WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.400
 >> Six o'clock.

00:00:04.400 --> 00:00:15.820
 Welcome, everyone, to the sixth meeting of the special citizens bond advisory committee.

00:00:15.820 --> 00:00:21.640
 We will open up the meeting, and we're going to take the agenda items in order.

00:00:21.640 --> 00:00:27.200
 Item A, consider approval of the minutes for June 26, 2023.

00:00:27.200 --> 00:00:34.280
 Is there a motion?

00:00:34.280 --> 00:00:37.060
 All in favor, raise your right hand.

00:00:37.060 --> 00:00:40.040
 All opposed, like sign.

00:00:40.040 --> 00:00:43.040
 Passes unanimously.

00:00:43.040 --> 00:00:47.840
 Next hold a discussion regarding projects and project information for a 2023 bond program.

00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:51.800
 If we could get the next slide up.

00:00:51.800 --> 00:00:56.560
 So here's a suggested way of how we might tackle the next steps tonight.

00:00:56.560 --> 00:01:04.200
 What we want to do is open up for a general Q&A and discussion for any lingering questions

00:01:04.200 --> 00:01:07.080
 related to this bond package.

00:01:07.080 --> 00:01:13.280
 And that's pretty broad, intentionally so.

00:01:13.280 --> 00:01:14.600
 So we're going to start with that.

00:01:14.600 --> 00:01:19.160
 So we'll have additional questions come up.

00:01:19.160 --> 00:01:20.360
 Hello.

00:01:20.360 --> 00:01:25.780
 Then what we want to do is prior to thinking through the possibility of developing a recommendation

00:01:25.780 --> 00:01:31.840
 is have a discussion and get direction around particular topics that seem preliminary to

00:01:31.840 --> 00:01:33.840
 that recommendation.

00:01:33.840 --> 00:01:38.320
 For instance, let's have another conversation around total package amount because that's

00:01:38.320 --> 00:01:42.720
 going to be a watershed question that's going to determine what we might be willing to put

00:01:42.720 --> 00:01:43.720
 together.

00:01:43.720 --> 00:01:50.800
 I think municipal complex sits out there as according to the pulse to date as a bit of

00:01:50.800 --> 00:01:57.420
 a maybe a non-starter, so to speak, but let's have a discussion around that to see.

00:01:57.420 --> 00:02:01.280
 Because if we're going to pull that out of the package, then we know that's a big price

00:02:01.280 --> 00:02:04.080
 tag we don't have to consider as we're moving forward.

00:02:04.080 --> 00:02:09.360
 Similarly, we know there's discretion in terms of the amounts related to trails, affordable

00:02:09.360 --> 00:02:15.600
 housing and inclusive playground that we pulsed everyone on last time and we want to return

00:02:15.600 --> 00:02:20.640
 to what we gave some direction on and see if that direction still holds.

00:02:20.640 --> 00:02:24.160
 Because if it does, we can plug that into a live spreadsheet we're going to see tonight,

00:02:24.160 --> 00:02:29.840
 so we see dollar amount, what these things are based on the consensus of the group and

00:02:29.840 --> 00:02:34.760
 then have a conversation around public art to just make sure we understand the options

00:02:34.760 --> 00:02:39.320
 associated with that is how that could appear and how that could be part and parcel to a

00:02:39.320 --> 00:02:46.480
 bond package and then get a sense of the direction of the team around that as well.

00:02:46.480 --> 00:02:51.600
 These are sort of the preliminaries will help us put together any potential package we might

00:02:51.600 --> 00:02:53.460
 do subsequent to that.

00:02:53.460 --> 00:02:57.160
 Then we'll move into a time where it'll be time to we've had our questions, we've had

00:02:57.160 --> 00:03:03.520
 our discussion around these key topics, where we can develop a recommendation or attempt

00:03:03.520 --> 00:03:07.040
 to do so tonight, so we'll talk more about that when we get to it.

00:03:07.040 --> 00:03:12.120
 There's also at that point, because we are voting tonight on that, there's an opportunity

00:03:12.120 --> 00:03:16.920
 for public comment, so if there's anybody out there who's a member of the public that

00:03:16.920 --> 00:03:22.600
 wants to speak to it, we'll open up for a time of open dialogue, not dialogue but comment

00:03:22.600 --> 00:03:25.320
 from the public.

00:03:25.320 --> 00:03:30.200
 So let's get started with general Q&A and discussion for lingering questions related

00:03:30.200 --> 00:03:34.200
 to any of these projects, so this could be a question you continue to have, could be

00:03:34.200 --> 00:03:39.040
 a point you want to raise, it could be anything along those lines.

00:03:39.040 --> 00:03:44.040
 So we've got some mics available, and so we want to make sure we dig in as much as

00:03:44.040 --> 00:03:59.300
 necessary tonight.

00:03:59.300 --> 00:04:09.280
 My question, and I have asked it once before, is on the Oakland Drainage Upstream Detention

00:04:09.280 --> 00:04:20.080
 Plan, which part of that plan goes to right by the southwest gate of the fairgrounds,

00:04:20.080 --> 00:04:26.720
 and I asked if that was going to be a raised structure or under the ground or something,

00:04:26.720 --> 00:04:32.000
 and I wasn't able to get an answer, so I can't really get behind this until I know

00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:34.920
 exactly what's going to happen at that corner.

00:04:34.920 --> 00:04:45.080
 Is there someone who can speak to that?

00:04:45.080 --> 00:04:48.240
 Good evening, Trevor Crane, Director of Capital Projects.

00:04:48.240 --> 00:04:52.640
 Without doing the design and going through all that, I can't tell you specifically

00:04:52.640 --> 00:04:58.080
 what would happen right there, do you have specific concerns as to kind of what you're

00:04:58.080 --> 00:05:04.880
 looking at there, or, I mean, we would always design that around really the, any restrictions

00:05:04.880 --> 00:05:09.360
 or issues or public input as far as-

00:05:09.360 --> 00:05:10.360
 Number one day.

00:05:10.360 --> 00:05:11.360
 Oh, okay.

00:05:11.360 --> 00:05:16.760
 And so that would really impede that event if there was a structure that blocked that

00:05:16.760 --> 00:05:17.760
 day.

00:05:17.760 --> 00:05:22.160
 Right, so if there's something that, I mean, if there's ingress or egress into property

00:05:22.160 --> 00:05:26.020
 that's going to be there, those are things that we would always consider as part of any

00:05:26.020 --> 00:05:30.600
 construction project, whether it's a residential, whether it's a large project like we're talking

00:05:30.600 --> 00:05:31.600
 about here.

00:05:31.600 --> 00:05:37.080
 So allowing people or making sure that people can get in and out of their private property

00:05:37.080 --> 00:05:42.480
 or anything like that, we wouldn't block ingress or egress with any kind of structure that

00:05:42.480 --> 00:05:46.360
 would be a permanent structure the way you couldn't access that property.

00:05:46.360 --> 00:05:48.360
 Thank you.

00:05:48.360 --> 00:05:49.360
 Yes, ma'am.

00:05:49.360 --> 00:05:50.360
 Great question.

00:05:50.360 --> 00:05:52.360
 Yes.

00:05:52.360 --> 00:05:56.080
 Mr. Ryan.

00:05:56.080 --> 00:06:05.440
 Yeah, my question is in regards to Fire Station 6 and the library and trying to figure out

00:06:05.440 --> 00:06:14.880
 why we would tear down a building built in 2009 that, and that's the library, and build

00:06:14.880 --> 00:06:19.520
 a new one for 50 million, so basically it's double the size, so the current library is

00:06:19.520 --> 00:06:25.240
 worth 25 million, we're going to tear it down to build a $12 million fire station on that

00:06:25.240 --> 00:06:26.240
 same site.

00:06:26.240 --> 00:06:30.040
 So financially it does not seem like the right route to go.

00:06:30.040 --> 00:06:41.280
 Is there anybody that can explain why that would be the route to go?

00:06:41.280 --> 00:06:49.960
 Someone will jump up at once.

00:06:49.960 --> 00:06:58.560
 Do you want to talk about the fire data?

00:06:58.560 --> 00:07:02.680
 So part of that decision we've answered in a couple different questions is demolition

00:07:02.680 --> 00:07:09.800
 on South Branch Library is up for debate through the design process.

00:07:09.800 --> 00:07:15.440
 So Fire Station 6 is located in the right spot according to the fire data.

00:07:15.440 --> 00:07:18.000
 So that site needs to be utilized for fire.

00:07:18.000 --> 00:07:22.040
 They definitely would evaluate the South Branch Library structure to see if that could be

00:07:22.040 --> 00:07:27.720
 repurposed into part of the fire station design, but the fire station based on their data and

00:07:27.720 --> 00:07:36.480
 response time for that district is located in the correct location.

00:07:36.480 --> 00:07:46.400
 Anything in addition?

00:07:46.400 --> 00:07:48.240
 Kenneth Hedges, Fire Chief.

00:07:48.240 --> 00:07:53.200
 So we did run some GIS modeling on that location down Teasley, so the location is Station 6

00:07:53.200 --> 00:07:54.200
 now.

00:07:54.200 --> 00:07:58.280
 We're able to reach the southern portion of our boundary, city limits on southern Teasley.

00:07:58.280 --> 00:08:02.520
 Really the area, the reason why we identified that as the best location is if you look at

00:08:02.520 --> 00:08:05.960
 Teasley and Linda Miller all the way down to Ryan Road, somewhere within that vicinity

00:08:05.960 --> 00:08:10.660
 is the ideal as far as response times, north and south, because our district goes to city

00:08:10.660 --> 00:08:14.920
 limits to the south, but we also go all the way up Teasley to 35, just with Station 6.

00:08:14.920 --> 00:08:18.640
 So it has a big district on Teasley.

00:08:18.640 --> 00:08:22.720
 Really there's no, from our perspective, and we haven't really looked, there's not

00:08:22.720 --> 00:08:27.480
 available land, so we kind of identified the existing site as a possible raise and rebuild

00:08:27.480 --> 00:08:28.480
 for that.

00:08:28.480 --> 00:08:32.160
 I think we're open to options if we can find parcels, but at this point we just didn't

00:08:32.160 --> 00:08:40.700
 have anything we could identify.

00:08:40.700 --> 00:08:48.080
 So while you're up, if you had your druthers, would you stay put, or would you move further

00:08:48.080 --> 00:08:53.800
 down towards Ryan Road, because of that blind spot, if nothing else?

00:08:53.800 --> 00:08:57.200
 Yeah, right now, I mean, just to be honest, I think anybody that took the tour or so,

00:08:57.200 --> 00:09:03.240
 the library does block the egress for the crews, if you saw that and you walked up there.

00:09:03.240 --> 00:09:07.240
 So when the crews leave, they actually come to stop and capture traffic, both north and

00:09:07.240 --> 00:09:08.240
 south.

00:09:08.240 --> 00:09:09.960
 So ideal location there?

00:09:09.960 --> 00:09:10.960
 No.

00:09:10.960 --> 00:09:16.120
 A site that we can see both directions on Teasley, and as soon as they're exiting, that's ideal.

00:09:16.120 --> 00:09:17.800
 So I hope that answers your question.

00:09:17.800 --> 00:09:25.400
 Well, it seems that there is other land that is available down Teasley, and I don't know

00:09:25.400 --> 00:09:27.520
 why nobody's considering it.

00:09:27.520 --> 00:09:32.800
 Maybe it's because the city doesn't already own it, but it seems that buying another couple

00:09:32.800 --> 00:09:39.040
 of acres on down Teasley would be certainly cheaper than building a new library.

00:09:39.040 --> 00:09:45.440
 And then moving the station, it would also allow the station to be built before it moves,

00:09:45.440 --> 00:09:52.200
 so we don't have to have a temporary building of some kind, if you tore it down and then

00:09:52.200 --> 00:09:54.200
 rebuilt on the site.

00:09:54.200 --> 00:10:02.080
 And also, that way the library could expand where it is, which would save a lot of money

00:10:02.080 --> 00:10:09.040
 because the new library is priced out at $50 million, and I'm sure we could expand it for

00:10:09.040 --> 00:10:15.800
 less than that, even with the cost of another two, two and a half, three acres.

00:10:15.800 --> 00:10:24.360
 I can speak a little bit to the idea to move the library also.

00:10:24.360 --> 00:10:29.960
 In 2018, we did a library master plan, and one of the things that was identified was

00:10:29.960 --> 00:10:37.320
 all three of our libraries are very clumped together because we were following that neighborhood

00:10:37.320 --> 00:10:40.280
 facility philosophy.

00:10:40.280 --> 00:10:45.440
 As the city has grown, we realized that we need more of a regional facility, and so to

00:10:45.440 --> 00:10:52.900
 serve the entire population that has grown out down south there between those two 35s,

00:10:52.900 --> 00:11:00.100
 it was recommended in our master plan to move South Branch a mile or two southwest to better

00:11:00.100 --> 00:11:02.600
 serve that area of town.

00:11:02.600 --> 00:11:07.080
 So that was why we were looking at moving South Branch also as part of the expansion.

00:11:07.080 --> 00:11:12.080
 Well, maybe that needs to be taken, another look that needs to be taken at that master

00:11:12.080 --> 00:11:17.160
 plan, considering the cost differences in what we're looking at here, and the fact

00:11:17.160 --> 00:11:22.760
 that the chief just said, given their druthers, they would rather not be there.

00:11:22.760 --> 00:11:25.440
 They would rather move.

00:11:25.440 --> 00:11:34.000
 So I'd like to support what the fire chief would like to do, first and foremost.

00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:38.360
 So a follow-up question from me on that, I think for the chief, or maybe it's for both

00:11:38.360 --> 00:11:47.440
 of you, if for some reason a recommendation gets passed from this group, and even city

00:11:47.440 --> 00:11:54.840
 council for that matter, and put before the voters, for the fire station, but not for

00:11:54.840 --> 00:11:57.920
 the library, are we stuck there?

00:11:57.920 --> 00:12:05.280
 Can you do a fire station expansion in that site with the library still there?

00:12:05.280 --> 00:12:07.200
 I would say no.

00:12:07.200 --> 00:12:11.080
 I mean, that building would have to be completely raised, and then how we look at programming

00:12:11.080 --> 00:12:16.280
 that is for a larger station, for more apparatus for the future growth to the south.

00:12:16.280 --> 00:12:21.240
 We don't envision building a station between current station six and to the city limits,

00:12:21.240 --> 00:12:25.560
 so the solution is to actually add more apparatus, so we respond quicker and have more apparatus

00:12:25.560 --> 00:12:27.360
 on multiple calls as well.

00:12:27.360 --> 00:12:29.400
 Does that answer your question?

00:12:29.400 --> 00:12:33.160
 The two seem to hang together as they're currently conceived.

00:12:33.160 --> 00:12:34.160
 Okay, thanks.

00:12:34.160 --> 00:12:40.600
 I think we have some other questions.

00:12:40.600 --> 00:12:47.760
 If the fire station moved, would the library be able to use the fire station, the old fire

00:12:47.760 --> 00:12:53.200
 station building as an additional part of it?

00:12:53.200 --> 00:12:59.240
 I think at that point we would have to look at doing some kind of expansion and seeing

00:12:59.240 --> 00:13:01.320
 what space would be available.

00:13:01.320 --> 00:13:04.720
 That fire station is very small.

00:13:04.720 --> 00:13:08.840
 The need that we have been assessed at is to double the size of South Branch.

00:13:08.840 --> 00:13:13.760
 It's currently just slightly over 20,000 square feet, and the need that has been identified

00:13:13.760 --> 00:13:20.680
 is a 40,000 square foot facility based on just the usage and the growth of the neighborhoods

00:13:20.680 --> 00:13:22.000
 around there.

00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:26.400
 My concern would be that fire station is teeny tiny, and I don't know that that would have

00:13:26.400 --> 00:13:31.440
 the square footage to expand, and we couldn't go too much further out in the parking lot

00:13:31.440 --> 00:13:36.080
 because if you're asking more people to come to a larger facility, you still need space

00:13:36.080 --> 00:13:41.640
 for them to come.

00:13:41.640 --> 00:13:49.500
 Regarding the library and the fire station, it might be helpful if someone from staff

00:13:49.500 --> 00:14:01.080
 could go to Google and bring up Teasley, the fire station area, and the library so that

00:14:01.080 --> 00:14:06.380
 everyone can, one, see what we're talking about.

00:14:06.380 --> 00:14:17.120
 Number two, if one relocates the fire station further down Teasley to about Ryan Road, one

00:14:17.120 --> 00:14:25.320
 of the advantages is it puts it close to one of their several emergency calls, which is

00:14:25.320 --> 00:14:34.760
 Samaritan Senior Center, so you'd have quick ambulance, paramedic response.

00:14:34.760 --> 00:14:43.160
 The other thing is it's my understanding with driving around that that fire station covers

00:14:43.160 --> 00:14:54.660
 all the way down to Hickory Creek and past where Geyer High School is, so you've got

00:14:54.660 --> 00:15:01.880
 a good distance down there, and I think you're splitting it a little bit better by moving

00:15:01.880 --> 00:15:05.120
 closer to Ryan Road.

00:15:05.120 --> 00:15:14.960
 As to the libraries utilizing the fire station, I would not see that as a feasibility aspect.

00:15:14.960 --> 00:15:23.440
 Yes, you would take the fire station down, you would look at your land around, reconfigure

00:15:23.440 --> 00:15:29.120
 your parking lot, and look to adding to it.

00:15:29.120 --> 00:15:38.720
 There may even be the possibility of the library having a second floor added to it.

00:15:38.720 --> 00:15:41.400
 I'm not the engineer that built it.

00:15:41.400 --> 00:15:48.240
 I wasn't there when it was, but if you had a second floor on the library, even if part

00:15:48.240 --> 00:15:57.120
 of it was cantilevered off, you could perhaps put the adult activities upstairs and have

00:15:57.120 --> 00:16:04.760
 the children with their play area, their books, and that on the lower level.

00:16:04.760 --> 00:16:11.560
 We have looked at adding a second story to South Branch, and based on the facility that

00:16:11.560 --> 00:16:18.080
 we currently have, that facility structure could not support any materials on a second

00:16:18.080 --> 00:16:24.640
 floor, so all of that collection that you saw on the tour would have to remain downstairs.

00:16:24.640 --> 00:16:30.540
 The upstairs area, which would not take up the whole, well, yeah, you could completely

00:16:30.540 --> 00:16:36.160
 do that same footprint as a second floor, but it would only be staff area or meeting

00:16:36.160 --> 00:16:43.200
 space, which again, then you're dealing with having to manage a full floor of traditional

00:16:43.200 --> 00:16:47.480
 library and a partial floor if not.

00:16:47.480 --> 00:16:52.160
 One of the things that I understood was that you needed staff space, so if you put the

00:16:52.160 --> 00:17:01.760
 staff on the second floor for their extra office areas, you know, as it's been said,

00:17:01.760 --> 00:17:11.480
 a $50 million building when no one knows for sure what land, and I know that you've utilized

00:17:11.480 --> 00:17:21.200
 the statement of wanting to go to Southwest, but if you stay where you are, you're very

00:17:21.200 --> 00:17:30.160
 convenient, as has been demonstrated to everybody that's there, and if you go over Southwest

00:17:30.160 --> 00:17:39.080
 aspect, you're going to have the issues of people who are now religiously using your

00:17:39.080 --> 00:17:42.120
 library on a regular basis.

00:17:42.120 --> 00:17:44.280
 They're going to have to travel more.

00:17:44.280 --> 00:17:49.520
 Hey, Julie, we've got a lot of other people with questions, so maybe another 20 seconds

00:17:49.520 --> 00:17:51.400
 and we'll move it to the next one.

00:17:51.400 --> 00:17:52.400
 Okay.

00:17:52.400 --> 00:17:53.400
 I'm sorry.

00:17:53.400 --> 00:17:54.400
 That's all right.

00:17:54.400 --> 00:17:55.400
 All right.

00:17:55.400 --> 00:18:08.520
 My question is really process, so we're kind of talking about negotiation and iterations,

00:18:08.520 --> 00:18:13.120
 and if we did this, we could do that, or is your plan, Kevin, are we going to go down

00:18:13.120 --> 00:18:17.160
 these one by one and say, okay, this one has a price tag of this, is everybody in favor

00:18:17.160 --> 00:18:21.920
 of that number, and so on, or because when we have a total bucket, right?

00:18:21.920 --> 00:18:29.240
 The reason I'm asking the question is, so this process, like early on, one of the first

00:18:29.240 --> 00:18:32.800
 meetings someone said when we were talking about the library having to move and the fire

00:18:32.800 --> 00:18:38.440
 station expanding, the comment was, we've already done the search, there's no available

00:18:38.440 --> 00:18:39.440
 land.

00:18:39.440 --> 00:18:43.200
 Well, I own an acre and a half right across the parking lot, and the road that goes into

00:18:43.200 --> 00:18:48.080
 the library is actually, it's on my property, it's just an easement that we gave away.

00:18:48.080 --> 00:18:55.640
 So there are solutions if what we're trying to do, because like for me, if the question

00:18:55.640 --> 00:19:03.680
 is, are you in favor of $50 million for a library, I'm a hard no, but if it's, well,

00:19:03.680 --> 00:19:09.600
 if we could expand the library, what would that allocation be, 10 million, 20 million,

00:19:09.600 --> 00:19:14.560
 whatever that number is, I think it will help us to try to figure out how do we negotiate

00:19:14.560 --> 00:19:19.600
 that bucket, but if we're going to go down the list and say, like, at this price tag

00:19:19.600 --> 00:19:25.380
 are we in favor or not, I would hate to see the library get nixed when the possibility

00:19:25.380 --> 00:19:29.600
 could be, well, let's allocate 15 million or 10 million or whatever out of the whole

00:19:29.600 --> 00:19:36.360
 bucket and earmark it for that, because there are definite solutions for sites for the fire

00:19:36.360 --> 00:19:37.360
 station.

