WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.160 Good evening my name is Rosa Rios and I am your city secretary the time right 00:00:07.160 --> 00:00:12.600 now is 531 and in the absence of the chair and the vice chair the city 00:00:12.600 --> 00:00:18.600 secretary will has called the meeting to order under Robert's Rules of Orders the 00:00:18.600 --> 00:00:23.720 the board does have the ability to appoint a temporary chair the appointment 00:00:23.720 --> 00:00:27.760 will be for the duration of the meeting and the responsibilities will cease 00:00:27.760 --> 00:00:33.700 once the meeting is adjourned I will now take nominations on the floor 00:00:33.700 --> 00:00:52.200 are there any other nominations any other nominations with no other 00:00:52.200 --> 00:00:58.840 nominations I will now take so we have a man make that a formal motion sir we 00:00:58.840 --> 00:01:06.880 have a motion and we have a second so there's the nomination for board member 00:01:06.880 --> 00:01:11.440 Tim Crouch to serve as your temporary chair for this meeting all in favor 00:01:11.440 --> 00:01:20.920 please raise your right hand all opposed the motion carries with the majority 00:01:20.920 --> 00:01:25.160 vote your meeting will continue and your next item on the agenda is public 00:01:25.160 --> 00:01:29.080 comments and individuals are allowed three minutes to speak I'll now turn the 00:01:29.080 --> 00:01:37.760 meeting over all right and do we have cards we have cards and and let me just 00:01:37.760 --> 00:01:42.240 remind the committee that that it's important to leave your microphone turned 00:01:42.240 --> 00:01:47.240 on so don't turn your microphone on and off but leave it turned on so that if 00:01:47.240 --> 00:01:52.640 you start speaking it gets picked up on the on the streaming and of the meeting 00:01:52.640 --> 00:02:05.160 here so our the the first person I'd like to call is Rick would Rick would if 00:02:05.160 --> 00:02:09.980 you would come to the microphone up here at the podium please you have three 00:02:09.980 --> 00:02:22.880 minutes yeah we'll need your name and address if you would Rick would 80 11 00:02:22.880 --> 00:02:28.000 Wood Creek Circle Argyle Texas seven six two two six within the Denton city 00:02:28.000 --> 00:02:34.240 limits and I just want to speak use my three minutes to address some concerns 00:02:34.240 --> 00:02:40.480 around the current proposal that would involve the widening of brush Creek Road 00:02:40.480 --> 00:02:50.320 near our neighborhood this will have a significant impact upon the residents of 00:02:50.320 --> 00:02:54.520 that section of town and we believe a large majority of us believe that it's 00:02:54.520 --> 00:03:01.880 largely unnecessary and maybe a better use of funds could be applied to fixing 00:03:01.880 --> 00:03:06.640 the current street conditions within the city according to the Denton record 00:03:06.640 --> 00:03:12.000 Chronicle in April of last year in an article didn't had a street score of 65 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:19.040 compared with a flower mound which had an 81 and Frisco as an example had a 00:03:19.040 --> 00:03:27.000 score of 95 according to that same article 25% of the 1314 lane miles were 00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:34.760 in poor condition that's about 328 lane miles Cindy City engineer Todd Estes 00:03:34.760 --> 00:03:39.600 told the council that there were 200 street segments to rebuild the financing 00:03:39.600 --> 00:03:43.600 for that was approved through a 44 million dollar combined bond package into 00:03:43.600 --> 00:03:51.000 2012 and 2014 ultimately the city will need to budget more for maintenance to 00:03:51.000 --> 00:03:59.000 maintain what we have and the each year and according to mr. Krummer there was a 00:03:59.000 --> 00:04:05.480 next to an estimated 335 lane miles would cost about 193 million dollars to 00:04:05.480 --> 00:04:10.120 rebuild today previous bond packages that have gone to the voters were 00:04:10.120 --> 00:04:17.240 underestimated by 30 to 40 percent if this were to go to an election and to a 00:04:17.240 --> 00:04:22.800 bond approval we would be concerned that the money used to widen that 00:04:22.800 --> 00:04:28.160 particular section of road could be better applied against the current 00:04:28.160 --> 00:04:35.440 infrastructure improvements that are needed around the city today to quote 00:04:35.440 --> 00:04:41.240 mr. Heilman it's last year in April it's not going to matter how much maintenance 00:04:41.240 --> 00:04:45.560 funding there is if the roads aren't built right to begin with so instead of 00:04:45.560 --> 00:04:50.440 widening brush Creek and potentially displacing dozens of residents I would 00:04:50.440 --> 00:04:55.080 ask the committee to consider reinvesting that money into our current 00:04:55.080 --> 00:05:02.760 infrastructure and improving the roads we have thank you next Jennifer Lane 00:05:02.760 --> 00:05:12.720 Jennifer Lane I don't think there'll be an opportunity for public comment on 00:05:12.720 --> 00:05:18.980 items later if you want to speak you'll need to do that now okay next is Richard 00:05:18.980 --> 00:05:21.600 Shan house 00:05:21.600 --> 00:05:38.560 my name is Richard Shan house my address is eight zero zero one Wood Creek Circle 00:05:38.560 --> 00:05:48.280 in Argyle neighbor for mr. Woods and our interest is in the destruction of 00:05:48.280 --> 00:05:55.600 property that will happen if you're and I spoke last week as well my garage and 00:05:55.600 --> 00:06:00.640 my yard will be will be eliminated consequently my whole house will be 00:06:00.640 --> 00:06:09.400 rendered uninhabitable if a fork if a divided six lane highway with bike paths 00:06:09.400 --> 00:06:19.640 and and and sidewalks and easement come into come into being so I'm carrying the 00:06:19.640 --> 00:06:25.000 flag for a number of residents in our area that that are particularly and 00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:31.840 specifically involved because we would lose our homes and it seemed as though 00:06:31.840 --> 00:06:38.280 the last time I spoke here you guys at least some of you guys were unaware that 00:06:38.280 --> 00:06:44.280 that properties would be displaced and you know we put our heart and soul into 00:06:44.280 --> 00:06:48.040 our properties and it's kind of hard to see the city come along and and and 00:06:48.040 --> 00:06:57.240 propose a building a wide wide road through an area that is where the 00:06:57.240 --> 00:07:04.600 traffic is just not doesn't doesn't make sense I think you're the idea from the 00:07:04.600 --> 00:07:09.320 city from the head engineer was if we build it they will come the traffic and 00:07:09.320 --> 00:07:16.200 you know brush Creek dead ends into 377 and beyond where and West beyond that is 00:07:16.200 --> 00:07:23.840 nothing but farmland which would extend to highway 35w where there is no 00:07:23.840 --> 00:07:32.020 interchange so it's it seems as though that extension and all the displacement 00:07:32.020 --> 00:07:38.680 and the buying of properties and I would it wouldn't make as much sense as a 00:07:38.680 --> 00:07:44.560 proposal that we made to the council last week that was in the letter that 00:07:44.560 --> 00:07:53.640 was sent to the advisory board you guys to to Ryan Adams and others I've got a 00:07:53.640 --> 00:07:59.360 copy of it if anybody if I can leave it with somebody so that you know refresh 00:07:59.360 --> 00:08:07.840 your memory about it's very particular about a different proposal that you know 00:08:07.840 --> 00:08:15.880 seems to you know seems to us so much more meaningful when it comes to how it 00:08:15.880 --> 00:08:24.520 connects to 35 and how it hooks into joins the proposed loop 288 extension 00:08:24.520 --> 00:08:31.520 and in joining together with an already proposed widening of a road that up that 00:08:31.520 --> 00:08:45.520 way if I could leave this with somebody I would like to your time your time is 00:08:45.520 --> 00:08:54.560 up and again to use that money for roads that are and have been in dire need of 00:08:54.560 --> 00:09:12.840 denting in other areas thank you thank you next is Dennis Cox I want to begin 00:09:12.840 --> 00:09:17.880 by thanking all of y'all for that I know the time you put in you have you sit 00:09:17.880 --> 00:09:21.960 through the meetings everything you hear all the input everybody has their own 00:09:21.960 --> 00:09:27.600 concerns for whatever is being done to their roads just as we have concerns for 00:09:27.600 --> 00:09:32.400 ours and I appreciate the time that y'all put in and the consideration that 00:09:32.400 --> 00:09:38.760 you'll give on what you recommend to the council as far as the road repairs first 00:09:38.760 --> 00:09:44.600 of all my wife and I walk that Breast Creek Road frequently at different times 00:09:44.600 --> 00:09:50.000 of the day and I would say on the average in a week of us and we try to 00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:55.240 walk every day but sometimes it works out to about three days week depending on 00:09:55.240 --> 00:10:01.640 how hot it is eight to twenty vehicles you know at a maximum pass us when we're 00:10:01.640 --> 00:10:09.420 walking I don't know what studies have been committed to see what the future 00:10:09.420 --> 00:10:15.800 traffic would be if it was expanded I for some reason I can in my mind see 00:10:15.800 --> 00:10:22.340 where it would expand where it would need a six lane divided road so I would 00:10:22.340 --> 00:10:27.120 hope that somebody is doing all the research and all the calculations to make 00:10:27.120 --> 00:10:34.080 sure that it's needed and and I agree with with what Rick would said and that 00:10:34.080 --> 00:10:39.180 is you know there's a lot of city streets and everything that need a lot 00:10:39.180 --> 00:10:42.800 of attention for that money could be better spent at this time maybe in the 00:10:42.800 --> 00:10:51.040 future that might be a good idea second of all the two concerns if it does go 00:10:51.040 --> 00:10:56.640 through it's gonna wipe out the Apple's house and Dick's house and I'm the 00:10:56.640 --> 00:11:01.520 second house in on the on the cul-de-sac there and even if it doesn't wipe out 00:11:01.520 --> 00:11:07.000 their house I would be concerned about the the noise and I would wonder if if 00:11:07.000 --> 00:11:14.020 this bond proposal includes the sound barrier wall that runs down that road 00:11:14.020 --> 00:11:21.320 to to keep some of the sound away because I know on 2499 they have a nice 00:11:21.320 --> 00:11:25.400 sound barrier wall down through there so I would hope that something is being 00:11:25.400 --> 00:11:31.600 included in that another is the drainage I have on the backside of my pool about 00:11:31.600 --> 00:11:37.320 an 8-foot retaining wall and when they built that development behind us they 00:11:37.320 --> 00:11:44.800 put in the city put in three pipes that dump into that creek there we've had 00:11:44.800 --> 00:11:49.360 water come up almost over the top of that retaining wall and we've had a 00:11:49.360 --> 00:11:58.360 trampoline washed down the stream a brick seat that we sit on down there for 00:11:58.360 --> 00:12:02.480 little fireplaces washed down through there so I'll be concerned about how 00:12:02.480 --> 00:12:06.680 this is gonna affect the drainage whether it will or not I don't know I'm 00:12:06.680 --> 00:12:10.320 sure there's some engineers that would be able to answer that question for you 00:12:10.320 --> 00:12:14.720 and I would hope that you would inquire about that before making your decision 00:12:14.720 --> 00:12:18.680 Dennis your time is up would you give your address also please 00:12:18.680 --> 00:12:42.520 oh it's 8008 Wood Creek Circle thank you very much next up David Yoder my name is 00:12:42.520 --> 00:12:48.200 David Yoder I live at 940 and 950 brush Creek Road I am technically in the 00:12:48.200 --> 00:12:55.400 county but I am in Denton's ETJ we've lived there since 1986 and the ideal of 00:12:55.400 --> 00:13:00.200 six lanes coming down brush Creek Road takes away half my front yard in both 00:13:00.200 --> 00:13:05.640 pieces of my property and I think part of what we're trying to get clarification 00:13:05.640 --> 00:13:10.520 is is for for not knowing what y'all are calling it I call it Hicker Creek West 00:13:10.520 --> 00:13:18.320 and that is from River Pass to 1830 is that in this bond package the next one 00:13:18.320 --> 00:13:23.440 is from 1830 all the way down brush Creek Road to 377 and the third one is 00:13:23.440 --> 00:13:28.920 from 377 all the way up to 35 so at this point I'll even know I can't find 00:13:28.920 --> 00:13:33.240 anything that tells me what all's in the package that you all are proposing or is 00:13:33.240 --> 00:13:38.680 the piece from River Pass to three 1830 even in this package because if not 00:13:38.680 --> 00:13:41.000 we're probably talking to the wrong folks you probably need to go talk to 00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:46.600 the mobility people so I'd like clarification on that and if any of the 00:13:46.600 --> 00:13:51.640 three projects that are proposed why is it why is it coming in this package 00:13:51.640 --> 00:13:55.360 instead of waiting on till the mobility study is completed which I understand is 00:13:55.360 --> 00:14:00.600 supposed to be done in February of 2020 which means then it seems to be getting 00:14:00.600 --> 00:14:06.160 out ahead of what the city is proposing to do with the package the third one is 00:14:06.160 --> 00:14:11.200 is can any give us any information I mean basically we're going on state 00:14:11.200 --> 00:14:17.680 websites county websites city websites nothing shows me what's in the proposal 00:14:17.680 --> 00:14:23.880 so first thing I think for a lot of us it would be extremely helpful to just 00:14:23.880 --> 00:14:30.240 know what is being proposed but if if you're going to take 70 feet off the 00:14:30.240 --> 00:14:34.320 front of my property on two pieces of property you're taking almost a third of 00:14:34.320 --> 00:14:41.160 my property been there a long time I'm retired I went on found an old windmill 00:14:41.160 --> 00:14:46.080 restored it put it up make it work I don't want to see it go away thank you 00:14:46.080 --> 00:14:49.240 thank you 00:14:49.240 --> 00:14:56.480 next is Troy Fulkerson 00:15:04.880 --> 00:15:11.520 good afternoon my name is Troy Fulkerson I'm at 8204 Wickwood Court in Argyle and 00:15:11.520 --> 00:15:17.640 you know my question is is that y'all moved out to Argyle this area about 14 00:15:17.640 --> 00:15:22.500 years ago was a nice quiet you know Tulane Road been West Creek and I came 00:15:22.500 --> 00:15:25.920 from Colleyville where Colleyville had the same battle here about ten years ago 00:15:25.920 --> 00:15:29.640 where they wanted the widened glade road if you guys were familiar with that road 00:15:29.640 --> 00:15:34.280 from 121 all the way up a policing line it's wonderful several years I don't 00:15:34.280 --> 00:15:37.960 assure you the traffic on that road on the glade road is probably a hundred 00:15:37.960 --> 00:15:42.040 times more what it is in West Creek my misunderstanding or maybe not 00:15:42.040 --> 00:15:46.120 understanding why we want to widened West Creek what's the point we have a 00:15:46.120 --> 00:15:49.600 county road right down the road which is country club road which just spent you 00:15:49.600 --> 00:15:53.280 know hundreds of thousands of dollars to make that road that goes all the way 35 00:15:53.280 --> 00:15:58.320 how about that so why are we spending all these tax dollars on West Creek the 00:15:58.320 --> 00:16:02.000 county how we spent money on country club road what can't the seat of bitten 00:16:02.000 --> 00:16:05.240 in the county get together and have a great road is already in the in the 00:16:05.240 --> 00:16:10.400 infrastructures already there if we want to go any further off off of a country 00:16:10.400 --> 00:16:16.320 club road we can stand up that direction but my my question this is why that's 00:16:16.320 --> 00:16:19.960 the whole question why we will spend that kind of taxpayer dollars on a six 00:16:19.960 --> 00:16:24.560 lane road for a great little neighborhood for what purpose just to 00:16:24.560 --> 00:16:28.800 spend taxpayer money or can we take this money as the other gentleman said and 00:16:28.800 --> 00:16:32.520 use it for other purposes but I live in the hills at Argo it's not my properties 00:16:32.520 --> 00:16:36.360 being ripped out which is the ideal of taxpayer dollars and something that 00:16:36.360 --> 00:16:40.280 doesn't really need to seem to be done so that being said that's all I gotta 00:16:40.280 --> 00:16:45.160 say thank you thank you 00:16:45.160 --> 00:16:51.000 next Gary Davis 00:16:59.320 --> 00:17:06.880 my name is Gary Davis I live at 970 brush Creek Road in Argyle and what they 00:17:06.880 --> 00:17:11.680 said to be honest I worked for the city of Keller it took me forever to get here 00:17:11.680 --> 00:17:16.520 because you can't get here from there with the traffic really we just need I 00:17:16.520 --> 00:17:21.720 do this same thing for the city of Keller and I know that we're not going 00:17:21.720 --> 00:17:25.600 to change your mind on the route you're going to go that's already that horse is 00:17:25.600 --> 00:17:30.320 out of the barn but the thing that I don't know which is what David Yoder said 00:17:30.320 --> 00:17:35.800 is how many phases are there in this one how far does that take you when do the 00:17:35.800 --> 00:17:42.680 next phases kick in in a timeline type of format and I don't think that's asking 00:17:42.680 --> 00:17:50.280 too much and within that format some sort of a map that says you know here's 00:17:50.280 --> 00:17:55.480 the route it's exactly going to take and here's how much property is going to go 00:17:55.480 --> 00:17:59.440 from each side I would assume there's going to be some properties that you're 00:17:59.440 --> 00:18:07.520 going to have to buy out that's okay but none of us really know what that is now 00:18:07.520 --> 00:18:12.560 the question I have is when you go to the bond election in November I believe 00:18:12.560 --> 00:18:18.760 it is this if that bond passes is that more than just Denton is that also 00:18:18.760 --> 00:18:23.640 include County is that also include state whatever funding sources you have 00:18:23.640 --> 00:18:29.880 is that important does that give you all funding sources if not where the other 00:18:29.880 --> 00:18:35.520 funding sources kick in also what happens if it doesn't pass I'm sure it's 00:18:35.520 --> 00:18:40.480 not going to just die you've got to get cars from point A to point B what's plan 00:18:40.480 --> 00:18:46.600 B what happens when you do pass it what happens if you don't where the funding 00:18:46.600 --> 00:18:50.720 sources come in and what's the timeline for each one of those that's what I have 00:18:50.720 --> 00:18:56.800 to do with all of ours have to lay out straight maps aerials always help 00:18:56.800 --> 00:19:00.720 aerials with dotted lines that show where it's going to go that's what we 00:19:00.720 --> 00:19:08.320 know with a timeline thank you so much thank you and I have one of the card 00:19:08.320 --> 00:19:16.040 with but something written on it but I have no name okay 00:19:21.220 --> 00:19:30.760 good evening my name is Sam Slovak I live at 4905 Argyle Lane which is the 00:19:30.760 --> 00:19:37.520 corner of Argyle Lane and Brush Creek a six lane major highway cutting through a 00:19:37.520 --> 00:19:43.680 pristine area of Denton which many of us bought in that area for that very reason 00:19:43.680 --> 00:19:50.480 will completely change the character of those neighborhoods as you put in a road 00:19:50.480 --> 00:19:55.800 of this size and I look at the studies that have been issued you know they're 00:19:55.800 --> 00:20:03.120 still talking about rural culvert for drainage you take drainage off of a six 00:20:03.120 --> 00:20:09.440 lane highway and and that highway will be on the south side of all of these 00:20:09.440 --> 00:20:17.040 homes which backs up to a flood zone so you're going to exacerbate the flooding 00:20:17.040 --> 00:20:23.840 in all of those homes along the north side of that highway again it's been 00:20:23.840 --> 00:20:28.640 brought up tonight that you put a road in of this size you're going to 00:20:28.640 --> 00:20:34.720 significantly increase the noise traffic and there are no provisions in the plans 00:20:34.720 --> 00:20:42.560 that I've seen that address that issue as well so I for one find it absurd to 00:20:42.560 --> 00:20:50.360 think that you need a road of this size to be able to accommodate traffic out in 00:20:50.360 --> 00:20:55.920 2035 when you look at the growth of the industry and the growth of the housing 00:20:55.920 --> 00:21:02.320 is not not lined up with with the path that you propose to take you're taking 00:21:02.320 --> 00:21:09.120 an easy way out down a floodplain area to build a massive highway that's going 00:21:09.120 --> 00:21:17.320 to disrupt the lives and homes of some some very nice homes in the Denton area 00:21:17.320 --> 00:21:24.560 thank you and the last card that I have is Colleen Mitchell 00:21:35.440 --> 00:21:43.160 hello I'm Colleen Mitchell I live at 1300 Brush Creek Road in Argyle we've 00:21:43.160 --> 00:21:49.440 lived in on Brush Creek Road since 2002 our property is on 40 acres and the 00:21:49.440 --> 00:21:53.720 front of it would actually be taken out but it would not affect our home because 00:21:53.720 --> 00:21:57.640 our house is way at the back of the property but if any of you have driven 00:21:57.640 --> 00:22:02.160 down Brush Creek Road you'll see and I followed the men who were setting up the 00:22:02.160 --> 00:22:07.960 that we're doing the surveying and I said what what are you doing and how how 00:22:07.960 --> 00:22:14.680 are you going to you're marking these and and here's here's utilities right in 00:22:14.680 --> 00:22:17.520 front of that do you know how many utilities you're gonna have to take out 00:22:17.520 --> 00:22:23.440 to widen that road does anyone who realized that a six-lane highway is like 00:22:23.440 --> 00:22:30.120 1171 drive down 1171 and see six lanes there's no way you can do that to brush 00:22:30.120 --> 00:22:34.760 Creek Road without taking out so much land on this side and so much land on 00:22:34.760 --> 00:22:41.320 that side it seems insane maybe make it four lanes because I think going straight 00:22:41.320 --> 00:22:47.200 to 35w would be really a lot easier I mean it's a straight drop through but 00:22:47.200 --> 00:22:51.120 don't ruin our properties we've all cared about that property we've all 00:22:51.120 --> 00:22:56.120 taken care of that property for years and I ask for your attention to more 00:22:56.120 --> 00:23:02.360 detail on what you're going to do and let us know thank you thank you hi those 00:23:02.360 --> 00:23:08.760 are all the cards that I have what is your name 00:23:08.760 --> 00:23:18.800 Perry Dyer 00:23:23.320 --> 00:23:27.960 well good evening and thank you Perry Dyer 4,800 snowsills no show I don't 00:23:27.960 --> 00:23:32.640 know how we pronounce it but Argyle it's in the hills of Argyle moved out there 00:23:32.640 --> 00:23:35.760 just about two years ago I'm from a very small town out in Northern California 00:23:35.760 --> 00:23:40.760 and it has a lot of charm has a lot of loveliness about it I was living over in 00:23:40.760 --> 00:23:44.880 Corinth before I found this property with my wife and family and decided this 00:23:44.880 --> 00:23:51.160 is where we want to spend our time acre lots rural close to everything but not 00:23:51.160 --> 00:23:58.360 very far out if we decide that we need to create a draw to our area the small 00:23:58.360 --> 00:24:02.920 town of Argyle the rural area of Rush Creek and those areas in there we're 00:24:02.920 --> 00:24:07.040 gonna create a draw Roanoke is supposed to go insane in the next few years that 00:24:07.040 --> 00:24:10.560 draw will move all these people up to our area because they'll be looking to 00:24:10.560 --> 00:24:14.600 try to get out because we're in a unique situation where we have land for most of 00:24:14.600 --> 00:24:18.560 us we take that land away we've turned ourselves into every other little city 00:24:18.560 --> 00:24:24.040 around here and ruined all the charm of Denton South Denton in Argyle we don't 00:24:24.040 --> 00:24:27.840 want to do that we don't need to have that ultimate convenience it takes a 00:24:27.840 --> 00:24:33.480 good seven eight minutes to get to 35w from our house it takes 15 minutes if I 00:24:33.480 --> 00:24:39.240 go the other way to go 35e we live in these areas because we'd like to have a 00:24:39.240 --> 00:24:44.520 little bit of separation okay if I wanted to be five minutes from the 00:24:44.520 --> 00:24:48.640 grocery store or five minutes from the restaurant I would go move into any of 00:24:48.640 --> 00:24:52.720 these surrounding areas that are going gangbusters and are like that so I think 00:24:52.720 --> 00:24:57.480 we need to take a step back and realize that maybe growth isn't exactly what we 00:24:57.480 --> 00:25:02.120 