Good evening my name is Rosa Rios and I am your city secretary the time right
now is 531 and in the absence of the chair and the vice chair the city
secretary will has called the meeting to order under Robert's Rules of Orders the
the board does have the ability to appoint a temporary chair the appointment
will be for the duration of the meeting and the responsibilities will cease
once the meeting is adjourned I will now take nominations on the floor
are there any other nominations any other nominations with no other
nominations I will now take so we have a man make that a formal motion sir we
have a motion and we have a second so there's the nomination for board member
Tim Crouch to serve as your temporary chair for this meeting all in favor
please raise your right hand all opposed the motion carries with the majority
vote your meeting will continue and your next item on the agenda is public
comments and individuals are allowed three minutes to speak I'll now turn the
meeting over all right and do we have cards we have cards and and let me just
remind the committee that that it's important to leave your microphone turned
on so don't turn your microphone on and off but leave it turned on so that if
you start speaking it gets picked up on the on the streaming and of the meeting
here so our the the first person I'd like to call is Rick would Rick would if
you would come to the microphone up here at the podium please you have three
minutes yeah we'll need your name and address if you would Rick would 80 11
Wood Creek Circle Argyle Texas seven six two two six within the Denton city
limits and I just want to speak use my three minutes to address some concerns
around the current proposal that would involve the widening of brush Creek Road
near our neighborhood this will have a significant impact upon the residents of
that section of town and we believe a large majority of us believe that it's
largely unnecessary and maybe a better use of funds could be applied to fixing
the current street conditions within the city according to the Denton record
Chronicle in April of last year in an article didn't had a street score of 65
compared with a flower mound which had an 81 and Frisco as an example had a
score of 95 according to that same article 25% of the 1314 lane miles were
in poor condition that's about 328 lane miles Cindy City engineer Todd Estes
told the council that there were 200 street segments to rebuild the financing
for that was approved through a 44 million dollar combined bond package into
2012 and 2014 ultimately the city will need to budget more for maintenance to
maintain what we have and the each year and according to mr. Krummer there was a
next to an estimated 335 lane miles would cost about 193 million dollars to
rebuild today previous bond packages that have gone to the voters were
underestimated by 30 to 40 percent if this were to go to an election and to a
bond approval we would be concerned that the money used to widen that
particular section of road could be better applied against the current
infrastructure improvements that are needed around the city today to quote
mr. Heilman it's last year in April it's not going to matter how much maintenance
funding there is if the roads aren't built right to begin with so instead of
widening brush Creek and potentially displacing dozens of residents I would
ask the committee to consider reinvesting that money into our current
infrastructure and improving the roads we have thank you next Jennifer Lane
Jennifer Lane I don't think there'll be an opportunity for public comment on
items later if you want to speak you'll need to do that now okay next is Richard
Shan house
my name is Richard Shan house my address is eight zero zero one Wood Creek Circle
in Argyle neighbor for mr. Woods and our interest is in the destruction of
property that will happen if you're and I spoke last week as well my garage and
my yard will be will be eliminated consequently my whole house will be
rendered uninhabitable if a fork if a divided six lane highway with bike paths
and and and sidewalks and easement come into come into being so I'm carrying the
flag for a number of residents in our area that that are particularly and
specifically involved because we would lose our homes and it seemed as though
the last time I spoke here you guys at least some of you guys were unaware that
that properties would be displaced and you know we put our heart and soul into
our properties and it's kind of hard to see the city come along and and and
propose a building a wide wide road through an area that is where the
traffic is just not doesn't doesn't make sense I think you're the idea from the
city from the head engineer was if we build it they will come the traffic and
you know brush Creek dead ends into 377 and beyond where and West beyond that is
nothing but farmland which would extend to highway 35w where there is no
interchange so it's it seems as though that extension and all the displacement
and the buying of properties and I would it wouldn't make as much sense as a
proposal that we made to the council last week that was in the letter that
was sent to the advisory board you guys to to Ryan Adams and others I've got a
copy of it if anybody if I can leave it with somebody so that you know refresh
your memory about it's very particular about a different proposal that you know
seems to you know seems to us so much more meaningful when it comes to how it
connects to 35 and how it hooks into joins the proposed loop 288 extension
and in joining together with an already proposed widening of a road that up that
way if I could leave this with somebody I would like to your time your time is
up and again to use that money for roads that are and have been in dire need of
denting in other areas thank you thank you next is Dennis Cox I want to begin
by thanking all of y'all for that I know the time you put in you have you sit
through the meetings everything you hear all the input everybody has their own
concerns for whatever is being done to their roads just as we have concerns for
ours and I appreciate the time that y'all put in and the consideration that
you'll give on what you recommend to the council as far as the road repairs first
of all my wife and I walk that Breast Creek Road frequently at different times
of the day and I would say on the average in a week of us and we try to
walk every day but sometimes it works out to about three days week depending on
how hot it is eight to twenty vehicles you know at a maximum pass us when we're
walking I don't know what studies have been committed to see what the future
traffic would be if it was expanded I for some reason I can in my mind see
where it would expand where it would need a six lane divided road so I would
hope that somebody is doing all the research and all the calculations to make
sure that it's needed and and I agree with with what Rick would said and that
is you know there's a lot of city streets and everything that need a lot
of attention for that money could be better spent at this time maybe in the
future that might be a good idea second of all the two concerns if it does go
through it's gonna wipe out the Apple's house and Dick's house and I'm the
second house in on the on the cul-de-sac there and even if it doesn't wipe out
their house I would be concerned about the the noise and I would wonder if if
this bond proposal includes the sound barrier wall that runs down that road
to to keep some of the sound away because I know on 2499 they have a nice
sound barrier wall down through there so I would hope that something is being
included in that another is the drainage I have on the backside of my pool about
an 8-foot retaining wall and when they built that development behind us they
put in the city put in three pipes that dump into that creek there we've had
water come up almost over the top of that retaining wall and we've had a
trampoline washed down the stream a brick seat that we sit on down there for
little fireplaces washed down through there so I'll be concerned about how
this is gonna affect the drainage whether it will or not I don't know I'm
sure there's some engineers that would be able to answer that question for you
and I would hope that you would inquire about that before making your decision
Dennis your time is up would you give your address also please
oh it's 8008 Wood Creek Circle thank you very much next up David Yoder my name is
David Yoder I live at 940 and 950 brush Creek Road I am technically in the
county but I am in Denton's ETJ we've lived there since 1986 and the ideal of
six lanes coming down brush Creek Road takes away half my front yard in both
pieces of my property and I think part of what we're trying to get clarification
is is for for not knowing what y'all are calling it I call it Hicker Creek West
and that is from River Pass to 1830 is that in this bond package the next one
is from 1830 all the way down brush Creek Road to 377 and the third one is
from 377 all the way up to 35 so at this point I'll even know I can't find
anything that tells me what all's in the package that you all are proposing or is
the piece from River Pass to three 1830 even in this package because if not
we're probably talking to the wrong folks you probably need to go talk to
the mobility people so I'd like clarification on that and if any of the
three projects that are proposed why is it why is it coming in this package
instead of waiting on till the mobility study is completed which I understand is
supposed to be done in February of 2020 which means then it seems to be getting
out ahead of what the city is proposing to do with the package the third one is
is can any give us any information I mean basically we're going on state
websites county websites city websites nothing shows me what's in the proposal
so first thing I think for a lot of us it would be extremely helpful to just
know what is being proposed but if if you're going to take 70 feet off the
front of my property on two pieces of property you're taking almost a third of
my property been there a long time I'm retired I went on found an old windmill
restored it put it up make it work I don't want to see it go away thank you
thank you
next is Troy Fulkerson
good afternoon my name is Troy Fulkerson I'm at 8204 Wickwood Court in Argyle and
you know my question is is that y'all moved out to Argyle this area about 14
years ago was a nice quiet you know Tulane Road been West Creek and I came
from Colleyville where Colleyville had the same battle here about ten years ago
where they wanted the widened glade road if you guys were familiar with that road
from 121 all the way up a policing line it's wonderful several years I don't
assure you the traffic on that road on the glade road is probably a hundred
times more what it is in West Creek my misunderstanding or maybe not
understanding why we want to widened West Creek what's the point we have a
county road right down the road which is country club road which just spent you
know hundreds of thousands of dollars to make that road that goes all the way 35
how about that so why are we spending all these tax dollars on West Creek the
county how we spent money on country club road what can't the seat of bitten
in the county get together and have a great road is already in the in the
infrastructures already there if we want to go any further off off of a country
club road we can stand up that direction but my my question this is why that's
the whole question why we will spend that kind of taxpayer dollars on a six
lane road for a great little neighborhood for what purpose just to
spend taxpayer money or can we take this money as the other gentleman said and
use it for other purposes but I live in the hills at Argo it's not my properties
being ripped out which is the ideal of taxpayer dollars and something that
doesn't really need to seem to be done so that being said that's all I gotta
say thank you thank you
next Gary Davis
my name is Gary Davis I live at 970 brush Creek Road in Argyle and what they
said to be honest I worked for the city of Keller it took me forever to get here
because you can't get here from there with the traffic really we just need I
do this same thing for the city of Keller and I know that we're not going
to change your mind on the route you're going to go that's already that horse is
out of the barn but the thing that I don't know which is what David Yoder said
is how many phases are there in this one how far does that take you when do the
next phases kick in in a timeline type of format and I don't think that's asking
too much and within that format some sort of a map that says you know here's
the route it's exactly going to take and here's how much property is going to go
from each side I would assume there's going to be some properties that you're
going to have to buy out that's okay but none of us really know what that is now
the question I have is when you go to the bond election in November I believe
it is this if that bond passes is that more than just Denton is that also
include County is that also include state whatever funding sources you have
is that important does that give you all funding sources if not where the other
funding sources kick in also what happens if it doesn't pass I'm sure it's
not going to just die you've got to get cars from point A to point B what's plan
B what happens when you do pass it what happens if you don't where the funding
sources come in and what's the timeline for each one of those that's what I have
to do with all of ours have to lay out straight maps aerials always help
aerials with dotted lines that show where it's going to go that's what we
know with a timeline thank you so much thank you and I have one of the card
with but something written on it but I have no name okay
good evening my name is Sam Slovak I live at 4905 Argyle Lane which is the
corner of Argyle Lane and Brush Creek a six lane major highway cutting through a
pristine area of Denton which many of us bought in that area for that very reason
will completely change the character of those neighborhoods as you put in a road
of this size and I look at the studies that have been issued you know they're
still talking about rural culvert for drainage you take drainage off of a six
lane highway and and that highway will be on the south side of all of these
homes which backs up to a flood zone so you're going to exacerbate the flooding
in all of those homes along the north side of that highway again it's been
brought up tonight that you put a road in of this size you're going to
significantly increase the noise traffic and there are no provisions in the plans
that I've seen that address that issue as well so I for one find it absurd to
think that you need a road of this size to be able to accommodate traffic out in
2035 when you look at the growth of the industry and the growth of the housing
is not not lined up with with the path that you propose to take you're taking
an easy way out down a floodplain area to build a massive highway that's going
to disrupt the lives and homes of some some very nice homes in the Denton area
thank you and the last card that I have is Colleen Mitchell
hello I'm Colleen Mitchell I live at 1300 Brush Creek Road in Argyle we've
lived in on Brush Creek Road since 2002 our property is on 40 acres and the
front of it would actually be taken out but it would not affect our home because
our house is way at the back of the property but if any of you have driven
down Brush Creek Road you'll see and I followed the men who were setting up the
that we're doing the surveying and I said what what are you doing and how how
are you going to you're marking these and and here's here's utilities right in
front of that do you know how many utilities you're gonna have to take out
to widen that road does anyone who realized that a six-lane highway is like
1171 drive down 1171 and see six lanes there's no way you can do that to brush
Creek Road without taking out so much land on this side and so much land on
that side it seems insane maybe make it four lanes because I think going straight
to 35w would be really a lot easier I mean it's a straight drop through but
don't ruin our properties we've all cared about that property we've all
taken care of that property for years and I ask for your attention to more
detail on what you're going to do and let us know thank you thank you hi those
are all the cards that I have what is your name
Perry Dyer
well good evening and thank you Perry Dyer 4,800 snowsills no show I don't
know how we pronounce it but Argyle it's in the hills of Argyle moved out there
just about two years ago I'm from a very small town out in Northern California
and it has a lot of charm has a lot of loveliness about it I was living over in
Corinth before I found this property with my wife and family and decided this
is where we want to spend our time acre lots rural close to everything but not
very far out if we decide that we need to create a draw to our area the small
town of Argyle the rural area of Rush Creek and those areas in there we're
gonna create a draw Roanoke is supposed to go insane in the next few years that
draw will move all these people up to our area because they'll be looking to
try to get out because we're in a unique situation where we have land for most of
us we take that land away we've turned ourselves into every other little city
around here and ruined all the charm of Denton South Denton in Argyle we don't
want to do that we don't need to have that ultimate convenience it takes a
good seven eight minutes to get to 35w from our house it takes 15 minutes if I
go the other way to go 35e we live in these areas because we'd like to have a
little bit of separation okay if I wanted to be five minutes from the
grocery store or five minutes from the restaurant I would go move into any of
these surrounding areas that are going gangbusters and are like that so I think
we need to take a step back and realize that maybe growth isn't exactly what we
need in all these areas and just step back and say let's let some rural areas
stay rural and not drive a bunch of traffic into areas because frankly if
that lane goes through on Brush Creek and it's six lanes I'm moving because I will
not be having that kind of noise I'm a half a mile from that road and it will
not have that kind of noise because I'd love to sit on my back patio and look at
the stars and not hear traffic so thank you for your time okay thank you and I
assume there are not any other cards
Jesse Calvert I did see your card
hello everybody we recently moved to brush Creek I live on 990 brush Creek
road right on the corner of Hamilton and brush Creek I want to talk a little bit
about the human element I'll walk my kids to the bus stop right there on the
corner of brush Creek and Hamilton the bus stops is great you sit on the front
porch sit on the back porch we moved from Dallas to get away from this type of
thing I've got 50-foot pine trees in the front of my yard that have been there
forever that this would take away and there's a lot more questions that other
people have broached but it seems like a waste to me is as far as there's
Country Club Road down that's wide enough to me anyway there's a golf course
that in my opinion could suffer a bit more than the the residents of brush
Creek personally my wife is suffering from three forms of cancer and this is
a very large inconvenience to say the least for everybody on our street but it
affects I feel like it affects our family horribly just getting the
notifications in the mail and all these things have really sent her in a
downward spiral with her health and just letting everyone know that there are
people involved in all this and it's not just getting people from point 8 point
B I understand progress but at what cost and that people have bought it brought
up really good points about flooding and it does flood down brush Creek brush
Creek a lot but please put in some thought to what we're dealing with and
and the questions we have and what's gonna happen with us and with our
property and to the the land it's I see this gentleman walk down the street all
the time I'm in my yard every day with my family doing things so please
consider all these things whenever this comes up thank you thank you did I miss
any other cards all right thank you all very much for your comments next item on
