>> Six o'clock.
Welcome, everyone, to the sixth meeting of the special citizens bond advisory committee.
We will open up the meeting, and we're going to take the agenda items in order.
Item A, consider approval of the minutes for June 26, 2023.
Is there a motion?
All in favor, raise your right hand.
All opposed, like sign.
Passes unanimously.
Next hold a discussion regarding projects and project information for a 2023 bond program.
If we could get the next slide up.
So here's a suggested way of how we might tackle the next steps tonight.
What we want to do is open up for a general Q&A and discussion for any lingering questions
related to this bond package.
And that's pretty broad, intentionally so.
So we're going to start with that.
So we'll have additional questions come up.
Hello.
Then what we want to do is prior to thinking through the possibility of developing a recommendation
is have a discussion and get direction around particular topics that seem preliminary to
that recommendation.
For instance, let's have another conversation around total package amount because that's
going to be a watershed question that's going to determine what we might be willing to put
together.
I think municipal complex sits out there as according to the pulse to date as a bit of
a maybe a non-starter, so to speak, but let's have a discussion around that to see.
Because if we're going to pull that out of the package, then we know that's a big price
tag we don't have to consider as we're moving forward.
Similarly, we know there's discretion in terms of the amounts related to trails, affordable
housing and inclusive playground that we pulsed everyone on last time and we want to return
to what we gave some direction on and see if that direction still holds.
Because if it does, we can plug that into a live spreadsheet we're going to see tonight,
so we see dollar amount, what these things are based on the consensus of the group and
then have a conversation around public art to just make sure we understand the options
associated with that is how that could appear and how that could be part and parcel to a
bond package and then get a sense of the direction of the team around that as well.
These are sort of the preliminaries will help us put together any potential package we might
do subsequent to that.
Then we'll move into a time where it'll be time to we've had our questions, we've had
our discussion around these key topics, where we can develop a recommendation or attempt
to do so tonight, so we'll talk more about that when we get to it.
There's also at that point, because we are voting tonight on that, there's an opportunity
for public comment, so if there's anybody out there who's a member of the public that
wants to speak to it, we'll open up for a time of open dialogue, not dialogue but comment
from the public.
So let's get started with general Q&A and discussion for lingering questions related
to any of these projects, so this could be a question you continue to have, could be
a point you want to raise, it could be anything along those lines.
So we've got some mics available, and so we want to make sure we dig in as much as
necessary tonight.
My question, and I have asked it once before, is on the Oakland Drainage Upstream Detention
Plan, which part of that plan goes to right by the southwest gate of the fairgrounds,
and I asked if that was going to be a raised structure or under the ground or something,
and I wasn't able to get an answer, so I can't really get behind this until I know
exactly what's going to happen at that corner.
Is there someone who can speak to that?
Good evening, Trevor Crane, Director of Capital Projects.
Without doing the design and going through all that, I can't tell you specifically
what would happen right there, do you have specific concerns as to kind of what you're
looking at there, or, I mean, we would always design that around really the, any restrictions
or issues or public input as far as-
Number one day.
Oh, okay.
And so that would really impede that event if there was a structure that blocked that
day.
Right, so if there's something that, I mean, if there's ingress or egress into property
that's going to be there, those are things that we would always consider as part of any
construction project, whether it's a residential, whether it's a large project like we're talking
about here.
So allowing people or making sure that people can get in and out of their private property
or anything like that, we wouldn't block ingress or egress with any kind of structure that
would be a permanent structure the way you couldn't access that property.
Thank you.
Yes, ma'am.
Great question.
Yes.
Mr. Ryan.
Yeah, my question is in regards to Fire Station 6 and the library and trying to figure out
why we would tear down a building built in 2009 that, and that's the library, and build
a new one for 50 million, so basically it's double the size, so the current library is
worth 25 million, we're going to tear it down to build a $12 million fire station on that
same site.
So financially it does not seem like the right route to go.
Is there anybody that can explain why that would be the route to go?
Someone will jump up at once.
Do you want to talk about the fire data?
So part of that decision we've answered in a couple different questions is demolition
on South Branch Library is up for debate through the design process.
So Fire Station 6 is located in the right spot according to the fire data.
So that site needs to be utilized for fire.
They definitely would evaluate the South Branch Library structure to see if that could be
repurposed into part of the fire station design, but the fire station based on their data and
response time for that district is located in the correct location.
Anything in addition?
Kenneth Hedges, Fire Chief.
So we did run some GIS modeling on that location down Teasley, so the location is Station 6
now.
We're able to reach the southern portion of our boundary, city limits on southern Teasley.
Really the area, the reason why we identified that as the best location is if you look at
Teasley and Linda Miller all the way down to Ryan Road, somewhere within that vicinity
is the ideal as far as response times, north and south, because our district goes to city
limits to the south, but we also go all the way up Teasley to 35, just with Station 6.
So it has a big district on Teasley.
Really there's no, from our perspective, and we haven't really looked, there's not
available land, so we kind of identified the existing site as a possible raise and rebuild
for that.
I think we're open to options if we can find parcels, but at this point we just didn't
have anything we could identify.
So while you're up, if you had your druthers, would you stay put, or would you move further
down towards Ryan Road, because of that blind spot, if nothing else?
Yeah, right now, I mean, just to be honest, I think anybody that took the tour or so,
the library does block the egress for the crews, if you saw that and you walked up there.
So when the crews leave, they actually come to stop and capture traffic, both north and
south.
So ideal location there?
No.
A site that we can see both directions on Teasley, and as soon as they're exiting, that's ideal.
So I hope that answers your question.
Well, it seems that there is other land that is available down Teasley, and I don't know
why nobody's considering it.
Maybe it's because the city doesn't already own it, but it seems that buying another couple
of acres on down Teasley would be certainly cheaper than building a new library.
And then moving the station, it would also allow the station to be built before it moves,
so we don't have to have a temporary building of some kind, if you tore it down and then
rebuilt on the site.
And also, that way the library could expand where it is, which would save a lot of money
because the new library is priced out at $50 million, and I'm sure we could expand it for
less than that, even with the cost of another two, two and a half, three acres.
I can speak a little bit to the idea to move the library also.
In 2018, we did a library master plan, and one of the things that was identified was
all three of our libraries are very clumped together because we were following that neighborhood
facility philosophy.
As the city has grown, we realized that we need more of a regional facility, and so to
serve the entire population that has grown out down south there between those two 35s,
it was recommended in our master plan to move South Branch a mile or two southwest to better
serve that area of town.
So that was why we were looking at moving South Branch also as part of the expansion.
Well, maybe that needs to be taken, another look that needs to be taken at that master
plan, considering the cost differences in what we're looking at here, and the fact
that the chief just said, given their druthers, they would rather not be there.
They would rather move.
So I'd like to support what the fire chief would like to do, first and foremost.
So a follow-up question from me on that, I think for the chief, or maybe it's for both
of you, if for some reason a recommendation gets passed from this group, and even city
council for that matter, and put before the voters, for the fire station, but not for
the library, are we stuck there?
Can you do a fire station expansion in that site with the library still there?
I would say no.
I mean, that building would have to be completely raised, and then how we look at programming
that is for a larger station, for more apparatus for the future growth to the south.
We don't envision building a station between current station six and to the city limits,
so the solution is to actually add more apparatus, so we respond quicker and have more apparatus
on multiple calls as well.
Does that answer your question?
The two seem to hang together as they're currently conceived.
Okay, thanks.
I think we have some other questions.
If the fire station moved, would the library be able to use the fire station, the old fire
station building as an additional part of it?
I think at that point we would have to look at doing some kind of expansion and seeing
what space would be available.
That fire station is very small.
The need that we have been assessed at is to double the size of South Branch.
It's currently just slightly over 20,000 square feet, and the need that has been identified
is a 40,000 square foot facility based on just the usage and the growth of the neighborhoods
around there.
My concern would be that fire station is teeny tiny, and I don't know that that would have
the square footage to expand, and we couldn't go too much further out in the parking lot
because if you're asking more people to come to a larger facility, you still need space
for them to come.
Regarding the library and the fire station, it might be helpful if someone from staff
could go to Google and bring up Teasley, the fire station area, and the library so that
everyone can, one, see what we're talking about.
Number two, if one relocates the fire station further down Teasley to about Ryan Road, one
of the advantages is it puts it close to one of their several emergency calls, which is
Samaritan Senior Center, so you'd have quick ambulance, paramedic response.
The other thing is it's my understanding with driving around that that fire station covers
all the way down to Hickory Creek and past where Geyer High School is, so you've got
a good distance down there, and I think you're splitting it a little bit better by moving
closer to Ryan Road.
As to the libraries utilizing the fire station, I would not see that as a feasibility aspect.
Yes, you would take the fire station down, you would look at your land around, reconfigure
your parking lot, and look to adding to it.
There may even be the possibility of the library having a second floor added to it.
I'm not the engineer that built it.
I wasn't there when it was, but if you had a second floor on the library, even if part
of it was cantilevered off, you could perhaps put the adult activities upstairs and have
the children with their play area, their books, and that on the lower level.
We have looked at adding a second story to South Branch, and based on the facility that
we currently have, that facility structure could not support any materials on a second
floor, so all of that collection that you saw on the tour would have to remain downstairs.
The upstairs area, which would not take up the whole, well, yeah, you could completely
do that same footprint as a second floor, but it would only be staff area or meeting
space, which again, then you're dealing with having to manage a full floor of traditional
library and a partial floor if not.
One of the things that I understood was that you needed staff space, so if you put the
staff on the second floor for their extra office areas, you know, as it's been said,
a $50 million building when no one knows for sure what land, and I know that you've utilized
the statement of wanting to go to Southwest, but if you stay where you are, you're very
convenient, as has been demonstrated to everybody that's there, and if you go over Southwest
aspect, you're going to have the issues of people who are now religiously using your
library on a regular basis.