need in all these areas and just step back and say let's let some rural areas 00:25:02.120 --> 00:25:06.240 stay rural and not drive a bunch of traffic into areas because frankly if 00:25:06.240 --> 00:25:10.640 that lane goes through on Brush Creek and it's six lanes I'm moving because I will 00:25:10.640 --> 00:25:15.600 not be having that kind of noise I'm a half a mile from that road and it will 00:25:15.600 --> 00:25:19.220 not have that kind of noise because I'd love to sit on my back patio and look at 00:25:19.220 --> 00:25:26.120 the stars and not hear traffic so thank you for your time okay thank you and I 00:25:26.120 --> 00:25:29.680 assume there are not any other cards 00:25:29.680 --> 00:25:35.040 Jesse Calvert I did see your card 00:25:39.640 --> 00:25:45.480 hello everybody we recently moved to brush Creek I live on 990 brush Creek 00:25:45.480 --> 00:25:49.160 road right on the corner of Hamilton and brush Creek I want to talk a little bit 00:25:49.160 --> 00:25:55.400 about the human element I'll walk my kids to the bus stop right there on the 00:25:55.400 --> 00:26:00.280 corner of brush Creek and Hamilton the bus stops is great you sit on the front 00:26:00.280 --> 00:26:05.000 porch sit on the back porch we moved from Dallas to get away from this type of 00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:09.920 thing I've got 50-foot pine trees in the front of my yard that have been there 00:26:09.920 --> 00:26:14.520 forever that this would take away and there's a lot more questions that other 00:26:14.520 --> 00:26:20.760 people have broached but it seems like a waste to me is as far as there's 00:26:20.760 --> 00:26:27.520 Country Club Road down that's wide enough to me anyway there's a golf course 00:26:27.520 --> 00:26:33.480 that in my opinion could suffer a bit more than the the residents of brush 00:26:33.480 --> 00:26:40.840 Creek personally my wife is suffering from three forms of cancer and this is 00:26:40.840 --> 00:26:48.040 a very large inconvenience to say the least for everybody on our street but it 00:26:48.040 --> 00:26:52.920 affects I feel like it affects our family horribly just getting the 00:26:52.920 --> 00:26:56.560 notifications in the mail and all these things have really sent her in a 00:26:56.560 --> 00:27:01.520 downward spiral with her health and just letting everyone know that there are 00:27:01.520 --> 00:27:06.080 people involved in all this and it's not just getting people from point 8 point 00:27:06.080 --> 00:27:11.600 B I understand progress but at what cost and that people have bought it brought 00:27:11.600 --> 00:27:15.080 up really good points about flooding and it does flood down brush Creek brush 00:27:15.080 --> 00:27:22.280 Creek a lot but please put in some thought to what we're dealing with and 00:27:22.280 --> 00:27:26.440 and the questions we have and what's gonna happen with us and with our 00:27:26.440 --> 00:27:32.280 property and to the the land it's I see this gentleman walk down the street all 00:27:32.280 --> 00:27:37.120 the time I'm in my yard every day with my family doing things so please 00:27:37.120 --> 00:27:42.560 consider all these things whenever this comes up thank you thank you did I miss 00:27:42.560 --> 00:27:48.880 any other cards all right thank you all very much for your comments next item on 00:27:48.880 --> 00:27:52.200 our agenda is to receive a report and hold a discussion regarding potential 00:27:52.200 --> 00:27:56.840 projects financial considerations and other requirements related to the 00:27:56.840 --> 00:28:02.120 proposed 2019 bond program and before David begins let me just sort of say I 00:28:02.120 --> 00:28:09.120 think that this is a critical meeting for us tonight I think that that we want 00:28:09.120 --> 00:28:15.700 to come out of this meeting with a sense of where our priorities are where we 00:28:15.700 --> 00:28:19.400 believe that we want to make some assumptions on the growth rate and 00:28:19.400 --> 00:28:25.600 therefore what the impact is on the tax rate so these this is this meeting is 00:28:25.600 --> 00:28:30.880 one tonight in which we need as the committee to begin to take ownership of 00:28:30.880 --> 00:28:35.680 this bond package we've had a lot of presentations from staff but over the 00:28:35.680 --> 00:28:41.400 course of this evening it's it's in our hands and and we need to own this 00:28:41.400 --> 00:28:47.440 package because ultimately when it comes time to go to the voters we're the ones 00:28:47.440 --> 00:28:52.160 who are going to have to make the case for this bond package city staff can't 00:28:52.160 --> 00:28:57.160 make the case and city the city council members cannot make the case it will be 00:28:57.160 --> 00:29:02.000 this committee that will become a political action committee to work 00:29:02.000 --> 00:29:08.640 toward the passage of this bond and in order to do that we have to own what 00:29:08.640 --> 00:29:12.600 this bond is about and that's what tonight is is taking ownership of this 00:29:12.600 --> 00:29:18.080 so with that I want to turn it over to David good evening committee David gains 00:29:18.080 --> 00:29:22.520 director of finance for this item we're going we're going to take a step back 00:29:22.520 --> 00:29:26.520 and look at the projects in total go through many of the financial 00:29:26.520 --> 00:29:29.760 financial considerations that we've talked through up to this point and some 00:29:29.760 --> 00:29:34.000 updated scenarios based on feedback from the committee and then after that we'll 00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:38.000 get into some more detail on the street rehab program to answer a few questions 00:29:38.000 --> 00:29:42.200 and on Ryan Road as well so that's the purpose of this presentation following 00:29:42.200 --> 00:29:45.360 this perfect presentation the next item on the agenda is the prioritization 00:29:45.360 --> 00:29:48.920 presentation which will go over the results of the most recent priority 00:29:48.920 --> 00:29:52.760 prioritization survey obviously these will go these will really work hand in 00:29:52.760 --> 00:29:59.000 hand with each other as you all start to make those make those decisions so to 00:29:59.000 --> 00:30:04.640 set the stage here's our current project cost that we went over last last meeting 00:30:04.640 --> 00:30:08.600 last week as we got those updates to the police renovation and police stuff 00:30:08.600 --> 00:30:13.280 six substation projects so you can see the potential bond cost here in the 00:30:13.280 --> 00:30:17.480 middle our total project costs that we've seen multiple times this total 00:30:17.480 --> 00:30:21.200 project cost obviously including the other funding sources that come in for 00:30:21.200 --> 00:30:26.720 those major roadway projects and then a funding option here I've highlighted a 00:30:26.720 --> 00:30:32.240 few of these projects on the funding option column just because I think these 00:30:32.240 --> 00:30:35.160 are some of those decision points for the committee to consider especially as 00:30:35.160 --> 00:30:40.280 we get to that prioritization piece of today's conversation of what funding 00:30:40.280 --> 00:30:44.720 level the committee wants on these projects Ryan Road is one have plugged 00:30:44.720 --> 00:30:47.920 four million here obviously we have that four million to 19 million dollar range 00:30:47.920 --> 00:30:51.360 at the end of this presentation we're gonna have a few slides that really get 00:30:51.360 --> 00:30:55.200 into the detail of what that means so that you have concrete examples of what 00:30:55.200 --> 00:30:59.040 is four million mean for that Ryan Road project from a city perspective what is 00:30:59.040 --> 00:31:05.680 19 million mean from a city perspective so we want to go over some of the 00:31:05.680 --> 00:31:10.740 financial assumptions that are built into all of our scenarios that we've 00:31:10.740 --> 00:31:14.200 shown this shown this previously and just go through how we got to the 00:31:14.200 --> 00:31:21.080 numbers of where we're at beginning with our debt issuance and next next year for 00:31:21.080 --> 00:31:26.880 FY 1920 we are we do it have in our model to issue the final fourteen point 00:31:26.880 --> 00:31:31.160 six million dollars of our 2014 bond program this will close that bond 00:31:31.160 --> 00:31:35.640 program out have no nothing left to issue for the bond program but it is 00:31:35.640 --> 00:31:39.240 included in all of our all of our models moving forward we also have five million 00:31:39.240 --> 00:31:43.680 dollars in certificates of obligation for vehicle replacements and facility 00:31:43.680 --> 00:31:48.640 improvements three moving forward in each of the years that's that's something 00:31:48.640 --> 00:31:53.040 that we budgeted for multiple years now for annual improvements for our 00:31:53.040 --> 00:31:56.120 facilities and for those replacements of vehicles and you can see the total 00:31:56.120 --> 00:32:00.200 there with our vehicle replacements we typically do five-year debt and for 00:32:00.200 --> 00:32:05.360 facility improvements we tenure down we are utilizing in the first few years of 00:32:05.360 --> 00:32:09.720 the bond of our bond schedule to draw down a fund balance that is built up in 00:32:09.720 --> 00:32:13.480 our debt service fund that fund balance really has just built up simply because 00:32:13.480 --> 00:32:18.440 our assessed values have come in higher than the certified values over the past 00:32:18.440 --> 00:32:22.240 few years it's built up a balance that's not necessary in our debt service fund 00:32:22.240 --> 00:32:26.360 so we're able to then use that balance to pay off debt service in the next few 00:32:26.360 --> 00:32:29.820 years which mitigates some of that increase that we would experience in 00:32:29.820 --> 00:32:35.920 the tax rate with increased debt service payments for next year we currently have 00:32:35.920 --> 00:32:41.560 a seven point three percent increase in our non frozen assessed values and we'll 00:32:41.560 --> 00:32:45.000 talk about a little bit on the next slide but that's up through our last 00:32:45.000 --> 00:32:50.360 preliminary values from the appraisal district we got those last Friday that'll 00:32:50.360 --> 00:32:53.640 be those are the last values we get up until next Thursday or Friday when we get 00:32:53.640 --> 00:32:57.200 our certified values and then we can really put some concrete numbers to what 00:32:57.200 --> 00:33:01.320 we're expecting next year this is our estimate based on the preliminary values 00:33:01.320 --> 00:33:05.560 we've received so far I will say the appraisal district has experienced 00:33:05.560 --> 00:33:09.200 greater number of protests than they've ever experienced so that number has 00:33:09.200 --> 00:33:13.560 fluctuate quite fluctuated quite a bit we've built in some room in this 00:33:13.560 --> 00:33:17.080 estimate to anticipate that dropping further next year so we feel comfortable 00:33:17.080 --> 00:33:21.360 right now at the seven point three percent number in non frozen values on 00:33:21.360 --> 00:33:27.200 assessed value assessed value increase we'll talk about this on the next slide 00:33:27.200 --> 00:33:30.680 as well but our assumptions that you'll see moving forward have a five percent 00:33:30.680 --> 00:33:37.800 growth estimate for assessed value in future years past 19 FY 19 20 and then 00:33:37.800 --> 00:33:41.840 for our interest rate we're currently assuming next year to have an interest 00:33:41.840 --> 00:33:45.880 rate of three point seven five percent which is still above we just issued debt 00:33:45.880 --> 00:33:49.440 this last week at three point seven five percent is above what we just issued 00:33:49.440 --> 00:33:53.760 because rates are as low as they've been in a long time right now but to be 00:33:53.760 --> 00:33:58.520 conservative we've kind of anticipated that to inch its way back up and then 00:33:58.520 --> 00:34:02.000 have four and a half percent as an interest rate in those out years past 00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:20.200 2020 and that's been an emphasis to it for the city especially over the past 00:34:20.200 --> 00:34:23.440 year we've really stepped back and take taking a look a hard look at all of our 00:34:23.440 --> 00:34:27.240 vehicles at our replacement policies we've been able to take some vehicles 00:34:27.240 --> 00:34:31.520 that were utilized in multiple departments but not utilized very often 00:34:31.520 --> 00:34:34.640 their utilization wasn't very high combine those and have some sharing 00:34:34.640 --> 00:34:38.640 across the city so we've been able to reduce that continually to reduce that 00:34:38.640 --> 00:34:42.360 this fiscal year and next fiscal year so it's possible that three don't need that 00:34:42.360 --> 00:34:45.880 three and a half every year that may be a conservative number but that's what we 00:34:45.880 --> 00:34:53.800 have built into the scenarios so obviously the assessed value is one of 00:34:53.800 --> 00:34:57.880 the the most important of the assumptions that we have whatever number 00:34:57.880 --> 00:35:01.720 we whatever percentage we pick for assessed value has a direct impact on 00:35:01.720 --> 00:35:05.920 what that tax rate is needed that the tax rate increase that would be needed 00:35:05.920 --> 00:35:10.240 on the debt service side to pay for our increased debt service payments so you 00:35:10.240 --> 00:35:15.680 can see the history of our tax rate since 2014 we have been 00:35:15.680 --> 00:35:21.000 experienced and really since 2011 2012 we started the growth but since 2014 00:35:21.000 --> 00:35:25.360 significant growth that our assessed value that's not surprising to anyone and 00:35:25.360 --> 00:35:31.320 here as you've seen your property values grow and the growth within the city up 00:35:31.320 --> 00:35:36.240 through for comparison stakes in 2018 and 2019 we've shown our total assessed 00:35:36.240 --> 00:35:40.520 value the growth of our total assessed value but we've also starting in 2018 had 00:35:40.520 --> 00:35:46.600 the first impact of our over 65 tax freeze so for comparison sake showed the 00:35:46.600 --> 00:35:50.640 total but really what what is important right now for our considerations and 00:35:50.640 --> 00:35:55.360 what the new revenue that's coming into us is a seven point three percent of growth 00:35:55.360 --> 00:36:00.040 in our non frozen values and David I think this might be a good point for the 00:36:00.040 --> 00:36:08.320 committee to have some discussion about the assessed value growth that that the 00:36:08.320 --> 00:36:13.760 task force is recommending but is also in the hands of this committee to decide 00:36:13.760 --> 00:36:19.720 what do we want what do we want to assume in terms of property growth for 00:36:19.720 --> 00:36:28.480 the coming years the committee looked at a number of different scenarios when 00:36:28.480 --> 00:36:31.440 you when you see the growth that's occurring around here there was this 00:36:31.440 --> 00:36:37.520 question of what's the right number there was some concern within the within 00:36:37.520 --> 00:36:43.560 the task force that that it's been a while since we've had a recession and 00:36:43.560 --> 00:36:50.840 what happens if we have a recession and we can look back in an 08 no 9 and 10 00:36:50.840 --> 00:36:57.080 and we can see the recession numbers that impacted our property values at 00:36:57.080 --> 00:37:03.120 that point in time so that was one consideration the fact that the we have 00:37:03.120 --> 00:37:08.680 this much lower increase because of the non frozen values became another 00:37:08.680 --> 00:37:15.400 consideration and so the the that the task force in looking at that felt that 00:37:15.400 --> 00:37:23.680 four percent was too low and we looked at six but settled on five and I think 00:37:23.680 --> 00:37:29.760 that the question that is really before the the bond committee at this point is 00:37:29.760 --> 00:37:34.120 what are we comfortable with are we comfortable with that five percent 00:37:34.120 --> 00:37:37.320 assumption do we want to be more aggressive or do we want to be more 00:37:37.320 --> 00:37:42.400 conservative and so with that I would just sort of turn it over for your 00:37:42.400 --> 00:37:47.120 comments and and thoughts on this this is one of those pieces we need to own 00:37:47.120 --> 00:37:54.160 because this will also impact what the what the tax rate increase might be 00:37:54.160 --> 00:38:04.840 David I know there's been some some bills passed recently state statewide or 00:38:04.840 --> 00:38:10.640 state level that have affected cities in multiple ways one being taxes I wonder I 00:38:10.640 --> 00:38:15.560 guess my question is that what is you know does any of that affect some of 00:38:15.560 --> 00:38:19.080 these values that affect us locally or should we take that into consideration 00:38:19.080 --> 00:38:23.240 sure it does as far as for the conversation just on the AV goes there's 00:38:23.240 --> 00:38:27.800 nothing that will affect affect the I think later on and I'll just I'll come 00:38:27.800 --> 00:38:31.160 back to this slide but just kind of give you a preview of some of the numbers 00:38:31.160 --> 00:38:34.800 there's a lot of numbers here but one of the pieces I will talk about is the 00:38:34.800 --> 00:38:38.040 the largest impact to cities right now as far as tax rate is a three and a half 00:38:38.040 --> 00:38:43.320 percent rollback rate that rollback rate really is focused specifically on for 00:38:43.320 --> 00:38:47.120 the most part the M&O the operations and maintenance rate so what we do on the 00:38:47.120 --> 00:38:50.520 debt service side doesn't have a direct is not directly impacted by the three 00:38:50.520 --> 00:38:54.120 and a half percent rollback so I'll talk about that a little bit later but that 00:38:54.120 --> 00:38:59.280 that's the biggest impact and it doesn't have a big consideration for what you do 00:38:59.280 --> 00:39:04.320 with the debt service tax rate thank you not to give you get you off track but 00:39:04.320 --> 00:39:08.400 I've been requesting some information for the last month a month and a half do 00:39:08.400 --> 00:39:18.720 we get it today time I got it we will get to that on slide 25 but we have can 00:39:18.720 --> 00:39:24.440 it can I suggest that we come to that a little bit later let's focus on our 00:39:24.440 --> 00:39:29.080 assessed value question and and what the assumption is that we want to make as a 00:39:29.080 --> 00:39:36.920 committee on on the assessed value growth so as more and more of our citizens 00:39:36.920 --> 00:39:44.680 become over 65 and properties continue to freeze we know we see the spread 00:39:44.680 --> 00:39:50.520 between seven point three and eight point oh what happens have we thought 00:39:50.520 --> 00:39:56.160 about that you know consideration it's definitely something it's still someone 00:39:56.160 --> 00:39:59.680 new for us to try to try to plan for that I think when we first were 00:39:59.680 --> 00:40:02.160 considering the freeze if you go back and look at some of our projections 00:40:02.160 --> 00:40:06.760 previously we're expecting more of a gradual hit from the freeze but we 00:40:06.760 --> 00:40:10.720 really kind of had that up front and now we've seen some gradual growth and what 00:40:10.720 --> 00:40:14.240 the frozen amounts are as far as more people getting on to the freeze so I 00:40:14.240 --> 00:40:18.240 think as we continue to see that if that trend plays out it'll allow us to eat 00:40:18.240 --> 00:40:23.680 more easily project that in the future I think in future years is the gap between 00:40:23.680 --> 00:40:28.200 those won't be as high because we're still having people add to the freeze 00:40:28.200 --> 00:40:32.360 right now which I think it makes that gap a little bit wider than it would be I 00:40:32.360 --> 00:40:36.440 think normally if we were looking at just non frozen versus non frozen and 00:40:36.440 --> 00:40:39.840 frozen versus frozen it should be about the same so I think it's just I think 00:40:39.840 --> 00:40:42.920 the majority of that is just because we're still at the beginning of the 00:40:42.920 --> 00:40:50.440 process okay I trust you okay go ahead Patty then 00:40:50.440 --> 00:40:57.000 Randy we talk about growth but I think within that growth we need to look at 00:40:57.000 --> 00:41:01.040 what kind of growth this is what percentage of it is commercial do we 00:41:01.040 --> 00:41:05.360 project will be business growth commercial industrial which has a very 00:41:05.360 --> 00:41:10.360 low cost of service compared to residential and especially multifamily so 00:41:10.360 --> 00:41:18.120 how has that factored into these projections have we considered that at 00:41:18.120 --> 00:41:23.440 all have we considered cost of service there the our projections have just been 00:41:23.440 --> 00:41:28.560 at a high level of here's the total AV as it grows as it's growing so we 00:41:28.560 --> 00:41:31.560 haven't got to the level of commercials growing in X amount residential is 00:41:31.560 --> 00:41:35.040 growing in X amount because traditionally as we dig into those 00:41:35.040 --> 00:41:39.280 numbers it all kind of comes back to the high level three four or five percent on 00:41:39.280 --> 00:41:44.600 the growth it's also difficult to to get to that level and have have validity in 00:41:44.600 --> 00:41:48.200 those numbers as we get down to that point the cost of service question is 00:41:48.200 --> 00:41:52.480 one that that we always that we have frequently and it's one that right now 00:41:52.480 --> 00:41:56.180 we're you know engaging with different consultants to try to understand what is 00:41:56.180 --> 00:41:59.400 that kind of break-even point but it's a little bit different than this 00:41:59.400 --> 00:42:03.240 conversation but it is a valid point 00:42:04.600 --> 00:42:15.680 Randy yeah just question about the so 2019 let's use 8.07 just for comparisons 00:42:15.680 --> 00:42:20.640 but that's eight billion dollars an increase in property base is that 00:42:20.640 --> 00:42:33.800 correct eight million you sorry yeah yeah that's the eight yeah eight this is 00:42:33.800 --> 00:42:38.300 the total amount of the increase that's correct you're right that's a total eight 00:42:38.300 --> 00:42:43.800 yes that's not a million dollar increase eight billion dollar increase 00:42:43.800 --> 00:42:59.120 should be about eight hundred eight hundred million dollars I know our total 00:42:59.120 --> 00:43:08.560 is around 11 to 13 billion so eight hundred million dollar increase so the 00:43:08.560 --> 00:43:15.320 eight hundred million dollars and I know we've asked we talked about this and the 00:43:15.320 --> 00:43:22.760 task force deal I just wanted for the committee to hear it but that how much 00:43:22.760 --> 00:43:29.800 of that growth is new properties that have come on the tax rolls versus an 00:43:29.800 --> 00:43:33.400 increase in existing properties so this year it's about four hundred and fifteen 00:43:33.400 --> 00:43:43.400 million of that is new growth of the eight hundred million so about half of 00:43:43.400 --> 00:43:47.900 strictly the increase yes okay so if we're talking about a five percent 00:43:47.900 --> 00:43:56.540 increase and I know everybody is seeing all the projections on development the 00:43:56.540 --> 00:44:06.200 on the around the loop and on the south southwest part of town is that we have 00:44:06.200 --> 00:44:14.120 any idea what what that would mean to that that increase number we haven't 00:44:14.120 --> 00:44:17.680 right now in our model essentially we're saying four percent growth and new 00:44:17.680 --> 00:44:24.120 value and regular and existing value we right now don't have number a different 00:44:24.120 --> 00:44:26.560 percentage for new growth in those different areas that's definitely 00:44:26.560 --> 00:44:31.200 something we could look at though okay yeah I just I just want to clarify that 00:44:31.200 --> 00:44:36.720 you know if there is if there are new properties coming on to the the tax 00:44:36.720 --> 00:44:42.480 rolls and if it becomes more than the more than 50% of the annual project or 00:44:42.480 --> 00:44:50.600 the projected increase I think that gives pretty good credence to five percent 00:44:50.600 --> 00:44:59.000 versus four I'm with I don't think we should get as high as six that's too 00:44:59.000 --> 00:45:04.720 close to seven point three in my opinion but you know my mind started at four 00:45:04.720 --> 00:45:11.600 percent in the very beginning so I'm that makes me feel more comfortable with 00:45:11.600 --> 00:45:17.040 five if we think there's a lot more development and properties that can be 00:45:17.040 --> 00:45:21.520 added to the tax rolls in the next five years which all indications are it's 00:45:21.520 --> 00:45:30.200 gonna it is gonna happen that I'm okay with five percent that's just other 00:45:30.200 --> 00:45:33.600 questions or comments 00:45:39.400 --> 00:45:50.000 the end of next week day after our next meeting right possibly the day Anna my 00:45:50.000 --> 00:45:57.000 law firm could run its entire practice on protest for taxes this year just very 00:45:57.000 --> 00:46:02.740 quick question if we're going to be honest with our