our agenda is to receive a report and hold a discussion regarding potential
projects financial considerations and other requirements related to the
proposed 2019 bond program and before David begins let me just sort of say I
think that this is a critical meeting for us tonight I think that that we want
to come out of this meeting with a sense of where our priorities are where we
believe that we want to make some assumptions on the growth rate and
therefore what the impact is on the tax rate so these this is this meeting is
one tonight in which we need as the committee to begin to take ownership of
this bond package we've had a lot of presentations from staff but over the
course of this evening it's it's in our hands and and we need to own this
package because ultimately when it comes time to go to the voters we're the ones
who are going to have to make the case for this bond package city staff can't
make the case and city the city council members cannot make the case it will be
this committee that will become a political action committee to work
toward the passage of this bond and in order to do that we have to own what
this bond is about and that's what tonight is is taking ownership of this
so with that I want to turn it over to David good evening committee David gains
director of finance for this item we're going we're going to take a step back
and look at the projects in total go through many of the financial
financial considerations that we've talked through up to this point and some
updated scenarios based on feedback from the committee and then after that we'll
get into some more detail on the street rehab program to answer a few questions
and on Ryan Road as well so that's the purpose of this presentation following
this perfect presentation the next item on the agenda is the prioritization
presentation which will go over the results of the most recent priority
prioritization survey obviously these will go these will really work hand in
hand with each other as you all start to make those make those decisions so to
set the stage here's our current project cost that we went over last last meeting
last week as we got those updates to the police renovation and police stuff
six substation projects so you can see the potential bond cost here in the
middle our total project costs that we've seen multiple times this total
project cost obviously including the other funding sources that come in for
those major roadway projects and then a funding option here I've highlighted a
few of these projects on the funding option column just because I think these
are some of those decision points for the committee to consider especially as
we get to that prioritization piece of today's conversation of what funding
level the committee wants on these projects Ryan Road is one have plugged
four million here obviously we have that four million to 19 million dollar range
at the end of this presentation we're gonna have a few slides that really get
into the detail of what that means so that you have concrete examples of what
is four million mean for that Ryan Road project from a city perspective what is
19 million mean from a city perspective so we want to go over some of the
financial assumptions that are built into all of our scenarios that we've
shown this shown this previously and just go through how we got to the
numbers of where we're at beginning with our debt issuance and next next year for
FY 1920 we are we do it have in our model to issue the final fourteen point
six million dollars of our 2014 bond program this will close that bond
program out have no nothing left to issue for the bond program but it is
included in all of our all of our models moving forward we also have five million
dollars in certificates of obligation for vehicle replacements and facility
improvements three moving forward in each of the years that's that's something
that we budgeted for multiple years now for annual improvements for our
facilities and for those replacements of vehicles and you can see the total
there with our vehicle replacements we typically do five-year debt and for
facility improvements we tenure down we are utilizing in the first few years of
the bond of our bond schedule to draw down a fund balance that is built up in
our debt service fund that fund balance really has just built up simply because
our assessed values have come in higher than the certified values over the past
few years it's built up a balance that's not necessary in our debt service fund
so we're able to then use that balance to pay off debt service in the next few
years which mitigates some of that increase that we would experience in
the tax rate with increased debt service payments for next year we currently have
a seven point three percent increase in our non frozen assessed values and we'll
talk about a little bit on the next slide but that's up through our last
preliminary values from the appraisal district we got those last Friday that'll
be those are the last values we get up until next Thursday or Friday when we get
our certified values and then we can really put some concrete numbers to what
we're expecting next year this is our estimate based on the preliminary values
we've received so far I will say the appraisal district has experienced
greater number of protests than they've ever experienced so that number has
fluctuate quite fluctuated quite a bit we've built in some room in this
estimate to anticipate that dropping further next year so we feel comfortable
right now at the seven point three percent number in non frozen values on
assessed value assessed value increase we'll talk about this on the next slide
as well but our assumptions that you'll see moving forward have a five percent
growth estimate for assessed value in future years past 19 FY 19 20 and then
for our interest rate we're currently assuming next year to have an interest
rate of three point seven five percent which is still above we just issued debt
this last week at three point seven five percent is above what we just issued
because rates are as low as they've been in a long time right now but to be
conservative we've kind of anticipated that to inch its way back up and then
have four and a half percent as an interest rate in those out years past
2020 and that's been an emphasis to it for the city especially over the past
year we've really stepped back and take taking a look a hard look at all of our
vehicles at our replacement policies we've been able to take some vehicles
that were utilized in multiple departments but not utilized very often
their utilization wasn't very high combine those and have some sharing
across the city so we've been able to reduce that continually to reduce that
this fiscal year and next fiscal year so it's possible that three don't need that
three and a half every year that may be a conservative number but that's what we
have built into the scenarios so obviously the assessed value is one of
the the most important of the assumptions that we have whatever number
we whatever percentage we pick for assessed value has a direct impact on
what that tax rate is needed that the tax rate increase that would be needed
on the debt service side to pay for our increased debt service payments so you
can see the history of our tax rate since 2014 we have been
experienced and really since 2011 2012 we started the growth but since 2014
significant growth that our assessed value that's not surprising to anyone and
here as you've seen your property values grow and the growth within the city up
through for comparison stakes in 2018 and 2019 we've shown our total assessed
value the growth of our total assessed value but we've also starting in 2018 had
the first impact of our over 65 tax freeze so for comparison sake showed the
total but really what what is important right now for our considerations and
what the new revenue that's coming into us is a seven point three percent of growth
in our non frozen values and David I think this might be a good point for the
committee to have some discussion about the assessed value growth that that the
task force is recommending but is also in the hands of this committee to decide
what do we want what do we want to assume in terms of property growth for
the coming years the committee looked at a number of different scenarios when
you when you see the growth that's occurring around here there was this
question of what's the right number there was some concern within the within
the task force that that it's been a while since we've had a recession and
what happens if we have a recession and we can look back in an 08 no 9 and 10
and we can see the recession numbers that impacted our property values at
that point in time so that was one consideration the fact that the we have
this much lower increase because of the non frozen values became another
consideration and so the the that the task force in looking at that felt that
four percent was too low and we looked at six but settled on five and I think
that the question that is really before the the bond committee at this point is
what are we comfortable with are we comfortable with that five percent
assumption do we want to be more aggressive or do we want to be more
conservative and so with that I would just sort of turn it over for your
comments and and thoughts on this this is one of those pieces we need to own
because this will also impact what the what the tax rate increase might be
David I know there's been some some bills passed recently state statewide or
state level that have affected cities in multiple ways one being taxes I wonder I
guess my question is that what is you know does any of that affect some of
these values that affect us locally or should we take that into consideration
sure it does as far as for the conversation just on the AV goes there's
nothing that will affect affect the I think later on and I'll just I'll come
back to this slide but just kind of give you a preview of some of the numbers
there's a lot of numbers here but one of the pieces I will talk about is the
the largest impact to cities right now as far as tax rate is a three and a half
percent rollback rate that rollback rate really is focused specifically on for
the most part the M&O the operations and maintenance rate so what we do on the
debt service side doesn't have a direct is not directly impacted by the three
and a half percent rollback so I'll talk about that a little bit later but that
that's the biggest impact and it doesn't have a big consideration for what you do
with the debt service tax rate thank you not to give you get you off track but
I've been requesting some information for the last month a month and a half do
we get it today time I got it we will get to that on slide 25 but we have can
it can I suggest that we come to that a little bit later let's focus on our
assessed value question and and what the assumption is that we want to make as a
committee on on the assessed value growth so as more and more of our citizens
become over 65 and properties continue to freeze we know we see the spread
between seven point three and eight point oh what happens have we thought
about that you know consideration it's definitely something it's still someone
new for us to try to try to plan for that I think when we first were
considering the freeze if you go back and look at some of our projections
previously we're expecting more of a gradual hit from the freeze but we
really kind of had that up front and now we've seen some gradual growth and what
the frozen amounts are as far as more people getting on to the freeze so I
think as we continue to see that if that trend plays out it'll allow us to eat
more easily project that in the future I think in future years is the gap between
those won't be as high because we're still having people add to the freeze
right now which I think it makes that gap a little bit wider than it would be I
think normally if we were looking at just non frozen versus non frozen and
frozen versus frozen it should be about the same so I think it's just I think
the majority of that is just because we're still at the beginning of the
process okay I trust you okay go ahead Patty then
Randy we talk about growth but I think within that growth we need to look at
what kind of growth this is what percentage of it is commercial do we
project will be business growth commercial industrial which has a very
low cost of service compared to residential and especially multifamily so
how has that factored into these projections have we considered that at
all have we considered cost of service there the our projections have just been
at a high level of here's the total AV as it grows as it's growing so we
haven't got to the level of commercials growing in X amount residential is
growing in X amount because traditionally as we dig into those
numbers it all kind of comes back to the high level three four or five percent on
the growth it's also difficult to to get to that level and have have validity in
those numbers as we get down to that point the cost of service question is
one that that we always that we have frequently and it's one that right now
we're you know engaging with different consultants to try to understand what is
that kind of break-even point but it's a little bit different than this
conversation but it is a valid point
Randy yeah just question about the so 2019 let's use 8.07 just for comparisons
but that's eight billion dollars an increase in property base is that
correct eight million you sorry yeah yeah that's the eight yeah eight this is
the total amount of the increase that's correct you're right that's a total eight
yes that's not a million dollar increase eight billion dollar increase
should be about eight hundred eight hundred million dollars I know our total
is around 11 to 13 billion so eight hundred million dollar increase so the
eight hundred million dollars and I know we've asked we talked about this and the
task force deal I just wanted for the committee to hear it but that how much
of that growth is new properties that have come on the tax rolls versus an
increase in existing properties so this year it's about four hundred and fifteen
million of that is new growth of the eight hundred million so about half of
strictly the increase yes okay so if we're talking about a five percent
increase and I know everybody is seeing all the projections on development the
on the around the loop and on the south southwest part of town is that we have
any idea what what that would mean to that that increase number we haven't
right now in our model essentially we're saying four percent growth and new
value and regular and existing value we right now don't have number a different
percentage for new growth in those different areas that's definitely
something we could look at though okay yeah I just I just want to clarify that
you know if there is if there are new properties coming on to the the tax
rolls and if it becomes more than the more than 50% of the annual project or
the projected increase I think that gives pretty good credence to five percent
versus four I'm with I don't think we should get as high as six that's too
close to seven point three in my opinion but you know my mind started at four
percent in the very beginning so I'm that makes me feel more comfortable with
five if we think there's a lot more development and properties that can be
added to the tax rolls in the next five years which all indications are it's
gonna it is gonna happen that I'm okay with five percent that's just other
questions or comments
the end of next week day after our next meeting right possibly the day Anna my
law firm could run its entire practice on protest for taxes this year just very
quick question if we're going to be honest with our citizens about raising
taxes what does the five percent mean to them well what let's let's it's about
25 about $25 a cent so thank you but I think there's as we'll go through the
process is important caveats to them when we say five cents we're not saying
five cents every year we say go up to a five cent tax it's in one year if these
assumptions fill okay comment I just want to make sure I fully understand this so
my understanding is that the growth rate assumption that we assume will then
determine how many cents on the tax rate we tell people that this could cause and
then it is the city's intention although they are not legally bound to ensure
that the debt service rate does not rise above that increase over the period of
the bond program is that a reasonable summary yes okay thank you okay Queen
did you have something oh no I think somebody said $25 where did I get that
from there's something about something you were saying and then for just yeah
on average on for our average taxable value on a home it's about $25 per
percent that increases okay the questions and comments on the assumptions
for the growth rate
yeah so would it be but I'll try again please feel free to jump in so sure
the July 11 2019 on program financial presentation page five I think that
might give a little bit more context so Eric while you're at while you're
restating out of a thank you I will run the risk of not looking at paper while
I speak so so my understanding is that the growth rate that we assume and also
the size of the capital package we asked for determine the projections of the
number of cents the tax rate the debt service tax rate may have to increase in
order to fund the the bonds right and then it is the city's intention that if
you can you go back to the chart with the sorry when it shows the the debt
service and or maybe we haven't gotten there yet yeah just that shows the the
combination of the debt service and the M&O rate the table sorry yeah yeah so so
then it is the city's intention that the second column there the debt service
rate would be held to whatever number of cents that is above the current rate of
21.5 cents throughout the the term of the bond program and so if economic
things change then they would change the issuance of the bonds the schedule or
something like that in order to not exceed the number of cents that we told
the voters that they might incur yeah isn't that when you when you put it
before whoever you buy the bonds from this is what your guarantee is for X
number of years of the bond unless it goes down that's a it's a little bit of
a different question the target when we're talking about the debt service
tax rate increase as Eric was saying that's really a number that we say
here's what we anticipate the impact on the debt service tax rate which all the
debt service tax rate does is pay our debt service payments so I mean it's
involved with that our debt service payments will go up as we issue more
bonds we anticipate that on this scenario it won't go up over five cents
but as Eric mentioned that's not you know in official language if we there was a
point and we had to make considerations we would obviously work through the
oversight bond oversight committee and City Council but the intention would be
to not cat go over that five cent debt service tax rate that was that was
published with with the bond program and the point is if we if we assumed a 7%
rate every year then we could say oh it's not gonna go up any more than three
cents in the next five years but I think it's it's much better to have a have a
somewhat conservative growth estimate and so that we know that this this five
cents is gonna be the maximum because we did keep our growth estimate at 5% which
hopefully is a conservative number are there are there any other questions or
comments if if not I would entertain a motion about what we will use as our
assumed property value growth rate assessed value property growth rate I'll
make a motion that we assume 5% a B growth is there got a second
anyone want to make a speech for or against that seeing none all the way I'm
sorry so we can't hold it at four no it's not good it's not doable I'm trying
to understand okay maybe I'll just try to add a little bit to what I was
explaining before I'm sure I get to the 200% mark the risk that I see if we
assume a higher AV growth than materializes is that or an aggressive
goal in other words would be that it's more likely that the city would either
have to change how quickly those bonds are issued to stay under the the