They're going to have to travel more.
Hey, Julie, we've got a lot of other people with questions, so maybe another 20 seconds
and we'll move it to the next one.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
That's all right.
All right.
My question is really process, so we're kind of talking about negotiation and iterations,
and if we did this, we could do that, or is your plan, Kevin, are we going to go down
these one by one and say, okay, this one has a price tag of this, is everybody in favor
of that number, and so on, or because when we have a total bucket, right?
The reason I'm asking the question is, so this process, like early on, one of the first
meetings someone said when we were talking about the library having to move and the fire
station expanding, the comment was, we've already done the search, there's no available
land.
Well, I own an acre and a half right across the parking lot, and the road that goes into
the library is actually, it's on my property, it's just an easement that we gave away.
So there are solutions if what we're trying to do, because like for me, if the question
is, are you in favor of $50 million for a library, I'm a hard no, but if it's, well,
if we could expand the library, what would that allocation be, 10 million, 20 million,
whatever that number is, I think it will help us to try to figure out how do we negotiate
that bucket, but if we're going to go down the list and say, like, at this price tag
are we in favor or not, I would hate to see the library get nixed when the possibility
could be, well, let's allocate 15 million or 10 million or whatever out of the whole
bucket and earmark it for that, because there are definite solutions for sites for the fire
station.
I mean, they're there, so I just want to know, like, what's the process you see?
Well, I think the process is yet to be determined based on this conversation we're having.
So it could be that once we get to that point, which is why we're going to have a preliminary
discussion on some of the other key topics that we probably need to have a deeper dive
into, it could be that we find, hey, there's eight of these projects everyone's okay with,
let's pass those and then come back for further discussion on some of the other ones that
maybe we want to provide a different recommendation than what was presented, to your point.
So I think we have the flexibility to do all of that as needed.
Good question.
I think there are some other questions over here.
Kim, did you stop?
Which of the two projects is more expensive to build from the ground up, including the
land purchase?
Of the fire station, the library, which one, like, I just kind of need to know, like, the
cost of one versus the other from the ground up, including land purchase, potential land
purchase.
Well, I can say on the fire stations, we would just be raising and rebuilding exact same
size, so there's zero land cost is what we kind of initially calculated.
I believe each station's around $12.4, $12.5 million, roughly.
Our cost, if you're talking about the library and expanding it, that would be a whole new
project with a whole new estimates.
So the cost that has been provided was the project that was proposed, which was a new
facility starting from the ground up, as opposed to an expansion and retrofit of things.
So I honestly don't have any costs that I can give you on that.
Chief Hedges, did you mean that that included the purchase of land for the fire station?
No, ma'am.
That number is just strictly the construction cost, design and build.
On that existing property?
Correct, yes.
On those projects, the original intent would be to raise the existing structure, demolish
it, and build exactly on the same site, just a larger facility.
I don't really have a question.
I just have a comment or an idea.
So let's build a new fire station somewhere else by land, whatever they say that we have
land.
Let's build a new library somewhere else that's more feasible.
And let's use that library and not tear it down and use it as one of our other projects.
Because by tearing it down, we're throwing all that money away, and by keeping the building
up, well, maybe you can be part of the senior center and you tear the fire station and then
you add to the senior center.
It's just an idea in my head.
Any other thoughts, questions?
One fire station, library, or anything else relating to this.
I know we're spending a lot of time on this topic, which is great.
We're digging in.
Others?
Patty?
The current senior center is about the same size as the library.
And the point of building a new senior center is to double it, basically.
I was just thinking of where you were saying that.
Yeah.
The ideas are good.
So something that is not a project on this, but I think it's something we all need to
talk about because some of you, I've heard you talk about it before, and that is the
current economic climate in which we are looking at having a bond election.
Last fall, some of these voters brought on themselves, some of them didn't.
Last fall, we approved $650 million for the county.
Last May, we approved $1.35 billion for the school district.
That's not just the city, of course.
That's spread out over the whole school district.
Many of our property taxes, our property valuations, I should say, doubled this spring, and many
of us are beating a path down to protest them.
We don't know how all that's going to turn out.
Some of us, probably a lot of us, our property insurance doubled this spring.
Mine doubled, for sure.
I've been reading in some of the area newspapers, there's 20 percent of the office space in
Dallas-Fort Worth, this was a Dallas news story, is going to be up for refinancing.
I'd like to ask Randy Robinson, where are you?
You're here somewhere, to talk a little bit about what the continuing raising of interest
rates by the Fed is going to mean for that refinancing and for our own homes and mortgages.
Can you address some of that for us?
Well, I don't think continuing doesn't have to happen, it's already been done.
Mortgage rates are mid-sixes compared to three or four years ago in the mid threes, low threes,
so you can see what that'd do to a house payment.
You can look at anything that has to be financed, it's much more expensive now.
As interest rates rise, the value of those, let's say you have a five-year interest rate
lock on a commercial building and it's coming up this year, you're probably going to pay
an extra three and a half, four percent over what you did, it's going to double the interest
rate will, just about.
Whether it continues to go up or not, it's already happened and it's made everything
a lot less affordable, houses, commercial projects.
It also affects the value, if you have a commercial project that you're trying to sell, you're
not going to get it, possibly not going to get as much as you could two years ago because
the capitalization rate expected is much higher now than it was two, three years ago.
It does have a ripple effect on everything.
Give us some examples.
Other than, you're probably looking at rule of thumb, if interest rates go up one percent
on a 30-year mortgage, for $100,000, it's going to cost you $150 to $75 a month.
If you're in a $300,000 mortgage, if you refinance now, you're probably paying $500 plus more
per month than you would have three or four years ago.
In addition to your increased insurance and- Yeah, that's just principal and interest.
But in our economy, in Denton, Texas, have sales slowed?
Yeah, I'd say they have.
You can ask the real estate people that, but I'd say they have.
Prices have probably gone down, I know, Metroplex wide, I don't know, especially in the higher
and residential, they're probably off 20 percent.
I've got two questions.
I'm going to piggyback off of this question first.
Outside of the economy, I guess the question that I have is, why do we have to do it now?
I think at the beginning, when you talked about what's left over from the prior bonds
that has yet to be spent, I heard conversations of we're competing for contractors, and there
were so many reasons why we couldn't finish what we already have.
My first question is, why does it have to be this year?
My second question, similar to the fire station in the library, I think the rec center and
the senior center was a land purchase combo, so does one work without the other?
Do we need both?
That was a question, I think, for staff.
So it's not a combo.
We talked about potential synergies with the active adult center and the library, and one
comment to make on the library is that land has been identified in the south part of Denton,
not looking at Southwest Park, and so they've been working on that real estate negotiation,
which is discussed in closed session with council for about the last year.
So the thought was, if we get the voter approval for the library, we can look at potential
synergies to have the active adult center and the library built together on the same
land, which would also be park property.
Well, the question of the why this year, I don't know if anyone from staff wants to address
that in terms of timing, why this is put forward versus another time.
Yeah, I was going to say, so the 2012-2014 bond is one that we're still delivering, and
the reason, I would say the reason behind that one that it's still going on is really
just the way that that project, that bond was managed by previous staff.
The 2019 bond, which my team is delivering, we're well ahead of schedule in delivering
that one now, we've actually slowed down a little bit because we've had so much construction
going on, so we've slowed down the delivery of that one.
We actually have more contractors, larger contractors, nationwide contractors that are
coming in, wanting to do work with us, very large contractors that are wanting to come
in and do work.
So I would say the construction environment, we have contractors that are really beating
down the door to get in and do work with the city of Denver.
I think the other part of that answer is the 2012 and 2019 were road-focused projects,
so that's a different type of contractor.
These are much more vertical, so building projects, that's a different type of contractor.
Yeah, is there any thoughts about the timing of it, 2023 versus '24, whatever?
We have plan, tentatively plan to have another bond program in 2026, so we were just trying
to space out between 2019 and 2026 because our 2026 bond right now is very road-heavy
focused.
The majority is going to be road projects, so there were a lot of needs as far as buildings
and other quality of life type projects that we didn't want those competing with road projects.
Yeah, it's a funding mechanism for the city and there's always going to be a lot of needs.
And I think the other thing to think about too is look at all the cities popping up literally
overnight around the Metroplex with incredible amenities, libraries, parks, beautiful roads,
infrastructure, and the question is what kind of city do we want to have?
Do we want to skimp and get by with small libraries, small parks and get passed by as
the Metroplex is growing?
Or do we want to have a certain amount of ambition in saying, "Denton ought to be better
than those other places.
Why does Frisco always get the shiny stuff?
Why is Grapevine getting that?"
So I think there's a question, an existential question we have to ask is what do we want
to be as a city and what's the investment that we think the citizens are willing to
make to get the city that they want?
And I think that's ultimately what we're having to do here tonight.
So just a thought to take it away from just looking at dollars and cents and thinking
about a bigger picture.
I think we have a couple of questions.
Starting doing this in '23, if you put it on the ballot November of '23, it does not
show up until you get your tax assessment in calendar year '24 to make your first payment
until January of '25.
If we were to hold off and put this on the May '24 ballot, it would have the same time
frame as to when the first amount of taxes would be paid for it.
It would give a little bit better of an opportunity for some of these things that seem like, "Well,
we don't have this alternate yet," or that.
And in regard to a property, I'd be real curious to know specifically in regard to one, and
the property it mentioned is common knowledge.
I got it off the website and land acquisitions for this.
So getting some ideas and being told that we haven't looked at land, I am having a problem.
I had two kind of questions and responses into what Natalie brought up.
For the why now, in particular, to the fire, I feel like it's a quality of life for our
service workers.
After having seen that site visit, that feels like a big impetus for a call to action for
why now.