citizens about raising 00:46:02.740 --> 00:46:10.880 taxes what does the five percent mean to them well what let's let's it's about 00:46:10.880 --> 00:46:20.480 25 about $25 a cent so thank you but I think there's as we'll go through the 00:46:20.480 --> 00:46:23.440 process is important caveats to them when we say five cents we're not saying 00:46:23.440 --> 00:46:27.680 five cents every year we say go up to a five cent tax it's in one year if these 00:46:27.680 --> 00:46:36.280 assumptions fill okay comment I just want to make sure I fully understand this so 00:46:36.280 --> 00:46:41.120 my understanding is that the growth rate assumption that we assume will then 00:46:41.120 --> 00:46:49.880 determine how many cents on the tax rate we tell people that this could cause and 00:46:49.880 --> 00:46:55.520 then it is the city's intention although they are not legally bound to ensure 00:46:55.520 --> 00:47:01.040 that the debt service rate does not rise above that increase over the period of 00:47:01.040 --> 00:47:06.760 the bond program is that a reasonable summary yes okay thank you okay Queen 00:47:06.760 --> 00:47:11.400 did you have something oh no I think somebody said $25 where did I get that 00:47:11.400 --> 00:47:17.760 from there's something about something you were saying and then for just yeah 00:47:17.760 --> 00:47:22.280 on average on for our average taxable value on a home it's about $25 per 00:47:22.280 --> 00:47:30.360 percent that increases okay the questions and comments on the assumptions 00:47:30.360 --> 00:47:32.760 for the growth rate 00:47:32.760 --> 00:47:50.480 yeah so would it be but I'll try again please feel free to jump in so sure 00:47:52.280 --> 00:47:59.880 the July 11 2019 on program financial presentation page five I think that 00:47:59.880 --> 00:48:06.620 might give a little bit more context so Eric while you're at while you're 00:48:06.620 --> 00:48:11.000 restating out of a thank you I will run the risk of not looking at paper while 00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:20.400 I speak so so my understanding is that the growth rate that we assume and also 00:48:20.400 --> 00:48:28.600 the size of the capital package we asked for determine the projections of the 00:48:28.600 --> 00:48:35.000 number of cents the tax rate the debt service tax rate may have to increase in 00:48:35.000 --> 00:48:41.840 order to fund the the bonds right and then it is the city's intention that if 00:48:41.840 --> 00:48:47.720 you can you go back to the chart with the sorry when it shows the the debt 00:48:47.720 --> 00:48:53.200 service and or maybe we haven't gotten there yet yeah just that shows the the 00:48:53.200 --> 00:49:01.280 combination of the debt service and the M&O rate the table sorry yeah yeah so so 00:49:01.280 --> 00:49:05.080 then it is the city's intention that the second column there the debt service 00:49:05.080 --> 00:49:12.240 rate would be held to whatever number of cents that is above the current rate of 00:49:12.240 --> 00:49:19.440 21.5 cents throughout the the term of the bond program and so if economic 00:49:19.440 --> 00:49:24.600 things change then they would change the issuance of the bonds the schedule or 00:49:24.600 --> 00:49:29.120 something like that in order to not exceed the number of cents that we told 00:49:29.120 --> 00:49:34.000 the voters that they might incur yeah isn't that when you when you put it 00:49:34.000 --> 00:49:39.120 before whoever you buy the bonds from this is what your guarantee is for X 00:49:39.120 --> 00:49:45.840 number of years of the bond unless it goes down that's a it's a little bit of 00:49:45.840 --> 00:49:49.440 a different question the target when we're talking about the debt service 00:49:49.440 --> 00:49:52.920 tax rate increase as Eric was saying that's really a number that we say 00:49:52.920 --> 00:49:57.680 here's what we anticipate the impact on the debt service tax rate which all the 00:49:57.680 --> 00:50:01.240 debt service tax rate does is pay our debt service payments so I mean it's 00:50:01.240 --> 00:50:04.320 involved with that our debt service payments will go up as we issue more 00:50:04.320 --> 00:50:09.840 bonds we anticipate that on this scenario it won't go up over five cents 00:50:09.840 --> 00:50:14.920 but as Eric mentioned that's not you know in official language if we there was a 00:50:14.920 --> 00:50:18.200 point and we had to make considerations we would obviously work through the 00:50:18.200 --> 00:50:21.880 oversight bond oversight committee and City Council but the intention would be 00:50:21.880 --> 00:50:26.960 to not cat go over that five cent debt service tax rate that was that was 00:50:26.960 --> 00:50:40.680 published with with the bond program and the point is if we if we assumed a 7% 00:50:40.680 --> 00:50:45.600 rate every year then we could say oh it's not gonna go up any more than three 00:50:45.600 --> 00:50:52.320 cents in the next five years but I think it's it's much better to have a have a 00:50:52.320 --> 00:51:03.360 somewhat conservative growth estimate and so that we know that this this five 00:51:03.360 --> 00:51:10.280 cents is gonna be the maximum because we did keep our growth estimate at 5% which 00:51:10.280 --> 00:51:16.600 hopefully is a conservative number are there are there any other questions or 00:51:16.600 --> 00:51:22.200 comments if if not I would entertain a motion about what we will use as our 00:51:22.200 --> 00:51:33.680 assumed property value growth rate assessed value property growth rate I'll 00:51:33.680 --> 00:51:44.080 make a motion that we assume 5% a B growth is there got a second 00:51:48.280 --> 00:51:55.720 anyone want to make a speech for or against that seeing none all the way I'm 00:51:55.720 --> 00:52:00.320 sorry so we can't hold it at four no it's not good it's not doable I'm trying 00:52:00.320 --> 00:52:11.440 to understand okay maybe I'll just try to add a little bit to what I was 00:52:11.440 --> 00:52:20.200 explaining before I'm sure I get to the 200% mark the risk that I see if we 00:52:20.200 --> 00:52:26.560 assume a higher AV growth than materializes is that or an aggressive 00:52:26.560 --> 00:52:31.480 goal in other words would be that it's more likely that the city would either 00:52:31.480 --> 00:52:39.640 have to change how quickly those bonds are issued to stay under the the 00:52:39.640 --> 00:52:45.640 projection of how many cents it rises or that the city would have to renege on 00:52:45.640 --> 00:52:51.520 that projection and raise it above that amount of sense is that accurate I say 00:52:51.520 --> 00:52:54.560 the third option would be to not do a project I mean obviously the leader 00:52:54.560 --> 00:52:58.600 laying the project or not doing okay but most likely would just be delaying the 00:52:58.600 --> 00:53:06.920 project and fitting it into our issue and schedule if we delay a project that 00:53:06.920 --> 00:53:14.600 gives more opportunity for inflation and and cost overruns when we finally are 00:53:14.600 --> 00:53:19.400 able to do that correct which is why the goal is to set a rate set a tax rate 00:53:19.400 --> 00:53:23.920 increase that we feel comfortable with that we don't end up in that situation I 00:53:23.920 --> 00:53:29.000 think you know we have this slide later where we talked through this was a 00:53:29.000 --> 00:53:34.580 question that was brought up last time of our last three bond programs did we go 00:53:34.580 --> 00:53:39.480 over that max rate and we did not we've stayed significantly under that rate so 00:53:39.480 --> 00:53:44.040 in 2005 bond program we said we were gonna have up to a four cent tax rate 00:53:44.040 --> 00:53:47.560 increase so I'll just kind of describe what these lines are here this black and 00:53:47.560 --> 00:53:53.400 black and blue line is our debt service tax rate since 20 2005 and the dotted 00:53:53.400 --> 00:53:58.280 blue line above it is our max tax rate so as we go forward if we say you want a 00:53:58.280 --> 00:54:01.720 four we go with a program that's a four or five cent that then becomes our max 00:54:01.720 --> 00:54:06.540 starting next year so you can see throughout the 2005 bond program we 00:54:06.540 --> 00:54:12.360 stayed well under our are the max four cents that we could have issued through 00:54:12.360 --> 00:54:16.480 that program in 2012 the only reason it comes down here is because in 2012 we 00:54:16.480 --> 00:54:20.560 went into a program that had had no anticipated no tax rate increase so 00:54:20.560 --> 00:54:24.560 those just essentially stayed the same in 2014 we said we would have a four 00:54:24.560 --> 00:54:28.160 cent tax rate increase and we're at a point now where we haven't used that 00:54:28.160 --> 00:54:32.540 force those four cents because assessed values came in higher than we projected 00:54:32.540 --> 00:54:36.240 so if we say we want five percent and that's equated to a four or five cent 00:54:36.240 --> 00:54:40.600 tax increase but we get we get rates like we just saw worth eight percent to 00:54:40.600 --> 00:54:45.080 ten percent over the six years of this program we're gonna stay you know well 00:54:45.080 --> 00:54:50.360 below or not even increase the debt service tax rate to get there what rate 00:54:50.360 --> 00:55:02.480 did we assume growth during five twelve and fourteen percent four percent so and 00:55:02.480 --> 00:55:06.640 I'm running numbers because I'm trying to think of having the commercial 00:55:06.640 --> 00:55:10.640 businesses residential and all these tax increases so I'm trying to get the 00:55:10.640 --> 00:55:26.720 numbers right I'm sorry guys but I do think it's good on four I do come I see 00:55:26.720 --> 00:55:31.280 where it is on five as well I don't know I'm just gonna get these numbers right 00:55:31.280 --> 00:55:34.480 so you want to go to a different side were you looking at could you please I 00:55:34.480 --> 00:55:38.960 think the one thing I would want to add at four we will have to assume a greater 00:55:38.960 --> 00:55:42.760 tax rate increase and that's what we would have to take to the voters and 00:55:42.760 --> 00:55:48.160 with the voters authorize a bigger tax rate increase and at five we kind of 00:55:48.160 --> 00:55:53.200 split the difference potential potential right but we have to tell them what it 00:55:53.200 --> 00:55:55.960 potentially could be 00:56:00.520 --> 00:56:09.680 we have to really guess based on this alive Mike yeah based on past experience 00:56:09.680 --> 00:56:16.000 and whatever brains in education we can bring to it because the AV is essentially 00:56:16.000 --> 00:56:36.800 set by the county it's not but it's not a city unit the city is not setting its 00:56:36.800 --> 00:56:43.000 own valuations so really what we have to do here is base a lot of our decisions 00:56:43.000 --> 00:56:59.160 on a guess so how comfortable does the city and the staff fill with the five 00:56:59.160 --> 00:57:05.640 percent right because we were initially given a four percent right we've used 00:57:05.640 --> 00:57:13.120 four percent of the past can we get your kind of feel I ultimately we felt we're 00:57:13.120 --> 00:57:16.480 comfortable with the five percent I think if if we weren't comfortable that 00:57:16.480 --> 00:57:20.600 we would definitely give us raise alarms and I think I mean I think if we started 00:57:20.600 --> 00:57:24.960 talking about six or seven percent we definitely want to have a detailed 00:57:24.960 --> 00:57:28.240 discussion on that but five percent is something and it comes back to the new 00:57:28.240 --> 00:57:34.600 growth and in the trends that we're seeing so we do have a motion and a 00:57:34.600 --> 00:57:39.720 second on the floor is there any other discussion seeing none all in favor of 00:57:39.720 --> 00:57:44.640 supporting the motion for a five percent assumption on the assessed value growth 00:57:44.640 --> 00:57:52.320 please say aye do you need a you need a you need a handbook okay all right raise 00:57:52.320 --> 00:58:05.000 your right hand or your left hand I don't care great all right so as we move 00:58:05.000 --> 00:58:09.440 forward now we'll work from the assumption of a five percent growth rate 00:58:09.440 --> 00:58:15.480 and what the impact would be with the various aspects of this and and David 00:58:15.480 --> 00:58:19.600 one of the things that I think that you indicated to me earlier today was that 00:58:19.600 --> 00:58:25.240 that you all have kind of rerun some numbers in terms of what five percent 00:58:25.240 --> 00:58:29.560 might mean at different levels and I think that's what this slide is about it 00:58:29.560 --> 00:58:32.720 is so this kind of leads into the forecast assumptions you know the other 00:58:32.720 --> 00:58:37.440 the other variable that that plays a part in the total tax rate and the whole 00:58:37.440 --> 00:58:41.080 plan itself is when do we issue the debt when do when do we need these when do 00:58:41.080 --> 00:58:44.320 we get dollars for the program so we step back with our financial advisors 00:58:44.320 --> 00:58:48.480 and looked at what how can we time the issue it says so we can get the projects 00:58:48.480 --> 00:58:53.640 done but also at a issuance rate that has the least impacts on the tax rate 00:58:53.640 --> 00:58:57.320 so that's what we're that's what we're presenting here you know obviously as we 00:58:57.320 --> 00:59:00.400 look forward on this program we're gonna have a lot of cost in those first couple 00:59:00.400 --> 00:59:03.600 years as you've seen the schedule for the police station the police for 00:59:03.600 --> 00:59:07.640 innovation and a couple of those major projects so there is a big impact in 00:59:07.640 --> 00:59:11.360 those first few years to our debt service that is where we're also helped 00:59:11.360 --> 00:59:14.240 by that having that debt service fund balance that we're able to utilize in 00:59:14.240 --> 00:59:18.360 those first few years to mitigate that impact from the debt service on the debt 00:59:18.360 --> 00:59:21.800 service tax rate from what we have to pay with debt service so all those are 00:59:21.800 --> 00:59:26.360 the factors that really play into it but we will by doing that and by taking that 00:59:26.360 --> 00:59:32.160 look we're able to come here and say we have a five cent increase right under a 00:59:32.160 --> 00:59:36.520 five cent increase on the two hundred thirty five million dollar project we 00:59:36.520 --> 00:59:42.280 this was discussed if you would would you update the committee on the action 00:59:42.280 --> 00:59:49.240 that the council took so obviously following last Thursday meeting last 00:59:49.240 --> 00:59:53.000 Thursday's committee meeting one of the action items was to go to the City 00:59:53.000 --> 00:59:57.000 Council and request that would they revise the resolution that that formed 00:59:57.000 --> 01:00:01.360 the committee which had a not to exceed amount of 210 million dollars that 01:00:01.360 --> 01:00:05.880 amount has now been increased to 235 million dollars there was some 01:00:05.880 --> 01:00:10.320 discussion during the work session we presented the item to City Council a lot 01:00:10.320 --> 01:00:13.920 of positive conversation from that from that meeting and they ultimately 01:00:13.920 --> 01:00:17.920 approved it on their agenda and I think the the intent from them to approve it 01:00:17.920 --> 01:00:21.480 was to just give the committee all the capacity they needed to have a full 01:00:21.480 --> 01:00:29.280 discussion of the projects as presented all right thank you any other questions 01:00:29.280 --> 01:00:43.320 in terms of this particular slide yes I was yeah I was agreeing with you were 01:00:43.320 --> 01:00:48.080 saying we were at four point four four percent and then if that change had 01:00:48.080 --> 01:00:54.080 happened today so I was just concerned you know hope you don't mind that yeah I 01:00:54.080 --> 01:00:59.400 was just really concerned because we did say four percent sounds like oh my 01:00:59.400 --> 01:01:04.480 goodness when we changed to five percent it rattled me a little bit because I was 01:01:04.480 --> 01:01:12.960 really stuck on that does that make sense I don't know okay all right let's 01:01:12.960 --> 01:01:19.040 move on to the next slide so this is a slide that was developed early from 01:01:19.040 --> 01:01:22.960 conversations with the committee of different pieces that everyone wanted to 01:01:22.960 --> 01:01:27.040 see with each of the scenarios so I'm gonna go through I'll go through fairly 01:01:27.040 --> 01:01:30.280 quickly because there's a lot of numbers here and I'll hit on some of the the 01:01:30.280 --> 01:01:33.440 numbers that I think we're of most interest but definitely can answer any 01:01:33.440 --> 01:01:39.960 questions as we go through but for the 235 million dollar program we anticipate 01:01:39.960 --> 01:01:44.680 a five cent increase in the debt service tax rate and you can see that on the 01:01:44.680 --> 01:01:48.880 debt service tax rate here the second column that's bolded of how it how it 01:01:48.880 --> 01:01:53.480 increases through the years where we really gradually come up to our largest 01:01:53.480 --> 01:01:59.280 increases in FY 23 and 24 and through 26 and then it'll start going down after 01:01:59.280 --> 01:02:03.800 that we also show our total tax rate which is a combination of our 01:02:03.800 --> 01:02:07.000 maintenance and operations rate with our debt service tax rate and this is our 01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:11.040 maintenance operations rate at the effective level for the entirety of the 01:02:11.040 --> 01:02:15.760 program and then have shown here the three and a half percent rollback rate 01:02:15.760 --> 01:02:21.000 and this again doesn't have a lot is not impacted very much by this bond program 01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:24.520 itself other than some maintenance costs associated with any of the projects as 01:02:24.520 --> 01:02:28.600 they move forward but wanted to show this here for context but three and a 01:02:28.600 --> 01:02:32.200 half percent rollback rate is a new is new in the legislation that was just 01:02:32.200 --> 01:02:36.280 passed by the Texas Legislature this year it'll go into effect next fiscal 01:02:36.280 --> 01:02:42.640 year for us in our budget considerations for FY 2021 and what it says is we can't 01:02:42.640 --> 01:02:48.680 go over three and a half percent of our maintenance and operations rate that's 01:02:48.680 --> 01:02:53.480 actually that's paid by existing values so of the values that have assessed 01:02:53.480 --> 01:02:59.160 value right now if they're if their assessed values increase what is the tax 01:02:59.160 --> 01:03:03.960 rate next year that would be that would be needed to pay the same amount of taxes 01:03:03.960 --> 01:03:07.720 they're paying yes this year and that's how that's that's based on three and a 01:03:07.720 --> 01:03:11.320 percent over that I know that can be a little bit complicated so I can 01:03:11.320 --> 01:03:15.200 definitely answer any more questions on that piece but I think it doesn't have a 01:03:15.200 --> 01:03:19.040 direct impact on us here but it is an important consideration for us as a city 01:03:19.040 --> 01:03:23.240 as we move forward over the next year six years of this program and after that 01:03:23.240 --> 01:03:27.960 of how we pay for our ongoing operations and maintenance costs that are increasing 01:03:27.960 --> 01:03:41.240 but also deal with the three and a half percent rollback rate yeah I did not the 01:03:41.240 --> 01:03:45.680 currently it's eight percent or currently the the eight percent is the 01:03:45.680 --> 01:03:49.280 rollback rate and the Texas the legislature has now moved that back to 01:03:49.280 --> 01:03:52.880 three and a half percent and it's based just on the maintenance and operations 01:03:52.880 --> 01:03:58.200 rate it's what existing homes the value that would be amount of property taxes 01:03:58.200 --> 01:04:02.160 we get for maintenance and operations from existing homes this year what 01:04:02.160 --> 01:04:07.520 would the rate be next year to get that same value and that becomes essentially 01:04:07.520 --> 01:04:11.520 an effective tax rate and then we can't go three and a half percent over that 01:04:11.520 --> 01:04:20.440 that rate without going to the voters to get approval for that new rate this is 01:04:20.440 --> 01:04:24.600 essentially saying in this year based on projections we have now we could only 01:04:24.600 --> 01:04:31.240 increase the maintenance in operations rate 1.3 cents before we'd have to go we 01:04:31.240 --> 01:04:35.040 be over that three now I these are based on a lot of projections the first year 01:04:35.040 --> 01:04:37.960 we're doing this so that I think that number is probably between one and two 01:04:37.960 --> 01:04:44.480 cents in some range but it's there for consideration all right you want to look 01:04:44.480 --> 01:04:50.440 at the next scenario we had another question and it may be one you can't 01:04:50.440 --> 01:04:55.080 answer because it's a future question does the city anticipate having any more 01:04:55.080 --> 01:05:01.320 bonds going forward in the next few years so I think that comes back to the 01:05:01.320 --> 01:05:07.120 assumptions question if we're a five percent assessed value growth and we say 01:05:07.120 --> 01:05:11.360 we get five percent every year of this program I don't think it would be 01:05:11.360 --> 01:05:16.680 difficult to go back out and ask the voters to do another increase but if we 01:05:16.680 --> 01:05:19.760 have a percent and ten percent and there's there's room there within the 01:05:19.760 --> 01:05:22.520 debt service tax rate I think that's when the considerations would happen I 01:05:22.520 --> 01:05:26.120 think it's also a very safe assumption if we're gonna grow the way we're 01:05:26.120 --> 01:05:30.560 growing we're gonna have more bond packages in the future 01:05:31.320 --> 01:05:40.160 so David I have a question for clarification it sounded like in your 01:05:40.160 --> 01:05:44.480 procedural description of the three and a half rollback rate that that only 01:05:44.480 --> 01:05:48.520 applies to the M in a row rate the way I see this table the three and a half 01:05:48.520 --> 01:05:55.480 rollback difference really looks like the difference between the your total 01:05:55.480 --> 01:06:01.160 tax rate that we're planning on and the three and a half percent rollback rate 01:06:01.160 --> 01:06:05.280 that's computed over the entire yes is that correct you're right I was trying 01:06:05.280 --> 01:06:09.520 not to confuse everyone no it's okay I just I just want to clarify so really 01:06:09.520 --> 01:06:14.120 what that means is that this is sort of a benchmark target that we're trying to 01:06:14.120 --> 01:06:18.440 hit to stay below that three and a half percent rollback rate for the entire tax 01:06:18.440 --> 01:06:26.480 rate however legally what is required by the recent legislation is that the city 01:06:26.480 --> 01:06:33.640 must go to the voters if just the first column of the M&O rate right so when you 01:06:33.640 --> 01:06:38.160 collect the roll when you when you calculate the rollback rate you take the 01:06:38.160 --> 01:06:41.560 maintenance and operate the effective maintenance operations rate you three 01:06:41.560 --> 01:06:44.560 and a half percent above that right and then you add in what your debt service 01:06:44.560 --> 01:06:49.320 tax rate is so the actual rollback rate is the total it's just only impacted by 01:06:49.320 --> 01:06:52.480 the maintenance and operations okay so I did not confuse so the number that's 01:06:52.480 --> 01:06:59.680 presented is is the complete amount okay so is that column that says three and a 01:06:59.680 --> 01:07:02.400 half rollback difference is that computed the way that you just described 01:07:02.400 --> 01:07:07.040 correct okay thank you so I think we're going to go through a couple other 01:07:07.040 --> 01:07:14.280 scenarios here this is that this is assuming this is at 235 million which is 01:07:14.280 --> 01:07:19.440 the cap of what we could do and it would be a five cent tax rate increase if we 01:07:19.440 --> 01:07:24.360 did a smaller package at 210 which was the original number I think that's our 01:07:24.360 --> 01:07:27.880 next slide it is I do want to point out as we look at all these scenarios and 01:07:27.880 --> 01:07:31.920 this was one of the emphasis is from City Council as we went into the program 01:07:31.920 --> 01:07:36.040 was to not have a program that would exceed our total our current total tax 01:07:36.040 --> 01:07:39.600 rate and obviously the 235 is going to be our largest program that we look at 01:07:39.600 --> 01:07:43.520 and it it does not exceed the total tax rate that we current have currently have 01:07:43.520 --> 01:07:49.400 and none of the scenarios moving forward do it either understanding those are 01:07:49.400 --> 01:07:53.400 all with our operations maintenance rate at our effective tax rate which is a 01:07:53.400 --> 01:08:00.240 different discussion with council each year on the operation side the 210 01:08:00.240 --> 01:08:04.080 million dollar program which has been the somewhat of the benchmark as we that 01:08:04.080 --> 01:08:08.920 we've looked