projection of how many cents it rises or that the city would have to renege on
that projection and raise it above that amount of sense is that accurate I say
the third option would be to not do a project I mean obviously the leader
laying the project or not doing okay but most likely would just be delaying the
project and fitting it into our issue and schedule if we delay a project that
gives more opportunity for inflation and and cost overruns when we finally are
able to do that correct which is why the goal is to set a rate set a tax rate
increase that we feel comfortable with that we don't end up in that situation I
think you know we have this slide later where we talked through this was a
question that was brought up last time of our last three bond programs did we go
over that max rate and we did not we've stayed significantly under that rate so
in 2005 bond program we said we were gonna have up to a four cent tax rate
increase so I'll just kind of describe what these lines are here this black and
black and blue line is our debt service tax rate since 20 2005 and the dotted
blue line above it is our max tax rate so as we go forward if we say you want a
four we go with a program that's a four or five cent that then becomes our max
starting next year so you can see throughout the 2005 bond program we
stayed well under our are the max four cents that we could have issued through
that program in 2012 the only reason it comes down here is because in 2012 we
went into a program that had had no anticipated no tax rate increase so
those just essentially stayed the same in 2014 we said we would have a four
cent tax rate increase and we're at a point now where we haven't used that
force those four cents because assessed values came in higher than we projected
so if we say we want five percent and that's equated to a four or five cent
tax increase but we get we get rates like we just saw worth eight percent to
ten percent over the six years of this program we're gonna stay you know well
below or not even increase the debt service tax rate to get there what rate
did we assume growth during five twelve and fourteen percent four percent so and
I'm running numbers because I'm trying to think of having the commercial
businesses residential and all these tax increases so I'm trying to get the
numbers right I'm sorry guys but I do think it's good on four I do come I see
where it is on five as well I don't know I'm just gonna get these numbers right
so you want to go to a different side were you looking at could you please I
think the one thing I would want to add at four we will have to assume a greater
tax rate increase and that's what we would have to take to the voters and
with the voters authorize a bigger tax rate increase and at five we kind of
split the difference potential potential right but we have to tell them what it
potentially could be
we have to really guess based on this alive Mike yeah based on past experience
and whatever brains in education we can bring to it because the AV is essentially
set by the county it's not but it's not a city unit the city is not setting its
own valuations so really what we have to do here is base a lot of our decisions
on a guess so how comfortable does the city and the staff fill with the five
percent right because we were initially given a four percent right we've used
four percent of the past can we get your kind of feel I ultimately we felt we're
comfortable with the five percent I think if if we weren't comfortable that
we would definitely give us raise alarms and I think I mean I think if we started
talking about six or seven percent we definitely want to have a detailed
discussion on that but five percent is something and it comes back to the new
growth and in the trends that we're seeing so we do have a motion and a
second on the floor is there any other discussion seeing none all in favor of
supporting the motion for a five percent assumption on the assessed value growth
please say aye do you need a you need a you need a handbook okay all right raise
your right hand or your left hand I don't care great all right so as we move
forward now we'll work from the assumption of a five percent growth rate
and what the impact would be with the various aspects of this and and David
one of the things that I think that you indicated to me earlier today was that
that you all have kind of rerun some numbers in terms of what five percent
might mean at different levels and I think that's what this slide is about it
is so this kind of leads into the forecast assumptions you know the other
the other variable that that plays a part in the total tax rate and the whole
plan itself is when do we issue the debt when do when do we need these when do
we get dollars for the program so we step back with our financial advisors
and looked at what how can we time the issue it says so we can get the projects
done but also at a issuance rate that has the least impacts on the tax rate
so that's what we're that's what we're presenting here you know obviously as we
look forward on this program we're gonna have a lot of cost in those first couple
years as you've seen the schedule for the police station the police for
innovation and a couple of those major projects so there is a big impact in
those first few years to our debt service that is where we're also helped
by that having that debt service fund balance that we're able to utilize in
those first few years to mitigate that impact from the debt service on the debt
service tax rate from what we have to pay with debt service so all those are
the factors that really play into it but we will by doing that and by taking that
look we're able to come here and say we have a five cent increase right under a
five cent increase on the two hundred thirty five million dollar project we
this was discussed if you would would you update the committee on the action
that the council took so obviously following last Thursday meeting last
Thursday's committee meeting one of the action items was to go to the City
Council and request that would they revise the resolution that that formed
the committee which had a not to exceed amount of 210 million dollars that
amount has now been increased to 235 million dollars there was some
discussion during the work session we presented the item to City Council a lot
of positive conversation from that from that meeting and they ultimately
approved it on their agenda and I think the the intent from them to approve it
was to just give the committee all the capacity they needed to have a full
discussion of the projects as presented all right thank you any other questions
in terms of this particular slide yes I was yeah I was agreeing with you were
saying we were at four point four four percent and then if that change had
happened today so I was just concerned you know hope you don't mind that yeah I
was just really concerned because we did say four percent sounds like oh my
goodness when we changed to five percent it rattled me a little bit because I was
really stuck on that does that make sense I don't know okay all right let's
move on to the next slide so this is a slide that was developed early from
conversations with the committee of different pieces that everyone wanted to
see with each of the scenarios so I'm gonna go through I'll go through fairly
quickly because there's a lot of numbers here and I'll hit on some of the the
numbers that I think we're of most interest but definitely can answer any
questions as we go through but for the 235 million dollar program we anticipate
a five cent increase in the debt service tax rate and you can see that on the
debt service tax rate here the second column that's bolded of how it how it
increases through the years where we really gradually come up to our largest
increases in FY 23 and 24 and through 26 and then it'll start going down after
that we also show our total tax rate which is a combination of our
maintenance and operations rate with our debt service tax rate and this is our
maintenance operations rate at the effective level for the entirety of the
program and then have shown here the three and a half percent rollback rate
and this again doesn't have a lot is not impacted very much by this bond program
itself other than some maintenance costs associated with any of the projects as
they move forward but wanted to show this here for context but three and a
half percent rollback rate is a new is new in the legislation that was just
passed by the Texas Legislature this year it'll go into effect next fiscal
year for us in our budget considerations for FY 2021 and what it says is we can't
go over three and a half percent of our maintenance and operations rate that's
actually that's paid by existing values so of the values that have assessed
value right now if they're if their assessed values increase what is the tax
rate next year that would be that would be needed to pay the same amount of taxes
they're paying yes this year and that's how that's that's based on three and a
percent over that I know that can be a little bit complicated so I can
definitely answer any more questions on that piece but I think it doesn't have a
direct impact on us here but it is an important consideration for us as a city
as we move forward over the next year six years of this program and after that
of how we pay for our ongoing operations and maintenance costs that are increasing
but also deal with the three and a half percent rollback rate yeah I did not the
currently it's eight percent or currently the the eight percent is the
rollback rate and the Texas the legislature has now moved that back to
three and a half percent and it's based just on the maintenance and operations
rate it's what existing homes the value that would be amount of property taxes
we get for maintenance and operations from existing homes this year what
would the rate be next year to get that same value and that becomes essentially
an effective tax rate and then we can't go three and a half percent over that
that rate without going to the voters to get approval for that new rate this is
essentially saying in this year based on projections we have now we could only
increase the maintenance in operations rate 1.3 cents before we'd have to go we
be over that three now I these are based on a lot of projections the first year
we're doing this so that I think that number is probably between one and two
cents in some range but it's there for consideration all right you want to look
at the next scenario we had another question and it may be one you can't
answer because it's a future question does the city anticipate having any more
bonds going forward in the next few years so I think that comes back to the
assumptions question if we're a five percent assessed value growth and we say
we get five percent every year of this program I don't think it would be
difficult to go back out and ask the voters to do another increase but if we
have a percent and ten percent and there's there's room there within the
debt service tax rate I think that's when the considerations would happen I
think it's also a very safe assumption if we're gonna grow the way we're
growing we're gonna have more bond packages in the future
so David I have a question for clarification it sounded like in your
procedural description of the three and a half rollback rate that that only
applies to the M in a row rate the way I see this table the three and a half
rollback difference really looks like the difference between the your total
tax rate that we're planning on and the three and a half percent rollback rate
that's computed over the entire yes is that correct you're right I was trying
not to confuse everyone no it's okay I just I just want to clarify so really
what that means is that this is sort of a benchmark target that we're trying to
hit to stay below that three and a half percent rollback rate for the entire tax
rate however legally what is required by the recent legislation is that the city
must go to the voters if just the first column of the M&O rate right so when you
collect the roll when you when you calculate the rollback rate you take the
maintenance and operate the effective maintenance operations rate you three
and a half percent above that right and then you add in what your debt service
tax rate is so the actual rollback rate is the total it's just only impacted by
the maintenance and operations okay so I did not confuse so the number that's
presented is is the complete amount okay so is that column that says three and a
half rollback difference is that computed the way that you just described
correct okay thank you so I think we're going to go through a couple other
scenarios here this is that this is assuming this is at 235 million which is
the cap of what we could do and it would be a five cent tax rate increase if we
did a smaller package at 210 which was the original number I think that's our
next slide it is I do want to point out as we look at all these scenarios and
this was one of the emphasis is from City Council as we went into the program
was to not have a program that would exceed our total our current total tax
rate and obviously the 235 is going to be our largest program that we look at
and it it does not exceed the total tax rate that we current have currently have
and none of the scenarios moving forward do it either understanding those are
all with our operations maintenance rate at our effective tax rate which is a
different discussion with council each year on the operation side the 210
million dollar program which has been the somewhat of the benchmark as we that
we've looked at throughout this process you can see again the debt service tax
rate here all the other numbers as we talked about previously that service
tax rate going up a little bit under under four cents so we would say the
max tax rate that we could see in this program at 210 million dollars would be
a four cent tax rate increase but you can see the total tax rate here remaining
under our current tax rate throughout the life of the program and so four cents
would fall in line with what previous bond packages had as as the high high
total of potential taxing 2005 and 2012 and 2014 5 and 2014 4 in 2014 2005 and 2014
they Queen is just asking about we'll be addressing some of the some of the
specific projects later after we get to get through the some of these important
discussions so the next scenario to that the committee asked for last week was a
hundred eighty million dollar scenario and really these scenarios worked out
fairly cleanly where it kind of went a cent per scenario 180 million dollar
scenario was equated to a three percent increase at some point in the debt
service tax in in the six-year program and again it just to emphasize even when
we say six cents here you're not really experiencing that until 2023 2024 it's
not every year you're gonna be over that amount and so one of our selling points
here and what the council gave us was that there's there would be no impact on
the effective tax rate for homeowners on whatever scenario we work with is that
right on the 100 million dollar scenario the goal the goal was to keep the
effective rate where it is which is basically where we are in total when you
look at the kind of the way that the hundred million dollar scenario works
out on the because the effective rate on the the total effective rate is just the
tax rate that effective rate will increase as we increase the debt service
tax rate but on the maintenance operation side we've kept that rate at
the okay thank you so 180 million three cents increase and then the hundred
million dollars has no tax rate increase on the debt service tax rate and actually
as you get to the the final years of this we are of this program we actually
our tax rate then goes on the debt service side below our current tax rate
I I think it's important to talk about the hundred million dollar scenario
because obviously when we spread a hundred million dollars out for six
years that's true we wanted apples to apples comparisons if we wanted to go
forward with a hundred million dollars in program we would really need to step
back and have a different discussion because to do the police station to the
renovation the substation and some of these street projects where we need a
lot of dollar dollars up front that may become a four-year program that does
have a debt service tax rate increase so we've shown this here and obviously we
could you know we would take a detailed look at how we would issue a hundred
million dollars but it would not be the same way that we would issue the other
scenarios okay we showed this chart previously just showing that gap between
the max tax rate and our history on the debt service tax rate side and that's
the chart that shows that we did four cents previous right so we have the four
cents there in 2005 and the gap between that and in 2014 we had the four cent
max that's that service tax rate increase and we stayed below that through
the life of that program so over these not these next few slides of show some
of the same information but just show the impact to our debt service tax rate
our debt service payments for each year of the different scenarios this came up
last week as we talked about the number of our total debt our total debt
outstanding versus what the debt we would issue would be and how all that
debt doesn't hit us at once that we have debt falling off as new debt arises so
our debt service payments are that obviously the payments we make each year
on our general government debt so this year about 25 million dollars in debt
service payments in general government and you can see if we were not to issue
anything going forward how it would drop off over the next 20 years and just
similar to a home payment where you have your interest out front and then you're
paying more principal later in the program so there are quite a few lines
here but I think there I can explain them fairly easily to everyone the red
line is all right what we just saw that's essentially our existing debt
service over the 20 years and you can see how it falls off the greed that the
blue line is that we just issued debt this this week with City Council to for
some certificates of obligation and for our 2014 bond program so you can see
that already increases that red line to our starting point the green air the
green line is the deditions I mentioned earlier the 2014 the fourteen point six
million dollars will be issuing and then the orange yellow line is are the
certificates of obligations I mentioned that will be issuing each of those years
for facility maintenance and and the vehicle replacement so essentially this
this yellow line becomes if we were to do not do a program at all and not do a
program any bond program over the life of you know the next 20-25 years what
would the impact be so if we were to do no bond programs for 25 years here's how
the debt service rate would decrease with the 235 million dollar number you
235 billion dollar program you can see how that debt service tax rate does
increase as we start as we issue those bonds and then starts decreasing as
we're just paying those those bonds off but to kind of tie it back to the
earlier conversations in this scenario essentially what we're saying is the
additional five cents max could pay for the difference between this blue line
and the purple line so that the tax rate increase does also pay for some of the
other debt will be issuing in future years and can you remind the committee
what the current total debt that the city has it's supported by property tax
sure I mean I'll pull it up to be exact about 260 million dollars but I have it
on this other presentation so 260 million dollars is our current outstanding debt
and so this would be if we did a 210 million dollar program we showed last
last week if you with the interest on that over the life of the debt we were
anticipating that would be about a 316 million dollar program so when you look
at those numbers side-by-side it looks like we're doubling our debt but because
as we showed the debt service is falling off on that existing debt and then is
getting to plan and obviously going above our current debt service amount but
that's how that interplay works and I think you said last week about 98
million would be retired over the life of this this current bond proposal yeah
