you I'm making I'm sorry to drag this out but I'm making a slightly different point that the let me ask it as a question do we have to at this to do this ordinance have the address it's my understanding that yes in order to pass the resolution what we need to convey to the county is the actual location that the polling will take place so we would need the address that's right Councilmembers thank you for that Councilmembers and that's a very good point that if a location near UNT was decided on it would not be a pending matter I wouldn't have to recuse myself and but if it I believe that if it I'm I have been convinced and also we've got the eight city attorney opinion which whether one agrees or not that counts for something and it's it I believe that if I believe that I could not vote on a pending matter on a UNT location that is actually on the campus but I would support I mean like you I want it so that people in this community can access it and again I would hope that we all want that as I stated last time we should all want voters to be able to have access to the voting locations that they want for any any district any community because there's no such thing as too much too much voting access in a democracy but so we'll see how this plays out but it but I would like to if there are locations that if there's a location that has been considered that is near the campus then I'm all for that too Councilmember Meltzer so last I heard we hadn't heard back yet that there was some exchange with the the village church so is there any news on that I thought I saw an email that said that he they couldn't accommodate it at that time they haven't given us a firm yes or no which is we don't know yeah we can so they've continued to ask questions and we've provided them the information that they requested but at this point we don't have confirmation on their willingness to serve as a polling location okay then I move we postpone until we get final answer on that if we have time to you know still to to do that so I want to make sure I understand what is the the final deadline for the decision that the county needs that the city needs to make the latest City Council meeting prior to the deadline that the county has established would be the March 5th City Council meeting okay all right okay so you're wanting to postpone this entire agenda item because these are my thoughts I mean I understand about the developments but look folks this decision comes down to the two Council members I understand about ethics complaints and also understand that there's a there's a procedure that you can ask for a written advisory opinion from the ethics board if you have a concern about something that you have a question about it the city attorney is not you know without that written advisory opinion the city attorney is just giving his own opinion based upon the city attorney which does not carry the same defense of presumption that an advisory opinion does from from the Board of Ethics so if if we're going to go that route then we need to take off the table for deliberation because if you if you determine that you may have a conflict it's a conflict to even deliberate on on the item so if that's the case then we can't even talk about that item to deliberate on it with the UNT location being and it's only for election day polling that we don't have the authority to approve early voting locations I mean that's the county we can and it sounds like from what I've heard they're working on that and the county can put that at the UNT location because that doesn't require any approval by the city sounds like to me from what I've heard is it's simply the early day I mean the same day the election day polling location because it requires an authorization and approval from the city with an arrangement from a partner and all these other criteria so I just want to make sure that it I don't care about postponing in it if we're saying we're taking off the table at least for now at this cycle the election day polling location at the University of North Texas and we're going to look for another site and see if that's acceptable to counsel with whoever and also is acceptable to someone that has a an appropriate location that couldn't be offered okay but I just want to say that if we're still include that election day polling location on the university campus in the deliberations you just have to make your own decision of that I'm not giving my opinion on it that's something that each council member has to make individually so so your motion is to postpone yes and I would use the opportunity I really appreciate your you know your experience with the I don't know if I appreciate it but it's always you learn yes you're helping us but I'd certainly use that that time while seeing it if there are more than one possible locations that might be considered I would certainly use that time you know to get an opinion from the ethics board well yeah I was going to say you could they turn those around fairly quickly so that that certainly would be I think the the safest I mean it's if March 5th is the last part of that deadline for Election Day polling place if the county decides to put it at UNT quite frankly I think that'll solve many of the issues that are concerning people you got two or three two weeks of many hours of voting that are available so but so your motion to put is to postpone is it to so it's not to exclude right now the Election Day polling from UNT campus it's just to postpone this to get some time to get an advisory opinion and maybe well and also to understand whether there are alternative sites yes okay all right okay so we've got a couple people Councilmember Duff well you made the point you you know you've got a lot of time to go vote okay and there's going to be one on on the UT campus I think that's already point of order yes we shouldn't be deliberating about this before considering the motion to postpone it hearing deliberation well I don't yeah I'm talking against not yeah okay yeah I think can we deliberate on the rationale to support or