at throughout this process you can see again the debt service tax 01:08:08.920 --> 01:08:13.520 rate here all the other numbers as we talked about previously that service 01:08:13.520 --> 01:08:18.020 tax rate going up a little bit under under four cents so we would say the 01:08:18.020 --> 01:08:22.680 max tax rate that we could see in this program at 210 million dollars would be 01:08:22.680 --> 01:08:28.920 a four cent tax rate increase but you can see the total tax rate here remaining 01:08:28.920 --> 01:08:33.400 under our current tax rate throughout the life of the program and so four cents 01:08:33.400 --> 01:08:38.080 would fall in line with what previous bond packages had as as the high high 01:08:38.080 --> 01:08:49.000 total of potential taxing 2005 and 2012 and 2014 5 and 2014 4 in 2014 2005 and 2014 01:08:49.000 --> 01:09:02.280 they Queen is just asking about we'll be addressing some of the some of the 01:09:02.280 --> 01:09:08.040 specific projects later after we get to get through the some of these important 01:09:08.040 --> 01:09:17.080 discussions so the next scenario to that the committee asked for last week was a 01:09:17.080 --> 01:09:20.880 hundred eighty million dollar scenario and really these scenarios worked out 01:09:20.880 --> 01:09:26.000 fairly cleanly where it kind of went a cent per scenario 180 million dollar 01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:30.640 scenario was equated to a three percent increase at some point in the debt 01:09:30.640 --> 01:09:35.760 service tax in in the six-year program and again it just to emphasize even when 01:09:35.760 --> 01:09:39.800 we say six cents here you're not really experiencing that until 2023 2024 it's 01:09:39.800 --> 01:09:44.920 not every year you're gonna be over that amount and so one of our selling points 01:09:44.920 --> 01:09:51.600 here and what the council gave us was that there's there would be no impact on 01:09:51.600 --> 01:09:56.680 the effective tax rate for homeowners on whatever scenario we work with is that 01:09:56.680 --> 01:10:04.200 right on the 100 million dollar scenario the goal the goal was to keep the 01:10:04.200 --> 01:10:08.400 effective rate where it is which is basically where we are in total when you 01:10:08.400 --> 01:10:11.080 look at the kind of the way that the hundred million dollar scenario works 01:10:11.080 --> 01:10:17.440 out on the because the effective rate on the the total effective rate is just the 01:10:17.440 --> 01:10:21.000 tax rate that effective rate will increase as we increase the debt service 01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:25.320 tax rate but on the maintenance operation side we've kept that rate at 01:10:25.320 --> 01:10:35.920 the okay thank you so 180 million three cents increase and then the hundred 01:10:35.920 --> 01:10:39.440 million dollars has no tax rate increase on the debt service tax rate and actually 01:10:39.440 --> 01:10:43.880 as you get to the the final years of this we are of this program we actually 01:10:43.880 --> 01:10:48.400 our tax rate then goes on the debt service side below our current tax rate 01:10:48.400 --> 01:10:52.440 I I think it's important to talk about the hundred million dollar scenario 01:10:52.440 --> 01:10:57.200 because obviously when we spread a hundred million dollars out for six 01:10:57.200 --> 01:11:02.000 years that's true we wanted apples to apples comparisons if we wanted to go 01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:05.760 forward with a hundred million dollars in program we would really need to step 01:11:05.760 --> 01:11:09.880 back and have a different discussion because to do the police station to the 01:11:09.880 --> 01:11:13.220 renovation the substation and some of these street projects where we need a 01:11:13.220 --> 01:11:17.440 lot of dollar dollars up front that may become a four-year program that does 01:11:17.440 --> 01:11:21.600 have a debt service tax rate increase so we've shown this here and obviously we 01:11:21.600 --> 01:11:25.880 could you know we would take a detailed look at how we would issue a hundred 01:11:25.880 --> 01:11:30.920 million dollars but it would not be the same way that we would issue the other 01:11:30.920 --> 01:11:38.600 scenarios okay we showed this chart previously just showing that gap between 01:11:38.600 --> 01:11:44.160 the max tax rate and our history on the debt service tax rate side and that's 01:11:44.160 --> 01:11:47.440 the chart that shows that we did four cents previous right so we have the four 01:11:47.440 --> 01:11:52.040 cents there in 2005 and the gap between that and in 2014 we had the four cent 01:11:52.040 --> 01:11:55.800 max that's that service tax rate increase and we stayed below that through 01:11:55.800 --> 01:12:04.680 the life of that program so over these not these next few slides of show some 01:12:04.680 --> 01:12:10.120 of the same information but just show the impact to our debt service tax rate 01:12:10.120 --> 01:12:14.880 our debt service payments for each year of the different scenarios this came up 01:12:14.880 --> 01:12:19.160 last week as we talked about the number of our total debt our total debt 01:12:19.160 --> 01:12:23.520 outstanding versus what the debt we would issue would be and how all that 01:12:23.520 --> 01:12:27.560 debt doesn't hit us at once that we have debt falling off as new debt arises so 01:12:27.560 --> 01:12:31.640 our debt service payments are that obviously the payments we make each year 01:12:31.640 --> 01:12:37.280 on our general government debt so this year about 25 million dollars in debt 01:12:37.280 --> 01:12:40.440 service payments in general government and you can see if we were not to issue 01:12:40.440 --> 01:12:46.560 anything going forward how it would drop off over the next 20 years and just 01:12:46.560 --> 01:12:50.720 similar to a home payment where you have your interest out front and then you're 01:12:50.720 --> 01:12:55.560 paying more principal later in the program so there are quite a few lines 01:12:55.560 --> 01:13:00.700 here but I think there I can explain them fairly easily to everyone the red 01:13:00.700 --> 01:13:03.720 line is all right what we just saw that's essentially our existing debt 01:13:03.720 --> 01:13:09.400 service over the 20 years and you can see how it falls off the greed that the 01:13:09.400 --> 01:13:17.000 blue line is that we just issued debt this this week with City Council to for 01:13:17.000 --> 01:13:21.680 some certificates of obligation and for our 2014 bond program so you can see 01:13:21.680 --> 01:13:27.200 that already increases that red line to our starting point the green air the 01:13:27.200 --> 01:13:32.160 green line is the deditions I mentioned earlier the 2014 the fourteen point six 01:13:32.160 --> 01:13:37.360 million dollars will be issuing and then the orange yellow line is are the 01:13:37.360 --> 01:13:40.840 certificates of obligations I mentioned that will be issuing each of those years 01:13:40.840 --> 01:13:46.080 for facility maintenance and and the vehicle replacement so essentially this 01:13:46.080 --> 01:13:51.200 this yellow line becomes if we were to do not do a program at all and not do a 01:13:51.200 --> 01:13:56.840 program any bond program over the life of you know the next 20-25 years what 01:13:56.840 --> 01:14:01.160 would the impact be so if we were to do no bond programs for 25 years here's how 01:14:01.160 --> 01:14:07.400 the debt service rate would decrease with the 235 million dollar number you 01:14:07.400 --> 01:14:10.520 235 billion dollar program you can see how that debt service tax rate does 01:14:10.520 --> 01:14:14.320 increase as we start as we issue those bonds and then starts decreasing as 01:14:14.320 --> 01:14:19.720 we're just paying those those bonds off but to kind of tie it back to the 01:14:19.720 --> 01:14:24.040 earlier conversations in this scenario essentially what we're saying is the 01:14:24.040 --> 01:14:31.860 additional five cents max could pay for the difference between this blue line 01:14:31.860 --> 01:14:38.400 and the purple line so that the tax rate increase does also pay for some of the 01:14:38.400 --> 01:14:42.440 other debt will be issuing in future years and can you remind the committee 01:14:42.440 --> 01:14:47.240 what the current total debt that the city has it's supported by property tax 01:14:47.240 --> 01:14:52.280 sure I mean I'll pull it up to be exact about 260 million dollars but I have it 01:14:52.280 --> 01:15:00.440 on this other presentation so 260 million dollars is our current outstanding debt 01:15:00.440 --> 01:15:04.600 and so this would be if we did a 210 million dollar program we showed last 01:15:04.600 --> 01:15:09.240 last week if you with the interest on that over the life of the debt we were 01:15:09.240 --> 01:15:13.480 anticipating that would be about a 316 million dollar program so when you look 01:15:13.480 --> 01:15:17.400 at those numbers side-by-side it looks like we're doubling our debt but because 01:15:17.400 --> 01:15:21.360 as we showed the debt service is falling off on that existing debt and then is 01:15:21.360 --> 01:15:25.520 getting to plan and obviously going above our current debt service amount but 01:15:25.520 --> 01:15:30.480 that's how that interplay works and I think you said last week about 98 01:15:30.480 --> 01:15:35.580 million would be retired over the life of this this current bond proposal yeah 01:15:35.580 --> 01:15:38.680 over the six years of the bond program about 98 million of our current debt 01:15:38.680 --> 01:15:41.720 would be retired 01:15:49.240 --> 01:15:53.440 so the remaining slides just kind of emphasize the point on the debt service 01:15:53.440 --> 01:15:57.880 tax rate as we have each scenario you can see that the jump there isn't quite 01:15:57.880 --> 01:16:03.280 as much as we as we come down but a similar story and for the 180 and I 01:16:03.280 --> 01:16:07.040 think it's I think just to point out even with this hundred million dollar 01:16:07.040 --> 01:16:11.920 hundred million dollar program which we've looked at for comparison and we're 01:16:11.920 --> 01:16:15.160 saying that would have no debt service tax or an increase and in fact a 01:16:15.160 --> 01:16:21.240 decrease in latter years you still have it going up but what this increase in 01:16:21.240 --> 01:16:25.040 assessed value that we're going to experience the debt service rate needed 01:16:25.040 --> 01:16:34.280 to pay off is doesn't increase any questions on any of that 01:16:40.840 --> 01:16:45.640 yeah so each so you can see it kind of as it goes up each year it's in 2020 01:16:45.640 --> 01:16:50.560 we're issuing issuing our first round of issuance for bonds for the for the 01:16:50.560 --> 01:16:55.280 program in 2021 we're issuing our next round and then all the way up to 2025 26 01:16:55.280 --> 01:16:59.160 where we've issued the all of our bonds for the program and then it starts 01:16:59.160 --> 01:17:02.560 decreasing because we're simply just paying the debt service down at that 01:17:02.560 --> 01:17:11.720 point so keep this all in mind as we move here shortly to what what the 01:17:11.720 --> 01:17:16.640 prioritization list is and where that running total is because that will be 01:17:16.640 --> 01:17:21.360 part of what we ultimately are going to take up here in just a little bit David 01:17:21.360 --> 01:17:27.960 you want to continue I I'll go through these slides but obviously Todd essence 01:17:27.960 --> 01:17:35.400 here as we go through it we wanted to touch on the street rehab program and 01:17:35.400 --> 01:17:38.840 the neighborhood streets and just make sure obviously this is a discussion 01:17:38.840 --> 01:17:43.100 we've had previously but just to make sure everyone understands how what the 01:17:43.100 --> 01:17:47.680 plan right now is just to spend that 70 million dollars and how it breaks down 01:17:47.680 --> 01:17:54.640 for district and in different areas of the city so our neighbor the neighbor 01:17:54.640 --> 01:17:58.920 one of the one of the opportunity the plans that we had as we move for look in 01:17:58.920 --> 01:18:02.880 our street rehab program was to focus on neighborhood streets like neighborhood 01:18:02.880 --> 01:18:07.640 street neighborhoods throughout the community and have that be the basis 01:18:07.640 --> 01:18:13.080 that we that we that we that we did our street rehab program this year as we had 01:18:13.080 --> 01:18:17.000 conversations with the committee and considered other alternatives we 01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:19.840 ultimately decided to do the hybrid approach where we said we're going to 01:18:19.840 --> 01:18:24.560 focus on these neighborhoods that we gain efficiencies on by having the roads 01:18:24.560 --> 01:18:27.760 near each other having those connector streets able to do water or wastewater 01:18:27.760 --> 01:18:32.320 improvements along with the street improvements along with the next slide 01:18:32.320 --> 01:18:35.880 which will show the focus with the other half of the street rehab dollars on 01:18:35.880 --> 01:18:43.400 those low OCI those the streets in the in the city with the lowest quality so 01:18:43.400 --> 01:18:47.480 I'll just touch on the financials here quickly and then turn it over to Todd on 01:18:47.480 --> 01:18:50.840 the neighborhoods on the neighborhood streets you can see with the 01:18:50.840 --> 01:18:55.040 recommendation right now street the neighborhoods one three and four are 01:18:55.040 --> 01:19:01.160 included in the 70 million dollars and I'll turn over to Todd to kind of go through those neighborhoods 01:19:01.160 --> 01:19:11.520 Todd Estes City Engineer we've been through this just briefly but hopefully 01:19:11.520 --> 01:19:15.080 just a little bit more detail and what the city staff has been working through 01:19:15.080 --> 01:19:19.840 as we try to prioritize what goes into these neighborhoods this neighborhood 01:19:19.840 --> 01:19:23.800 program as we would call it so we're looking at several different neighborhoods 01:19:23.800 --> 01:19:27.440 in the area there's no again no prioritization assigned to these numbers 01:19:27.440 --> 01:19:30.480 that was just when we numbered it we started at the top and we numbered going 01:19:30.480 --> 01:19:34.840 down to the bottom it was one two three four five six seven that circle back up 01:19:34.840 --> 01:19:38.720 to the middle there's no rhyme or reason to the numbers but we are going to roll 01:19:38.720 --> 01:19:42.520 through just what these neighborhoods look like that we're proposing as the 01:19:42.520 --> 01:19:45.960 top three neighborhoods that be included in this and and they do as we've talked 01:19:45.960 --> 01:19:51.480 about before realize the actual lowest average OCI throughout those 01:19:51.480 --> 01:19:56.520 neighborhoods of all those seven that we had considered these were the seven 01:19:56.520 --> 01:20:00.480 worst as a neighborhood considered average OCI so the top three are the 01:20:00.480 --> 01:20:05.440 ones that we were nominating to go forward in this program so as we look 01:20:05.440 --> 01:20:08.760 into these streets and these neighborhoods so neighborhood four was 01:20:08.760 --> 01:20:12.880 actually our lowest average OCI that is the southeast Denton there in 01:20:12.880 --> 01:20:17.080 neighborhood area so if you look at that area we talked about last week that's 01:20:17.080 --> 01:20:20.960 about twelve point eight lane miles of roadway that would be totally 01:20:20.960 --> 01:20:27.360 reconstructed combined with that would be water wastewater improvements a lot 01:20:27.360 --> 01:20:31.520 of aging infrastructure that needs to be improved all at the same time plus 01:20:31.520 --> 01:20:36.240 there's another seven to thirteen lane miles of maintenance that needs to be 01:20:36.240 --> 01:20:42.480 done with those roadways that are not in that 45 OCI and under they're over that 01:20:42.480 --> 01:20:46.880 45 benchmark so that's still in the area where we would be doing maintenance I 01:20:46.880 --> 01:20:49.840 don't care where you're on the city we'd be doing maintenance of different scales 01:20:49.840 --> 01:20:57.360 different amounts over time to prolong their life the next neighborhood this 01:20:57.360 --> 01:21:01.400 neighborhood once upon the north side of town through previous bond packages this 01:21:01.400 --> 01:21:05.240 is one of those neighborhoods that really fell into that shotgun approach 01:21:05.240 --> 01:21:09.680 we talked about in the past where we took the absolute lowest OCI we tackled 01:21:09.680 --> 01:21:15.200 those in the bond program and then in an effort to try to stem some of the 01:21:15.200 --> 01:21:19.240 frustration that the neighbors felt in those areas we came in with O&M money 01:21:19.240 --> 01:21:23.480 and tried to tie those segments together so there were roadway pieces in that 01:21:23.480 --> 01:21:27.280 neighborhood that were left out this closes the gap on that neighborhood so 01:21:27.280 --> 01:21:31.760 that we're not coming back in the next 20 25 years working on roadways that we 01:21:31.760 --> 01:21:35.400 did 30 years ago and then five years after that coming back and doing the 01:21:35.400 --> 01:21:39.720 roads we could have done again so this closes that neighborhood that neighborhood 01:21:39.720 --> 01:21:46.240 still on average has the lowest overall OCI up from the southeast Denton 01:21:46.240 --> 01:21:50.280 neighborhood area so this would be the same and that we would be tackling all 01:21:50.280 --> 01:21:54.160 of those infrastructure needs at one time the water wastewater drainage and 01:21:54.160 --> 01:22:02.240 streets at the same time and then the next is neighborhood three that's really 01:22:02.240 --> 01:22:08.120 over South University Drive more in that area around Denton High School just 01:22:08.120 --> 01:22:13.040 north of North Texas north of the Hickory and Oak area this area still has 01:22:13.040 --> 01:22:19.120 quite a few holes left in it from an overall OCI plus a lot of aging water 01:22:19.120 --> 01:22:22.680 wastewater infrastructure that just needs to be addressed so that was where 01:22:22.680 --> 01:22:30.360 number three came on staff's list as the top three projects those three round 01:22:30.360 --> 01:22:36.440 out to about 39 million dollars combined when it just in roadway improvements 01:22:36.440 --> 01:22:39.160 when you add in the water wastewater improvements it almost doubles that 01:22:39.160 --> 01:22:44.200 number it's a nearly 70 to 80 million dollars worth of investment in those 01:22:44.200 --> 01:22:48.840 neighborhoods that does not include the O&M costs that would also be associated 01:22:48.840 --> 01:22:55.680 over time for those roadways that don't fall into this category of needing to be 01:22:55.680 --> 01:23:03.160 totally reconstruction 45 or less so then the remainder of those roads were 01:23:03.160 --> 01:23:08.680 what we've looked at how do we get to a 70 million dollar somebody had mentioned 01:23:08.680 --> 01:23:12.240 as we got some savings out of Ryan Road somebody on this committee asked what if 01:23:12.240 --> 01:23:15.960 we took to get up 70 million dollars so that we can round out that number to 210 01:23:15.960 --> 01:23:20.080 again or some other things have happened for that numbers being considered to be 01:23:20.080 --> 01:23:25.240 larger so at 70 million dollars the cutoff point for if we kind of do this 01:23:25.240 --> 01:23:29.520 hybrid approach of we we tackle three neighborhoods that are in need 01:23:29.520 --> 01:23:35.120 holistically and then address all of the worst roadways left we could get up to 01:23:35.120 --> 01:23:40.160 about those roadways that are at 20 OCI and less so they're really on the lower 01:23:40.160 --> 01:23:44.960 end spectrum of the OCI scale again that OCI goes from 100 being the best zero 01:23:44.960 --> 01:23:49.480 being the worst 20 really becoming a safety problem as well as a maintenance 01:23:49.480 --> 01:23:54.960 problem for us just consistently going out and doing things when you add those 01:23:54.960 --> 01:23:59.760 elements back in that brings back up brings the total amount to roughly 70 01:23:59.760 --> 01:24:05.560 million dollars it's 69.8 so round it a little bit as engineers we love to get 01:24:05.560 --> 01:24:10.360 into significant figures and that's where we ended up at 69.8 but it's 70 01:24:10.360 --> 01:24:13.320 I can take into account some other things you can get there so this map 01:24:13.320 --> 01:24:19.000 shows one of the questions we had what does what does the 70 million dollars do 01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:23.840 from a council district perspective how many of those roadways how many lane 01:24:23.840 --> 01:24:28.160 miles how much money is going to each district so what this chart really shows 01:24:28.160 --> 01:24:33.040 you is that and I don't know why the average OCI is popping up here that was 01:24:33.040 --> 01:24:39.480 left over that has nothing to do with this up here my apologies for that these 01:24:39.480 --> 01:24:43.460 when you look at this we were broken into two groups so you've got the 01:24:43.460 --> 01:24:49.880 neighborhoods which are these lines in blue so they still contribute to how 01:24:49.880 --> 01:24:54.240 much money of that 70 million we would be putting into that into this bond 01:24:54.240 --> 01:24:59.000 package so we group them by district so if you see an N next to the number 01:24:59.000 --> 01:25:03.120 district one N is that neighborhood so that's that southeast Denton 01:25:03.120 --> 01:25:08.120 neighborhood for district one looking at roughly 11 million dollars in roadway 01:25:08.120 --> 01:25:14.120 cost of that 70 million and then there's another 6.3 miles lane miles of work to 01:25:14.120 --> 01:25:19.160 be done in the 20 and under OCI category that doesn't lie just within that 01:25:19.160 --> 01:25:24.080 neighborhood so that brings it total investment in that area to roughly 17 01:25:24.080 --> 01:25:28.620 million dollars so that's really how you read this chart the total comes up to 01:25:28.620 --> 01:25:33.160 70 million dollars but anytime you see that in it's that neighborhood and of 01:25:33.160 --> 01:25:37.640 course see in district for we're not proposing a neighborhood at this time to 01:25:37.640 --> 01:25:43.360 go into this program by and large most of those streets will be handled by the 01:25:43.360 --> 01:25:47.860 current ongoing maintenance program that we have and then at a later date there 01:25:47.860 --> 01:25:53.120 will be roadways that fall under a future bond package then you've also got 01:25:53.120 --> 01:25:59.080 3.9 million in low OCI roadways in district for so any questions about what 01:25:59.080 --> 01:26:03.840 this charts show and this map 01:26:03.840 --> 01:26:12.560 does this include streets that have OCI of 20 or less that will be reconstructed already with previous bond funding no it's 01:26:12.560 --> 01:26:20.920 correct and does this include streets of 20 or less that will be funded in this 01:26:20.920 --> 01:26:24.080 bond program but don't fit within one of those one two three or four 01:26:24.080 --> 01:26:28.400 neighborhoods yes that's why the separation between those two lines so 01:26:28.400 --> 01:26:33.600 there are streets that fall 20 unless 25 unless they're in that neighborhood so 01:26:33.600 --> 01:26:38.300 the two categories are separate from each other so yeah so I'm speaking like 01:26:38.300 --> 01:26:42.480 for instance if I just look at the map there's one street just south of Windsor 01:26:42.480 --> 01:26:49.040 on the west side of town next to I-35 way west oh back over here yes that's 01:26:49.040 --> 01:26:53.120 not in any one of the four neighborhoods that you've identified right now you can 01:26:53.120 --> 01:26:57.560 see the neighborhoods we've identified yeah they are the blue lines so here's 01:26:57.560 --> 01:27:01.800 this is number four neighborhood four this is neighborhood three and this is 01:27:01.800 --> 01:27:05.760 neighborhood one those are those blue lines okay so these kind of purpley pink 01:27:05.760 --> 01:27:10.800 lines those are all the other streets that are under a 20 OCI yes everywhere 01:27:10.800 --> 01:27:14.720 else in the city understood and are those pink lines it elsewhere in the 01:27:14.720 --> 01:27:18.800 city are those included in this table that's that's what this second line is 01:27:18.800 --> 01:27:24.360 right here those are all the OCI is these pink lines okay those are the low 01:27:24.360 --> 01:27:30.680 OCI streets 20 and under that are within district 1 and then here the same thing 01:27:30.680 --> 01:27:36.920 for district 2 okay I'll have to go back to a previous presentation because I in 01:27:36.920 --> 01:27:40.560 my notes I had that it was about a hundred and one or a hundred and two lane 01:27:40.560 --> 01:27:49.800 miles for the total reconstruction program I know there are segments 102 01:27:49.800 --> 01:27:55.320 segments maybe confusing segments and lane miles okay thank you very much 01:27:55.320 --> 01:28:01.160 what's the one what's one in where's that where are we handling so district one 01:28:01.160 --> 01:28:05.240 is here okay so one in is the neighborhood we're proposing as far as 01:28:05.240 --> 