over the six years of the bond program about 98 million of our current debt
would be retired
so the remaining slides just kind of emphasize the point on the debt service
tax rate as we have each scenario you can see that the jump there isn't quite
as much as we as we come down but a similar story and for the 180 and I
think it's I think just to point out even with this hundred million dollar
hundred million dollar program which we've looked at for comparison and we're
saying that would have no debt service tax or an increase and in fact a
decrease in latter years you still have it going up but what this increase in
assessed value that we're going to experience the debt service rate needed
to pay off is doesn't increase any questions on any of that
yeah so each so you can see it kind of as it goes up each year it's in 2020
we're issuing issuing our first round of issuance for bonds for the for the
program in 2021 we're issuing our next round and then all the way up to 2025 26
where we've issued the all of our bonds for the program and then it starts
decreasing because we're simply just paying the debt service down at that
point so keep this all in mind as we move here shortly to what what the
prioritization list is and where that running total is because that will be
part of what we ultimately are going to take up here in just a little bit David
you want to continue I I'll go through these slides but obviously Todd essence
here as we go through it we wanted to touch on the street rehab program and
the neighborhood streets and just make sure obviously this is a discussion
we've had previously but just to make sure everyone understands how what the
plan right now is just to spend that 70 million dollars and how it breaks down
for district and in different areas of the city so our neighbor the neighbor
one of the one of the opportunity the plans that we had as we move for look in
our street rehab program was to focus on neighborhood streets like neighborhood
street neighborhoods throughout the community and have that be the basis
that we that we that we that we did our street rehab program this year as we had
conversations with the committee and considered other alternatives we
ultimately decided to do the hybrid approach where we said we're going to
focus on these neighborhoods that we gain efficiencies on by having the roads
near each other having those connector streets able to do water or wastewater
improvements along with the street improvements along with the next slide
which will show the focus with the other half of the street rehab dollars on
those low OCI those the streets in the in the city with the lowest quality so
I'll just touch on the financials here quickly and then turn it over to Todd on
the neighborhoods on the neighborhood streets you can see with the
recommendation right now street the neighborhoods one three and four are
included in the 70 million dollars and I'll turn over to Todd to kind of go through those neighborhoods
Todd Estes City Engineer we've been through this just briefly but hopefully
just a little bit more detail and what the city staff has been working through
as we try to prioritize what goes into these neighborhoods this neighborhood
program as we would call it so we're looking at several different neighborhoods
in the area there's no again no prioritization assigned to these numbers
that was just when we numbered it we started at the top and we numbered going
down to the bottom it was one two three four five six seven that circle back up
to the middle there's no rhyme or reason to the numbers but we are going to roll
through just what these neighborhoods look like that we're proposing as the
top three neighborhoods that be included in this and and they do as we've talked
about before realize the actual lowest average OCI throughout those
neighborhoods of all those seven that we had considered these were the seven
worst as a neighborhood considered average OCI so the top three are the
ones that we were nominating to go forward in this program so as we look
into these streets and these neighborhoods so neighborhood four was
actually our lowest average OCI that is the southeast Denton there in
neighborhood area so if you look at that area we talked about last week that's
about twelve point eight lane miles of roadway that would be totally
reconstructed combined with that would be water wastewater improvements a lot
of aging infrastructure that needs to be improved all at the same time plus
there's another seven to thirteen lane miles of maintenance that needs to be
done with those roadways that are not in that 45 OCI and under they're over that
45 benchmark so that's still in the area where we would be doing maintenance I
don't care where you're on the city we'd be doing maintenance of different scales
different amounts over time to prolong their life the next neighborhood this
neighborhood once upon the north side of town through previous bond packages this
is one of those neighborhoods that really fell into that shotgun approach
we talked about in the past where we took the absolute lowest OCI we tackled
those in the bond program and then in an effort to try to stem some of the
frustration that the neighbors felt in those areas we came in with O&M money
and tried to tie those segments together so there were roadway pieces in that
neighborhood that were left out this closes the gap on that neighborhood so
that we're not coming back in the next 20 25 years working on roadways that we
did 30 years ago and then five years after that coming back and doing the
roads we could have done again so this closes that neighborhood that neighborhood
still on average has the lowest overall OCI up from the southeast Denton
neighborhood area so this would be the same and that we would be tackling all
of those infrastructure needs at one time the water wastewater drainage and
streets at the same time and then the next is neighborhood three that's really
over South University Drive more in that area around Denton High School just
north of North Texas north of the Hickory and Oak area this area still has
quite a few holes left in it from an overall OCI plus a lot of aging water
wastewater infrastructure that just needs to be addressed so that was where
number three came on staff's list as the top three projects those three round
out to about 39 million dollars combined when it just in roadway improvements
when you add in the water wastewater improvements it almost doubles that
number it's a nearly 70 to 80 million dollars worth of investment in those
neighborhoods that does not include the O&M costs that would also be associated
over time for those roadways that don't fall into this category of needing to be
totally reconstruction 45 or less so then the remainder of those roads were
what we've looked at how do we get to a 70 million dollar somebody had mentioned
as we got some savings out of Ryan Road somebody on this committee asked what if
we took to get up 70 million dollars so that we can round out that number to 210
again or some other things have happened for that numbers being considered to be
larger so at 70 million dollars the cutoff point for if we kind of do this
hybrid approach of we we tackle three neighborhoods that are in need
holistically and then address all of the worst roadways left we could get up to
about those roadways that are at 20 OCI and less so they're really on the lower
end spectrum of the OCI scale again that OCI goes from 100 being the best zero
being the worst 20 really becoming a safety problem as well as a maintenance
problem for us just consistently going out and doing things when you add those
elements back in that brings back up brings the total amount to roughly 70
million dollars it's 69.8 so round it a little bit as engineers we love to get
into significant figures and that's where we ended up at 69.8 but it's 70
I can take into account some other things you can get there so this map
shows one of the questions we had what does what does the 70 million dollars do
from a council district perspective how many of those roadways how many lane
miles how much money is going to each district so what this chart really shows
you is that and I don't know why the average OCI is popping up here that was
left over that has nothing to do with this up here my apologies for that these
when you look at this we were broken into two groups so you've got the
neighborhoods which are these lines in blue so they still contribute to how
much money of that 70 million we would be putting into that into this bond
package so we group them by district so if you see an N next to the number
district one N is that neighborhood so that's that southeast Denton
neighborhood for district one looking at roughly 11 million dollars in roadway
cost of that 70 million and then there's another 6.3 miles lane miles of work to
be done in the 20 and under OCI category that doesn't lie just within that
neighborhood so that brings it total investment in that area to roughly 17
million dollars so that's really how you read this chart the total comes up to
70 million dollars but anytime you see that in it's that neighborhood and of
course see in district for we're not proposing a neighborhood at this time to
go into this program by and large most of those streets will be handled by the
current ongoing maintenance program that we have and then at a later date there
will be roadways that fall under a future bond package then you've also got
3.9 million in low OCI roadways in district for so any questions about what
this charts show and this map
does this include streets that have OCI of 20 or less that will be reconstructed already with previous bond funding no it's
correct and does this include streets of 20 or less that will be funded in this
bond program but don't fit within one of those one two three or four
neighborhoods yes that's why the separation between those two lines so
there are streets that fall 20 unless 25 unless they're in that neighborhood so
the two categories are separate from each other so yeah so I'm speaking like
for instance if I just look at the map there's one street just south of Windsor
on the west side of town next to I-35 way west oh back over here yes that's
not in any one of the four neighborhoods that you've identified right now you can
see the neighborhoods we've identified yeah they are the blue lines so here's
this is number four neighborhood four this is neighborhood three and this is
neighborhood one those are those blue lines okay so these kind of purpley pink
lines those are all the other streets that are under a 20 OCI yes everywhere
else in the city understood and are those pink lines it elsewhere in the
city are those included in this table that's that's what this second line is
right here those are all the OCI is these pink lines okay those are the low
OCI streets 20 and under that are within district 1 and then here the same thing
for district 2 okay I'll have to go back to a previous presentation because I in
my notes I had that it was about a hundred and one or a hundred and two lane
miles for the total reconstruction program I know there are segments 102
segments maybe confusing segments and lane miles okay thank you very much
what's the one what's one in where's that where are we handling so district one
is here okay so one in is the neighborhood we're proposing as far as
back in so that's that southeast end in the neighborhood that's all these lines
in blue and then there are other roads within district one that are also under
20 OCI and they are these pinkish purple lines within district one that's what
the second line shows
other questions or let's move on to the next slide so just reiterating how we
kind of arrived at this program it really is a hybrid of what we've done in
the past where we would like to go is more the neighborhood approach so we
really impact a neighborhood one time and then not have to come back other
than minor maintenance for a good 30 to 40 years longer if we get that lifespan
how that roadway through the robust maintenance program that we have right
now so that would be the goal but recognizing we still have a lot of
streets that need that attention that are leftover from a lot of inattention
over years we're combining that with the old shotgun approach which has been the
the preferred preferred model from the previous bond packages so we're marrying
the two together
do we have so the neighborhood approach takes OCI 40 below do we have a map that
shows every 40 below street in the city yeah we actually have every street
within the city and it's current OCI mapped and then we'll be double
checking that degradation model surveyed in 2015 we'll be doing that again this
fall so that we can check our models to make sure they're accurate and what
they're predicting is that I'm sure it's probably not available tonight but I
would be curious to see that just just to see I like the neighborhood approach
David will do the technical okay we do have that mapping and we did show it at
a previous presentation where it showed all the streets within the city and we
can break it down all the way down to a one-point difference it's hard to read
the map what we had broken down was arranged very much like this where it's
color-coded we can see all the streets that we we know of throughout the city
of it now this does not include new developments that have been placed since
2015 that's what the new survey will also capture is all those new
developments as well right any any guess if we did the neighborhood approach and
instead of 20 OCI we took it to 30 OCI I guess yes it's hard to get an idea of
how bad an OCI 20 Street is so if you go to a third and agree I mean once you
start getting below 40 it's difficult it's varying degrees of bad so a street
that falls into a 20 OCI may have a variety of issues with it one what we
would call base failure but you would see it as several segments of the road
really dropping beyond another segment of road we might see some heave where
one piece of the road elevates over the others you see a lot of large potholes
you'd see a lot of what we would call alligator cracking it looks just like an
alligator scales across the pavement as those get wider water infiltrates into
them then you start running into issues or whether roadway tires on the roadways
start pulling them up as they hit them if we go through any kind of freeze
thaw cycle the once or twice in a year we get here if there's water in those
points they also get in there water expands pulls that stuff up and then you
get your next pothole so they may also be base failures there's a there's a
whole host of things that could happen once you get below that 30 OCI but it
from a number standpoint our estimate has been about 95 million just to
address 30 and less that doesn't include the neighborhood right right okay so if
I'm reading this correctly so zero to 20 is 35 so the neighborhood approach is
about 35 and we've refined that since since why these numbers are just a
little bit different now we continue to refine that number it's actually just a
little over so if we wanted to raise the standard to zero to 25 plus the
neighborhood it'd be another 25 million dollars yes okay that's that's where I
was trying okay I have a question about the roads and everything because this
afternoon actually this morning as I came back into my house there was a
water main break underneath the road on Locust anybody trying to go north on
Locust yeah sorry but so when you're looking at the OCI you're looking at the
top layer obviously yes and then the banks and are you looking at the water
mains underneath it and the age of those water mains so we were it doesn't fall
into the OCI because that strictly is a pavement assessment but the water
department the wastewater department has a similar so categories that they line
up all that grade all their infrastructure similarly and then we
work with them Danny is it quarterly monthly that y'all are talking about
your next 30 60 90 and then five-year outlook monthly they're working closely
together to make sure that water with it being under pressure when a pipe gets to
be 20 30 years old or there could be other things coming online if just a lot
of different things that could happen in the 1940s right yeah because that I mean
that affects those three neighborhoods too that we've looked at that's one of
many reasons why some of those roads are so bad is the underlying and that's
exactly why we want to go to this more holistic neighborhood approach is we
want to replace everything in that roadway so that it's not that problem
going forward
there is I mean from one standpoint we can actually contract a lot of this
work out to a general contractor and he handles we get a lot of economies of
scale so we can get the price points better we can get the work done faster
because the general contractor is in control of all of those facets the water
the wastewater the drainage the roadway he can schedule it it's his task to be
done city crews what typically happens for our crews is we get called from one
construction site to an emergency and then another emergency and then we
disappear from a construction site not because we don't want to be there but
because there's another emergency like a water main break on locust that we've
got to go and what people don't realize is as soon as the water department goes
then following right behind them is the street department is they've got to come
in they've got to fix that roadway piece now that had to be torn up just to get
to the waterline so you get better economies of scale just from a price
point and then how quickly we can get the work done because we're not so
distracted and distractions not because we're not focused on the work it's just
there's so much work to be done and very few crew members to actually go do the
work internally it's a better use of staff time and resources as well as
taxpayer dollars to let them do what they're really good at we can put them
where the emergency and the high priority is but not keep them focused for
months on end right there if I could suggest let's let's try to finish this
part of the presentation and then we'll be taking we'll take a short break but
let's get through the rest of the of the initial presentation and when we come
back we'll be moving into the prioritization list
okay so any more questions on the neighborhood streets okay so the next
next item that we took as a task this last week was give you an idea of what
does say a 10 million dollar Ryan Road look like versus a 25 million dollar
Ryan Road look like so really the difference between those two spectrums
was how much do we want to invest today into Ryan Road our current area study
for that area shows that the demand for Ryan while still the roadway needs to be
improved it doesn't need to be improved to a four lane divided roadway which
also helps us on some of the cost it shows that long term up to 2040 our
current projections are you really don't need more than a three lane roadway and
that's to help with the vast majority of these neighborhoods that are come have
come in over time where the roadways don't line up as intersections which
allows us to put in a four lane divided roadway or a two lane divided if you
ever had a chance to need one where I can put in a left turn bay and get
people off the travel lane to make their left turn when you have so many left
turns all the way throughout a corridor then the best thing to do is to put in
that middle lane to where you can allow people to get out of the travel lanes
and get in the middle you see the similar effect when you build a four
lane roadway with no median a four lane roadway works almost exactly like a
three lane roadway because what happens is as you develop you get the same thing
the inside lanes become left turn lanes that's where people sit and wait to turn
and now you've only got the outside lanes left so where we've pushed is as
we start looking at more of a truly contact sensitive roadway where I'm gonna
put in all modes of transportation is how much roadway do I really need for a
vehicle for the motorist and how much room do I could I also use not to build
a very big road and a lot of expense going into the road but also put in
pedestrian infrastructure bicycle infrastructure take care of the