00:19:37.360 --> 00:19:43.360
 I mean, they're there, so I just want to know, like, what's the process you see?

00:19:43.360 --> 00:19:47.360
 Well, I think the process is yet to be determined based on this conversation we're having.

00:19:47.360 --> 00:19:50.800
 So it could be that once we get to that point, which is why we're going to have a preliminary

00:19:50.800 --> 00:19:55.400
 discussion on some of the other key topics that we probably need to have a deeper dive

00:19:55.400 --> 00:20:01.480
 into, it could be that we find, hey, there's eight of these projects everyone's okay with,

00:20:01.480 --> 00:20:06.820
 let's pass those and then come back for further discussion on some of the other ones that

00:20:06.820 --> 00:20:11.240
 maybe we want to provide a different recommendation than what was presented, to your point.

00:20:11.240 --> 00:20:15.080
 So I think we have the flexibility to do all of that as needed.

00:20:15.080 --> 00:20:16.080
 Good question.

00:20:16.080 --> 00:20:18.520
 I think there are some other questions over here.

00:20:18.520 --> 00:20:25.280
 Kim, did you stop?

00:20:25.280 --> 00:20:29.920
 Which of the two projects is more expensive to build from the ground up, including the

00:20:29.920 --> 00:20:30.920
 land purchase?

00:20:30.920 --> 00:20:38.640
 Of the fire station, the library, which one, like, I just kind of need to know, like, the

00:20:38.640 --> 00:20:46.200
 cost of one versus the other from the ground up, including land purchase, potential land

00:20:46.200 --> 00:20:47.200
 purchase.

00:20:47.200 --> 00:20:55.920
 Well, I can say on the fire stations, we would just be raising and rebuilding exact same

00:20:55.920 --> 00:20:59.080
 size, so there's zero land cost is what we kind of initially calculated.

00:20:59.080 --> 00:21:08.400
 I believe each station's around $12.4, $12.5 million, roughly.

00:21:08.400 --> 00:21:14.320
 Our cost, if you're talking about the library and expanding it, that would be a whole new

00:21:14.320 --> 00:21:18.440
 project with a whole new estimates.

00:21:18.440 --> 00:21:24.140
 So the cost that has been provided was the project that was proposed, which was a new

00:21:24.140 --> 00:21:31.600
 facility starting from the ground up, as opposed to an expansion and retrofit of things.

00:21:31.600 --> 00:21:39.320
 So I honestly don't have any costs that I can give you on that.

00:21:39.320 --> 00:21:45.960
 Chief Hedges, did you mean that that included the purchase of land for the fire station?

00:21:45.960 --> 00:21:46.960
 No, ma'am.

00:21:46.960 --> 00:21:50.200
 That number is just strictly the construction cost, design and build.

00:21:50.200 --> 00:21:52.080
 On that existing property?

00:21:52.080 --> 00:21:53.080
 Correct, yes.

00:21:53.080 --> 00:21:57.800
 On those projects, the original intent would be to raise the existing structure, demolish

00:21:57.800 --> 00:22:06.280
 it, and build exactly on the same site, just a larger facility.

00:22:06.280 --> 00:22:08.600
 I don't really have a question.

00:22:08.600 --> 00:22:11.040
 I just have a comment or an idea.

00:22:11.040 --> 00:22:17.840
 So let's build a new fire station somewhere else by land, whatever they say that we have

00:22:17.840 --> 00:22:18.840
 land.

00:22:18.840 --> 00:22:22.620
 Let's build a new library somewhere else that's more feasible.

00:22:22.620 --> 00:22:29.040
 And let's use that library and not tear it down and use it as one of our other projects.

00:22:29.040 --> 00:22:34.080
 Because by tearing it down, we're throwing all that money away, and by keeping the building

00:22:34.080 --> 00:22:39.240
 up, well, maybe you can be part of the senior center and you tear the fire station and then

00:22:39.240 --> 00:22:42.360
 you add to the senior center.

00:22:42.360 --> 00:22:47.080
 It's just an idea in my head.

00:22:47.080 --> 00:22:50.080
 Any other thoughts, questions?

00:22:50.080 --> 00:22:53.440
 One fire station, library, or anything else relating to this.

00:22:53.440 --> 00:22:56.040
 I know we're spending a lot of time on this topic, which is great.

00:22:56.040 --> 00:22:57.040
 We're digging in.

00:22:57.040 --> 00:22:58.040
 Others?

00:22:58.040 --> 00:22:59.040
 Patty?

00:22:59.040 --> 00:23:06.840
 The current senior center is about the same size as the library.

00:23:06.840 --> 00:23:11.760
 And the point of building a new senior center is to double it, basically.

00:23:11.760 --> 00:23:16.360
 I was just thinking of where you were saying that.

00:23:16.360 --> 00:23:17.360
 Yeah.

00:23:17.360 --> 00:23:20.840
 The ideas are good.

00:23:20.840 --> 00:23:26.440
 So something that is not a project on this, but I think it's something we all need to

00:23:26.440 --> 00:23:31.240
 talk about because some of you, I've heard you talk about it before, and that is the

00:23:31.240 --> 00:23:38.360
 current economic climate in which we are looking at having a bond election.

00:23:38.360 --> 00:23:43.960
 Last fall, some of these voters brought on themselves, some of them didn't.

00:23:43.960 --> 00:23:48.960
 Last fall, we approved $650 million for the county.

00:23:48.960 --> 00:23:56.440
 Last May, we approved $1.35 billion for the school district.

00:23:56.440 --> 00:23:58.160
 That's not just the city, of course.

00:23:58.160 --> 00:24:02.080
 That's spread out over the whole school district.

00:24:02.080 --> 00:24:09.360
 Many of our property taxes, our property valuations, I should say, doubled this spring, and many

00:24:09.360 --> 00:24:12.600
 of us are beating a path down to protest them.

00:24:12.600 --> 00:24:16.960
 We don't know how all that's going to turn out.

00:24:16.960 --> 00:24:22.480
 Some of us, probably a lot of us, our property insurance doubled this spring.

00:24:22.480 --> 00:24:26.720
 Mine doubled, for sure.

00:24:26.720 --> 00:24:37.040
 I've been reading in some of the area newspapers, there's 20 percent of the office space in

00:24:37.040 --> 00:24:43.760
 Dallas-Fort Worth, this was a Dallas news story, is going to be up for refinancing.

00:24:43.760 --> 00:24:47.240
 I'd like to ask Randy Robinson, where are you?

00:24:47.240 --> 00:24:56.280
 You're here somewhere, to talk a little bit about what the continuing raising of interest

00:24:56.280 --> 00:25:05.240
 rates by the Fed is going to mean for that refinancing and for our own homes and mortgages.

00:25:05.240 --> 00:25:08.160
 Can you address some of that for us?

00:25:08.160 --> 00:25:15.800
 Well, I don't think continuing doesn't have to happen, it's already been done.

00:25:15.800 --> 00:25:23.520
 Mortgage rates are mid-sixes compared to three or four years ago in the mid threes, low threes,

00:25:23.520 --> 00:25:26.900
 so you can see what that'd do to a house payment.

00:25:26.900 --> 00:25:33.480
 You can look at anything that has to be financed, it's much more expensive now.

00:25:33.480 --> 00:25:41.040
 As interest rates rise, the value of those, let's say you have a five-year interest rate

00:25:41.040 --> 00:25:44.920
 lock on a commercial building and it's coming up this year, you're probably going to pay

00:25:44.920 --> 00:25:50.680
 an extra three and a half, four percent over what you did, it's going to double the interest

00:25:50.680 --> 00:25:54.880
 rate will, just about.

00:25:54.880 --> 00:25:58.880
 Whether it continues to go up or not, it's already happened and it's made everything

00:25:58.880 --> 00:26:05.440
 a lot less affordable, houses, commercial projects.

00:26:05.440 --> 00:26:15.920
 It also affects the value, if you have a commercial project that you're trying to sell, you're

00:26:15.920 --> 00:26:23.300
 not going to get it, possibly not going to get as much as you could two years ago because

00:26:23.300 --> 00:26:30.740
 the capitalization rate expected is much higher now than it was two, three years ago.

00:26:30.740 --> 00:26:33.680
 It does have a ripple effect on everything.

00:26:33.680 --> 00:26:40.440
 Give us some examples.

00:26:40.440 --> 00:26:48.320
 Other than, you're probably looking at rule of thumb, if interest rates go up one percent

00:26:48.320 --> 00:26:57.360
 on a 30-year mortgage, for $100,000, it's going to cost you $150 to $75 a month.

00:26:57.360 --> 00:27:07.080
 If you're in a $300,000 mortgage, if you refinance now, you're probably paying $500 plus more

00:27:07.080 --> 00:27:12.240
 per month than you would have three or four years ago.

00:27:12.240 --> 00:27:19.440
 In addition to your increased insurance and- Yeah, that's just principal and interest.

00:27:19.440 --> 00:27:24.960
 But in our economy, in Denton, Texas, have sales slowed?

00:27:24.960 --> 00:27:29.520
 Yeah, I'd say they have.

00:27:29.520 --> 00:27:33.560
 You can ask the real estate people that, but I'd say they have.

00:27:33.560 --> 00:27:41.500
 Prices have probably gone down, I know, Metroplex wide, I don't know, especially in the higher

00:27:41.500 --> 00:27:44.840
 and residential, they're probably off 20 percent.

00:27:44.840 --> 00:27:49.480
 I've got two questions.

00:27:49.480 --> 00:27:52.720
 I'm going to piggyback off of this question first.

00:27:52.720 --> 00:27:58.360
 Outside of the economy, I guess the question that I have is, why do we have to do it now?

00:27:58.360 --> 00:28:03.620
 I think at the beginning, when you talked about what's left over from the prior bonds

00:28:03.620 --> 00:28:09.440
 that has yet to be spent, I heard conversations of we're competing for contractors, and there

00:28:09.440 --> 00:28:12.880
 were so many reasons why we couldn't finish what we already have.

00:28:12.880 --> 00:28:16.360
 My first question is, why does it have to be this year?

00:28:16.360 --> 00:28:23.000
 My second question, similar to the fire station in the library, I think the rec center and

00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:27.560
 the senior center was a land purchase combo, so does one work without the other?

00:28:27.560 --> 00:28:30.560
 Do we need both?

00:28:30.560 --> 00:28:41.880
 That was a question, I think, for staff.

00:28:41.880 --> 00:28:43.120
 So it's not a combo.

00:28:43.120 --> 00:28:47.880
 We talked about potential synergies with the active adult center and the library, and one

00:28:47.880 --> 00:28:53.120
 comment to make on the library is that land has been identified in the south part of Denton,

00:28:53.120 --> 00:28:57.760
 not looking at Southwest Park, and so they've been working on that real estate negotiation,

00:28:57.760 --> 00:29:01.760
 which is discussed in closed session with council for about the last year.

00:29:01.760 --> 00:29:08.040
 So the thought was, if we get the voter approval for the library, we can look at potential

00:29:08.040 --> 00:29:12.840
 synergies to have the active adult center and the library built together on the same

00:29:12.840 --> 00:29:16.640
 land, which would also be park property.

00:29:16.640 --> 00:29:23.080
 Well, the question of the why this year, I don't know if anyone from staff wants to address

00:29:23.080 --> 00:29:29.080
 that in terms of timing, why this is put forward versus another time.

00:29:29.080 --> 00:29:35.440
 Yeah, I was going to say, so the 2012-2014 bond is one that we're still delivering, and

00:29:35.440 --> 00:29:39.040
 the reason, I would say the reason behind that one that it's still going on is really

00:29:39.040 --> 00:29:44.760
 just the way that that project, that bond was managed by previous staff.

00:29:44.760 --> 00:29:49.000
 The 2019 bond, which my team is delivering, we're well ahead of schedule in delivering

00:29:49.000 --> 00:29:54.240
 that one now, we've actually slowed down a little bit because we've had so much construction

00:29:54.240 --> 00:29:57.700
 going on, so we've slowed down the delivery of that one.

00:29:57.700 --> 00:30:02.920
 We actually have more contractors, larger contractors, nationwide contractors that are

00:30:02.920 --> 00:30:08.600
 coming in, wanting to do work with us, very large contractors that are wanting to come

00:30:08.600 --> 00:30:09.600
 in and do work.

00:30:09.600 --> 00:30:17.320
 So I would say the construction environment, we have contractors that are really beating

00:30:17.320 --> 00:30:20.700
 down the door to get in and do work with the city of Denver.

00:30:20.700 --> 00:30:28.520
 I think the other part of that answer is the 2012 and 2019 were road-focused projects,

00:30:28.520 --> 00:30:31.000
 so that's a different type of contractor.

00:30:31.000 --> 00:30:36.800
 These are much more vertical, so building projects, that's a different type of contractor.

00:30:36.800 --> 00:30:45.320
 Yeah, is there any thoughts about the timing of it, 2023 versus '24, whatever?

00:30:45.320 --> 00:30:51.720
 We have plan, tentatively plan to have another bond program in 2026, so we were just trying

00:30:51.720 --> 00:30:58.920
 to space out between 2019 and 2026 because our 2026 bond right now is very road-heavy

00:30:58.920 --> 00:31:00.200
 focused.

00:31:00.200 --> 00:31:06.320
 The majority is going to be road projects, so there were a lot of needs as far as buildings

00:31:06.320 --> 00:31:12.240
 and other quality of life type projects that we didn't want those competing with road projects.

00:31:12.240 --> 00:31:18.520
 Yeah, it's a funding mechanism for the city and there's always going to be a lot of needs.

00:31:18.520 --> 00:31:22.720
 And I think the other thing to think about too is look at all the cities popping up literally

00:31:22.720 --> 00:31:31.240
 overnight around the Metroplex with incredible amenities, libraries, parks, beautiful roads,

00:31:31.240 --> 00:31:35.680
 infrastructure, and the question is what kind of city do we want to have?

00:31:35.680 --> 00:31:43.720
 Do we want to skimp and get by with small libraries, small parks and get passed by as

00:31:43.720 --> 00:31:45.760
 the Metroplex is growing?

00:31:45.760 --> 00:31:50.880
 Or do we want to have a certain amount of ambition in saying, "Denton ought to be better

00:31:50.880 --> 00:31:53.080
 than those other places.

00:31:53.080 --> 00:31:55.220
 Why does Frisco always get the shiny stuff?

00:31:55.220 --> 00:31:56.720
 Why is Grapevine getting that?"

00:31:56.720 --> 00:32:01.480
 So I think there's a question, an existential question we have to ask is what do we want

00:32:01.480 --> 00:32:07.040
 to be as a city and what's the investment that we think the citizens are willing to

00:32:07.040 --> 00:32:09.800
 make to get the city that they want?

00:32:09.800 --> 00:32:12.640
 And I think that's ultimately what we're having to do here tonight.

00:32:12.640 --> 00:32:17.520
 So just a thought to take it away from just looking at dollars and cents and thinking

00:32:17.520 --> 00:32:18.520
 about a bigger picture.

00:32:18.520 --> 00:32:23.000
 I think we have a couple of questions.

00:32:23.000 --> 00:32:31.520
 Starting doing this in '23, if you put it on the ballot November of '23, it does not

00:32:31.520 --> 00:32:44.380
 show up until you get your tax assessment in calendar year '24 to make your first payment

00:32:44.380 --> 00:32:48.380
 until January of '25.

00:32:48.380 --> 00:32:58.360
 If we were to hold off and put this on the May '24 ballot, it would have the same time

00:32:58.360 --> 00:33:05.880
 frame as to when the first amount of taxes would be paid for it.

00:33:05.880 --> 00:33:13.360
 It would give a little bit better of an opportunity for some of these things that seem like, "Well,

00:33:13.360 --> 00:33:17.520
 we don't have this alternate yet," or that.

00:33:17.520 --> 00:33:25.160
 And in regard to a property, I'd be real curious to know specifically in regard to one, and

00:33:25.160 --> 00:33:28.680
 the property it mentioned is common knowledge.

00:33:28.680 --> 00:33:33.920
 I got it off the website and land acquisitions for this.

00:33:33.920 --> 00:33:46.000
 So getting some ideas and being told that we haven't looked at land, I am having a problem.

00:33:46.000 --> 00:33:52.980
 I had two kind of questions and responses into what Natalie brought up.

00:33:52.980 --> 00:33:59.560
 For the why now, in particular, to the fire, I feel like it's a quality of life for our

00:33:59.560 --> 00:34:00.720
 service workers.

00:34:00.720 --> 00:34:06.680
 After having seen that site visit, that feels like a big impetus for a call to action for

00:34:06.680 --> 00:34:07.680
 why now.

00:34:07.680 --> 00:34:12.560
 That's inhumane living conditions for our firefighters in its current iteration.

00:34:12.560 --> 00:34:18.080
 What we do with it from there, I don't know, but I feel like that's a big why now.

00:34:18.080 --> 00:34:22.520
 You also mentioned the active adult center, and I've been mulling this over a lot just

00:34:22.520 --> 00:34:27.400
 in general in terms of the project and the way that Parks presented it was beautifully

00:34:27.400 --> 00:34:34.480
 done in terms of examples, and there's definitely a need there given the current layout.

00:34:34.480 --> 00:34:39.800
 But I would just really be interested to know if Parks would be open to the idea of including

00:34:39.800 --> 00:34:45.600
 a multi-generational aspect of it, and that is from a couple of different standpoints.

00:34:45.600 --> 00:34:49.600
 The first is because you look at other rec centers that we have that were outgrowing

00:34:49.600 --> 00:34:53.800
 that are continually outdated, like Denia.

00:34:53.800 --> 00:34:57.520
 Before long, we'll be coming here and saying we need a bond to update Denia.

00:34:57.520 --> 00:35:00.520
 So that's on the south side of the community.

00:35:00.520 --> 00:35:02.300
 Could we find a way to fold this in?

00:35:02.300 --> 00:35:09.160
 Maybe there's a wing that's senior-specific or active adult-specific, pardon me, and then

00:35:09.160 --> 00:35:14.280
 one that is open for everyone that can meet needs for the whole community.

00:35:14.280 --> 00:35:18.200
 Just curious if that's something that we are even open to having as part of the design

00:35:18.200 --> 00:35:21.120
 process for that ask, or if that's even an opportunity.

00:35:21.120 --> 00:35:33.440
 I think we have someone from Parks, and then I think you want to chime in on that.

00:35:33.440 --> 00:35:40.960
 As one who uses the senior center, there is a vast difference between the needs of seniors

00:35:40.960 --> 00:35:47.120
 and younger people, and it just doesn't fit together.

00:35:47.120 --> 00:35:48.920
 We need more space.

00:35:48.920 --> 00:35:53.620
 We have exercise classes that includes sitting in a chair.

00:35:53.620 --> 00:35:56.360
 We have people on walkers.

00:35:56.360 --> 00:35:59.840
 They all come and they do the best that they can.

00:35:59.840 --> 00:36:07.080
 We don't really want to compete with people running down the hallways in regular rec centers

00:36:07.080 --> 00:36:09.340
 running over us.

00:36:09.340 --> 00:36:11.040
 We need what we can.

00:36:11.040 --> 00:36:17.800
 I'm 85 years old, and I credit a lot of my abilities to being a member of the senior

00:36:17.800 --> 00:36:21.280
 center for more than 20 years now.

00:36:21.280 --> 00:36:28.240
 It's an excellent place for people who have disabilities to come and get the kind of exercise

00:36:28.240 --> 00:36:32.200
 that they need to keep them alive.

00:36:32.200 --> 00:36:35.520
 Sedentary is deadly for you, whether you know it or not.

00:36:35.520 --> 00:36:37.880
 You will when you get there.

00:36:37.880 --> 00:36:45.520
 Many of these people, they get a ride to the senior center, and then they do what exercise

00:36:45.520 --> 00:36:47.380
 they can, and then they leave.

00:36:47.380 --> 00:36:56.720
 We have a meals program that the Meals on Wheels operates out of the senior center.

00:36:56.720 --> 00:37:00.800
 Some people come there just for that meal.

00:37:00.800 --> 00:37:02.960
 I can't emphasize enough.

00:37:02.960 --> 00:37:08.720
 There's a different population, and we have just one senior center.

00:37:08.720 --> 00:37:12.480
 It's too small.

00:37:12.480 --> 00:37:19.920
 We have two classes of chair yoga, and we can't have another one.

00:37:19.920 --> 00:37:22.560
 We'd like to have three, three times a week.

00:37:22.560 --> 00:37:27.160
 We can't have another one until we get more space.

00:37:27.160 --> 00:37:33.240
 We have contributed to this city all of our lives for the most part, and we believe that

00:37:33.240 --> 00:37:39.780
 we deserve a working senior center that will serve us.

00:37:39.780 --> 00:37:41.360
 Thank you.

00:37:41.360 --> 00:37:43.560
 You should be the poster child for a senior center.

00:37:43.560 --> 00:37:45.360
 You don't look a day over 45.

00:37:45.360 --> 00:37:46.360
 Unbelievable.

00:37:46.360 --> 00:37:49.800
 I really can't say much more than what Lenny said.

00:37:49.800 --> 00:37:53.280
 Yes, we do have needs in other areas, but this is a high priority.

00:37:53.280 --> 00:37:55.920
 It is a high specific need.

00:37:55.920 --> 00:37:59.400
 You saw with the facility assessment that we are going to have to do something with

00:37:59.400 --> 00:38:00.400
 that building.

00:38:00.400 --> 00:38:03.400
 It's not going to be functional in the next 10 years.

00:38:03.400 --> 00:38:07.120
 Someone alluded to why now, why the timing now.

00:38:07.120 --> 00:38:10.560
 We're on the clock basically with that building, so if we don't do something now because the

00:38:10.560 --> 00:38:14.160
 funding isn't going to come right now, it will come down the road, so it's not like

00:38:14.160 --> 00:38:17.440
 it's going to be built in the next year or the next two years.

00:38:17.440 --> 00:38:19.360
 We are going to have that timing issue.

00:38:19.360 --> 00:38:24.440
 That's why we identified the need now, and there are synergies with the library.