01:28:08.720 back in so that's that southeast end in the neighborhood that's all these lines 01:28:08.720 --> 01:28:13.600 in blue and then there are other roads within district one that are also under 01:28:13.600 --> 01:28:19.080 20 OCI and they are these pinkish purple lines within district one that's what 01:28:19.080 --> 01:28:21.920 the second line shows 01:28:21.920 --> 01:28:34.800 other questions or let's move on to the next slide so just reiterating how we 01:28:34.800 --> 01:28:38.960 kind of arrived at this program it really is a hybrid of what we've done in 01:28:38.960 --> 01:28:42.200 the past where we would like to go is more the neighborhood approach so we 01:28:42.200 --> 01:28:46.160 really impact a neighborhood one time and then not have to come back other 01:28:46.160 --> 01:28:50.760 than minor maintenance for a good 30 to 40 years longer if we get that lifespan 01:28:50.760 --> 01:28:54.320 how that roadway through the robust maintenance program that we have right 01:28:54.320 --> 01:28:58.520 now so that would be the goal but recognizing we still have a lot of 01:28:58.520 --> 01:29:03.040 streets that need that attention that are leftover from a lot of inattention 01:29:03.040 --> 01:29:08.960 over years we're combining that with the old shotgun approach which has been the 01:29:08.960 --> 01:29:13.760 the preferred preferred model from the previous bond packages so we're marrying 01:29:13.760 --> 01:29:16.560 the two together 01:29:16.560 --> 01:29:31.560 do we have so the neighborhood approach takes OCI 40 below do we have a map that 01:29:31.560 --> 01:29:37.960 shows every 40 below street in the city yeah we actually have every street 01:29:37.960 --> 01:29:42.240 within the city and it's current OCI mapped and then we'll be double 01:29:42.240 --> 01:29:48.600 checking that degradation model surveyed in 2015 we'll be doing that again this 01:29:48.600 --> 01:29:52.760 fall so that we can check our models to make sure they're accurate and what 01:29:52.760 --> 01:29:58.480 they're predicting is that I'm sure it's probably not available tonight but I 01:29:58.480 --> 01:30:09.400 would be curious to see that just just to see I like the neighborhood approach 01:30:09.400 --> 01:30:22.360 David will do the technical okay we do have that mapping and we did show it at 01:30:22.360 --> 01:30:26.800 a previous presentation where it showed all the streets within the city and we 01:30:26.800 --> 01:30:31.720 can break it down all the way down to a one-point difference it's hard to read 01:30:31.720 --> 01:30:35.480 the map what we had broken down was arranged very much like this where it's 01:30:35.480 --> 01:30:39.280 color-coded we can see all the streets that we we know of throughout the city 01:30:39.280 --> 01:30:43.480 of it now this does not include new developments that have been placed since 01:30:43.480 --> 01:30:47.000 2015 that's what the new survey will also capture is all those new 01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:52.840 developments as well right any any guess if we did the neighborhood approach and 01:30:52.840 --> 01:31:03.080 instead of 20 OCI we took it to 30 OCI I guess yes it's hard to get an idea of 01:31:03.080 --> 01:31:09.520 how bad an OCI 20 Street is so if you go to a third and agree I mean once you 01:31:09.520 --> 01:31:17.240 start getting below 40 it's difficult it's varying degrees of bad so a street 01:31:17.240 --> 01:31:21.860 that falls into a 20 OCI may have a variety of issues with it one what we 01:31:21.860 --> 01:31:26.240 would call base failure but you would see it as several segments of the road 01:31:26.240 --> 01:31:30.400 really dropping beyond another segment of road we might see some heave where 01:31:30.400 --> 01:31:33.800 one piece of the road elevates over the others you see a lot of large potholes 01:31:33.800 --> 01:31:38.040 you'd see a lot of what we would call alligator cracking it looks just like an 01:31:38.040 --> 01:31:43.480 alligator scales across the pavement as those get wider water infiltrates into 01:31:43.480 --> 01:31:47.320 them then you start running into issues or whether roadway tires on the roadways 01:31:47.320 --> 01:31:51.320 start pulling them up as they hit them if we go through any kind of freeze 01:31:51.320 --> 01:31:56.480 thaw cycle the once or twice in a year we get here if there's water in those 01:31:56.480 --> 01:32:00.720 points they also get in there water expands pulls that stuff up and then you 01:32:00.720 --> 01:32:04.800 get your next pothole so they may also be base failures there's a there's a 01:32:04.800 --> 01:32:10.480 whole host of things that could happen once you get below that 30 OCI but it 01:32:10.480 --> 01:32:15.520 from a number standpoint our estimate has been about 95 million just to 01:32:15.520 --> 01:32:23.200 address 30 and less that doesn't include the neighborhood right right okay so if 01:32:23.200 --> 01:32:29.440 I'm reading this correctly so zero to 20 is 35 so the neighborhood approach is 01:32:29.440 --> 01:32:33.720 about 35 and we've refined that since since why these numbers are just a 01:32:33.720 --> 01:32:37.080 little bit different now we continue to refine that number it's actually just a 01:32:37.080 --> 01:32:44.400 little over so if we wanted to raise the standard to zero to 25 plus the 01:32:44.400 --> 01:32:49.580 neighborhood it'd be another 25 million dollars yes okay that's that's where I 01:32:49.580 --> 01:32:57.120 was trying okay I have a question about the roads and everything because this 01:32:57.120 --> 01:33:01.880 afternoon actually this morning as I came back into my house there was a 01:33:01.880 --> 01:33:07.320 water main break underneath the road on Locust anybody trying to go north on 01:33:07.320 --> 01:33:14.160 Locust yeah sorry but so when you're looking at the OCI you're looking at the 01:33:14.160 --> 01:33:18.840 top layer obviously yes and then the banks and are you looking at the water 01:33:18.840 --> 01:33:23.960 mains underneath it and the age of those water mains so we were it doesn't fall 01:33:23.960 --> 01:33:28.940 into the OCI because that strictly is a pavement assessment but the water 01:33:28.940 --> 01:33:33.400 department the wastewater department has a similar so categories that they line 01:33:33.400 --> 01:33:36.360 up all that grade all their infrastructure similarly and then we 01:33:36.360 --> 01:33:41.040 work with them Danny is it quarterly monthly that y'all are talking about 01:33:41.040 --> 01:33:47.120 your next 30 60 90 and then five-year outlook monthly they're working closely 01:33:47.120 --> 01:33:54.520 together to make sure that water with it being under pressure when a pipe gets to 01:33:54.520 --> 01:33:59.160 be 20 30 years old or there could be other things coming online if just a lot 01:33:59.160 --> 01:34:04.880 of different things that could happen in the 1940s right yeah because that I mean 01:34:04.880 --> 01:34:09.480 that affects those three neighborhoods too that we've looked at that's one of 01:34:09.480 --> 01:34:14.880 many reasons why some of those roads are so bad is the underlying and that's 01:34:14.880 --> 01:34:18.600 exactly why we want to go to this more holistic neighborhood approach is we 01:34:18.600 --> 01:34:23.220 want to replace everything in that roadway so that it's not that problem 01:34:23.220 --> 01:34:25.840 going forward 01:34:39.480 --> 01:34:49.760 there is I mean from one standpoint we can actually contract a lot of this 01:34:49.760 --> 01:34:54.840 work out to a general contractor and he handles we get a lot of economies of 01:34:54.840 --> 01:34:59.520 scale so we can get the price points better we can get the work done faster 01:34:59.520 --> 01:35:04.040 because the general contractor is in control of all of those facets the water 01:35:04.040 --> 01:35:08.640 the wastewater the drainage the roadway he can schedule it it's his task to be 01:35:08.640 --> 01:35:14.280 done city crews what typically happens for our crews is we get called from one 01:35:14.280 --> 01:35:17.680 construction site to an emergency and then another emergency and then we 01:35:17.680 --> 01:35:21.360 disappear from a construction site not because we don't want to be there but 01:35:21.360 --> 01:35:25.120 because there's another emergency like a water main break on locust that we've 01:35:25.120 --> 01:35:29.200 got to go and what people don't realize is as soon as the water department goes 01:35:29.200 --> 01:35:33.680 then following right behind them is the street department is they've got to come 01:35:33.680 --> 01:35:37.680 in they've got to fix that roadway piece now that had to be torn up just to get 01:35:37.680 --> 01:35:43.240 to the waterline so you get better economies of scale just from a price 01:35:43.240 --> 01:35:47.360 point and then how quickly we can get the work done because we're not so 01:35:47.360 --> 01:35:51.160 distracted and distractions not because we're not focused on the work it's just 01:35:51.160 --> 01:35:56.280 there's so much work to be done and very few crew members to actually go do the 01:35:56.280 --> 01:36:01.360 work internally it's a better use of staff time and resources as well as 01:36:01.360 --> 01:36:04.640 taxpayer dollars to let them do what they're really good at we can put them 01:36:04.640 --> 01:36:07.960 where the emergency and the high priority is but not keep them focused for 01:36:07.960 --> 01:36:14.520 months on end right there if I could suggest let's let's try to finish this 01:36:14.520 --> 01:36:19.560 part of the presentation and then we'll be taking we'll take a short break but 01:36:19.560 --> 01:36:24.500 let's get through the rest of the of the initial presentation and when we come 01:36:24.500 --> 01:36:28.960 back we'll be moving into the prioritization list 01:36:34.640 --> 01:36:46.040 okay so any more questions on the neighborhood streets okay so the next 01:36:46.040 --> 01:36:51.200 next item that we took as a task this last week was give you an idea of what 01:36:51.200 --> 01:36:56.320 does say a 10 million dollar Ryan Road look like versus a 25 million dollar 01:36:56.320 --> 01:37:11.120 Ryan Road look like so really the difference between those two spectrums 01:37:11.120 --> 01:37:17.760 was how much do we want to invest today into Ryan Road our current area study 01:37:17.760 --> 01:37:24.200 for that area shows that the demand for Ryan while still the roadway needs to be 01:37:24.200 --> 01:37:28.020 improved it doesn't need to be improved to a four lane divided roadway which 01:37:28.020 --> 01:37:33.280 also helps us on some of the cost it shows that long term up to 2040 our 01:37:33.280 --> 01:37:37.080 current projections are you really don't need more than a three lane roadway and 01:37:37.080 --> 01:37:40.520 that's to help with the vast majority of these neighborhoods that are come have 01:37:40.520 --> 01:37:44.960 come in over time where the roadways don't line up as intersections which 01:37:44.960 --> 01:37:49.240 allows us to put in a four lane divided roadway or a two lane divided if you 01:37:49.240 --> 01:37:53.240 ever had a chance to need one where I can put in a left turn bay and get 01:37:53.240 --> 01:37:58.580 people off the travel lane to make their left turn when you have so many left 01:37:58.580 --> 01:38:02.840 turns all the way throughout a corridor then the best thing to do is to put in 01:38:02.840 --> 01:38:06.680 that middle lane to where you can allow people to get out of the travel lanes 01:38:06.680 --> 01:38:10.920 and get in the middle you see the similar effect when you build a four 01:38:10.920 --> 01:38:16.280 lane roadway with no median a four lane roadway works almost exactly like a 01:38:16.280 --> 01:38:20.560 three lane roadway because what happens is as you develop you get the same thing 01:38:20.560 --> 01:38:24.520 the inside lanes become left turn lanes that's where people sit and wait to turn 01:38:24.520 --> 01:38:29.760 and now you've only got the outside lanes left so where we've pushed is as 01:38:29.760 --> 01:38:35.960 we start looking at more of a truly contact sensitive roadway where I'm gonna 01:38:35.960 --> 01:38:40.440 put in all modes of transportation is how much roadway do I really need for a 01:38:40.440 --> 01:38:44.920 vehicle for the motorist and how much room do I could I also use not to build 01:38:44.920 --> 01:38:48.880 a very big road and a lot of expense going into the road but also put in 01:38:48.880 --> 01:38:52.420 pedestrian infrastructure bicycle infrastructure take care of the 01:38:52.420 --> 01:38:57.880 drainage issues and floodplain issues that exist so one option would be if we 01:38:57.880 --> 01:39:03.080 went with the ten million dollar option would be that we would go to the state 01:39:03.080 --> 01:39:06.880 for the intersection improvements on both ends of Ryan so they they have a 01:39:06.880 --> 01:39:12.700 policy of within 600 feet of an intersection that the state engages in 01:39:12.700 --> 01:39:17.880 intersection improvements so that is an a hurdle that we are working with the 01:39:17.880 --> 01:39:23.360 state on just to get that piece done as they work 2181 and 1830 they have 01:39:23.360 --> 01:39:27.220 dollars for both we know that exactly for 2181 because everybody's seen the 01:39:27.220 --> 01:39:32.440 cone still sitting out there and then 1830 they are we're working with them 01:39:32.440 --> 01:39:36.960 currently on what is 1830 look like as they have dollars coming to the table 01:39:36.960 --> 01:39:42.560 over the next two years to spend on that roadway so those two projects and where 01:39:42.560 --> 01:39:47.320 we're pulling about six million dollars off of the overall budget whether you're 01:39:47.320 --> 01:39:50.960 doing the 10 million or 25 million dollar option that's intersection 01:39:50.960 --> 01:39:57.280 improvements purely so the remainder is how far would you like to go to put some 01:39:57.280 --> 01:40:01.040 improvement into Ryan Road so that 4 million would allow us to basically 01:40:01.040 --> 01:40:06.240 construct three lanes but really not a whole lot else out there so we could put 01:40:06.240 --> 01:40:12.280 the three-lane roadway in but the other amenities the side paths bicycle paths 01:40:12.280 --> 01:40:17.040 walking paths a lot of the street lights and you'll see that on the next slide 01:40:17.040 --> 01:40:23.200 you know street lights the street trees kind of give it a much more accessible 01:40:23.200 --> 01:40:29.320 feel a more aesthetic feel that scenario would be more of the 20 million or the 01:40:29.320 --> 01:40:32.920 19 million dollar investment on our side because it does address a lot of other 01:40:32.920 --> 01:40:37.760 issues one of the other driving factors here is your drainage of improvements 01:40:37.760 --> 01:40:42.040 you really I know this graphic shows curb and gutter on both sides it would 01:40:42.040 --> 01:40:47.320 not be curb and gutter is one of the largest pieces from a cost perspective 01:40:47.320 --> 01:40:51.760 in any one of these roadway projects is drainage and if I'm only having to focus 01:40:51.760 --> 01:40:55.860 on the low spots on the road improve that culvert and build it up so that it 01:40:55.860 --> 01:40:59.760 does handle the hundred-year storm but I don't have to put in curb and gutter 01:40:59.760 --> 01:41:06.080 storm inlets storm drain pipes down the entire length of the roadway my cost goes 01:41:06.080 --> 01:41:10.780 down substantially so I'm relying on bar ditches at that point and it still has 01:41:10.780 --> 01:41:15.480 much more of that rural feel to it similar to what's out there today so 01:41:15.480 --> 01:41:20.040 that's the biggest jump in cost when we start going down that pathway this would 01:41:20.040 --> 01:41:24.680 also the this 10 million dollar option would also not be three lanes the entire 01:41:24.680 --> 01:41:28.960 length it would be through segments where it made the most sense so it'd be like 01:41:28.960 --> 01:41:32.400 segments in front of the school to make sure that there was plenty of room for 01:41:32.400 --> 01:41:36.040 queuing of vehicles for pedestrians and students to get where they need to go 01:41:36.040 --> 01:41:40.840 and then some of the other places along that area which we were still in the 01:41:40.840 --> 01:41:45.460 process of figuring out where exactly would those locations be the overall 25 01:41:45.460 --> 01:41:48.760 million dollar project would get you the three lanes the entire length with all 01:41:48.760 --> 01:41:55.360 the other amenities so that just gives you a snapshot of what is really the 01:41:55.360 --> 01:42:02.080 difference between these two projects any questions yes ma'am two questions one 01:42:02.080 --> 01:42:07.520 sidewalks in front of the school not an option right there have to have sidewalks 01:42:07.520 --> 01:42:10.880 in front of this we don't disagree with you on that one and that's not where we 01:42:10.880 --> 01:42:14.840 would be talking about not doing that that would absolutely be part of our 01:42:14.840 --> 01:42:20.040 safe rest the school program as well so that would be a yeah yeah yeah aren't 01:42:20.040 --> 01:42:23.760 they already there I think are in front of that school I think so 01:42:23.760 --> 01:42:36.200 Ryan they're only on Ryan but they're not from the neighborhood so it would be 01:42:36.200 --> 01:42:41.640 nice if we could complete that but my other my other question is Teasley which 01:42:41.640 --> 01:42:48.920 part of Teasley is kind of constructed like God help us it is the segment from 01:42:48.920 --> 01:42:53.720 Teasley and Teasley where Lillian Miller then takes off north and then go and it's 01:42:53.720 --> 01:42:59.120 all the way south to right around the corner of Geier high school so all of 01:42:59.120 --> 01:43:04.640 Teasley yes and I know it's going to be two to three years before pretty much 01:43:04.640 --> 01:43:10.040 before that's before it's completed so that project is has a challenge right 01:43:10.040 --> 01:43:14.240 now from the standpoint that the contractor that text on had contractor 01:43:14.240 --> 01:43:18.800 with went bankrupt right so they terminated that contract we do understand 01:43:18.800 --> 01:43:22.140 from text out that they have a new contractor coming on board through their 01:43:22.140 --> 01:43:26.320 bonding company and they're negotiating terms with that as far as a timeline of 01:43:26.320 --> 01:43:31.960 when they get started I don't know okay because how would that impact the 01:43:31.960 --> 01:43:38.280 construction of Ryan Road it wouldn't miss well I mean any construction has an 01:43:38.280 --> 01:43:42.840 impact but as far as timing it wouldn't necessarily impact the Ryan Road 01:43:42.840 --> 01:43:48.040 construction even in the intersections on both ends is typically when we're 01:43:48.040 --> 01:43:50.680 working with the state there's always the fundamental question if their state 01:43:50.680 --> 01:43:54.840 funds tied to it of are you building it or am I building it and then we enter 01:43:54.840 --> 01:43:58.360 into what's called a local project advanced funding agreement and we 01:43:58.360 --> 01:44:03.360 determine who's building who's doing what and that would go to council as far 01:44:03.360 --> 01:44:07.680 as would we build that piece I would say we probably would that would be our 01:44:07.680 --> 01:44:11.600 posture at the point but until we really negotiate the terms of that agreement I 01:44:11.600 --> 01:44:19.880 wouldn't tell you where it landed I had a question about the sidewalks and things 01:44:19.880 --> 01:44:24.920 on Ryan Road and I understand on both sides you would need to do the drainage 01:44:24.920 --> 01:44:28.680 and you would do sidewalks on both sides and that's what's bringing it up to that 01:44:28.680 --> 01:44:34.840 cost of 19 million right because the neighborhoods the housing primarily is 01:44:34.840 --> 01:44:41.400 on the one side and then the school is on the other side so you kind of need 01:44:41.400 --> 01:44:47.200 that the sidewalks getting from the neighborhoods and everything so you'd 01:44:47.200 --> 01:44:52.160 want to have sidewalks on both sides right if you wouldn't just do sidewalks 01:44:52.160 --> 01:44:57.080 on one side of Ryan for the 25 million we wouldn't that would be sidewalks on 01:44:57.080 --> 01:45:16.280 both sides yes it wouldn't be anywhere near that price I mean sidewalks is not 01:45:16.280 --> 01:45:20.480 a cost differentiator and it could be something that would be rolled into the 01:45:20.480 --> 01:45:26.800 sidewalk program in general just because of the elementary school because of the 01:45:26.800 --> 01:45:30.480 neighborhoods because that's where the retirement village is that's where 01:45:30.480 --> 01:45:48.200 Wrigley Park is I mean there's a lot of walking that's done on yes and I believe 01:45:48.200 --> 01:45:52.560 the sidewalk actually exists from Forest Ridge all the way over to the school so 01:45:52.560 --> 01:46:02.880 that is in place right it's continuing and the challenge here is you've also 01:46:02.880 --> 01:46:08.560 got a division in the school district here so when you follow El Paseo these 01:46:08.560 --> 01:46:14.120 homes all filter to Ryan everything to the north of it all goes to Sam Houston 01:46:14.120 --> 01:46:17.080 and they're in the same boat there's really not a sidewalk network over on 01:46:17.080 --> 01:46:24.200 that side for children to walk over that way so there are several ways to get 01:46:24.200 --> 01:46:28.080 there our first focus would be looking at safe routes to the school program and 01:46:28.080 --> 01:46:33.000 that tends to be where we get the biggest bang for our buck 01:46:33.000 --> 01:46:45.760 so a question in the past it had come up as to how much money had been spent the 01:46:45.760 --> 01:46:51.040 southeast Denton neighborhood area and this just gives you an idea of the 01:46:51.040 --> 01:46:57.600 funding from the 2014 bond segments that was actually put in to the southeast 01:46:57.600 --> 01:47:01.520 Denton area one of the areas that I know is under construction currently this 01:47:01.520 --> 01:47:07.760 curling right water and wastewater and then the roadway comes after that so 01:47:07.760 --> 01:47:13.800 that's currently under construction right now and then you've got a list of 01:47:13.800 --> 01:47:19.280 the different streets here where we've done some work within that area over the 01:47:19.280 --> 01:47:24.360 in the previous bonds the question was asked that where it is we're absolutely 01:47:24.360 --> 01:47:29.560 looking forward in 2019 to be able to put a vast majority of resources into 01:47:29.560 --> 01:47:33.320 that area and bring it up to where it should be so do we plan on having these 01:47:33.320 --> 01:47:39.880 streets that are remaining completed by 2019 I'm sorry can you tell me that 01:47:39.880 --> 01:47:44.320 again I'm some of the streets in southeast Denton that are on those 2014 01:47:44.320 --> 01:47:48.440 that are left remaining to be fixed are we planning on having them complete it 01:47:48.440 --> 01:47:53.200 this year next year it'd be 2020 I believe it's what the last on that 01:47:53.200 --> 01:47:56.600 streets segments would be from the last time we looked at that prioritization it 01:47:56.600 --> 01:48:00.040 would just it'd be 2020 we have a whole host of roadway segments that will last 01:48:00.040 --> 01:48:06.840 linger into 2020 to complete the 2014 bond so this is the amount that's 01:48:06.840 --> 01:48:12.760 actually been spent on repairing southeast didn't on it from the 2014 01:48:12.760 --> 01:48:20.280 bond right 2012 and 2014 right did you have the maintenance numbers overall 01:48:20.280 --> 01:48:23.320 man is that what this is okay so that's the street maintenance we put in you 01:48:23.320 --> 01:48:27.920 remember how many lane miles that was so maintenance dollars typically go a lot 01:48:27.920 --> 01:48:34.760 further then total reconstruct dollars so from a maintenance standpoint we can 01:48:34.760 --> 01:48:38.200 tell you of the actual distances but that is the amount of money understood 01:48:38.200 --> 01:48:41.560 that was a question before and we can get more detail if you would like that 01:48:41.560 --> 01:48:46.520 the actual dollar spent that is where it is okay yes I would now I do have a 01:48:46.520 --> 01:48:53.400 question um with southeast didn't we have a lot of streets that need to be 01:48:53.400 --> 01:48:59.520 repaired but we're trying to do an area over here by Argyle where the residents 01:48:59.520 --> 01:49:04.560 haven't even agreed to it yet when we can either cut it down go a different 01:49:04.560 --> 01:49:09.400 direction and spend this in southeast didn't or central didn't to where we 01:49:09.400 --> 01:49:13.640 don't take them out for their property or cutting to their property or we can 01:49:13.640 --> 01:49:20.200 push it for further back I mean push it back to where we can wait and do it 01:49:20.200 --> 01:49:23.880 another time like in April of 2020 instead of right now because these are 01:49:23.880 --> 01:49:27.240 other areas that need to be fixed why haven't we done why aren't we 01:49:27.240 --> 01:49:31.320 considering that that is the purview of this committee this was our starting 01:49:31.320 --> 01:49:36.320 point this is the purview