drainage issues and floodplain issues that exist so one option would be if we
went with the ten million dollar option would be that we would go to the state
for the intersection improvements on both ends of Ryan so they they have a
policy of within 600 feet of an intersection that the state engages in
intersection improvements so that is an a hurdle that we are working with the
state on just to get that piece done as they work 2181 and 1830 they have
dollars for both we know that exactly for 2181 because everybody's seen the
cone still sitting out there and then 1830 they are we're working with them
currently on what is 1830 look like as they have dollars coming to the table
over the next two years to spend on that roadway so those two projects and where
we're pulling about six million dollars off of the overall budget whether you're
doing the 10 million or 25 million dollar option that's intersection
improvements purely so the remainder is how far would you like to go to put some
improvement into Ryan Road so that 4 million would allow us to basically
construct three lanes but really not a whole lot else out there so we could put
the three-lane roadway in but the other amenities the side paths bicycle paths
walking paths a lot of the street lights and you'll see that on the next slide
you know street lights the street trees kind of give it a much more accessible
feel a more aesthetic feel that scenario would be more of the 20 million or the
19 million dollar investment on our side because it does address a lot of other
issues one of the other driving factors here is your drainage of improvements
you really I know this graphic shows curb and gutter on both sides it would
not be curb and gutter is one of the largest pieces from a cost perspective
in any one of these roadway projects is drainage and if I'm only having to focus
on the low spots on the road improve that culvert and build it up so that it
does handle the hundred-year storm but I don't have to put in curb and gutter
storm inlets storm drain pipes down the entire length of the roadway my cost goes
down substantially so I'm relying on bar ditches at that point and it still has
much more of that rural feel to it similar to what's out there today so
that's the biggest jump in cost when we start going down that pathway this would
also the this 10 million dollar option would also not be three lanes the entire
length it would be through segments where it made the most sense so it'd be like
segments in front of the school to make sure that there was plenty of room for
queuing of vehicles for pedestrians and students to get where they need to go
and then some of the other places along that area which we were still in the
process of figuring out where exactly would those locations be the overall 25
million dollar project would get you the three lanes the entire length with all
the other amenities so that just gives you a snapshot of what is really the
difference between these two projects any questions yes ma'am two questions one
sidewalks in front of the school not an option right there have to have sidewalks
in front of this we don't disagree with you on that one and that's not where we
would be talking about not doing that that would absolutely be part of our
safe rest the school program as well so that would be a yeah yeah yeah aren't
they already there I think are in front of that school I think so
Ryan they're only on Ryan but they're not from the neighborhood so it would be
nice if we could complete that but my other my other question is Teasley which
part of Teasley is kind of constructed like God help us it is the segment from
Teasley and Teasley where Lillian Miller then takes off north and then go and it's
all the way south to right around the corner of Geier high school so all of
Teasley yes and I know it's going to be two to three years before pretty much
before that's before it's completed so that project is has a challenge right
now from the standpoint that the contractor that text on had contractor
with went bankrupt right so they terminated that contract we do understand
from text out that they have a new contractor coming on board through their
bonding company and they're negotiating terms with that as far as a timeline of
when they get started I don't know okay because how would that impact the
construction of Ryan Road it wouldn't miss well I mean any construction has an
impact but as far as timing it wouldn't necessarily impact the Ryan Road
construction even in the intersections on both ends is typically when we're
working with the state there's always the fundamental question if their state
funds tied to it of are you building it or am I building it and then we enter
into what's called a local project advanced funding agreement and we
determine who's building who's doing what and that would go to council as far
as would we build that piece I would say we probably would that would be our
posture at the point but until we really negotiate the terms of that agreement I
wouldn't tell you where it landed I had a question about the sidewalks and things
on Ryan Road and I understand on both sides you would need to do the drainage
and you would do sidewalks on both sides and that's what's bringing it up to that
cost of 19 million right because the neighborhoods the housing primarily is
on the one side and then the school is on the other side so you kind of need
that the sidewalks getting from the neighborhoods and everything so you'd
want to have sidewalks on both sides right if you wouldn't just do sidewalks
on one side of Ryan for the 25 million we wouldn't that would be sidewalks on
both sides yes it wouldn't be anywhere near that price I mean sidewalks is not
a cost differentiator and it could be something that would be rolled into the
sidewalk program in general just because of the elementary school because of the
neighborhoods because that's where the retirement village is that's where
Wrigley Park is I mean there's a lot of walking that's done on yes and I believe
the sidewalk actually exists from Forest Ridge all the way over to the school so
that is in place right it's continuing and the challenge here is you've also
got a division in the school district here so when you follow El Paseo these
homes all filter to Ryan everything to the north of it all goes to Sam Houston
and they're in the same boat there's really not a sidewalk network over on
that side for children to walk over that way so there are several ways to get
there our first focus would be looking at safe routes to the school program and
that tends to be where we get the biggest bang for our buck
so a question in the past it had come up as to how much money had been spent the
southeast Denton neighborhood area and this just gives you an idea of the
funding from the 2014 bond segments that was actually put in to the southeast
Denton area one of the areas that I know is under construction currently this
curling right water and wastewater and then the roadway comes after that so
that's currently under construction right now and then you've got a list of
the different streets here where we've done some work within that area over the
in the previous bonds the question was asked that where it is we're absolutely
looking forward in 2019 to be able to put a vast majority of resources into
that area and bring it up to where it should be so do we plan on having these
streets that are remaining completed by 2019 I'm sorry can you tell me that
again I'm some of the streets in southeast Denton that are on those 2014
that are left remaining to be fixed are we planning on having them complete it
this year next year it'd be 2020 I believe it's what the last on that
streets segments would be from the last time we looked at that prioritization it
would just it'd be 2020 we have a whole host of roadway segments that will last
linger into 2020 to complete the 2014 bond so this is the amount that's
actually been spent on repairing southeast didn't on it from the 2014
bond right 2012 and 2014 right did you have the maintenance numbers overall
man is that what this is okay so that's the street maintenance we put in you
remember how many lane miles that was so maintenance dollars typically go a lot
further then total reconstruct dollars so from a maintenance standpoint we can
tell you of the actual distances but that is the amount of money understood
that was a question before and we can get more detail if you would like that
the actual dollar spent that is where it is okay yes I would now I do have a
question um with southeast didn't we have a lot of streets that need to be
repaired but we're trying to do an area over here by Argyle where the residents
haven't even agreed to it yet when we can either cut it down go a different
direction and spend this in southeast didn't or central didn't to where we
don't take them out for their property or cutting to their property or we can
push it for further back I mean push it back to where we can wait and do it
another time like in April of 2020 instead of right now because these are
other areas that need to be fixed why haven't we done why aren't we
considering that that is the purview of this committee this was our starting
point this is the purview that committee to have that conversation when we come
back after the break we're going to go into those specific projects and that'll
be the appropriate time to really dig into that okay that's fine okay so with
the bond that we have now we're looking at ten point eight million for southeast
in yes ma'am right I know in the bond reconstruction dollars right for streets
that's just for streets the water wastewater dollars approach almost 13
million dollars and then overall maintenance for the other roadways that
don't fall into the 45 and under category that's another two million
dollars two and a half million dollars that gets put into southeast Denton as
well there was a street that was just fixed bushy bushy Street in southeast
didn't there was nothing wrong with it can we tell can you tell me why was it
redone I'd have to look into the particulars I don't know and I'm asking
about this tree because it's a block away from me and I drive down this
street everyday I couldn't tell you what was actually the impetus there it could
have been a host of reasons and I don't know a lot of times reconstruction also
gets confused with I know my wife did this with one project where on our
street they blocked off the entire street after having rebuilt the entire
roadway about a year and a half before and they came out blocked off the whole
street and then they were gone by the end of the day but not after five phone
calls from her telling me you're out here building the roadway again and what
they were doing was maintenance on that roadway so that's why I stopped and
talked to the guys and I asked them was there any water leakage or anything or
the pipes or why they were actually fixing that stream they told me no we
just wanted we just came out to fix it really I have his name written down so
that would be good if you let me know how it is but I'd have to look into that
okay anything else that we need to address with Tom before we take a break
here yeah yeah and it says five minutes so let's take a break five minutes we
do have quite a bit of work still to do and we'll come back and we'll get into
the prioritization way as return as we return to our meeting of the bond
committee we're going to move into prioritization questions and to start
off this part of our meeting we'll turn back to Todd we've had obviously a lot
of questions about Hickory Creek Road and and let's try to address those
questions all right so Hickory Creek Road it was a hot button earlier this year
and it still continues to be that so one of the issues that I've heard raised so
far is why the six lane facility well six lane facility was on the 2015
mobility plan the traffic demand model used to develop that had shown Brush
Creek Hickory Creek going all the way over to 35 W you have it up so this is
the 2015 mobility plan this is what was approved in 2015 these red lines are
primary roadways they're arterial roadways they would be up to a six lane
roadway it was contemplated in 15 that these roadways with this is Brush Creek
here all red continuing over and then ultimately as development progressed on
the west side of 35 W there would be an interchange in frontage roads and you are
seeing that today with text dot now bringing the project forward to build
frontage roads on I 35 W that's the next step in this 35 W improvement so as the
frontage roads come they will build that piece and then the main lanes get
improved along with all of these improvements to the interchange is so
that long term already does become an interchange now one of the concerns I've
heard raised it has been why a four lane or a six lane roadway could we squeeze
it down to a four lane absolutely that is absolutely where our study tells us
we did an area study because we didn't know exactly where the 2015 model came
from when it was really looking at its connectivity points where these points
were ties into the highway it the models only as good as those tying points so as
we start looking at alternatives this 2015 mobility plan is one alternative the
other alternative would be bringing a Hickory Creek over the floodplain
straightening out this roadway bringing it all the way across at 35 which does I
know it sounds a little reverse and the logic but yes a lot of people travel
1830 and 377 and 2181 today because they have no other option north they could
travel those two lane roadways but where they're trying to get to takes them
north which is also causing some of the increased traffic we see on roads like
Hobson Road and Ryan there's people trying to get north to ultimately go
south whether it's 377 or 35 W or 35 E as Hickory Creek becomes a true
connection and not just a jump to a roadway and then skip to another roadway
if it's a true connection that would ends up happening at that point is the
demand to the north comes south as people try to get to 35 W or 35 E so
that's where our projections came from as we were looking through where does
this roadway go again it still follows the 2015 mobility plan now all that
being said we are not designing this in a vacuum we were given design dollars
earlier this year after the fatality accident that occurred on Hickory Creek
Road down in this area city council gave us three million dollars to look at
alternatives and one of the keys that we went to is as we start talking to our
local partners whether it's the county the state city of Argyle also the
Council of Governments we're looking for alternative funding sort of sources so
that we can start planning this roadway and putting it in place so the 30 is a
34 35 34 million dollars that we are talking about as part of our bond
program leverages it's our match so to get those other dollars the city has to
put in some amount of money to leverage those dollars further so that 34 million
is our piece of that ultimate 160 million dollar project so what 36 million
say those things don't pan out say we don't get the funding for some reason
then what that does do with that 36 million dollars is it builds one bridge
of ultimately two bridges so there would be two three lane bridges that would go
over the floodplain that builds one of them so instead of having two parallel I
would just build one and then we'd put a three lane roadway in that covers the
cost of a three lane roadway with no help that's a right away that's the
infrastructure to support it that takes care of everything to get us over to
1830 from River Pass it also goes over the railroad tracks so you don't have
the concern of vehicles pedestrians cars intersecting a train as it goes through
it separates the two and takes us up over the railroad tracks and then
continues across the floodplain over to 1830 so it takes those fatality chances
almost to a negligible point then as we continue to go west what we're cognizant
of is one of the things we talked about earlier is development is coming in this
area so there's a significant amount of development that has submitted for
application is currently under construction or we've already had
multiple conversations with developers who own parcels or properties out that
way that are building that does not mean that we're just gonna go put in a six
lane roadway for the fun of putting a six lane roadway in our charge has been
to dot design this in the most context-sensitive way as possible we do
that with every street we're doing and that means we take into account what is
the setting is it more rural in nature is it more residential in nature is it
more of a commercial industrial district each of those has a very different feel
a very different amount of transportation in different modes so a
lot of pedestrians cyclists vehicles in a much more neighborhood type setting
versus an industrial sector where I have a lot of public transit that brings
workers to work so my sidewalks are there just to get you from the bus stop
essentially to get you to where you're working and then a lot of room for big
trucks to drive through so a heavier duty pavement wider areas so that a truck
can move back and forth as it needs to be so as we look at Hickory Creek Road
and we look at its ultimate design going forward we are going to be very
interested in what areas of this roadway might need to be a little narrower
because they are in that rural area they're in an area that the potential
for growth may be less than in other areas where we've got a lot of homes
coming in right on top of each other so those areas there's absolutely room for
a narrower roadway for not having to have as much right-of-way taken and I'm
thinking exactly of the Brush Creek area when you start getting into that
area there is room for both to coexist our current traffic demand model for
this area the revised model when we looked at Hickory Creek and would be
incorporated into the ultimate mobility plan update looks at this area as being
my you can help me out where I start to falter with words there pretend because
he's the traffic guru we're looking at that area as it's rural I don't know
you've got one acre homes there established homes you're absolutely
right we don't want to come through that area and just cut a wide swath of right
away through there that we're not going to need for 40 years our study goes out
to 2040 and even at 2040 we're not seeing a projected need for anything
beyond four lanes so much further into the distant future that might be an
occurrence where you'd need six so what we would typically do on roadways where
we've already said at some point you will need the six lanes maybe it's 40
years 50 years out we would get the right away width for six lanes
especially if we have a lot of commercial development a lot of heavy
small residential coming in the area where you're gonna have a lot of traffic
I mean in these six lanes a lot faster so what I might do is build the roadway
where I've built my two outside lanes and that very wide median so I could
impact traffic less when I do have to build those into inside two lanes what I
may be able to do in other areas and this is why a lot of letters have been
have gone out about the city wanting to come and talk to property owners about
property and where the roadway would align is we haven't nailed down to the
nth degree where's the center line of that road going to go over the next year
there is a lot of conversation we had with property owners about the impacts
to them the impacts to where that right away would go where the road would go
we're doing an environmental analysis on the entire stretch of the roadway
including the warrants of a sound wall so we're looking at all those impacts and
how that would impact the overall design this is an evolving process and when
we've gone out and done the survey work today what we've done is just simply
gathered the upfront information so we can start having the conversation with
folks about where we go what challenges are ahead of us long term even in 2015
but going forward we still see the need for that roadway to be a prime
connection to 35w if we miss too many more chances like we've missed on East
Denton on the east side of Denton where Mayhills going in where loop 28 is a
bottleneck if we miss too many more chances anywhere then we will have a
