Apr 09, 2019 City Council on 2019-04-09 2:00 PM

Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, April the 9th, 2019. We do have a quorum. I will now open the meeting. Council Member Duff has alerted me he will not be in attendance today. So we'll go ahead and go down through our work session items. Our first work session item is citizen comments on consent agenda items. I do not see any blue cards for citizen comments on agenda items. So we'll move on to agenda item two, request for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda. Council Member Briggs. So on A, I just have a question. So is this a market value type thing or just an agreement between the two corporations and is there also included if some equipment is broken that the company will remove their equipment? Is that on consent A? Uh-huh. Okay. Or is this something different than a regular attachment agreement? Who can answer that? Six. Okay. Can I just move on? There's Brent. Could you go ahead and repeat your question, please? We're on agenda. Did you hear the question? Part of it. I was walking out. Okay. Yeah. Well, it's a poll attachment license agreement. So if you could just kind of go over that because that's been in the news lately with poll attachments, market rate, and then we have some issues now with equipment being attached to our polls and not being moved. Is this similar to that or something completely different? This would be a poll attachment agreement with a communication company. Right now we have the cable company, Charter Spectrum, and we have Frontier, which took over the old Verizon. Excuse me. I was running upstairs. I understand. Yeah. Just take your time. So this is MCI Metro. It's not either one of those two companies, but they are a subcontractor for Verizon in downtown Dallas, and they're looking at more of a commercial operation type use for the use of these polls. Okay. So is it treated the same way as? It is. It uses the same rate, the same poll attachment rate, which we have in the electric service standard rate tariffs. Okay. It'd be 15, 57 per poll per year. So in our agreements, though, because we do have and we've had conversations about the two previous that you mentioned, Frontier and Charter, leaving equipment on polls once they've been removed, was this addressed in this new agreement? This is actually the new agreement that council approved here a couple years ago. We made a few modifications, and so it's the first time we've actually had someone sign and utilize this agreement, so we're looking forward to having a little more teeth, a little more things that we can use to work with them. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Oh, you're welcome. Thanks. Any other clarifications on agenda? I'm not done. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sure. If I can. On E, the rights away, I am curious about if it's just maintenance and litter removal. I didn't see anything about bids on certain plants and landscaping materials. So just a clarification on that. And also, will they have pruning policies and mowing policies that they abide by as well that we've been discussing? Hi. Hi. Good afternoon. Your first question was, is it just for mowing and litter removal on the rights away? Okay. Mowing, weed eating, edging, removal of illegal signs, removal of illegal dumping, trash and debris, there's not anything about adding plants or vegetation to the right of way. It is an enhanced maintenance contract, so it's not a planting contract. Is pruning included? You're talking about tree pruning? They have the ability to do it, but we took that out of this particular contract because we already have elite tree services that does tree pruning and trimming for the city. And so if we would need that done, we would just use elite. Okay. And the last question is, I went through and I saw some of the different districts and the locations. Yes. Has some new locations been added or are those ones that we? Those are, by and large, the standard locations. We added, oh gosh, probably another 20 acres south on 377 along the right of way of 377. We added that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Is that it? All right. Thank you. Any other clarifications? Yes. Council Member Monson. Yeah, I'm actually just want to offer a clarification for those who are interested in this. On item H, this is about a UNT professor who's applying for a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, not from the city, requesting an endorsement by city council. And there would be a conflict of interest, since my wife is a professor at UNT, if there was a pending matter before council, not to share for, again, for those who are interested. The definition of pending matter is if someone's requiring a permit from the city, if there's something that's on its way to a court or a tribunal, or if there's an arrangement for provision of something of value to the city. I've checked with the city attorney, not that he's the final authority on this, but he would concur that there isn't a pending matter here. So I will be voting on this item. And just to add briefly, whenever I can vote, I want to vote, because things happen in city council when there are enough council members interested in them. And I'm very interested in advancing our, in our community, advancing our knowledge of air quality through air quality monitoring. Yeah, I want to pull that, too, for an individual vote. Council Member Hudspeth? Yeah, I want to pull it, and so we'll pull it twice. And if we can get a full presentation, because I have, well, I submitted my questions. So if they could address those. Well, let's be, so I need to have an understanding on H. Is this a ratification? Has this already been done, or is this something that the council's approving? Has this letter of support been sent, and is this just a ratification of the full council based upon some other actions taken? Good afternoon, Council. Kenny Banks, General Manager of Utilities. The deadline for that grant submission was on April the 1st, and it's my understanding that the letter from the Committee on the Environment went with that application on April 1st. Okay. So it's more of a ratification. Correct. It's not really an approval in the sense of an original approval of a resolution. Correct. And support. It's just a ratification of a resolution and support. Right. Okay. Okay. Any other clarifications? So when we pull H, you want a presentation on it. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Yeah. Yes. Okay. I'll keep it succinct. Yeah. All right. No, that's fair enough. Sure. You bet. Okay. All right. Seeing no more requests for clarification on agenda items, we'll move on. We've had a request to move agenda item C to the front because there's an outside consultant this year that's available to go ahead and get them on board and get them here and cut loose. So I'll go ahead and call that unless I hear any objections to doing so. Hearing no objections, I will call agenda item 3C and then we'll pursue back down through our agenda as ordered. Receive a report. Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the Solid Waste Department's enhanced liquids recirculation program. Well, good afternoon, honorable mayor, members of the council. My name's Brian Barner and I am the Deputy Director of Solid Waste for the City of Denton. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to talk about our enhanced liquid recirculation program. With me today, I have Ethan Cox, who is the Director of Solid Waste, as well as Mr. Kevin Yard and David Mazacapa, who are engineers with SCS Engineering, probably some of the lead people with regards to landfill gas management in the United States. We had contracted them earlier this year to actually come in and do a complete evaluation of our enhanced liquid recirculation program and a lot of their work is the basis for the presentation that you're going to see today and they will be available for comment and questions throughout the presentation and a little bit later. You may remember about a year ago, Blue Ridge consultants came in and did a complete stem to stern evaluation of solid waste program and made several recommendations. As part of those recommendations over the past six months, we've been bringing back before you as business case analysis, looking at the pros and cons with regards to environmental effectiveness, cost and things of that nature and as a result, this is the next one that's up in queue, the enhanced liquid recirculation program. This is a fairly technical presentation, but I'm going to try to take it at a 30,000 foot view, make it as simple as possible so that we can understand exactly what's going on. To do that, however, though, we need to talk a little bit about what a landfill is. It's not a hole in the ground that we dump things in. It's an extremely regulated and engineered piece of machinery, for lack of a better term. It operates within very tight tolerances, reporting back to the state and federal government to ensure that we're protective of health and the environment in the state of Texas. One of these things that is required to make a landfill work is a gas collection and monitoring system, regardless of what type of landfill you have, it produces gas, with the exception of an inert fill, which basically is just rock and dirt. Those things don't decay. Whether you're dealing with a municipal type 1 landfill like we have, a type 4 C&D landfill, anything that has the potential to decay will be producing methane at some point in time. As a result, under federal and state regulations, we're required to monitor that gas and then maintain a gas collection system so that we can destroy the gas that's produced. Fortunately, here in the city of Denton, we have a landfill gas to energy system. Many of them use the landfill gas that's produced beneficially to actually spin up electricity that's then purchased by your local energy provider. Here in the city of Denton, Denton Municipal Electric actually purchases enough energy for about 1,000 homes plus or minus as a result of the gas that's produced down at the landfill itself. The contractor, DTE, has had this contract since 2004, and it was a 20-year contract, which will be ending in about five years. The third part of the landfill, and what we're here to talk about today, is enhanced leachate recirculating system. It is basically a supercharger for the landfill. I've got a car. I want it to work better. I'm going to put a turbocharger, a supercharger on it. It's going to hopefully increase the effectiveness, but if it doesn't, then I have to drop back and try to make sense of what's happening. Same thing here with our ELR system. Currently, there are three ELRs that operate in the state of Texas and 35 what's called bioreactors, which are basically the same thing that operate in other parts of the nation. There are over, to put this in perspective, there are over 3,000 landfills that operate permitted in the United States right now, so roughly about 1% of all the landfills out there operate as either a bioreactor or as an ELR in the system. Going through some definition here, leachate, that is material, the liquid that we're actually pushing through the trash to supercharge the microbes which produce the gas. As Councilman Meltzer reported the other day, it's basically garbage juice. It's that liquid piece that comes from the trash, it's in the trash, the rain that hits the trash, any of those liquids that are actually in the line cell itself. Under an ELR system, you're recirculating, re-inoculating the bugs to make them work a whole lot better, a whole lot faster, and that's what leachate recirculation is. We grab that liquid off the bottom of the landfill, put it in at the top, allow it to percolate through and as a result, it accelerates landfill gas production, ideally would expedite landfill settlement and create additional capacity within your cell, and as a result of this process, you produce landfill gas. Again, it's methane that just naturally occurs as a result of decay of trash and organic material. Now, the enhanced liquids recirculation program, the Council actually approved the operations back in 2005, and back then, there were maybe one or two programs that were available and operating in the United States, and at that time, it was still very speculative on what the potential outcomes were. There were a lot of variables, and as a result, it entered into a program that used to be called Project Excel and then was later renamed RDD within the EPA, basically research-based, and if you did things right, then you could get some regulatory relief, and the anticipated benefits at that point is the reduction, first and foremost, the reduction of environmental risk. The most expensive part, really, of operating a landfill is not the operation part. It's that 30 years after you close a landfill, you still have to maintain cover, you have to monitor liquids, you have to do this and you do that. If we could shorten that period of time, the ratepayers realize a tremendous savings in money as a result of this risk. You also, by increasing landfill gas, you could put it to some sort of beneficial reuse, great waste settlements, so you could actually regain a lot of the life of the landfill in the early years as opposed to the late years, and then, as we talked about, post-closure maintenance reduced, and then you really have an offset at that point in time by the additional revenue. Now, if we crawl back in our way back machine and think about natural gas prices in 2005, if you remember back that far, they were running, what, between $12.50 and about $14 a million currently, I think the Henry Hub price on natural gas is about $2.65, over a $10 range, so a lot of that revenue that was potentially and hoped for at that time has actually been lost as a result of the crash in the natural gas price in the market, and that's what drives a lot of our cost concerns that we're facing today. So again, going back into how the ELR works, basically, we've got a landfill, we've got a sump down here on top of our liner system, basically, through pumps and wells, we're taking that material into the leachate plant, we inoculate it into the bottom of the, or into the top of the landfill, it percolates down through, and as a result, those microbes eat up the organic material, it goes into the gas extraction wells, and then through a pipe system, it comes to the flare, landfill gas to energy, whatever that beneficial reuse is, that's identified, and again, it's this sort of circular tail of recirculating the liquids, and as a result, it generates the gas and goes from there. So. Real quick question. Yes, sir. And if it's in the, I looked through the presentation, I think it, if it's there, refresh my memory, but because I know right now we're flaring off gas because our current unit doesn't have the capacity to handle what's coming off and it's not enough to have another unit. Is that correct? That is correct, and that's the slide I believe I'm getting to right here. Okay, go ahead. Okay. So again, you know, the questions that we ask ourselves as a result of the study that we've done is, you know, is the system working? Well, from an environmental risk, right now we're not seeing a reduction at risk. First of all, as I stated, both the TCEQ and the EPA have not reduced that closure/post-closure time in the 20 years that this has been evaluated. There's nothing that we're seeing in rulemaking or in legislation right now. So the long-term impacts are still there. We're seeing, you know, increase in landfill gas production, you know, in the new cells right now that are still, we're filling. It's extremely difficult to capture that gas with as much liquid as we have, and people are seeing in the cells themselves, it creates additional landfill seeps. There's some stability and settlement issues that we're constantly maintaining. So again, we're seeing a little bit of a negative impact at this point. From an enhanced landfill gas generation standpoint, there is a marginal benefit that we are seeing. Looking at the gas curves, we're not anywhere close to where the potential is on this, but we are seeing an increase that could be to the additional waste, the age of the landfill. There could be some other things, but again, as you were saying earlier, we do have landfill gas to energy equipment that's operating at full capacity right now. About 64% of the gas that we recover is going to energy. About a third, again, of that is being flared, so we need another about 250 standard cubic feet a minute of gas production right now to actually have enough gas to bring an additional engine on. Okay. I want to go to Mayor Pro Tem, then I'm going to go to Council Member Price. Thank you, Mayor. Looking at that chart there on the right-hand side, is that, if I'm reading that right, the -- when we flare, we actually produce less nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds per cubic foot release than what we do? Correct. Yes, that is. And the way this is set up is basically on the amount of material that we're burning right now. So again, it's almost a two-to-one comparison here, but again, it is an equivalency for what you're seeing out there, if that makes sense. So what we're realizing at the flare right now versus at the exhaust of the engine that's running right now. Okay. And is the engine that's running, is it in compliance with current scrubber requirements and that type of thing? Yes, it is in compliance with all state and federal rules with regard to the engine spec and the emission standards. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Briggs and then -- yeah, Council Member Briggs. Just a comment, too, and a question, during COE, we learned that this project has actually been on hold for over a year. So it hasn't been going into the landfill, and the flaring has still continued at the same rate. Correct. Right. So it's not -- that was surprising to me to hear. So if we started doing this and applying this program again that's been on hold, would it create enough gas to get a second engine, or no? Not in the short term, no. We need additional waste, and again, it's a microbial activity, so it may be four or five years, even with an ELR, additional waste before we would actually get enough mass and enough generation to actually bring on a second engine at that point. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Council Member Nelson. Just as kind of a contextual question, between LFG and flaring, do we capture all the methane, or is there a significant amount of fugitive methane emissions from the landfill? Do you have a way of knowing? We do do evaluations at the landfill on an annual basis, do a greenhouse gas report. At all landfills, you are going to have some fugitive emissions anywhere you have a penetration into the landfill, so we do extra effort to make sure that areas around where the landfill gas occurs, where erosion is done, we actually are maintaining that cap. Fortunately over the past six months, as you're aware, we've had more than our share of rain in North Texas. As a result, it's extremely wet. All the clays have expanded. The landfill is extremely tight, so we're being extremely efficient right now in recovering landfill gas that's being generated at the Denton landfill at this point. Thank you. You're welcome. So moving along, one of the other benefits that was touted back in 2005 is accelerated incremental landfill settling, i.e. recapturing the capacity in the current time as opposed to at the end of the life of the landfill. When we look at 2017-2018, and this is consistent with previous years, we estimate based on the survey that's done for our annual report, we actually recovered about 15,000 yards of total settlement. That's natural cement that would have normally occurred anyway without the ELR plus whatever was enhanced by the ELR system. That 15,000 yards equates to about five days worth of capacity. So again, it's really challenging to quantify what the contribution of the ELR was to this incremental settlement, but we do see some benefit occurring. I think, again, going back to the liability reduction, there was no benefit. Again, there's nothing on the books right now trying to be forward-looking. We're not seeing any potential of regulatory relief to that 30-year post-closure care for the ELR landfill, so again, that's not a benefit there. When you're looking at the finances versus non-ELR to ELR, again, as was stated earlier, we have not - well, we actually suspended operation back in January of 2018 due to some operational issues and some maintenance issues, but looking at this, it gives us a comparison between what it costs us to operate versus what the potential is if we were to spin this back up, do it correctly, right-size the ELR. We do have a contract with DTE to produce the energy, so again, the gas to revenue is about $155,000 a year. There are a couple of other options to use this landfill gas. Both of them go back to trying to convert this into some pipeline quality, vehicle fuel quality gas. Again, the revenue is not significantly different within $10,000 plus or minus, but at the end of the day, right now, non-ELR, we're actually net benefiting about a little more than $12,000. Based on our evaluation and SES's look at what it would take to operate an ELR, going back in designing, putting in the horizontal beds, going back in and putting in the wells, right-sizing the collection system to harvest the gas, we're actually looking at about an annual investment of about a little over a million dollars. When you net out the gas to energy revenue that we would see, we were adding the whole annually about $935,000, and again, this is year over year over year, so again, we would require significant additional investment, and right now, this money has not been included in our budget proposal for this next year, yes. These expenses are what you're saying would be recognized on an annual basis, but how would system and construction and system design be something - I mean, is that - are we going back in and rebuilding it or are we going to have to rebuild this thing every year? So help me understand the inclusion of those numbers in the annual costs. First of all, system design is an ongoing piece, because again, there's horizontal beds that have to be designed with each lift and each cell that we're putting in. It's about $100,000, so we've annualized that over about a 10-year period. System construction or collection improvements or system construction, $600,000, that is an actual cost of, again, once we design those horizontal beds and they have to go in between the labor and the materials themselves, it is a significant investment that would have to be done to capture that gas on an effectively basis. But like the system design where you took the cost of $100,000 and amortized it over 10 years to get an annual expense, is that the same with system construction? So that's $6 million, you divide it by 10, you get $600,000, or is that a one-time cost? No, that is an annual cost of $600,000. Okay. All right. Yes. Okay. Yes, Council Member Briggs. So were those actual costs or just estimates? These are estimated costs based on evaluations of what's happening in other landfills doing the same thing, right-sizing, so- And if we did that, the continued and restarted eventually down the road, how would that affect the emissions that we saw earlier in the flaring and the gas? Would that reduce those and capture more methane? Well, again, the emissions that you saw earlier really have nothing to do with the methane escaping. That is the utilization of that methane and burning it either through the flare or through the engine. So again, if we have two engines, basically we have double the engine emissions. If we put on another flare, then we would have double the flare emissions. So you're converting those methane emissions into another type of emission. So again, the more gas you have coming