to not support a motion to postpone or does a motion to suppose postpone in a second come with sort of a de facto call of the question where it ceases the debate plus I think we've got a motion but I don't think we've heard a second so I don't know if that no that's I don't know if that much well I haven't seen I haven't seen it I see a movement but I don't think that that's for a motion to postpone so yes so right but I understand Councilmember Meltzer I understand that I'm in control you've got a motion for a motion to postpone nobody has indicated a desire for a second I'm going down the list of people who have been asked to speak Don Duff is being asked to speak Don Duff is speaking not because we don't have a motion on the floor that's been seconded so do you have any more comments Councilmember Duff yes I do but we need to be careful though not to deliberate the substantive aspect of the UNT Election Day polling to not jeopardize our colleagues who are still trying to figure out their decisions I want us to be respectful of the position that they seem to have been put in not by any actions of their own it's just by the process that we've had so I want to be respectful than that and not put them in jeopardy because they've asked I'll wait and comment later okay Councilmember Armitter so I second that motion okay Councilmember Meltzer's all right so we have a motion in a second Councilmember Husbeth I know you've got something there but the motion to postpone to a date certain I believe which would be March 5th March 5th is that the next is that the latest council meeting that would be the latest council meeting the ultimate deadline that we receive from from Denton County is just as March 13th but you don't meet again after March 5th prior to that March 13th deadline all right okay all right so the the motion is for a date certain March 5th motion to postpone and does the seconder approve of that yes yes and am I allowed to add just a little something to my my second you mean just comment sure if you could yeah thank you I'll make it brief you know I know again and apologies to people who came out and waited you know just to to hear this again I was just searching for the date I don't know if the city attorney found it to find the date of the email that I sent I just want people to understand that I did ask really early on in this process do I have a conflict of interest I'm saying that not to put you in the spot on the on the spot to fault you for not answering but just to let people know that that I did not know until today I was not prepared for this until today so I anyway I hope people understand and I apologize to people who came out all the and waited all this time for this and I really thank you for your patience that's that's all I wanted to add to that Councilmember husband so we have a motion in the second on the motion postpone so that is debatable yes well I just need a couple of things I need to re-understand because so much has happened the motion one I want to again I think it's bad to mischaracterize what someone says and and words matter in the legal industry in all industries but specifically in the legal industry three times our city attorney has stated the facts changed and we all were made aware of that today no one was at that meeting so an email that was sent before today is moved the change today and so I just don't want to I just don't want the city attorney to get misrepresented repeatedly for whatever reason I think his his statements have been very clear very succinct an email before is not germane to the set of facts we're considering today and so to then say that somehow there was misguidance is disingenuous or inaccurate and so that being said if I could hear the motion again because there were some caveats there and really where I hang up is I think we need to give instruction on we need to carve out the one issue of day of so that we can move on I mean I get it that we have time I just don't think that's if if we're to a point where there's a purported feeling between two of our peers that they would not be able to vote on the issue on UNT camps I think we could carve that out and just move on and say hey this is not going to be an option now let's look at the other alternatives and and we can lock in the other stuff that we do know just so we can narrow the scope so if I can take a stab at that counselor I think what I understand the motion to be is it's a motion based upon the material change of the facts I mean there's a material change in the facts which have created a material change in these deliberations which we're finding out in real time on the dais tonight so I think he what the motion is is to postpone to March 5th to allow two things to happen one is to allow staff to continue to research or to receive feedback and input of are there alternative locations close to the central part of district 3 that would make adequate Election Day polling location because the early voting location is not of an issue here whether it's on UNT campus or not the second purpose of the motion is to craft an advisory letter to the Board of Ethics to delineate the facts as they now have developed to determine get a letter of advisory opinion from them on is it a conflict of interest which requires recusal and what however that comes back I think will determine the carve out ie if the advisory opinion comes back and says yes if the city has to approve an or a same-day election location and they have to do it in an arrangement with the University of North Texas which will require the University of North Texas providing some real estate in order to do that they may say that you know that could be a conflict and you need to recuse they could come back and say no those facts do not present facts that require recusal because of a conflict so I think that's the purpose is to is to find options and to give clarity to two members that are as surprised and learning those facts today that have made this now an issue so is that my understanding of the motion is that fairly accurate and mr. mayor