That's inhumane living conditions for our firefighters in its current iteration.
What we do with it from there, I don't know, but I feel like that's a big why now.
You also mentioned the active adult center, and I've been mulling this over a lot just
in general in terms of the project and the way that Parks presented it was beautifully
done in terms of examples, and there's definitely a need there given the current layout.
But I would just really be interested to know if Parks would be open to the idea of including
a multi-generational aspect of it, and that is from a couple of different standpoints.
The first is because you look at other rec centers that we have that were outgrowing
that are continually outdated, like Denia.
Before long, we'll be coming here and saying we need a bond to update Denia.
So that's on the south side of the community.
Could we find a way to fold this in?
Maybe there's a wing that's senior-specific or active adult-specific, pardon me, and then
one that is open for everyone that can meet needs for the whole community.
Just curious if that's something that we are even open to having as part of the design
process for that ask, or if that's even an opportunity.
I think we have someone from Parks, and then I think you want to chime in on that.
As one who uses the senior center, there is a vast difference between the needs of seniors
and younger people, and it just doesn't fit together.
We need more space.
We have exercise classes that includes sitting in a chair.
We have people on walkers.
They all come and they do the best that they can.
We don't really want to compete with people running down the hallways in regular rec centers
running over us.
We need what we can.
I'm 85 years old, and I credit a lot of my abilities to being a member of the senior
center for more than 20 years now.
It's an excellent place for people who have disabilities to come and get the kind of exercise
that they need to keep them alive.
Sedentary is deadly for you, whether you know it or not.
You will when you get there.
Many of these people, they get a ride to the senior center, and then they do what exercise
they can, and then they leave.
We have a meals program that the Meals on Wheels operates out of the senior center.
Some people come there just for that meal.
I can't emphasize enough.
There's a different population, and we have just one senior center.
It's too small.
We have two classes of chair yoga, and we can't have another one.
We'd like to have three, three times a week.
We can't have another one until we get more space.
We have contributed to this city all of our lives for the most part, and we believe that
we deserve a working senior center that will serve us.
Thank you.
You should be the poster child for a senior center.
You don't look a day over 45.
Unbelievable.
I really can't say much more than what Lenny said.
Yes, we do have needs in other areas, but this is a high priority.
It is a high specific need.
You saw with the facility assessment that we are going to have to do something with
that building.
It's not going to be functional in the next 10 years.
Someone alluded to why now, why the timing now.
We're on the clock basically with that building, so if we don't do something now because the
funding isn't going to come right now, it will come down the road, so it's not like
it's going to be built in the next year or the next two years.
We are going to have that timing issue.
That's why we identified the need now, and there are synergies with the library.
Economy of scale, being able to take advantage of a location, and building it with multipurpose
rooms to be able to leverage the dollars that we do have.
Why wouldn't you be leveraging the dollars across multiple programs as well?
If you know you're going to have a need coming up in other rec centers, why not stack those
in the same facility?
If you're going to do a brand new facility, why not kill as many birds with that stone
as you can?
Space.
I think it just comes down to the property space.
Can you all pull up the spreadsheet that just has the dollar amounts for each one just for
reference for everyone?
That will be helpful.
You guys will see that on the screen.
That will get you your point.
Yeah, please.
Yes.
I'm actually intimate with both of the Fire Station 6 and South Branch Library.
I go to all three of the libraries, but I go to the South Branch a lot more, and it's
something that I've seen numerous times where I've seen where the Fire Station would get
ready to take off, and the cars are just going up and down teesley, and I'm like, wow, it's
going to be an accident that's going to happen.
The second part is I live right across, my house is right next to the Samaritan facility,
and I hear over and over where it's like, okay, well, here, if we throw money and fix
the South Branch Library and Fire Station 6, you're still going to have a problem egressing
out of there.
You've got to fix that.
The other thing that I notice about the library is all it's going to take is one big major
complaint, voting.
That's why I vote, and if you look in our neighborhood, all around, they build neighborhoods
on top of neighborhoods, apartments, and the first time someone said, well, you know what,
we weren't able to get in there and vote, so what are you going to do about it?
Do we need to do a divorce and separate it, because even the other part, too, even when
you think about the voting piece, it's the parking piece, and it's the piece where, wait
a minute, someone is going to just get frustrated and says, you know what, it's just too much
trying to get in and out of there to do that, and the last piece, thinking strategically,
there's something that's going to happen after the Old Hickory Road is complete.
They're going to start working on Denton, I mean, Ryan Road.
That's going to be a big project, and you've got to think strategically on how all of that
is going to impact these particular projects.
That's all I got.
Any other questions or discussion?
Well, well.
So I like your question, Natalie, about why now?
That's my concern with all of the debt and the financial obligations that we are really
burdened under right now.
How will a bond election in November fly?
Because there are a lot of people that are going to vote in November that are not regular
municipal voters, and the school board has their bond election in May when the school
board candidates are up and they have the school bond candidates, the bond election
then, because that's when people who are interested in schools go to the polls, and I would really
like us to think hard about moving the bond election to May when municipal voters go to
the polls, because having people voting on these municipal projects that don't usually
vote in municipal elections, they may not be as inclined to support things as the municipal
voters would next May, and anything that fails, we've got five years before it can come back.
So we need to also be very mindful of what we put in this package and not overload it.
Sorry, you scared me.
One thing, I'm looking at this little spreadsheet and I did some notes on my little thing just
similar to that.
If we can add a column to this, to where you add each one successively, cumulative, so
the first two, the first line would be 12-6, then the second line would be, whatever that
is, 25-3, and then so it goes all, so the total is 378, but if we were to go, okay,
maybe the top half, I think a top half is a good top half, and to Kevin's point, I
think a lot of these things need to get taken care of.
Okay, thank you.
I noticed that you typed in 70 million up there for the municipal complex.
What's that number represent?
That was the original one when we were discussing the public-private partnership, and based
on that preliminary ranking, it doesn't fall in the amount anymore, but I think the last
updated cost was 111 million.
Okay.
Sorry.
That was my question.
I think back to the municipal complex presentation, and to Kevin's point, it wasn't really taking
real well by the group.
That doesn't, it's still, there's a big need for a municipal building, a new city hall,
some kind of office complex that we need.
I don't think that's going to happen this year, but that, I don't think the city can
wait until 2026, and maybe that's the item that you come to the voters with singularly
next year, perhaps, but that's just my take.
This is probably totally out of order, but I would like to make a proposal.
Fire station five, fire station six, get done on a general operating, or I'm forgetting
which the letters are, COs, okay?
That takes it out of this discussion.
It gets it done, because I agree, it has to get done.
So we look at five, we look at six as a CO, we look at land that is located south on Teasley.
I think there might be somebody in this room that could enlighten us on that, and then
we could close the discussion on this and go to the rest of it.
It also opens up the potential of taking the rest of it to go on the May ballot.
Okay, get another comment or question.
Yeah, I just want to take a moment.
Have you looked around?
Have you seen how rapidly this city is growing?
Have you seen all the needs that we have in this community, needs that we have now, not
somewhere down the road?
Have you looked at what the inflation figures were on this, $411 million?
Put it off another six months, how much more is it going to cost?
It's time to do these things and to do them right and move forward on it because our community
needs it.
The reason that the city council called for this bond election now was because we have
a need.
The city council didn't say, oh, let's do it five years from now, they said we need
it now and they appointed this bond committee to put together a bond package to go on the
ballot in November.
Now we can decide what gets on that package, but I think we just need to move forward.
If you have projects you don't like, vote against them.
But let's cut this conversation about putting it off.
That's not our responsibility.
That is the responsibility of the council.
Our responsibility is to make a recommendation for this bond because we have great needs
in this city today and they are expensive and they're just going to get more expensive
if we keep putting it off.
So I have a question for staff about could you give us a rundown of what happens if a
bond measure fails and what our limitations are in financing that measure in the future?
My understanding is, one, you don't get to put it back on the ballot for another five
years.
Two, the legislature said we can't do an end run around the voters and finance it with
a different kind of bond, so it kind of puts us, let's say we put a fire station up there
and it doesn't pass.
I'm using that as an example that I think is going to pass pretty easily.
We'd be stuck.
We wouldn't finance another fire station if the voters, so could staff kind of confirm
if my understanding is correct and then any other kind of considerations for what happens
if a bond measure fails?
So you're correct.
Five years is the limitation, so we, if a project fails, we cannot bring it back for
five years including funding it through COs.
It's dead.
You can't do anything with it for five years.
I'm sorry, what was the last part of your question?
Just if there's anything I'm missing, any other, some of these things, like trails,
for example, there's the potential that development happens along a trail and a developer can
help pay for things or an inclusive playground.
There might be some fundraising or something.
Others of these things like fire stations and libraries, big capital improvement projects,
like bonds is how you do them and so is there anything I'm leaving out for considerations
about funding we lose if something fails or risks we take putting something on a ballot
if it's possible it's going to fail?
Well there was legislation that was passed, not this session, but the last session that
limits our use of COs, so yes, we can issue COs to rebuild a fire station.
It limits us on building new buildings and they have to be for specific purposes, so
public safety is one, but it's very, very limited, so we try to limit the CO issuance
to those projects that we know are necessary that maybe are not as attractive that we have
to get done to go to the voters, but that all is decided by city council.
Just to be clear, so if we vote on fire station 6, we also have to vote on South Library because
they're basically tied.
Is that correct or incorrect?
Well let me have a follow-up question to that.
In terms of what goes to the voters and what's tied to that vote, is it a dollar amount and
a general project idea or is it like this specific project within these square footage
or say we approved $50 million for a library, is there then discretion after the fact to
say, "Hey, we came up with another idea after looking at some alternatives as we were working
through the process?"
Yes, but that's correct.
That is correct.