out, coming that we're harvesting, that we're producing, you're going to get more emissions on the other end based on its use. But the emissions themselves are still leaking out of the landfill. They're not leaking out. They're being harvested through this system. Without the system, we still have gases coming out of the landfill. You will have some gases coming out of the landfill, but again, based on the regulations, it's our responsibility to install a system that harvests them, which again, we will have a landfill gas collection system that will be operational regardless of whether we operate in the ELR or not. Doing away with the ELR does not do away with the landfill gas collection system. Going back to our landfill gas to energy, DTE Biomass is our contractor. This is a picture of the engine. It's inside a basically a soundproofing shroud. So you stand right next to it and you hear this hum and feel a little vibration. But again, it takes into account the noise from the area. Again, their agreement expires in 2024. They have the right to the gas and to the collection and also purchase power agreement with DME to sell the gas back. They have the exclusive right to the gas and the exclusive right to operate the system. Right now, as we stated earlier, the gas output is not sufficient to justify adding an additional engine. Currently, when you look at the purchase power agreement right now, again, about 1,000 homes is the energy that's being produced out of there. And when you look at the costing standpoint right now, landfill gas to energy costs here and nationwide are about five times higher than what DME's recent renewable agreements is. It costs about a million dollars more a year. It's more expensive than the average PPA or marketing alternatives that are out there to run this engine. When we look at other alternatives, it's a very short list, looking at the landfill gas right now. Again, you've got landfill gas to energy engines, requires additional engines to operate. But again, the other big potential is what we call a high BTU or vehicle fueling type facility. Right now, the gas that comes off the landfill is about 50% methane and 50% other stuff. What we have to do to get to pipeline quality gas is run it through a refinery, basically strip out the half that's not landfill gas, take the concentration up to about 100% of methane. We can put it into an Atmos service homes in the city of Denton. We can put it back in cars, trucks, other vehicles. Again, when you look at the -- it does produce the lowest amount of emissions, and again, this is based on 1,000 FCF, so again, just doing some equivalencies there. If we had 1,000 FCF of gas and we went all the flare or we went all the high BTU or went all the landfill gas to energy, this is what we would potentially see. From a flaring standpoint, there's no beneficial reuse, but again, it's sort of middle of the road from an emissions standpoint. It destroys the methane, converts those, knocks COVOC, but still well under any sort of state permitting standard. We do fall under a state standard permit level. It is lower emissions than the landfill gas to energy, but again, a little bit more than the pipeline gas BTU. One thing about the high BTU vehicle fueling, these are on-site emissions only. If you're burning this at your home, you're putting it in a vehicle, you're operating somewhere else, it does not account for those emissions that result by consuming the gas there. So, in conclusion, when we go back and look -- critically look at the objectives of what the ELR, they are not being realized, and we would recommend the discontinue of the operation while we still maintain the operation of our landfill gas system, and then work to beneficially reuse any of the gas that is being produced. We would recommend in the short term, again, we continue monitoring, but here within the next year, actually perform analysis and work on trying to identify other potential uses for that gas, recognizing that within about four or five years, our DTE contract will be expiring and we want to be able to put this gas into other beneficial use. So with that, I want to thank you very much for your time today. We did present this to the PUB yesterday and did have recommendation from them on eliminating the use of ELR at the landfill. Thank you. >> Councilmember Armitage. >> I was wondering if staff could just give us a little summary about the alternative use opportunities that you've been exploring, or maybe you would like to -- >> Well, I can start and then maybe some of our -- but again, when you're looking at alternative uses for landfill gas, really you drop down to the three that we've presented. You've got landfill -- you've got the flare, so again, there's no beneficial reuse after that. Landfill gas to energy, again, spinning up an engine when you have enough gas to electricity, and then that third option is refining it, creating a high BTU product that either goes into a pipeline and then is used at homes, or it can be used to fuel vehicles or other items. >> Okay. Got it. >> Okay. >> I thought maybe this was something outside of -- >> No. >> What you just went over. Okay. >> But again, there's other -- I mean, one of the big issues that we have to look at is the financing piece on this, and with renewable credits, RENS and other things that are out in the finance market, there are all these variables that are really, for lack of a better term, blowing in the wind right now, so really there are -- and there's some things that are happening at the federal government right now related to these renewable credits, and if we can wait until the first part of next year, that puts us in a better opportunity to figure out from a financing standpoint what makes much better sense for the city of Denton and its consumers as we try to apply something to our operation here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> So as I try to understand leaching a little more, because we haven't been doing it for over a year, a year and four months, almost a year and five months, so where is it going? >> Right now, we generate about 10,000 gallons of leachate a day, and we are fortunate in that we have a sanitary sewer collector that runs right next to the landfill. We're able to pipe this from the landfill into the sanitary sewer. We meet all the permit guidelines, and actually the bugs that are in the leachate actually help the digesters and inoculate them to help them work a little bit better. So it's a win-win situation. >> So how much does that cost us to do? >> To do, on an annual basis, it cost us a little less than, I believe, last time I looked at it, about $15,000 a year. >> $15,000 a year? >> Mm-hm. >> And does that increase with the amount that we go through? So if our amount of sending that increases, does the cost to do that increase? >> The more leachate we would send, again, it's an incremental basis, and we're a permitted discharger just like any other industry that would discharge into the wastewater treatment system. So again, the more leachate we send, the higher the cost would be if there's some adjustment to the wastewater treatment rates, the pretreatment rates, which hopefully won't be. But again, if it is, you know, if that incremental piece is raised, then it will end up costing us a little bit more also. >> Is that cost included in here somewhere? >> I would have to go back and check, Kevin. Can you -- >> I believe it was, yes. >> If you could -- >> Kevin. >> Yeah. >> Can you come forward? >> Could you repeat? Could you -- yeah, somebody to repeat it, or if you could come to the mic, please. David, I'm not sure if that's in -- oh, could you get behind the mic, please? Yes, thank you. You bet. >> Yeah. Given the significance of the number, 15,000 versus the 600,000, David, did we include it in the 600,000? I think we did. No? Okay. >> Well, it's something that we pay annually to the wastewater to treat that, and it could increase if our liquids increase. >> If our liquids increase, correct. >> Yes. I will say this. We did include that in our report. Somehow it didn't end up on this particular slide. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> So it's treated like any other wastewater? I mean, if you're piping it in, it goes to the wastewater treatment plant, gets treated, and then gets discharged as a fluent to our creek or wherever it is. >> And by and large, leachate from landfills is quite compatible with publicly owned treatment works, sanitary sewage. >> So it's not -- there's not that possibility of it damaging the wastewater treatment as far as the process or the digesters or things. So as the leachate increased, if it didn't require any additional fees, it's basically just like any of us who are discharging more sewer, then we're going to get charged based upon a rate. So if it doubled, let's say you had 20,000 a day, it's probably safe to say you might could double that rate from 15,000 a year to maybe 30,000, depending on if there's any volume discount. >> That would be correct. >> Okay. All right. And similarly, you know, just like any other person that contributes to the waste -- the effluent into the pipeline, we're -- again, we're permitted and we're monitored. So if at any point in time we get close to the permit, then we would be required to do pretreatment or manage that in some way so it did reach permit guidelines so that we would not affect the plant. >> Okay. Councilmember Briggs. >> Can I follow up because I remember when we originally started talking about this from another, I guess, vendor situation a while ago, there were concerns of environmental impact of the amount and the ways that -- in which it was going into the system. So if we could just have an update on that or just kind of follow up in a report on environmental concerns for if the leachate increases into our water supply. >> Into the sanitary sewer system and then goes to the wastewater treatment plant and then is discharged. That's what you're -- >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Real quick. I'll make a quick comment on this and see if we need to go further. So in terms of the leachate, we do have basically a way of metering that into the system. And so to Brian's point, it is monitored, basically quality control before it enters into the system. So we have kind of early detection, if you will, that we'll see that before it goes into the headworks of the facility. In addition, we also want to make sure when we meter that in there that we're not flooding the facility with too much at one time. And so I think those are the steps that we've taken up to this point. I'm not familiar with environmental concern beyond that being brought to our attention. But certainly if there's something out there, we'd definitely like to take a look at it. What is our -- how much effluent do we handle on a daily basis through our wastewater treatment plant? >> Several million gallons a day, I think about 16, 20 million somewhere in there. >> So to flood it, we're going to already have to have a problem somewhere else. >> 13. >> Yeah. >> 13, excuse me. >> How many? >> 13. >> 13 million? >> Yes. >> Per day. >> Per day. >> 13 million gallons per day. And this is 10,000? >> Correct. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments? >> Yes, Councilmember Meltzer. >> Well, you have more of a comment, another question for staff. For what it's worth, the same people who organized the massive letter writing regarding the landfill expansion permit also advocate consistent with staff here not to do the leachate and instead to focus on ways to divert organic matter from the landfill, pre-consumer and post-consumer. And I look forward to us looking closely at ordinances that have been passed in other Texas cities where they managed to do that. I think that's -- I would be interested in staff's opinion if you think that that's long-term a profitable -- environmentally and/or financially profitable path versus trying to generate more gas out of that organic matter. >> So for the direction for this agenda item, the staff recommendation is to continue to discontinue the -- what's it called? >> ELR. >> ELR. Any objections to that staff recommendation or is Council forward with moving -- okay with moving forward on that? Okay. All right. I think the ayes have it, so yes, we'll just keep the status quo because I think it's discontinued now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. We're going to go back to our agenda in the correct order. Agenda item 3A, receive report and hold discussion of staff direction regarding the construction of restroom facilities at Carl Young Senior Park and Quaker Town Park. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Drew Huppen. I'm the superintendent of parks. I'm going to bring you Carl Young and Quaker Town, like the mayor said, thank you. So these restrooms, we've been out several times, three to be exact. One came back at a really high rate that we denied. And two other bids came back at zero bids. So we're coming in with two different options today. The first here would be Carl Young. We opened splash pad last year in May for the first year. And the restroom in this picture would go right in this area right here. All the utilities are already set for the restroom to be built. That includes water and sewers already ready for the building to be installed. Also, we have Quaker Town. Here's where the old restroom used to sit. This restroom became unusable due to foundation issues. It was built originally, I believe, in the '60s. And we demolished that this year just due to it had been closed for the last three years and we didn't want anybody to be inside of it with it being uninhabitable or not being able to be used. So our project goals and outcomes, of course, install these two restrooms, identify the proper design, provide services for our park users, enhance the city's identity and utilize our CDB grant funding that we have right now. Right now, for Carl Young, we have $85,000 and for Quaker Town Park, we have $152,000. That's in the grant funding that doesn't include any possible 915 or 916 funding. For Carl Young, the two different options would be prefabricated restrooms. We've talked to several or almost all of the vendors for the prefabricated restrooms. They just due to the construction that we have and all of you have seen it around here as fast as we're growing, they cannot find subs to put in bids. That was the reason why we got the two no bids. We also have also looked at pre-designs would be pre-engineered metal buildings with a veneer of either rock or brick for either options and as you can tell, this would be the pre-engineered building. So we've looked at several different companies, Mueller, Rhino Metal Building. So those engineer, you know, it'd be a metal building, of course, and we could veneer the outside of it to look like the other homes and businesses in those areas. So the first one was prefabricated, so you would get two 88 compliant restrooms. The cost estimates for this and this is in these restrooms that includes the foundation, the plumbing and the restroom building itself for them to come in and set it was 76 to 115. I called about seven different companies and got numbers ranging from that right there. So it all depends on options, so what kind of structure do you want it would frame and metal frame, which we would spec this out to be either block or concrete or metal frame due to just what it's used for. And the sizes vary from 144 to 165 square feet, you get a 30 year life expectancy. And so of course, we'd have one water fountain and it comes with a two, this would come with a two year warranty. So all these restrooms, they either come with, excuse me, a two to 10 year warranty depending on what manufacturer it is. Yes, sir. Is this as obvious as it looks or are there any negatives to the predesigned? It's as obvious that we actually have several. Much cheaper and bigger, way lower cost per square foot, right, on the predesigned. Yes, sir. So it looks like sort of a right answer, you know, question, but maybe there's something I'm not, you know. No, sir. That's it. So they can be as simple as possible. They install them all around Texas Parks and Wildlife parks. We have one out at Clear Creek. We have one at Ebers, or excuse me, not one at Ebers, but one at Mack, one at Roberts and one at North Lakes. So the other, the other here is the predesigned. So it's pre-engineered building, same 288 compliant restrooms. Cost estimate will be a little lower, 60 to $75,000 and that depends on options. So the options, if you want the whole, if we decided we wanted all the restroom to be totally brick, we could do that, or we could do this in a half where it would be veneered for three or four feet, kind of like our facility maintenance building. That building's veneered it, you know, with rock at half, or we could do it all the way. And the sizes, of course, will be bigger, 240 to 288 square feet. And this building, so the metal structure, roof and all, comes with a 30-year warranty for all materials. Let me go to Councilmember Arnott. So my guess would be that veneer surface will be easier, too, if there's graffiti or something on it, easier to clean, is that right? If it was, actually, if it's rock or brick, it's harder to clean versus the metal. There's several different paints out there now, and you can actually order it with the paint on there. I've talked to several different vendors. They put like a coating over it that's kind of like our new park signs with the plastic that it does graffiti, but an instant wipe-off with either a pressure washer or, you know, just wipes off the metal would clean it off. Exactly. Yeah. And so that's what I personally would recommend. So like a half veneer or solid metal? The option that what you were describing, that graffiti just washes off. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Meltzer. Yeah. I just want to take another run at my question because I think I might not have been clear. What I was asking was, is it as obvious as it seems that pre-designed is the superior way to go, that it seems to match up on a cursory look at the bullet points? Yes, sir. It seems to line up on all the attributes, except you get bigger for lower cost, so far lower cost per square foot. So is it that obvious that like clearly pre-designed is the superior choice, or is there some negative to pre-designed? If there's a negative, the only, I guess, con, if you will, to the pre-design was it would be in-house staff would build this. So we would order the pre-engineered building from a metal company, and they would engineer the building. They would give us the drawings, stamp drawings. They would give us the plans. They would send us the metal in a kit. We would put all that together, so bolt up and weld up. We would put all that together. We would, of course, either option, we have to hire a contractor to do the plumbing. We're going to hire a contractor to do the foundation, and then the pre-design, we would go out to bid for, and actually, I would get quotes because the quotes on a 240 square foot metal building were $12,000. So it wouldn't have the long process of going out to bid, and then our crews, our in-house crews would build these. So that would be the only con is our in-house crews, and then the reason why I say there's a con is because it would draw those three employees away from their everyday maintenance, because they're their maintenance and construction crew. So it would draw them away, and then we would have to share their workload and other areas for repairs with other crews during the four weeks for Carl Young and the six weeks for Quaker Town. And as I recall, that cost of the use of the in-house staff time is figured into the total cost here? I can show you on the next slide, yes. And it was in the AIS. The next one is Quaker Town. So same thing, we do a drop in place. So it would be four restrooms, so it would be 288 compliant, and two unisex restrooms. Cost estimates would be 115 to 175. You see the size ranges from 286 to 360, and it would be the same warranties. And this would have two water fountains versus the one water fountain that Carl Young granted it almost twice its size. The in-house construction, so we would do a design to match the part. The brick for the Civic Center and for the Senior Center was actually made over at Acme that we repaired areas before, and of course made the sign for the Senior Center from that before. And so the cost estimates would be 75 to 90. Same thing, depending on options. So what we wanted, what we decided on, whether it's full brick or veneered, and then the sizes would be 640 to 800 square feet, and same warranty. And then we'd do four water fountains, so we'd do two on the front. For here, one would go in between the doors here, in between the doors here, and then we could put one on each side. So it's a lot more options whenever we build it in-house, because we can kind of do what we want, because we can modify it. The prefabricated buildings, you buy what they have planned. You can always modify those, but of course it costs more money. And for the water fountains, I'd take at least one, or those would be wheelchair accessible? All of them would be wheelchair accessible, yes ma'am. Excellent. Just a question of curiosity, the prefabricated on here is less than the one before, and they're bigger. Less per square foot, yes sir. So it's just like... Economy of scale. Yes sir. Okay. Okay, any other questions? All right. Is this the last slide? No, he's got a couple more, yeah. So right here was what we talked about as far as cost. So here's kind of breaks everything down, and for our staff time, we're looking at three employees, so it'd be $16,800 for Carl Young and $25,200 for Quaker Town. These costs are, they're here, they're either doing the maintenance that they do on a daily basis, whether it's repairing fences, removing graffiti, they've been working on lots of other areas. We put in some fencing and stuff like that out at North Lakes, or excuse me, Lake Forest. Lots of different things that they do on a daily basis. So it would be just a kind of a shared workload over the park's maintenance staff to be able to cover them for this time. Yes, Council Member Nelson. Yeah, if you could just clarify, so those figures in the bottom that are the staff time, you know, imputed, are they in the total or in addition to the total? It's additional to the total, yes, sir. Okay. Just because they're here, and I know there's different ways that we look at staff time, all of us do, so we just put that at the bottom. Thank you. Council Member Hesbeth? Okay, so that, all right. So that's it. So that's $16,000. Oh, if you could go back to that slide. Now, you're good. So you add the $16,800 to the $60,000 to $75,000 on option two for Carl Young. That's sort of what you get in $85,000. So then I have a question on if the package's cost is $12,000, $15,000 for the steel, these pad sites are, what are they, 60 by 40 or, you know, 800 square feet? Yes, sir. So you're looking at, because it's engineered for a building, you would have to get that pad engineered. That's the only thing, either way, we have to get the pad engineered. No, no, I understand that. I'm trying to make sense of the price per foot for a concrete engineered slab that's only 300 feet. And I'm assuming that the water and the sewer, the drain lines for, especially Quaker, would it be going in the same location as the current Quaker Town was? Yes, sir. It has to, per all the regulations with the historic, it has to go in the exact same location. Water and sewer's already there. It's all brand new. So do you have a breakdown of what you're anticipating? Because I'm hearing you say there'll be contractors for the concrete work. Yes, sir. And there'll be contractors for the plumbing, both the rough in and the stack out and the trim out. Yes, sir. Everything else is staff provided. Is that correct? What about electrical? For