I think you got it exactly right okay yes councilmember Hudson then then one Rachel is it the amount per polling site five thousand dollars is that right we received an estimate today from the county and this is just an estimate we would also have to get details on if DISD was going to partner with us on a particular polling location and we don't have a firm commitment on that for early voting if we were to add a location it would be about $7,000 if we were going to have an additional election day polling location it would be about $4,000 if we were going to do both it would be combined an $11,000 total okay so so about $4,000 that would then be payable to it using the example on the table the village church right that funding would actually go to the county and then the county okay we don't know what the county does okay all right so we're going to okay councilmember Duff you show a request to speak are you wanting to speak or you is it not been rotated off and it's on the and it's on the deliberation I'd like to say say a few things okay okay and this is to either support or not support the motion on the table which is postponement I'm so you don't really want me to say anything else I want us to follow the rules is what I want us to do councilmember Briggs I have a process question just about the individuals that showed up at 630 to speak on this item and it's now the next day how are they still allowed to speak if we approve postponement or they just have to show back I mean I'm just curious on the speaking of the my fear is that first of all what's the opinion if we're making a motion to postpone that's not really the agenda item that's been posted I mean it's for the engine that has been posted and also I'll just throw in my comment my my concern is would it be considered a deliberation if there's statements from the dais about same day locations on the University of North Texas campus that that because I don't know the answers to these questions so I'm trying to provide as much cover as I can for the two council members and give them time to do what they need to do make their decisions for the advisory opinion if that's the route they so choose so I'm not saying it would or it wouldn't I just but the I will leave that up to the council if y'all we can go through these cards and allow them to speak I mean I'm not gonna necessarily say they're not allowed to speak it's whatever the pleasure of the council is so if there's if there's a desire to let them speak be given those comments we can I mean we'll certain I don't mind letting them speak we've been here we're gonna be here for another 30 minutes but I do give that caveat I just want to I mean and they've heard all the deliberations and discussions as well so what's the council's pleasure all right well I'll make the decision I'm the chair we'll let him speak okay Alfred Sanchez come down state your name and address your time will begin my name is my name is Alfred Sanchez hold on just a minute apparently councilmember I just want to give her an opportunity if she's gonna exit then yeah okay no no okay okay oh my name is sorry yes sir you may proceed okay my name is Alfred Sanchez I live at 7-11 Jackson Street and I'm here to support voting at UNT at Election Day I'm a voter registrar and have and have served as an election judge an alternate judge for about 10 years I have a passion to get young people to vote because young people are the future of our country I have done voter registration at NCTC UNT TWU several years ago we conducted voter registration at UNT and registered over 800 students in one day in 20 and 2000 in 2018 we voted registered about 2,000 students as a person as a person involved with voting I often I often hear from older people that the young people do not vote or not concerned about their country I object with that assessment I see other people who are very I see older people who are very complacent about voting I believe I believe it stems from not being involved in the voting process when they were when they were young once a person gets involved with voting with a voting process it becomes addictive in a state that ranks at the bottom of voting we should make every opportunity for young people to vote yesterday at the work session I heard several obstacles that that prevent holding a voting location at UNT my response is if we can put a man on the moon why not a voting location at UNT are we saying we cannot solve the minor inconvenience of hosting voting at UNT we must understand that voting is a foundation of our democracy and that we must make every effort to protect our democracy for future generations there are other universities that have that have there are that have allowed or have approved voting early voting and also voting on Election Day on campus these are Prairie View Prairie View A&M Texas A&M Texas Christian University SMU University of Texas in Dallas University of Texas in Arlington and University of Texas in El Paso thank you you've got a request to speak is that okay thank you next speaker is Matt Farmer come down state your name and address your time will begin again my name is Matt Farmer my address is 2042 scripture Street man this has been weird so yeah like the previous speaker I've been a voter registrar in the area for a long time I have done voter registration events and voter registration presentations at both UNT and TWU and pretty much every time you talk to somebody that goes to UNT that goes to TWU any any students that are new to the area that you know are still figuring out the our electoral system and when elections happen they nine times out of ten they don't even know that there are many elections and so I think that if we want to as a city increase the visibility for these elections it would just make sense to come up with more polling locations especially around the universities and not only that but you know the specific to district three the two polling locations that we do have are on basically polar opposites of the of the district and you know I agree with with Paul and that