that committee to have that conversation when we come 01:49:36.320 --> 01:49:40.080 back after the break we're going to go into those specific projects and that'll 01:49:40.080 --> 01:49:48.080 be the appropriate time to really dig into that okay that's fine okay so with 01:49:48.080 --> 01:49:52.480 the bond that we have now we're looking at ten point eight million for southeast 01:49:52.480 --> 01:50:01.880 in yes ma'am right I know in the bond reconstruction dollars right for streets 01:50:01.880 --> 01:50:05.880 that's just for streets the water wastewater dollars approach almost 13 01:50:05.880 --> 01:50:08.720 million dollars and then overall maintenance for the other roadways that 01:50:08.720 --> 01:50:12.760 don't fall into the 45 and under category that's another two million 01:50:12.760 --> 01:50:16.360 dollars two and a half million dollars that gets put into southeast Denton as 01:50:16.360 --> 01:50:26.400 well there was a street that was just fixed bushy bushy Street in southeast 01:50:26.400 --> 01:50:29.920 didn't there was nothing wrong with it can we tell can you tell me why was it 01:50:29.920 --> 01:50:36.920 redone I'd have to look into the particulars I don't know and I'm asking 01:50:36.920 --> 01:50:39.760 about this tree because it's a block away from me and I drive down this 01:50:39.760 --> 01:50:46.720 street everyday I couldn't tell you what was actually the impetus there it could 01:50:46.720 --> 01:50:51.520 have been a host of reasons and I don't know a lot of times reconstruction also 01:50:51.520 --> 01:50:56.280 gets confused with I know my wife did this with one project where on our 01:50:56.280 --> 01:50:59.680 street they blocked off the entire street after having rebuilt the entire 01:50:59.680 --> 01:51:02.680 roadway about a year and a half before and they came out blocked off the whole 01:51:02.680 --> 01:51:06.120 street and then they were gone by the end of the day but not after five phone 01:51:06.120 --> 01:51:09.120 calls from her telling me you're out here building the roadway again and what 01:51:09.120 --> 01:51:12.760 they were doing was maintenance on that roadway so that's why I stopped and 01:51:12.760 --> 01:51:21.080 talked to the guys and I asked them was there any water leakage or anything or 01:51:21.080 --> 01:51:25.120 the pipes or why they were actually fixing that stream they told me no we 01:51:25.120 --> 01:51:30.000 just wanted we just came out to fix it really I have his name written down so 01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:33.360 that would be good if you let me know how it is but I'd have to look into that 01:51:33.360 --> 01:51:41.760 okay anything else that we need to address with Tom before we take a break 01:51:41.760 --> 01:51:50.640 here yeah yeah and it says five minutes so let's take a break five minutes we 01:51:50.640 --> 01:51:54.480 do have quite a bit of work still to do and we'll come back and we'll get into 01:51:54.480 --> 01:52:04.280 the prioritization way as return as we return to our meeting of the bond 01:52:04.280 --> 01:52:10.080 committee we're going to move into prioritization questions and to start 01:52:10.080 --> 01:52:15.680 off this part of our meeting we'll turn back to Todd we've had obviously a lot 01:52:15.680 --> 01:52:20.240 of questions about Hickory Creek Road and and let's try to address those 01:52:20.240 --> 01:52:29.200 questions all right so Hickory Creek Road it was a hot button earlier this year 01:52:29.200 --> 01:52:36.160 and it still continues to be that so one of the issues that I've heard raised so 01:52:36.160 --> 01:52:40.840 far is why the six lane facility well six lane facility was on the 2015 01:52:40.840 --> 01:52:46.240 mobility plan the traffic demand model used to develop that had shown Brush 01:52:46.240 --> 01:52:52.840 Creek Hickory Creek going all the way over to 35 W you have it up so this is 01:52:52.840 --> 01:52:58.960 the 2015 mobility plan this is what was approved in 2015 these red lines are 01:52:58.960 --> 01:53:02.880 primary roadways they're arterial roadways they would be up to a six lane 01:53:02.880 --> 01:53:07.520 roadway it was contemplated in 15 that these roadways with this is Brush Creek 01:53:07.520 --> 01:53:12.440 here all red continuing over and then ultimately as development progressed on 01:53:12.440 --> 01:53:16.480 the west side of 35 W there would be an interchange in frontage roads and you are 01:53:16.480 --> 01:53:20.600 seeing that today with text dot now bringing the project forward to build 01:53:20.600 --> 01:53:26.920 frontage roads on I 35 W that's the next step in this 35 W improvement so as the 01:53:26.920 --> 01:53:30.040 frontage roads come they will build that piece and then the main lanes get 01:53:30.040 --> 01:53:33.680 improved along with all of these improvements to the interchange is so 01:53:33.680 --> 01:53:41.280 that long term already does become an interchange now one of the concerns I've 01:53:41.280 --> 01:53:48.000 heard raised it has been why a four lane or a six lane roadway could we squeeze 01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:51.920 it down to a four lane absolutely that is absolutely where our study tells us 01:53:51.920 --> 01:53:59.120 we did an area study because we didn't know exactly where the 2015 model came 01:53:59.120 --> 01:54:02.440 from when it was really looking at its connectivity points where these points 01:54:02.440 --> 01:54:08.100 were ties into the highway it the models only as good as those tying points so as 01:54:08.100 --> 01:54:13.520 we start looking at alternatives this 2015 mobility plan is one alternative the 01:54:13.520 --> 01:54:17.600 other alternative would be bringing a Hickory Creek over the floodplain 01:54:17.600 --> 01:54:22.920 straightening out this roadway bringing it all the way across at 35 which does I 01:54:22.920 --> 01:54:28.320 know it sounds a little reverse and the logic but yes a lot of people travel 01:54:28.320 --> 01:54:34.720 1830 and 377 and 2181 today because they have no other option north they could 01:54:34.720 --> 01:54:38.600 travel those two lane roadways but where they're trying to get to takes them 01:54:38.600 --> 01:54:42.360 north which is also causing some of the increased traffic we see on roads like 01:54:42.360 --> 01:54:47.200 Hobson Road and Ryan there's people trying to get north to ultimately go 01:54:47.200 --> 01:54:53.440 south whether it's 377 or 35 W or 35 E as Hickory Creek becomes a true 01:54:53.440 --> 01:54:57.720 connection and not just a jump to a roadway and then skip to another roadway 01:54:57.720 --> 01:55:01.880 if it's a true connection that would ends up happening at that point is the 01:55:01.880 --> 01:55:08.400 demand to the north comes south as people try to get to 35 W or 35 E so 01:55:08.400 --> 01:55:12.840 that's where our projections came from as we were looking through where does 01:55:12.840 --> 01:55:18.760 this roadway go again it still follows the 2015 mobility plan now all that 01:55:18.760 --> 01:55:24.320 being said we are not designing this in a vacuum we were given design dollars 01:55:24.320 --> 01:55:30.160 earlier this year after the fatality accident that occurred on Hickory Creek 01:55:30.160 --> 01:55:35.020 Road down in this area city council gave us three million dollars to look at 01:55:35.020 --> 01:55:40.240 alternatives and one of the keys that we went to is as we start talking to our 01:55:40.240 --> 01:55:47.720 local partners whether it's the county the state city of Argyle also the 01:55:47.720 --> 01:55:51.520 Council of Governments we're looking for alternative funding sort of sources so 01:55:51.520 --> 01:55:56.600 that we can start planning this roadway and putting it in place so the 30 is a 01:55:56.600 --> 01:56:02.760 34 35 34 million dollars that we are talking about as part of our bond 01:56:02.760 --> 01:56:07.120 program leverages it's our match so to get those other dollars the city has to 01:56:07.120 --> 01:56:12.320 put in some amount of money to leverage those dollars further so that 34 million 01:56:12.320 --> 01:56:19.480 is our piece of that ultimate 160 million dollar project so what 36 million 01:56:19.480 --> 01:56:24.360 say those things don't pan out say we don't get the funding for some reason 01:56:24.360 --> 01:56:29.320 then what that does do with that 36 million dollars is it builds one bridge 01:56:29.320 --> 01:56:34.480 of ultimately two bridges so there would be two three lane bridges that would go 01:56:34.480 --> 01:56:39.080 over the floodplain that builds one of them so instead of having two parallel I 01:56:39.080 --> 01:56:43.960 would just build one and then we'd put a three lane roadway in that covers the 01:56:43.960 --> 01:56:49.120 cost of a three lane roadway with no help that's a right away that's the 01:56:49.120 --> 01:56:53.240 infrastructure to support it that takes care of everything to get us over to 01:56:53.240 --> 01:56:57.680 1830 from River Pass it also goes over the railroad tracks so you don't have 01:56:57.680 --> 01:57:03.720 the concern of vehicles pedestrians cars intersecting a train as it goes through 01:57:03.720 --> 01:57:07.640 it separates the two and takes us up over the railroad tracks and then 01:57:07.640 --> 01:57:13.100 continues across the floodplain over to 1830 so it takes those fatality chances 01:57:13.100 --> 01:57:20.240 almost to a negligible point then as we continue to go west what we're cognizant 01:57:20.240 --> 01:57:23.840 of is one of the things we talked about earlier is development is coming in this 01:57:23.840 --> 01:57:27.440 area so there's a significant amount of development that has submitted for 01:57:27.440 --> 01:57:31.360 application is currently under construction or we've already had 01:57:31.360 --> 01:57:36.320 multiple conversations with developers who own parcels or properties out that 01:57:36.320 --> 01:57:41.920 way that are building that does not mean that we're just gonna go put in a six 01:57:41.920 --> 01:57:47.040 lane roadway for the fun of putting a six lane roadway in our charge has been 01:57:47.040 --> 01:57:51.640 to dot design this in the most context-sensitive way as possible we do 01:57:51.640 --> 01:57:54.800 that with every street we're doing and that means we take into account what is 01:57:54.800 --> 01:58:00.680 the setting is it more rural in nature is it more residential in nature is it 01:58:00.680 --> 01:58:05.120 more of a commercial industrial district each of those has a very different feel 01:58:05.120 --> 01:58:08.760 a very different amount of transportation in different modes so a 01:58:08.760 --> 01:58:14.200 lot of pedestrians cyclists vehicles in a much more neighborhood type setting 01:58:14.200 --> 01:58:17.600 versus an industrial sector where I have a lot of public transit that brings 01:58:17.600 --> 01:58:21.880 workers to work so my sidewalks are there just to get you from the bus stop 01:58:21.880 --> 01:58:26.360 essentially to get you to where you're working and then a lot of room for big 01:58:26.360 --> 01:58:30.320 trucks to drive through so a heavier duty pavement wider areas so that a truck 01:58:30.320 --> 01:58:34.120 can move back and forth as it needs to be so as we look at Hickory Creek Road 01:58:34.120 --> 01:58:39.000 and we look at its ultimate design going forward we are going to be very 01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:44.120 interested in what areas of this roadway might need to be a little narrower 01:58:44.120 --> 01:58:48.360 because they are in that rural area they're in an area that the potential 01:58:48.360 --> 01:58:51.800 for growth may be less than in other areas where we've got a lot of homes 01:58:51.800 --> 01:58:56.840 coming in right on top of each other so those areas there's absolutely room for 01:58:56.840 --> 01:59:03.240 a narrower roadway for not having to have as much right-of-way taken and I'm 01:59:03.240 --> 01:59:09.040 thinking exactly of the Brush Creek area when you start getting into that 01:59:09.040 --> 01:59:14.680 area there is room for both to coexist our current traffic demand model for 01:59:14.680 --> 01:59:19.180 this area the revised model when we looked at Hickory Creek and would be 01:59:19.180 --> 01:59:26.440 incorporated into the ultimate mobility plan update looks at this area as being 01:59:26.440 --> 01:59:31.680 my you can help me out where I start to falter with words there pretend because 01:59:31.680 --> 01:59:37.760 he's the traffic guru we're looking at that area as it's rural I don't know 01:59:37.760 --> 01:59:40.880 you've got one acre homes there established homes you're absolutely 01:59:40.880 --> 01:59:45.320 right we don't want to come through that area and just cut a wide swath of right 01:59:45.320 --> 01:59:50.000 away through there that we're not going to need for 40 years our study goes out 01:59:50.000 --> 01:59:54.960 to 2040 and even at 2040 we're not seeing a projected need for anything 01:59:54.960 --> 02:00:00.260 beyond four lanes so much further into the distant future that might be an 02:00:00.260 --> 02:00:04.840 occurrence where you'd need six so what we would typically do on roadways where 02:00:04.840 --> 02:00:08.580 we've already said at some point you will need the six lanes maybe it's 40 02:00:08.580 --> 02:00:13.200 years 50 years out we would get the right away width for six lanes 02:00:13.200 --> 02:00:17.040 especially if we have a lot of commercial development a lot of heavy 02:00:17.040 --> 02:00:20.400 small residential coming in the area where you're gonna have a lot of traffic 02:00:20.400 --> 02:00:24.640 I mean in these six lanes a lot faster so what I might do is build the roadway 02:00:24.640 --> 02:00:29.200 where I've built my two outside lanes and that very wide median so I could 02:00:29.200 --> 02:00:34.960 impact traffic less when I do have to build those into inside two lanes what I 02:00:34.960 --> 02:00:39.280 may be able to do in other areas and this is why a lot of letters have been 02:00:39.280 --> 02:00:43.320 have gone out about the city wanting to come and talk to property owners about 02:00:43.320 --> 02:00:47.920 property and where the roadway would align is we haven't nailed down to the 02:00:47.920 --> 02:00:52.920 nth degree where's the center line of that road going to go over the next year 02:00:52.920 --> 02:00:58.040 there is a lot of conversation we had with property owners about the impacts 02:00:58.040 --> 02:01:01.720 to them the impacts to where that right away would go where the road would go 02:01:01.720 --> 02:01:05.240 we're doing an environmental analysis on the entire stretch of the roadway 02:01:05.240 --> 02:01:10.120 including the warrants of a sound wall so we're looking at all those impacts and 02:01:10.120 --> 02:01:16.840 how that would impact the overall design this is an evolving process and when 02:01:16.840 --> 02:01:21.440 we've gone out and done the survey work today what we've done is just simply 02:01:21.440 --> 02:01:25.280 gathered the upfront information so we can start having the conversation with 02:01:25.280 --> 02:01:33.360 folks about where we go what challenges are ahead of us long term even in 2015 02:01:33.360 --> 02:01:36.920 but going forward we still see the need for that roadway to be a prime 02:01:36.920 --> 02:01:42.480 connection to 35w if we miss too many more chances like we've missed on East 02:01:42.480 --> 02:01:46.080 Denton on the east side of Denton where Mayhills going in where loop 28 is a 02:01:46.080 --> 02:01:52.400 bottleneck if we miss too many more chances anywhere then we will have a 02:01:52.400 --> 02:01:56.580 locked-up navigate a transportation system across the board and we'll be 02:01:56.580 --> 02:02:02.800 fighting the same scenario of gridlock and places where it's very difficult to 02:02:02.800 --> 02:02:06.160 get around you got a lot of signals where you're just stopped at so you know 02:02:06.160 --> 02:02:10.920 I'm not a traffic engineer by trade I've learned a lot over the last 10 years of 02:02:10.920 --> 02:02:14.360 how to become a traffic engineer I'm a stormwater engineer so I hear the 02:02:14.360 --> 02:02:18.480 concerns about floodplain and I immediately go there every time we start 02:02:18.480 --> 02:02:24.400 one of these projects but what I do know is that when I look at these projects 02:02:24.400 --> 02:02:27.880 we've got to start planning for the future we have to draw that line 02:02:27.880 --> 02:02:33.360 somewhere from staffs recommendation this is the alignment that makes sense 02:02:33.360 --> 02:02:39.480 it doesn't mean that we bolted it down that it's not going to vary we absolutely 02:02:39.480 --> 02:02:42.840 are sensitive to the context of where we're going to be in this area so there 02:02:42.840 --> 02:02:46.040 is a lot of conversation to be had between now and when this project were 02:02:46.040 --> 02:02:50.280 to actually go forward if this group chooses to keep this project on the bond 02:02:50.280 --> 02:03:02.680 list how much of that Hickory Creek are you asking us to recommend in this bond 02:03:02.680 --> 02:03:09.960 package all the way over to 377 the 34 million dollars would if no other 02:03:09.960 --> 02:03:14.840 financial partner came in would construct from River Pass to 1830 it 02:03:14.840 --> 02:03:22.920 would also get the design all the way over to 35 W now if our partners agree 02:03:22.920 --> 02:03:27.040 to continue down this pathway with us we could go to construction much faster than 02:03:27.040 --> 02:03:35.920 the entire length could you put up a map and show us where the outer loop is 02:03:35.920 --> 02:03:44.440 projected to come out or loop 288 huh outer loop or loop 288 well loop to it 02:03:44.440 --> 02:03:57.920 okay alright it's taking a minute to reset but loop 288 on the west side 02:03:57.920 --> 02:04:05.840 comes down into 24 9 24 49 and then over to 35 W here at vintage and then it 02:04:05.840 --> 02:04:12.240 would have said four cents of direct connect that basically peel off the six 02:04:12.240 --> 02:04:15.480 lanes that would be out here to just four lanes coming across the bridge to 02:04:15.480 --> 02:04:19.080 vintage and those we call them direct next their flyovers or you've seen a 02:04:19.080 --> 02:04:23.960 word on I 35 and dollars for worth we get in a lane and you fly over a ramp 02:04:23.960 --> 02:04:28.360 and down tie directly into the intersection or to the interstate okay I 02:04:28.360 --> 02:04:35.240 have we've been told and heard for some years that vintage was projected to be 02:04:35.240 --> 02:04:42.560 six lanes in the 20 I'd have to go back and look at the mobility plan shows for 02:04:42.560 --> 02:04:46.080 2015 I know that our current area study shows nothing more than four lanes 02:04:46.080 --> 02:04:52.760 divided and I think the 2015 shows that it's a four lane divided roadway that's 02:04:52.760 --> 02:04:57.200 what the funding was set up for actually look at different propositions and 02:04:57.200 --> 02:05:02.360 agreements it was all for a four lane divided roadway which it is great well 02:05:02.360 --> 02:05:06.360 it's it's a three it's a two lane divided roadway and then we're going to 02:05:06.360 --> 02:05:12.600 build here later this year the outside two lanes so if 288 is going to come 02:05:12.600 --> 02:05:20.080 around and hook up with vintage doesn't it make sense for that to continue all 02:05:20.080 --> 02:05:30.080 the way over to Taysley the either Ryan or Hickory Cree you have a lot of 02:05:30.080 --> 02:05:35.920 disadvantages and one would just be could you do it sure there anything is 02:05:35.920 --> 02:05:42.600 possible 100% the reality is as soon as you bring vintage over to tie into Ryan 02:05:42.600 --> 02:05:48.080 you have the intersection of two rail crossings so at this rail crossing we 02:05:48.080 --> 02:05:52.760 would have to go over one and leave one at grade so there's a potential safety 02:05:52.760 --> 02:05:58.040 issue there I would not want to have a signalized intersection right next to 02:05:58.040 --> 02:06:01.560 two railways because you have to do what we call preemption which is I got to 02:06:01.560 --> 02:06:05.720 allow some cars to pass when the trains come in now I've got two legs that have 02:06:05.720 --> 02:06:10.280 to do that the exact same time opposing each other and that's a scary scenario 02:06:10.280 --> 02:06:14.200 anyway you look at it so one would have to go over the other so we would either 02:06:14.200 --> 02:06:18.520 need to pull Ryan further to the north and get it away from that intersection 02:06:18.520 --> 02:06:22.840 so they had plenty of room so we'd be cutting through this area and then going 02:06:22.840 --> 02:06:27.800 across to Ryan or we'd need to elevate which would mean we'd have to drop 02:06:27.800 --> 02:06:32.680 lanes on both sides probably starting right back over in this area maybe even 02:06:32.680 --> 02:06:35.680 a little closer to the school you got to start and drop a lane on both sides 02:06:35.680 --> 02:06:38.800 essentially a frontage road to the bridge it would ultimately go over and 02:06:38.800 --> 02:06:41.840 then depending on how wide you make it you would have to make it four lanes 02:06:41.840 --> 02:06:47.640 divided all the way down Ryan because of the incoming traffic over to 2181 so 02:06:47.640 --> 02:06:51.520 Hickory Creek does a couple of things for us that Ryan doesn't do Ryan's 02:06:51.520 --> 02:06:58.320 disjointed when it gets over to 2181 so it stops at 2181 it causes another 02:06:58.320 --> 02:07:03.320 problem so if you add additional traffic onto Ryan by bringing them off the 02:07:03.320 --> 02:07:07.800 interstate then now I've got additional potential traffic over here all the way 02:07:07.800 --> 02:07:12.240 on to 2181 that's trying to get to Robinson or wherever else they're trying 02:07:12.240 --> 02:07:16.240 to go they're making a lot of decisions at that point Hickory Creek does allow 02:07:16.240 --> 02:07:22.240 you to get all the way over to 2499 at one time all from 35 W all the way 02:07:22.240 --> 02:07:28.480 across so from a traffic perspective from a transportation perspective it 02:07:28.480 --> 02:07:33.460 makes the most sense for getting people around from my perspective but again 02:07:33.460 --> 02:07:37.120 that's just the purview of this committee is to make that choice in that 02:07:37.120 --> 02:07:42.840 recommendation of where this goes of course if you went to Ryan even though 02:07:42.840 --> 02:07:51.280 it didn't wouldn't go on over to 24 to 2181 you would have fewer lane miles to 02:07:51.280 --> 02:07:57.760 have to build with that offset some cost of elevation it could potentially I'd 02:07:57.760 --> 02:08:01.640 have to run further numbers on that one but you have a longer bridge crossing to 02:08:01.640 --> 02:08:05.880 get over the floodplain plus we would have to go back and re-evaluate the 02:08:05.880 --> 02:08:10.240 ultimate configuration of vintage back to that six lane and it has cost 02:08:10.240 --> 02:08:14.960 implications at that point as well so as far as the actual number I can get you a 02:08:14.960 --> 02:08:18.040 budget number on that to let you know what that would look like cost from a 02:08:18.040 --> 02:08:22.600 cost difference standpoint another proposal was to take Hickory Creek over 02:08:22.600 --> 02:08:27.600 to 1830 and then skirt the floodplain a lot of that floodplain is in a floodway 02:08:27.600 --> 02:08:31.160 so the Stark area is in the floodway I cannot get into that area unless I'm 02:08:31.160 --> 02:08:36.760 going to go over it then in the floodplain to make it a true regional 02:08:36.760 --> 02:08:39.880 connector I've got to elevate the whole roadway out of the hundred-year floodplain 02:08:39.880 --> 02:08:43.240 so I'm going to be bringing a lot of dirt there's a lot of potential impacts 02:08:43.240 --> 02:08:48.080 to the floodplain upstream and downstream that could result in further construction 02:08:48.080 --> 02:08:52.640 just to bring that roadway over another reason why Hickory Creek we were 02:08:52.640 --> 02:08:57.920 looking to just span the floodplain one time and then we would still need to 02:08:57.920 --> 02:09:01.440 build the drainage infrastructure to handle the hundred-year flood all the 02:09:01.440 --> 02:09:05.120 way down brush Creek and all red which would be done with that project and as 02:09:05.120 --> 02:09:09.560 part of the current design but those are some of the things that can be addressed 02:09:09.560 --> 02:09:15.160 much more quickly and cost-effectively than trying to skirt the floodplain well 02:09:15.160 --> 02:09:20.680 it seems like we're not going to solve this today but and there's still going 02:09:20.680 --> 02:09:26.360 to be a lot of conversation about it yes and of course I would like to see us 02:09:26.360 --> 02:09:36.360 not impact homes impossible so there's there's but let's let's speak for a 02:09:36.360 --> 02:09:42.080 moment about the public safety question and the desk that occurred there that's 02:09:42.080 --> 02:09:48.760 what could be addressed by building the bridge is that right yes and and that 02:09:48.760 --> 02:09:52.640 was one of the drivers are going straight there was its cost it gets us 02:09:52.640 --> 02:09:56.800 over the floodplain quicker but it eliminates the potential for those