labor. Yes, sir. But for materials, so for our materials for the pre-design building, you would do, there's some really nice FRPs that have come out that are break-resistant, class four fire-resistant and all that. So that would be more of a higher-end interior, so that's where that cost comes from. And then, of course, the veneer. So the solid, in those parts, that's a solid veneer of brick, so it's fully coated with brick on the outside. Right. And if we go with something else due to the ability to maybe more easily remove graffiti, then that may be... Yes, sir. So then your cost would be closer to your $75,000 for Quaker Town, and then if it's fully brick, then that's your $90,000 for it. Right. Would the electrical be an outside contractor as well? No, sir. We have... Y'all would do the electrical. Yes, sir. I'd just be curious just to see what y'all estimate as the plumbing and the concrete breakdown. So the concrete, we looked at, sorry, I went and got numbers for this, so the concrete for Quaker Town, you're looking at around $25,000 to $30,000. That includes all the sidewalks and all the ADA accessibility. Right now, that restroom never had ADA accessibility, so we would add that. Same thing for Carl Young. Right. We would add all the sidewalks and the ADA accessibility all the way around it. So... Okay. And I appreciate that. Just my own curiosity. Okay. Yeah, I can send that to you. Yeah, just send me the square footage of the ADA... Because sidewalks are four inches thick. I mean, they're... Yes. I'd be curious. Yes. Councilmember Meltzer. Mr. City Manager, you know, I'd want to, like, sort of too cavalierly like the option that uses a lot of staff time. Do you have a feeling about that? Just is that, you know, is that a major hindrance or burden on other activities or, you know, how should we feel about that? Well, I think it's something that Drew's gonna have to plan around. We could also ramp up the number of part-time seasonal help as well to see if we couldn't catch him up in that area as well, but it's something that if Council wants to move forward through one of those options, I'll work with them in order to make sure the work gets done. So what I'm hearing is direction for option two on both Carl Young Senior Park and Quaker Town Park. Councilmember Briggs. Yes. I'm for option two on both, and I just want to thank the Parks Department for coming up and bringing this back, it's I guess surprising and makes me happy to see the amounts that we're seeing now for bathrooms after seeing. And I know the size is different, but when you see a $600,000 bathroom and a $900,000 bathroom, you start to like really question bathrooms. And so this is really, it's enjoyable to see, and I am excited that both of these places are getting restrooms that they need. Thank you. Do you have a question? Yeah, I just had a, I guess, kind of question of on the brick, we've talked about ways to make things that are graffiti proof or less. Is there a way to clear coat? If you could do that, you could clear coat the solid brick. So it would still look like a brick building, but it has the efficiency of. It would look a little different now, I mean, with a clear coat on it, but you would still get the same effect, I guess. Okay. So we can look into that. Yeah, that would, that would probably be my preference. Okay. I was about to ask if we had consensus, if there was consensus on the most graffiti proof option, but I guess, but you mentioned the brick with the clear, is that, would you like direction on that as well at this point? Well, I think what I'd like is if we go with option two, just come back with some of those options because you're going to have different interior options, material, finish out, that's going to either add or take away from the cost. So I think as, as you get further down the road, because we could be making those decisions about a lot of things, not just the exterior part, because you said you could put in some material that, what'd you call it? F something? FRP. As compared to something else. And so if we don't know what the cost, so it'd just be nice to see sort of a breakdown of that as, as we move forward on the, on the design. So I, to make sure I understand in the CDB funding costs, the $85,000, that is inclusive of the 16 eight of the staff time. Is that right? Yes, sir. Staff time. That does not include staff time. So the CDB, CDBG money will not pay for the staff time. Okay. So the cost then in all, for all intents and purposes, $85,000 hard costs. And then your, your in-house staff is valued at 16 eight, which puts that to about a hundred and no sir. So that right here, option two, the it's 60 to $75,000 with option minus the staff time. So actually we would be saving some money on the CDBG money. This is the money that we have for the, okay. So the staff time is included in the cost here with the asterisk, the 60 to, is that including staff time? That is not including staff time. Okay. So we have up to seven, so we use option two. Okay. We have up to $75,000 or $85,000 now to spend because we won't, the staff time is not included. So my, I appreciate that. That's helpful. So when I look at the cost for option one, all right, when you add back to the staff time from those options, when you add back to those costs with the staff time on Carl Young, you're about getting to the low end of the costs for the option one, which is the prefab, which I understand the prefab or more durable, they're prefab concrete. Is that correct? They can be concrete or block. Okay. Yes. And that's turnkey. That's We still have to do all the concrete and we have to coordinate all. So basically we have to project manage the whole project and we have to make sure that all the concrete works done with all the pad sites are done. We have to do almost all the same work except set the building, build a building. You mean you still got to do the concrete pad and the plumbing? Yes, sir. Is that cost included in that 76,000 to 115? Yes, sir. Okay. Well, so that's what I'm saying is the cost is still on that one particular, you got 76 to 115, you got 60 to 75, but are we getting, and that doesn't include the actual building of the building? Yes, it includes the concrete. It includes the plumbing. So I've always understood that the prefabs from a safety perspective, because they're either concrete or block concrete with, I think, the cement inside the hollow blocks or it's solid haydack blocks. Yes, sir. Okay. I can believe when I talk to them, it's every third row. Okay. And on the pre-design, then you've got your steel framing for the exterior outside of the façade, if it's brick, what is the material that makes up the actual wall? R-panel. Okay. So R-panel or U-panel metal. Is that it? It's metal. Yes, sir. All right. All right. So, and then there is a, I know we can get in this further, but there is a false assumption with the concrete prefab buildings. They will tell you that they are a shelter. They are not a tornado shelter. So if you talk to the reps and if you read into the small print, into their reading, they are a shelter and they are solid concrete, but they will not tell you they are a tornado shelter because even though it is solid concrete, it's a misconception that they have built throughout and they'll tell, you know, some of their, most of the reps will tell you it's a misconception that we as vendor or, you know, owners have believed that this is a solid concrete. We have had conversations in the past. Yes, sir. So it is a shelter. It is not a tornado proof shelter. Yeah. So it sounds like consensus for option two and then as you get a little bit closer to actually having the design with, you know, and you have some cost schedules of different types of finish outs, it would be nice to see them even if it's in an informal staff report. I mean, it might not be that far off, but just to give us a chance to look at it. So can I get the direction to start tomorrow? And then we'll come back with the veneer for the outside and then if you want to see interior options. Okay. Okay. Sure. Yep. Is that all right? Any questions? Objections? Nope. All right. Yes, sir. You bet. Thank you. Thank you. I like that direct direction question. Thank you. All right. So we go down to agenda item B, which is receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding requests from the community market for additional financial support of $101,191 per year. Good afternoon, mayor and council, I'm Rachel Wood, chief of staff. Is this the correct presentation? Yes. All right. So the purpose of today's presentation is to discuss the Denton community market supplemental budget request, and then we're seeking direction from you as staff on how you'd like for us to proceed with that request. So by way of a little background, the Denton community market is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit farmers market that's held in the Denton County Historical Park. They're actually celebrating their 10th year of existence this year. They're open from April to November each year. They were supposed to open last Saturday, but got rained out. So hopefully they'll be able to open this coming Saturday. The market receives financial support from the city of Denton. We give them about 34% of their operating support. They are also funded through vendor fees, sponsorships, and donations. And then Denton County actually provides the historical park as in kind contribution in support of the market. The market is in the process of updating its governance structure, so they're updating their bylaws to separate the board president from the executive director position. And then they're also updating their conflict of interest policy for all board members. The next bullet's on here because we've had a couple of questions. If the city were to fund the supplemental request from the Denton community market, I guess it's been out there that Denton County might no longer provide the in-kind support of the historical park. Staff confirmed with county staff that there's no concern with that, so if we were to get direction from you to fund this supplemental request, the county would continue providing in-kind support through use of the historical park. Additional background, back in October, Vicki Oppenheim, who's here today, presented to council on the market's accomplishments. Following Vicki's presentation, staff was asked to prepare an informal staff report that was distributed on November 21st that included information on how other municipalities fund and support their local community and farmers markets. Then on December 4th, Vicki Oppenheim came back to city council, and that's when she presented her formal funding request of $101,191 to help fund the executive director salary as well as the market vendor coordinator position. So as we were preparing that informal staff report, we surveyed 10 other cities, and I'll pull this up. It's difficult to see when we had it on the slide, so I just will pull it up as a spreadsheet. You've also got hard copies at each of your seats. But of the 10 cities that we surveyed, one, Lewisville does actually not have a market. Two markets are non-profit, that includes Capelle and Frisco. Two markets are city programs, that includes Grand Prairie and Farmers' Branch. Three markets are for-profit businesses, and they're actually all run by the same parent company, which is Four Seasons Market. That includes Carrollton, Richardson, and Flower Mound. Three markets receive municipal funding, including Capelle, Farmers' Branch, excuse me, and Grand Prairie, and then four receive in-kind support from the city, Carrollton, Capelle, Farmers' Branch, and Grand Prairie. Just as a clarification, the three that you mentioned that receive a municipal, I guess, financial contribution, one of them is Grand Prairie, which they own their own, so, okay, so I'm going to sort of toss them out, because that's a whole different, I mean, they own it. The city owns it. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So we've also had a question regarding the impact of city's funding for salaries on 501(c)(3) status. There's a lot on here. I'm not going to read through this slide, but basically the IRS determines 501(c)(3) status. As the city is deciding who they're going to fund, we ask for proof of 501(c)(3) status. We fund salaries for other nonprofit agencies, and this has never been an impact or an impediment to those agencies continuing their 501(c)(3) designation. We've also had some questions regarding what were called farmer's fees. So through doing our research, just wanted to give you kind of the landscape of fees. There's nothing necessarily called a farmer's fee. And before I go into the city fees, I just want to clarify that for vendors that are selling whole or uncut produce, as well as for vendors that are selling arts and crafts or jewelry or other non-edible consumer goods, the city does not require any sort of vendor fees for those vendors. So the fees that we do ask for vendors to pay are for those that are preparing food that requires some sort of temperature control. So the community market fees, which are sometimes referred to as farmer's market fees, vendors have two options. One they can pay $240, and that fee will apply April through November. Or they can pay $40 per month, and that really just covers the cost of the inspection. The other fee that we charge for vendors is for those that sell frozen meat or egg products, and that's a $75 seasonal health permit, and that's for April through November. The Denton Community Market also charges fees. So they have a $25 application fee that's applied to the membership fee if that vendor is selected to participate in the market. Farmers have three options of fees. The first is a $90 individual membership fee, and then they would pay five additional dollars each day that they participate in the market. If they sign up later in the season and are accepted, they would pay a $20 membership fee, and then $15 per day. Farmers also have the option to go into a co-op with up to four other farmers, and then they would pay a $5 day fee. Other vendors who I guess are not qualified as farmers would pay a $125 membership fee plus a $15 day fee. Councilmember Armitage has a question. Yeah, so about the fees, can you speak to how those fees are assessed and then how frequently do they get reassessed? It's actually a part of our fee schedule, our standard fee schedule. I know that those are going to be coming back before you in June with development services, but they are standard fees in our schedule. Okay. Is there any change in those fees, trying not to call them farmer's fees, but these fees would come up in June, would be on the table and come before council? That's correct. Okay, thanks. Councilmember Briggs. Do you know the community market fees, have they been the same for the past 10 years? I know they've been the same since at least 2016. That's as early as the data I have. I need to look to some of the staff support from development services to find out if they've changed over the past 10 years. Jackie, are you aware of a change over the past decade in the farmer's fees? No. Okay. The community market fees, it's charged the same. Correct. I have a couple of questions. Do we charge when other people do other events, festivals, do we charge vendor fees or do we separate out the type of product they're selling as to what we charge them? These fees are unique to the community market. So if you're at Arts and Jazz Festival, there are different fees that you would pay as a vendor there, which are different than the $240 or 40 option that you have as a vendor at the community market. Well, what I'm understanding at the city fees there, that if you're selling, I think you said that if you're selling jewelry or uncut produce or some things that don't require these things, there is no vendor fee for you from the city. If someone is selling those identical kind of items at, let's say, Jazz Fest or something else, are they charged a vendor fee for, in other words, are the vendors at Jazz Fest or let's say I'm selling widgets that don't apply to this definition and I'm at Arts and Jazz selling these widgets, am I going to be charged a vendor fee from the city and then I'm over at the community market selling these widgets that don't fit into this category where I don't get a fee charge and I don't know the answer to that question, so I'm just curious. I would have to get back with you on that as well. Yeah, that's fine. That's great. That'll be as possible. So on the Denton community market fees, so it's split into two different types. You have your farmers, and I'm assuming those are those stands that are out by Carroll Boulevard out in front, and I guess there's maybe some farmers inside the market proper inside there. And then if you're not selling what is considered to be farm products or what defines as a farmer, then this other fee structure applies. Is that my understanding? Well, great question. I actually had the same question. So if you're selling uncut produce, you're not charged a fee. So a lot of the farmers that you see in the parking lot next to the community market, they're choosing to not pay the fee to participate in the community market and they're out there selling uncut produce. So is that is that outside the community markets purview? That's just them lining up on county property, selling their wares. That's my understanding. Yeah. Okay. All right. And so then if you're selling inside whatever the boundaries or the perimeters are of the community market, then this applies. This applies if you're selling semi-processed food. So the way I was explained for Jackie, and I very much appreciate her going through this in great detail with me. If you're selling watermelons out of the back of your truck, no fee is applied. If you're selling watermelons inside the community market and you're not cutting the watermelons, you would pay the Denton community market fees, but you wouldn't pay the city's farmer fees. Yes. Got you. But if you cut the watermelon and then there's a temperature control concern, then they would need to be permitted because we'd have to go out and inspect. Right. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Fantastic. Okay. Thank you. All right. So just a quick overview of community market funding. As I mentioned, the current fiscal year, the city funds about 34% of the community markets operating funding. We've been funding them since FY 12-13. And starting in FY 14-15, we began using hotel occupancy tax funding. Funding for FY 18-19 is $41,150. Do you have an update in this presentation or can you share that now for the upgrade to the historical park? I do not have an update on that. We can provide that to you after the meeting, but my understanding is those funds have not yet been spent from 17-18 for the upgrade to the park. I'll let Tony coming up here. Tony Puey, the Chief Financial Officer. The majority of the items that were originally contemplated in that program were not completed. It was just really the electrical component. So there was a refund of some of that money, about $40,000 if I remember correctly, that came back to the city. There was not enough funds to do all the things that were originally planned out. So they just did, I believe, just the electrical boxes was all that the county was able to do. Now there may be a request this next year from the county to do some additional items or to complete the items that were originally planned, but we're still not certain on that. Okay. It looked like they were building something out in the parking lot. I thought maybe it was the restroom, but it's not. I think they're just making parking lot improvements, asphalt. Yeah. Right. If I could go back a couple of slides to the, look at the other markets. Where there is city funding, well, it's two markets or city programs. Yeah. So where there's city funding or municipal funding, how many positions are funded? Do we know? I would need to look at the table myself. I tried to glance to see if I could pick it up. Stuart, do you know that off the top of your head, the number of positions that are funded for the other municipalities? Stuart Birdseye, management analyst. So Farmer's Branch has a full-time market coordinator that is city staff. The Cappell just has a city liaison that kind of helps, but it's not necessarily a staff member that's dedicated. Grand Prairie has a full-time market coordinator because it's, as you mentioned, a city program. Thank you. Back on the slide, the 151,000 other, do we have a breakdown on that, on the sponsorship? If not, I'll just look at it in a different way. As you said, the city provides 30-something percent of the operating budget, because this is the revenue, this is the cash coming in. So there's another, I think there's another slide where it shows the actual expenses for the market. Is that right? Yeah. And that's what Tony was just describing, that there was additional funding that was provided in '17-'18 for some upgrades to the historical park itself. No, I was just, I was looking at our contribution and trying to figure out the 30% of the 181, but that's the wrong value. It's of their budget is what the 30-something percent is. Correct. Yeah, that's fine. Yep. Thank you. So if City Council were to direct staff to fund this supplemental request, there are two funding sources that could be potential options. That would be the General Fund or the Hotel Occupancy Tax Fund. If we were to proceed with either, they would set a precedent for other local nonprofits to make similar requests. And of course, if we were to proceed with the Hotel Occupancy Tax Fund, that would have an impact on the hot fund balance itself. So the first column you see here is the FY18-'19 projected fund balance that we had at the beginning of the fiscal year. If we were to proceed with funding this supplemental request in addition to some additional action that's happened with the fund, the projected fund balance at the end of this fiscal year would be about 1.5 million. So as I mentioned at the beginning, staff is seeking direction on how you'd like for us to proceed. Option one is to fund this request in the current fiscal year, and staff would recommend use of the hot fund balance for all or a portion of this request. And this would have no impact on the current funding level that's provided to the Denton community market. Option two would be to fund this request for FY19-'20 and consider this as either a General Fund Council-initiated supplemental request or consider this as an additional hot fund request during the current hot fund selection cycle. And Council could, of course, decide if they wanted this to have an impact on their current funding levels or not. Okay. Council Member Meltzer. It's kind of a stupid question, I guess, but do we always carry a hot fund balance? Do we not have enough requests to zero out the fund each year? Tony Puente again, Chief Financial Officer. Historically, we receive more requests from hot fund recipients than we actually allocate. So generally, we have about $3 million in annual revenue that comes to the city from hot funds, and those are generally allocated 100%. And so over the last couple of years, we've actually -- the committee's recommended to the Council, and the Council's adopted a budget that actually draws down -- has been drawing down that fund balance. That fund balance was kind of a carryover from some of the discussions a few years back about potentially contributing some money to the Convention Center Hotel. And so that was purposely increased over years, and so over the last two years, the committee and the Council's drawn that down for one-time purposes. The one item that I will mention to you, Council Member, is if the committee decides -- if the Council decides to fund this particular request, these are recurring expenses, so these are not one-time expenses. And so as we go into the next program year, we'll need to factor that in into how we're allocating that approximately $3 million that could either limit the amount of additional funding that goes to existing hot fund recipients, or it could very well create a situation where we're having to reduce allocations to other hot fund recipients to be able to cover these recurring expenses. If I could just follow up with a clarification. Sure. So generally speaking, the annual income to the fund is $3 million. About $3 million, sir. And other than the request before us today, what do we typically spend on a recurring basis? About $3 million, sir. Okay. And we just happen to have couch money from the Convention Center? A lot of that's from when we first started the Convention Center discussion that hot funds was going to be used to allocate for certain types of marketing for the Convention Center. And because it didn't happen in a timely manner, those funds accrued. But also, Council has had a policy on hot funds and on Council is that if we wanted to do some other kind of event center or something like that, that hot funds is really the prime source where that would come from. So from the standpoint of funding potential other opportunities that would benefit the city from that regard. So that fund balance has been like that. We're not growing the fund balance by denying people's requests. It's just a lot of that's just left over from the early stages of the Convention Center, which was in the works for many, many years. And there was an allocation of $250,000 or $300,000 a year for that. Correct. And some amount of fund balance is prudent because in the event of a downturn, if the hotel revenues don't come in, we do have a clawback provision in our hot fund contracts. And so by keeping that fund balance there could at least help mitigate some of that potential impact to recipients in the event that revenues don't come in. So I think some amount of fund balance is prudent within that fund. Is there an uptrend on annual revenue to that fund or is it pretty flat? We generally see a two to three percent increase in hot funds. I mean, there's been a couple of years where it's been pretty flat, but yeah, but two to three percent a year. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Council member Armitage and council member Briggs. Let's see. So I'm open to either funding source, but I'm more inclined towards the option to a general fund supplemental request from council. Okay. Is that it? Okay. Council member Briggs. So I have a series of questions and some comments, but I'm just going to start with one and it's probably the community market that's going to have to ask, because if I look at the hot fund breakdown and the sponsorship breakdown, it says that there's $8,000 for one salary in the top and then at the sponsorship and general fund, it says $2,700 for salaries and then $3,100 more for salaries. So it's about $13,800 currently for salaries and is that for just the one position or is that help funding too or is that more positions than they're just asking for now? I know it's not additional positions. I think it's a portion of both salaries now comes from advertising funding. So this would not be to fund additional positions, this would just be to provide additional funding for those salaries. No, I'm sorry, the money they're getting currently for those salaries, does it fund just the one position or is it funding two positions, the 13,000, if I'm adding this up correctly? Yes, ma'am. It just goes to the executive director. Okay, so 13,008, okay, and are we asking, may I continue? So are we asking if with this funding over $100,000 a year, the market, they have a strategy to grow the market or is it going to remain the same or is this just time that they're already investing that they're not getting paid for and would we, I would personally like to see measurables. That's what we ask for from the CVB and the chamber anytime that we fund an organization outside of the city, we ask for those types of things. And so I didn't see any of that here and I didn't know if they were proposing some or not. Council member, I would agree with you, I think that just like we did with the CVB and even with the parks foundation director, if there's going to be a contract with the organization, then I think that would be the opportunity to build in those metrics and be able to report that back to the council on an annual basis to make sure that the intended use is actually happening. Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So the 34%, is that, I'm assuming that's before this 100,000, right? No, that's current year, I believe. Well, but we haven't allocated the 100,000. The $41,150. Correct. But the $100,000 ask- Would be over and above that 34%. Yes. So do we know what percentage that puts us at funding? I don't have that offhand, but I can certainly get that for you. Can you? Thank you. What does him figure it out? Yeah, I'm just kidding, okay. And then I think someone touched on it earlier in conversation, that to me gives, the incomplete plan gives me a little heartburn, right? So it looks like we're inching along, right? So we're saying, hey, we've allocated some money, a previous council allocated money for electricity. That wasn't enough. The county's thinking about doing something else. They may ask for more. I mean, it seems like we're, you know, it's a kind of a step-by-step versus a here's a master plan, here's where we're going. It just seems like that we end up stepping on ourselves or duplicating costs versus having a succinct plan to go forward with. And so that gives me a little hesitation to just kind of inch along year by year, project by project, because it just doesn't have a clear vision and doesn't give us the value kind of proposition I'd like to see. And then I'm going to go off the information you gave and see if you have the follow-up information. So you listed, I can't tell, six or seven entities that we fund. So in that list, Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Welcome Center, you list the County Office of Historical and Culture, Greater Denton Arts Council, Main Street Association, North Texas State Fair Association. And then you mentioned foundation in a sentence, and then in the second to last sentence, Parks Foundation. So I don't know what that standalone foundation reference is, but my question is, in all that, are you representing that we have an employee that we pay for each of these entities, or each of these entities receive funding of something, very different things to me. So for example, I know the Parks Foundation, there is an executive that is paid. I'm asking if those other five or six are the same, or is it that they just receive funds? So in none of those items that you referenced, the only one where there is a city employee is KDB. So those KDB employees are our city of debt employees. The other instances are either contracts with the organization, like the contract that we have with the Parks Foundation as an example, or we have a hot fund contract with the organization. So within the budget that's allocated in hot funds in that contract, there are salaries that are components of that. And so in the majority of cases, it's only partial funding of those salaries, except for the situation with the CVB where some of those positions with the CVB are fully funded by hot funds. But dedicated to, like in this instance where it's dedicated to a particular, like to give you an example. So Parks Foundation, let's use that. Are there other organizations, what other organizations mirror that structure? That is the only organization where there's direct general fund dollars that are going to that. Right. Okay. And then, so thank you very much. And then do we, and this may be a question for the community market, but looking at the budget, there's taxes $12,532. Is that sales tax that's then recouped? So they pay it and then, I mean, is that a pass through or how does that work? So I don't know who answers that question. Can I ask you a question and clarification? Yes, sir. Because I'm trying to, I know I got an email and I don't think I saw it in the present in the AIS about the actual community market budget. Yes, sir. Was that an email you're looking at? And if so, what? Yeah. So it's an attachment that Rachel sent and then, so it's page. So in that email, she sent out of all the answers to the question. Yes. Okay. All right. And then in that DCM hot application. Okay. Gotcha. Page 24. Okay. Good. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you so much. Yes, sir. I'm going to have to rely on someone from finance. I'm not very familiar with the hot fund application that they submitted this year and what's included in taxes. Okay. Unless Vicki, if you have that information. Okay. Yeah. Sure. If you have that, yeah. Or if there's questions, if there's several questions for you. So that's one you have. Yeah. And so, yeah, we can come back to it. I just want to know if it's a, it seems really high. And so I think it's probably a pass through or should be. I think maybe in there somewhere they're probably charging sales tax and then they're receiving that payment. And then I just envision that being a pass through, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding that right. And then I guess, well, the city attorney left and that's my last question. Okay. We'll catch him on his way back. Yeah. So I'll let someone else. Okay. So you want to answer to your question on the taxes? Well, no, it really doesn't drive my decision. I'll tell you. I mean, it's difficult for me to get there. It's difficult for me when we're talking about the parks foundation, I mentioned this was coming, right? And so I'm going to advocate for us to start looking at a position that would help in these ways that would, we'd have a city employee that is available to nonprofits that they could schedule time with, they could utilize, they could almost like a consultant type role for every nonprofit or everyone we deal with that has, everyone has access to it to keep it even steven. I just think that that's where we are. And I'll tell you, the biggest problem for me is we don't own anything in it. So when I, and I, when I ask the question, what changes, nothing changes. And so to have a situation where we invest $100,000 and get no control, no control over the hours, over the rents, over anything, I mean, that's just hard for me to go back and justify. I just cannot. And it's every year, right? We're just getting off the hook on Stoke and that's only $70,000 for five years. And we're just now getting that off the books. And so I don't want to go back down that road. I just cannot in good faith as much bad stuff as I said about Stoke do that. But Aaron, I have a question. So legally can we, can the city, I guess I understand the contract, but I just want to make sure I understand it right. So the city would hire, in this instance I have a contract for these two employees, but not open it up to, not bid, but open it up for other people to apply and that's legally sound because it's contract or, just help me, help me understand that process. It depends on how the contract is structured. It's similar like with Stoke, I mean, what we had done is, if I remember with Stoke contract, we provided the funding, but they were Stoke employees, so Stoke took care of the hiring and firing of those employees. If we structure it the same way, then we would not have to open it up, it would be put upon, that burden would be upon the community market. So in that, but in that instance, we give them $100,000 and that's basically the end of our, we give some direction, but we can't mandate. No, no, basically what we've done is just in the Stoke, if I remember that contract, we gave a sum of money like we did with Parks Foundation and they were in charge of doing the recruitment, insurance, all of that, if they provided those kinds of extra benefits, we just gave them a pot of funds and that was it. Yeah. Yeah. That's just hard for me to, I get it. There's no bigger advocate, but just talking what I'm feeling. I just can't give away $100,000 and have no control over it and no end in sight. That just is hard for me to get there. I look at the County, I'm grateful that they gave the property, but we've increased tremendously. I don't know what the number is going to be, but we're probably pushing 40%. So now we're bankrolling about almost half the cost and the County's property remains stagnant over these years and their contributions. And so I'm all for helping, I'm all for, as I look at the budget, there's in-kind donations we can do on the marketing side of things, I'd ask staff, if you bring back a list of things that we can do in-kind or through services, our print shop, that sort of thing, I want to help, but I just cannot in good faith authorize $100,000 in perpetuity to not change the ownership or have some sort of managing control over that money to then, if the public comes and says, "Hey, why are you doing this? Can we change this? Can we change that?" And I have to look them in the eye and say, "No," that's just, it's hard for me to get there. Okay. Mayor, if you'll permit, so to answer your question on the taxes, that particular page just identifies that it's taxes. It's about 30% of the salaries, it's likely payroll taxes. That's likely what that is, and it's on the expense side based on the document that they provided in their application. All right. Councilmember Armitage and then Councilmember Bates. So I wanted to speak to a few of the points that have been made, just provide a different perspective. Number one, about control, actually going back to what Tony had mentioned earlier about the contract, when it comes to the time, or if it were to come to a point where a council were to say yes and a contract were to be developed, then that is when metrics can be established and the city can decide what the city wants out of this agreement, and it would be up to both parties in this contractual agreement to decide on what the terms are. So that is quite a bit of control, as far as being able to decide who's going to staff it and what not. If you look at the city's funding relationship with other non-profits, it's pretty standard. We could pick just about any non-profit that we fund, and if the city had so much control over the non-profit, it wouldn't really be a non-profit anymore, it would be the city. So it's a matter of deciding that if we were to decide, as I mentioned before, which I'm in support of, funding community market, do we think that this work that this non-profit is doing is for the greater public good, that it benefits the City of Denton, and we're funding them for what they do, not kind of taking over any part of what they do. So I personally don't have a problem with that. As far as STOKE, I see this as a very different kind of situation in the following way. STOKE, when the city decided to fund STOKE before I was on council, STOKE was not a thing. There was no STOKE yet, it had not been tested. And so the city was deciding to fund something that was untested. In this case, I consider it an advantage as far as investment goes, and much less risky to fund something that's been tested over time. So very different, almost kind of a backwards kind of scenario compared to the STOKE. And I wanted to ask community market, as far as the question that had been brought up, which I thought was a good question, as to kind of what would the difference be, or would there be a difference if the city decided to fund the community market or not? What difference would it make? So when it comes time, and that could come later, if that's what you're going to say. But that is a question that I would like to hear from the community market, what difference would it make, if we did or didn't decide to fund the community market? So I want to say, because I don't know that it's been said yet, but I'm sure I said here and know that the community market plays a vital and crucial role in small business development. And it brings a lot to our community, and I don't think that that has been missed. But for me, part of the concern is the amount of funding for salaries. Because I asked staff to look, and there's over 73 different positions in our city that make less than what one of the questions is. And one of them is a, I'm sorry, I don't really have to get in, but anyway, so that's part of one of my main concerns. And if we were to go and pay that type of salary, I would really like for that position to be a city position in our economic development department that would work with the community market and specifically go out and help small business development. Maybe even some of those funds go and be a small business grant so that the individuals or vendors would benefit as well from what the city is giving. So that's kind of where I stand right now with the issue. For the $55,900 that's being asked, if we add the $13,000 that's already received, that's over $69,000, that's more than one of our policemen make in a year. So that's kind of where I am on the concern for the ask. It doesn't mean that I don't value the community market and the work that you do because I know it's very, very hard and difficult and it's not unnoticed, especially by this council. My request and my hope would be that we could help you in other ways. We need to get you a location. We need to prop you up in many other ways, maybe with a city employee to help with that. I still think that we should be considering Quaker Town Park and the Civic Center. I know that we were told no, but it makes the most sense. There's bathrooms, there's pathways, there's room. I am a firm believer that we need to give you a home and you need restrooms and you need shelter so it can be year round. There's a lot of things that we can do to help the market and the vendors and the residents of Denton. I think that it's been left out of the conversation. Thank you, Mayor. I'll piggyback on that a little bit that I believe that this probably should be an economic development incentive is the direction that it looks at. Could it be done through figuring out how much sales tax is paid out there and a portion of that being sent back to them? I have a real heartburn with coming out of hot funds while you can do surveys and say how many people came from out of town, how many people came from a distance such that they're actually spending a night in our town? It's a one day event. Most of our events, they receive hot funds or are there something that are extremely large regional multi-state draw or are a multi-day project that people will stay over for that type of thing such as arts and jazz? I would prefer that this come back as something that goes through our economic development department looking at their sales tax generation and what portion of that could we refund back or incentivize back to them. So I can't give any direction because I don't have enough information. I mean, I can't agree for $100,000, which would push that contribution up to if it's $41,000 now and it's 30 something percent, you add another $100,000, it's going to be close to 75 to 80 percent. It's almost going to be the lion's share of the budget. And I know I got an email showing actually the community market's budget, not through its application, not through it, but it was an actual budget and I think there was already a salary in there that was budgeted for like $45,000 or $50,000 or something, so I've been feverishly trying to find it. I can't find it, but suffice it to say I'm not ready to make a decision on this today. As far as the economic development perspective, you know, I've heard from several people in the community who have brick and mortar stores that sort of sell the same wares as some out at the community market that express some concern that, I mean, first of all, I don't know if sales tax is being collected out there. I don't think we've had any information on that, and if so, how much? That would be something that I think would be helpful. This does seem to be ripe for another discussion on some different alternatives or some different approaches. We're going to have to take into consideration right now there's two bills before the legislature. One will cut our revenue by $600,000 on franchise fees if it passes, and the other one will cap our revenue by two and a half percent, so we don't know the impact of the legislature right now on our budget, and so I'm real hesitant to begin to try to add additional reoccurring costs in a supplemental budget and also in a future budget, and that's just right around the corner. We'll know the answer to those questions in about three months, two or three months, actually, probably two months. So that's where I am. Of course the community market has an impact on the community. Of course -- now, you've talked about a home. We had a very comprehensive discussion about that a few years ago, and I think the county came in and also said, hey, this is -- we had a master plan at one point that they were going to come in and do some park improvements and things such as that, and so I'm not saying that we can't -- don't need to have the discussion again, but we have had that discussion about that. So go ahead. I mean, I'm not going to debate it with you. I'm just saying we've talked about restrooms, we've talked about utilities and things such as that. But they're not holding up their end of the bargain. The county is not -- it's not doing what they said they would. That may be so. I don't know that. I haven't seen necessarily documentation or information on that. I wouldn't couch it that way. I think they didn't do everything that they were initially contemplating is probably more accurate. They actually put this out three times to bid. The initial plan that at the time Commissioner Eads had talked to the council about and the bids kept coming in so high, they continued to pare it back to try to work within the amount of money that they had allocated. So there's nothing prohibiting a new project out there, and certainly I think they'd be amenable to it if we were to approach them. But there had been a specific budget allocated for these improvements a couple of years ago and they just simply could not get bids to work within that budget. Part of why I bring that up is they spend almost $10,000 on port-a-potties from the hot funds. And so having bathrooms is a pretty big deal and that was one of the things we settled on to make it doable. Yeah, and that's something if you're paying $10,000 out a year, if you can get a restroom for $75,000, it doesn't take rocket scientists to figure out that in the long term if that's where it's going to be, those improvements would be certainly financially viable. And also, again, not having the budget and looking at these fees, I don't know what these fees are as compared to other community markets. If the fees haven't changed in five or ten years, I don't know the answer to that question. So there may be some business decisions that could be made as well that might mitigate some of those costs. So I'm not opposed to looking at other alternatives and possible options. If the direction is today, do I want to give direction to create a supplemental budget entry for this request? The answer to that would be not at this time. I certainly think it's something that we could take up at the budgeting process for the next fiscal year. However you want to categorize it as a council supplemental if there's enough council to approve that or if not, just a supplemental request in general like all the others, I'll leave that up to management's discretion. So I guess I'd like to give staff some direction here because we're all over the board here. We're talking about economic development, we're talking about city-owned staff, we're talking about -- I mean, we're just all over the place. If -- I'm going to try to get some direction right quick. I think you gave your direction as far as for the council supplemental budget request for this next year. Is that right? Yes. But there were some questions for community market and I also wanted to respond to something else. Well, this is a very simple -- the direction for council right now, and we'll let community market speak. What I want to do is find out the direction from council because what I'm hearing is I understand you would -- well, you didn't say that you would support a general fund supplemental package for this budget. So that's really what they're asking here. Is that my -- is that it? Yes, go ahead. Oh, so sorry. So just to clarify, yes, I did say that I would prefer the option two. Well, option two is the next fiscal year. Option one is making a supplemental budget package this year. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying. I didn't see the year difference. Yeah, so no, I want for this year, but whether it's going to -- but hot funds or supplemental requests or a supplemental budget request, I'd be fine with either. Thank you. I didn't see the year. Okay. Notice the year difference. Yeah, I would want it for this year. And I did have a kind of point to just respond to -- Real briefly, if you could, please. Thank you. Yeah. And I would also please like to request that before we take direction that the community market have a chance to speak, because if they speak after -- you know, after we give direction, not much point in them speaking. And before they do, I mean, I want them to be able to answer questions. You know, they've been before council when they made the request, so if we have questions for the community market, I certainly want them to be able to answer that. So if you have a question, let's go ahead and get that on the table now so that they can answer it. There was a question about taxes. I could have a question about budget. You have a question about what, Councilmember? Well, so my question that I had asked previously was what difference would it make -- just following up Councilmember Gerard's question about what difference would it make whether we fund them or not -- you know, he had pointed out, well, if we're just adding to what already exists and, you know, they would be sailing along anyway, then what would the point be in funding them? It was my understanding, but I would like them to clarify the reason why they're asking for salary support is because they're having a hard time, you know, paying these salaries, but I would want to hear from them first. I wanted to -- yeah, no, I just want to point out just to respond briefly to kind of some comments that have been made previously, you know, I would encourage my -- With all due respect, I mean, you basically have talked two or three times already, and so I don't want this to turn into a debate about everybody has to respond to everything that everybody says, so if you could make it very brief, I would really appreciate it. That was my plan. Thank you. I would encourage my colleagues to look at this chart that we have before us where you have three cities that are funded municipally, Capelle, Grand Prairie, and Farmers Branch, and you'll notice that for Capelle and Farmers Branch, which are getting less than community market is asking for, they're getting, you know, in Capelle, a city liaison to do a lot of the work that our community market, you know, staff is already doing themselves, and they're also getting, you know, full-time market coordinator and additional city staff work, so I would just, you know, encourage people to look at that and to see, you know, with Grand Prairie, that 116,000 plus the full-time manager, part-time maintenance staff, special events staff, so just so that people can see it's really, in my view, not that unusual a request for cities that have really successful farmers markets like ours do. If you could please wrap it up. I would appreciate it. That was the end. Thank you. All right. Let's hear from the community market. We've got a couple questions. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Vicki Oppenheim, the executive director and one of the founders of the Denton Community Market. So there's some questions. I just wanted to, I thank you everybody for allowing us to be here, and I know I've spoken before, and we submitted that proposal in response to requests by council to submit a proposal, and I just wanted to try to clarify a couple of things. First of all, I guess there was a question about the taxes. That does include payroll taxes. It does or does not? It does. Okay. All right. Yeah. And taxes, all vendors are required to have sales tax IDs and to collect sales taxes at the market, so as required by state law. So we do require that even to become a vendor, they must provide their sales tax IDs to the market. So I just wanted to clarify that comment. But y'all, you don't, I mean, that's the extent of it. Yes, it's the extent. I mean, the vendors have to collect their own sales tax, submit it to the state as required. We don't collect their sales tax. Sure. No. Okay. Thank you. Because they're individual businesses. We don't do that. Thank you. I make approximately $29,000, and Rachel makes approximately $26,000. Okay. And we are supposed to be part-time employees. I can tell you, before just the past couple of weeks, I worked 60 hours a week. I'm supposed to be working 30 hours a week. Now that isn't every week, but what I'm trying to say is my position is definitely full-time. Rachel also is pressed, she's supposed to be 30 hours a week, but has gone over at times, and we are struggling to be able to work this amount and function given that amount of money per year. And this is no benefits either. We don't get any benefits. So there's opportunity costs here. Are we going to continue working for this low pay, no benefits, long hours or not? And that is part of what we're facing as staff and as an organization. So that's why we're making requests. And I was not requesting -- I just want to clarify, I put that request out because we're getting certain funding now that's going to expire this year. For instance, the $9,150 that was allocated by City Council four years ago will expire. So and of course, I didn't know when the funding would be approved, but I'm not saying to add additional money on top of those requests. So that's not what I was requesting, because I don't know when it was going to be approved or how it was all going to be allocated. Okay, I'm not quite sure what you're -- well, there's the idea that we're going to have $13,000 on top of the -- and that was not the request. I mean, I was just making a request for a total salary for each of us of being $52,000 for me and $42,000 for Rachel, and knowing that certain money is going to expire that we're getting. Okay. So I'm a little confused, quite honestly. So my understanding is you were asking for an additional $100,001 or whatever the case may be. Yeah, that's right. Additional from what you're getting with current hot funds, allocations, and then any contribution, financial contribution, you're receiving from the city. Right. Is that correct or is that incorrect? It's correct. Okay. But the thing is, our situation -- currently, we have deficits anyway as an organization, I want to mention. Also, some of our funding is going to be expiring as at the end of this year. And so making that request, it was the optimum request. True. Okay. All right. And so I believe the last question, at least that I don't think I've heard you answer, is Councilmember Armitage's question about what's the difference in if you receive this funding or you don't receive this funding of the community market? Well, we don't really know what the future of this market will be. Okay. I have to be honest. As I said, there's a lot of work. We're underpaid. And we do our best to do fundraising, to do everything we can. Of course, that takes time as well. So what will happen next year, I can't say. Okay. All right. And that's where we are. Okay. Councilmember Briggs, did you have a question? Okay. All right. Go ahead. Just a follow-up. As you said, there's going to be a loss of funding. I think it was 9,100, but then you said deficit. So what does that mean for the market money-wise? Currently, we start off the over the $20,000 deficit. So we have to raise that amount of money in addition to dealing with the fact that we don't have adequate money for staff pay. So it's not as though we have lots of money, extra money, or anything to do the basics that we're doing. That's where we are. And we can provide more information if you want more details. We have detailed budgets, but I have provided a budget document that outlines our budget. I think that's what I was trying to find somewhere, if I remember correctly. Yeah. Yeah, it was a budget summary, which Yeah, it was like the expenses were per category and things such as that. Yes. Yes, and the revenues were that. There's even more detailed budget than that, which breaks it down, but it was by category. Okay. All right. Yes, yeah, I mean, I haven't said anything yet. Well, no, I'm just saying, is it a question for Vicki? Yeah. Okay. This was, yeah, to her to get to answer questions and quite honestly, this is a little kind of out of process for us. Yes, go ahead. Okay. No one's asked what I've got. Yeah, no, go ahead. We're going to go. I'm just, I mean, anyway. Okay. Go ahead. I'll try to be efficient. Yeah, the fear is we pay more, city gets the same amount and obviously, there's some risk of we don't do it, market goes away, I think you're kind of indicating. But if the fear is pay more, get the same amount, it might be appealing, more interesting if we knew that if we paid more, there's something new we'd get and what I want to ask is whether off the same staffing, if there were an indoor location that would get the city December to March, you know, does that work with the same staffing structure or is that like totally different ballgame then? Indoors would make it easier actually for us as it is a struggle to deal with outdoor conditions. As you saw, we had a cancel last week and when we cancel, there's also work that's involved with even the canceling and notifying people and also just dealing with the weather conditions and the vendors and the impacts on everything. So if we had an indoor location, that would certainly help us. There's no doubt about that in terms of. I didn't mean to stop you, just I want to clarify what I intended with the question. I was not asking nor opining on April through November, let's say that's the same, same issues you deal with today, but adding December to March in an indoor setting, would that work on the same staff structure you have today? Staff structure, but we'd have to look of course at workload. I can't answer that question off the top of my head. I can only say when one season is ending, we're already underway planning the next season. So it would change our work because there would no longer be an ending, it would be a continuous. So I can't answer that specifically at this moment standing up here because we haven't done that. Something else. So I want to narrow down this question and answer for Vicki. Do you have a question for her? No, sir. Direction. Okay, but we're going to -- I have an ask of counsel, a recommendation, not necessarily what they ask, but -- Okay, all right. So I don't -- I think your questions have been answered, I think. I have a new one. Well, let's go ahead and ask it, but this is the last one and then we're going to go ahead and have counsel deliberation. I thought counsel -- She had a recommendation, I didn't want her to be standing up there while we're doing deliberation. So my question would be, would 50% of the funding, 50% of what you put on the table, would that help in some way? And if the answer is yes, would my colleagues consider that? We had a discussion, it's hard to answer, but it would certainly help. I think less would definitely could help, yes, and it also depends on the total provision of everything combined. If that changes at all, it's interrelated, so I'm trying to say. So -- but definitely it would help. And thank you. And I do understand that because when funding is temporary, you know, if you have to keep applying for funding every year, every few years, it's not fiscally responsible planning-wise to depend on that, even if you've gotten it consistently in the past. I know how that is, it works that way for all forms of city funding, family funding. I wanted to -- and I promised Mr. Mayor this will be my last comment. Do you have a question for -- No, no, but it's a tangential staff report that I wanted to request. Thank you, Vicki. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks, Vicki. Thank you. I'd like to see a staff report on civic center projected availability. I know there are lots of indeterminables, but just kind of projected, you know, for the coming year, including this summer, you know, as far as kind of summer, you know, summer camps and whatnot. That would be great. You know, what days and times it's available, when it's not, just a rough outline. Okay. We've been going for two hours. Right. We started at two, right? We're going to take a five-minute break. We'll come wrap this up when we get back because it's been two hours, so yeah, we'll take a break. Welcome, everybody, back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, August 9, 2019. It is 4.09 p.m. We're back on agenda item 3B. So I think we had a couple questions for staff or comments Councilmember Briggs had and then Councilmember Husspeth, but he's not here right now, so we'll go with Councilmember Briggs. Okay. Well, he may need to be here to hear to see if he's okay with it or not, but I'll go ahead and start. Sure. First, I would like to ask about temporary bathrooms. Do we have that aren't porta potties? Do we have a temporary bathroom somewhere that we had or that we invested in or is that something different? And if so, is it something that we could put on or maintain rather than have the market rent porta potties? I'm trying to figure out ways that we could go ahead and help the market in the meantime without funding expiring. We can develop some options for you. Okay. So that's the one part of it. The second part would be my ask of Council now would be to increase the hot funding by $30,000, which would tackle that 20,000 deficit that they are concerned about to make sure that the market can at least continue. And then the 10,000, which the current funding is expiring, which is 9,100. So it would be the 20,000 and then the 9,100, which is expiring. So that way they can at least be back up at even from just to start. That's what I would like to be able to do. And that would just be with the hot funding. And I don't know who's on the hot fund committee and if the hot funds have been approved yet or not in that balance. So that would be my ask for now, for current, not to wait for next year. And then I would also like for the county to come and present to us what their plan is for the park to make sure that we're still on track and that the market and the city and the county are still all working towards the same goals. That's my husband. Thank you. I think if you had temporary restrooms that we could take over instead. So just to make sure, you're saying an additional 30 from hot funds and if we have restrooms to make up for that, that's an additional 10,000. So basically 40,000, some cash, some in kind. In other words, if we maintain -- if we provide some type of temporary restroom facility and we maintain it and they're not paying the $10,000 for the port-a-potties rental, then if you do the 30,000 plus, then we relieve them of that 10,000 that we take over that expense, whatever that is. I'm just asking, is that what that is including? I don't know if they've already paid the 10,000 for this season for port-a-potties. That would have been from until those -- because it's my understanding the bathrooms would have been built and that part wouldn't have been something they had to come out of their budget, so I would just like to -- if next year, if that's still in their budget, that we fix that, that we do something regarding the bathrooms. There you go. Council Member Heslund. Thank you. Yeah. And so just full disclosure, I mean, I can't -- I mean, I cannot in good faith just -- I mean, we -- I don't want to pull up the numbers, but I mean, the funding has gone up significantly. There's another, you know, there's an ask, middle of the year that we were able to grant. And so I just want to be sensitive to the fact that we just had to rework the numbers to avoid going into our backup funds, and we got that update last week. And so to then act like we're just cruising right along and we're going to allocate $40,000 is difficult to justify to those that I represent. I just can't in good faith do it without having a solid plan in place. I just -- I don't think that those that I represent would stand for that. And it's undeniable the value they add. And I try to spend as much money and direct as much money I can to the community market, but at the same time, I can't treat them any different than I'd treat anyone else because I like them a lot. I think there's a fiscal responsibility that that's a hurdle I can't get over. And so I'm all for staff coming back and evaluating in-kind things that we could do because I think I would do that for anyone. We have a printing department. We have some marketing resources available to us that I'm happy to have them ask for in-kind donations and fulfill those in-kind donations because I would do it for anyone, and it's not a direct cost per se. So bathroom-wise, my direction is I would like to see us do the same thing we did at Fredmore Park. That's I think get approval from the county to show up there and put a restroom somewhere on their property. And I think it'll help with the tours for the schools. I think it doesn't cost them anything. Really, heck, we can even put it up front and fix that old sign they have, put a sign on the side. It can serve two purposes. I am all for location, whatever the community market wants to discuss and give us kind of their understanding because there's levels of that that we don't understand. Right now, they're on Carroll Boulevard, major thoroughfare. So yes, it's outside, but there's not anything inside that has that same traffic flow. So I'll just take their guidance if they have locations in mind, let's talk about it. And then I would just advocate, and my direction is also to see if there's a consensus for a staff position that would serve all nonprofits in the city, and it would just truly be a resource. Every time, every nonprofit has the same opportunity to schedule that time and sit down with that person and work those things through the city processes or get help in whatever ways they need. So I really am focused on something that is sustainable because I think once we allocate $40,000 for this entity, Denton Black Film Festival says, "I need this," and then the next festival says, "I need that." I mean, it's only fair that they're afforded that opportunity, and in the name of consistency, why wouldn't we do that? They're all great. They're all doing great things. They all serve the city well, and so that's where I have to say I have to make decisions that would carry across all organizations and support all organizations, and I think we've done that in a big way in in-kind donations across the board, and I'm happy to advocate for doing more of that. So those are my two asks, the staff position and the bathroom, and then I'll see where everyone else falls. Well, I'm not quite sure that's what -- go ahead, yes, Councilmember Meltzer. As far as a solid plan, which I think we all agree that we would like to see some measurable, you know, something we get, I would advocate for some way to become year-round. It's also different from a festival because it could potentially be a year-round feature of Denton, and you know, we heard from the market that they would need to think about whether they can actually do that and what the implications are, but I think that that's a real value. I wouldn't advocate unless they came to us, you know, with their own good idea, changing what they do now that's working, and that's actually also why my inclination is toward funding them and not making it a city position, because they kind of figured out a thing that seems to be working, and I'd rather, you know, leave them to kind of figure that out, but my gut feel, frankly, about the level of funding is that the ask is too rich and that kind of like opposition quantity is more about right, with the understanding that it comes with us getting another quarter of the year added to it, but I'm very open to, you know, the different interesting ways of funding it that, you know, we've heard. I'll just add one more little tidbit about Hot Funds, you know, I definitely have a little internal wrestling about that too, because I don't genuinely believe that the community market puts heads in beds. However, it's kind of not that different in a way than like the visitor's center, you know, it's something that adds value to the visitor experience, and I know that's gray, potentially a slippery slope, but I'm comfortable with the idea that it makes Denton a more interesting place to visit, and that it, you know, I'm okay with the idea that you could use Hot Funds, Hot Fund balance this year, and actually the, if the growth holds up, big if, you know, that would about fund the increment needed for the kind of one position level without cutting into other Hot Fund supported activities, so that's my three cents. Well, in reiterate, the Hot Fund really gives me heartburn trying to use that it's unless they can prove it up unless we have some actual on the ground data that that proves that that is the case, because I mean we've got our hotel communities right now, lobbying down in Austin for a teapot where they're going to bring more money to the table. And so we're taking part of that pot away the visitor's center. That's people who do put their heads in the beds, it gives them a way to find out what's going on in the community. So, and that's a direct item listed in the list of items. You can, you can spend Hot Funds on so that's that's where I have that heartburn. Thank you. I would just request that this Hot Funds discussion be kicked to the Hot Funds committee. Since we do have a committee for that. Yeah, I mean, this is what's difficult about this. Go ahead because before you finish, yes, I would like to just say, just so we're all aware and we're all working from the same playing field here that we stood up there and heard that the market may not continue. If certain funding doesn't reach them within a certain amount of time. And what I just heard counsel say is no, the ask that I asked for was just something to bring them up so they're not stressing out for the season. And if the council, I mean, if the market goes away and it dies and it doesn't come back, I just want everybody to realize that that's something that could be made right now with this decision and I I'm not in favor of that. So I and if if I'm off base here and that's not something that really could happen then somebody needs to correct me but that's what I heard. And I'm not willing to lose the market in in Denton, so okay. Your ask is for Hot Funds and we do have a process for that. I'm going to be as honest as I can be. I struggle when the argument is, if I don't get this, it's going away. And I'm not saying they made that argument and they I'm saying that you're making that argument and I I struggle with that because there's there's no data that we see on that. So I have no problem with providing additional funding to the community market but also want to go through a process that we allow everybody else to go through. And so what we've had here is something that's very different and atypical outside of our normal process for funding community organizations. And that is, you know, they've gotten, you know, obviously time at the council which anybody can do and here we've got at meetings and then we've