locked-up navigate a transportation system across the board and we'll be
fighting the same scenario of gridlock and places where it's very difficult to
get around you got a lot of signals where you're just stopped at so you know
I'm not a traffic engineer by trade I've learned a lot over the last 10 years of
how to become a traffic engineer I'm a stormwater engineer so I hear the
concerns about floodplain and I immediately go there every time we start
one of these projects but what I do know is that when I look at these projects
we've got to start planning for the future we have to draw that line
somewhere from staffs recommendation this is the alignment that makes sense
it doesn't mean that we bolted it down that it's not going to vary we absolutely
are sensitive to the context of where we're going to be in this area so there
is a lot of conversation to be had between now and when this project were
to actually go forward if this group chooses to keep this project on the bond
list how much of that Hickory Creek are you asking us to recommend in this bond
package all the way over to 377 the 34 million dollars would if no other
financial partner came in would construct from River Pass to 1830 it
would also get the design all the way over to 35 W now if our partners agree
to continue down this pathway with us we could go to construction much faster than
the entire length could you put up a map and show us where the outer loop is
projected to come out or loop 288 huh outer loop or loop 288 well loop to it
okay alright it's taking a minute to reset but loop 288 on the west side
comes down into 24 9 24 49 and then over to 35 W here at vintage and then it
would have said four cents of direct connect that basically peel off the six
lanes that would be out here to just four lanes coming across the bridge to
vintage and those we call them direct next their flyovers or you've seen a
word on I 35 and dollars for worth we get in a lane and you fly over a ramp
and down tie directly into the intersection or to the interstate okay I
have we've been told and heard for some years that vintage was projected to be
six lanes in the 20 I'd have to go back and look at the mobility plan shows for
2015 I know that our current area study shows nothing more than four lanes
divided and I think the 2015 shows that it's a four lane divided roadway that's
what the funding was set up for actually look at different propositions and
agreements it was all for a four lane divided roadway which it is great well
it's it's a three it's a two lane divided roadway and then we're going to
build here later this year the outside two lanes so if 288 is going to come
around and hook up with vintage doesn't it make sense for that to continue all
the way over to Taysley the either Ryan or Hickory Cree you have a lot of
disadvantages and one would just be could you do it sure there anything is
possible 100% the reality is as soon as you bring vintage over to tie into Ryan
you have the intersection of two rail crossings so at this rail crossing we
would have to go over one and leave one at grade so there's a potential safety
issue there I would not want to have a signalized intersection right next to
two railways because you have to do what we call preemption which is I got to
allow some cars to pass when the trains come in now I've got two legs that have
to do that the exact same time opposing each other and that's a scary scenario
anyway you look at it so one would have to go over the other so we would either
need to pull Ryan further to the north and get it away from that intersection
so they had plenty of room so we'd be cutting through this area and then going
across to Ryan or we'd need to elevate which would mean we'd have to drop
lanes on both sides probably starting right back over in this area maybe even
a little closer to the school you got to start and drop a lane on both sides
essentially a frontage road to the bridge it would ultimately go over and
then depending on how wide you make it you would have to make it four lanes
divided all the way down Ryan because of the incoming traffic over to 2181 so
Hickory Creek does a couple of things for us that Ryan doesn't do Ryan's
disjointed when it gets over to 2181 so it stops at 2181 it causes another
problem so if you add additional traffic onto Ryan by bringing them off the
interstate then now I've got additional potential traffic over here all the way
on to 2181 that's trying to get to Robinson or wherever else they're trying
to go they're making a lot of decisions at that point Hickory Creek does allow
you to get all the way over to 2499 at one time all from 35 W all the way
across so from a traffic perspective from a transportation perspective it
makes the most sense for getting people around from my perspective but again
that's just the purview of this committee is to make that choice in that
recommendation of where this goes of course if you went to Ryan even though
it didn't wouldn't go on over to 24 to 2181 you would have fewer lane miles to
have to build with that offset some cost of elevation it could potentially I'd
have to run further numbers on that one but you have a longer bridge crossing to
get over the floodplain plus we would have to go back and re-evaluate the
ultimate configuration of vintage back to that six lane and it has cost
implications at that point as well so as far as the actual number I can get you a
budget number on that to let you know what that would look like cost from a
cost difference standpoint another proposal was to take Hickory Creek over
to 1830 and then skirt the floodplain a lot of that floodplain is in a floodway
so the Stark area is in the floodway I cannot get into that area unless I'm
going to go over it then in the floodplain to make it a true regional
connector I've got to elevate the whole roadway out of the hundred-year floodplain
so I'm going to be bringing a lot of dirt there's a lot of potential impacts
to the floodplain upstream and downstream that could result in further construction
just to bring that roadway over another reason why Hickory Creek we were
looking to just span the floodplain one time and then we would still need to
build the drainage infrastructure to handle the hundred-year flood all the
way down brush Creek and all red which would be done with that project and as
part of the current design but those are some of the things that can be addressed
much more quickly and cost-effectively than trying to skirt the floodplain well
it seems like we're not going to solve this today but and there's still going
to be a lot of conversation about it yes and of course I would like to see us
not impact homes impossible so there's there's but let's let's speak for a
moment about the public safety question and the desk that occurred there that's
what could be addressed by building the bridge is that right yes and and that
was one of the drivers are going straight there was its cost it gets us
over the floodplain quicker but it eliminates the potential for those types
of fatalities and accidents that have occurred over the last 20 to 30 years at
a minimum so we know well we haven't we haven't tried out the guardrail which is
now up and I would hope nobody wouldn't that be a factor to help deter it
definitely helps kinds of accidents that have been fatality accidents so we're
talking about switching the focus to Ryan off of Hickory Creek in terms of
matching dollars that we could get from outside sources what type of an impact
would it have on you know Ryan versus Hickory I mean are we able to leverage
Hickory Creek more so than we are Ryan yes you do get much more leverage
capacity out of it because this roadways we've already identified in the mobility
plan that are now eligible for that help in funding long term whereas with Ryan
we're basically fitting the bill for the vast majority of it but this area through
here yes ma'am I know currently there are no streetlights all along Hickory Creek
would lighting be part of yes this package this would be bicycle lanes
would be bicycle trail it wouldn't be on the lanes it'd be separated from the
roadway bicycle trail on both sides would be sidewalks tied into the parks
network trail system it'd be streetlights and then it'd be of course
signals or whatever other intersection controls might be needed throughout the
entire corridor could you show us where Brush Creek ties into so Brush Creek
ties in right here so if you look at where we're going currently we're
talking about taking Hickory Creek over so the current Hickory Creek alignment
if you've driven it has a very sharp incline it's also a place where we have
other accidents occur at that intersection because it's hard to get up
it's difficult to get up that incline and you've got a lot of commuter traffic
that's going north and south on 1830 as people are commuting back and forth so
this would take it straight across the floodplain over the railroad tracks
eliminate multiple safety concerns and then bring it across now what we're
working with TxDOT on is if this is the alignment that stays then we would be
working with them on where does 1830 tie into this so they have money available
right now to improve 1830 all the way down to 407 what they're what they're
looking to do right now just because Argyle is really not interested in
utilizing those dollars they are very interested in what do we want to do with
1830 from Hickory Creek North so it's that four lane divided roadway six lane
divided where are we going with that roadway and that's the conversation
we're having with them that absolutely impacts this intersection the other
concern at this intersection even when Country Club Road was redone there is a
steep curve as you go around almost looks like a NASCAR racetrack right and
that's to keep those 55 mile an hour traffic on the road the problem is is
that's not a good transition to Country Club if you're trying to get to 35 W
unless you really slow down now they have tried to put a right turn lane to
pull off and that does help because you got to slow down and get out of traffic
and get over but you're still going up and over and then if you're coming up
Crawford so you're coming this way up Country Club Road from Crawford then
you've got to go up and over the crest of that embankment to get left or right
makes it very difficult to see who's coming and going because there are
significant declines in the roadway going both directions so one of the
things that we have been talking about is with this alignment we've been
working with the city of Argyle and the I guess town of Argyle and the county
along with Gog is potentially realigning Country Club Road to where it would tee
into the Hickory Creek Road when we push this and make it a much safer scenario
so you've got a lot of drivers here that we're also trying to resolve some
current existing issues with this one project okay so repeat your answer what
you're asking the rest to do is recommend the extension of Hickory
Creek across straightening it out to 1830 and then the rest of that would be a
steady if our if our partners our funding partners for whatever reason
didn't and that's not the inclination we've heard from any of them as we go
forward to the election we would be getting that noted and documented
in a way that people understand that is a reality if that were to just not
happen then yes the project would carry three lanes of roadway over to 1830 and
build two three-lane bridges one three-lane bridge over the railroad
tracks and one over over the floodplain and then the other bridges would have to
come in at a later date when it gets expanded I believe one of the gentleman
asked about phases and when the timing and anticipated completion can you dress
that so the phases so much depend on when those funding partners come to the
table so if we continue down this path and our partners do commit what they're
just in verbal discussion and in meetings there they seem like they're
going to commit to if they commit to that then we could begin phasing this
entire project in a five to six year span all the way over to 35 W it could
be accomplished in that time frame now if they don't come forward for whatever
reason then we still would be able to get to 1830 over the next three years
we as a city do not are not committed to six lines on Bruce Creek Road no right
no the only part that we're building provision for a six lane facility is on
the bridges knowing that at some point in the distant future six lanes most
likely is required it's beyond 2040 timeframe which is why we're not
recommending that they get built the entire length but the bridges absolutely
need to be built to six lanes there is a very small piece between the two bridges
between the railroad crossing and the floodplain crossing where it touches
down just briefly and that area it's actually right in here that area right
there we would build six lanes a roadway which stripe it for four but we built
six lanes because it ties into both bridges that make any sense to make you
whip over and then went back where the city limits in terms of Brush Creek so
it's not all in Denton no not currently so it follows along the center line of
Brush Creek Road all the way to just past the hills of Argyle and then comes
up to the north and down and then back over so the gray is Argyle and the
yellowish is Denton unnecessarily most of the time the gray is it's
unincorporated so it's in our EJJ technically it's still in the county
guess I'm gonna advocate for the people that live on Bushy or so when are you
guys gonna help out with the flooding too because there's issues now I'm sure
you've gotten complaints already when are you guys gonna start addressing those
issues that this project would address those issues because those all get
resolved with draft with the actual roadway project so that's part of the
hundred sixty million dollar project is we'd be resolving all the floodplain
issues that we would come across out there as well without that we don't
currently have a time frame because the funding is not there at the moment for
those drainage scenarios so that would be the proposition that we want voters
to vote on okay this is what they would be voting towards I'm sorry do we as a
city if we're gonna lobby for that hundred and sixty million dollars and
get it do we have a say so in how wide the street is or the road is on brush
creek yes absolutely and that's part of now we're getting most of the money from
I mean but it's it's the city's decision and so the funding sources we're going
to it's not like what happened in Fort Worth about five years ago you saw it on
the news Rosedale was built to six lanes it was federally funded the federal
government said if we're gonna build it and we're gonna fund it it's gonna be
six lanes city of Fort Worth said okay but then right afterwards their traffic
model showed they didn't need six lanes they could not convince the state or
federal government that they didn't need six lanes so to get the money for the
taxpayers they built six lanes and then they immediately put the roadway on a
road diet so they built a lot of parking on street they put landscape islands
once it was turned over to the city so that is not this scenario we haven't
gone into this discussion with anybody in in that similar vein it has been
purely what the results of our traffic study has shown the entire we looked at
the entire area and that area study shows that we for the next 20 years plus
we don't need anything more than four lanes now you get beyond that that's why
we redo these studies they do them redo the mobility plan and updated every four
to five years is development and traffic patterns change over time so every four
to five years we revisit these studies so that we can see what's really happening
it could be that five years from now we need to add the other two lanes because
there's that much traffic demand out there I don't know right now our current
projections is that we only need four for the question specifically about this
project yeah I have some thoughts I I have no doubt in our city staff that
they're able to figure out where and how best to plan a regional connector in this
region and work through all the floodplain issues I think they do an
astounding job most of my concerns are more just whether or not the the
residents of our town actually want a regional connector in this region would
I don't know if you can pull up the current future land use map I don't know
if it's on the public GIS or not but it it's on the website if it's not there
as you look for that I'll just start to say some things so so first of all thank
you for bringing up the the recent safety issues I think that that's
important to keep in mind you know with recent community comments and I think
one person on the committee last week mentioned the Denton 2030 plan so I
actually went home and read it it's it's only 415 pages so but I won't read the
whole thing to you but I have pulled up several quotes from it that I think are
help for people who maybe weren't present through that process orient them
to what the current long-range plan of the city says so I'll summarize some of
this and then I'll get into some of the details but basically the plan went
through a variety of different thank you so so I think right here you can kind of
see the the city limits down there where we were talking at the sort of the
intersection between the ETJ green area and the city limits so my understanding
is that that entire green section is earmarked as a rural area right which
with our zoning would typically be agricultural use or homes on five acre
or larger lots so anyway so the the the 2030 plan they presented several
different growth scenarios so I said the starting point for the development of
land use concepts was the depiction of the growth trend scenario the likely
pattern of growth and development in 15 to 20 years if there were no changes in
policy to alter present trends the preferred growth concept was developed
to present a conceptual vision for the form character and general location of
development for Denton that reflected the input and expressed preferences of
the community the general location of the new development and areas for
intensification was the basis for the development of the future land use map
and then through that process the the growth trend scenario which was sort of
the business as usual more stuff got about twelve percent of the community
votes it was the lowest one and then so then on land use policy it goes on it
says the availability of rural that's getting tongue twisters here rural raw
land coupled with an incumbent an accommodating development approval
process has facilitated development in Denton that outwardly expanded the
suburban fringe at a relatively low density and intensity this trend has
resulted in a land use pattern that has tended to further extend distances
between people between where people live work and shop resulting in a rate of land
consumption and spreading out which is faster than the underlying growth of the
population producing an unsustainable trend that is costly for the city and
taxpayers alike the consequences of this spreading out trend has been
experienced in longer auto trip lengths greater levels of congestion strained
environmental and fiscal resources and challenges for public services and
facilities to keep up with the demands of this rapidly enlarging development
footprint it goes on to talk about some suggested changes and tempering of the
current city's annexation plan in light of that then it has some things to say
about infrastructure infrastructure planning says another important citywide
land use consideration is to foster greater coordination between land use
policies and policies for mobility and infrastructure Denton plan 2030 should
become the key policy document to which future revisions of all plans and
programs like a bond among all city department plans and policies should be
revised for consistency to ensure coordination of land use mobility and
infrastructure planning so and then it goes on says the preferred growth
concept seeks to use areas of Denton with the infrastructure capacity to
absorb additional development to support increased density potentially creating a
more fiscally balanced or profitable land use mixture given the revenue