Yeah, you do have some discretion, so it would be a dollar amount for the proposition and
then the general project idea.
I'm trying to see.
Okay, sorry.
Yes, you have a dollar amount that you're voting on for the proposition and the general
project idea, and then this committee has a bond oversight committee, which would help
monitor through projects costs.
We do quarterly updates with the bond oversight committee where there's any project changes
and they make any recommendations or approvals that go to counsel ultimately.
Thanks.
I just have a suggestion for how we might be able to tackle this list in a slightly
different way.
We're talking about fire stations, right?
When you budget for your business or your budget for your home, you kind of do those
what are the critical must-haves, what are the nice-to-haves.
I just wrote down three categories, I don't know that they're right, but what I'm wondering
here is if we broke these into critical life safety, so fire stations.
Critical life safety, you have to have them.
Revenue generating, so the upstream detention stormwater drainage and the Pecan Creek drainage,
as we saw in the work session, doing those projects brings properties that are high-value
properties out of the floodplain, allowing them to be redeveloped, thus generating sales
tax, property tax revenue, et cetera.
And then quality of life enhancements was the other one, I agree, senior center, but
I think we're going to have to get ourselves to a spot where we're ranking things and maybe
instead of just ranking them all together, we can break them into those buckets because
the last thing we want to do, and I agree that the council gave us this list and these
are their recommendations and our job is to come back with a recommendation, but the other
part of our job is to give a recommendation that we believe the voters will vote in favor
of and then our job is to go out and advocate for the voters to vote in favor of those.
So if we feel like we can sell 380 million bucks and everybody's confident and we all
vote for that, then let's go sell it and let's do it.
But if we don't think we can sell it, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater
either.
So I think just an idea, if we broke those into some categories where, because if something's
going to generate revenue, so if you look at the expense of those two projects, the
drainage projects, it's $60 million.
But if that $60 million is going to turn around and generate $20 million, then it's not really
a $60 million spend, it's $40, right?
And so anyway, that's a thought, how we can maybe try to get to some way we can tackle
these things.
There may not even be a question, but it's because I don't really know and this is my
first time here, but do all these items, are they all put in one bond, or did it happen
like the school that you have different bonds?
I'm going to suggest something now, if you go back to, well actually, I don't know where
you're going back or forward based on this slide.
So I think a good starting point, because I think we've got a lot of opinions here and
we've heard a lot of them, I think one good starting point is to get a pulse from our
team as to what we feel comfortable with in terms of a total project amount, which is
going to be a determining factor as to whether or not we feel comfortable with what number
of projects associated with that.
When we raised that last, was it last week, two weeks ago, whatever it was, June 26th,
you can see that on the right, this was the pulse we took at the end of the meeting and
it looked like 67% of this group was comfortable with the maximum allowed, which is 335, according
to our charge.
So I think what would be helpful is to, from a point of direction, this isn't like an official
vote that we're forwarding to the council, this is to say, can we take the conversation
on to the next level.
Out of a show of hands, how many are comfortable with what the majority of the group said last
week of having a $335 million package forwarded to the voters?
Can somebody do a quick count, just so we can get a sense?
How many are present tonight, do we know?
So 23 out of 36, okay, that's a good majority.
So that's helpful to get a sense of where we are collectively as a group.
Any discussion on that before we move forward to some other preliminaries to try and move
this forward?
This may be an oversimplification, but if we're looking at a maximum of 335, if you
could go back to, oh my goodness, I hate this thing.
We started this saying by, you made a comment that you felt like that the municipal complex
might be a non-starter for the group, if we look at that and take that out, that gets
us under that amount that we just said we were comfortable with.
You're wise beyond your years, got another comment back there.
So I want to make a pretty hard sell for something lower, and it's not just because I don't like
paying taxes or that I don't think we need good amenities to compete with other cities,
but our total net tax-supported debt right now, the bond debt like this that we are currently
paying is $354 million.
So with one vote of the citizens, assuming everything passes, we would be talking about
not quite doubling the current tax-supported debt of the city.
So that does two things.
The first is it affects our total capacity to spend.
Just because you have a credit card with a good high limit doesn't mean you fill it up.
You need to have that for when the water heater breaks or when another fire station needs
to be replaced or whatever else.
And for when in 2026 we want to build a whole bunch of roads and improve a bunch of roads
and spend, I'll be honest, probably a pretty similar amount on road projects.
And it affects our ability to borrow in the future.
The other thing it affects is this.
There is tremendous pressure on city council right now to lower property tax rates.
And every year the city council basically does lower the rate, but because your values
go up, your taxes end up going up.
What we're talking about here is the debt service part of the tax rate.
What the city council sets when they're talking about how much to spend on police and fire
and roads and all that stuff is the maintenance and operation part of the tax rate.
But they go together.
So if you have this political pressure rate, a rate that it needs to be, and I know there's
some city council members here and I know some of them are more enthusiastic about raising
rates than others, but if you have a spot where it's got to be, say it's 59 cents
on the dollar, on the $1,000 value, $100 valuation like it is now, if you're there, every cent
you take away with debt service is a cent less of that tax rate the city council has
available to hire more firefighters, to hire more police officers, to build more parks
and whatever.
So you're cutting in to not just the borrowing capacity overall, but the budgeting capacity
overall with this pressure to keep taxes low.
Here's the other thing that just happened.
The news this week out of Austin is a big property tax cut deal.
And what does that mean, $100,000 homeset exemption for most homeowners.
Fantastic for the homeowners.
I don't want to know what Cassie said when she read that headline, when our city budget
will be affected.
The total revenues will be affected by that.
Fantastic as a homeowner, very tough as a city budget person.
So I don't know that this is the climate to be, the city council gave us this number.
Let's spend everything that we have available on the credit card because it's not really
there and it cuts into our ability to do more in the future in a big, big way.
Okay, Mr. Davis, maybe you can help me with this because you're good at this stuff and
I'm not.
So if I'm a citizen of Denton and my house is appraised for $230,000, I'm not 65, I lied.
So it's not frozen.
How much will I pay for this bond as an individual?
I don't remember, I don't remember the total number.
It's something that everybody needs to hear because I'm hearing fear.
And I've been talking to a lot of the committee members and they're like, oh my gosh, no one's
going to be able to afford to live anymore.
Well, you know, that's another conversation for another environmental economic thing.
But for us, you know, we all went out and sold the 2019 bond and people were fine with
it because it only cost them $10 a month in their property tax amount, right?
That's what it cost me.
So I want everybody here to know that we're not saying someone's going to have to pay
$100 a month for these bonds.
If we just broke a million in population in this county, I know how many animals we're
taking in at the shelter.
I know how many schools are having to be built.
I know, you know, because you live in our neighborhood, you know what needs to be done
in our own neighborhood.
If we don't all band together as a community and see the needs that are existing right
now, we can't go forward in fear.
We have to know as individuals, how much are we going to pay for this bond?
Now, is $300 million a scary figure?
Heck yes.
But when I see the benefit of public safety first and foremost, when I look at my little
station five and wonder how the heck they even managed to get out on Bonnie Bray, you
know, I worship those guys.
You know, they save our lives.
So I don't want us to be in fear.
I want us to see that the city has to perform its tasks.
It has to come up with its own budget.
It has to move forward with whatever it is we decide to put forth to them.
And they as a body then say, yes, we can do that or not.
Remember, we didn't have the gun range.
You know, our bond committee nixed that one, but it was still given to them without, you
know, a blink of an eye.
So I just want us all to know, don't be in fear of this amount of money.
Costs are going to skyrocket in the next year or two.
We can't afford to wait.
That's why these projects are being presented now because in another two to three years,
it will be an impossible task.
Can I respond just really briefly to that?
The big difference in 2019 was that they were primarily road projects, things that people
could see in their neighborhoods.
And then when they looked at the materials online and they heard from people talking
about the bond, it was fantastic.
My terrible street is going to get fixed sometime in the next five or six years.
The difference here is that some of these projects could be considered because their
quality of life.
They could be considered kind of keeping up with the Joneses things.
And that's not how I categorize them.
I know why we need a bigger library.
I know why we need a better senior center.
But there's a big difference, I think, for your average voter whose property taxes are
going up or their rent is going up, and that's a function of property taxes too, and roads
versus stuff they might not use, stuff they might not need every day.
We have room space on that bond too, but we got room space.
All right.
So here's -- thank you for that discussion.
I'm going to -- again, that wasn't a vote.
It was direction to keep us moving forward in this process.
I think the other thing we want to talk about, to your point, and if we could pull up the
direction that we gave based on the last pulse around municipal complex, I don't think we
had that on here, do we, because that was more of a -- oh, there you go.
So I guess one other question we could, to Mindy's point, as we're thinking about a package,
I'm curious to get some direction from this team as regards to that municipal project
and whether or not folks think that the project's not ready for prime time yet and it's better
left off this particular bond package, because that's 110 million that we can take off and
not have to worry about.
So show of hands, how many are in support of the municipal complex project and including
it as part of this package?
All right.
So I think we already took it off the spreadsheet as a -- so that's a helpful thing.
I think the other thing we want to clarify is there's a couple of discretionary amounts
based on the discussion that we had, and let's start with inclusive playground as a topic.
Last time we took a pulse on this, we asked whether or not folks were in favor of the
proposed funding or increasing the funding, because that was part of the conversation
when we talked about it, or something else.
So since at that time 70% indicated they were in favor of the proposed funding, be helpful
just so we can get something on that spreadsheet.
Is that still the case?
How many of you would say you continue to be in support of the proposed funding of the
inclusive playground just by show of hands, and if we can do it count?
26 out of 30 -- 36, okay.
So we're still in that, so let's keep that number as is.
Again, this is just preliminary numbers to get something up there.
The other one was the trail development project.