00:38:24.440 --> 00:38:31.560
 Economy of scale, being able to take advantage of a location, and building it with multipurpose

00:38:31.560 --> 00:38:35.440
 rooms to be able to leverage the dollars that we do have.

00:38:35.440 --> 00:38:39.720
 Why wouldn't you be leveraging the dollars across multiple programs as well?

00:38:39.720 --> 00:38:45.680
 If you know you're going to have a need coming up in other rec centers, why not stack those

00:38:45.680 --> 00:38:46.680
 in the same facility?

00:38:46.680 --> 00:38:51.760
 If you're going to do a brand new facility, why not kill as many birds with that stone

00:38:51.760 --> 00:38:52.760
 as you can?

00:38:52.760 --> 00:38:53.760
 Space.

00:38:53.760 --> 00:38:58.240
 I think it just comes down to the property space.

00:38:58.240 --> 00:39:02.080
 Can you all pull up the spreadsheet that just has the dollar amounts for each one just for

00:39:02.080 --> 00:39:03.080
 reference for everyone?

00:39:03.080 --> 00:39:04.080
 That will be helpful.

00:39:04.080 --> 00:39:05.080
 You guys will see that on the screen.

00:39:05.080 --> 00:39:07.080
 That will get you your point.

00:39:07.080 --> 00:39:09.080
 Yeah, please.

00:39:09.080 --> 00:39:10.080
 Yes.

00:39:10.080 --> 00:39:16.080
 I'm actually intimate with both of the Fire Station 6 and South Branch Library.

00:39:16.080 --> 00:39:22.640
 I go to all three of the libraries, but I go to the South Branch a lot more, and it's

00:39:22.640 --> 00:39:30.280
 something that I've seen numerous times where I've seen where the Fire Station would get

00:39:30.280 --> 00:39:35.320
 ready to take off, and the cars are just going up and down teesley, and I'm like, wow, it's

00:39:35.320 --> 00:39:37.160
 going to be an accident that's going to happen.

00:39:37.160 --> 00:39:45.880
 The second part is I live right across, my house is right next to the Samaritan facility,

00:39:45.880 --> 00:39:52.400
 and I hear over and over where it's like, okay, well, here, if we throw money and fix

00:39:52.400 --> 00:39:57.360
 the South Branch Library and Fire Station 6, you're still going to have a problem egressing

00:39:57.360 --> 00:39:58.360
 out of there.

00:39:58.360 --> 00:40:00.840
 You've got to fix that.

00:40:00.840 --> 00:40:08.880
 The other thing that I notice about the library is all it's going to take is one big major

00:40:08.880 --> 00:40:13.880
 complaint, voting.

00:40:13.880 --> 00:40:18.680
 That's why I vote, and if you look in our neighborhood, all around, they build neighborhoods

00:40:18.680 --> 00:40:23.280
 on top of neighborhoods, apartments, and the first time someone said, well, you know what,

00:40:23.280 --> 00:40:30.380
 we weren't able to get in there and vote, so what are you going to do about it?

00:40:30.380 --> 00:40:38.920
 Do we need to do a divorce and separate it, because even the other part, too, even when

00:40:38.920 --> 00:40:45.480
 you think about the voting piece, it's the parking piece, and it's the piece where, wait

00:40:45.480 --> 00:40:50.200
 a minute, someone is going to just get frustrated and says, you know what, it's just too much

00:40:50.200 --> 00:40:57.680
 trying to get in and out of there to do that, and the last piece, thinking strategically,

00:40:57.680 --> 00:41:03.680
 there's something that's going to happen after the Old Hickory Road is complete.

00:41:03.680 --> 00:41:09.000
 They're going to start working on Denton, I mean, Ryan Road.

00:41:09.000 --> 00:41:13.840
 That's going to be a big project, and you've got to think strategically on how all of that

00:41:13.840 --> 00:41:17.000
 is going to impact these particular projects.

00:41:17.000 --> 00:41:21.200
 That's all I got.

00:41:21.200 --> 00:41:24.960
 Any other questions or discussion?

00:41:24.960 --> 00:41:30.640
 Well, well.

00:41:30.640 --> 00:41:36.840
 So I like your question, Natalie, about why now?

00:41:36.840 --> 00:41:45.640
 That's my concern with all of the debt and the financial obligations that we are really

00:41:45.640 --> 00:41:50.120
 burdened under right now.

00:41:50.120 --> 00:41:54.120
 How will a bond election in November fly?

00:41:54.120 --> 00:41:58.240
 Because there are a lot of people that are going to vote in November that are not regular

00:41:58.240 --> 00:42:07.800
 municipal voters, and the school board has their bond election in May when the school

00:42:07.800 --> 00:42:13.560
 board candidates are up and they have the school bond candidates, the bond election

00:42:13.560 --> 00:42:21.000
 then, because that's when people who are interested in schools go to the polls, and I would really

00:42:21.000 --> 00:42:27.880
 like us to think hard about moving the bond election to May when municipal voters go to

00:42:27.880 --> 00:42:33.960
 the polls, because having people voting on these municipal projects that don't usually

00:42:33.960 --> 00:42:41.960
 vote in municipal elections, they may not be as inclined to support things as the municipal

00:42:41.960 --> 00:42:51.800
 voters would next May, and anything that fails, we've got five years before it can come back.

00:42:51.800 --> 00:43:07.560
 So we need to also be very mindful of what we put in this package and not overload it.

00:43:07.560 --> 00:43:11.440
 Sorry, you scared me.

00:43:11.440 --> 00:43:16.880
 One thing, I'm looking at this little spreadsheet and I did some notes on my little thing just

00:43:16.880 --> 00:43:18.920
 similar to that.

00:43:18.920 --> 00:43:31.000
 If we can add a column to this, to where you add each one successively, cumulative, so

00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:36.720
 the first two, the first line would be 12-6, then the second line would be, whatever that

00:43:36.720 --> 00:43:45.520
 is, 25-3, and then so it goes all, so the total is 378, but if we were to go, okay,

00:43:45.520 --> 00:43:51.600
 maybe the top half, I think a top half is a good top half, and to Kevin's point, I

00:43:51.600 --> 00:43:55.200
 think a lot of these things need to get taken care of.

00:43:55.200 --> 00:44:02.560
 Okay, thank you.

00:44:02.560 --> 00:44:06.960
 I noticed that you typed in 70 million up there for the municipal complex.

00:44:06.960 --> 00:44:07.960
 What's that number represent?

00:44:07.960 --> 00:44:16.400
 That was the original one when we were discussing the public-private partnership, and based

00:44:16.400 --> 00:44:21.880
 on that preliminary ranking, it doesn't fall in the amount anymore, but I think the last

00:44:21.880 --> 00:44:22.880
 updated cost was 111 million.

00:44:22.880 --> 00:44:23.880
 Okay.

00:44:23.880 --> 00:44:24.880
 Sorry.

00:44:24.880 --> 00:44:27.880
 That was my question.

00:44:27.880 --> 00:44:37.940
 I think back to the municipal complex presentation, and to Kevin's point, it wasn't really taking

00:44:37.940 --> 00:44:41.120
 real well by the group.

00:44:41.120 --> 00:44:48.400
 That doesn't, it's still, there's a big need for a municipal building, a new city hall,

00:44:48.400 --> 00:44:51.080
 some kind of office complex that we need.

00:44:51.080 --> 00:44:55.360
 I don't think that's going to happen this year, but that, I don't think the city can

00:44:55.360 --> 00:45:01.840
 wait until 2026, and maybe that's the item that you come to the voters with singularly

00:45:01.840 --> 00:45:15.060
 next year, perhaps, but that's just my take.

00:45:15.060 --> 00:45:21.640
 This is probably totally out of order, but I would like to make a proposal.

00:45:21.640 --> 00:45:33.640
 Fire station five, fire station six, get done on a general operating, or I'm forgetting

00:45:33.640 --> 00:45:41.480
 which the letters are, COs, okay?

00:45:41.480 --> 00:45:43.920
 That takes it out of this discussion.

00:45:43.920 --> 00:45:50.400
 It gets it done, because I agree, it has to get done.

00:45:50.400 --> 00:46:00.360
 So we look at five, we look at six as a CO, we look at land that is located south on Teasley.

00:46:00.360 --> 00:46:09.120
 I think there might be somebody in this room that could enlighten us on that, and then

00:46:09.120 --> 00:46:14.560
 we could close the discussion on this and go to the rest of it.

00:46:14.560 --> 00:46:21.120
 It also opens up the potential of taking the rest of it to go on the May ballot.

00:46:21.120 --> 00:46:25.600
 Okay, get another comment or question.

00:46:25.600 --> 00:46:30.780
 Yeah, I just want to take a moment.

00:46:30.780 --> 00:46:31.780
 Have you looked around?

00:46:31.780 --> 00:46:35.880
 Have you seen how rapidly this city is growing?

00:46:35.880 --> 00:46:41.440
 Have you seen all the needs that we have in this community, needs that we have now, not

00:46:41.440 --> 00:46:43.320
 somewhere down the road?

00:46:43.320 --> 00:46:50.520
 Have you looked at what the inflation figures were on this, $411 million?

00:46:50.520 --> 00:46:54.400
 Put it off another six months, how much more is it going to cost?

00:46:54.400 --> 00:47:00.440
 It's time to do these things and to do them right and move forward on it because our community

00:47:00.440 --> 00:47:01.740
 needs it.

00:47:01.740 --> 00:47:07.640
 The reason that the city council called for this bond election now was because we have

00:47:07.640 --> 00:47:09.120
 a need.

00:47:09.120 --> 00:47:13.520
 The city council didn't say, oh, let's do it five years from now, they said we need

00:47:13.520 --> 00:47:18.880
 it now and they appointed this bond committee to put together a bond package to go on the

00:47:18.880 --> 00:47:20.560
 ballot in November.

00:47:20.560 --> 00:47:25.360
 Now we can decide what gets on that package, but I think we just need to move forward.

00:47:25.360 --> 00:47:29.720
 If you have projects you don't like, vote against them.

00:47:29.720 --> 00:47:32.880
 But let's cut this conversation about putting it off.

00:47:32.880 --> 00:47:34.680
 That's not our responsibility.

00:47:34.680 --> 00:47:37.320
 That is the responsibility of the council.

00:47:37.320 --> 00:47:43.120
 Our responsibility is to make a recommendation for this bond because we have great needs

00:47:43.120 --> 00:47:47.960
 in this city today and they are expensive and they're just going to get more expensive

00:47:47.960 --> 00:47:56.000
 if we keep putting it off.

00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:01.440
 So I have a question for staff about could you give us a rundown of what happens if a

00:48:01.440 --> 00:48:08.640
 bond measure fails and what our limitations are in financing that measure in the future?

00:48:08.640 --> 00:48:11.960
 My understanding is, one, you don't get to put it back on the ballot for another five

00:48:11.960 --> 00:48:12.960
 years.

00:48:12.960 --> 00:48:17.560
 Two, the legislature said we can't do an end run around the voters and finance it with

00:48:17.560 --> 00:48:22.440
 a different kind of bond, so it kind of puts us, let's say we put a fire station up there

00:48:22.440 --> 00:48:23.440
 and it doesn't pass.

00:48:23.440 --> 00:48:28.320
 I'm using that as an example that I think is going to pass pretty easily.

00:48:28.320 --> 00:48:29.320
 We'd be stuck.

00:48:29.320 --> 00:48:34.680
 We wouldn't finance another fire station if the voters, so could staff kind of confirm

00:48:34.680 --> 00:48:39.720
 if my understanding is correct and then any other kind of considerations for what happens

00:48:39.720 --> 00:48:41.680
 if a bond measure fails?

00:48:41.680 --> 00:48:42.680
 So you're correct.

00:48:42.680 --> 00:48:48.280
 Five years is the limitation, so we, if a project fails, we cannot bring it back for

00:48:48.280 --> 00:48:53.200
 five years including funding it through COs.

00:48:53.200 --> 00:48:54.200
 It's dead.

00:48:54.200 --> 00:48:55.200
 You can't do anything with it for five years.

00:48:55.200 --> 00:48:59.940
 I'm sorry, what was the last part of your question?

00:48:59.940 --> 00:49:04.520
 Just if there's anything I'm missing, any other, some of these things, like trails,

00:49:04.520 --> 00:49:09.440
 for example, there's the potential that development happens along a trail and a developer can

00:49:09.440 --> 00:49:12.240
 help pay for things or an inclusive playground.

00:49:12.240 --> 00:49:16.360
 There might be some fundraising or something.

00:49:16.360 --> 00:49:22.760
 Others of these things like fire stations and libraries, big capital improvement projects,

00:49:22.760 --> 00:49:29.240
 like bonds is how you do them and so is there anything I'm leaving out for considerations

00:49:29.240 --> 00:49:35.400
 about funding we lose if something fails or risks we take putting something on a ballot

00:49:35.400 --> 00:49:37.320
 if it's possible it's going to fail?

00:49:37.320 --> 00:49:42.180
 Well there was legislation that was passed, not this session, but the last session that

00:49:42.180 --> 00:49:50.260
 limits our use of COs, so yes, we can issue COs to rebuild a fire station.

00:49:50.260 --> 00:49:55.440
 It limits us on building new buildings and they have to be for specific purposes, so

00:49:55.440 --> 00:50:01.920
 public safety is one, but it's very, very limited, so we try to limit the CO issuance

00:50:01.920 --> 00:50:07.240
 to those projects that we know are necessary that maybe are not as attractive that we have

00:50:07.240 --> 00:50:19.300
 to get done to go to the voters, but that all is decided by city council.

00:50:19.300 --> 00:50:28.260
 Just to be clear, so if we vote on fire station 6, we also have to vote on South Library because

00:50:28.260 --> 00:50:29.680
 they're basically tied.

00:50:29.680 --> 00:50:33.880
 Is that correct or incorrect?

00:50:33.880 --> 00:50:36.760
 Well let me have a follow-up question to that.

00:50:36.760 --> 00:50:45.000
 In terms of what goes to the voters and what's tied to that vote, is it a dollar amount and

00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:52.320
 a general project idea or is it like this specific project within these square footage

00:50:52.320 --> 00:50:59.800
 or say we approved $50 million for a library, is there then discretion after the fact to

00:50:59.800 --> 00:51:04.080
 say, "Hey, we came up with another idea after looking at some alternatives as we were working

00:51:04.080 --> 00:51:05.080
 through the process?"

00:51:05.080 --> 00:51:06.080
 Yes, but that's correct.

00:51:06.080 --> 00:51:07.080
 That is correct.

00:51:07.080 --> 00:51:15.540
 Yeah, you do have some discretion, so it would be a dollar amount for the proposition and

00:51:15.540 --> 00:51:20.120
 then the general project idea.

00:51:20.120 --> 00:51:21.120
 I'm trying to see.

00:51:21.120 --> 00:51:22.120
 Okay, sorry.

00:51:22.120 --> 00:51:24.200
 Yes, you have a dollar amount that you're voting on for the proposition and the general

00:51:24.200 --> 00:51:28.960
 project idea, and then this committee has a bond oversight committee, which would help

00:51:28.960 --> 00:51:30.880
 monitor through projects costs.

00:51:30.880 --> 00:51:35.120
 We do quarterly updates with the bond oversight committee where there's any project changes

00:51:35.120 --> 00:51:39.640
 and they make any recommendations or approvals that go to counsel ultimately.

00:51:39.640 --> 00:51:40.640
 Thanks.

00:51:40.640 --> 00:51:50.160
 I just have a suggestion for how we might be able to tackle this list in a slightly

00:51:50.160 --> 00:51:52.680
 different way.

00:51:52.680 --> 00:51:55.200
 We're talking about fire stations, right?

00:51:55.200 --> 00:51:59.000
 When you budget for your business or your budget for your home, you kind of do those

00:51:59.000 --> 00:52:04.280
 what are the critical must-haves, what are the nice-to-haves.

00:52:04.280 --> 00:52:07.280
 I just wrote down three categories, I don't know that they're right, but what I'm wondering

00:52:07.280 --> 00:52:13.960
 here is if we broke these into critical life safety, so fire stations.

00:52:13.960 --> 00:52:17.040
 Critical life safety, you have to have them.

00:52:17.040 --> 00:52:25.600
 Revenue generating, so the upstream detention stormwater drainage and the Pecan Creek drainage,

00:52:25.600 --> 00:52:32.800
 as we saw in the work session, doing those projects brings properties that are high-value

00:52:32.800 --> 00:52:38.120
 properties out of the floodplain, allowing them to be redeveloped, thus generating sales

00:52:38.120 --> 00:52:42.440
 tax, property tax revenue, et cetera.

00:52:42.440 --> 00:52:47.280
 And then quality of life enhancements was the other one, I agree, senior center, but

00:52:47.280 --> 00:52:52.880
 I think we're going to have to get ourselves to a spot where we're ranking things and maybe

00:52:52.880 --> 00:52:58.040
 instead of just ranking them all together, we can break them into those buckets because

00:52:58.040 --> 00:53:05.040
 the last thing we want to do, and I agree that the council gave us this list and these

00:53:05.040 --> 00:53:09.080
 are their recommendations and our job is to come back with a recommendation, but the other

00:53:09.080 --> 00:53:15.680
 part of our job is to give a recommendation that we believe the voters will vote in favor

00:53:15.680 --> 00:53:21.520
 of and then our job is to go out and advocate for the voters to vote in favor of those.

00:53:21.520 --> 00:53:28.760
 So if we feel like we can sell 380 million bucks and everybody's confident and we all

00:53:28.760 --> 00:53:31.720
 vote for that, then let's go sell it and let's do it.

00:53:31.720 --> 00:53:35.080
 But if we don't think we can sell it, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

00:53:35.080 --> 00:53:36.160
 either.

00:53:36.160 --> 00:53:44.680
 So I think just an idea, if we broke those into some categories where, because if something's

00:53:44.680 --> 00:53:48.960
 going to generate revenue, so if you look at the expense of those two projects, the

00:53:48.960 --> 00:53:52.360
 drainage projects, it's $60 million.

00:53:52.360 --> 00:53:57.440
 But if that $60 million is going to turn around and generate $20 million, then it's not really

00:53:57.440 --> 00:54:00.720
 a $60 million spend, it's $40, right?

00:54:00.720 --> 00:54:06.240
 And so anyway, that's a thought, how we can maybe try to get to some way we can tackle

00:54:06.240 --> 00:54:09.240
 these things.

00:54:09.240 --> 00:54:16.560
 There may not even be a question, but it's because I don't really know and this is my

00:54:16.560 --> 00:54:24.040
 first time here, but do all these items, are they all put in one bond, or did it happen

00:54:24.040 --> 00:54:29.980
 like the school that you have different bonds?

00:54:29.980 --> 00:54:34.720
 I'm going to suggest something now, if you go back to, well actually, I don't know where

00:54:34.720 --> 00:54:38.680
 you're going back or forward based on this slide.

00:54:38.680 --> 00:54:42.480
 So I think a good starting point, because I think we've got a lot of opinions here and

00:54:42.480 --> 00:54:46.280
 we've heard a lot of them, I think one good starting point is to get a pulse from our

00:54:46.280 --> 00:54:54.160
 team as to what we feel comfortable with in terms of a total project amount, which is

00:54:54.160 --> 00:54:59.720
 going to be a determining factor as to whether or not we feel comfortable with what number

00:54:59.720 --> 00:55:02.500
 of projects associated with that.

00:55:02.500 --> 00:55:09.640
 When we raised that last, was it last week, two weeks ago, whatever it was, June 26th,

00:55:09.640 --> 00:55:14.440
 you can see that on the right, this was the pulse we took at the end of the meeting and

00:55:14.440 --> 00:55:21.160
 it looked like 67% of this group was comfortable with the maximum allowed, which is 335, according

00:55:21.160 --> 00:55:23.040
 to our charge.

00:55:23.040 --> 00:55:28.280
 So I think what would be helpful is to, from a point of direction, this isn't like an official

00:55:28.280 --> 00:55:32.440
 vote that we're forwarding to the council, this is to say, can we take the conversation

00:55:32.440 --> 00:55:35.480
 on to the next level.

00:55:35.480 --> 00:55:41.720
 Out of a show of hands, how many are comfortable with what the majority of the group said last

00:55:41.720 --> 00:55:49.080
 week of having a $335 million package forwarded to the voters?

00:55:49.080 --> 00:56:15.320
 Can somebody do a quick count, just so we can get a sense?

00:56:15.320 --> 00:56:21.800
 How many are present tonight, do we know?

00:56:21.800 --> 00:56:27.060
 So 23 out of 36, okay, that's a good majority.

00:56:27.060 --> 00:56:33.240
 So that's helpful to get a sense of where we are collectively as a group.

00:56:33.240 --> 00:56:38.840
 Any discussion on that before we move forward to some other preliminaries to try and move

00:56:38.840 --> 00:56:41.180
 this forward?

00:56:41.180 --> 00:56:45.960
 This may be an oversimplification, but if we're looking at a maximum of 335, if you

00:56:45.960 --> 00:56:51.720
 could go back to, oh my goodness, I hate this thing.

00:56:51.720 --> 00:56:56.080
 We started this saying by, you made a comment that you felt like that the municipal complex

00:56:56.080 --> 00:57:01.960
 might be a non-starter for the group, if we look at that and take that out, that gets

00:57:01.960 --> 00:57:08.040
 us under that amount that we just said we were comfortable with.

00:57:08.040 --> 00:57:13.040
 You're wise beyond your years, got another comment back there.

00:57:13.040 --> 00:57:20.800
 So I want to make a pretty hard sell for something lower, and it's not just because I don't like

00:57:20.800 --> 00:57:26.280
 paying taxes or that I don't think we need good amenities to compete with other cities,

00:57:26.280 --> 00:57:32.640
 but our total net tax-supported debt right now, the bond debt like this that we are currently

00:57:32.640 --> 00:57:37.400
 paying is $354 million.