structure and capital demands of land uses in the city the best means to
maintain fiscal sustainability is to diversify and intensify the developed
core and at the end it gives some information about how this plan should
be looked at in the future and amended if necessary says basically plan
amendments are periodic substantive changes to the Denton 2030 plan and its
associated goals policies and actions as well as changes to the future land use
map which are necessary to accommodate changes for unforeseen circumstances in
a manner consistent with the public interest the planning and zoning
commission and City Council will accept applications for plan amendments in a
biannual basis via staff requests so so that's kind of just some some snippets
out of the 2030 plan that I found I think as I look at this the the traffic
studies in the regional area as I understand them assume a density of
development in this area that is much higher than the current future land use
map would that be an accurate statement Todd I'd have to go back and take a look
at what we actually went into that off top of my head I don't know what it was
referenced in the task of that model was to look at what's currently going in so
there have been a lot of zoning cases over several years last several years in
applications where density is different so that is the reality of what we as
traffic engineers and as transportation engineers are trying to adjust for is
that what we may have set out one way in 2015 at both the time the mobility plan
and the 2030 vision plan was things change and evolve over time and that's
where our struggle is is to make sure that we adjust to what's coming and where
we're going yeah so I mean maybe I'm not aware of all of them but most of the
plats and and P&Z requests I think have been in sort of the yellow area northeast
of the floodplain right that's more accessible to 2181 and that sort of thing
so we're saying we haven't had a lot of infill in this area and then we are
getting more and more applications in this area okay the nearer to 35 W okay
thank you that helps I'll just say that to me this project risks using a an
infrastructure project to modify the future land use map and that seems
potentially the wrong order I understand that the coordination of those things is
very difficult because on the one hand you you don't get to have the public
input and debate over what is important for the city do we want to move away
from the compact growth that we thought would make us fiscally stronger but on
the other hand if growth happens and you don't come in in time to Todd's point
you you end up not being able to make the connections because you can't get
the right of way right so I I just have a hard time with the chicken and egg
thing here because I I see the benefits certainly to this regional connection if
this area were to develop at sort of a three units per acre or greater certainly
it would be needed but the current plan as I read it says that's not what we
want to do so you know I I would just pose to the rest of the committee
members you know is it is it wise to propose a project like this when you
know the the map not the map but the 2030 plan just five years ago citizens
said that's that's not the way we want to grow yeah yeah I think a lot of what
you're saying is it's all true it's in the plan I think the difference with the
Texas plans or their aspirational many states they're legal and so it's a it's
a very real difference you're absolutely right with what's in that plan the fact
of the matter is and the reason this is being brought to you is even though we'd
like you know that plan you know wanted to see more intense growth infill that
sort of thing for all the reasons you articulated we are actually having
planning and development meetings almost on a monthly basis we're watching the
these smaller more dense are forward our six subdivisions wanting to come in an
infill between 35 and 377 so really the question is this for the same dollars we
can either solve a safety problem we've had people you know killed out there in
the last few years and in terms of the guardrail that guardrail gets hit so
often you know I live over that area and it's tore out constantly and I think the
question really is is that the solution long term if the committee if the
committee basically said it's gonna cost you the same money to either do the
interconnection or just go to 2181 there's not really a right answer the
only reason this project was brought forward is it there's no question in the
next five to ten years those opportunities are gone for the
regional connection because there's gonna be so many platted homes the city
would never be able to afford to go in and condemn the right away again and
we're having to provide answers to development community right now where
that where that alignment might go so they know what to dedicate to us in
terms of right away so your policy the policy issue is is it's a good analysis
of the plan we're seeing we've seen dozens of dozens of properties come in
directly contradicting the 2030 plan in my tenure here I've never once seen
development turned down because it was out of compliance with that plan so
that's interesting so that's one question I would like answered is that
specific provision that you read do you know if that was in the revised 2030 or
if that was dated predated back to the 1999 version so the way I read it it was
not a revision but it was a new plan I mean it referred to the old plan in a
couple of key areas actually on page 28 and 29 of the planet yeah it says how to
use the plan and what the paragraph that I'm reading is on 20 page 29 says as
many policies and actions are reoccurring and reinforced in many of
the elements policies and actions that overlap or cross-referenced in parentheses
so that implement implementation policies and actions that address
multiple goals may be accomplished through a single measure the policies
and actions that are being referenced as continuations of the 1999 Denton plan
are noted parenthetically citing the page number of the previous Denton plan
I or EG DP page 122 this is to reinforce that the Denton plan 2030 is an update
of the 1999 Denton plan okay thank you so so it's which theoretically went to
2020 yeah and we're not there yet yeah and basically what what was going on
because I was around at this time too and knowing what was going on in 99 it's
always the aspiration as you pointed out these are what we'd like to see and then
oh by the way people buy land and they put bring in companies and you know I
got a whatever that I want to put in and then City Council and the planning
department and everybody has to go is that really gonna be best for us because
we don't know yet and then we just went through the City Council you just
approved the whole new how we say these are what kinds of buildings can go into
this neighborhood yeah and that was actually an outcropping of the 2030
right specifically asked for an update in the zoning code yeah and I think I
think it's important that that you brought that up and it's important to
know what's there for the 2030 plan but it's also important to know like what
you said talk where do we want to go in the future because if we don't have any
clue then we're gonna have really bad roads and hopscotch here there in the
other place and I don't know and so that's why it's important to have these
conversations certainly yeah I mean personally I just wanted to kind of get
some feedback but personally I I understand the need to plan for the
future so having these conversations with some of the landowners getting some
easements or right-of-ways in place that makes complete sense to me right
because 60 years from now we don't know right but within the near term it it
seems to me like even for lanes assumes a density of growth that the current plan
says we're not supposed to do yet I mean it basically says you know that another
quote I didn't read said proposed developments or uses that clearly
support implementation of the plan should be approved conversely rezonings
for developments or uses that are inconsistent with the plan should not be
granted approval until and unless the policies of the plan are amended based
on the findings of fact that clearly demonstrate the need for modification so
I understand your point that in practice that hasn't happened right but that's
what I read is this is the community came together and said this is what we
want back in 2014 2015 and everybody did choose more I forget which one they
chose higher but I know that the business is usual it was the lowest in
the 2014 2015 public input meetings I think there were at least two from it
actually found a Facebook group where you can see like all the stuff they
looked at there's like a whole album of picture and our point is there's not a
right answer to this question there's just an opportunity to potentially plan
that route to I 35 if the committee feels that it changes the character the
community too much and go out there that's fine but you know Todd's job is
to challenge your thinking and to say we might not have this opportunity again
that doesn't mean it won't be here the next time there's a bond election that
we're coming together but you certainly you know his point is trying to
leverage the dollars if you want to take advantage of it today if not we're
possibly still recommending straight down Hickory Creek and not have to deal
with any more kids in the creek out there and we're continuing to still see
infill in fact we've been in recent development meetings with more property
owners that are bringing developments in south of Thistle Hill between Hickory
Creek and Creedale so it's going to continue infilling there and that's the
only point so I anytime I see an engineer being put on the spot with the
planning question I want to go over and save him but anyway there really there
really is no right answer it's only what you think is the right answer now so but
but what I do hear you saying is that the right the right answer is to
straighten out Hickory Creek definitely and that's a 34 million dollar project
yes because because of the it's driven because of the floodplain and the and
going over that railroad track okay well I thought I heard 34 million dollars
includes design charges to take it on over to 35 w so the design money was
already approved by counselor this year that's not in the 34 million that
project that 34 million is the construction only yes to 1830 that yes
if we don't get the other dollars and we're told not to then obviously it'll
just go to 1830 it also includes any parcels that we do have to acquire the
other parts of a project the design piece part of the reason we're planning
all the way out to 1830 or to I 35 W is that when development comes in we do
have the alignment that's already been settled upon these conversations boy
have and and development doesn't get to choose where those roadways go they go
there but once you have those dollars approved for a bond election you could
change the the alignment that changed the direction move it a little here and
there and so forth right it's not locked in with a large change would have to go
back to council yeah to avoid a tree or to avoid a driveway yes I can do that
but even if it went back to council it would still be within yes yeah because I
didn't really realize that we all signed on to be cheerleaders for this until you
said so but we have to have a project here that we believe in that we can sell
and so so let me suggest that I think we've gotten a lot of information on
this project and then we really want to move toward prioritization and we need
to look at the list as we have it and then and then I think that's where we
begin to talk about where does this fall on our list and it gives us the
opportunity to talk specifically about about the order and and what the dollar
figures are in that order David
hey well this presentation will go over the results of the most recent
prioritization survey this part this is the second survey that we've done
obviously at the last meeting we presented the initial survey and the
committee asked to afford another survey after some additional information and to
see if there were any changes to the survey itself as I as I went over last
time I want to emphasize the survey is only intended to contribute to the
conversation you're about to have this is not any kind of staff recommendation
but I hope that it does contribute to that conversation we also in a later
slide you'll see we have tied these survey results to dot to aggregate
dollar amounts to help facilitate that conversation of the scenarios we looked
at earlier those different dollar amounts what projects could you fit in
based on this summary obviously as we go through this process we can talk through
different options if we moved other other projects under each of those
thresholds what it would look like and I think ultimately from this conversation
we get to that point where the committee gets comfortable with an ultimate
recommendation we had 17 of the 19 members respond to the survey in total
and you can see the unit their rankings here we have them on the next slide too
if this is difficult to see for everyone but obviously a police station renovation
number one fire station 8 and then the police substation those three public
facility projects public safety facility projects for the top three in the street
rehab program Bonnie Bray and Hickory Creek rounding out the top six from
there there is somewhat of a depth to sidewalks street lighting and Ryan Road
and later on we'll get to the there's also the additional question asked on
Ryan Road so I'll go through these slides and touch on that Ryan Road piece
and then lead into the conversation I hope you all have here's that chart
showing the aggregate amount and where those lines those lines form on for the
different dollar amounts and we have this in the next slide where you can see it
broken out actually by dollar amount but just I think this graph does a good job
of illustrating you know as you as you start increasing the projects here's
what you could do at a hundred million dollars you get those first three
projects and then some of the street rehab obviously street rehabs a large
amount so it takes up a good chunk and then when 180 million dollar projects
which we look we looked at the impacts of that previously and we can as you're
having the conversation go back to those slides to highlight what those what
those differences are with each of the projects you get up to that Hickory Creek
project and then 210 million dollars right up to where street lighting fell
at number eight which was right in front of Ryan Road Robinson in the firing
range a 235 million dollar project gets you those additional it's your Ryan Road
Robinson in the firing range here are those broken down you can see the the
project funding I'll just point out a couple of those variables that are still
out there that we just have plugged these in for planning purposes for your
conversation we have an excel sheet we can get we can manipulate these as we go
through the conversation have just thrown four million dollars in for Ryan
Road 10 million for street lighting and 10 million for open space for this
conversation I will note we have public art down here and I think this is a
great time to have that conversation on public art we put it in the survey just
for comparison state sakes and we've shown that 2% of the total funding
obviously that increase as we increase the cost of public safety facilities I
do think it's appropriate to think about that a little separately from the actual
ranking it's good to see it there but to know that if we look at adjusting what
we do with public art it could involve a change to the public art policy which we
could go to council with but open that up for y'all's discussion I think the
survey was set up such that you couldn't really give public art a number as such
because it's tied into number one two and three and I think it pretty much
goes there whether we pick it or not because that's our policy that's a city
council policy unless you wanted to ask them to adjust no we already voted not
to yeah well two things one is we have 300 almost $300,000 sitting in the
public art fund right now from the 2012-2014 bond election that is unspent
also there is a project in progress now by Paula Collins our nationally
recognized brick artist who did the Quaker town brick mural in the Civic
Center locally and other projects and it is it is carved it is completed it is
waiting to be fired and it will go in at the police station on Hickory and I have
can you show this
David I didn't I don't have that page where you were saying about the
prioritization survey might have seen 13 of 19 I don't see how well I mean not
that we don't in general I'm just saying on this particular circumstance
is the 2% in light of the fact that we already have money sitting unused right
now and there is this and it's a significant project right going in at
the police station it's 220 foot murals carved of the history of the Denton
Police Department and the other buildings that the other vertical bills on this
bond election are not buildings that the public is going to be using a lot it's
not they're not rec centers they're not city halls they're not civic centers I
I personally have a real problem with throwing 1.3 million at public art in
this bond proposal can you clarify that David 300,000 sure I can pull up a the
previous public art presentation we did kind of show the funding as it was I
think it's $274,000 David could you just not sell the bonds the 1.3 so that means
1.3 won't go to something else I think policy I think the final bring it back
back up obviously it was discussed previously was that the amount increased
significantly so just wanted to make sure because we are gonna have that
conversation of what's included in the total that at least everyone was aware of
that that figure came out of the public art committee back up last week yes yeah
we're originally looking at 900,000 because of the original amount we were
discussing so that's why I can't see if it's 2012 62,000 65,000 unallocated
there and then 40,000 unallocated so so the reality is there's really 65,000
that's on an allocator is that right did I do there and then also 74 and from the
2012 program so close to 200 now I will say some of these projects these are the
allocation for these projects it doesn't mean these projects have been complete
or are nearing completion so I just we just put the total here I don't have the
status of all these projects I know some of them have money allocated toward them
but they're not complete so and I believe that in the 2012 those were
intended to be signage areas around overpasses some of which have been done
but the other there's obviously still construction at 288 and and some of
those areas where you might end up with those kinds of medallions or whatever
you want to call yeah yeah 2012 was just on the street right and I think that's one of those pieces where the money has been allocated for that project but it has not been completed so it's
unspent dollars but we've shown it here is just it has been allocated toward that
project and I think the public art committee is having conversations on that
project specifically so there was a vote taken by this committee 2% 2% right under
option one right so so in order to have that conversation of whether or not to
change that vote or have another vote we need to have a motion to say hey we'd
like to have another proper our proper process on that would be a motion to
reconsider and it can only come from someone who voted in favor of the 2% he
voted against the 2% you can't make that motion well I wasn't here so I didn't
vote so I can't do it it was also not a binding vote because it was not on the
agenda for action it was effectively a straw poll I believe it's recorded in
the minutes otherwise my fair is if you start making exceptions now then it
impacts the future and all of a sudden we're without public art which is really
critical and important to the city and to it is important but this isn't our
last bond election that we will ever have no it's not and it's when you start
making exceptions and after the 2012 we made an exception that it had to be