got question and answer here to advocate for additional funding. So I don't have a problem with that. I want to just go through the process that we typically go through and we're right at the heels of our new budget process and I think we have a Hot Funds meeting coming up in a couple of weeks or something like that if I'm not mistaken. So I would encourage the community market if they've got an application in to either amend it if they're able to do that and then they can the Hot Funds committee can can look at that. I think there's a process whereby, you know, there's an opportunity for relief through our normal process because what I don't want to do is set a precedent where we are not treating all the organizations in the same manner. So having said that I have no issue with with looking at other options. The question before us is do we want to make a supplemental budget amendment to this year either in the general fund or Hot Funds and I think Councilmember Armitage said it where, you know, the Hot Funds portion does go through the committee and then the committee brings a recommendation before council. Now this council can decide whatever they want. This council wants to decide that Hot Funds is what it is and we can all decide that. I don't know if that's how I want to decide this particular question. I would like to revisit the budget data that I received that I was trying to find but didn't realize I thought it came from staff so I'll go back and look at that. So I'm okay with it moving through the Hot Funds process and if Hot Funds committee recommends it and even if they don't recommend it still comes back to council. We can make a decision on that along with all the other funding requests for Hot Funds and so with that being said the direction is all over the place quite frankly. I think by process of elimination let me just say I haven't heard a consensus for taking it out of the FY 18-19 current budget general fund. I haven't heard any okay one but I haven't heard a consensus for that. I haven't heard a consensus for it to be taken out of the FY 18-19 current budget for Hot Funds and plus our contingency fund for Hot Funds that we have I think is $15,000 is what we typically use for emergency if somebody comes in and so that may be an option in the next meeting but it couldn't be that amount based upon at least the process that we currently have. I've not heard a consensus that there's no change to current funding. I've heard there is a consensus to some form of current change of change to the current funding. The question is how do we achieve that with a consensus of the council? That seems to me the real big question. So our option two then consider as a general fund council initiated supplemental request which that request has already been made as far as determining which category that goes into and then consider as a Hot Fund request during the current cycle which I think we're all in favor of that it seems like it's what John's not but I have to say Mayor Pro Tem ever since I've been on council there's very there's really no way to tell like Arts and Jazz Fest we don't get hard data on how many people are staying in hotels because of Arts and Jazz Fest. We don't get hard data on how many people are staying in hotels for X event. Now you hotels can voluntarily submit their attendance or their occupancy but unless they do a voluntary survey then there's no way to actually tie down a stay unless they have like baseball tournaments and softball tournaments then those teams and those coaches and those families typically will rent a block of room. So I understand your concern about not having data but honestly we don't have that kind of we'd be asking them for something that we don't really get from a lot of the other recipients of Hot Funds. So that's why I don't necessarily have an issue with it coming out of Hot Funds. So I'm going to ask the city manager if he has any understanding of what the direction is. I think the best approach forward is to have this issue taken up in the next Hot Funds committee meeting. We've got a number of your questions I've been aggregating and I think we could be able to reach most of them. They can certainly consider it vis-a-vis all the other requests and we can also depending on what happens we can also put it on a supplemental request as I stated before we've broken it down into staff council and CIP supplemental requests for your consideration. So we'll go down both those paths we'll work with Vicki and in order to make sure that we've got answers to questions that the council has asked I'll look into the bathrooms as well and we'll kick that around with the Hot Funds committee to make a recommendation to this group. And I would ask too from the community market that to give us a budget and a plan of if you were to how would you raise additional revenue if there's if what the current fees are from the other markets if there's a little slight increase of fees that are available to help offset some of that and if everybody has has to fill out a sales tax certificate I'd like to know how do we verify that how do we verify I mean I know it's confidential but how do we verify that people who are at the community market are paying sales tax based upon their sales tax certificate I don't know if those have to be filed with the city or with the state but certainly would like to understand more along that process. Alright yes Councilmember Hudson. Thank you. I think for me I would just like to know what the definition of success is. So I sit on the Hot Funds committee and so that's just my open request to everyone here everyone listening everyone that's not on that committee that sits around this table because we have to normalize that and we have to I appreciate your insight on looking at fees etc. I just that's the biggest struggle for me I cannot just allocate money till the end of time to supplement someone's business there's too many businesses that close in this town that I like so do we then take up each one of those and say hey let's let's float this company let's float that company it's it's a vicious deal it is and as new companies come in it gets more competitive I get it but and I get the value but but I just need to understand email someone your definition of community market success and value add that would then justify the the funds okay all right last comment go ahead well for me it's that they're an incubator of businesses not necessarily a business and so we've we've seen different vendors get into real brick and mortar locations and that to me is part of that success so just I won't be emailing you I just wanted to let you know thank you all right you have sufficient direction mr. city manager I do all right thank you we'll move on to our agenda item 3d which is receive a porthole discussion and provide staff direction on the Denton development code update and draft zoning map okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay let's move on to agenda item 3d I think I called it so I'll call it again just for grins see report hold discussion and provide staff direction on the Denton development code update and draft zoning map thank you mayor council my name is Scott McDonald I'm the director of development services are very excited to be here over the next couple of hours we're going to talk to you about the development code we also brought some reinforcements so we have our friends from clarion here in case you need them but in all seriousness we're we're at the end of the line here so this is our last work session I think that we really don't anticipate having many questions we do have a couple of updates from our last development code review committee and we'll give you an outline of kind of some of those next steps and you know just excited to take this to PNC tomorrow so thank you yep go ahead councilmembers of staff of the items that we're going to be sharing with you are just highlights of what was discussed at our recent DCRC meeting the first one regarding nonconformity the statement that you see here on the screen which is located in section 152 I page five the code the draft code basically states that the adoption of this DDC will not cause any existing single-family duplex or townhomes use or structure to become nonconforming essentially any use against single-family dwellings detached townhomes and duplexes will be deemed lawful because of this particular requirement or this particular provision in addition to that the DCRC also spoke of a situation where there is an existing use today that's legal and the development code requires a specific use permit either by the use or because of the size of the structure we're adding this section for this provision in section 153 C we just look at again page five of the draft code basically states that the adoption of this DDC shall not cause any existing legal use that requires a specific use permit pursuant to the section that speaks to specific use permit and the use can if it were to be destroyed by fire other natural or accidental causes in whole or in part to be able to rebuild in its original condition and will not require a specific use permit so we wanted to share this with the full council so that you all know that this was being resented or being brought forward as part of the DDC update other highlights we we went back and forth on the r7 in multifamily we are requiring a specific use permit just that there will be no thresholds it would just be required another discussion that the DCRC had was related to the maximum persons occupying a dwelling there was a lot of discussion on this and the end it was discussed and directed that we were going to leave it in the code it's currently in the code and we're just going to carry it forward and my understanding is that we will address this at a later time so nothing to change. So just to be clear that when we when this gets discussed at a later date it will be with the fair housing attorney. Actually the definition here follows US Supreme Court president as far as what is a family so that's their definition is long track that opinion that came out several years ago. Okay so it's not so the attorney won't necessarily be in the discussion involved in the discussion of respect to this based on the definition I don't see where FHA may apply just on the definition there may be something tangential related to the building itself but not towards the definition. Thank you at the last work session council asked about a SUP requirement where the threshold were to exceed 25,000 I think the idea was to allow them to certain square footage it was discussed during the DCRC meeting that we were going to keep the same provision and that the review would be done through a building permit or a business license and that's how this will be addressed so no changes will be made to this provision which is section 535R which is looking at page 209. Question on that because I know this comes back from Mayor Pro Tem's question of we went from 25,000 feet to 15,000 feet on this particular general retail that's otherwise specified more than 15,000 square feet am I correct on that? That's correct in the MN and the MD where this is required that the reason why you see the drop in that is because of the consolidation of those two zoning districts. You mean the 15,000 yeah it went from one was 5,000 the other one was 40 or 50 or something or something and it sort of split the difference. 25,000 yes. But help me understand because I think there was some discussion as well at the council meeting and then also at the DRDCRC has the paradigm changed that before it was based upon use size in other words you've got multiple tenants in a building and so the square footage requirement in the current code applied to the space of the use instead of the entire building and now it's changing to the entire building or no? No this is we're keeping it the same in the fact that it's the use. So when I see square feet per lot how this is this is for general retail this is general retail that's the use that we're talking about right so yes if you have a use a general retail use that exceeds 25,000 square feet you are required a specific use permit. Okay well now you're saying use all right are you defining a lot as the boundary of the of that use because when I hear a lot I hear a platted lot when I hear a lot I have a building that's got five tenants in it when I hear a lot I'm thinking of the building the entire building on the entire lot I'm not thinking of the five different tenants within that building. The entire building that's on the lot. Okay but that's different than per use that's that's so let me let me let me try to explain in a different way yes if you have a building that has five units and it is currently 30,000 square feet right your tenants up to four tenants are currently general retail the fifth one wants to come in it's going to exceed that 25,000 that's where the trigger of the SUP is going to come in because that use is going to exceed 25,000 and so that's the same measurement that it was in the prior code that is that exactly it's per lot so any any use over 25,000 per that lot in that lot would have required either as SUP or not be permitted so that language is the same language as in the prior code per lot correct we just we just we just separated the uses okay all right I just want to make sure because there was some extensive discussion about that if you have a I forgot your example but I just want to make sure we're not changing paradigms because if we are that's a huge change and I just want to make sure I'm aware of it and that the the public's aware of it so Mayor Pro Tem. Yeah and that's a little different than the way I understood it but also the fact that we're talking about general retail so if you've got 30,000 square feet and two of those leases do restaurant space that's not general retail therefore that doesn't count towards your 25,000 is that okay that correct right okay all right it's by the use which it works okay you bet okay those were the highlights that we had with the DCRC now I'm going to maybe ask the members of the DCRC if there were anything else that we may have discussed that I have not included in this presentation otherwise I'm just going to go into notifications okay so just real quickly we sent out letters a couple weeks ago about 26,000 letters we've received just a few responses not many phone calls and emails and we sent out a follow-up clarification letter because we did not add specifically the property address for those folks that own multiple properties and so that was sent out a week ago as well they were received and there were some responses already that were helpful in making sure that we understand that we clarified that our website has received a number of a lot of hits that is and as part of that letters that were mailed out we receive response forms those response forms were in were added or were included in the letters that were mailed out and as Friday noon we've received about 118 response forms in approximately 78 were in opposition and 38 were in favor and since Friday noon we've received even more additional and we're still compiling that as we speak and we'll have that for the full council when we submit the package. Councilmember I'll return. Now there's a question about the forms in opposition I know that sometimes you know in zoning requests somebody will be opposed to something and then they'll have their questions answered by staff and then it turns out oh they're not really opposed you know what did you kind of keep track of how many of these were able to you know be responded to and have the you know the complainant feel that their concerns were addressed and not feel so opposed anymore or were these just simply you know forms that came in and you didn't necessarily have a chance to. Right I think the latter part there we've we've been fielding calls responding to emails and walk-ins so we haven't had a chance to review each response forms and that's the next step in the next coming weeks because I believe there may be some that we can address and you know answer those questions and then also take tab as far as what type of questions or concerns they have so we can summarize that as part of our presentation. Thank you I look forward to seeing that thanks. Member Husband. Yeah so the 78 in opposition once you dig into those because we have this conversation last week right that it should be a it should be similar to uses right that we're not changing uses that that was my understanding last week that that what they're what's there now is under a new their zoning title right but it's the same use correct there will be however there will be some that are consolidated right and some that are new right so the intent and the goal is to get as close to the existing zoning map as possible right and so that to me reads like it once you dig into it it reads like a potential messaging issue right because if you're telling me I can do the same thing that I'm currently doing what am I opposing what I'm currently doing you know it doesn't it does not make sense to oppose what you're currently doing unless you want to go through the process and change that then that that's a different process right but if I'm just notifying you saying hey keep doing what you're doing then why would you oppose that I looked at some of those response forms just to just for quality check and I did see that some of them were opposed to some of the uses that were permitted in that zoning district so it may not necessarily be their use per se but the allowance of other uses within that zoning district so just kind of give you some idea and again there will be an analysis of those response forms once we have time to review all of them if I'm a sure and so what is the evaluation of that process so I if I understand that thank you that's helpful but are we taking those one at a time to see if I mean because that seems like it would have far-reaching implications if we took them if because it's just a matter of preference right so if this particular property owner says I don't like the allowed uses in my area we're not taking those one at a time so that has large swath implications so what is the what is the review of those concerns are we saying we'll entertain that change are we saying we're not changing that we're not changing anything we're just documenting your comment and sharing that with the council got it okay thank you and just for clarification on some of these because I've received some calls where people's new zoning classification would not allow them to do what they currently have and I think in some of the examples that were pretty glaring it's because there was just a an oversight of the translation so that's pretty easy to fix it's just a matter of saying hey what's going on here so I think that's some of those as well and this is opposition yeah to their current property most zoning applications and oppositions or favors are people opposing or being in favor of somebody else's zoning this is the individual property owner zoning that they would be opposing so yeah it's a different nuance right at the last work session there was a comment about what we're gonna do with you know recently approved recently denied application zoning change request that is and we look back two years in any of the approvals will you will be using the transitional chart so if they were approved for NRM you for example then they would transition a man and so on and so forth for denials we looked again two years back and there were three denials the three that are that were denied are listed here and based on their current zoning they will continue or they will be transitioned to what is in that transitional chart and that would be r2 for the car zoning district lakeside will have a transition to rr and then the audio heights phase two will transition to an mn so just a little clarification on that because I had to miss the last half of the last meeting to make sure I understand what that mn is multifamily allowed via right or via sup all right and so mn is a combination of NRM you 12 and NRM you correct correct so I'm just gonna bring it up I mean let's just let's just put it out there because this is a very recent case and so you can tell me why we're at mn and I think I know the answer the question but so on the Audre heights phase two they were currently NRM you 12 I mean now and the rezoning request was to go to NRM you which would have increased the density and done some different things correct correct so we denied the rezoning the council did from NRM you 12 to NRM you correct correct so now that we're combining the two zoning classifications and we're assigning that parcel of land and mn at least in the draft zoning map at least for now then they have a right to build the multifamily I'm not going to say as they proposed it during the planning during the council meeting where the zoning was denied but if they can fit those things on the lot sure given the setbacks and everything then they're able to do that by right and basically not have to go through any other process and the impact of that the effect of that is that if they can get it on there they could build what they were wanting to build at the time that council denied their rezoning from NRM you 12 to NRM you and I think that's the only one of these things that really creates sort of a a hard consequence and so what's the rationale for staff and legal our legal consultant in giving that or proposing or supporting or a legal opinion on that becoming mn which in essence says you can do what the council said we didn't know if we wanted you to do my understanding is that legal council wanted to be consistent with the truth the transitional chart however I want to emphasize that there will be an opportunity to bring this for now I don't know if I can bring Scott up right now but there is a process for the zoning map when it will be effective and when we'll be bringing it back as far as consideration so I think that's my next line I think it might help in your your question mayor and how we address certain properties that have been zoned and may not be the proper zoning and we can talk about that with this slide here and that's and I agree with you but from what I understand from our legal staff is you need to go with the transitional zoning that has been identified that will most accurately reflect maybe it won't be exact but what is there on the ground and this is one of those where we combined NRM you 12 and NRM you I think this is really one of the only situations where we sort of run into this kind of anomaly so and you don't have to go into I just I just wanted to put it out there that because I don't want this to happen and then somebody say well wait a minute didn't y'all deny this and now they can do it and what happened and I want it to be as transparent as possible absolutely and I'm glad you brought it up and I believe on the zoning map that one's really a blacked out property at this point in time because there was pending action on it so I don't know that it's been assigned and as of yet on the draft zoning map but with that being said it's just a good opportunity to walk through this as I indicated when I started the presentation the April the 10th P and Z which is tomorrow will be the first time that we have a public hearing so we have an opportunity to really kind of run through this see how this is going to work out we're going to set up a couple of workstations with staff both here in the work session room as well as in the in the lower level we're going to ask the chair of P and Z to invite any of those individuals that that have a concern with the draft zoning map to visit with staff first we've got some different cards set up for them we'll ultimately then be able to understand some of the concerns that we hear i.e. that why are you changing my residential zoning so we can explain to them that there really is no change in it so it's just the