When we asked, 48% suggested proposed funding at $15 million, 14% suggested increasing it
to $20 million, and 24% said decreasing it down to $10 million, and then there's 14%
other.
A bit more of a mixed bag here.
So given that as a mixed bag, I'm curious if there's just any pitches or discussion
prior to just getting your pulse on this one, one way or the other.
Let's start with you, and then we'll go to --
Yeah, I think the $15 million, because it can be used in conjunction with RTC funds,
regional transportation, and just it can be leveraged so well that it's definitely worth
looking at as something that, you know, for $15 million we can get $60, $75 million, maybe
even $100 million worth of projects knocked out.
That's a good ROI.
I was going to make the same point, and I think Parks has done a fantastic job of leveraging
other funds in order to do this.
I also think if we're talking about needing more road capacity on another bond, we should
really be thinking about how our trails can be used for mobility options that can alleviate
some of the congestion on some of those roadways.
One of the things I was going to ask, too, was the opportunity for which ones of these
funds have like a one for four grant opportunity.
Like a trail is a good example of that.
Are there other things like these flood mitigation or things that actually get -- if we put down
a quarter, we get three quarters funded somewhere else.
Is that something we should be able to talk to and know as we can sell the bond, especially
the infrastructure type things?
Yeah, I'll just add that as a school bus driver, I see kids crossing in lots of places, and
I think a lot of these trails kind of factor into our safe routes to schools things.
If you've never seen people almost getting hit, like school children almost getting hit
crossing 288, it's not fun, and the more safe routes that we can establish by alternate
trail paths, I think the better, and with four-to-one funding available for a lot of
these seems like a really great opportunity.
Okay.
So let's -- did you want to say something?
I'm sorry.
I thought you had your hands raised.
Okay.
Because you have a microphone, you could just talk.
So let's just start with the proposed funding from a point of view of direction.
How many would be in favor of moving forward with the proposed funding at $15 million?
Yeah, okay, $29.50.
We'll keep that -- yeah, it's not official.
We'll keep that as the recommendation on the spreadsheet, so that's helpful.
What else did we have that we wanted to get?
Affordable housing.
All right, so this was one where the majority at 63 percent, based on our pulse survey at
the end of the last meeting, suggested we actually increase funding to $15 million,
and then 30 or 23 percent said keep it at proposed, and then it goes down from there.
So clearly it seems like there's interest.
The question is whether or not we're interested in including that increased funding or not
as part of our starting point.
So let's start there, since that was at 63 percent, show of hands, how many are in favor
of that $15 million inclusion in the project?
Twenty-three.
Okay, so we'll start with that as a starting point.
Was that -- oh, thanks.
In this one, I was going to ask Cassie or Christine, whichever one, what's to talk about?
A lot of -- it's historic -- I think I'm just under a speaker or something.
Historically, based on the last time we had public art, we had it as a standalone proposition.
We all know it got shot down.
It's kind of an easy thing to get shot down if you're looking to say no to something.
But looking back in history, that's not the only way we have approached funding through
packages.
And is there another alternative, including making this a certain percentage within the
approvable projects within different propositions?
And can you speak to that just so we understand the landscape of what's available?
Yes, so we have done public art a couple different ways through prior bond programs.
So when we gave the public art presentation, the current public art policy says that council
can recommend 2 to 4 percent of the vertical projects move forward.
So what that would mean is if there was a public safety proposition, you had the two
fire stations in there, we would dedicate 2 percent in that proposition to be used with
public art.
So you all can -- we can decide to go with that policy and recommend a range 2 to 4 percent
as within the current public art policy or offer up a different dollar amount as an alternative.
Yes, we'd have to go back and amend the policy, but that's doable.
Your recommendation can be to not follow the policy to amend it and do a flat rate.
So does that make sense, the options there?
And it looks like when we pulsed you -- this is an interesting one based on our prioritization
too.
So when we pulsed you, it looks like there's a tie between other -- which maybe means nothing
at all, I'm not sure -- or 2 percent at 3.9 million, both had 47 percent and then 7 percent
at 5.9.
And again, the options -- there's options in terms of how we want to include this as
a standalone or something inclusive of other projects.
So I want to say a word in favor of public art.
It brings me calm, and sometimes I need some calm.
The public art projects that we have in our community that I think make a huge difference
in the quality of our life are things like the leaves sculpture on the square, the new
sculpture that's on Bonnie Bray.
You can go around, you can see public art, and it's a quality of life question.
That's why the council created this policy, because it's a quality of life for our community.
Now, I just wanted to add one thing to that.
If we did 2 percent at an assumed growth rate of 4.6 percent, which is ridiculously low
to assume that as our growth rate, but if you did 2 percent on 335 million, the effect
on the tax rate is .00081 cents.
That's 81,000th of a cent for quality of life.
I think that's what we ought to do.
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.
As you're doing the count on this, will you also count a do not include?
Yep.
Okay.
Just as a point of clarity, what does it look like on the ballot when we ask a voter for
this 2 percent?
I mean, you just had to explain to a whole room of bond members what a vertical project
was, so I'm just wondering what the voters are seeing.
I don't have specific language, we'll go through that, but on a last one for the example with
the fire station, it would say the $15 million, which includes a fire station and public art.
And that passed.
Fire station for public art?
You can recommend that it get pulled out, in 2019 they did.
They had its own separate proposition, but the current policy is that it would go with
the vertical construction proposition.
I'm going to ask this question one more time.
How much is in the public art fund today?
There's not a public art fund.
Public art is funded in this community through bond programs, hot fund allocations annually,
and grant opportunities, so each of those go into an individual project account.
I believe we answered in one of the parking lot questions.
All of that money is currently allocated either to existing art projects, so the next time
there would be funding available would be in this upcoming budget process and whatever
allocation they get from the hot funds, the hotel occupancy tax funds.
In 2019, there was a half a million dollars in the public art fund, and there was a fund
at that time, so thank you.
Mr. Davis?
My first question is, what is this right now 2% of?
That 3.9 million, is that including 2% of the municipal complex that was originally
in the proposal?
Is it 2% of what is currently a percentage of?
It would be whatever you recommend, so I've got highlighted on the screen the projects
that it's calculating the 2% on.
Got it.
That was my question.
So can you hit return?
There was a slide, yeah, that was the number I was looking for.
The other question is?
These are the different levels that if you wanted to recommend 2%, 3, and 4, so if projects
are removed, of course that number will change.
That's just the number I needed, not the number that was on the pulse, because we were asked
a different question before.
My next question is, if we include, and I think we may have gotten different advice
from different bond council at different times, I might be wrong there, but let's say we include
the policy of 2% of vertical construction, and it's just across the proposals and not
its own standalone.
Are we then limited to public art at the fire station?
Public art at a drainage facility?
Public art at affordable housing?
And I think we've gotten different advice at different times, but for instance, that's
one of the reasons why we have some beautiful public art at police stations, at fire stations,
because they were included in bond proposals as public art, and so it had to come from
that project, from that bond.
So can we get some clarification on that?
That's correct.
So as a public art policy is written, and the way the proposition would be written,
the fire station example, if you have 2% on that, the art will go with those fire stations.
So like at fire station 3, you can see the wall of honor, I think that one is called,
and various facilities have the public art specifically tied to that building.
I think that might have been another reason why it was pulled out to be its own proposal
last time, was so that we could be a little more free.
We would have a public art fund at that time, not a 2% on this building and a nice thing
over there, but we would have a big pot of money to spend on public art.
That's correct.
I'm not exactly sure in 2019 why they made that recommendation, but it sounds like that
was the reason to pull it out, to have more flexibility with where it goes.
And we saw the result of that vote.
It seems to me like there's a third option, which is what I advocated for when I was on
the council talking about this before.
You were on the city council.
I sat next to you, sir, you just talked the whole time and so I never got, actually we
became great friends and we were very politically opposed when we began, and now I kind of like
you.
So but it seems to me seriously like that we can learn from the past.
So it seems to me that the third option that we would have would be to say whatever the
number is, $3 million for public art as a part of this bond package to be used where
the city sees fit.
For example, I love the art at the fire station over here, and I love public art and I think
we need to spend money on it, but there might be a wonderful place for a piece of public
art say at a park or a new park or a new playground, and to be limited to construct that public
art at a city building might not be the best use of those funds when it can be appreciated
so much more in a more wide open, easily seen space.
So what I would advocate for, for us to consider would be to put a flat dollar amount in this
bond package for public art to be used at the discretion of the experts, whoever is
responsible for that at the city, because by pulling it out, you were exactly right.
That gives somebody something to say no to and some people don't appreciate art, and
they don't appreciate the fact that it's an enhancement to our city when the visitors
come and all those things.
So I would advocate for, we agree on an amount, we put an amount in there for public art and
we ask the council to amend the policy that it's not tied to vertical construction, it's
not a percentage, but it's an amount of money to be spent.
I'm curious as anyone's thoughts of the political mood back then when that was voted down.
I seem to recall just conversations around the nebulous nature of what was being approved.
There wasn't like specific projects being put forward, there weren't, and I'm just
curious as to whether we think history will repeat itself if we're coming to the table
saying we want this fund, no one really knows how it will be spent, and then there's kind
of this distrust of what are we going to do with that money at the end of the day.
I agree, I totally agree with you Greg.
What I'm saying is it's just part of the total, right, you're just voting for a 300 million
dollar bond.
Well, let's address that because I think what they're going to do is, to your earlier point
about categorizing these, the bond attorneys are going to categorize distinct propositions
based on their functions, and public art, as I understand it, will have to be a standalone
proposition to be voted up or down among maybe eight other propositions or something.
Am I right in that?
Right, unless you include it as part of the vertical construction projects themselves.
That's correct what I said.
Seriously, because it'll not free-shale.
I think that's, we've got to find a third way somewhere in the future.