types 02:09:56.800 --> 02:10:01.080 of fatalities and accidents that have occurred over the last 20 to 30 years at 02:10:01.080 --> 02:10:06.600 a minimum so we know well we haven't we haven't tried out the guardrail which is 02:10:06.600 --> 02:10:13.240 now up and I would hope nobody wouldn't that be a factor to help deter it 02:10:13.240 --> 02:10:17.720 definitely helps kinds of accidents that have been fatality accidents so we're 02:10:17.720 --> 02:10:22.240 talking about switching the focus to Ryan off of Hickory Creek in terms of 02:10:22.240 --> 02:10:27.760 matching dollars that we could get from outside sources what type of an impact 02:10:27.760 --> 02:10:32.200 would it have on you know Ryan versus Hickory I mean are we able to leverage 02:10:32.200 --> 02:10:37.160 Hickory Creek more so than we are Ryan yes you do get much more leverage 02:10:37.160 --> 02:10:40.880 capacity out of it because this roadways we've already identified in the mobility 02:10:40.880 --> 02:10:45.520 plan that are now eligible for that help in funding long term whereas with Ryan 02:10:45.520 --> 02:10:49.520 we're basically fitting the bill for the vast majority of it but this area through 02:10:49.520 --> 02:11:00.400 here yes ma'am I know currently there are no streetlights all along Hickory Creek 02:11:00.400 --> 02:11:06.840 would lighting be part of yes this package this would be bicycle lanes 02:11:06.840 --> 02:11:10.560 would be bicycle trail it wouldn't be on the lanes it'd be separated from the 02:11:10.560 --> 02:11:14.760 roadway bicycle trail on both sides would be sidewalks tied into the parks 02:11:14.760 --> 02:11:20.160 network trail system it'd be streetlights and then it'd be of course 02:11:20.160 --> 02:11:23.680 signals or whatever other intersection controls might be needed throughout the 02:11:23.680 --> 02:11:35.560 entire corridor could you show us where Brush Creek ties into so Brush Creek 02:11:35.560 --> 02:11:41.000 ties in right here so if you look at where we're going currently we're 02:11:41.000 --> 02:11:44.640 talking about taking Hickory Creek over so the current Hickory Creek alignment 02:11:44.640 --> 02:11:50.280 if you've driven it has a very sharp incline it's also a place where we have 02:11:50.280 --> 02:11:55.200 other accidents occur at that intersection because it's hard to get up 02:11:55.200 --> 02:11:58.840 it's difficult to get up that incline and you've got a lot of commuter traffic 02:11:58.840 --> 02:12:03.680 that's going north and south on 1830 as people are commuting back and forth so 02:12:03.680 --> 02:12:07.200 this would take it straight across the floodplain over the railroad tracks 02:12:07.200 --> 02:12:12.000 eliminate multiple safety concerns and then bring it across now what we're 02:12:12.000 --> 02:12:17.240 working with TxDOT on is if this is the alignment that stays then we would be 02:12:17.240 --> 02:12:21.880 working with them on where does 1830 tie into this so they have money available 02:12:21.880 --> 02:12:27.760 right now to improve 1830 all the way down to 407 what they're what they're 02:12:27.760 --> 02:12:30.760 looking to do right now just because Argyle is really not interested in 02:12:30.760 --> 02:12:34.920 utilizing those dollars they are very interested in what do we want to do with 02:12:34.920 --> 02:12:40.920 1830 from Hickory Creek North so it's that four lane divided roadway six lane 02:12:40.920 --> 02:12:43.840 divided where are we going with that roadway and that's the conversation 02:12:43.840 --> 02:12:47.020 we're having with them that absolutely impacts this intersection the other 02:12:47.020 --> 02:12:52.160 concern at this intersection even when Country Club Road was redone there is a 02:12:52.160 --> 02:12:56.000 steep curve as you go around almost looks like a NASCAR racetrack right and 02:12:56.000 --> 02:13:01.960 that's to keep those 55 mile an hour traffic on the road the problem is is 02:13:01.960 --> 02:13:06.000 that's not a good transition to Country Club if you're trying to get to 35 W 02:13:06.000 --> 02:13:09.620 unless you really slow down now they have tried to put a right turn lane to 02:13:09.620 --> 02:13:13.340 pull off and that does help because you got to slow down and get out of traffic 02:13:13.340 --> 02:13:16.720 and get over but you're still going up and over and then if you're coming up 02:13:16.720 --> 02:13:22.640 Crawford so you're coming this way up Country Club Road from Crawford then 02:13:22.640 --> 02:13:27.000 you've got to go up and over the crest of that embankment to get left or right 02:13:27.000 --> 02:13:30.440 makes it very difficult to see who's coming and going because there are 02:13:30.440 --> 02:13:36.480 significant declines in the roadway going both directions so one of the 02:13:36.480 --> 02:13:39.880 things that we have been talking about is with this alignment we've been 02:13:39.880 --> 02:13:45.480 working with the city of Argyle and the I guess town of Argyle and the county 02:13:45.480 --> 02:13:50.040 along with Gog is potentially realigning Country Club Road to where it would tee 02:13:50.040 --> 02:13:57.280 into the Hickory Creek Road when we push this and make it a much safer scenario 02:13:57.280 --> 02:14:01.640 so you've got a lot of drivers here that we're also trying to resolve some 02:14:01.640 --> 02:14:11.840 current existing issues with this one project okay so repeat your answer what 02:14:11.840 --> 02:14:19.720 you're asking the rest to do is recommend the extension of Hickory 02:14:19.720 --> 02:14:30.240 Creek across straightening it out to 1830 and then the rest of that would be a 02:14:30.240 --> 02:14:37.360 steady if our if our partners our funding partners for whatever reason 02:14:37.360 --> 02:14:40.980 didn't and that's not the inclination we've heard from any of them as we go 02:14:40.980 --> 02:14:47.040 forward to the election we would be getting that noted and documented 02:14:47.040 --> 02:14:51.360 in a way that people understand that is a reality if that were to just not 02:14:51.360 --> 02:14:57.200 happen then yes the project would carry three lanes of roadway over to 1830 and 02:14:57.200 --> 02:15:01.180 build two three-lane bridges one three-lane bridge over the railroad 02:15:01.180 --> 02:15:05.480 tracks and one over over the floodplain and then the other bridges would have to 02:15:05.480 --> 02:15:12.400 come in at a later date when it gets expanded I believe one of the gentleman 02:15:12.400 --> 02:15:18.920 asked about phases and when the timing and anticipated completion can you dress 02:15:18.920 --> 02:15:24.640 that so the phases so much depend on when those funding partners come to the 02:15:24.640 --> 02:15:31.520 table so if we continue down this path and our partners do commit what they're 02:15:31.520 --> 02:15:35.760 just in verbal discussion and in meetings there they seem like they're 02:15:35.760 --> 02:15:40.840 going to commit to if they commit to that then we could begin phasing this 02:15:40.840 --> 02:15:47.720 entire project in a five to six year span all the way over to 35 W it could 02:15:47.720 --> 02:15:53.440 be accomplished in that time frame now if they don't come forward for whatever 02:15:53.440 --> 02:16:00.200 reason then we still would be able to get to 1830 over the next three years 02:16:00.200 --> 02:16:10.720 we as a city do not are not committed to six lines on Bruce Creek Road no right 02:16:10.720 --> 02:16:16.160 no the only part that we're building provision for a six lane facility is on 02:16:16.160 --> 02:16:20.600 the bridges knowing that at some point in the distant future six lanes most 02:16:20.600 --> 02:16:25.160 likely is required it's beyond 2040 timeframe which is why we're not 02:16:25.160 --> 02:16:29.880 recommending that they get built the entire length but the bridges absolutely 02:16:29.880 --> 02:16:33.880 need to be built to six lanes there is a very small piece between the two bridges 02:16:33.880 --> 02:16:37.440 between the railroad crossing and the floodplain crossing where it touches 02:16:37.440 --> 02:16:42.040 down just briefly and that area it's actually right in here that area right 02:16:42.040 --> 02:16:46.880 there we would build six lanes a roadway which stripe it for four but we built 02:16:46.880 --> 02:16:50.120 six lanes because it ties into both bridges that make any sense to make you 02:16:50.120 --> 02:16:58.360 whip over and then went back where the city limits in terms of Brush Creek so 02:16:58.360 --> 02:17:03.480 it's not all in Denton no not currently so it follows along the center line of 02:17:03.480 --> 02:17:07.520 Brush Creek Road all the way to just past the hills of Argyle and then comes 02:17:07.520 --> 02:17:14.160 up to the north and down and then back over so the gray is Argyle and the 02:17:14.160 --> 02:17:19.360 yellowish is Denton unnecessarily most of the time the gray is it's 02:17:19.360 --> 02:17:27.160 unincorporated so it's in our EJJ technically it's still in the county 02:17:27.160 --> 02:17:38.080 guess I'm gonna advocate for the people that live on Bushy or so when are you 02:17:38.080 --> 02:17:44.200 guys gonna help out with the flooding too because there's issues now I'm sure 02:17:44.200 --> 02:17:48.240 you've gotten complaints already when are you guys gonna start addressing those 02:17:48.240 --> 02:17:52.160 issues that this project would address those issues because those all get 02:17:52.160 --> 02:17:56.480 resolved with draft with the actual roadway project so that's part of the 02:17:56.480 --> 02:18:00.080 hundred sixty million dollar project is we'd be resolving all the floodplain 02:18:00.080 --> 02:18:04.040 issues that we would come across out there as well without that we don't 02:18:04.040 --> 02:18:08.440 currently have a time frame because the funding is not there at the moment for 02:18:08.440 --> 02:18:13.840 those drainage scenarios so that would be the proposition that we want voters 02:18:13.840 --> 02:18:22.520 to vote on okay this is what they would be voting towards I'm sorry do we as a 02:18:22.520 --> 02:18:27.360 city if we're gonna lobby for that hundred and sixty million dollars and 02:18:27.360 --> 02:18:35.560 get it do we have a say so in how wide the street is or the road is on brush 02:18:35.560 --> 02:18:40.120 creek yes absolutely and that's part of now we're getting most of the money from 02:18:40.120 --> 02:18:47.160 I mean but it's it's the city's decision and so the funding sources we're going 02:18:47.160 --> 02:18:50.840 to it's not like what happened in Fort Worth about five years ago you saw it on 02:18:50.840 --> 02:18:56.400 the news Rosedale was built to six lanes it was federally funded the federal 02:18:56.400 --> 02:18:59.600 government said if we're gonna build it and we're gonna fund it it's gonna be 02:18:59.600 --> 02:19:07.240 six lanes city of Fort Worth said okay but then right afterwards their traffic 02:19:07.240 --> 02:19:10.760 model showed they didn't need six lanes they could not convince the state or 02:19:10.760 --> 02:19:14.120 federal government that they didn't need six lanes so to get the money for the 02:19:14.120 --> 02:19:18.200 taxpayers they built six lanes and then they immediately put the roadway on a 02:19:18.200 --> 02:19:23.080 road diet so they built a lot of parking on street they put landscape islands 02:19:23.080 --> 02:19:27.160 once it was turned over to the city so that is not this scenario we haven't 02:19:27.160 --> 02:19:31.480 gone into this discussion with anybody in in that similar vein it has been 02:19:31.480 --> 02:19:36.120 purely what the results of our traffic study has shown the entire we looked at 02:19:36.120 --> 02:19:42.080 the entire area and that area study shows that we for the next 20 years plus 02:19:42.080 --> 02:19:48.360 we don't need anything more than four lanes now you get beyond that that's why 02:19:48.360 --> 02:19:52.680 we redo these studies they do them redo the mobility plan and updated every four 02:19:52.680 --> 02:19:58.200 to five years is development and traffic patterns change over time so every four 02:19:58.200 --> 02:20:01.880 to five years we revisit these studies so that we can see what's really happening 02:20:01.880 --> 02:20:05.800 it could be that five years from now we need to add the other two lanes because 02:20:05.800 --> 02:20:09.920 there's that much traffic demand out there I don't know right now our current 02:20:09.920 --> 02:20:15.480 projections is that we only need four for the question specifically about this 02:20:15.480 --> 02:20:24.040 project yeah I have some thoughts I I have no doubt in our city staff that 02:20:24.040 --> 02:20:29.320 they're able to figure out where and how best to plan a regional connector in this 02:20:29.320 --> 02:20:33.880 region and work through all the floodplain issues I think they do an 02:20:33.880 --> 02:20:39.680 astounding job most of my concerns are more just whether or not the the 02:20:39.680 --> 02:20:45.280 residents of our town actually want a regional connector in this region would 02:20:45.280 --> 02:20:52.080 I don't know if you can pull up the current future land use map I don't know 02:20:52.080 --> 02:20:59.080 if it's on the public GIS or not but it it's on the website if it's not there 02:21:00.040 --> 02:21:07.240 as you look for that I'll just start to say some things so so first of all thank 02:21:07.240 --> 02:21:10.680 you for bringing up the the recent safety issues I think that that's 02:21:10.680 --> 02:21:17.640 important to keep in mind you know with recent community comments and I think 02:21:17.640 --> 02:21:21.440 one person on the committee last week mentioned the Denton 2030 plan so I 02:21:21.440 --> 02:21:27.600 actually went home and read it it's it's only 415 pages so but I won't read the 02:21:27.600 --> 02:21:33.520 whole thing to you but I have pulled up several quotes from it that I think are 02:21:33.520 --> 02:21:39.760 help for people who maybe weren't present through that process orient them 02:21:39.760 --> 02:21:48.040 to what the current long-range plan of the city says so I'll summarize some of 02:21:48.040 --> 02:21:51.320 this and then I'll get into some of the details but basically the plan went 02:21:51.320 --> 02:21:57.920 through a variety of different thank you so so I think right here you can kind of 02:21:57.920 --> 02:22:02.880 see the the city limits down there where we were talking at the sort of the 02:22:02.880 --> 02:22:10.600 intersection between the ETJ green area and the city limits so my understanding 02:22:10.600 --> 02:22:17.020 is that that entire green section is earmarked as a rural area right which 02:22:17.020 --> 02:22:22.760 with our zoning would typically be agricultural use or homes on five acre 02:22:22.760 --> 02:22:31.560 or larger lots so anyway so the the the 2030 plan they presented several 02:22:31.560 --> 02:22:38.840 different growth scenarios so I said the starting point for the development of 02:22:38.840 --> 02:22:43.320 land use concepts was the depiction of the growth trend scenario the likely 02:22:43.320 --> 02:22:48.240 pattern of growth and development in 15 to 20 years if there were no changes in 02:22:48.240 --> 02:22:52.920 policy to alter present trends the preferred growth concept was developed 02:22:52.920 --> 02:22:58.160 to present a conceptual vision for the form character and general location of 02:22:58.160 --> 02:23:02.800 development for Denton that reflected the input and expressed preferences of 02:23:02.800 --> 02:23:07.240 the community the general location of the new development and areas for 02:23:07.240 --> 02:23:11.400 intensification was the basis for the development of the future land use map 02:23:11.400 --> 02:23:17.280 and then through that process the the growth trend scenario which was sort of 02:23:17.280 --> 02:23:22.680 the business as usual more stuff got about twelve percent of the community 02:23:22.680 --> 02:23:31.360 votes it was the lowest one and then so then on land use policy it goes on it 02:23:31.360 --> 02:23:37.960 says the availability of rural that's getting tongue twisters here rural raw 02:23:37.960 --> 02:23:42.480 land coupled with an incumbent an accommodating development approval 02:23:42.480 --> 02:23:48.720 process has facilitated development in Denton that outwardly expanded the 02:23:48.720 --> 02:23:53.360 suburban fringe at a relatively low density and intensity this trend has 02:23:53.360 --> 02:23:58.240 resulted in a land use pattern that has tended to further extend distances 02:23:58.240 --> 02:24:04.600 between people between where people live work and shop resulting in a rate of land 02:24:04.600 --> 02:24:09.880 consumption and spreading out which is faster than the underlying growth of the 02:24:09.880 --> 02:24:15.240 population producing an unsustainable trend that is costly for the city and 02:24:15.240 --> 02:24:19.560 taxpayers alike the consequences of this spreading out trend has been 02:24:19.560 --> 02:24:24.880 experienced in longer auto trip lengths greater levels of congestion strained 02:24:24.880 --> 02:24:29.160 environmental and fiscal resources and challenges for public services and 02:24:29.160 --> 02:24:34.120 facilities to keep up with the demands of this rapidly enlarging development 02:24:34.120 --> 02:24:40.360 footprint it goes on to talk about some suggested changes and tempering of the 02:24:40.360 --> 02:24:45.920 current city's annexation plan in light of that then it has some things to say 02:24:45.920 --> 02:24:51.820 about infrastructure infrastructure planning says another important citywide 02:24:51.820 --> 02:24:55.920 land use consideration is to foster greater coordination between land use 02:24:55.920 --> 02:25:01.120 policies and policies for mobility and infrastructure Denton plan 2030 should 02:25:01.120 --> 02:25:05.920 become the key policy document to which future revisions of all plans and 02:25:05.920 --> 02:25:12.000 programs like a bond among all city department plans and policies should be 02:25:12.000 --> 02:25:16.760 revised for consistency to ensure coordination of land use mobility and 02:25:16.760 --> 02:25:27.960 infrastructure planning so and then it goes on says the preferred growth 02:25:27.960 --> 02:25:32.400 concept seeks to use areas of Denton with the infrastructure capacity to 02:25:32.400 --> 02:25:36.480 absorb additional development to support increased density potentially creating a 02:25:36.480 --> 02:25:41.320 more fiscally balanced or profitable land use mixture given the revenue 02:25:41.320 --> 02:25:46.160 structure and capital demands of land uses in the city the best means to 02:25:46.160 --> 02:25:50.680 maintain fiscal sustainability is to diversify and intensify the developed 02:25:50.680 --> 02:25:58.000 core and at the end it gives some information about how this plan should 02:25:58.000 --> 02:26:08.640 be looked at in the future and amended if necessary says basically plan 02:26:08.640 --> 02:26:16.520 amendments are periodic substantive changes to the Denton 2030 plan and its 02:26:16.520 --> 02:26:20.560 associated goals policies and actions as well as changes to the future land use 02:26:20.560 --> 02:26:26.040 map which are necessary to accommodate changes for unforeseen circumstances in 02:26:26.040 --> 02:26:30.320 a manner consistent with the public interest the planning and zoning 02:26:30.320 --> 02:26:34.120 commission and City Council will accept applications for plan amendments in a 02:26:34.120 --> 02:26:40.200 biannual basis via staff requests so so that's kind of just some some snippets 02:26:40.200 --> 02:26:50.840 out of the 2030 plan that I found I think as I look at this the the traffic 02:26:50.840 --> 02:26:57.320 studies in the regional area as I understand them assume a density of 02:26:57.320 --> 02:27:01.000 development in this area that is much higher than the current future land use 02:27:01.000 --> 02:27:06.040 map would that be an accurate statement Todd I'd have to go back and take a look 02:27:06.040 --> 02:27:10.760 at what we actually went into that off top of my head I don't know what it was 02:27:10.760 --> 02:27:15.340 referenced in the task of that model was to look at what's currently going in so 02:27:15.340 --> 02:27:19.000 there have been a lot of zoning cases over several years last several years in 02:27:19.000 --> 02:27:24.240 applications where density is different so that is the reality of what we as 02:27:24.240 --> 02:27:27.880 traffic engineers and as transportation engineers are trying to adjust for is 02:27:27.880 --> 02:27:32.760 that what we may have set out one way in 2015 at both the time the mobility plan 02:27:32.760 --> 02:27:40.680 and the 2030 vision plan was things change and evolve over time and that's 02:27:40.680 --> 02:27:45.480 where our struggle is is to make sure that we adjust to what's coming and where 02:27:45.480 --> 02:27:50.040 we're going yeah so I mean maybe I'm not aware of all of them but most of the 02:27:50.040 --> 02:27:56.840 plats and and P&Z requests I think have been in sort of the yellow area northeast 02:27:56.840 --> 02:28:01.640 of the floodplain right that's more accessible to 2181 and that sort of thing 02:28:01.640 --> 02:28:06.560 so we're saying we haven't had a lot of infill in this area and then we are 02:28:06.560 --> 02:28:12.600 getting more and more applications in this area okay the nearer to 35 W okay 02:28:12.600 --> 02:28:22.920 thank you that helps I'll just say that to me this project risks using a an 02:28:22.920 --> 02:28:28.840 infrastructure project to modify the future land use map and that seems 02:28:28.840 --> 02:28:34.120 potentially the wrong order I understand that the coordination of those things is 02:28:34.120 --> 02:28:39.520 very difficult because on the one hand you you don't get to have the public 02:28:39.520 --> 02:28:43.880 input and debate over what is important for the city do we want to move away 02:28:43.880 --> 02:28:49.000 from the compact growth that we thought would make us fiscally stronger but on 02:28:49.000 --> 02:28:53.400 the other hand if growth happens and you don't come in in time to Todd's point 02:28:53.400 --> 02:28:59.840 you you end up not being able to make the connections because you can't get 02:28:59.840 --> 02:29:07.040 the right of way right so I I just have a hard time with the chicken and egg 02:29:07.040 --> 02:29:13.400 thing here because I I see the benefits certainly to this regional connection if 02:29:13.400 --> 02:29:19.020 this area were to develop at sort of a three units per acre or greater certainly 02:29:19.020 --> 02:29:23.440 it would be needed but the current plan as I read it says that's not what we 02:29:23.440 --> 02:29:29.840 want to do so you know I I would just pose to the rest of the committee 02:29:29.840 --> 02:29:36.440 members you know is it is it wise to propose a project like this when you 02:29:36.440 --> 02:29:42.880 know the the map not the map but the 2030 plan just five years ago citizens 02:29:42.880 --> 02:29:52.440 said that's that's not the way we want to grow yeah yeah I think a lot of what 02:29:52.440 --> 02:29:56.440 you're saying is it's all true it's in the plan I think the difference with the 02:29:56.440 --> 02:30:02.960 Texas plans or their aspirational many states they're legal and so it's a it's 02:30:02.960 --> 02:30:06.240 a very real difference you're absolutely right with what's in that plan the fact 02:30:06.240 --> 02:30:10.000 of the matter is and the reason this is being brought to you is even though we'd 02:30:10.000 --> 02:30:14.520 like you know that plan you know wanted to see more intense growth infill that 02:30:14.520 --> 02:30:18.800 sort of thing for all the reasons you articulated we are actually having 02:30:18.800 --> 02:30:23.520 planning and development meetings almost on a monthly basis we're watching the 02:30:23.520 --> 02:30:29.800 these smaller more dense are forward our six subdivisions wanting to come in an 02:30:29.800 --> 02:30:37.100 infill between 35 and 377 so really the question is this for the same dollars we 02:30:37.100 --> 02:30:40.640 can either solve a safety problem we've had people you know killed out there in 02:30:40.640 --> 02:30:44.720 the last few years and in terms of the guardrail that guardrail gets hit so 02:30:44.720 --> 02:30:50.600 often you know I live over that area and it's tore out constantly and I think the 02:30:50.600 --> 02:30:55.520 question really is is that the solution long term if the committee if the 02:30:55.520 --> 02:30:58.480 committee basically said it's gonna cost you the same money to either do the 02:30:58.480 --> 02:31:03.600 interconnection or just go to 2181 there's not really a right answer the 02:31:03.600 --> 02:31:08.640 only reason this project was brought forward is it there's no question in the 02:31:08.640 --> 02:31:11.940 next five to ten years those opportunities are gone for the 02:31:11.940 --> 02:31:15.400 regional connection because there's gonna be so many platted homes the city 02:31:15.400 --> 02:31:18.640 would never be able to afford to go in and condemn the right away again and 02:31:18.640 --> 02:31:23.240 we're having to provide answers to development community right now where 02:31:23.240 --> 02:31:26.620 that where that alignment might go so they know what to dedicate to us in 02:31:26.620 --> 02:31:32.520 terms of