I think that regardless of whether or not it's UNT or another location we should have a centralized polling location because these are this would be in an area that's typically lower income neighborhoods in the district and when you have lower income neighborhoods they're facing more of a probability that these people don't have access to a car or that you know will have you know more trouble getting out to those those polling locations that are further away so I think it's important I think that if we do if we do want more of a fair democratic system at the local level I mean we're already looking at five to seven percent turnout rate for these elections and I don't know why anybody on council wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't want for more turnout visibility for these elections I also don't really understand why this particular agenda item would be a matter of conflict of interest for Paul or Deb because they're the their two seats aren't even up for election in this cycle I think it's also only for one particular district so I don't see how that that wouldn't you know provide a conflict of interest for that council member in the same way so I I mean it is a weird area every other council members seat is up the selection cycle it seems like there is a debatable conflict of interest for everybody on council in this regard so that those are my thoughts right now but I do I really want to push to to increase the amount of polling locations that we have especially in the centralized area of Denton and district 3 thank you next speaker Christopher Wilkins state your name and address your time will begin Christopher Wilkins 708 Iof Street department B didn't Texas district 3 yeah I wasn't even sure if I wanted to come up here because I don't think it's gonna be change anybody's mind it's gonna be postponed but I felt obligated as a precinct chair for 4039 which runs parallel to UNT to represent the people that I kind of trying to register and organize and get people to vote I echo what Matt says I feel like if you're gonna live in a democracy we should put more faith and trust in our institutions and try to increase voter participation as much as possible I'm very much agree with you Chris our mr. Watts sorry the head that I believe in the process and I still want to trust the process but democracy if you look federally and statewide even that internationally is having a rough go at it but locally it's not people are really diving in at least me I've started diving in the last couple weeks a couple years and really really started loving democracy it's messy it's long obviously but it's important and I feel like we should it's our duty to increase voting places as much as possible I am still I don't really understand the conflict of interest part but I'm not a lawyer I don't know things I'm learning as I go so I'll trust the process in that regard and hopefully and pray that you guys make the right decision increase in the voting populace because no offense mr. Duff but my constituents in my district in my neighborhood in my precinct can't just vote whenever they want to they have classes they have obligations they have kids a lot of them are immigrants I mean this is no offense to you I'm just giving you their perspective it's a different perspective a lot of times I don't have cars like that is there's a vast class difference in racial makeup in my district or my precinct and a lot of them have all of them have told me that they would definitely vote if it was easier or more ubiquitous could they walk to the Civic Center sure but if there's an option for them to walk down the street I don't know why we wouldn't provide that for them so thank you appreciate it next speaker is Jennifer Lane there Jennifer Lane 1526 Willowood Street I'm happy that it's already looking very good for an early voting poll on UNT campus during early voting please also have a poll on a very near UNT at this point maybe very near is better there are several suitable locations in the Wesley Center was most recently used in Election Day in 2018 if the Election Day poll were at the Wesley Center and the early voting poll in the UNT campus that would likely solve the issue raised earlier suggesting voter confusion and also the Civic Center as mentioned just before would not be available to district 3 voters on Election Day since most have asked for this poll are in district 3 concern about confusion is probably exaggerated anyway at present there are two bills in Austin aiming to allow the state to have more voting centers which would allow same location voting throughout the early voting and Election Day but for now Denton County must revert to precinct in this case district voting on Election Day the voters who voted in November most of whom I and my fellow Dentonites registered even those quite new to voting now know how it works only election only district 3 voters can vote at district 3 polls on Election Day district 3 encompasses a number of precincts many who live on or immediately around the campus of district 3 voters and do not own cars their nearest poll on Election Day would be almost five miles away these voters are expressly asking for this additional walking distance poll thousands of students and other voters were registered at UNT this past fall who currently live in district 3 and they voted in November more will be registered this spring by April 4th they are ready to vote in their municipal election at their district 3 poll and needed to be accessible on foot parking can be solved with coordinated effort I went to the tour today it was very interesting and well represented UNT as you know is very very willing during early voting doesn't have to be UNT later it seems to me that the cost has been exaggerated it was described that you paid 6k for four additional polls in 2018 that the additional amount that the city paid was 6k raising the number of polls from 4 to 8 so I would imagine at that math that adding a fifth would be closer to a thousand or twelve hundred so I don't know but and would be a