In 2019, all these buildings were buildings that were really not used by the public.
It was the gun range, it was the police substation, and it was the downtown police station, and
the art for the downtown police station had already been done.
It was done, it was a brick work by Paul and Collins, and she was just waiting for them
to work on the building so that she could install it, and she had waited literally years
for this project to happen so she could finish it and get paid.
But one of the reasons that decision was made to make it separate is because it was technically
a public building, but these were not buildings the public was going to be going to on a regular
basis.
Public art at a gun range.
Public art at a gun range where the public isn't even allowed.
So maybe this is helpful, because that's a really good point.
Can you highlight the formula on the cell again just so we can highlight the particular
lines and get a sense of that?
So we've got D3, which is fire station 5, fire station 6, both in prominent areas.
Then we're not doing anything again until 8 and 9, so we're at active adult center,
which could be somewhere, it sounds like, perhaps in a park area, South Branch Library,
heavily visited, great spot for public art, the McNatt Animal Center, is that included
in that?
Yes.
Yes, which is heavily visited.
Then you go down to, why is inclusive playground not an option?
It's not vertical, it's not vertical.
Interesting.
Seems like it is.
Okay.
Last, a great downtown spot for public art, is 14 is not vertical either, and then 16,
which we already asked.
Okay, that's helpful to see that to your point, Patty.
Is that, was that your point, is that maybe these are more substantially public building
projects?
Well, it was an explanation of why the art was pulled off and made a separate package
so it could be used somewhere in the city.
Got it, that's helpful.
Can it still be tied to the vertical construction but be a flat rate, or does it have to be
a percentage?
Yes, if you decided a flat amount, we could tie it to the vertical construction and back
into those dollar amounts.
Two percent's the minimum?
If the policy is written anywhere from two to four percent, but you can recommend that
it be a flat million dollars and then we could spread it among the projects.
If you do it either as a percentage out separate rather than tied into the vertical, or a flat
rate, that gives you the opportunity, as was just demonstrated, to put perhaps some public
art along the trails.
Because after all, there's nothing vertical on the trails.
You could put some of the public art at the inclusive playground.
Having it totally out from the vertical as well as doing an explanation, because you
now have some public art to have people think about.
You could go on Bonnie Bray at the circle and you see that structure there.
You can go at the courthouse.
So you have something tangible, where in the past perhaps you didn't.
I appreciate what you just said, Julie, because kind of what I'm looking for is something
like that, an option where the money is there, but it's not another thing you run into when
it's a percentage of a particular project is maybe this project is just not very much
money.
You're not going to get that great a project for however many, a few thousand dollars or
whatever the 2% is, whereas you might have a library that you're expanding where you
want to do a really good sculpture, where you can pay somebody a little bit more to
design it, and you might need a little bit more money.
So something that gives the option to move the money around a little bit and not be stuck
in one place, but is also not a standalone proposition is I think what we're looking
for.
Sorry, I thought of one more thing.
The decision to make it tied to vertical construction was just a policy decision.
It was just a how do we figure out what number to use, and it's changed many times over the
years.
So it doesn't have to be stuck on vertical construction.
It can be a percentage of the total.
It can be anything we think up.
That was just kind of a policy decision that a past city council made based on recommendations
from a past committee just to figure out a number.
How do we figure out a number?
Let's make it a percentage of vertical construction.
It really could be anything.
That decision was really in the 2012 bond when it was all roads, and it didn't seem
to make sense to have to have public art tied to road construction projects.
All right, well, let's just get a pulse of where we're at based on that conversation
since if we're interested in it staying in, there's really kind of two options that we've
been talking about.
One is including it within all the vertical project propositions as 2% and included in
each of those propositions, or the idea of keeping it out as a separate proposition that
could be voted on where there's more flexibility as to what to have.
And so let's start with just something.
So if we take the 2% option of being tagged within the propositions and being based on
the vertical projects within those propositions, how many would be in favor of including 2%--
let's start there-- of bond money as part of this package?
You mean tied into the vertical?
Yes, tied into the vertical.
Tie into the propositions as opposed to a standalone, I guess.
But at a percentage and not a flat rate.
Right.
2%.
We're at 23 and 1/2.
We need new counters.
He's blaming the citizens.
All right.
So that's a starting point for us, 2% there.
So now where we're at from a total perspective, based on what we just talked about with each
one of those conversations, just as a reminder, the majority of the folks in this room said
we're OK with taking to the voters $335 million as part of a bond package.
And then all these other things are already factored into that, is that right, Christine?
She's adding numbers.
So that brings what's on the screen with City Hall Municipal Complex taken out, a total
package of $311.
As recommended.
So based on just, again, the direction that's provided, it seems like we've got a package
here that fits all those bills.
So we're at a point now in the conversation where I'm going to go ahead and open it up
to item number three.
Consider a recommendation to the Denton City Council regarding a 2023 bond program and
election, including projects and funding level consistent with the requirements under Ordinance
23-721.
Because this is a vote, we are opening up for public comment, not us.
We're the deciding body that gets to vote.
So this is public comment from anyone who's a non-staff member to be able to speak.
All right, we're going to close the public hearing section of this.
Thanks for your participation.
And now it's up for us to entertain a motion.
So wait, I want to click.
So just to clarify the motion, approve the package as displayed on the screen as our
recommendation to the City Council.
Adding numbers as the motion is.
Did you second, Peggy?
So we have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
So I'd like to make a recommendation for a bit of a modification.
So what was motion was to approve it as shown on the screen, which is zero for a municipal
complex, but 51 million for a South Branch Library.
The concern that I have is motion to approve the total amount of money as shown on the
screen would be saying that what we're voting for would be, if all are in favor or whatever,
for majority rules, we're saying we want to spend $51 million on a South Branch Library
and zero on a municipal complex.
Now I understand the presentation that was given for the municipal complex was a massive
number and a public, a P3, and that really convoluted.
Just like we felt strongly that our firefighters shouldn't be housed in a facility like we
see it at five.
Harken back to when our planning and development staff that's in this building today was in
City Hall West and we had people literally officing in closets.
Not joking, they were actual closets.
That was an old jail.
And so I think that's why I said in the beginning, like, I don't like the all or nothing because
I think it would be a mistake to not allocate some funding for a city municipal building.
For an example, that could be in addition to the existing City Hall.
That could be another building somewhere maybe having the folks off of Mingo isn't the best
use of that facility, whatever it is, right?
It's not ours to decide the very specifics about how the money's used.
I personally can't get behind $51 million for the South Branch Library.
That is a massive number.
That's $700 and something dollars a square foot.
You can build a hospital for $400.
So to me, what I would like to advocate for is that we look at this thing and we say let's
allocate some funding, for an example, I could get behind allocating $20 to $25 million.
That's right, and we're in discussion right now, Tim.
That's how it works.
But either you're making a motion or you're making a speech for or against the motion.
We're in discussion.
That's what happens during discussion.
So I have the mic, I appreciate you're excited, but that's how discussion works.
So what I'm advocating for is could we consider, which would ultimately be an amendment to
the motion, allocating some money, say, for the South Branch Library of $20 to $25 million
and $20 to $25 million, $25 to $30 million, wherever the number is, for a municipal complex
or to be used for a city municipal building, whether it's an addition or a standalone.
That's your amendment.
Well, and the reason I say that is we said first about the total, but then you said what
you're motioning for is for as is shown on the screen, which would include $51 million
for the library.
So that's my friendly amendment offer, would be to reduce the South Branch Library amount
to $20 million and add $30 million for a municipal facility.
So that's...
As the maker of the motion, I don't accept that as a friendly amendment.
You can make the amendment.
That's fine.
So that's his amendment.
It's essentially an emotion, e-motion, motion, and so is there any second to that?
Greg?
Yes.
Are you seconding it?
So we have a second to that.
So now we have a vote on that amendment.
Should we have a discussion on part of that?
We can have some brief discussion on that.
I just felt like there was quite a bit of contention and discussion at the very beginning
of this meeting about this very issue, and it seemed like there were two very different
paths that could go forward with regard to Fire Station 6 and South Branch Library, and
I don't know that voting on this, even with those changes in numbers, really reflects
the intention of maybe what some of the people had in mind in that discussion, and I don't
know a way to present that better, or if we're covering that better, the way we need to be,
but I'd like to have that accounted for.
Certainly.
Do we have a microphone back here?
Excuse me.
It was my understanding on the beginning of this that if we looked at each of the wishes
of the Fire Stations, you can keep together, but go and list an item and give a budget
for that item specifically such that the total budget was less than the $3.35.
That would take care of the suggestion of allowing $25 for the library, putting $25
to a municipal complex.
Each idea has what we feel would be a good pricing, just like you're going to buy a house,
A, B, or C, it's priced at this, this, or this, and then as long as we stay under the
total and take it from there.
Let's take three more comments on this, and then we'll vote on that motion.
Greg, I'm going to vote against your motion, but it's because I'd like to see, and I intend
to make a motion to divide the question, because there's a couple reasons, I don't feel comfortable
voting for the total number.
I think that we need to give City Council better direction than that.
They need to know, were there 100% of the people in favor of the Fire Station, or were
there 51% of the people in favor of the Fire Station?
If the City Council is going to take our recommendation whole hog and just do exactly what we say,
then they don't need any more data.
But if they're going to discuss it any further and want to know, well, how did the bond committee
really feel about this?
Was it 51% of the people, or was it 95% of the people that wanted this particular measure?
Or when it comes down to it, and it's time to actually put it on the ballot, if they're
not comfortable with the total number, they need to know where we're at.
I also just think it's kind of, I know it's going to take a little bit more time if we
do it number by number, line by line.
I think some of these are going to be pretty simple, I think we're going to all be in agreement
about them.