00:57:37.400 --> 00:57:44.240
 So with one vote of the citizens, assuming everything passes, we would be talking about

00:57:44.240 --> 00:57:50.240
 not quite doubling the current tax-supported debt of the city.

00:57:50.240 --> 00:57:51.880
 So that does two things.

00:57:51.880 --> 00:57:55.560
 The first is it affects our total capacity to spend.

00:57:55.560 --> 00:57:59.640
 Just because you have a credit card with a good high limit doesn't mean you fill it up.

00:57:59.640 --> 00:58:03.560
 You need to have that for when the water heater breaks or when another fire station needs

00:58:03.560 --> 00:58:05.520
 to be replaced or whatever else.

00:58:05.520 --> 00:58:09.760
 And for when in 2026 we want to build a whole bunch of roads and improve a bunch of roads

00:58:09.760 --> 00:58:15.040
 and spend, I'll be honest, probably a pretty similar amount on road projects.

00:58:15.040 --> 00:58:18.360
 And it affects our ability to borrow in the future.

00:58:18.360 --> 00:58:20.440
 The other thing it affects is this.

00:58:20.440 --> 00:58:25.560
 There is tremendous pressure on city council right now to lower property tax rates.

00:58:25.560 --> 00:58:29.180
 And every year the city council basically does lower the rate, but because your values

00:58:29.180 --> 00:58:31.840
 go up, your taxes end up going up.

00:58:31.840 --> 00:58:36.020
 What we're talking about here is the debt service part of the tax rate.

00:58:36.020 --> 00:58:40.480
 What the city council sets when they're talking about how much to spend on police and fire

00:58:40.480 --> 00:58:45.080
 and roads and all that stuff is the maintenance and operation part of the tax rate.

00:58:45.080 --> 00:58:46.400
 But they go together.

00:58:46.400 --> 00:58:51.920
 So if you have this political pressure rate, a rate that it needs to be, and I know there's

00:58:51.920 --> 00:58:56.480
 some city council members here and I know some of them are more enthusiastic about raising

00:58:56.480 --> 00:59:01.720
 rates than others, but if you have a spot where it's got to be, say it's 59 cents

00:59:01.720 --> 00:59:10.320
 on the dollar, on the $1,000 value, $100 valuation like it is now, if you're there, every cent

00:59:10.320 --> 00:59:16.320
 you take away with debt service is a cent less of that tax rate the city council has

00:59:16.320 --> 00:59:22.160
 available to hire more firefighters, to hire more police officers, to build more parks

00:59:22.160 --> 00:59:23.200
 and whatever.

00:59:23.200 --> 00:59:28.780
 So you're cutting in to not just the borrowing capacity overall, but the budgeting capacity

00:59:28.780 --> 00:59:32.040
 overall with this pressure to keep taxes low.

00:59:32.040 --> 00:59:33.680
 Here's the other thing that just happened.

00:59:33.680 --> 00:59:38.880
 The news this week out of Austin is a big property tax cut deal.

00:59:38.880 --> 00:59:44.020
 And what does that mean, $100,000 homeset exemption for most homeowners.

00:59:44.020 --> 00:59:45.720
 Fantastic for the homeowners.

00:59:45.720 --> 00:59:51.480
 I don't want to know what Cassie said when she read that headline, when our city budget

00:59:51.480 --> 00:59:52.480
 will be affected.

00:59:52.480 --> 00:59:55.580
 The total revenues will be affected by that.

00:59:55.580 --> 01:00:00.440
 Fantastic as a homeowner, very tough as a city budget person.

01:00:00.440 --> 01:00:07.320
 So I don't know that this is the climate to be, the city council gave us this number.

01:00:07.320 --> 01:00:10.560
 Let's spend everything that we have available on the credit card because it's not really

01:00:10.560 --> 01:00:16.720
 there and it cuts into our ability to do more in the future in a big, big way.

01:00:16.720 --> 01:00:29.800
 Okay, Mr. Davis, maybe you can help me with this because you're good at this stuff and

01:00:29.800 --> 01:00:30.800
 I'm not.

01:00:30.800 --> 01:00:40.120
 So if I'm a citizen of Denton and my house is appraised for $230,000, I'm not 65, I lied.

01:00:40.120 --> 01:00:42.240
 So it's not frozen.

01:00:42.240 --> 01:00:47.600
 How much will I pay for this bond as an individual?

01:00:47.600 --> 01:00:51.360
 I don't remember, I don't remember the total number.

01:00:51.360 --> 01:00:56.520
 It's something that everybody needs to hear because I'm hearing fear.

01:00:56.520 --> 01:01:01.760
 And I've been talking to a lot of the committee members and they're like, oh my gosh, no one's

01:01:01.760 --> 01:01:03.280
 going to be able to afford to live anymore.

01:01:03.280 --> 01:01:09.460
 Well, you know, that's another conversation for another environmental economic thing.

01:01:09.460 --> 01:01:17.600
 But for us, you know, we all went out and sold the 2019 bond and people were fine with

01:01:17.600 --> 01:01:25.160
 it because it only cost them $10 a month in their property tax amount, right?

01:01:25.160 --> 01:01:27.760
 That's what it cost me.

01:01:27.760 --> 01:01:33.040
 So I want everybody here to know that we're not saying someone's going to have to pay

01:01:33.040 --> 01:01:36.260
 $100 a month for these bonds.

01:01:36.260 --> 01:01:44.440
 If we just broke a million in population in this county, I know how many animals we're

01:01:44.440 --> 01:01:46.360
 taking in at the shelter.

01:01:46.360 --> 01:01:49.560
 I know how many schools are having to be built.

01:01:49.560 --> 01:01:55.060
 I know, you know, because you live in our neighborhood, you know what needs to be done

01:01:55.060 --> 01:01:57.520
 in our own neighborhood.

01:01:57.520 --> 01:02:04.960
 If we don't all band together as a community and see the needs that are existing right

01:02:04.960 --> 01:02:09.280
 now, we can't go forward in fear.

01:02:09.280 --> 01:02:13.680
 We have to know as individuals, how much are we going to pay for this bond?

01:02:13.680 --> 01:02:17.120
 Now, is $300 million a scary figure?

01:02:17.120 --> 01:02:18.600
 Heck yes.

01:02:18.600 --> 01:02:24.440
 But when I see the benefit of public safety first and foremost, when I look at my little

01:02:24.440 --> 01:02:30.160
 station five and wonder how the heck they even managed to get out on Bonnie Bray, you

01:02:30.160 --> 01:02:32.360
 know, I worship those guys.

01:02:32.360 --> 01:02:35.360
 You know, they save our lives.

01:02:35.360 --> 01:02:37.880
 So I don't want us to be in fear.

01:02:37.880 --> 01:02:42.480
 I want us to see that the city has to perform its tasks.

01:02:42.480 --> 01:02:44.800
 It has to come up with its own budget.

01:02:44.800 --> 01:02:50.840
 It has to move forward with whatever it is we decide to put forth to them.

01:02:50.840 --> 01:02:55.240
 And they as a body then say, yes, we can do that or not.

01:02:55.240 --> 01:02:57.880
 Remember, we didn't have the gun range.

01:02:57.880 --> 01:03:03.720
 You know, our bond committee nixed that one, but it was still given to them without, you

01:03:03.720 --> 01:03:06.160
 know, a blink of an eye.

01:03:06.160 --> 01:03:11.800
 So I just want us all to know, don't be in fear of this amount of money.

01:03:11.800 --> 01:03:14.720
 Costs are going to skyrocket in the next year or two.

01:03:14.720 --> 01:03:16.920
 We can't afford to wait.

01:03:16.920 --> 01:03:21.880
 That's why these projects are being presented now because in another two to three years,

01:03:21.880 --> 01:03:23.560
 it will be an impossible task.

01:03:23.560 --> 01:03:28.960
 Can I respond just really briefly to that?

01:03:28.960 --> 01:03:35.420
 The big difference in 2019 was that they were primarily road projects, things that people

01:03:35.420 --> 01:03:37.920
 could see in their neighborhoods.

01:03:37.920 --> 01:03:41.520
 And then when they looked at the materials online and they heard from people talking

01:03:41.520 --> 01:03:43.520
 about the bond, it was fantastic.

01:03:43.520 --> 01:03:47.560
 My terrible street is going to get fixed sometime in the next five or six years.

01:03:47.560 --> 01:03:51.280
 The difference here is that some of these projects could be considered because their

01:03:51.280 --> 01:03:52.280
 quality of life.

01:03:52.280 --> 01:03:56.040
 They could be considered kind of keeping up with the Joneses things.

01:03:56.040 --> 01:03:57.960
 And that's not how I categorize them.

01:03:57.960 --> 01:03:59.440
 I know why we need a bigger library.

01:03:59.440 --> 01:04:02.280
 I know why we need a better senior center.

01:04:02.280 --> 01:04:07.040
 But there's a big difference, I think, for your average voter whose property taxes are

01:04:07.040 --> 01:04:13.700
 going up or their rent is going up, and that's a function of property taxes too, and roads

01:04:13.700 --> 01:04:18.000
 versus stuff they might not use, stuff they might not need every day.

01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:30.640
 We have room space on that bond too, but we got room space.

01:04:30.640 --> 01:04:31.640
 All right.

01:04:31.640 --> 01:04:35.000
 So here's -- thank you for that discussion.

01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:37.120
 I'm going to -- again, that wasn't a vote.

01:04:37.120 --> 01:04:41.440
 It was direction to keep us moving forward in this process.

01:04:41.440 --> 01:04:47.340
 I think the other thing we want to talk about, to your point, and if we could pull up the

01:04:47.340 --> 01:04:52.560
 direction that we gave based on the last pulse around municipal complex, I don't think we

01:04:52.560 --> 01:05:08.880
 had that on here, do we, because that was more of a -- oh, there you go.

01:05:08.880 --> 01:05:16.280
 So I guess one other question we could, to Mindy's point, as we're thinking about a package,

01:05:16.280 --> 01:05:22.560
 I'm curious to get some direction from this team as regards to that municipal project

01:05:22.560 --> 01:05:28.200
 and whether or not folks think that the project's not ready for prime time yet and it's better

01:05:28.200 --> 01:05:33.880
 left off this particular bond package, because that's 110 million that we can take off and

01:05:33.880 --> 01:05:35.980
 not have to worry about.

01:05:35.980 --> 01:05:44.680
 So show of hands, how many are in support of the municipal complex project and including

01:05:44.680 --> 01:05:49.480
 it as part of this package?

01:05:49.480 --> 01:05:54.320
 All right.

01:05:54.320 --> 01:05:58.880
 So I think we already took it off the spreadsheet as a -- so that's a helpful thing.

01:05:58.880 --> 01:06:06.320
 I think the other thing we want to clarify is there's a couple of discretionary amounts

01:06:06.320 --> 01:06:18.360
 based on the discussion that we had, and let's start with inclusive playground as a topic.

01:06:18.360 --> 01:06:24.220
 Last time we took a pulse on this, we asked whether or not folks were in favor of the

01:06:24.220 --> 01:06:28.680
 proposed funding or increasing the funding, because that was part of the conversation

01:06:28.680 --> 01:06:31.900
 when we talked about it, or something else.

01:06:31.900 --> 01:06:37.840
 So since at that time 70% indicated they were in favor of the proposed funding, be helpful

01:06:37.840 --> 01:06:41.280
 just so we can get something on that spreadsheet.

01:06:41.280 --> 01:06:42.280
 Is that still the case?

01:06:42.280 --> 01:06:47.680
 How many of you would say you continue to be in support of the proposed funding of the

01:06:47.680 --> 01:07:06.360
 inclusive playground just by show of hands, and if we can do it count?

01:07:06.360 --> 01:07:25.440
 26 out of 30 -- 36, okay.

01:07:25.440 --> 01:07:29.160
 So we're still in that, so let's keep that number as is.

01:07:29.160 --> 01:07:32.920
 Again, this is just preliminary numbers to get something up there.

01:07:32.920 --> 01:07:37.440
 The other one was the trail development project.

01:07:37.440 --> 01:07:48.400
 When we asked, 48% suggested proposed funding at $15 million, 14% suggested increasing it

01:07:48.400 --> 01:07:55.560
 to $20 million, and 24% said decreasing it down to $10 million, and then there's 14%

01:07:55.560 --> 01:07:56.560
 other.

01:07:56.560 --> 01:07:59.080
 A bit more of a mixed bag here.

01:07:59.080 --> 01:08:03.160
 So given that as a mixed bag, I'm curious if there's just any pitches or discussion

01:08:03.160 --> 01:08:10.800
 prior to just getting your pulse on this one, one way or the other.

01:08:10.800 --> 01:08:15.440
 Let's start with you, and then we'll go to --

01:08:15.440 --> 01:08:21.000
 Yeah, I think the $15 million, because it can be used in conjunction with RTC funds,

01:08:21.000 --> 01:08:28.960
 regional transportation, and just it can be leveraged so well that it's definitely worth

01:08:28.960 --> 01:08:34.520
 looking at as something that, you know, for $15 million we can get $60, $75 million, maybe

01:08:34.520 --> 01:08:37.600
 even $100 million worth of projects knocked out.

01:08:37.600 --> 01:08:41.880
 That's a good ROI.

01:08:41.880 --> 01:08:45.720
 I was going to make the same point, and I think Parks has done a fantastic job of leveraging

01:08:45.720 --> 01:08:47.360
 other funds in order to do this.

01:08:47.360 --> 01:08:50.960
 I also think if we're talking about needing more road capacity on another bond, we should

01:08:50.960 --> 01:08:55.560
 really be thinking about how our trails can be used for mobility options that can alleviate

01:08:55.560 --> 01:08:59.600
 some of the congestion on some of those roadways.

01:08:59.600 --> 01:09:08.040
 One of the things I was going to ask, too, was the opportunity for which ones of these

01:09:08.040 --> 01:09:12.600
 funds have like a one for four grant opportunity.

01:09:12.600 --> 01:09:14.320
 Like a trail is a good example of that.

01:09:14.320 --> 01:09:20.680
 Are there other things like these flood mitigation or things that actually get -- if we put down

01:09:20.680 --> 01:09:24.200
 a quarter, we get three quarters funded somewhere else.

01:09:24.200 --> 01:09:29.840
 Is that something we should be able to talk to and know as we can sell the bond, especially

01:09:29.840 --> 01:09:31.920
 the infrastructure type things?

01:09:31.920 --> 01:09:39.360
 Yeah, I'll just add that as a school bus driver, I see kids crossing in lots of places, and

01:09:39.360 --> 01:09:43.000
 I think a lot of these trails kind of factor into our safe routes to schools things.

01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:47.160
 If you've never seen people almost getting hit, like school children almost getting hit

01:09:47.160 --> 01:09:53.080
 crossing 288, it's not fun, and the more safe routes that we can establish by alternate

01:09:53.080 --> 01:09:57.640
 trail paths, I think the better, and with four-to-one funding available for a lot of

01:09:57.640 --> 01:10:00.320
 these seems like a really great opportunity.

01:10:00.320 --> 01:10:01.320
 Okay.

01:10:01.320 --> 01:10:03.640
 So let's -- did you want to say something?

01:10:03.640 --> 01:10:04.640
 I'm sorry.

01:10:04.640 --> 01:10:05.640
 I thought you had your hands raised.

01:10:05.640 --> 01:10:06.640
 Okay.

01:10:06.640 --> 01:10:12.920
 Because you have a microphone, you could just talk.

01:10:12.920 --> 01:10:17.400
 So let's just start with the proposed funding from a point of view of direction.

01:10:17.400 --> 01:10:34.720
 How many would be in favor of moving forward with the proposed funding at $15 million?

01:10:34.720 --> 01:10:48.200
 Yeah, okay, $29.50.

01:10:48.200 --> 01:10:49.520
 We'll keep that -- yeah, it's not official.

01:10:49.520 --> 01:10:54.120
 We'll keep that as the recommendation on the spreadsheet, so that's helpful.

01:10:54.120 --> 01:10:57.040
 What else did we have that we wanted to get?

01:10:57.040 --> 01:10:58.840
 Affordable housing.

01:10:58.840 --> 01:11:10.200
 All right, so this was one where the majority at 63 percent, based on our pulse survey at

01:11:10.200 --> 01:11:16.320
 the end of the last meeting, suggested we actually increase funding to $15 million,

01:11:16.320 --> 01:11:22.600
 and then 30 or 23 percent said keep it at proposed, and then it goes down from there.

01:11:22.600 --> 01:11:24.840
 So clearly it seems like there's interest.

01:11:24.840 --> 01:11:29.720
 The question is whether or not we're interested in including that increased funding or not

01:11:29.720 --> 01:11:32.440
 as part of our starting point.

01:11:32.440 --> 01:11:37.460
 So let's start there, since that was at 63 percent, show of hands, how many are in favor

01:11:37.460 --> 01:11:56.120
 of that $15 million inclusion in the project?

01:11:56.120 --> 01:12:01.800
 Twenty-three.

01:12:01.800 --> 01:12:10.200
 Okay, so we'll start with that as a starting point.

01:12:10.200 --> 01:12:13.720
 Was that -- oh, thanks.

01:12:13.720 --> 01:12:18.740
 In this one, I was going to ask Cassie or Christine, whichever one, what's to talk about?

01:12:18.740 --> 01:12:26.840
 A lot of -- it's historic -- I think I'm just under a speaker or something.

01:12:26.840 --> 01:12:33.120
 Historically, based on the last time we had public art, we had it as a standalone proposition.

01:12:33.120 --> 01:12:34.800
 We all know it got shot down.

01:12:34.800 --> 01:12:39.420
 It's kind of an easy thing to get shot down if you're looking to say no to something.

01:12:39.420 --> 01:12:45.320
 But looking back in history, that's not the only way we have approached funding through

01:12:45.320 --> 01:12:47.360
 packages.

01:12:47.360 --> 01:12:54.560
 And is there another alternative, including making this a certain percentage within the

01:12:54.560 --> 01:12:57.520
 approvable projects within different propositions?

01:12:57.520 --> 01:13:00.800
 And can you speak to that just so we understand the landscape of what's available?

01:13:00.800 --> 01:13:06.160
 Yes, so we have done public art a couple different ways through prior bond programs.

01:13:06.160 --> 01:13:11.840
 So when we gave the public art presentation, the current public art policy says that council

01:13:11.840 --> 01:13:18.120
 can recommend 2 to 4 percent of the vertical projects move forward.

01:13:18.120 --> 01:13:21.680
 So what that would mean is if there was a public safety proposition, you had the two

01:13:21.680 --> 01:13:27.640
 fire stations in there, we would dedicate 2 percent in that proposition to be used with

01:13:27.640 --> 01:13:29.560
 public art.

01:13:29.560 --> 01:13:36.200
 So you all can -- we can decide to go with that policy and recommend a range 2 to 4 percent

01:13:36.200 --> 01:13:43.240
 as within the current public art policy or offer up a different dollar amount as an alternative.

01:13:43.240 --> 01:13:48.760
 Yes, we'd have to go back and amend the policy, but that's doable.

01:13:48.760 --> 01:13:54.520
 Your recommendation can be to not follow the policy to amend it and do a flat rate.

01:13:54.520 --> 01:13:58.200
 So does that make sense, the options there?

01:13:58.200 --> 01:14:02.800
 And it looks like when we pulsed you -- this is an interesting one based on our prioritization

01:14:02.800 --> 01:14:03.800
 too.

01:14:03.800 --> 01:14:10.320
 So when we pulsed you, it looks like there's a tie between other -- which maybe means nothing

01:14:10.320 --> 01:14:18.960
 at all, I'm not sure -- or 2 percent at 3.9 million, both had 47 percent and then 7 percent

01:14:18.960 --> 01:14:19.960
 at 5.9.

01:14:19.960 --> 01:14:23.800
 And again, the options -- there's options in terms of how we want to include this as

01:14:23.800 --> 01:14:31.520
 a standalone or something inclusive of other projects.

01:14:31.520 --> 01:14:34.500
 So I want to say a word in favor of public art.

01:14:34.500 --> 01:14:41.160
 It brings me calm, and sometimes I need some calm.

01:14:41.160 --> 01:14:48.080
 The public art projects that we have in our community that I think make a huge difference

01:14:48.080 --> 01:14:55.320
 in the quality of our life are things like the leaves sculpture on the square, the new

01:14:55.320 --> 01:14:58.520
 sculpture that's on Bonnie Bray.

01:14:58.520 --> 01:15:04.880
 You can go around, you can see public art, and it's a quality of life question.

01:15:04.880 --> 01:15:11.040
 That's why the council created this policy, because it's a quality of life for our community.

01:15:11.040 --> 01:15:13.440
 Now, I just wanted to add one thing to that.

01:15:13.440 --> 01:15:22.200
 If we did 2 percent at an assumed growth rate of 4.6 percent, which is ridiculously low

01:15:22.200 --> 01:15:32.840
 to assume that as our growth rate, but if you did 2 percent on 335 million, the effect

01:15:32.840 --> 01:15:40.600
 on the tax rate is .00081 cents.

01:15:40.600 --> 01:15:47.200
 That's 81,000th of a cent for quality of life.

01:15:47.200 --> 01:15:50.560
 I think that's what we ought to do.

01:15:50.560 --> 01:15:57.280
 I heard an A and a B, one of them is a stand-alone item, and one is to do it as a 2 percent.

01:15:57.280 --> 01:16:01.640
 As you're doing the count on this, will you also count a do not include?

01:16:01.640 --> 01:16:02.640
 Yep.

01:16:02.640 --> 01:16:03.640
 Okay.

01:16:03.640 --> 01:16:09.320
 Just as a point of clarity, what does it look like on the ballot when we ask a voter for

01:16:09.320 --> 01:16:10.320
 this 2 percent?

01:16:10.320 --> 01:16:14.680
 I mean, you just had to explain to a whole room of bond members what a vertical project

01:16:14.680 --> 01:16:20.160
 was, so I'm just wondering what the voters are seeing.