response to an expressed need and request by the voters in district 3 if any poll can be dispensed with and I'm not advocating for fewer polls rather for more of them it's the firehouse out by Robeson Ranch if the city's worried about money for an additional poll I'm quite sure many would be happy to contribute myself included the city regularly has much bigger ticket items that it pays for without raising an eyebrow for example item 6b tonight which took down out more than two minutes to pass presentation included so the small cost of additional polls is negligible in comparison like I will be next November Robeson voters are mostly 65 plus and can vote by mail most of them do which the students and younger voters at and near the center of district 3 cannot and the Robeson Ranch voters if they do wish to vote in person generally have cars which again most of the younger people in the center of district D district 3 do not again I am NOT advocating against new polls I am advocating for one especially when there is so great expressed interest in such large numbers who would be served and have quite a need for it and it's not just students many UNT staff and faculty living in district 3 also walk to or and or cycle to work one council member surprised me by seeming to equate voting on election day to turning in classwork late on the last day of the semester I guess thinking that anyone who waits till election day to vote is late everyone has the right to a convenient hole on election day and if they ask they should get this lane that's your time please another area of poopooing seems like I'm gonna ask you one more time its city accounts elections have been won by 20 few votes 25 votes lane I'm gonna ask you one more time I'm gonna ask the officer to remove don't be afraid of the big bad vote all right thank you more votes is more votes for everyone if you could please escort her from the desk David our bank you're next up please hello it's David Urbannick but I'm sorry oh no no worries only about five people since I've lived in Texas pronounced it correctly my name is David Urbannick 714 West Hickory Denton three deputy voter registrar and also a poll greeter and I want to thank the City Council for their time and thank the council members for the opportunity to speak about UNT as a voting location I am in favor as UNT as a voting location on election day a Pew research study in 2016 shows young people and people of color are faced with issues causing burdens to vote one issue cited is inconvenient locations they found ease of reaching voting places follow economic and racial lines not using UNT as a voting location could be seen as voter suppression the campus and surrounding areas highly compacted population and the campus caters to particular demographics that some may not find desirable as voters that are willing to disenfranchise them the student population can be productive citizens and should be encouraged to participate and be engaged with the community they spend money in didn't and help create many jobs in didn't and so they should have a vote in Denton to address suggestions to prevent UNT as a voting location one is mass transit didn't has a good system for a city of this size but the system is not always efficient convenient or easy to use one issue is uncovered bus stops that prevents that subjects people to the weather there could be bus transfers delays all that can increase the burden of people wanting to vote trying to reach the polls unlike some areas like ropes and ranch many students do not have vehicles due to the cost of vehicle ownership as a result students face additional hardships to vote others do not have another issue is voter consumption voter confusion that happens all the time at all locations and would not be unique to UNT poll watchers poll greeters and voter registers have been present at polls to assist people who have issues and can help them direct to the proper place as needed but it is the city's responsibility to proactively educate citizens about voting that can help eliminate some confusion why not use the LED sign outside the Civic Center to educate people that an election is currently going on and can display vote didn't comm website to direct people for information which can help them find their location thank you so much for your time appreciate it thank you you bet George fairies next speaker please come state your name and address your time will begin good morning my name is George Ferry I live at two nine three two Stockton Street zero motion all facts all data voting in a I agree UNT should be a polling place I'm gonna let everyone else who wants to speak talk about that because I wholeheartedly agree with them and I think they got that argument in the bag mine is d1 district one in the most southeastern corner we have Pecan Creek Elementary School if you look at the data of municipal election turnouts it's less than half the turnout of either MLK Center or the Civic Center I also saw in that presentation which by the way the work session yesterday you couldn't hear anything except for things that were said by you anyone presenting was unheard via audio so I never heard the presentation until just now and in that presentation it said because of our festival Denton Arts and Jazz the 27th will be closed for the Denton Civic Center which is one less day of access and 4009 the precinct in which I live TWU is in that district accessibility for college students is vital it's a 35-minute walk from Texas Women's University to the MLK rec center there is not a connector you have to go to two different buses to connect I believe via Google Maps it's very confusing you have to think about accessibility for young folk if you want them to turn out it's as simple as that there were let's see a hundred and 19 votes cast in Pecan Creek for the entire election for mayor and at-large at Pecan Creek Elementary School that's less than half of everywhere else and d1 has the lowest voter turnout there's I think one apartment complex in southeast and near that polling location and