nomenclature that we're using some other instances it may be a more radical change that they're experiencing or perceived to be experiencing so we're going to walk through that we're going to identify some of those that we feel that staff would support a city initiated rezoning if need be some of those that we need to do a little bit more work with and evaluate those properties and and then those that we would think the applicant would be forced to come before the council and the commission on their own that staff wouldn't support what it is they're proposing to do so if an individual property owner wishes to rezone their property they may have an opportunity to discuss this we'll try to vet that out rather than doing it in the public hearing and be able to consolidate those comments citizens and property owners will still have an opportunity to come speak before the commission but we're at least going to try to to streamline some of that and maybe set some of their concerns at ease may protein thank you mayor i see a change from what we had proposed earlier under the r7 allowing multi-family it's permitted with restrictions and when you look at the restrictions it says in r7 that it requires a specific use permit percentage of 2.5.2 so why do we have permitted and then under the specific uses say you have to get the esup i apologize ryan what we did was we initially had a use specific standard with a limitation of 15 units do you recall that and so because of that retracting that back we did not update the the chart and so that chart should be an s plus will be will be does that make sense yes so question on this slide what you said so if someone comes in i've had calls on this where they're not asking for a rezoning but in the transition if it should have been a r7 but it's an r4 based upon that that's how we just and it just was overlooked you're saying they come in they talk with you then y'all might batch them up and say look these are things that people aren't asking for rezoning they're not asking for anything new this is just something we need to correct because we might have not we being you or us but you know things get overlooked in some project this big so if it's that easy to correct that's not something they have to go through that whole full-blown process is that is that my understanding or no you would be correct so much of that is we've identified any number of parcels today that we feel that we need to bring forward make corrections with okay and then we're also going to take what we've heard from citizens already and what we anticipate hearing tomorrow and and rather than having those individual public hearings or those individuals having to go through the process will batch those just as you indicate and and that will then occur at a later point in time but in order to to fully vet this we're looking for P&Z to approve the draft zoning map as printed we're not we're not going to change the draft zoning map that's the same map that we need to bring to council so again that second public hearing that ultimately property owners have an opportunity to come before council and express their concerns we anticipate doing the same thing ultimately running triage before the public hearing is open so we can hear those comments and then we're going to ask that we ultimately just do a continuation of the meeting that we would come back with what those proposed amendments might look like provide notification our outside legal counsel was very clear with us not to change the map on the fly so we can't come before council and say we recommend making changes and for council to make those changes without notifying the property owners and adjacent property owners so what we want to do is make sure that we go through the process of identifying those properties providing that 200 foot notice in accordance with local government code and bring those forward as some batch but they'll be heard individually we'll go through the process and then it'll be the draft map will be adopted after we make those changes so it'll be a draft map adopted with amendments those those proposed zoning changes would go through PNC and council like they would any other just it would be city that would be doing it rather than the individual property owner having to do that get some clarification because I'm a little confused because when you say let's take April 10th tomorrow correct you're saying that it's that the day where PNC can quote unquote approve the zoning map that's been published we're asking for their recommendation for the development code and the draft zone okay because I know we talked about this and so y'all might have discussed it earlier in the meeting when I wasn't there but so my thought was and I thought you heard you say it but then it was something so if when it comes to council on a public hearing correct the first time correct you're gonna have these batches that you sort of identified and so it's gonna come before there's gonna be a public hearing there's gonna be a draft zoning map that is the same today that PNC sees but yet you also have this batch kind of properties so I thought I heard you say that you will ask that the council make amendments to the draft zoning map so are you saying the council approves or continues the public hearing on the zoning map so that it gives you time to send out the notices to this these batch of people that you have to send out the notices within the 200 feet because I thought there was a there was a an avenue where if it was correcting something because if the zone draft zoning map right now is something was missed in the translation of the zoning districts I mean what you're saying is well then that's gotta wait until this batch process goes through to even correct it at all to what it should have been in the first place is that what I'm hearing you say and that's what we've been advised to do okay is that we will not make any changes to the map we will we will present the map as published and then come back with that same map weeks weeks after right we present it and we're able to distill what information that we have will provide public notice to all of those properties that we are proposing to change differently than the draft zoning map those will be heard first and then it would be then a motion to adopt the draft the draft zoning map as amended so we'll be making amendments in advance of of adopting the map okay and I know I know that's very different no no no you just you just said something that is so what I heard you say was legal said don't change the zoning map in other words I thought you said council will adopt the zoning map as it's currently presented and as it's currently published and if I said that I misspoke council will see the the draft zoning map and it will see it again at the later here so it's not gonna say we approve it and then we come back and then amend the current approved zoning because when you kept saying draft that's where I was getting no we'll have the draft still out there and then we'll just amend as if that's what we are going to adopt but then it'll be okay adopt as amended my mistake I appreciate that thank you councilmember Hussman I think I'm tracking with you because this is relevant to it with mayor brings up can you succinctly help me understand council gave an opinion on because that's that's right in the heart of of my district and so I'm super sensitive to the conversation we just had about Bay Fill Road and the property behind it and so then to go back and then it's almost like we've put the residents of Audre Heights area at ease and then we tip the scales against them and then we say hey track along with us and come and complain about it again or raise your concerns again or mr. proper because the property owner is not going to complain about it because it's what he wanted in the first place and so I don't understand the if we're going to mirror what what was decided then what was decided was against what we're doing so you we made a decision against what we're doing and then staff says hey I'm going to recommend we do what council said not to do because why and that is not our intent so our intent is to make those corrections so going back two years to say anything any actions that council took the map is going to be consistent with that because there was it went through the process so it is not that is just one of those anomalies that we wish to correct so okay so what is it let's let's get a clear record what is what is the what is the draft zoning for that Audre Heights area I don't know that it is Richard was looking did you what is what is the draft zoning map shows pending so it's it doesn't have it it doesn't have a status as of right now so it's pending so what it is that it would potentially go to is one thing and again so as we identify these that's the purpose in looking at this and making sure that we have plenty of opportunity to correct anything that may be an error that is one of those properties that we identified and we have concern with so we don't anticipate it going to that direction where it is council has said no we're not doing this to yes we're going to do that so but can I comment on that can I just share something with you yeah and and I understand I understand what you're saying and I think because you asked how did it get to be well right now it says it doesn't have a zoning classification but it's going to have to at some point I mean it's in the conversion of what when we took what the current zoning is and we have that transition table that says if it's in our emu 12 or if it's in our emu then those get merged into the zoning classification MN and that came as correct me if I'm wrong as a direct recommendation and just almost advice of our outside land use legal counsel said you have to ensure that there is that transition that matches your table this is the only property that I'm aware of where we're in this kind of situation so I think what I hear councilmember husband asking is okay number one when when will a zoning classification be attached to that parcel on the zoning map and number two the correction you're talking about what does that look like and then we have to identify what that correction would be specifically so that those are some of the questions that have raised when I hear you talking yeah and I think and that's exactly right because it would be different if that conversation didn't come up during our deliberations but council mayor pro tem Ryan mentioned that very fact and so that kind of that question comes up during our deliberation and so it's very different to then say we if knowing where we're going we're what you're selling me here then I would have said okay there's a SUP that then supersedes all the gyrations underneath but because the answer was different then we understood that there's that one parcel that's one you want one piece of that property that could be developed different than the other and and that's what we were told and that's what led the discussion so very different if it didn't come up but because we have that conversation I think it either needs to end up being split like we discussed or roll the other way and and and you know see how that goes but I don't think it's because we have that succinct conversation and and because he that issue was raised that that's what kind of okay guides where I think we should go okay council member now sir actually I have something to suggest but I want to understand council member Hudson's last comment because if you don't mind because it was kind of brought up where does that leave you leave you or what's the implication of that yeah I think because it was brought up and we were and I understood certain assurances and I'm pretty sure I was right that they that it was going to even forward-looking the it would mirror what was on the ground today that led my kind of thought we were making an enduring decision not that I was going to get flipped right the next year is there still such a thing as an overlay and would that be a way to address this problem well yes and no but but I think ultimately you'll hear this property before we adopt the map so we're going to address this very issue before you ever adopt the map okay so this is one of of any number that we've already started to prioritize and evaluate we've got maps built that we've shown the DC RC of any number of properties that we're going to be bringing forward and that will address the issue that we're discussing absolutely well I think any more questions at least for this slide or for Scott oh questions see how easy that was it was really just trying to give you an outline of the dates and sure you know if there's anything else that we need to be doing else I believe thanks to your you know unforgiving schedule I have now read I guess we all have read the entire draft code but it doesn't mean I've memorized it and I got hit with a question last night that I didn't answer and it's about the issue of we're sometimes existing multifamily you know if we contemplate warning them not having dumpsters in the street or nothing having place to do recycling sometimes they just they currently don't have space for it so the question was will future multifamily carry a requirement to have space in the new code so that you know they would have storage or space designated for potentially for recycling in the future I think that's correct absolutely this is going to be a more robust and a better tool for for both the city and the applicants I thought so but I wasn't sure thanks any other questions for this agenda item oh all right man we got people changing out all right thank you very much thank you Scott appreciate it I believe that brings us to the conclusion of our work session items so we will now go into close that we will now convene a closed session at 5 0 7 p.m. we'll be considering section five five one point oh seven two of the Texas local government code section five five one point oh eight seven and I believe those are the only two okay is that right just those two yeah just those just those two everybody back to this meeting of the Dent City Council on April the 9th 2019 it is 6 50 p.m. we're now moving down through our special called meeting moving through our agenda which is the first item on our agenda is agenda item and we do have a quorum excuse me is the consent agenda mayor pro tem we have approval except for item H okay all right so we have a motion for approval of the consent agenda items A through G excluding item H which will be taken up as an item for individual consideration all in favor but please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign carries six zero approval of the consent agenda items A through G we'll now take up item H as an item for individual consideration it was pulled so I'll read the caption consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton Texas to ratify a letter of support for the University of North Texas grant application to the Sloan Foundation and I think we had a presentation but I think councilmember Meltzer had some comments yeah and I raised in work session I won't repeat my comments you know why I felt that wasn't a pending matter and but I thought I'd see like oh head nods around the table like oh that's good I totally see that but I felt there's some scrunching internally and maybe some discomfort and if that's if that's really the case you know if you feel it maybe you know that's not entirely clear to you addressing my colleagues here I just want to put out an offer to move to postpone to get an advisory opinion and sort of as a group learning experience let's you know have that discussion there's it's not going to affect the outcome of anything that's you know part of the probably issue that we wanted to talk about here is the fact that the outcome is already done but you know we've got a work work session on June 11th on on ethics code you know maybe we can learn something through this and sort it out I don't look you know I'll try as hard as I can I'm sure you all are and but I don't claim double the answers I think that's really up to the council I mean or up to you or whoever but I'd like to know if you're interested in that or that would be if you'd find it helpful or if you were entirely convinced by what I said previously council member armature I'd rather not postpone I'd rather just go ahead they put in well as I understand our the way our code is ethics code is currently written if the two council members who are associated with UNT filed a conflict of interest statement we would fall below a quorum so therefore they would be allowed to come back in is that not true mr. city attorney that if you fall below a quorum that has a conflict yeah if the majority of council members have a con oh somebody's last not somebody's mic's not on yeah I think it's the majority of the council members have have a conflict of interest and they can come back in it's verify that yeah that's that's what I want to have the presentation because my point is succinctly with what he said that's the core of the problem it's done and we don't we not met and and so not let's have a presentation yeah yeah so I you know I don't hear anybody wishing to postpone and I don't for me personally I wouldn't want my deciding not to do that means I either agree or disagree with your comments it's just simply I think it's just up to each individual council member to make their own decision on whether they want to ask for an advisory opinion and how we handle that at the council level so just want to make sure my sense is not misinterpreted okay yeah and I miscounted I thought we were down to three okay all right okay so we'll go ahead and have the presentation I guess it's a council member Husbeth you asked for the presentation are you how in depth do you want that presentation just what what the committee on the environment got or well I mean we can we can dive right in have you doc have you had a chance to see my questions I have okay so if you could speak we can just go straight to the to the meat of it and the the fact of the matter is I'm going to take issue with this sentence on behalf let me get there yes on behalf of the city of Denton we're writing in strong support of this proposal how is it that a advisory board gives an opinion that is on the behalf of the city of Denton only the mayor can do that without this body authorizing that so if you could succinctly tell me where in the ordinances it allows that or if it was done in error let's let's just have it don't don't I just would ask you not to sell me on something that's not there no I understand and to answer your question this this is a support for a grant proposal and as such we were approached as staff to to basically ask if we were interested in providing that support to answer your question directly on behalf of the city of Denton meaning the city of Denton City Council or the mayor's office the you are correct the issue should have come forward to the full council if it carries the weight of the full council yeah and so thank you and so that being written the way it is I just ask that we we not vote on it today I don't know what that process is Mr. City Manager but the point is that it's done in error in my estimation unless someone can tell me I'm wrong and it looks bad because it's UNT and we have people associated with UNT and it looks like it's preferential treatment that can be debated but I'm saying it it does not to me go well to retroactively tow the company line and say hey let's go clean this up now that it's been done in error I think you acknowledge that hey we made a mistake and move on not retroactively authorize this letter that I don't agree with because I didn't get the vote on it and it says city of Denton and it comes back later at the bottom and cleans it up and it says these efforts are support supported by the city of Denton committee on environment but I'm from and this is from someone that received a request from a UNT professor on in kind donations for the park that was denied because there wasn't enough time to come to this body so one-to-one comparison same University my the person I asked for was was was not allowed based on the email answers it says this is a one-week turnaround which is the same thing I asked for for that my the representative asked for me and was denied and so one-to-one I just I don't know what the process is I'm seeking guidance on that but it's it absolutely I'm I'm gonna vote against it but I'm asking that we as a council make the prudent decision and say hey it's a mistake let's not perpetuate the mistake by trying to sweep it under the rug or represent something that is not done well you know I'll go a little bit and answer that I don't think there's any what's that I just want to say that that request came from UNT to the staff it didn't come to an individual council member nor committee so I just wanted to set like as far as you know where it came from and how it was approached it wasn't that one individual council member was approached by a professor and then said here let's do this now I just wanted to make that I just to clarify that for you I don't I'm sure it doesn't affect that one way or the other but just for the record that that's not how that came to be I don't know what led you to have to clarify that that's not what I said the fact of the matter is the evaluation time is the same regardless of how it how it was introduced if the process is the same there was a week time frame one week and it was not enough time to come to council and I'm specifically aware of an instance where I was told no that individual was told no whatever it doesn't matter how it came about fact of the matter is the same time frame same turnaround different results first of all with the sweeping under the rug the reason its agenda is so wouldn't be swept under the rug so the conversation is exactly the point I've talked to staff this should not have been placed on the committee and the environment's agenda we are not going to be put under the gun like this again and they've got every ability to say no council committees do not speak to the council and we've got in that this has been clear we've had we've had policy items agenda items come up at various committee meetings after this full board has spoken I've pulled them off and given both Dr. Banks and other assistant managers the full authority that we get in those situations unless something is vetted by the council after they've already discussed it we don't move forward and I think the process here is shouldn't have been brought forward just because there was a weak turnaround isn't a reason to do that and there wouldn't have been time to get into the council for confirmation therefore it should not have been brought forward and I have spoken with everyone that supports these committees and given them full authority to say no if this happens again and to reiterate to them that the council committees are sounding boards they do not speak for the seven and I don't know how much more clear to be it's been a good learning experience and I don't expect this to happen again. Yes Council Member Meltzer. If the deadline factor weren't there and to be perfectly frank I didn't particularly note that what the deadline was you know it was a presentation to the committee and you know we all voted in favor of it but if the deadline factor weren't there well why wouldn't it I mean or maybe you're not saying this but wouldn't it make sense for it to go to the committee committee weighs in and that's a kind of a point that's then raised when it comes to full council absolutely if the deadline factor was not present it would have been recommendation to the seven of you which is exactly how it works this one there wasn't time it shouldn't have been brought forward to the committee and put and put the three of you in that position yeah it was it was flying out of staff mistake and it shouldn't have been done I don't think I'm going to take a little bit