01:16:20.160 --> 01:16:25.360
 I don't have specific language, we'll go through that, but on a last one for the example with

01:16:25.360 --> 01:16:34.000
 the fire station, it would say the $15 million, which includes a fire station and public art.

01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:35.000
 And that passed.

01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:37.720
 Fire station for public art?

01:16:37.720 --> 01:16:40.560
 You can recommend that it get pulled out, in 2019 they did.

01:16:40.560 --> 01:16:47.000
 They had its own separate proposition, but the current policy is that it would go with

01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:52.840
 the vertical construction proposition.

01:16:52.840 --> 01:16:55.440
 I'm going to ask this question one more time.

01:16:55.440 --> 01:16:59.080
 How much is in the public art fund today?

01:16:59.080 --> 01:17:01.500
 There's not a public art fund.

01:17:01.500 --> 01:17:07.600
 Public art is funded in this community through bond programs, hot fund allocations annually,

01:17:07.600 --> 01:17:12.840
 and grant opportunities, so each of those go into an individual project account.

01:17:12.840 --> 01:17:15.920
 I believe we answered in one of the parking lot questions.

01:17:15.920 --> 01:17:20.680
 All of that money is currently allocated either to existing art projects, so the next time

01:17:20.680 --> 01:17:25.080
 there would be funding available would be in this upcoming budget process and whatever

01:17:25.080 --> 01:17:29.760
 allocation they get from the hot funds, the hotel occupancy tax funds.

01:17:29.760 --> 01:17:35.480
 In 2019, there was a half a million dollars in the public art fund, and there was a fund

01:17:35.480 --> 01:17:43.360
 at that time, so thank you.

01:17:43.360 --> 01:17:47.720
 Mr. Davis?

01:17:47.720 --> 01:17:54.320
 My first question is, what is this right now 2% of?

01:17:54.320 --> 01:18:00.240
 That 3.9 million, is that including 2% of the municipal complex that was originally

01:18:00.240 --> 01:18:01.240
 in the proposal?

01:18:01.240 --> 01:18:06.800
 Is it 2% of what is currently a percentage of?

01:18:06.800 --> 01:18:13.080
 It would be whatever you recommend, so I've got highlighted on the screen the projects

01:18:13.080 --> 01:18:15.960
 that it's calculating the 2% on.

01:18:15.960 --> 01:18:16.960
 Got it.

01:18:16.960 --> 01:18:17.960
 That was my question.

01:18:17.960 --> 01:18:18.960
 So can you hit return?

01:18:18.960 --> 01:18:23.680
 There was a slide, yeah, that was the number I was looking for.

01:18:23.680 --> 01:18:24.680
 The other question is?

01:18:24.680 --> 01:18:30.960
 These are the different levels that if you wanted to recommend 2%, 3, and 4, so if projects

01:18:30.960 --> 01:18:33.880
 are removed, of course that number will change.

01:18:33.880 --> 01:18:37.360
 That's just the number I needed, not the number that was on the pulse, because we were asked

01:18:37.360 --> 01:18:40.320
 a different question before.

01:18:40.320 --> 01:18:45.080
 My next question is, if we include, and I think we may have gotten different advice

01:18:45.080 --> 01:18:50.440
 from different bond council at different times, I might be wrong there, but let's say we include

01:18:50.440 --> 01:18:56.980
 the policy of 2% of vertical construction, and it's just across the proposals and not

01:18:56.980 --> 01:18:58.840
 its own standalone.

01:18:58.840 --> 01:19:03.560
 Are we then limited to public art at the fire station?

01:19:03.560 --> 01:19:06.880
 Public art at a drainage facility?

01:19:06.880 --> 01:19:09.680
 Public art at affordable housing?

01:19:09.680 --> 01:19:14.240
 And I think we've gotten different advice at different times, but for instance, that's

01:19:14.240 --> 01:19:19.560
 one of the reasons why we have some beautiful public art at police stations, at fire stations,

01:19:19.560 --> 01:19:24.800
 because they were included in bond proposals as public art, and so it had to come from

01:19:24.800 --> 01:19:26.920
 that project, from that bond.

01:19:26.920 --> 01:19:30.080
 So can we get some clarification on that?

01:19:30.080 --> 01:19:31.080
 That's correct.

01:19:31.080 --> 01:19:35.640
 So as a public art policy is written, and the way the proposition would be written,

01:19:35.640 --> 01:19:41.640
 the fire station example, if you have 2% on that, the art will go with those fire stations.

01:19:41.640 --> 01:19:47.400
 So like at fire station 3, you can see the wall of honor, I think that one is called,

01:19:47.400 --> 01:19:52.520
 and various facilities have the public art specifically tied to that building.

01:19:52.520 --> 01:19:56.400
 I think that might have been another reason why it was pulled out to be its own proposal

01:19:56.400 --> 01:19:59.120
 last time, was so that we could be a little more free.

01:19:59.120 --> 01:20:05.240
 We would have a public art fund at that time, not a 2% on this building and a nice thing

01:20:05.240 --> 01:20:09.680
 over there, but we would have a big pot of money to spend on public art.

01:20:09.680 --> 01:20:10.680
 That's correct.

01:20:10.680 --> 01:20:13.640
 I'm not exactly sure in 2019 why they made that recommendation, but it sounds like that

01:20:13.640 --> 01:20:18.880
 was the reason to pull it out, to have more flexibility with where it goes.

01:20:18.880 --> 01:20:24.600
 And we saw the result of that vote.

01:20:24.600 --> 01:20:29.360
 It seems to me like there's a third option, which is what I advocated for when I was on

01:20:29.360 --> 01:20:31.360
 the council talking about this before.

01:20:31.360 --> 01:20:33.640
 You were on the city council.

01:20:33.640 --> 01:20:39.800
 I sat next to you, sir, you just talked the whole time and so I never got, actually we

01:20:39.800 --> 01:20:45.120
 became great friends and we were very politically opposed when we began, and now I kind of like

01:20:45.120 --> 01:20:47.240
 you.

01:20:47.240 --> 01:20:50.960
 So but it seems to me seriously like that we can learn from the past.

01:20:50.960 --> 01:20:58.160
 So it seems to me that the third option that we would have would be to say whatever the

01:20:58.160 --> 01:21:05.640
 number is, $3 million for public art as a part of this bond package to be used where

01:21:05.640 --> 01:21:07.440
 the city sees fit.

01:21:07.440 --> 01:21:14.120
 For example, I love the art at the fire station over here, and I love public art and I think

01:21:14.120 --> 01:21:19.720
 we need to spend money on it, but there might be a wonderful place for a piece of public

01:21:19.720 --> 01:21:28.560
 art say at a park or a new park or a new playground, and to be limited to construct that public

01:21:28.560 --> 01:21:35.560
 art at a city building might not be the best use of those funds when it can be appreciated

01:21:35.560 --> 01:21:38.960
 so much more in a more wide open, easily seen space.

01:21:38.960 --> 01:21:45.000
 So what I would advocate for, for us to consider would be to put a flat dollar amount in this

01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:52.440
 bond package for public art to be used at the discretion of the experts, whoever is

01:21:52.440 --> 01:21:57.520
 responsible for that at the city, because by pulling it out, you were exactly right.

01:21:57.520 --> 01:22:02.160
 That gives somebody something to say no to and some people don't appreciate art, and

01:22:02.160 --> 01:22:06.040
 they don't appreciate the fact that it's an enhancement to our city when the visitors

01:22:06.040 --> 01:22:07.300
 come and all those things.

01:22:07.300 --> 01:22:13.000
 So I would advocate for, we agree on an amount, we put an amount in there for public art and

01:22:13.000 --> 01:22:18.480
 we ask the council to amend the policy that it's not tied to vertical construction, it's

01:22:18.480 --> 01:22:22.920
 not a percentage, but it's an amount of money to be spent.

01:22:22.920 --> 01:22:28.660
 I'm curious as anyone's thoughts of the political mood back then when that was voted down.

01:22:28.660 --> 01:22:37.320
 I seem to recall just conversations around the nebulous nature of what was being approved.

01:22:37.320 --> 01:22:41.480
 There wasn't like specific projects being put forward, there weren't, and I'm just

01:22:41.480 --> 01:22:46.200
 curious as to whether we think history will repeat itself if we're coming to the table

01:22:46.200 --> 01:22:51.040
 saying we want this fund, no one really knows how it will be spent, and then there's kind

01:22:51.040 --> 01:22:55.960
 of this distrust of what are we going to do with that money at the end of the day.

01:22:55.960 --> 01:22:57.320
 I agree, I totally agree with you Greg.

01:22:57.320 --> 01:23:02.520
 What I'm saying is it's just part of the total, right, you're just voting for a 300 million

01:23:02.520 --> 01:23:03.520
 dollar bond.

01:23:03.520 --> 01:23:08.880
 Well, let's address that because I think what they're going to do is, to your earlier point

01:23:08.880 --> 01:23:14.600
 about categorizing these, the bond attorneys are going to categorize distinct propositions

01:23:14.600 --> 01:23:19.820
 based on their functions, and public art, as I understand it, will have to be a standalone

01:23:19.820 --> 01:23:25.800
 proposition to be voted up or down among maybe eight other propositions or something.

01:23:25.800 --> 01:23:27.240
 Am I right in that?

01:23:27.240 --> 01:23:31.920
 Right, unless you include it as part of the vertical construction projects themselves.

01:23:31.920 --> 01:23:34.520
 That's correct what I said.

01:23:34.520 --> 01:23:37.800
 Seriously, because it'll not free-shale.

01:23:37.800 --> 01:23:43.320
 I think that's, we've got to find a third way somewhere in the future.

01:23:43.320 --> 01:23:51.600
 In 2019, all these buildings were buildings that were really not used by the public.

01:23:51.600 --> 01:24:00.200
 It was the gun range, it was the police substation, and it was the downtown police station, and

01:24:00.200 --> 01:24:04.380
 the art for the downtown police station had already been done.

01:24:04.380 --> 01:24:09.620
 It was done, it was a brick work by Paul and Collins, and she was just waiting for them

01:24:09.620 --> 01:24:16.060
 to work on the building so that she could install it, and she had waited literally years

01:24:16.060 --> 01:24:20.440
 for this project to happen so she could finish it and get paid.

01:24:20.440 --> 01:24:27.820
 But one of the reasons that decision was made to make it separate is because it was technically

01:24:27.820 --> 01:24:33.940
 a public building, but these were not buildings the public was going to be going to on a regular

01:24:33.940 --> 01:24:34.940
 basis.

01:24:34.940 --> 01:24:36.680
 Public art at a gun range.

01:24:36.680 --> 01:24:39.480
 Public art at a gun range where the public isn't even allowed.

01:24:39.480 --> 01:24:41.760
 So maybe this is helpful, because that's a really good point.

01:24:41.760 --> 01:24:45.920
 Can you highlight the formula on the cell again just so we can highlight the particular

01:24:45.920 --> 01:24:48.280
 lines and get a sense of that?

01:24:48.280 --> 01:24:55.640
 So we've got D3, which is fire station 5, fire station 6, both in prominent areas.

01:24:55.640 --> 01:24:59.760
 Then we're not doing anything again until 8 and 9, so we're at active adult center,

01:24:59.760 --> 01:25:04.200
 which could be somewhere, it sounds like, perhaps in a park area, South Branch Library,

01:25:04.200 --> 01:25:10.040
 heavily visited, great spot for public art, the McNatt Animal Center, is that included

01:25:10.040 --> 01:25:11.040
 in that?

01:25:11.040 --> 01:25:12.040
 Yes.

01:25:12.040 --> 01:25:14.140
 Yes, which is heavily visited.

01:25:14.140 --> 01:25:18.040
 Then you go down to, why is inclusive playground not an option?

01:25:18.040 --> 01:25:21.320
 It's not vertical, it's not vertical.

01:25:21.320 --> 01:25:22.320
 Interesting.

01:25:22.320 --> 01:25:23.320
 Seems like it is.

01:25:23.320 --> 01:25:24.320
 Okay.

01:25:24.320 --> 01:25:31.520
 Last, a great downtown spot for public art, is 14 is not vertical either, and then 16,

01:25:31.520 --> 01:25:32.800
 which we already asked.

01:25:32.800 --> 01:25:36.160
 Okay, that's helpful to see that to your point, Patty.

01:25:36.160 --> 01:25:41.920
 Is that, was that your point, is that maybe these are more substantially public building

01:25:41.920 --> 01:25:42.920
 projects?

01:25:42.920 --> 01:25:47.760
 Well, it was an explanation of why the art was pulled off and made a separate package

01:25:47.760 --> 01:25:50.160
 so it could be used somewhere in the city.

01:25:50.160 --> 01:25:52.760
 Got it, that's helpful.

01:25:52.760 --> 01:25:58.480
 Can it still be tied to the vertical construction but be a flat rate, or does it have to be

01:25:58.480 --> 01:26:00.480
 a percentage?

01:26:00.480 --> 01:26:05.920
 Yes, if you decided a flat amount, we could tie it to the vertical construction and back

01:26:05.920 --> 01:26:07.920
 into those dollar amounts.

01:26:07.920 --> 01:26:11.920
 Two percent's the minimum?

01:26:11.920 --> 01:26:17.520
 If the policy is written anywhere from two to four percent, but you can recommend that

01:26:17.520 --> 01:26:22.960
 it be a flat million dollars and then we could spread it among the projects.

01:26:22.960 --> 01:26:31.320
 If you do it either as a percentage out separate rather than tied into the vertical, or a flat

01:26:31.320 --> 01:26:39.840
 rate, that gives you the opportunity, as was just demonstrated, to put perhaps some public

01:26:39.840 --> 01:26:43.080
 art along the trails.

01:26:43.080 --> 01:26:46.380
 Because after all, there's nothing vertical on the trails.

01:26:46.380 --> 01:26:52.120
 You could put some of the public art at the inclusive playground.

01:26:52.120 --> 01:27:00.920
 Having it totally out from the vertical as well as doing an explanation, because you

01:27:00.920 --> 01:27:06.840
 now have some public art to have people think about.

01:27:06.840 --> 01:27:12.500
 You could go on Bonnie Bray at the circle and you see that structure there.

01:27:12.500 --> 01:27:14.640
 You can go at the courthouse.

01:27:14.640 --> 01:27:23.240
 So you have something tangible, where in the past perhaps you didn't.

01:27:23.240 --> 01:27:26.640
 I appreciate what you just said, Julie, because kind of what I'm looking for is something

01:27:26.640 --> 01:27:32.480
 like that, an option where the money is there, but it's not another thing you run into when

01:27:32.480 --> 01:27:37.600
 it's a percentage of a particular project is maybe this project is just not very much

01:27:37.600 --> 01:27:38.600
 money.

01:27:38.600 --> 01:27:44.960
 You're not going to get that great a project for however many, a few thousand dollars or

01:27:44.960 --> 01:27:50.480
 whatever the 2% is, whereas you might have a library that you're expanding where you

01:27:50.480 --> 01:27:53.600
 want to do a really good sculpture, where you can pay somebody a little bit more to

01:27:53.600 --> 01:27:56.280
 design it, and you might need a little bit more money.

01:27:56.280 --> 01:28:05.040
 So something that gives the option to move the money around a little bit and not be stuck

01:28:05.040 --> 01:28:10.560
 in one place, but is also not a standalone proposition is I think what we're looking

01:28:10.560 --> 01:28:11.560
 for.

01:28:11.560 --> 01:28:17.380
 Sorry, I thought of one more thing.

01:28:17.380 --> 01:28:21.680
 The decision to make it tied to vertical construction was just a policy decision.

01:28:21.680 --> 01:28:26.560
 It was just a how do we figure out what number to use, and it's changed many times over the

01:28:26.560 --> 01:28:27.560
 years.

01:28:27.560 --> 01:28:30.400
 So it doesn't have to be stuck on vertical construction.

01:28:30.400 --> 01:28:32.880
 It can be a percentage of the total.

01:28:32.880 --> 01:28:34.920
 It can be anything we think up.

01:28:34.920 --> 01:28:41.200
 That was just kind of a policy decision that a past city council made based on recommendations

01:28:41.200 --> 01:28:44.480
 from a past committee just to figure out a number.

01:28:44.480 --> 01:28:45.480
 How do we figure out a number?

01:28:45.480 --> 01:28:47.920
 Let's make it a percentage of vertical construction.

01:28:47.920 --> 01:28:56.400
 It really could be anything.

01:28:56.400 --> 01:29:02.840
 That decision was really in the 2012 bond when it was all roads, and it didn't seem

01:29:02.840 --> 01:29:09.200
 to make sense to have to have public art tied to road construction projects.

01:29:09.200 --> 01:29:17.440
 All right, well, let's just get a pulse of where we're at based on that conversation

01:29:17.440 --> 01:29:24.520
 since if we're interested in it staying in, there's really kind of two options that we've

01:29:24.520 --> 01:29:25.520
 been talking about.

01:29:25.520 --> 01:29:33.120
 One is including it within all the vertical project propositions as 2% and included in

01:29:33.120 --> 01:29:39.560
 each of those propositions, or the idea of keeping it out as a separate proposition that

01:29:39.560 --> 01:29:43.840
 could be voted on where there's more flexibility as to what to have.

01:29:43.840 --> 01:29:47.660
 And so let's start with just something.

01:29:47.660 --> 01:29:54.760
 So if we take the 2% option of being tagged within the propositions and being based on

01:29:54.760 --> 01:30:02.080
 the vertical projects within those propositions, how many would be in favor of including 2%--

01:30:02.080 --> 01:30:06.720
 let's start there-- of bond money as part of this package?

01:30:06.720 --> 01:30:11.520
 You mean tied into the vertical?

01:30:11.520 --> 01:30:13.920
 Yes, tied into the vertical.

01:30:13.920 --> 01:30:17.400
 Tie into the propositions as opposed to a standalone, I guess.

01:30:17.400 --> 01:30:20.600
 But at a percentage and not a flat rate.

01:30:20.600 --> 01:30:21.600
 Right.

01:30:21.600 --> 01:30:22.600
 2%.

01:30:22.600 --> 01:30:23.600
 2%.

01:30:23.600 --> 01:30:35.160
 We're at 23 and 1/2.

01:30:35.160 --> 01:30:44.520
 We need new counters.

01:30:44.520 --> 01:30:47.000
 He's blaming the citizens.

01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:49.240
 All right.

01:30:49.240 --> 01:30:55.160
 So that's a starting point for us, 2% there.

01:30:55.160 --> 01:31:04.160
 So now where we're at from a total perspective, based on what we just talked about with each

01:31:04.160 --> 01:31:10.480
 one of those conversations, just as a reminder, the majority of the folks in this room said

01:31:10.480 --> 01:31:17.120
 we're OK with taking to the voters $335 million as part of a bond package.

01:31:17.120 --> 01:31:23.760
 And then all these other things are already factored into that, is that right, Christine?

01:31:23.760 --> 01:31:27.640
 She's adding numbers.

01:31:27.640 --> 01:31:36.040
 So that brings what's on the screen with City Hall Municipal Complex taken out, a total

01:31:36.040 --> 01:31:43.360
 package of $311.

01:31:43.360 --> 01:31:45.620
 As recommended.

01:31:45.620 --> 01:31:52.200
 So based on just, again, the direction that's provided, it seems like we've got a package

01:31:52.200 --> 01:31:57.040
 here that fits all those bills.

01:31:57.040 --> 01:32:01.180
 So we're at a point now in the conversation where I'm going to go ahead and open it up

01:32:01.180 --> 01:32:06.240
 to item number three.

01:32:06.240 --> 01:32:10.320
 Consider a recommendation to the Denton City Council regarding a 2023 bond program and

01:32:10.320 --> 01:32:15.760
 election, including projects and funding level consistent with the requirements under Ordinance

01:32:15.760 --> 01:32:18.280
 23-721.

01:32:18.280 --> 01:32:24.600
 Because this is a vote, we are opening up for public comment, not us.

01:32:24.600 --> 01:32:27.320
 We're the deciding body that gets to vote.

01:32:27.320 --> 01:32:35.800
 So this is public comment from anyone who's a non-staff member to be able to speak.

01:32:35.800 --> 01:32:48.320
 All right, we're going to close the public hearing section of this.

01:32:48.320 --> 01:32:51.520
 Thanks for your participation.

01:32:51.520 --> 01:33:06.320
 And now it's up for us to entertain a motion.

01:33:06.320 --> 01:33:07.320
 So wait, I want to click.

01:33:07.320 --> 01:33:14.120
 So just to clarify the motion, approve the package as displayed on the screen as our

01:33:14.120 --> 01:33:23.680
 recommendation to the City Council.

01:33:23.680 --> 01:33:26.880
 Adding numbers as the motion is.

01:33:26.880 --> 01:33:28.020
 Did you second, Peggy?

01:33:28.020 --> 01:33:31.840
 So we have a motion and a second.

01:33:31.840 --> 01:33:42.200
 Any discussion?

01:33:42.200 --> 01:33:48.560
 So I'd like to make a recommendation for a bit of a modification.

01:33:48.560 --> 01:33:55.400
 So what was motion was to approve it as shown on the screen, which is zero for a municipal

01:33:55.400 --> 01:34:01.600
 complex, but 51 million for a South Branch Library.

01:34:01.600 --> 01:34:07.960
 The concern that I have is motion to approve the total amount of money as shown on the

01:34:07.960 --> 01:34:14.800
 screen would be saying that what we're voting for would be, if all are in favor or whatever,

01:34:14.800 --> 01:34:21.220
 for majority rules, we're saying we want to spend $51 million on a South Branch Library

01:34:21.220 --> 01:34:23.800
 and zero on a municipal complex.

01:34:23.800 --> 01:34:29.080
 Now I understand the presentation that was given for the municipal complex was a massive

01:34:29.080 --> 01:34:35.440
 number and a public, a P3, and that really convoluted.

01:34:35.440 --> 01:34:43.880
 Just like we felt strongly that our firefighters shouldn't be housed in a facility like we

01:34:43.880 --> 01:34:47.160
 see it at five.