But at the same time, just doing it all together doesn't really give us the opportunity to
examine each of these projects on their merits and make a recommendation on the projects.
We're just telling City Council, yeah, go for it, spend what you like.
I'm going to speak against a motion also, partially because I adore libraries.
They can make something out of nothing, libraries, libraries, libraries.
But I think to put in an amount of money to go toward the library that's not enough to
do anything with, what do you do with $20,000?
You can't get a new library for that, $20 million, sorry.
You can't get a library for that.
And so I'm just opposed to that hanging out that little bit of money to do something with
that's not a part of the plan.
And I agree with Lenny.
Just throwing out $25,000 for the library and $25,000 for the fire station.
We don't know what that would do or what cost it would involve because they don't even have
those proposals.
So I'm going to vote against it as well.
Okay.
I said three comments.
We've had three comments, which was great.
So we have a motion to amend to allot $20 million toward the library project and $30
million towards City Hall project.
And we have a second.
So let's take a vote.
All in favor of that amendment?
We have a motion to partition his motion.
Not his motion.
I don't think so.
So all in favor of the amendment, raise your hand.
>> Can you review what the amendment was?
>> I just did.
But it's $20 million to take the library project to $20 million and then to vote $30 million
toward City Hall.
And it looks like when we took the vote, we had one vote.
Okay.
That motion fails.
We have a motion and a second on the table.
It sounds like we might get another motion.
>> I move that we divide the question and I would speak to the motion if it receives
a second.
>> Received a second.
>> So I've already laid out why I'm making the motion.
But I'd like to add to that that one thing that's not up there that we haven't discussed
yet is that we as a committee have the ability to make additional recommendations.
So for instance, if you're an affordable housing person and you think affordable housing is
something the city ought to put $15 million behind, and I'm going to agree with you on
that, we can also recommend that the City Council do a thing that we learned about during
this process, and that is create a PFC, public finance corporation.
If you are a trails person and you think the City Council ought to really be looking at
leveraging money, we can make a recommendation that the city work with regional partners
to find grants or to work with the parks foundation on an inclusive playground.
We can make policy recommendations beyond the dollar amounts, and that would be an additional
question that's not on the screen now.
>> Any further -- we have a second already.
Any further discussion on this?
Patty?
>> I will agree that we should vote on these items individually because that gives more
direction to council.
They need to see if it was 100% vote, it was 75% vote, it was almost 50% vote, they need
to see that rather than just saying here it all is, go for it.
Because if you've ever watched council, whenever they get a recommendation from P and Z, they
always ask what was the vote on a zoning or variance or whatever it is, they always want
to know what was the vote.
So I really support our -- I think we're robbed of a voice if we don't vote on these individually.
So I think we do need to vote individually on each item, and those numbers need to go
to council.
>> Do we have another mic?
Take it over to Janet, please.
>> This might not be the right time, but I still have a question about the library.
So I don't know if we can do that under Robert's Rules of Order.
>> Yeah, I think it's just discussion for us as the deliberating body at this point.
You could certainly walk back and talk to somebody if it's helpful on your own.
>> Thanks.
>> Yeah.
Yes, Gary.
>> I'd like to make a motion that we approve items ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
>> I think you can make that as a substitute motion.
>> He's making that as a substitute motion, and the motion is that we approve 1 through
6?
Is that what you're suggesting?
We have a second?
He's not saying in totality, it's just like let's include those, get them off the table
and move forward with other conversations.
So somebody school me and Robert's Rules of Order where we're at in the layers of motions.
We have the initial motion, we have the motion to divide the question.
We actually have three now.
And then this was a substitute motion substituting for his.
>> Ben Samples, city attorney's office.
>> Yes, thank you.
>> Hi.
[ Laughter ]
>> So the motion on the floor is the division of the question.
I think there may just be a little more clarity as to how you want to divide it if you're
doing one, if you're dividing it 1 through 15 or whatever.
I think that clarity is missing and then a vote needs to be taken, a majority vote would
get that going if there's a substitute motion after that which I think his substitute motion
was to maybe group some together, but that would be based on the initial motion that's
on the floor.
>> Got it.
So we need to respond.
We need to --
>> If there's no more discussion --
>> Got it.
>> On --
>> Okay, thank you very much.
So let's have a vote on the motion by Mr. Davis on dividing the question.
And this would be -- what we're voting on here is if we want to go ahead and consider
each one of these individually with an up or down vote to be able to, to the point,
be able to reflect the count on each one of those.
So all in favor of that motion, raise your right hand.
Keep it raised high so they can -- and look around Peggy because all the hands that are
raised are telling you, you can't go home for a very long time.
She's keeping score.
All right.
So that motion passes, passes.
So from a process point of view, what we can do is start with the first item.
I don't think we do because I think his motion supersedes that motion.
He essentially was saying let's divide that question.
So here we're going to vote on each one individually.
So all in favor of item number one, fire station number five, raise your right hand.
Keep them up.
If each one of them would count their table it might be a lot easier.
I'll let them figure that out.
Unanimous.
Way to go, team.
We're making progress.
Number two, all in favor of fire station number six, raise your right hand.
We're voting at this point.
Unanimous.
Item number three, Oakland drainage and upstream detention improvements.
All in favor, raise your right hand.
Item number five, affordable housing at $15 million.
All in favor, raise your right hand.
I'm sorry.
Item number four, PEC phases three and four, drainage improvements, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
Yeah, they're asking if you can get the vote tally reflected.
I think they're getting that.
It's kind of a manual process.
All right.
Now number five, affordable housing at $15 million, all in favor.
All right, number six, active adult center, all in favor, raise your right hand.
Anthony's got her hand raised very high.
Thank you.
Can you help advise on that the way we have?
It's technically a motion that's just been divided into a series of votes.
I think discussion's over, correct?
If it fails, we can come back and do all sorts of things.
That's my read.
All right.
So we are now at South Branch Library number seven.
All in favor, raise your right hand.
What's our total number, 15, so it's 15-4, so that fails.
As is, now we have opportunities after this.
Eight, Linda McNatt Animal Care and Adoption Center expansion, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
26, that passes.
Number nine, Riddell Mingo Roadway and Quiet Zones, all in favor, raise your right hand.
I'm going to make you cross the gardener, you know that, right?
15.
15, that fails.
Number 10, Inclusive Playground, all in favor, raise your right hand.
27.
27, that passes.
You keep forgetting about it, it's all right.
The next, are there two number 10s, or right?
All right.
City Hall West is the next item, all in favor, raise your right hand.
26, that passes.
Riddell Development, 15 million, all in favor, raise your right hand.
31, that passes.
Number 13, Aquatics, raise your right hand.
18, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50.
Next, we're at Public Art, which I guess as a first one, just because of based on the
previous discussion, this would be 2% of vertical projects, as opposed to a standalone proposition,
which is what we discussed earlier.
So all in favor of that.
She's just highlighting ones that didn't pass.
She's not doing anything, it's okay.
We're doing this on the fly, guys.
All right, so let's vote in favor of Public Art, 2%.
26, so that passes.
All right.
Good job, team.
So we have a package thus far now.
We're still open for any other amendment, or not amendments at this point, motions,
if folks want to return to any of these topics with alternatives, perhaps, or additional
projects.
Lynnie?
Well, I'd like to speak about the Mingo Quiet Zone, which, whether you know it or not, that
was previously approved by the voters, and I really think we owe something to those people.
It was approved to be developed, but they didn't have enough money in the budget to
do so.
So it's coming around a second time, and it's like we told them before, yes, they could
have this, and now we're taking it back.
Are you making a motion, or are you just speaking to that?
Okay, that's fine.
So as I recall, the Mingo Quiet Zone was just a quiet zone, and a railroad crossing, it
did not include rebuilding Ruedell and Mingo.
So what the amount is now, 45 million, it was much, much less than that.
Something like that.
It was not very much money at all.
But the 900,000 was approved by the voters in the 2019, but this is far above what that
quiet zone proposal was.
That being said, can we request the total, like the 199, 917, 536, to add back what the
totals were that have been zeroed out?
Because as we're discussing this, I'd like to see where they stood before we zeroed them
out.
So if there's a way we could put 199 and just pull that down, and then putting next to south,
what all of those totals were before you zeroed them out.
You're a visual processor.
I am.
I love it.
Is there other, sorry, Clay?
I'd be interested in what the Ruedell Mingo would look like with Ruedell taken out of it,
because as I remember, the first justification for Ruedell was to create another north-south
connection, and was possibly used as a route to alleviate bowel closure.
And that is a heavily residential neighborhood.
I don't see that as being anything other than, it's never going to be an arterial.
I don't even see it being a collector.
So I was interested in what it would look like with Ruedell taken out of that.
Randy?
So that's kind of like the question I had, is what is the timing of the Belle Avenue
closing?
Does anybody know that?
If it's unknown at this time.
And I think that's probably what would be the impetus to make Mingo and Ruedell.
I think Ruedell is a crucial part, because it's the only north-south route back to 380
other than Belle.
So I think the timing of the Belle Avenue closing is critical to that.
Yes, Susie?
And something I don't think got mentioned in the presentation about Mingo-Ruedell is
the T.W. Master Plan, you can find it on the internet, does have hopes for an entrance
on Ruedell eventually.
So that may factor into the idea of adding a turn lane at least for people coming in
and out.
So I don't think that was mentioned before.
Well, not only that, but they've got, their plans for that entire golf course area is
heavily residential projects, is where they're planning on moving.
Now, I don't know the timing of that, but it seems like that's part and parcel probably
to what's being proposed.
Can I make a motion to include in the bond proposal the railroad quiet zones without
the rest of the Senate?
So can I ask if we even have that information, if we were to pull out just the quiet zone
projects from the other infrastructure projects along Mingo-Ruedell?
What's that?
It's not broken down.
Do we have an answer to that, or is that just something we couldn't provide at this time?