vertical construction and then I think the argument would be now we want to make
an exception that we're going to reduce the percentage so that's that would be
the argument there and we're moving away from I have a question just I wanted to
clarify the 1.3 million we're talking about is that required my understanding
is it's required to be spent at those three locations no it is yeah I thought
that was be spent for public safety buildings but not those three locations
any public safety building any public safety building in the city what's
considered a public safety building it's not restricted to these three Tony so
Tony point the chief financial officer it's just to clarify so the calculation
of that 2% 4% is based on vertical construction so if so obviously here
it's based on public safety facilities and so if that's if that dollar amount
that 1.3 million is all put in the public safety proposition then as long
as that public guard is in any public safety facility doesn't have to be the
ones that are being proposed it could be any fire station any public safety
facility you're fine I just want to be very clear to that although the 2% is
being calculated about vertical construction that's only in the public
safety sector this committee could recommend to put all that 1.3 million
in the street proposition or a portion of it and so I just want to again those
are things that the committee needs to consider now once once public art is in
a proposition and it gets passed then we're limited to only being able to
spend those dollars in within that proposition in streets or in public
safety now if it's a standalone proposition I know you guys already
talked about and that's a whole different story so sorry that that helps
clarify some confusion I had before I guess so you're saying that we could
take the 2% of vertical construction and assign it to either one of the
propositions that we choose yes because the calculation is off of vertical
construction now where it gets allocated is purely up to the committee and then
the proposition for clarification I think the the way that the non public
safety proposition is written it includes parks and open space so if it
were included in that resolution would it have the ability to be spent by a
parks department in spaces so again it all depends on on what projects certainly
if there is going to be an open space component to this program likely there
will be a separate proposition right that's that's related to park
improvements it wouldn't be necessarily part of the streets or public safety so
there could be a component of public art that could go into that open space
theoretical proposition well I guess it comes down to is lighting public art or
not so if that 1.3 million goes into the street proposition then whatever public
art needs to be their component or tied to some type of street infrastructure
project it could be some of these calming art pieces it could be part of
retreat a retaining wall there's a number of things that the public art
committee could consider but again the tie is it has to be tied to a street or
transportation infrastructure speaking of lights like in like in Waco when you
go through Waco they built the bridge there by the McLean Stadium they're lit
up with lights that they change colors for different times of year fourth of
July was red white and blue it's green when they have games but is that
considered public art when you have LED lights and I was saying wouldn't that
then be something you could put into the street lighting so that you might might
not be a street but it would be a bridge or whatever is your lighting
I would just want to suggest I don't know that we need to be doing the public
arts committee's job in this yeah determining what is and isn't public
art I do think it gives us some options to be able to consider putting this in
into the second proposition I I would like to see us not request the 2% I
would like to see us request a variation in the policy and not have the 2% go to
public art in this bond election because we have needs that are so much more
critical right now
I'm sorry the last thing in the world you do is tell art teacher that we don't
want public art we live here in Denton we need to have a quality of life that's
attached to whatever it is we do whether it's public safety or the beauty of our
trees or whatever so I really appreciate what Tony said because I think that's a
wonderful use of that money is to put it into you know our streets and by the way
there are cities yes I research that do have contests for street lights I'd like
to make a motion all right can can we move that that million free be divided
proportionately between the police and public safety proposal and the streets
and based on not just well it's computed based on vertical but that it be
allocated to both the police and the street propositions based on their
percentage dollars well hang on so you let's just clarify you're making a
motion to spread the the 2% out over the two propositions that's correct and is
there a second no because we're still this this motion is still at 2% okay okay
so did I think Queen Queen's Queen got her hand up first as a as the second on
this okay this is not a motion to reconsider this is a motion for how to
spread the 2% out and so we have a motion and a second now discussion pay
just what I said I think our streets I know it's only 2% but 2% can you know
that's a million dollars effectively or more and that's real money and it can be
put to better use in this particular bond election at this particular time in
either streets or the vertical construction Patty would you have a
suggestion for a compromise amount perhaps it seems like there's several
members of the committee who are staunch advocates of public art money and others
who think that this bond package is pretty large already I wonder what you
would say to that well I think we have a motion on the floor right now so I think
we have to deal with it first this motion does not change the 2%
that's part of my problem again it is you know by being by being tied to
streets it can be in lots of different places where there would be traffic that
would see that it could be in multiple places around the city there's not it's
not limiting to that to these construction projects so that people can
see it it was proportionately based on the number of dollars in the in the
proposition so it would not say so you got 40 60 million out of the 230 so
sixty two hundred and thirties times 1.3 would go to the first pop to first
proposition I just have to ask how many public safety buildings are buildings
that the public generally goes to
that happens to be the police station when you go to the court
thinking of are you pretty much drive by it there's not really a lot of walking
traffic so it's harder for people to really stop and appreciate it you're
going too fast to really notice it so I just feel like there'd be maybe more
enjoyment if it were you know closer to the street or because I know a lot of
the safety facilities are little have a bit of a setback in a lot of cases let
me tell you where I think we are on this I think that that we can continue to
talk conceptually about it but I think we need to if you are if you have a
speech you want to make against the motion or a speech you want to make in
favor of it we need to we need to focus in on that area right now because we do
have a motion on the floor so I would go to if there is a speech in favor if
anybody would like to make that at this point or if there is a speech in
opposition to the motion can I ask a clarifying question about rules of
order okay what would be the proper procedural method to to seek an
amendment of the public art policy at this point well that's currently not on
the floor I understand and so to do that would require another motion a separate
motion and could that motion be made at this time or does it have to wait we
have to deal with this motion that's on the floor first question on the
structure of the proposition so if if you had public art based upon vertical
structures at 2% how would those be divided within the propositions just
however the committee because I recall the vote we had before straw poll or we
don't call it was was more about where where would public art be in a
proposition should be a separate proposition or should it be within the
in the public safety proposition and that's how we vote I don't I don't know
that it was what could be what I'm saying is there was a vote whether we
have it as a separate proposition and I know this is kind of getting off-subject
tail but it has a little bit of bearing on how I'm looking at it it's a it's a
much larger I'm all for public art but I don't it's a much larger number than we
have ever looked at from a public art standpoint and so being that much it
would be I'd be more comfortable if the voters decided that we wanted to have
the public art so you're proposing it be a separate line yeah but that's that's
that goes that has to we have to deal with the motions on the floor now
basically we'd have to vote motion down and then make another motion right I
would be okay withdraw yeah and then make another motion with this motion we
don't have to ask the City Council to change the policy right and we can
allocate it in other ways other than I have no problem with asking the City
Council to change policy they can do is say no on the 27th David I think it was
on the 27th so proportionally the what the motion you made is about 30% of this
would be spent on public safety facilities and about 70% on the second
proposition and I think on if we do 230 million that's what about 345,000 on
public safety yeah go down yeah but I need to see what the recommendation was
the paragraph Smith asked on the direction to include the following of
potential recommendation funding and be included in public safety facilities so
we'd have to we can't even have this conversation we can't have this vote
without doing a revision to that one I think the way I'm not a minute I think
the way this reads would be Pat made this motion but then Tim made a second
motion that just said 2% but it says calculated from vertical structure
construction has stipulated in the current policy and public safety
facilities proposition without it being on the agenda as an action item it is
not a binding vote and I think I call the point of order on this for that very
reason I would recommend that take whatever whatever we need to do to
preface it and just take a moat make a motion on whatever the committee
desires at this time and we can just as you start the motion say superseding any
previous motion this now takes effect okay we could go that route and that
would require the maker of the motion to withdraw the motion the maker of the
second to say okay I withdraw my motion and are you okay with that you know what
y'all have to excuse me because this is my first time so yeah I second the
motion to withdraw correct you're just agree to that motion oh okay okay now is
there is there a new motion that someone would like to put on the floor I move
that we ask the City Council to revise the policy or make an exception to the
policy so that the 2% that has been previously applied to public art in
vertical construction on bond elections not be applied to vertical construction
but to go into the the bond to the vertical construction itself or be
divided between that in streets I think your motion is a little vague right now
let's let's see if we can if we can find a way to tighten that up a little bit
let me see if I find well go ahead
in this election we have too many streets that need too much repair okay
so that is not what we had talked about having the motion to be so I think so if
I may what I'm hearing is potentially there would be some compromise if the
amount were reduced from 2% but that would require council action to make an
exception or modify the policy and then the choice of whether we assign it to
one or the other proposition or would be up to us but if we wanted to as sorry
sorry just past you yes no not just past Janet okay Randy as Randy suggested
potentially again reconsidering having it as a third proposition that would
also require an amendment to the policy is that accurate okay so I would like to
move that we I'd like to move that we ask council to amend the policy either
temporarily or permanently so that we could consider a value down to 1% and
that we would have the freedom to assign it to an individual bond item sorry
proposal if that's what the committee decides we already have that freedom we
can we can say we want it to be a standalone proposition okay then then
just strike the last clause of that and just say that I move to ask council to
make a an amendment to the to the proposal so that we could consider an
amount down to 1% just the the change would be to the policy itself not to the
establishing resolution of the committee yes so it's oh I think to do that you
would need to have a percent because right now says two to four so yeah okay
thank you so I move thank you for your patience I move that we ask council to
change the policy so that an amount for public art can be considered from the
range of one to four percent as opposed to two to four percent which is the
current policy would you be willing to make that a standalone item so that the
voters can decide that's an option that's before the committee already this
yeah we're just asking that we're asking the the count the council to change a
policy it where his motion is to change the policy to as low as 1% the
standalone proposition is something that's still at our discretion just a
very quick comment you know certainly the committee has a limited time so in
order for do kind of what you're saying we can certainly do that I think the
easiest way would be that if the committee is really wanting to consider
1% that part of your proposal back to the council along with amending that
policy is that you've submitted to them a 1% of public art to go into one of
these propositions or a standalone proposition and I think that that would
cover you and it would avoid us having to go to the council next week have this
conversation and that way it's all just packaged together so I think I think
your your recommendation is a valid one I would just encourage you to if it's
gonna be 1% where would you want that in which proposition or would it be a
standalone that does that make sense yes it's a bit it sounds like your
suggestion is that we don't need to ask for the policy to be amended we can just
decide what we'd like to do and then make that as part of our final proposal
certainly and if the council does not want to amend the public art proposition
then either council just drops public art entirely or the council could come
up with a different allocation okay okay so I think I think we needed we we need
a motion that that addresses that and I think your motion is your motion would
be that that we suggest that there were that you would move a 1% rather than 2%
yes and and my primary reasoning for that is that I was more comfortable with
2% when the vertical construction total was around 40 million and now it's up to
60 million so so is there a second
so I think the right I think the right way to start that off is that you're
moving to include in our final recommendation insert whatever it is
that you would like to have in final recommendation then we all vote on that
okay so so so I'll move to include for public art a total of 1% for vertical
construction but distribute that between the well I'm sorry I withdraw my motion
I don't feel like we've finished the discussion about how we would want to
allocate this I've heard several different ideas
why don't we shift the focus of our conversation why don't we table public
art for now because we're not making much progress on that let's get to some
of the other not to say that they're more important but the more higher dollar
value items on our plate at this moment so we can get through all this I think
I think ultimately when we come back next week obviously we're gonna be trying
to get to a decision so we're gonna come in with with three or four action items
of let's decide public art let's decide the total amount dollar amount let's
decide the projects and then make that ultimate recommendation so we could just
roll that into that I think this is obviously a good conversation in advance
of that and that way we don't have to do a motion that you've got to try to figure
out what what what it is we mean we expect the best motion that any of us
have seen an entire committee next time my hope was we were going to get to the
prioritization list and how late do you all want to stay and I know for many
others as well and it's yeah my day is not over yet can I actually make a
motion yes and it's gonna be crazy y'all are gonna think I just want us in this
thing but I'm gonna make a motion that this bond committee recommends to the
City Council items 1 through 10 the police station the fire station the
substation the street we have added the rehab program of 70 million Bonnie break
Hickory Creek right at 34 million sidewalks at 12 mean street lights at
13.8 million actually and Ryan road right at he's making a motion yes Ryan
road at 4 million and Robinson road at 12.3 that's exactly 235 million dollars
with no funding for public art
was that the bad one okay retractable no funding public art but if the public
art has to be taken out of that number then it's still one through ten and it's
still one through ten but maybe maybe the street lighting or the sidewalk
problem has to be addressed all right there's a motion is there a second
I think that motion is gonna die second I had to try I like the way you're
thinking I would like to make a motion that we make a recommendation of items
1 through 6 1 through 6 exactly as presented and then we're gonna have to
discuss about the rest of it I don't know how to put that into my motion
though but I would like to have a at least that we can agree and not have to
sit here and go a line by line by line by line so my motion is to first make a
recommendation of 1 through 6 those be included that those definitely be
included no discussion we're done let's go there's a second for that motion I'd
like to offer a friendly amendment is it possible after the second you know
according to Roberts rules there's no such thing as a friendly amendment so
what do you want to do I think there's probably more disagreement on Hickory
Creek than the other five projects so would you be willing to just say one
through five for now and then then have that discussion for the conversation yes
I will change my motion to one to five and I will agree to that to be included
in our final recommendation all right there is a motion there is a second is
there any further discussion so let me ask question if we if we approve this
motion 1 through 5 is there any change that can be done on the first five not
taking them out for reducing but increasing yeah it's like Tim said so the
someone who originally votes on this in the future would have to come back and
make a motion okay any any other discussion seeing none all in favor of
the motion to make one through five part of this bond package would you please
raise your right hand opposed did you get it or not what okay all right so
that motion does pass the we can go on or we can take up the rest of it next
week what's your preference can I just make one note about next week next week
that I think the intent of next week will will be to just kind of jump
straight into this conversation and the public conversation if you have questions
on projects we can answer if we answer them but there won't be a formal
presentation on on any other projects we're just kind of getting straight to
this so that we can get that action because last next Thursday is really our
firm deadline okay David when we come back can we also have it was on an
early presentation I think it's in the first or second meeting of what the
leverage factor is on the rest of these let me just suggest maybe that on the
spreadsheet to sort of show that as a separate column that way we need to have
a presentation or discussion about it just to see that yeah just put the
visual up there is a motion to adjourn is there a second all in favor
opposed that motion is carried