01:34:47.160 --> 01:34:52.080
 Harken back to when our planning and development staff that's in this building today was in

01:34:52.080 --> 01:34:57.120
 City Hall West and we had people literally officing in closets.

01:34:57.120 --> 01:34:59.560
 Not joking, they were actual closets.

01:34:59.560 --> 01:35:01.760
 That was an old jail.

01:35:01.760 --> 01:35:10.640
 And so I think that's why I said in the beginning, like, I don't like the all or nothing because

01:35:10.640 --> 01:35:19.400
 I think it would be a mistake to not allocate some funding for a city municipal building.

01:35:19.400 --> 01:35:23.480
 For an example, that could be in addition to the existing City Hall.

01:35:23.480 --> 01:35:28.920
 That could be another building somewhere maybe having the folks off of Mingo isn't the best

01:35:28.920 --> 01:35:31.240
 use of that facility, whatever it is, right?

01:35:31.240 --> 01:35:34.640
 It's not ours to decide the very specifics about how the money's used.

01:35:34.640 --> 01:35:39.320
 I personally can't get behind $51 million for the South Branch Library.

01:35:39.320 --> 01:35:42.760
 That is a massive number.

01:35:42.760 --> 01:35:45.840
 That's $700 and something dollars a square foot.

01:35:45.840 --> 01:35:49.280
 You can build a hospital for $400.

01:35:49.280 --> 01:35:59.120
 So to me, what I would like to advocate for is that we look at this thing and we say let's

01:35:59.120 --> 01:36:10.800
 allocate some funding, for an example, I could get behind allocating $20 to $25 million.

01:36:10.800 --> 01:36:12.680
 That's right, and we're in discussion right now, Tim.

01:36:12.680 --> 01:36:13.680
 That's how it works.

01:36:13.680 --> 01:36:20.880
 But either you're making a motion or you're making a speech for or against the motion.

01:36:20.880 --> 01:36:22.440
 We're in discussion.

01:36:22.440 --> 01:36:23.760
 That's what happens during discussion.

01:36:23.760 --> 01:36:31.720
 So I have the mic, I appreciate you're excited, but that's how discussion works.

01:36:31.720 --> 01:36:37.680
 So what I'm advocating for is could we consider, which would ultimately be an amendment to

01:36:37.680 --> 01:36:48.400
 the motion, allocating some money, say, for the South Branch Library of $20 to $25 million

01:36:48.400 --> 01:36:56.400
 and $20 to $25 million, $25 to $30 million, wherever the number is, for a municipal complex

01:36:56.400 --> 01:37:04.560
 or to be used for a city municipal building, whether it's an addition or a standalone.

01:37:04.560 --> 01:37:05.560
 That's your amendment.

01:37:05.560 --> 01:37:12.920
 Well, and the reason I say that is we said first about the total, but then you said what

01:37:12.920 --> 01:37:17.840
 you're motioning for is for as is shown on the screen, which would include $51 million

01:37:17.840 --> 01:37:19.360
 for the library.

01:37:19.360 --> 01:37:26.120
 So that's my friendly amendment offer, would be to reduce the South Branch Library amount

01:37:26.120 --> 01:37:34.160
 to $20 million and add $30 million for a municipal facility.

01:37:34.160 --> 01:37:35.160
 So that's...

01:37:35.160 --> 01:37:38.160
 As the maker of the motion, I don't accept that as a friendly amendment.

01:37:38.160 --> 01:37:39.640
 You can make the amendment.

01:37:39.640 --> 01:37:40.640
 That's fine.

01:37:40.640 --> 01:37:41.640
 That's fine.

01:37:41.640 --> 01:37:42.640
 So that's his amendment.

01:37:42.640 --> 01:37:53.040
 It's essentially an emotion, e-motion, motion, and so is there any second to that?

01:37:53.040 --> 01:37:54.600
 Greg?

01:37:54.600 --> 01:37:56.920
 Yes.

01:37:56.920 --> 01:37:58.240
 Are you seconding it?

01:37:58.240 --> 01:38:00.020
 So we have a second to that.

01:38:00.020 --> 01:38:03.400
 So now we have a vote on that amendment.

01:38:03.400 --> 01:38:06.760
 Should we have a discussion on part of that?

01:38:06.760 --> 01:38:12.920
 We can have some brief discussion on that.

01:38:12.920 --> 01:38:15.960
 I just felt like there was quite a bit of contention and discussion at the very beginning

01:38:15.960 --> 01:38:20.400
 of this meeting about this very issue, and it seemed like there were two very different

01:38:20.400 --> 01:38:25.760
 paths that could go forward with regard to Fire Station 6 and South Branch Library, and

01:38:25.760 --> 01:38:32.440
 I don't know that voting on this, even with those changes in numbers, really reflects

01:38:32.440 --> 01:38:37.720
 the intention of maybe what some of the people had in mind in that discussion, and I don't

01:38:37.720 --> 01:38:42.240
 know a way to present that better, or if we're covering that better, the way we need to be,

01:38:42.240 --> 01:38:44.720
 but I'd like to have that accounted for.

01:38:44.720 --> 01:38:45.720
 Certainly.

01:38:45.720 --> 01:38:49.520
 Do we have a microphone back here?

01:38:49.520 --> 01:38:53.160
 Excuse me.

01:38:53.160 --> 01:39:01.020
 It was my understanding on the beginning of this that if we looked at each of the wishes

01:39:01.020 --> 01:39:12.000
 of the Fire Stations, you can keep together, but go and list an item and give a budget

01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:21.640
 for that item specifically such that the total budget was less than the $3.35.

01:39:21.640 --> 01:39:31.400
 That would take care of the suggestion of allowing $25 for the library, putting $25

01:39:31.400 --> 01:39:32.680
 to a municipal complex.

01:39:32.680 --> 01:39:41.560
 Each idea has what we feel would be a good pricing, just like you're going to buy a house,

01:39:41.560 --> 01:39:48.400
 A, B, or C, it's priced at this, this, or this, and then as long as we stay under the

01:39:48.400 --> 01:39:53.800
 total and take it from there.

01:39:53.800 --> 01:40:01.040
 Let's take three more comments on this, and then we'll vote on that motion.

01:40:01.040 --> 01:40:11.880
 Greg, I'm going to vote against your motion, but it's because I'd like to see, and I intend

01:40:11.880 --> 01:40:19.160
 to make a motion to divide the question, because there's a couple reasons, I don't feel comfortable

01:40:19.160 --> 01:40:20.760
 voting for the total number.

01:40:20.760 --> 01:40:24.080
 I think that we need to give City Council better direction than that.

01:40:24.080 --> 01:40:29.680
 They need to know, were there 100% of the people in favor of the Fire Station, or were

01:40:29.680 --> 01:40:34.060
 there 51% of the people in favor of the Fire Station?

01:40:34.060 --> 01:40:39.720
 If the City Council is going to take our recommendation whole hog and just do exactly what we say,

01:40:39.720 --> 01:40:41.240
 then they don't need any more data.

01:40:41.240 --> 01:40:45.240
 But if they're going to discuss it any further and want to know, well, how did the bond committee

01:40:45.240 --> 01:40:46.720
 really feel about this?

01:40:46.720 --> 01:40:52.200
 Was it 51% of the people, or was it 95% of the people that wanted this particular measure?

01:40:52.200 --> 01:40:56.520
 Or when it comes down to it, and it's time to actually put it on the ballot, if they're

01:40:56.520 --> 01:41:01.600
 not comfortable with the total number, they need to know where we're at.

01:41:01.600 --> 01:41:06.120
 I also just think it's kind of, I know it's going to take a little bit more time if we

01:41:06.120 --> 01:41:09.280
 do it number by number, line by line.

01:41:09.280 --> 01:41:12.480
 I think some of these are going to be pretty simple, I think we're going to all be in agreement

01:41:12.480 --> 01:41:13.480
 about them.

01:41:13.480 --> 01:41:18.640
 But at the same time, just doing it all together doesn't really give us the opportunity to

01:41:18.640 --> 01:41:23.080
 examine each of these projects on their merits and make a recommendation on the projects.

01:41:23.080 --> 01:41:29.160
 We're just telling City Council, yeah, go for it, spend what you like.

01:41:29.160 --> 01:41:36.960
 I'm going to speak against a motion also, partially because I adore libraries.

01:41:36.960 --> 01:41:42.800
 They can make something out of nothing, libraries, libraries, libraries.

01:41:42.800 --> 01:41:50.140
 But I think to put in an amount of money to go toward the library that's not enough to

01:41:50.140 --> 01:41:54.200
 do anything with, what do you do with $20,000?

01:41:54.200 --> 01:42:00.100
 You can't get a new library for that, $20 million, sorry.

01:42:00.100 --> 01:42:02.600
 You can't get a library for that.

01:42:02.600 --> 01:42:09.920
 And so I'm just opposed to that hanging out that little bit of money to do something with

01:42:09.920 --> 01:42:13.160
 that's not a part of the plan.

01:42:13.160 --> 01:42:14.960
 And I agree with Lenny.

01:42:14.960 --> 01:42:19.360
 Just throwing out $25,000 for the library and $25,000 for the fire station.

01:42:19.360 --> 01:42:25.280
 We don't know what that would do or what cost it would involve because they don't even have

01:42:25.280 --> 01:42:26.280
 those proposals.

01:42:26.280 --> 01:42:28.400
 So I'm going to vote against it as well.

01:42:28.400 --> 01:42:29.400
 Okay.

01:42:29.400 --> 01:42:30.400
 I said three comments.

01:42:30.400 --> 01:42:31.400
 We've had three comments, which was great.

01:42:31.400 --> 01:42:40.800
 So we have a motion to amend to allot $20 million toward the library project and $30

01:42:40.800 --> 01:42:46.200
 million towards City Hall project.

01:42:46.200 --> 01:42:47.500
 And we have a second.

01:42:47.500 --> 01:42:48.500
 So let's take a vote.

01:42:48.500 --> 01:42:50.640
 All in favor of that amendment?

01:42:50.640 --> 01:42:53.760
 We have a motion to partition his motion.

01:42:53.760 --> 01:42:54.760
 Not his motion.

01:42:54.760 --> 01:42:57.440
 I don't think so.

01:42:57.440 --> 01:43:03.480
 So all in favor of the amendment, raise your hand.

01:43:03.480 --> 01:43:08.880
 >> Can you review what the amendment was?

01:43:08.880 --> 01:43:09.880
 >> I just did.

01:43:09.880 --> 01:43:16.720
 But it's $20 million to take the library project to $20 million and then to vote $30 million

01:43:16.720 --> 01:43:18.620
 toward City Hall.

01:43:18.620 --> 01:43:22.160
 And it looks like when we took the vote, we had one vote.

01:43:22.160 --> 01:43:23.440
 Okay.

01:43:23.440 --> 01:43:25.280
 That motion fails.

01:43:25.280 --> 01:43:29.160
 We have a motion and a second on the table.

01:43:29.160 --> 01:43:34.760
 It sounds like we might get another motion.

01:43:34.760 --> 01:43:38.080
 >> I move that we divide the question and I would speak to the motion if it receives

01:43:38.080 --> 01:43:42.460
 a second.

01:43:42.460 --> 01:43:43.460
 >> Received a second.

01:43:43.460 --> 01:43:46.240
 >> So I've already laid out why I'm making the motion.

01:43:46.240 --> 01:43:50.920
 But I'd like to add to that that one thing that's not up there that we haven't discussed

01:43:50.920 --> 01:43:55.720
 yet is that we as a committee have the ability to make additional recommendations.

01:43:55.720 --> 01:43:59.640
 So for instance, if you're an affordable housing person and you think affordable housing is

01:43:59.640 --> 01:44:04.920
 something the city ought to put $15 million behind, and I'm going to agree with you on

01:44:04.920 --> 01:44:10.280
 that, we can also recommend that the City Council do a thing that we learned about during

01:44:10.280 --> 01:44:15.000
 this process, and that is create a PFC, public finance corporation.

01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:18.520
 If you are a trails person and you think the City Council ought to really be looking at

01:44:18.520 --> 01:44:24.480
 leveraging money, we can make a recommendation that the city work with regional partners

01:44:24.480 --> 01:44:31.280
 to find grants or to work with the parks foundation on an inclusive playground.

01:44:31.280 --> 01:44:35.640
 We can make policy recommendations beyond the dollar amounts, and that would be an additional

01:44:35.640 --> 01:44:42.000
 question that's not on the screen now.

01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:43.720
 >> Any further -- we have a second already.

01:44:43.720 --> 01:44:46.320
 Any further discussion on this?

01:44:46.320 --> 01:44:49.880
 Patty?

01:44:49.880 --> 01:44:55.280
 >> I will agree that we should vote on these items individually because that gives more

01:44:55.280 --> 01:44:57.360
 direction to council.

01:44:57.360 --> 01:45:07.880
 They need to see if it was 100% vote, it was 75% vote, it was almost 50% vote, they need

01:45:07.880 --> 01:45:14.240
 to see that rather than just saying here it all is, go for it.

01:45:14.240 --> 01:45:19.920
 Because if you've ever watched council, whenever they get a recommendation from P and Z, they

01:45:19.920 --> 01:45:25.880
 always ask what was the vote on a zoning or variance or whatever it is, they always want

01:45:25.880 --> 01:45:27.520
 to know what was the vote.

01:45:27.520 --> 01:45:36.320
 So I really support our -- I think we're robbed of a voice if we don't vote on these individually.

01:45:36.320 --> 01:45:42.600
 So I think we do need to vote individually on each item, and those numbers need to go

01:45:42.600 --> 01:45:45.520
 to council.

01:45:45.520 --> 01:45:51.160
 >> Do we have another mic?

01:45:51.160 --> 01:45:54.240
 Take it over to Janet, please.

01:45:54.240 --> 01:46:01.960
 >> This might not be the right time, but I still have a question about the library.

01:46:01.960 --> 01:46:06.240
 So I don't know if we can do that under Robert's Rules of Order.

01:46:06.240 --> 01:46:12.060
 >> Yeah, I think it's just discussion for us as the deliberating body at this point.

01:46:12.060 --> 01:46:17.440
 You could certainly walk back and talk to somebody if it's helpful on your own.

01:46:17.440 --> 01:46:18.440
 >> Thanks.

01:46:18.440 --> 01:46:19.440
 >> Yeah.

01:46:19.440 --> 01:46:20.440
 Yes, Gary.

01:46:20.440 --> 01:46:33.520
 >> I'd like to make a motion that we approve items ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

01:46:33.520 --> 01:46:39.000
 >> I think you can make that as a substitute motion.

01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:45.000
 >> He's making that as a substitute motion, and the motion is that we approve 1 through

01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:46.720
 6?

01:46:46.720 --> 01:46:52.280
 Is that what you're suggesting?

01:46:52.280 --> 01:46:57.620
 We have a second?

01:46:57.620 --> 01:47:03.580
 He's not saying in totality, it's just like let's include those, get them off the table

01:47:03.580 --> 01:47:07.120
 and move forward with other conversations.

01:47:07.120 --> 01:47:11.600
 So somebody school me and Robert's Rules of Order where we're at in the layers of motions.

01:47:11.600 --> 01:47:17.120
 We have the initial motion, we have the motion to divide the question.

01:47:17.120 --> 01:47:19.560
 We actually have three now.

01:47:19.560 --> 01:47:23.400
 And then this was a substitute motion substituting for his.

01:47:23.400 --> 01:47:25.480
 >> Ben Samples, city attorney's office.

01:47:25.480 --> 01:47:26.480
 >> Yes, thank you.

01:47:26.480 --> 01:47:27.480
 >> Hi.

01:47:27.480 --> 01:47:28.480
 [ Laughter ]

01:47:28.480 --> 01:47:38.800
 >> So the motion on the floor is the division of the question.

01:47:38.800 --> 01:47:43.880
 I think there may just be a little more clarity as to how you want to divide it if you're

01:47:43.880 --> 01:47:49.280
 doing one, if you're dividing it 1 through 15 or whatever.

01:47:49.280 --> 01:47:53.620
 I think that clarity is missing and then a vote needs to be taken, a majority vote would

01:47:53.620 --> 01:48:00.360
 get that going if there's a substitute motion after that which I think his substitute motion

01:48:00.360 --> 01:48:07.840
 was to maybe group some together, but that would be based on the initial motion that's

01:48:07.840 --> 01:48:08.840
 on the floor.

01:48:08.840 --> 01:48:09.840
 >> Got it.

01:48:09.840 --> 01:48:10.840
 So we need to respond.

01:48:10.840 --> 01:48:11.840
 We need to --

01:48:11.840 --> 01:48:12.840
 >> If there's no more discussion --

01:48:12.840 --> 01:48:13.840
 >> Got it.

01:48:13.840 --> 01:48:14.840
 >> On --

01:48:14.840 --> 01:48:16.980
 >> Okay, thank you very much.

01:48:16.980 --> 01:48:23.600
 So let's have a vote on the motion by Mr. Davis on dividing the question.

01:48:23.600 --> 01:48:29.320
 And this would be -- what we're voting on here is if we want to go ahead and consider

01:48:29.320 --> 01:48:34.840
 each one of these individually with an up or down vote to be able to, to the point,

01:48:34.840 --> 01:48:39.060
 be able to reflect the count on each one of those.

01:48:39.060 --> 01:48:47.140
 So all in favor of that motion, raise your right hand.

01:48:47.140 --> 01:49:09.840
 Keep it raised high so they can -- and look around Peggy because all the hands that are

01:49:09.840 --> 01:49:17.640
 raised are telling you, you can't go home for a very long time.

01:49:17.640 --> 01:49:19.680
 She's keeping score.

01:49:19.680 --> 01:49:21.360
 All right.

01:49:21.360 --> 01:49:27.320
 So that motion passes, passes.

01:49:27.320 --> 01:49:37.520
 So from a process point of view, what we can do is start with the first item.

01:49:37.520 --> 01:49:41.000
 I don't think we do because I think his motion supersedes that motion.

01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:49.020
 He essentially was saying let's divide that question.

01:49:49.020 --> 01:49:52.360
 So here we're going to vote on each one individually.

01:49:52.360 --> 01:49:59.760
 So all in favor of item number one, fire station number five, raise your right hand.

01:49:59.760 --> 01:50:00.760
 Keep them up.

01:50:00.760 --> 01:50:08.560
 If each one of them would count their table it might be a lot easier.

01:50:08.560 --> 01:50:11.560
 I'll let them figure that out.

01:50:11.560 --> 01:50:29.960
 Unanimous.

01:50:29.960 --> 01:50:30.960
 Way to go, team.

01:50:30.960 --> 01:50:34.320
 We're making progress.

01:50:34.320 --> 01:50:39.520
 Number two, all in favor of fire station number six, raise your right hand.

01:50:39.520 --> 01:50:53.400
 We're voting at this point.

01:50:53.400 --> 01:50:56.920
 Unanimous.

01:50:56.920 --> 01:51:04.200
 Item number three, Oakland drainage and upstream detention improvements.

01:51:04.200 --> 01:51:17.920
 All in favor, raise your right hand.

01:51:17.920 --> 01:51:38.480
 Item number five, affordable housing at $15 million.

01:51:38.480 --> 01:51:43.080
 All in favor, raise your right hand.

01:51:43.080 --> 01:51:44.080
 I'm sorry.

01:51:44.080 --> 01:51:51.260
 Item number four, PEC phases three and four, drainage improvements, all in favor, raise

01:51:51.260 --> 01:51:57.920
 your right hand.

01:51:57.920 --> 01:52:11.640
 Yeah, they're asking if you can get the vote tally reflected.

01:52:11.640 --> 01:52:12.640
 I think they're getting that.

01:52:12.640 --> 01:52:14.320
 It's kind of a manual process.

01:52:14.320 --> 01:52:15.320
 All right.

01:52:15.320 --> 01:52:30.000
 Now number five, affordable housing at $15 million, all in favor.

01:52:30.000 --> 01:52:49.280
 All right, number six, active adult center, all in favor, raise your right hand.

01:52:49.280 --> 01:53:01.600
 Anthony's got her hand raised very high.

01:53:01.600 --> 01:53:20.400
 Thank you.

01:53:20.400 --> 01:53:23.280
 Can you help advise on that the way we have?

01:53:23.280 --> 01:53:27.880
 It's technically a motion that's just been divided into a series of votes.

01:53:27.880 --> 01:53:35.560
 I think discussion's over, correct?

01:53:35.560 --> 01:53:43.840
 If it fails, we can come back and do all sorts of things.

01:53:43.840 --> 01:53:44.840
 That's my read.

01:53:44.840 --> 01:53:45.840
 All right.

01:53:45.840 --> 01:53:49.320
 So we are now at South Branch Library number seven.

01:53:49.320 --> 01:54:13.240
 All in favor, raise your right hand.

01:54:13.240 --> 01:54:21.120
 What's our total number, 15, so it's 15-4, so that fails.

01:54:21.120 --> 01:54:24.920
 As is, now we have opportunities after this.

01:54:24.920 --> 01:54:31.120
 Eight, Linda McNatt Animal Care and Adoption Center expansion, all in favor, raise your

01:54:31.120 --> 01:54:44.640
 right hand.

01:54:44.640 --> 01:55:06.120
 26, that passes.

01:55:06.120 --> 01:55:13.720
 Number nine, Riddell Mingo Roadway and Quiet Zones, all in favor, raise your right hand.

01:55:13.720 --> 01:55:40.560
 I'm going to make you cross the gardener, you know that, right?

01:55:40.560 --> 01:55:41.560
 15.

01:55:41.560 --> 01:55:45.200
 15, that fails.

01:55:45.200 --> 01:55:59.400
 Number 10, Inclusive Playground, all in favor, raise your right hand.

01:55:59.400 --> 01:56:11.840
 27.

01:56:11.840 --> 01:56:18.320
 27, that passes.

01:56:18.320 --> 01:56:21.480
 You keep forgetting about it, it's all right.

01:56:21.480 --> 01:56:24.880
 The next, are there two number 10s, or right?