they are that polling location mind you is a 10 minute bike ride via the Katy Trail or an eight minute drive to the City Hall of Corinth it's incredibly close so during early voting you can go anywhere right so why not make that their early voting location and also education sending out mailers making videos being more progressive in the way we attack educating people on how to vote where to vote and when to vote thanks thank you Emily Meisner please state hi Emily Meisner 1700 Cordero court in Texas thanks for letting us speak on this tonight I'm a voter registrar and I do nonpartisan voter registration around Denton and one of the things that we're really good at is educating and we were recently at UNT campus where we registered over 2,000 students to vote and we educated these students as we registered them I was originally going to ask for a polling place on UNT campus for election day and encourage you to vote for this but now I just want to say any polling place near is fine though the point is we want to mobilize these young voters to exercise their right to vote I trust our citizens and I trust their intelligence to be able to work through the confusion that was proposed yesterday in the work session it was proposed that an additional polling location would actually cause more voter confusion and I disagree with that Senate sentiment in fact I think it's counterintuitive to add another polling location would just increase voter turnout to increase the accessibility is good the students around UNT campus like they said not all of them have cars walkability is an issue so the need is there the cost is minimal seeing tonight that it would be under five thousand dollars so the the next issue that came up was the parking the parking issues for for a Saturday that that could be worked through those could be as you said saw from the presentation earlier the people are prepared to address the parking issues so to bring this point home let's educate and collaborate provide voter accessibility more votes is better for everyone so I like what you're you're saying trust the process so let's trust this process to move forward and trust our citizens thank you thank you Mary Infante you filled out a blue card to speak it yeah okay okay because I think she also filled out a white card okay all right okay yeah she is in support of additional polling locations the last card is a white card which is a card that wishes not to speak this is Jordan Villarreal 707 Bernard Street apartment 12 I'm just going to read the first humbly request that City Council consider both an early voting and election day polling location on UNT's main campus those are the cards we have we do have a motion on the table if someone would mind retrieving council member armature oh yes councilmember Briggs the motion is to postpone till March the 5th yes okay we have a motion for postponement to date certain on March the 5th for agenda item what is this now 6f we have a motion in a second so let's keep we'll just have to show a show of hands all in favor of postponement till March the 5th for agenda item 6f please signify by raising your right hand all right the motion carries six well it doesn't carry yet we have six votes everybody in favor of postponement raise your right hand all right so let the record reflect that councilmember Briggs mayor pro tem Ryan councilmember armature the mayor councilmember Metzler and councilmember Hutz but all voted to postpone anyone in opposition to postponement please signify by raising your right hand we have one which was councilmember Duff so the motion to postpone carries this agenda item till March the 5th for the time requested our neck our next item are concluding items councilmember Hudson thank you mayor just a few things here mr. city manager do we have a mobile home building standards criteria I'm not sure I'd like to see us explore that as I consider the the item we decided before I think I'd like to start crafting that if we don't have it because as I explore that further understanding the different level of materials and different building materials that go into those homes I'd like to try to get us or those that would purchase those in a different element and also address the the parking spaces I think now there's it only requires one car or something like that but I'd like to try to begin to regulate those a little better for those that would would come in our community so that they could have some protections and then another note for you for the city manager I had a great conversation with dr. Wilson on their plans for that building on Elm Street and sounds like there's some flexibility in parking with their future uses they're gonna use it for night classes for adult classes and and I'd like to see if staff can talk to whomever at the ISD to explore that maybe something where we could put a gate and so if it's gated there's no public parking but if that gate is open then it's available to be parked so and that would put citizens about a block and a half to from the square and so I'm hoping there's some synergies there with them and I as a general note I want to congratulate UNT and thank mr. Ryan for his generous donation I think that's going to be significant to bring more traffic more notoriety more professors to to Denton which would which can only kind of help grow our visitor base and our business base so that that thirty million dollar donation is significant and then one other thing is judge Holly Fox is sworn in on the 11th so it's a Monday before we meet again so I want to invite people out to that and also let her know that I'm excited about her assuming that position and and leading that that department and and all the great things that are going to come from that so that's it thank you okay so I just have a few quick ones here one I would like a staff report on flashing red lights on like the rules and the reasons we have them there was a an accident at University in Malone I guess after midnight certain lights start turn they turn red and they just flash and that was before the