of a gamble speaking for the other members of the committee but I don't think we knew we were taking the position that was going to not go to full council there I there's the process the process isn't ideal there was absolutely nothing that I'm saying that was in any way you know wrong-headed about this sneaky you know inappropriate it was just simply staff didn't calculate that it couldn't get to the council in time as it and and that that was I guess to clarify had had they done the math and we knew that we couldn't get to full council I would have let it go through because I don't want to put any of any council committee in this position where they form there's four folks on the council that didn't get away in on it there's no need to create those types of conflicts thank you Mary and I would agree with you that there may there's probably a misunderstanding all the way around because as I pulled up the agenda and reading the captions as we receive a report hold a discussion and give staff direction on a request for support for support so I didn't realize myself that that's what I was approving at the time yeah I mean it's a good learning experience for everybody I mean we're not gonna I mean I think it's it's the issues are valid to address for sure and we've got a agent so as far as a presentation on the actual substance of the subject of the support letter are you wanting a presentation on that or was it just also just to help get that question answered yeah just to help get it in an environment where we can have that question all right yes I'm not on the committee for the environment and just about the timing of it but also to kind of think about this moving forward so in a future situation like that if there's a deadline would would it be okay with the with a committee for the environment for something like that to just go directly to council is that what you're saying and then we we would all discuss it together if because of if because of the timeline it wouldn't allow for it to go through a committee first I mean I would be fine with that in a situation where there's a deadline yeah we've had we've had that happen before we certainly could consider that in the future and I just don't want to you know it from time to time staff will get their back put to the wall at a deadline this one we just needed to think it through that next step but that would that could have been an option I mean something like that could have been we could just simply explain in the AIS why it went straight to council so I make a motion to approve the ratification there's been a motion councilmember armature I second all right we have a motion and a second to approve the ratification and I'm going to be voting to support this but I want to be clear that I'm voting to support it just so that it sort of puts my mark on the change of the process I mean because I if it came before council originally I would have supported it and but understanding that this this has been corrected so I think moving forward will will it won't be handled in the same direction yes yep so seeing how this is going I'm surprised but I just want to have a clear record that it admittedly so here's a process that was flawed and I would ask those watching and that would review this tape to understand that that's been admitted it's a flawed process and so as a result of that it potentially could pass after the fact after a minute it was forwarded incorrectly and represented this body incorrectly and a majority of this body may say sign off on that as being okay so I just want that to be clear and stipulated that that's why I'm not going to support this and that I could ask me and I'll give you an example of how people are treated differently I have a record of that too thank you all right any other questions so we've had a motion for agenda item 1h for ratification of the support letter all in favor please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign motion carries five to one all right we'll move on to items for individual consideration 2a is considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton authorizing the city manager or designee to execute a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement between the city and Helena wind good evening mr. mayor council thanks for having me this evening this is a relatively straightforward request we have this pulled up this this is a regards to non-disclosure agreements tied to our renewable program which involves of course for the purchasing of renewable energy getting us to the 100 percent renewable goals in order to do that we have issued RFPs for solar and coastal wind proposals we've received those we've vetted them and done an initial filtering of the dozens and dozens of different proposals and we've identified two that we would like to discuss with further and then in order to discuss these Helena wind and on peak power but in order to discuss these further we're going to need to get some NDA's or non-disclosure agreements because these entities generally want they have proprietary information in their in their deeper dive and they generally want to put these in place before we proceed further basic terms of these NDA's are of course non-disclosure of confidential information the information known but information known by us from other sources for newspapers or other information we that is excluded that those are not require confidentiality on our part of course as a city entity we have to just follow the public information act so that if if there is stuff that is asked for regarding the proposal it goes through a legal request and those things will be vetted through that the act itself these are generally two-year agreements and what we're asking is just for approval so that we can proceed with discussing the the proposals with these entities and proceed with getting us to 100 percent renewable okay councilmember Briggs I move to approve so we can continue the conversation and keep moving second have a motion approval for agenda item 2a all in favor please see the file raising your right hand all opposed by like sign carries 6-0 for approval of the execution of the non-disclosure agenda item 2b I believe that's the the fire station is that right no is it it is I think councilmember Briggs needs to step out on this 2b consider adoption and mortis of the city of dent Texas home home rule municipal corporation authorizing the city manager to execute contract with the O'Haver company for the construction of a new fire station number three good evening mayor council members Kenneth edges fire chief I'm here tonight to present a contract for your consideration for the reconstruction of fire station number three this is the last project from the 2014 bond proposal in the public safety package just a little refreshment fire station 3 current location is right now it sits at the intersection of McCormick and Avenue a about a 5,000 square foot station built in the early 70s in 2016 land was purchased adjacent to it to the west about 1.6 acres for the future reconstruct of this building this construction project last you've been two phases you see phase one that is the development and construction of the new building at the conclusion of phase one the crews will actually move it into the new building and then phase two will commence which is the raising demolition of the existing structure and then the front ramp for the new station will actually be incorporated where the existing building is at that point short section of McCormick will be closed to accommodate this this is an elevation so the new station around 16,000 square feet you see it to the side with everything when the highlights is it will have a police substation small we say workstation so I have a office about 200 square foot that can accommodate two officers so a little background this was the options given before council elevation foundation was presented September of 2018 and at that point it was given a decision to go whether more of a heavy block brick structure versus a glass until more contemporary council decided to go with brick and mortar look foundation structural slab or slab one grade structural slab was chosen and then in December facilities came back with options of roofing and HVAC so that point they chose to go with the high loads roof system and then a VFR HVAC system just a quick summary started design April 2017 went out for bid in January this year we did have five bidder submit it's very good turnout actually for these type of projects current market out there and then we're here tonight for your consideration on construction contract and this is kind of the meat of the presentation here so we had the base bid six point three million and we're opting to use alternates three and four for deductions that takes it down to six point two million so if you break that down by square foot you're about 390 square foot which our goal was to be under $400 a square foot so we hit that goal so we'll still have I mean there'll be a delta of you about 234,000 lift that project count to finish up the project at the conclusion of construction as well one thing I did won't point out there's only about $178,000 difference from the amount we proposed for this project in 2013 that went to the bond committee so in that many years I thought we did pretty good job as far as all the departments together collaborating and coming up with a good project for that's a great job on your part or it means that all this construction material inflation we've been hearing about over the last three or four years and all these bond programs has been a little skewed but I'm going to go with the former I'm going to go with the former that you guys just really sharpen the pencils and if you could go back to the look the brick look that your conceptual drawing I mean that looks great honestly I mean I don't know what the steel window would have looked like I think but so there's four bays there is that correct correct okay are those the is it the folding doors yes bifold doors to get out and then the ones coming back in or coming around the other side correct as a cost savings on the response side we went with the bifold that opens around seven seconds to decrease that response right on the return side it's more traditional section which is cheaper yeah that's okay good I appreciate that great job oh that it that's it oh okay quick presentation mayor protein I will move approval for this agenda item that is coming in below budget somebody please make a notation of that future anyway yeah councilmember Melcer second we have a motion to second for approval of agenda item to be all in favor please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign motion carries five zero to adopt agenda item to be agenda item to see consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Dent Texas a home rule municipal corporation authorizing the city manager to execute a contract with integrated computer systems for the implementation licensing and vendor support for a computer aided dispatch and law enforcement records management system sorry I'm short good evening council mayor city manager Melissa craft from the chief technology officer also have with me today chief edges are fire chief and also mission critical partners as well little background on the cat RMS the cat is the computer aided dispatch system and records management system it's a mission critical system that supports both police fire and 911 dispatch operations would say this is possibly the most critical software and used by the city this is what helps get police and fire personnel access to critical information from their vehicles and also dispatches our calls for service for the public there were certificates of obligations that were issued in the amount of three million in fiscal year 1617 for this new cat RMS system some of the present issues with our existing cat RMS the age of the product of the software for 911 is over 17 years old it does not integrate well with your systems and does not support the latest technology there is limited vendor upgrade or support there's really no integrated analytics for the existing system as well little background on how we got to where we are today back in 2017 we did gather and perform an assessment and requirements development we composed an evaluation committee made up of police fire and tech services in purchasing to research and evaluate a new cat RMS this incorporated a 24 person committee we also had several stakeholder and subcommittees of over 70 participants we also hired mission critical partners with the complexity of a system like this with it being so mission critical they helped develop our technical functional performance requirements would say is a pretty extensive list of requirements with almost 4000 line items as well the RFP was published on March 2018 it was sent to over 600 firms we did get five bidders in we considered four responsive as one did not meet the minimum requirements out of those four we did select the top three firms as we were going through that process back in 2018 there was one firm who acquired another firm therefore withdrew as part of that proposal so we ended up with two firms and as part of those two firms we sent out best and final offers and as a result of that we chose ICS as our vendor we went through contact negotiations through January February March and we're here today to see council approve for the contract some of the options that we considered as we were looking at the cat replacement we could take no action the current system was implemented back in 2001 using Windows Server 2008 which is really old it's getting ready to be in the support from a cyber perspective it's pretty risky these systems have exceeded the life expectancy currently we spend 231k a year for annual maintenance for the cat RMS and currently the existing software vendor was was the one that was acquired from another company to merge a new company called central square so there's definitely some risk with remaining with our current cat option option two was to replace the cat RMS procure and implement a new system that will provide some of those needed features of police and fire users participate in defining some of the functional and technical requirements we did initiate kind of that rigorous process through kind of stakeholder committees working with the vendor on drafting those specific requirements as well some of the benefits that would allow some of this with the new cat RMS again you're talking about 18 20 year old technology to what we're able to do today this is what gets me a little excited to we're able to do closest to dispatching the city of Frisco is currently doing that as well where it chooses the closest unit or apparatus for emergency calls automatically where it really gets to where you need to get to as quickly as possible there's also another functionality priority dispatching which allows kind of more streamlined assignment of resources based on call type so if we have a specific call coming in we can send different apparatuses different vehicles based as a subset of that there's also improved mapping capabilities and address verification I will say our current cat system does now allow the functionality to validate addresses so there's definitely some current risk with our existing system as well and also provides turn-by-turn directions for first responders for quickest routes to calls the data analytics is much more robust as it provides timely and accurate reports to identify trends and also has pending call alerts resulting in quicker call dispatching you know one of the things we're looking at is we're looking at field-based reporting is having that functionality for first responders out in the field the project estimates these are the different modules and this different components of the public safety cat system the cat in itself for the first year one-year maintenance costs overall it's around 1.8 million we are recommending around a 15 percent contingency typically what we've seen based on our experience you know anytime you go that long without a significant software upgrade there's usually upcoming reporting in minor tweaks you want to do along the way so we definitely had a contingency for that you can see the mobile data system which is what the first responders use out in the field that's around half a million the data migration was around 42,000 this also includes training we definitely want to have a good plan for training not only for the first responders for the administrators everyone utilizing that system currently this project is funded in job cost account so we already have existing funding for that as well. You remind me was this something also that UNT used or is this a different completely different system we're talking about? This is a completely different system so cat can mean many different things so there is computer aided dispatch and then computer aided design which is the ESRI platform. And yes this will integrate with in that case with that cat system as well too so we can get up to date maps and up to date information. So years two through five which is kind of recurring maintenance it's not notated here but when you take years two through five on a yearly basis the overall cost is going to be around 222,000 we're currently paying for 231,000 for that type of maintenance so kind of evens itself out as part of that. We also added as part of the life of the contract 61k for any additional licensing training or modification from years two to five bringing the overall contract total for 3.9 million. Here's a tentative timeline this is the timeline that you know the vendor initially proposed with us going live in October I will say that is a extremely aggressive timeline usually with projects this complex it can take anywhere from 12 to 18 months but you know part of what staffs already been working on the past six to eight months is really the data cleanup understanding how we're going to integrate cleaning up the cost codes I think a partnership between police, fire and tech really doing that background work ahead of time is should help with the implementation of the project timeline as well. The big thing is on the planning piece having good test plans and ensuring we're running the systems simultaneously and making sure we have good test scenarios as part of that implementation. A little bit about the vendor integrated computer systems they were established in 1974 they are leading CADRMS provider for public safety there are several cities are currently using that solution Rowlett, Wiley, Collin County Sheriff's Office, Prosper, Frisco, Highland Village, Flower Mound, Renault, Capelle you know they all speak very highly of their kind of customer service and media response as well too. They do provide regular software updates that are included in their system to maintain that functionality as new features are added or requested and with proper support the life of the software could be extended on 20 years or more as long as we're keeping up with those incremental updates as needed. We're seeking approval for adoption of an ordinance of boarding a contract for ICS for installation setup and maintenance for five year period. I'll answer any questions you may have. Is this system setup or is there an add on that we could at some time in the future purchase for key boxes or touch pad locks so that someone who is in bad health and calls for 911 and they've got an electronic lock so that the fire department doesn't have to bust down the door to get in where it could keep track of what those numbers are where you could call into the fire department say look if I ever press my first alert button and you have to come to my house here's it'll let the fire department know. I presume that there's robust data protection built in if we're having people's access codes somewhere recorded in a facility database that there's there's very robust protection on them. Yes sir you know as part of the evaluation and kind of the requirements they have to be a CEGIS compliant as well so that should be incorporated as part of that contract okay. Any other questions? Mayor Pro Tem? I move approval. Councilmember Armitage? I second. So we have a motion to second for agenda item what is it? Item 2C all in favor please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign motion carries six to zero for agenda item 2C agenda item 2D which are consideration consider nominations appointments to the city boards we've got the backup I think councilmember Hutz with you nominated what was the gentleman's name? Ronnie Mohair is the primary and I'm still working on the secondary okay the alternate yes okay do we have is it just one alternate spot or is it two alternate spots that are open I don't remember there's one okay all right yes councilmember Briggs? I don't know if we were taking I was just going to approve make a motion to approve this nomination unless we have other nominations. Mayor Pro Tem? I was going to nominate as an alternate for the Board of Ethics Rob Rainer. All right okay so I guess that would be that alternate position that he's nominated for all right so we have and has he filled out an application although he will be he will be okay all right and has your nominee completed an application do you know yes okay all right councilmember Briggs? Oh I just I don't I'd like to read an application or know a little bit about the person that's going to be on the ethics board so I was just asking it where that would where I could find that information okay he's a realtor here in town yeah I think we I think we've made nominations pending the application I think we've done that in the past I believe unless somebody unless I'm remembering that wrong I think we've done that before but so those are the two nominations any other nominations? All in favor of those nominations please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign motion carries six zero for those two nominations concluding oh it was Rob Rainer yeah oh councilmember Briggs made the motion and I believe who seconded it was it mayor Pro Tem would you second that did somebody second it okay we'll start over we got a motion on the floor I need a second mayor Pro Tem I'll second all right thank you so much for that so we have a motion and a second for the two nominations presented on agenda item 2D all in favor please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign carries six zero thank you so much for that all right moving on to concluding items concluding items councilmember Briggs just one I would like to add we had a discussion recently about the bond packages and all the bond package and the items that could be on it I would like to add something to that or get a conversation going for a basic services center I know that that we had talk had talks coming but I would like to see if council would be in agreement or to add that to the package okay anybody else I've got one just anybody else yes just an announcement that the Thinline Festival which is sponsored in part by City of Denton starts Wednesday goes through Sunday it's a unique Denton homegrown festival I think it's 12th year about independent film music and photography and it's entirely free the only one I have is I'd like to have a work session for this body to help decide some of this or get clarification on it on people who are covered under the as city officials under the code of ethics ordinance entertaining either through city attorney's office or indirectly through the attorney that we have on retainer for the ethics board sort of informal kind of opinions on whether what they're discussing or what they're concerned about whether it's an ethical violation or whether the code the ordinance applies I have a pretty hot opinion about that but I want to hear other council members weigh in on this I'd like to get that on the work session sort of have that policy discussion okay anybody else all right we We will then stand adjourned at 730.