01:56:24.880 --> 01:56:25.880
 All right.

01:56:25.880 --> 01:56:40.000
 City Hall West is the next item, all in favor, raise your right hand.

01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:53.360
 26, that passes.

01:56:53.360 --> 01:57:10.640
 Riddell Development, 15 million, all in favor, raise your right hand.

01:57:10.640 --> 01:57:26.440
 31, that passes.

01:57:26.440 --> 01:57:42.440
 Number 13, Aquatics, raise your right hand.

01:57:42.440 --> 01:58:05.320
 18, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50.

01:58:05.320 --> 01:58:18.080
 Next, we're at Public Art, which I guess as a first one, just because of based on the

01:58:18.080 --> 01:58:27.440
 previous discussion, this would be 2% of vertical projects, as opposed to a standalone proposition,

01:58:27.440 --> 01:58:28.840
 which is what we discussed earlier.

01:58:28.840 --> 01:58:30.400
 So all in favor of that.

01:58:30.400 --> 01:58:36.880
 She's just highlighting ones that didn't pass.

01:58:36.880 --> 01:58:39.920
 She's not doing anything, it's okay.

01:58:39.920 --> 01:58:41.200
 We're doing this on the fly, guys.

01:58:41.200 --> 01:58:48.480
 All right, so let's vote in favor of Public Art, 2%.

01:58:48.480 --> 01:59:07.240
 26, so that passes.

01:59:07.240 --> 01:59:11.320
 All right.

01:59:11.320 --> 01:59:12.320
 Good job, team.

01:59:12.320 --> 01:59:17.440
 So we have a package thus far now.

01:59:17.440 --> 01:59:22.400
 We're still open for any other amendment, or not amendments at this point, motions,

01:59:22.400 --> 01:59:28.240
 if folks want to return to any of these topics with alternatives, perhaps, or additional

01:59:28.240 --> 01:59:29.240
 projects.

01:59:29.240 --> 01:59:30.240
 Lynnie?

01:59:30.240 --> 01:59:39.440
 Well, I'd like to speak about the Mingo Quiet Zone, which, whether you know it or not, that

01:59:39.440 --> 01:59:46.400
 was previously approved by the voters, and I really think we owe something to those people.

01:59:46.400 --> 01:59:51.840
 It was approved to be developed, but they didn't have enough money in the budget to

01:59:51.840 --> 01:59:52.960
 do so.

01:59:52.960 --> 01:59:58.120
 So it's coming around a second time, and it's like we told them before, yes, they could

01:59:58.120 --> 02:00:04.880
 have this, and now we're taking it back.

02:00:04.880 --> 02:00:08.000
 Are you making a motion, or are you just speaking to that?

02:00:08.000 --> 02:00:14.660
 Okay, that's fine.

02:00:14.660 --> 02:00:21.720
 So as I recall, the Mingo Quiet Zone was just a quiet zone, and a railroad crossing, it

02:00:21.720 --> 02:00:24.960
 did not include rebuilding Ruedell and Mingo.

02:00:24.960 --> 02:00:37.920
 So what the amount is now, 45 million, it was much, much less than that.

02:00:37.920 --> 02:00:38.920
 Something like that.

02:00:38.920 --> 02:00:41.360
 It was not very much money at all.

02:00:41.360 --> 02:00:48.160
 But the 900,000 was approved by the voters in the 2019, but this is far above what that

02:00:48.160 --> 02:00:50.680
 quiet zone proposal was.

02:00:50.680 --> 02:01:09.680
 That being said, can we request the total, like the 199, 917, 536, to add back what the

02:01:09.680 --> 02:01:11.720
 totals were that have been zeroed out?

02:01:11.720 --> 02:01:16.240
 Because as we're discussing this, I'd like to see where they stood before we zeroed them

02:01:16.240 --> 02:01:17.240
 out.

02:01:17.240 --> 02:01:26.360
 So if there's a way we could put 199 and just pull that down, and then putting next to south,

02:01:26.360 --> 02:01:30.360
 what all of those totals were before you zeroed them out.

02:01:30.360 --> 02:01:31.360
 You're a visual processor.

02:01:31.360 --> 02:01:32.360
 I am.

02:01:32.360 --> 02:01:33.360
 I love it.

02:01:33.360 --> 02:01:41.600
 Is there other, sorry, Clay?

02:01:41.600 --> 02:01:46.600
 I'd be interested in what the Ruedell Mingo would look like with Ruedell taken out of it,

02:01:46.600 --> 02:01:54.600
 because as I remember, the first justification for Ruedell was to create another north-south

02:01:54.600 --> 02:02:02.880
 connection, and was possibly used as a route to alleviate bowel closure.

02:02:02.880 --> 02:02:06.840
 And that is a heavily residential neighborhood.

02:02:06.840 --> 02:02:12.720
 I don't see that as being anything other than, it's never going to be an arterial.

02:02:12.720 --> 02:02:17.600
 I don't even see it being a collector.

02:02:17.600 --> 02:02:28.360
 So I was interested in what it would look like with Ruedell taken out of that.

02:02:28.360 --> 02:02:32.440
 Randy?

02:02:32.440 --> 02:02:37.280
 So that's kind of like the question I had, is what is the timing of the Belle Avenue

02:02:37.280 --> 02:02:38.280
 closing?

02:02:38.280 --> 02:02:41.840
 Does anybody know that?

02:02:41.840 --> 02:02:44.000
 If it's unknown at this time.

02:02:44.000 --> 02:02:51.240
 And I think that's probably what would be the impetus to make Mingo and Ruedell.

02:02:51.240 --> 02:02:58.680
 I think Ruedell is a crucial part, because it's the only north-south route back to 380

02:02:58.680 --> 02:03:00.560
 other than Belle.

02:03:00.560 --> 02:03:08.280
 So I think the timing of the Belle Avenue closing is critical to that.

02:03:08.280 --> 02:03:09.640
 Yes, Susie?

02:03:09.640 --> 02:03:13.240
 And something I don't think got mentioned in the presentation about Mingo-Ruedell is

02:03:13.240 --> 02:03:18.880
 the T.W. Master Plan, you can find it on the internet, does have hopes for an entrance

02:03:18.880 --> 02:03:21.120
 on Ruedell eventually.

02:03:21.120 --> 02:03:25.560
 So that may factor into the idea of adding a turn lane at least for people coming in

02:03:25.560 --> 02:03:26.560
 and out.

02:03:26.560 --> 02:03:27.560
 So I don't think that was mentioned before.

02:03:27.560 --> 02:03:31.560
 Well, not only that, but they've got, their plans for that entire golf course area is

02:03:31.560 --> 02:03:35.040
 heavily residential projects, is where they're planning on moving.

02:03:35.040 --> 02:03:39.680
 Now, I don't know the timing of that, but it seems like that's part and parcel probably

02:03:39.680 --> 02:03:43.200
 to what's being proposed.

02:03:43.200 --> 02:03:53.320
 Can I make a motion to include in the bond proposal the railroad quiet zones without

02:03:53.320 --> 02:03:59.720
 the rest of the Senate?

02:03:59.720 --> 02:04:07.160
 So can I ask if we even have that information, if we were to pull out just the quiet zone

02:04:07.160 --> 02:04:14.400
 projects from the other infrastructure projects along Mingo-Ruedell?

02:04:14.400 --> 02:04:15.400
 What's that?

02:04:15.400 --> 02:04:18.400
 It's not broken down.

02:04:18.400 --> 02:04:23.640
 Do we have an answer to that, or is that just something we couldn't provide at this time?

02:04:23.640 --> 02:04:31.400
 It's not an estimate, but it wouldn't be an accurate number.

02:04:31.400 --> 02:04:32.400
 Ballpark.

02:04:32.400 --> 02:04:33.400
 Eight to $10 million.

02:04:33.400 --> 02:04:39.040
 I think what we told council was 12 million total for all 10 of those quiet zones in that

02:04:39.040 --> 02:04:40.920
 project.

02:04:40.920 --> 02:04:46.280
 So let me go back to you because you were making a motion with that information.

02:04:46.280 --> 02:04:52.760
 $12 million to be included for the quiet zones.

02:04:52.760 --> 02:05:01.400
 We have a motion and a second to take the Ruedell-Mingo Roadway project that failed

02:05:01.400 --> 02:05:12.400
 and turn it into a quiet zone project at just $12 million, previously it was $45 million.

02:05:12.400 --> 02:05:17.840
 Discussion?

02:05:17.840 --> 02:05:22.940
 I think it would be a mistake to take Mingo out of that because Mingo is going to be a

02:05:22.940 --> 02:05:30.480
 very -- it already is a very needed rebuilt and side paths.

02:05:30.480 --> 02:05:35.240
 There's a lot of people that are bicycling and walking along that, and that needs to

02:05:35.240 --> 02:05:38.200
 be part of the project, I think.

02:05:38.200 --> 02:05:40.360
 Ruedell is the only thing I'm quick.

02:05:40.360 --> 02:05:44.880
 And as far as the quiet zones, I am impacted by that.

02:05:44.880 --> 02:05:47.360
 Got it.

02:05:47.360 --> 02:05:52.040
 My concern, I voted no during the initial vote down for this project.

02:05:52.040 --> 02:05:57.680
 My concern is that there was not a lot of clarity on what that ultimate cross-section

02:05:57.680 --> 02:06:02.600
 of Mingo would look like because my concerns are very much around families and if TWU is

02:06:02.600 --> 02:06:07.480
 pedestrianizing that area or residentializing it, there's going to be a lot of need for

02:06:07.480 --> 02:06:09.800
 access to downtown through there.

02:06:09.800 --> 02:06:14.320
 But with the cross-section, there was discussion of, oh, we'll see if we can fit a bike lane

02:06:14.320 --> 02:06:15.320
 in.

02:06:15.320 --> 02:06:17.520
 If we can fit a sidewalk in.

02:06:17.520 --> 02:06:24.800
 And so I would like to motion to approve the original amount with the direction that bike

02:06:24.800 --> 02:06:30.520
 lanes and pedestrian infrastructure be prioritized over any vehicular lane expansion.

02:06:30.520 --> 02:06:36.720
 So we have another motion on the table specific to a price tag of $12 million, taking out

02:06:36.720 --> 02:06:44.440
 Ruedell and Mingo and just doing the quiet zones as part of that.

02:06:44.440 --> 02:06:46.200
 It sounds like you're not offering an amendment.

02:06:46.200 --> 02:06:49.640
 It sounds like you're offering maybe a new motion because I'm not sure how that would

02:06:49.640 --> 02:06:50.640
 amend yours.

02:06:50.640 --> 02:06:51.640
 But give it a try.

02:06:51.640 --> 02:06:52.640
 Yeah, I suppose.

02:06:52.640 --> 02:06:55.040
 Or do you want to wait and see if this goes up or down?

02:06:55.040 --> 02:06:56.040
 Yeah.

02:06:56.040 --> 02:06:57.040
 Okay.

02:06:57.040 --> 02:06:58.680
 The order is quite hard.

02:06:58.680 --> 02:06:59.680
 It turns out.

02:06:59.680 --> 02:07:00.680
 No, I understand.

02:07:00.680 --> 02:07:01.680
 All right.

02:07:01.680 --> 02:07:05.280
 So we've got a motion and a second, $12 million for quiet zones only on that project.

02:07:05.280 --> 02:07:06.560
 One more discussion, please.

02:07:06.560 --> 02:07:09.040
 Oh, I'm sorry.

02:07:09.040 --> 02:07:16.560
 My one quick question on that is by going through and putting up whatever sound barriers

02:07:16.560 --> 02:07:26.800
 in that for the railroad tracks, if it is not done in conjunction with the road modifications,

02:07:26.800 --> 02:07:34.240
 including sidewalks and bikeways, how are you going to appropriately do it so you don't

02:07:34.240 --> 02:07:40.800
 put a sound barrier in and then come by three years, four years later and have to tear it

02:07:40.800 --> 02:07:41.800
 out?

02:07:41.800 --> 02:07:49.000
 Well, again, just from a procedural point of view, we've got a motion on the floor.

02:07:49.000 --> 02:07:55.020
 We're having discussion among the folks who are voting and typically new questions aren't

02:07:55.020 --> 02:07:56.020
 asked.

02:07:56.020 --> 02:08:00.860
 Do you have a quick answer to that?

02:08:00.860 --> 02:08:06.200
 So if you start breaking this project apart, the numbers are going to start going up.

02:08:06.200 --> 02:08:10.800
 So if you take the quiet zones and just do them by themselves, they're going to cost

02:08:10.800 --> 02:08:12.880
 more than it would be.

02:08:12.880 --> 02:08:15.760
 You get economies of scale when you start putting these projects together.

02:08:15.760 --> 02:08:21.080
 So that was the goal behind doing Roodale, Mingo and the quiet zones all together.

02:08:21.080 --> 02:08:27.480
 I will say that the Roodale extension that's included in this project was also a 2012-2014

02:08:27.480 --> 02:08:35.880
 project that was not able to be done because of the funding.

02:08:35.880 --> 02:08:43.200
 The proposed section for Mingo, kind of where the issue was is the right of way, what we

02:08:43.200 --> 02:08:44.400
 can acquire out there.

02:08:44.400 --> 02:08:50.080
 The goal would be to have bike lanes on both sides along with sidewalks where we can fit

02:08:50.080 --> 02:08:56.360
 it and we would definitely have at least one mixed use path along one side and fit in sidewalks

02:08:56.360 --> 02:08:57.760
 on the other where we could.

02:08:57.760 --> 02:08:59.580
 So that would be the goal.

02:08:59.580 --> 02:09:04.760
 We won't know those answers and what that ultimate cross section will look like until

02:09:04.760 --> 02:09:08.720
 we can get into those discussions with those property owners and determine what that looks

02:09:08.720 --> 02:09:09.720
 like.

02:09:09.720 --> 02:09:14.760
 But the goal, if we can get all the right of way, would be to have sidewalks on both

02:09:14.760 --> 02:09:17.920
 sides as well as bike lanes on both sides as well.

02:09:17.920 --> 02:09:18.960
 All right.

02:09:18.960 --> 02:09:19.960
 So we have a motion.

02:09:19.960 --> 02:09:24.600
 You want to speak to your motion, then we'll take it.

02:09:24.600 --> 02:09:25.600
 Yes.

02:09:25.600 --> 02:09:34.080
 Well, the Roodale-Mingo Road will not impact the quiet zones.

02:09:34.080 --> 02:09:40.920
 And my feeling is once the citizenry voted to do that, the fact that the city didn't

02:09:40.920 --> 02:09:45.040
 quite have the right numbers is not their fault.

02:09:45.040 --> 02:09:50.720
 We said we would do it for them and I think we need to do that.

02:09:50.720 --> 02:09:58.100
 The quiet zones, we can hobble about the rest however we want to, but I think we voted yes

02:09:58.100 --> 02:10:03.480
 for that once and we need to give them those quiet zones.

02:10:03.480 --> 02:10:06.000
 Can I just clarify the motion?

02:10:06.000 --> 02:10:11.120
 We're referencing 2012.

02:10:11.120 --> 02:10:16.520
 That included additional quiet zones that weren't proposed as part of this project, which included

02:10:16.520 --> 02:10:19.800
 quiet zones all the way through Denton through downtown.

02:10:19.800 --> 02:10:25.920
 And this project was only contemplating quiet zones, as I understand it, am I correct?

02:10:25.920 --> 02:10:32.920
 From Mingo up through, what was it, was it even Texas Street included in that or was

02:10:32.920 --> 02:10:33.920
 it further?

02:10:33.920 --> 02:10:34.920
 No.

02:10:34.920 --> 02:10:41.640
 I just want to clarify what we're proposing, that it's not the same as 2012.

02:10:41.640 --> 02:10:47.260
 It's not the same, so this one is Mockingbird through Willis.

02:10:47.260 --> 02:10:53.400
 There are separate quiet zone areas that are currently included in other projects that

02:10:53.400 --> 02:10:54.960
 are being completed now.

02:10:54.960 --> 02:11:00.040
 Is that how you understand your motion?

02:11:00.040 --> 02:11:08.400
 Are all the parts that are on here for quiet zones, were they on the original bond proposal

02:11:08.400 --> 02:11:10.600
 and voted in favor of?

02:11:10.600 --> 02:11:11.600
 Yes.

02:11:11.600 --> 02:11:21.640
 What she's saying is all that are on here were included in 2012, but there were additional

02:11:21.640 --> 02:11:23.960
 ones included in 2012.

02:11:23.960 --> 02:11:24.960
 Okay.

02:11:24.960 --> 02:11:25.960
 Just getting clarity.

02:11:25.960 --> 02:11:31.160
 So we have a motion, we have a second, let's have a vote.

02:11:31.160 --> 02:11:36.160
 All in favor say, no, I called it after her last comment, sorry.

02:11:36.160 --> 02:11:40.760
 All in favor, raise your right hand.

02:11:40.760 --> 02:11:43.480
 Can you say the motion one more time?

02:11:43.480 --> 02:11:49.880
 The motion is to do the quiet zone, take the Riddell and Mingo road project infrastructure

02:11:49.880 --> 02:11:56.040
 improvements off of that package, only include the portion of that package that included

02:11:56.040 --> 02:12:01.680
 the relevant quiet zone projects for a total of $12 million.

02:12:01.680 --> 02:12:07.360
 That were included in the previous bond approval.

02:12:07.360 --> 02:12:08.360
 Right.

02:12:08.360 --> 02:12:26.640
 All in favor of that motion, raise your right hand.

02:12:26.640 --> 02:12:45.960
 16.

02:12:45.960 --> 02:12:57.840
 Okay.

02:12:57.840 --> 02:13:02.720
 I would like to motion that we pass the original amount with the provision that in the event

02:13:02.720 --> 02:13:10.520
 that not enough right away can be acquired, that pedestrian and cyclist improvements are

02:13:10.520 --> 02:13:18.360
 prioritized over lane expansions.

02:13:18.360 --> 02:13:22.760
 Can you say that one more time?

02:13:22.760 --> 02:13:27.840
 Motion that we move forward with the original amount with the provision that we give direction

02:13:27.840 --> 02:13:35.720
 that in the event that they cannot acquire enough space, then we axe lane expansions

02:13:35.720 --> 02:13:40.360
 before we axe pedestrian and cyclist improvements so that way people who are walking, who are

02:13:40.360 --> 02:13:46.280
 biking the families in that area are able to use that road.

02:13:46.280 --> 02:13:47.740
 There's a motion and a second.

02:13:47.740 --> 02:13:48.740
 Any discussion?

02:13:48.740 --> 02:13:54.280
 We have a microphone back there.

02:13:54.280 --> 02:14:00.220
 I think there's people listening.

02:14:00.220 --> 02:14:05.640
 I'll tell you my only hang up with that, and that is Bell Avenue closure.

02:14:05.640 --> 02:14:11.320
 The specter hanging over all of this for me is if we expand Roodale, which is what we

02:14:11.320 --> 02:14:12.320
 should do.

02:14:12.320 --> 02:14:23.880
 I think a lot of people would use Roodale, but if we do that, then that provides incentive

02:14:23.880 --> 02:14:27.280
 or justification for closing Bell Avenue to cars.

02:14:27.280 --> 02:14:31.080
 I think there are other things we need to do before we close Bell Avenue, and that's

02:14:31.080 --> 02:14:34.760
 just the specter hanging over this entire project for me.

02:14:34.760 --> 02:14:36.400
 I think there are roads that need to be expanded.

02:14:36.400 --> 02:14:39.520
 I think there are sidewalks we need through there, and I think we need quiet zones through

02:14:39.520 --> 02:14:41.560
 there.

02:14:41.560 --> 02:14:45.240
 When Bell Avenue is off the table, I can get behind this 100%, but that's where I'm at

02:14:45.240 --> 02:14:46.240
 right now.

02:14:46.240 --> 02:14:56.000
 It's clear that that's a separate political decision associated with this.

02:14:56.000 --> 02:14:58.120
 Any other discussion before we take a vote?

02:14:58.120 --> 02:14:59.440
 We have a motion.

02:14:59.440 --> 02:15:00.440
 We have a second.

02:15:00.440 --> 02:15:06.160
 If you have one favor, raise your right hand.

02:15:06.160 --> 02:15:27.320
 Look at the lobbying, real-time lobbying.

02:15:27.320 --> 02:15:53.080
 I would like to make a motion that we include the quiet zones, we include the improvements

02:15:53.080 --> 02:15:59.960
 to Mingo, because they are very necessary, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:15:59.960 --> 02:16:05.880
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and to what Christine

02:16:05.880 --> 02:16:14.120
 said, we make sure that we give direction that if we can get the right-of-way that the

02:16:14.120 --> 02:16:18.000
 pedestrian lanes are prioritized.