It's not an estimate, but it wouldn't be an accurate number.
Ballpark.
Eight to $10 million.
I think what we told council was 12 million total for all 10 of those quiet zones in that
project.
So let me go back to you because you were making a motion with that information.
$12 million to be included for the quiet zones.
We have a motion and a second to take the Ruedell-Mingo Roadway project that failed
and turn it into a quiet zone project at just $12 million, previously it was $45 million.
Discussion?
I think it would be a mistake to take Mingo out of that because Mingo is going to be a
very -- it already is a very needed rebuilt and side paths.
There's a lot of people that are bicycling and walking along that, and that needs to
be part of the project, I think.
Ruedell is the only thing I'm quick.
And as far as the quiet zones, I am impacted by that.
Got it.
My concern, I voted no during the initial vote down for this project.
My concern is that there was not a lot of clarity on what that ultimate cross-section
of Mingo would look like because my concerns are very much around families and if TWU is
pedestrianizing that area or residentializing it, there's going to be a lot of need for
access to downtown through there.
But with the cross-section, there was discussion of, oh, we'll see if we can fit a bike lane
in.
If we can fit a sidewalk in.
And so I would like to motion to approve the original amount with the direction that bike
lanes and pedestrian infrastructure be prioritized over any vehicular lane expansion.
So we have another motion on the table specific to a price tag of $12 million, taking out
Ruedell and Mingo and just doing the quiet zones as part of that.
It sounds like you're not offering an amendment.
It sounds like you're offering maybe a new motion because I'm not sure how that would
amend yours.
But give it a try.
Yeah, I suppose.
Or do you want to wait and see if this goes up or down?
Yeah.
Okay.
The order is quite hard.
It turns out.
No, I understand.
All right.
So we've got a motion and a second, $12 million for quiet zones only on that project.
One more discussion, please.
Oh, I'm sorry.
My one quick question on that is by going through and putting up whatever sound barriers
in that for the railroad tracks, if it is not done in conjunction with the road modifications,
including sidewalks and bikeways, how are you going to appropriately do it so you don't
put a sound barrier in and then come by three years, four years later and have to tear it
out?
Well, again, just from a procedural point of view, we've got a motion on the floor.
We're having discussion among the folks who are voting and typically new questions aren't
asked.
Do you have a quick answer to that?
So if you start breaking this project apart, the numbers are going to start going up.
So if you take the quiet zones and just do them by themselves, they're going to cost
more than it would be.
You get economies of scale when you start putting these projects together.
So that was the goal behind doing Roodale, Mingo and the quiet zones all together.
I will say that the Roodale extension that's included in this project was also a 2012-2014
project that was not able to be done because of the funding.
The proposed section for Mingo, kind of where the issue was is the right of way, what we
can acquire out there.
The goal would be to have bike lanes on both sides along with sidewalks where we can fit
it and we would definitely have at least one mixed use path along one side and fit in sidewalks
on the other where we could.
So that would be the goal.
We won't know those answers and what that ultimate cross section will look like until
we can get into those discussions with those property owners and determine what that looks
like.
But the goal, if we can get all the right of way, would be to have sidewalks on both
sides as well as bike lanes on both sides as well.
All right.
So we have a motion.
You want to speak to your motion, then we'll take it.
Yes.
Well, the Roodale-Mingo Road will not impact the quiet zones.
And my feeling is once the citizenry voted to do that, the fact that the city didn't
quite have the right numbers is not their fault.
We said we would do it for them and I think we need to do that.
The quiet zones, we can hobble about the rest however we want to, but I think we voted yes
for that once and we need to give them those quiet zones.
Can I just clarify the motion?
We're referencing 2012.
That included additional quiet zones that weren't proposed as part of this project, which included
quiet zones all the way through Denton through downtown.
And this project was only contemplating quiet zones, as I understand it, am I correct?
From Mingo up through, what was it, was it even Texas Street included in that or was
it further?
No.
I just want to clarify what we're proposing, that it's not the same as 2012.
It's not the same, so this one is Mockingbird through Willis.
There are separate quiet zone areas that are currently included in other projects that
are being completed now.
Is that how you understand your motion?
Are all the parts that are on here for quiet zones, were they on the original bond proposal
and voted in favor of?
Yes.
What she's saying is all that are on here were included in 2012, but there were additional
ones included in 2012.
Okay.
Just getting clarity.
So we have a motion, we have a second, let's have a vote.
All in favor say, no, I called it after her last comment, sorry.
All in favor, raise your right hand.
Can you say the motion one more time?
The motion is to do the quiet zone, take the Riddell and Mingo road project infrastructure
improvements off of that package, only include the portion of that package that included
the relevant quiet zone projects for a total of $12 million.
That were included in the previous bond approval.
Right.
All in favor of that motion, raise your right hand.
16.
Okay.
I would like to motion that we pass the original amount with the provision that in the event
that not enough right away can be acquired, that pedestrian and cyclist improvements are
prioritized over lane expansions.
Can you say that one more time?
Motion that we move forward with the original amount with the provision that we give direction
that in the event that they cannot acquire enough space, then we axe lane expansions
before we axe pedestrian and cyclist improvements so that way people who are walking, who are
biking the families in that area are able to use that road.
There's a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
We have a microphone back there.
I think there's people listening.
I'll tell you my only hang up with that, and that is Bell Avenue closure.
The specter hanging over all of this for me is if we expand Roodale, which is what we
should do.
I think a lot of people would use Roodale, but if we do that, then that provides incentive
or justification for closing Bell Avenue to cars.
I think there are other things we need to do before we close Bell Avenue, and that's
just the specter hanging over this entire project for me.
I think there are roads that need to be expanded.
I think there are sidewalks we need through there, and I think we need quiet zones through
there.
When Bell Avenue is off the table, I can get behind this 100%, but that's where I'm at
right now.
It's clear that that's a separate political decision associated with this.
Any other discussion before we take a vote?
We have a motion.
We have a second.
If you have one favor, raise your right hand.
Look at the lobbying, real-time lobbying.
I would like to make a motion that we include the quiet zones, we include the improvements
to Mingo, because they are very necessary, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and to what Christine
said, we make sure that we give direction that if we can get the right-of-way that the
pedestrian lanes are prioritized.
I would like to make a motion that we include the quiet zones, because that seems to be
an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off
the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be
an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off
the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be
an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off
the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be
an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off
the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an
issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the
Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an
issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off
the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an
issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off
the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an
issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off
the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an
issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off
the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have with this particular
bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an issue that people have
with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because that seems to be an
issue that people have with this particular bit, and we leave off the Roodale part, because
that's about three quarters. Can I ask you a question? A, where did you come up with that
That's about three quarters. Can I ask you a question? A, where did you come up with that
figure? B, what does that do to the recommendation we already passed with the fire station?
So, two things. One, that's about 75% of what they ask for for a new build, which is
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.
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. So, that's where the number came from.
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.
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.
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.
Okay.
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?
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.
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?
We expect to have that deficit because.
We're keeping costs down for ticket prices.
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.
None of those make money.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you.
I don't know who was first here. Let's start with Kimberly.
Oh, here.
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.
I know because I'm paying for it.
I think that it will truly increase revenue there. I really do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is pricing based on about 12 years ago up in Ohio, because pools water is hard to come by.
I wanted to ask a question and clarify a little bit about the flat water feature, was that supposed to be outdoors or indoors?
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?
We would love to also have another indoor flat water space, the bond committee would like to do that, we would love to.
We can use that in the shoulder seasons what we call them also so we are trying to extend that.
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.
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.
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,
a little bit after the season closes, pending staff to be able to add some additional classes, lessons, fitness classes.
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.
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.
Okay. Kimberly? Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to vote on the original estimate for the aquatic center of 15 million dollars.
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.
We need somebody, as I said, to do a motion to reconsider, to be able to open that back up again.
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.
Or would you make a different motion? A different motion would alter it, maybe take the dollar back.
I would like to make another motion to vote on 15 million and one dollar for the aquatic center.
Wait a second.
All right, so it's all in favor.
Right hand.
The extra dollar saved the day for the aquatics.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Yes, Brian.
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.
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.
We have that authority as part of our charge to recommend CEO packages.
We recommend that they consider using CEOs, but we, since it was recommended 100% proceed with these projects by our bond committee.
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.
All right, we have a second.
We have discussion.
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.
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.
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.
Do we have clarity on how that impacts station fives presented budget.
There was a part of Jesse's motion was to reduce the building footprint or change the, the 75% funding.
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.
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.
Thank you.
Any other discussion.
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.
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.
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.
So for, for us to do fire stations with CEOs is not unusual.
All right, any.
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
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.
Okay.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you.
This is the last.
So, follow up to what you're just saying Cassie about CEOs and our capacity for carrying CEOs versus geos.
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.
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.
Correct.
Okay.
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.
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.
Any.
Let's take a vote on favor. Raise your right hand.
Okay.
24.
Passes.
Hang on.
Another proposal.
Some of us wrote our bikes.
My bike's got a light on it, Kevin.
I move that we recommend that city council consider creation of a city of Denton public public facility corporation.
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.
So it's a it's a recommendation just by recommendation tethered to the affordable housing package that we have recommended.
We have a second already. Mr. Henderson.
Any discussion.
Yes.
Well, what is our question for staff or explaining maybe a little bit more.
Okay. So it sounds like there's some awareness of what this is.
Danny is here. We'll let her have the floor.
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.
Give us the opportunity to negotiate what happens in those deals. So we put us at the negotiating table.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All right. So we've got a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand.
21 passes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, as I was saying, please give a round of applause to the city staff who spent so many of their nights and weekends.
And with that, did you want to make a motion Greg. Yes, my favorite motion.
And I think it's unanimous consent, let's go home. Thank you guys.