road was expanded and so I don't know if now that it is expanded if that type of system is still okay just just on that second I would like to ask that the voting info be put on our Civic Center electronic sign I thought that was a really great suggestion and maybe even just if voter education and notification about our voting can be shot down to our citizen on engagement committee maybe I don't know if I make that request here or not I think that could be a good way to talk about how we get citizens involved I would like to request that our gas well ordinance come back to a full council last time we talked about it the mayor was out and so we didn't get a chance to hear how he feels about it and I'd like to know and then finally I'd like to change the weighted average that we use for incentives I we could maybe say that but it's kind of like when we do the zoning changes like in our four it actually ends up being eight homes per acre instead of like you know we it looked like we had a really good deal when you say a hundred jobs for this much but when you broke it down over 70 of those weren't really something you would want to incentivize so I don't I don't know maybe a discussion if that's in our incentive policy we could talk about that again just for transparency sake that's it okay so one thing I wanted to thank Danny Shaw of community development for putting together a really terrific staff report on a sobering center and for people who don't know what that is just say really briefly it is a place where people who have been apprehended for public intoxication can go to just sleep off their hangover and to just exist without it being a crime these are people who are just publicly intoxicated not harming anybody and they have and it saves the city has saved cities a lot of money in in jail and it also helps people get help for their substance issues so there's instead of you know punishment for it so there's lots to recommend it I want to request a work session on it and I also want to encourage my colleagues here on on council to to talk to Chief Dixon about it because he has experienced the sobering center in Austin and it's a really great advocate for you know the the the advantages of it and it's so and just to ask police officers DPD officers you know what what they think about this issue it's anyway I'm really excited about I think that I think it was an excellent staff report and I would like to also request that if when it comes to a work session that that we can make a special invitation to you Chief Dixon to be there even though he didn't put that as I understand it you know he didn't put that staff report together I know that he's done a lot of work and research on it and it's really an invaluable resource and I think people would want to hear how it benefits the police department as well and our bottom line for the city so that's all thanks just real quick just want to express a lot of gratitude to staff who've been putting in long evening hours to do more neighborhood meetings about projects you know lots of them and I think it's great and secondly I'm very appreciative of members of the public who are sticking with us even into the next morning you know and who want to learn about the process and and participate and be involved in local government thank you I just have a couple and I'd like to have this information when we do the workshop on the or work session on the gas well ordinance or revisiting that which we've done several times I'd like to get a survey of the active gas wells and the ones that have been plugged or abandoned I think you know there's been a lot of time passed between when we did a survey of what's really out there on the ground and what could be included in that is you know the gas well plants that we have and and what are they able to do and just just a review of where we are and and I think we need to put on this discussion when we in fact I've spoke with one of the people who spoke tonight about this and I told them I would do this because we're stuck we're stuck on setback so I'm not going to liberate I would call somebody down if they did that so what I want is to have a policy discussion on can we determine a setback one setback and I understand that a scientific study and all that is something that you you wanted to do and that's something we can we can talk about but those are also very expensive and I don't know if I think we've got enough information to make that decision because I'm not too hopeful that we can find one setback but I think we need to have that discussion because we're we're we're really affecting projects on some sort of shotgun approaches so don't know if we can get that solved but that's something I'd like to include just a very comprehensive work session on on this whole issue it's not gonna solve it but maybe it can get us past some hurdles other than that let me see and I do want to say this too I'd like to it seems like and I'm not sure why that a lot of this discussion now the members of the public have advocated for this and we've heard a couple of things mentioned during the the neighborhood during the council work session discussions but TWU for the most part has been left out of this equation for voting location either early voting or polling location I spoke with some representatives over TWU nobody's really approached them I haven't seen too many emails or social media posts from people here policymakers so I'm not sure why UNT has gotten all the the attention maybe it's just because it's a little bit it's a bigger university but TWU has 15,000 students or so so I think we need to I don't know if we're gonna be able to do it for this cycle because it's it's so close but that's just an observation I've had so I'd like to see if there is something and if not I know they would be amenable to setting that up if it takes time to start doing that now for either the November election or the next city election in May of 2020 so that's all I've got and it is 1243 or so I can't see that far so we're going to call this meeting adjourned