02:16:18.000 --> 02:16:36.440
 I would like to make a motion that we include the quiet zones, because that seems to be

02:16:36.440 --> 02:16:42.400
 an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:16:42.400 --> 02:16:46.120
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off

02:16:46.120 --> 02:16:50.120
 the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:16:50.120 --> 02:16:55.000
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:16:55.000 --> 02:16:59.760
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be

02:16:59.760 --> 02:17:03.560
 an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:17:03.560 --> 02:17:08.000
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off

02:17:08.000 --> 02:17:12.000
 the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:17:12.000 --> 02:17:15.240
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:17:15.240 --> 02:17:19.240
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be

02:17:19.240 --> 02:17:24.240
 an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:17:24.240 --> 02:17:27.080
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off

02:17:27.080 --> 02:17:31.080
 the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:17:31.080 --> 02:17:35.120
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:17:35.120 --> 02:17:39.200
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be

02:17:39.200 --> 02:17:43.480
 an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:17:43.480 --> 02:17:45.480
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off

02:17:45.480 --> 02:17:47.480
 the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:17:47.480 --> 02:17:49.480
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:17:49.480 --> 02:17:51.480
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an

02:17:51.480 --> 02:17:53.480
 issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:17:53.480 --> 02:17:55.480
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the

02:17:55.480 --> 02:17:57.480
 Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:17:57.480 --> 02:17:59.480
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:17:59.480 --> 02:18:01.480
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an

02:18:01.480 --> 02:18:03.480
 issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:18:13.480 --> 02:18:15.480
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off

02:18:15.480 --> 02:18:17.480
 the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:18:17.480 --> 02:18:19.480
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:18:19.480 --> 02:18:21.480
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an

02:18:21.480 --> 02:18:23.480
 issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:18:23.480 --> 02:18:25.480
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off

02:18:25.480 --> 02:18:27.480
 the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:18:27.480 --> 02:18:29.480
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:18:29.480 --> 02:18:31.480
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an

02:18:31.480 --> 02:18:33.480
 issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:18:43.480 --> 02:18:45.480
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off

02:18:45.480 --> 02:18:47.480
 the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:18:47.480 --> 02:18:49.480
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:18:49.480 --> 02:18:51.480
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an

02:18:51.480 --> 02:18:53.480
 issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:18:53.480 --> 02:18:55.480
 that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off

02:18:55.480 --> 02:18:57.480
 the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular

02:18:57.480 --> 02:18:59.480
 bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have

02:18:59.480 --> 02:19:01.480
 with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an

02:19:01.480 --> 02:19:03.480
 issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because

02:19:13.480 --> 02:19:15.480
 that's about three quarters. Can I ask you a question? A, where did you come up with that

02:19:15.480 --> 02:19:17.480
 That's about three quarters. Can I ask you a question? A, where did you come up with that

02:19:17.480 --> 02:19:19.480
 That's about three quarters. Can I ask you a question? A, where did you come up with that

02:19:19.480 --> 02:19:21.480
 That's about three quarters. Can I ask you a question? A, where did you come up with that

02:19:21.480 --> 02:19:23.480
 That's about three quarters. Can I ask you a question? A, where did you come up with that

02:19:23.480 --> 02:19:25.480
 figure? B, what does that do to the recommendation we already passed with the fire station?

02:19:25.480 --> 02:19:27.480
 figure? B, what does that do to the recommendation we already passed with the fire station?

02:19:27.480 --> 02:19:29.480
 figure? B, what does that do to the recommendation we already passed with the fire station?

02:19:29.480 --> 02:19:31.480
 So, two things. One, that's about 75% of what they ask for for a new build, which is

02:19:31.480 --> 02:19:43.480
 So, two things. One, that's about 75% of what they ask for for a new build, which is whole new foundation, whole new utilities, you know, brownfield development, someplace else. So, that's where the number came from.

02:19:43.480 --> 02:19:51.480
 So, that's where the number came from. What it does to the fire station is they figure out where to put the fire station.

02:19:51.480 --> 02:20:15.480
 So, that's where the number came from. What it does to the fire station is they figure out where to put the fire station. So, that's where the number came from. What it does to the fire station is they figure out where to put the fire station. So, that's where the number came from. So, that's where the number came from.

02:20:15.480 --> 02:20:29.480
 So, that's where the number came from. What it does to the fire station is they figure out where to put the fire station. So, that's where the number came from. What it does to the fire station is they figure out where to put the fire station. So, that's where the number came from. What it does to the fire station is they figure out where to put the fire station. So, that's where the number came from.

02:20:29.480 --> 02:20:55.480
 We got a second on the floor. Any discussion? All of this is a recommendation. Well, we are voting on this to be forwarded to the council as a recommendation, just like every single thing else that we voted on. All of those are recommendations that aren't binding.

02:20:55.480 --> 02:21:07.480
 So, the council can say thanks but no thanks to any of these. Any discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion, raise your right hand.

02:21:25.480 --> 02:21:53.480
 Okay.

02:21:53.480 --> 02:22:22.480
 All right. So, that leaves one more topic. If anyone has any thoughts one way or the other on the aquatics. Janet, is there a microphone over there that we can pass along?

02:22:22.480 --> 02:22:36.480
 I was hoping we could get some more information on one, the cost of, was it the drainage or the pipes or whatever. I mean to maintain that in working condition that we were trying to achieve.

02:22:36.480 --> 02:23:05.480
 So, if there's a possibility that we could split that up if the cost is an issue. And then my other question is, what does the city budget to lose on that project? I mean, it was told that we lose a million dollars a year on the natatorium or whatever, but is that not something that we expect to lose on a regular basis or are we over budget when we lose that?

02:23:05.480 --> 02:23:11.480
 We expect to have that deficit because.

02:23:11.480 --> 02:23:14.480
 We're keeping costs down for ticket prices.

02:23:14.480 --> 02:23:30.480
 That's right. We're keeping the cost down so that the whole public has, so the public has the ability to attend. So, it is a service that we are providing to our community just like having Quaker Town Park or the Civic Center Park or the Senior Citizen Centers.

02:23:30.480 --> 02:23:35.480
 None of those make money.

02:23:35.480 --> 02:23:57.480
 So, the 15 million dollars included an expansion and renovation of the children's play feature. And that piece of equipment is again at 20 years of its life cycle. So, it's nearing end of its life cycle and will need to be replaced as well as our admissions and the bath house.

02:23:57.480 --> 02:24:06.480
 So, which is a restroom facility. Again, those nearing the end of their life cycle and the pump house infiltration room, which is our water safety circulation.

02:24:06.480 --> 02:24:23.480
 So, those are the items that are slated to be replaced within the 15 million dollars. They can't really be broken up because in order to put in the new children's play feature, you would need the circulation pumps.

02:24:23.480 --> 02:24:42.480
 So, and that concrete is right near the bath house and the admissions box. So, it makes sense to do them all together. Again, you get that kind of economy of scale. You're going in once, tearing up concrete once, and going back and putting things in once rather than piecemeal it together, which would increase the cost.

02:24:42.480 --> 02:25:06.480
 And the second part was, oh, the cost to it for operating that, it's really cost neutral. So, adding in these components, I think would be 253,000 extra dollars a year on operations, but we're expected to recuperate about 285 back on that in admissions because of the ability to serve more people.

02:25:06.480 --> 02:25:12.480
 Thank you.

02:25:12.480 --> 02:25:15.480
 I don't know who was first here. Let's start with Kimberly.

02:25:15.480 --> 02:25:20.480
 Oh, here.

02:25:20.480 --> 02:25:47.480
 Just to make an argument, who has kids that like to go places during the summer and I actually missed this meeting so I wasn't able to put this input in. But I went to Hawaiian Falls the last three Fridays. And if we're able to put in attractions that attract as many people into Denton, that are leaving Denton to go give those dollars to Hawaiian Falls, the amount of money these children are spending on food alone.

02:25:47.480 --> 02:25:50.480
 I know because I'm paying for it.

02:25:50.480 --> 02:25:57.480
 I think that it will truly increase revenue there. I really do.

02:25:57.480 --> 02:26:26.480
 Along similar lines I want to just speak to the opportunity for expanding revenue just by looking at the leisure and programming pool I know that's such a premium that flat water space, everybody wants it the kids want to play in it you need lesson space, you have people doing exercise you have seniors that have water aerobics mean just adding that alone is a huge benefit and a huge draw and then looking at the multipurpose rooms that gives you more opportunities to bring in revenue from birthday parties and meetings and things like that as well.

02:26:26.480 --> 02:26:44.480
 So everything on here, with the exception of the first line where with staff support which is also necessary has opportunities for generating revenue for this project.

02:26:44.480 --> 02:27:09.480
 In regard to the auditorium and the issue with the flat water and DISD it was my understanding from the presentation that no one is the least with DISD for water time for the respective practice time and tournaments has not been looked at for a few years.

02:27:09.480 --> 02:27:32.480
 To that end could that be definitely part of reevaluated, I know I would pay anywhere from $300 to $400 plus lifeguard time for an eight lane pool that also had a diving well.

02:27:32.480 --> 02:27:48.480
 That was for holding the tournaments, if we were doing just the practices with other schools coming in we were running $200 an hour plus your lifeguard time.

02:27:48.480 --> 02:28:05.480
 This is pricing based on about 12 years ago up in Ohio, because pools water is hard to come by.

02:28:05.480 --> 02:28:18.480
 I wanted to ask a question and clarify a little bit about the flat water feature, was that supposed to be outdoors or indoors?

02:28:18.480 --> 02:28:30.480
 Is that going to be an issue during the portion of the year that we can't use the water park so in the winter would it be better to have that indoors?

02:28:30.480 --> 02:28:36.480
 We would love to also have another indoor flat water space, the bond committee would like to do that, we would love to.

02:28:36.480 --> 02:28:41.480
 We can use that in the shoulder seasons what we call them also so we are trying to extend that.

02:28:41.480 --> 02:28:50.480
 We right now have programming before the season starts in the wave pool if we can, some in the river, some in the catch pool of the slides.

02:28:50.480 --> 02:28:57.480
 We are trying to make every piece of usable space work and Monica and her team do a great job of maximizing what we have.

02:28:57.480 --> 02:29:04.480
 So if we had that additional flat water space, we could use it maybe a little bit before the season started to add some additional programming in,

02:29:04.480 --> 02:29:13.480
 a little bit after the season closes, pending staff to be able to add some additional classes, lessons, fitness classes.

02:29:13.480 --> 02:29:21.480
 We can use it before the water park opens to offer classes in the morning, in the evening times, so yes, it would be highly programmed.

02:29:21.480 --> 02:29:32.480
 And then second question, would that be shaded? I don't think you can stretch something quite over the entire thing but we would have shade structures around.

02:29:32.480 --> 02:29:41.480
 Okay. Kimberly? Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to vote on the original estimate for the aquatic center of 15 million dollars.

02:29:41.480 --> 02:29:52.480
 Wait a second, I think in order to do that, because it already was voted on, failed, we need somebody who didn't vote, did you vote for it? Yes.

02:29:52.480 --> 02:29:58.480
 We need somebody, as I said, to do a motion to reconsider, to be able to open that back up again.

02:29:58.480 --> 02:30:07.480
 So if there's somebody here who voted against that initially, who wants to make a motion to reconsider, to open up that question again, would be the appropriate.

02:30:07.480 --> 02:30:21.480
 Or would you make a different motion? A different motion would alter it, maybe take the dollar back.

02:30:21.480 --> 02:30:32.480
 I would like to make another motion to vote on 15 million and one dollar for the aquatic center.

02:30:32.480 --> 02:30:37.480
 Wait a second.

02:30:37.480 --> 02:30:42.480
 All right, so it's all in favor.

02:30:42.480 --> 02:31:09.480
 Right hand.

02:31:09.480 --> 02:31:14.480
 The extra dollar saved the day for the aquatics.

02:31:14.480 --> 02:31:18.480
 Ladies and gentlemen.

02:31:18.480 --> 02:31:23.480
 Yes, Brian.

02:31:23.480 --> 02:31:33.480
 So I'd like to make a motion in just a little background in 2019 council decided to go ahead and proceed with fire station eight with CEOs.

02:31:33.480 --> 02:31:51.480
 And so my motion is to recommend a council with inflation rates the way that they are in order to get these projects going quicker to proceed with fire stations, five and six with CEOs.

02:31:51.480 --> 02:31:59.480
 We have that authority as part of our charge to recommend CEO packages.

02:31:59.480 --> 02:32:12.480
 We recommend that they consider using CEOs, but we, since it was recommended 100% proceed with these projects by our bond committee.

02:32:12.480 --> 02:32:24.480
 Great. So it's a it's a way of phrasing these this particular project as a recommendation from the council as a way to consider as part of our total recommendation.

02:32:24.480 --> 02:32:29.480
 All right, we have a second.

02:32:29.480 --> 02:32:35.480
 We have discussion.

02:32:35.480 --> 02:32:46.480
 From staff, is it not more expensive to use CEOs to do that than it is as a part of the bond, since we've already approved them.

02:32:46.480 --> 02:32:59.480
 It's more expensive. We have. It's just the same bond rating. It's just a different process. The CEOs are approved by council and the Geo's go to the voters for approval.

02:32:59.480 --> 02:33:14.480
 Other discussion, clarification on the motion we're voting for since we adjusted the library and it was as presented, each of these options for station five, and the library were tied due to the land acquisition costs in the library's proposal.

02:33:14.480 --> 02:33:23.480
 Do we have clarity on how that impacts station fives presented budget.

02:33:23.480 --> 02:33:32.480
 There was a part of Jesse's motion was to reduce the building footprint or change the, the 75% funding.

02:33:32.480 --> 02:33:49.480
 That presentation was land acquisition for the library. If the motion was to recommend a reduction of the initial proposal that they built the recommending that they build on site, does that impact the total number we're looking at for station five.

02:33:49.480 --> 02:34:04.480
 As proposed station six did not include any funding for land acquisition. So if you approve it at this dollar amount when we go through design it would be considering a smaller footprint or adding funding to the package for land acquisition.

02:34:04.480 --> 02:34:05.480
 Thank you.

02:34:05.480 --> 02:34:08.480
 Any other discussion.

02:34:08.480 --> 02:34:25.480
 I don't know how many of you are aware that council within the last. Well it was probably within the last month approved fire station nine at the airport, and it was done with CEOs, it was done on that massive package that they approved.

02:34:25.480 --> 02:34:42.480
 The fire station eight part package, one was refunding geos from earlier bond packages, and the other was 158 million for new projects, most of which were utilities but one was for the fire station at the airport.

02:34:42.480 --> 02:34:55.480
 However, in 2019 we recommended fire station eight on Colorado Boulevard, and council pulled it out of the bond package and they did it with CEOs because they wanted it right now.

02:34:55.480 --> 02:35:02.480
 So for, for us to do fire stations with CEOs is not unusual.

02:35:02.480 --> 02:35:04.480
 All right, any.

02:35:04.480 --> 02:35:21.480
 Is there a downside for us moving fire stations from geo to CEO, or recommending that. So the downside is, we already have about two and a half cents programmed in on the tax rate increase for CEO funded projects we presented that a couple of weeks

02:35:21.480 --> 02:35:41.480
 before the council that would take into effect in 2025 tax rate. So all it does is just push that tax rate up it reduces the amount that you can say the tax for the tax rate increases for this bond package but the overall tax rate still increases.

02:35:41.480 --> 02:35:45.480
 Okay.

02:35:45.480 --> 02:35:50.480
 Okay.

02:35:50.480 --> 02:36:00.480
 Cassie have a follow up question on that how does that affect your goals for improving the bond ratings will either funding mechanism impact that negatively.

02:36:00.480 --> 02:36:15.480
 For CEOs we are limited on the total CEOs compared to the percent of expenses that it represents, so there is a cap that we cannot exceed for our financial policies.

02:36:15.480 --> 02:36:39.480
 So that's one consideration but then to the bond rating agencies look more favorably at a geo funded project because it was approved by the voters.

02:36:39.480 --> 02:36:49.480
 Thank you.

02:36:49.480 --> 02:36:51.480
 This is the last.

02:36:51.480 --> 02:36:58.480
 So, follow up to what you're just saying Cassie about CEOs and our capacity for carrying CEOs versus geos.

02:36:58.480 --> 02:37:09.480
 We also I think said earlier that the legislature has limited how much we can spend in the future on CEOs, as we retire CEOs that we use to pay for non public safety things.

02:37:09.480 --> 02:37:20.480
 We will not be replacing them with CEOs for streets and CEOs for, you know, and city hall or whatever. We'd only be replacing them with CEOs for future public safety.

02:37:20.480 --> 02:37:21.480
 Correct.

02:37:21.480 --> 02:37:23.480
 Okay.

02:37:23.480 --> 02:37:32.480
 I think I heard a question that went already passed. Right. So is it a September 1 one. No, it was not in this legislative session it was in 21. Oh, okay. Thank you.

02:37:32.480 --> 02:37:50.480
 We have a motion and a second on the floor to recommend to counsel that they consider funding the fire stations five and six out of CEOs, as opposed to putting it on the spawn package.

02:37:50.480 --> 02:37:53.480
 Any.

02:37:53.480 --> 02:38:22.480
 Let's take a vote on favor. Raise your right hand.

02:38:22.480 --> 02:38:43.480
 Okay.

02:38:43.480 --> 02:38:44.480
 24.

02:38:44.480 --> 02:38:46.480
 24.

02:38:46.480 --> 02:38:48.480
 Passes.

02:38:48.480 --> 02:38:51.480
 Hang on.

02:38:51.480 --> 02:38:59.480
 Another proposal.

02:38:59.480 --> 02:39:02.480
 Some of us wrote our bikes.

02:39:02.480 --> 02:39:07.480
 My bike's got a light on it, Kevin.

02:39:07.480 --> 02:39:16.480
 I move that we recommend that city council consider creation of a city of Denton public public facility corporation.

02:39:16.480 --> 02:39:40.480
 So the reasoning for that is this goes with the affordable housing item. The reasoning for that is that keeps more of that money that we're recommending in Denton with with the city with a corporation that the city sets up and can set the parameters for and gives us better, better control over what these projects ultimately turn out to be not just whatever developer kind of comes in the door from out of town.

02:39:40.480 --> 02:39:49.480
 So it's a it's a recommendation just by recommendation tethered to the affordable housing package that we have recommended.

02:39:49.480 --> 02:39:54.480
 We have a second already. Mr. Henderson.

02:39:54.480 --> 02:39:57.480
 Any discussion.

02:39:57.480 --> 02:39:59.480
 Yes.

02:39:59.480 --> 02:40:07.480
 Well, what is our question for staff or explaining maybe a little bit more.

02:40:07.480 --> 02:40:11.480
 Okay. So it sounds like there's some awareness of what this is.

02:40:11.480 --> 02:40:19.480
 Danny is here. We'll let her have the floor.

02:40:19.480 --> 02:40:48.480
 Public facility corporation is a state tool that we can utilize for 40 affordable housing. We talked about it in the presentation. And there was a question about pfcs. We did present a program to council. I didn't pass at the time, but it would give us the ability to have a structured agreement with developers that gives us some benefits from the incentive perspective for the developer to create affordable in exchange for those incentives would also give us the opportunity to.

02:40:48.480 --> 02:40:54.480
 Give us the opportunity to negotiate what happens in those deals. So we put us at the negotiating table.

02:40:54.480 --> 02:41:01.480
 And then thirdly, it would provide opportunities for funding that would go back into other affordable housing initiatives. So it has some value. It's a tool.

02:41:01.480 --> 02:41:09.480
 I don't know that it needs to be tied to this particular project, but it's a tool that we can utilize in our toolbox for all of those options.

02:41:09.480 --> 02:41:26.480
 I would speak against the motion. I see it as being not particularly related to the charge of this committee. Additionally, pfcs had a number of pretty major issues with them where developers were getting 100% tax credits at all levels.

02:41:26.480 --> 02:41:41.480
 City, state and ISD for projects that were not tremendously providing affordability just due to wonky issues with AMIs and like the qualifications of what counted as affordable housing versus your locality.

02:41:41.480 --> 02:41:58.480
 The University of Austin did a report on this. A number of these issues were fixed with a recent state legislature bill that just passed, but we're still seeing how that is working out. And I don't see that this committee is in a good position to make a decision on that either way.

02:41:58.480 --> 02:42:16.480
 I speak in support of the motion. I think council now has different information and a different reality with the bond package being considered. I'd like to see them ask and answer the question again regarding pfcs.

02:42:16.480 --> 02:42:45.480
 A couple of things. One is the law changed in this legislature and before it was changed, an affordable housing developer could come in here, do a project here, but use a vehicle, an affordable housing authority or a pfc or something from anywhere in Texas so that the development fees went there.

02:42:45.480 --> 02:43:00.480
 This will allow us to keep them here and the law changed and now when they do a project in the municipality, they have to use a structure in the municipality. United Way is in the process of doing pfc.

02:43:00.480 --> 02:43:21.480
 We will probably be seeing more of them in Denton and the city absolutely should have one because we've got tools in our toolbox that nobody else is going to have in the city. We have ability to work with developers because we're the city.

02:43:21.480 --> 02:43:49.480
 So when this failed before, it was not voted down. It failed in a 3-3 split and at the recent council retreat, it was admitted that that was really a pretty political vote so I think for us to give a push to council to reconsider this would be a very, very good thing.

02:43:49.480 --> 02:43:57.480
 I'd like to speak against the motion. I'd need to do a whole lot more looking into this in order to feel comfortable voting for it.

02:43:57.480 --> 02:44:26.480
 All right. So we've got a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand.

02:44:26.480 --> 02:44:29.480
 21 passes.

02:44:29.480 --> 02:44:44.480
 All right, guys, I think we've reached the end of the road. A couple of things just so you know, we have a package. Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen.

02:44:44.480 --> 02:44:54.480
 As we said at the beginning, democracy is messy and we demonstrated that time and time again but that's what our citizens are going to go through when they consider this.

02:44:54.480 --> 02:45:13.480
 So a couple of things. The next step from here is we will present this, Susie and myself, to the council I think next week based on all the conversation we've had, the discussion, the vote totals and all of that that we had and so this will be packaged up and presented to them.

02:45:13.480 --> 02:45:32.480
 And then at some point once the council moves that forward if they do to a citywide vote, our job is just beginning as folks who are part of this who dug deep into the weeds as being advocates out there in the community to sell this to the folks sell the very package we have come up with.

02:45:32.480 --> 02:45:52.480
 So some of us will be hitting you up for opportunities for speaking in public engagements, different things around town, perhaps putting signs up helping out with the lobbying efforts so more on that afterwards but I just want to finish by thanking the city staff.

02:45:52.480 --> 02:46:07.480
 Yeah, that is important. Yeah, legally, it's going to need advocates who can go out and speak beyond just here's what it is and can speak for the merits of it.

02:46:07.480 --> 02:46:19.480
 So, as I was saying, please give a round of applause to the city staff who spent so many of their nights and weekends.

02:46:19.480 --> 02:46:27.480
 And with that, did you want to make a motion Greg. Yes, my favorite motion.

02:46:27.480 --> 02:46:33.480
 And I think it's unanimous consent, let's go home. Thank you guys.