right away so your policy the policy issue is is it's a good analysis 02:31:32.520 --> 02:31:38.280 of the plan we're seeing we've seen dozens of dozens of properties come in 02:31:38.280 --> 02:31:43.480 directly contradicting the 2030 plan in my tenure here I've never once seen 02:31:43.480 --> 02:31:47.320 development turned down because it was out of compliance with that plan so 02:31:47.320 --> 02:32:04.600 that's interesting so that's one question I would like answered is that 02:32:04.600 --> 02:32:10.860 specific provision that you read do you know if that was in the revised 2030 or 02:32:10.860 --> 02:32:15.600 if that was dated predated back to the 1999 version so the way I read it it was 02:32:15.600 --> 02:32:20.760 not a revision but it was a new plan I mean it referred to the old plan in a 02:32:20.760 --> 02:32:28.240 couple of key areas actually on page 28 and 29 of the planet yeah it says how to 02:32:28.240 --> 02:32:34.400 use the plan and what the paragraph that I'm reading is on 20 page 29 says as 02:32:34.400 --> 02:32:37.800 many policies and actions are reoccurring and reinforced in many of 02:32:37.800 --> 02:32:42.120 the elements policies and actions that overlap or cross-referenced in parentheses 02:32:42.120 --> 02:32:46.440 so that implement implementation policies and actions that address 02:32:46.440 --> 02:32:50.920 multiple goals may be accomplished through a single measure the policies 02:32:50.920 --> 02:32:55.520 and actions that are being referenced as continuations of the 1999 Denton plan 02:32:55.520 --> 02:33:00.160 are noted parenthetically citing the page number of the previous Denton plan 02:33:00.160 --> 02:33:09.400 I or EG DP page 122 this is to reinforce that the Denton plan 2030 is an update 02:33:09.400 --> 02:33:16.480 of the 1999 Denton plan okay thank you so so it's which theoretically went to 02:33:16.480 --> 02:33:22.320 2020 yeah and we're not there yet yeah and basically what what was going on 02:33:22.320 --> 02:33:28.760 because I was around at this time too and knowing what was going on in 99 it's 02:33:28.760 --> 02:33:34.640 always the aspiration as you pointed out these are what we'd like to see and then 02:33:34.640 --> 02:33:38.840 oh by the way people buy land and they put bring in companies and you know I 02:33:38.840 --> 02:33:44.080 got a whatever that I want to put in and then City Council and the planning 02:33:44.080 --> 02:33:49.200 department and everybody has to go is that really gonna be best for us because 02:33:49.200 --> 02:33:54.520 we don't know yet and then we just went through the City Council you just 02:33:54.520 --> 02:33:59.720 approved the whole new how we say these are what kinds of buildings can go into 02:33:59.720 --> 02:34:04.240 this neighborhood yeah and that was actually an outcropping of the 2030 02:34:04.240 --> 02:34:10.800 right specifically asked for an update in the zoning code yeah and I think I 02:34:10.800 --> 02:34:14.880 think it's important that that you brought that up and it's important to 02:34:14.880 --> 02:34:19.200 know what's there for the 2030 plan but it's also important to know like what 02:34:19.200 --> 02:34:25.120 you said talk where do we want to go in the future because if we don't have any 02:34:25.120 --> 02:34:29.680 clue then we're gonna have really bad roads and hopscotch here there in the 02:34:29.680 --> 02:34:33.560 other place and I don't know and so that's why it's important to have these 02:34:33.560 --> 02:34:37.160 conversations certainly yeah I mean personally I just wanted to kind of get 02:34:37.160 --> 02:34:40.520 some feedback but personally I I understand the need to plan for the 02:34:40.520 --> 02:34:45.720 future so having these conversations with some of the landowners getting some 02:34:45.720 --> 02:34:49.520 easements or right-of-ways in place that makes complete sense to me right 02:34:49.520 --> 02:34:56.360 because 60 years from now we don't know right but within the near term it it 02:34:56.360 --> 02:35:04.280 seems to me like even for lanes assumes a density of growth that the current plan 02:35:04.280 --> 02:35:08.880 says we're not supposed to do yet I mean it basically says you know that another 02:35:08.880 --> 02:35:13.240 quote I didn't read said proposed developments or uses that clearly 02:35:13.240 --> 02:35:17.400 support implementation of the plan should be approved conversely rezonings 02:35:17.400 --> 02:35:21.120 for developments or uses that are inconsistent with the plan should not be 02:35:21.120 --> 02:35:25.640 granted approval until and unless the policies of the plan are amended based 02:35:25.640 --> 02:35:29.480 on the findings of fact that clearly demonstrate the need for modification so 02:35:29.480 --> 02:35:33.680 I understand your point that in practice that hasn't happened right but that's 02:35:33.680 --> 02:35:38.360 what I read is this is the community came together and said this is what we 02:35:38.360 --> 02:36:00.880 want back in 2014 2015 and everybody did choose more I forget which one they 02:36:00.880 --> 02:36:04.040 chose higher but I know that the business is usual it was the lowest in 02:36:04.040 --> 02:36:08.800 the 2014 2015 public input meetings I think there were at least two from it 02:36:08.800 --> 02:36:11.600 actually found a Facebook group where you can see like all the stuff they 02:36:11.600 --> 02:36:19.720 looked at there's like a whole album of picture and our point is there's not a 02:36:19.720 --> 02:36:23.600 right answer to this question there's just an opportunity to potentially plan 02:36:23.600 --> 02:36:29.320 that route to I 35 if the committee feels that it changes the character the 02:36:29.320 --> 02:36:34.480 community too much and go out there that's fine but you know Todd's job is 02:36:34.480 --> 02:36:38.120 to challenge your thinking and to say we might not have this opportunity again 02:36:38.120 --> 02:36:41.520 that doesn't mean it won't be here the next time there's a bond election that 02:36:41.520 --> 02:36:45.760 we're coming together but you certainly you know his point is trying to 02:36:45.760 --> 02:36:49.760 leverage the dollars if you want to take advantage of it today if not we're 02:36:49.760 --> 02:36:53.600 possibly still recommending straight down Hickory Creek and not have to deal 02:36:53.600 --> 02:36:58.800 with any more kids in the creek out there and we're continuing to still see 02:36:58.800 --> 02:37:04.640 infill in fact we've been in recent development meetings with more property 02:37:04.640 --> 02:37:08.220 owners that are bringing developments in south of Thistle Hill between Hickory 02:37:08.220 --> 02:37:13.000 Creek and Creedale so it's going to continue infilling there and that's the 02:37:13.000 --> 02:37:16.800 only point so I anytime I see an engineer being put on the spot with the 02:37:16.800 --> 02:37:21.320 planning question I want to go over and save him but anyway there really there 02:37:21.320 --> 02:37:25.680 really is no right answer it's only what you think is the right answer now so but 02:37:25.680 --> 02:37:29.640 but what I do hear you saying is that the right the right answer is to 02:37:29.640 --> 02:37:33.480 straighten out Hickory Creek definitely and that's a 34 million dollar project 02:37:33.480 --> 02:37:37.560 yes because because of the it's driven because of the floodplain and the and 02:37:37.560 --> 02:37:43.160 going over that railroad track okay well I thought I heard 34 million dollars 02:37:43.160 --> 02:37:51.040 includes design charges to take it on over to 35 w so the design money was 02:37:51.040 --> 02:37:55.240 already approved by counselor this year that's not in the 34 million that 02:37:55.240 --> 02:38:01.480 project that 34 million is the construction only yes to 1830 that yes 02:38:01.480 --> 02:38:06.480 if we don't get the other dollars and we're told not to then obviously it'll 02:38:06.480 --> 02:38:11.560 just go to 1830 it also includes any parcels that we do have to acquire the 02:38:11.560 --> 02:38:16.160 other parts of a project the design piece part of the reason we're planning 02:38:16.160 --> 02:38:22.360 all the way out to 1830 or to I 35 W is that when development comes in we do 02:38:22.360 --> 02:38:26.440 have the alignment that's already been settled upon these conversations boy 02:38:26.440 --> 02:38:31.360 have and and development doesn't get to choose where those roadways go they go 02:38:31.360 --> 02:38:37.520 there but once you have those dollars approved for a bond election you could 02:38:37.520 --> 02:38:44.480 change the the alignment that changed the direction move it a little here and 02:38:44.480 --> 02:38:50.680 there and so forth right it's not locked in with a large change would have to go 02:38:50.680 --> 02:38:57.400 back to council yeah to avoid a tree or to avoid a driveway yes I can do that 02:38:57.400 --> 02:39:05.400 but even if it went back to council it would still be within yes yeah because I 02:39:05.400 --> 02:39:10.040 didn't really realize that we all signed on to be cheerleaders for this until you 02:39:10.040 --> 02:39:17.640 said so but we have to have a project here that we believe in that we can sell 02:39:17.640 --> 02:39:22.140 and so so let me suggest that I think we've gotten a lot of information on 02:39:22.140 --> 02:39:27.520 this project and then we really want to move toward prioritization and we need 02:39:27.520 --> 02:39:32.220 to look at the list as we have it and then and then I think that's where we 02:39:32.220 --> 02:39:37.000 begin to talk about where does this fall on our list and it gives us the 02:39:37.000 --> 02:39:43.360 opportunity to talk specifically about about the order and and what the dollar 02:39:43.360 --> 02:39:50.160 figures are in that order David 02:40:09.680 --> 02:40:13.720 hey well this presentation will go over the results of the most recent 02:40:13.720 --> 02:40:17.960 prioritization survey this part this is the second survey that we've done 02:40:17.960 --> 02:40:21.880 obviously at the last meeting we presented the initial survey and the 02:40:21.880 --> 02:40:25.920 committee asked to afford another survey after some additional information and to 02:40:25.920 --> 02:40:30.280 see if there were any changes to the survey itself as I as I went over last 02:40:30.280 --> 02:40:35.240 time I want to emphasize the survey is only intended to contribute to the 02:40:35.240 --> 02:40:39.160 conversation you're about to have this is not any kind of staff recommendation 02:40:39.160 --> 02:40:44.160 but I hope that it does contribute to that conversation we also in a later 02:40:44.160 --> 02:40:49.420 slide you'll see we have tied these survey results to dot to aggregate 02:40:49.420 --> 02:40:53.760 dollar amounts to help facilitate that conversation of the scenarios we looked 02:40:53.760 --> 02:40:57.480 at earlier those different dollar amounts what projects could you fit in 02:40:57.480 --> 02:41:01.960 based on this summary obviously as we go through this process we can talk through 02:41:01.960 --> 02:41:05.920 different options if we moved other other projects under each of those 02:41:05.920 --> 02:41:11.120 thresholds what it would look like and I think ultimately from this conversation 02:41:11.120 --> 02:41:14.520 we get to that point where the committee gets comfortable with an ultimate 02:41:14.520 --> 02:41:22.120 recommendation we had 17 of the 19 members respond to the survey in total 02:41:22.120 --> 02:41:26.080 and you can see the unit their rankings here we have them on the next slide too 02:41:26.080 --> 02:41:30.960 if this is difficult to see for everyone but obviously a police station renovation 02:41:30.960 --> 02:41:35.040 number one fire station 8 and then the police substation those three public 02:41:35.040 --> 02:41:40.480 facility projects public safety facility projects for the top three in the street 02:41:40.480 --> 02:41:45.840 rehab program Bonnie Bray and Hickory Creek rounding out the top six from 02:41:45.840 --> 02:41:51.040 there there is somewhat of a depth to sidewalks street lighting and Ryan Road 02:41:51.040 --> 02:41:56.080 and later on we'll get to the there's also the additional question asked on 02:41:56.080 --> 02:41:59.840 Ryan Road so I'll go through these slides and touch on that Ryan Road piece 02:41:59.840 --> 02:42:09.440 and then lead into the conversation I hope you all have here's that chart 02:42:09.440 --> 02:42:14.880 showing the aggregate amount and where those lines those lines form on for the 02:42:14.880 --> 02:42:18.200 different dollar amounts and we have this in the next slide where you can see it 02:42:18.200 --> 02:42:22.800 broken out actually by dollar amount but just I think this graph does a good job 02:42:22.800 --> 02:42:27.320 of illustrating you know as you as you start increasing the projects here's 02:42:27.320 --> 02:42:30.280 what you could do at a hundred million dollars you get those first three 02:42:30.280 --> 02:42:35.080 projects and then some of the street rehab obviously street rehabs a large 02:42:35.080 --> 02:42:40.400 amount so it takes up a good chunk and then when 180 million dollar projects 02:42:40.400 --> 02:42:43.560 which we look we looked at the impacts of that previously and we can as you're 02:42:43.560 --> 02:42:47.840 having the conversation go back to those slides to highlight what those what 02:42:47.840 --> 02:42:51.680 those differences are with each of the projects you get up to that Hickory Creek 02:42:51.680 --> 02:42:56.080 project and then 210 million dollars right up to where street lighting fell 02:42:56.080 --> 02:43:00.960 at number eight which was right in front of Ryan Road Robinson in the firing 02:43:00.960 --> 02:43:07.500 range a 235 million dollar project gets you those additional it's your Ryan Road 02:43:07.500 --> 02:43:15.920 Robinson in the firing range here are those broken down you can see the the 02:43:15.920 --> 02:43:19.600 project funding I'll just point out a couple of those variables that are still 02:43:19.600 --> 02:43:22.440 out there that we just have plugged these in for planning purposes for your 02:43:22.440 --> 02:43:26.720 conversation we have an excel sheet we can get we can manipulate these as we go 02:43:26.720 --> 02:43:29.760 through the conversation have just thrown four million dollars in for Ryan 02:43:29.760 --> 02:43:33.400 Road 10 million for street lighting and 10 million for open space for this 02:43:33.400 --> 02:43:37.800 conversation I will note we have public art down here and I think this is a 02:43:37.800 --> 02:43:41.840 great time to have that conversation on public art we put it in the survey just 02:43:41.840 --> 02:43:45.600 for comparison state sakes and we've shown that 2% of the total funding 02:43:45.600 --> 02:43:49.040 obviously that increase as we increase the cost of public safety facilities I 02:43:49.040 --> 02:43:52.920 do think it's appropriate to think about that a little separately from the actual 02:43:52.920 --> 02:43:59.400 ranking it's good to see it there but to know that if we look at adjusting what 02:43:59.400 --> 02:44:03.920 we do with public art it could involve a change to the public art policy which we 02:44:03.920 --> 02:44:11.520 could go to council with but open that up for y'all's discussion I think the 02:44:11.520 --> 02:44:21.940 survey was set up such that you couldn't really give public art a number as such 02:44:21.940 --> 02:44:27.280 because it's tied into number one two and three and I think it pretty much 02:44:27.280 --> 02:44:32.440 goes there whether we pick it or not because that's our policy that's a city 02:44:32.440 --> 02:44:38.640 council policy unless you wanted to ask them to adjust no we already voted not 02:44:38.640 --> 02:44:48.960 to yeah well two things one is we have 300 almost $300,000 sitting in the 02:44:48.960 --> 02:44:56.280 public art fund right now from the 2012-2014 bond election that is unspent 02:44:56.280 --> 02:45:02.680 also there is a project in progress now by Paula Collins our nationally 02:45:02.680 --> 02:45:07.140 recognized brick artist who did the Quaker town brick mural in the Civic 02:45:07.140 --> 02:45:16.480 Center locally and other projects and it is it is carved it is completed it is 02:45:16.480 --> 02:45:22.560 waiting to be fired and it will go in at the police station on Hickory and I have 02:45:22.560 --> 02:45:26.960 can you show this 02:45:26.960 --> 02:45:35.400 David I didn't I don't have that page where you were saying about the 02:45:35.400 --> 02:46:01.360 prioritization survey might have seen 13 of 19 I don't see how well I mean not 02:46:01.360 --> 02:46:05.200 that we don't in general I'm just saying on this particular circumstance 02:46:05.200 --> 02:46:12.000 is the 2% in light of the fact that we already have money sitting unused right 02:46:12.000 --> 02:46:18.480 now and there is this and it's a significant project right going in at 02:46:18.480 --> 02:46:24.680 the police station it's 220 foot murals carved of the history of the Denton 02:46:24.680 --> 02:46:32.440 Police Department and the other buildings that the other vertical bills on this 02:46:32.440 --> 02:46:37.520 bond election are not buildings that the public is going to be using a lot it's 02:46:37.520 --> 02:46:44.440 not they're not rec centers they're not city halls they're not civic centers I 02:46:44.440 --> 02:46:50.880 I personally have a real problem with throwing 1.3 million at public art in 02:46:50.880 --> 02:47:05.160 this bond proposal can you clarify that David 300,000 sure I can pull up a the 02:47:05.160 --> 02:47:09.760 previous public art presentation we did kind of show the funding as it was I 02:47:09.760 --> 02:47:23.480 think it's $274,000 David could you just not sell the bonds the 1.3 so that means 02:47:23.480 --> 02:47:44.400 1.3 won't go to something else I think policy I think the final bring it back 02:47:44.400 --> 02:47:47.880 back up obviously it was discussed previously was that the amount increased 02:47:47.880 --> 02:47:51.080 significantly so just wanted to make sure because we are gonna have that 02:47:51.080 --> 02:47:55.640 conversation of what's included in the total that at least everyone was aware of 02:47:55.640 --> 02:48:06.240 that that figure came out of the public art committee back up last week yes yeah 02:48:06.240 --> 02:48:13.440 we're originally looking at 900,000 because of the original amount we were 02:48:13.440 --> 02:48:25.360 discussing so that's why I can't see if it's 2012 62,000 65,000 unallocated 02:48:25.360 --> 02:48:34.720 there and then 40,000 unallocated so so the reality is there's really 65,000 02:48:34.720 --> 02:48:43.560 that's on an allocator is that right did I do there and then also 74 and from the 02:48:43.560 --> 02:48:52.320 2012 program so close to 200 now I will say some of these projects these are the 02:48:52.320 --> 02:48:56.240 allocation for these projects it doesn't mean these projects have been complete 02:48:56.240 --> 02:49:00.840 or are nearing completion so I just we just put the total here I don't have the 02:49:00.840 --> 02:49:04.520 status of all these projects I know some of them have money allocated toward them 02:49:04.520 --> 02:49:09.680 but they're not complete so and I believe that in the 2012 those were 02:49:09.680 --> 02:49:14.240 intended to be signage areas around overpasses some of which have been done 02:49:14.240 --> 02:49:20.800 but the other there's obviously still construction at 288 and and some of 02:49:20.800 --> 02:49:25.120 those areas where you might end up with those kinds of medallions or whatever 02:49:25.120 --> 02:49:39.200 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 02:49:39.200 --> 02:49:42.800 unspent dollars but we've shown it here is just it has been allocated toward that 02:49:42.800 --> 02:49:46.760 project and I think the public art committee is having conversations on that 02:49:46.760 --> 02:49:55.440 project specifically so there was a vote taken by this committee 2% 2% right under 02:49:55.440 --> 02:50:02.760 option one right so so in order to have that conversation of whether or not to 02:50:02.760 --> 02:50:07.040 change that vote or have another vote we need to have a motion to say hey we'd 02:50:07.040 --> 02:50:12.360 like to have another proper our proper process on that would be a motion to 02:50:12.360 --> 02:50:20.000 reconsider and it can only come from someone who voted in favor of the 2% he 02:50:20.000 --> 02:50:24.640 voted against the 2% you can't make that motion well I wasn't here so I didn't 02:50:24.640 --> 02:50:29.120 vote so I can't do it it was also not a binding vote because it was not on the 02:50:29.120 --> 02:50:36.440 agenda for action it was effectively a straw poll I believe it's recorded in 02:50:36.440 --> 02:50:57.120 the minutes otherwise my fair is if you start making exceptions now then it 02:50:57.120 --> 02:51:02.560 impacts the future and all of a sudden we're without public art which is really 02:51:02.560 --> 02:51:09.400 critical and important to the city and to it is important but this isn't our 02:51:09.400 --> 02:51:14.640 last bond election that we will ever have no it's not and it's when you start 02:51:14.640 --> 02:51:18.720 making exceptions and after the 2012 we made an exception that it had to be 02:51:18.720 --> 02:51:23.120 vertical construction and then I think the argument would be now we want to make 02:51:23.120 --> 02:51:27.120 an exception that we're going to reduce the percentage so that's that would be 02:51:27.120 --> 02:51:32.480 the argument there and we're moving away from I have a question just I wanted to 02:51:32.480 --> 02:51:37.840 clarify the 1.3 million we're talking about is that required my understanding 02:51:37.840 --> 02:51:42.680 is it's required to be spent at those three locations no it is yeah I thought 02:51:42.680 --> 02:51:47.480 that was be spent for public safety buildings but not those three locations 02:51:47.480 --> 02:51:52.440 any public safety building any public safety building in the city what's 02:51:52.440 --> 02:52:00.440 considered a public safety building it's not restricted to these three Tony so 02:52:00.440 --> 02:52:05.580 Tony point the chief financial officer it's just to clarify so the calculation 02:52:05.580 --> 02:52:10.880 of that 2% 4% is based on vertical construction so if so obviously here 02:52:10.880 --> 02:52:14.840 it's based on public safety facilities and so if that's if that dollar amount 02:52:14.840 --> 02:52:20.560 that 1.3 million is all put in the public safety proposition then as long 02:52:20.560 --> 02:52:24.360 as that public guard is in any public safety facility doesn't have to be the 02:52:24.360 --> 02:52:28.000 ones that are being proposed it could be any fire station any public safety 02:52:28.000 --> 02:52:34.040 facility you're fine I just want to be very clear to that although the 2% is 02:52:34.040 --> 02:52:38.360 being calculated about vertical construction that's only in the public 02:52:38.360 --> 02:52:43.040 safety sector this committee could recommend to put all that 1.3 million 02:52:43.040 --> 02:52:47.560 in the street proposition or a portion of it and so I just want to again those 02:52:47.560 --> 02:52:51.920 are things that the committee needs to consider now once once public art is in 02:52:51.920 --> 02:52:55.520 a proposition and it gets passed then we're limited to only being able to 02:52:55.520 --> 02:53:00.440 spend those dollars in within that proposition in streets or in public 02:53:00.440 --> 02:53:04.000 safety now if it's a standalone proposition I know you guys already 02:53:04.000 --> 02:53:10.200 talked about and that's a whole different story so sorry that that helps 02:53:10.200 --> 02:53:13.440 clarify some confusion I had before I guess so you're saying that we could 02:53:13.440 --> 02:53:18.780 take the 2% of vertical construction and assign it to either one of the 02:53:18.780 --> 02:53:23.760 propositions that we choose yes because the calculation is off of vertical 02:53:23.760 --> 02:53:28.200 construction now where it gets allocated is purely up to the committee and then 02:53:28.200 --> 02:53:34.280 the proposition for clarification I think the the way that the non public 02:53:34.280 --> 02:53:38.680 safety proposition is written it includes parks and open space so if it 02:53:38.680 --> 02:53:42.280 were included in that resolution would it have the ability to be spent by a 02:53:42.280 --> 02:53:48.520 parks department in spaces so again it all depends on on what projects certainly 02:53:48.520 --> 02:53:51.960 if there is going to be an open space component to this program likely there 02:53:51.960 --> 02:53:55.640 will be a separate proposition right that's that's related to park 02:53:55.640 --> 02:53:59.960 improvements it wouldn't be necessarily part of the streets or public safety so 02:53:59.960 --> 02:54:03.880 there could be a component of public art that could go into that open space 02:54:03.880 --> 02:54:20.320 theoretical proposition well I guess it comes down to is lighting public art or 02:54:20.320 --> 02:54:35.600 not so if that 1.3 million goes into the street proposition then whatever public 02:54:35.600 --> 02:54:41.200 art needs to be their component or tied to some type of street infrastructure 02:54:41.200 --> 02:54:48.040 project it could be some of these calming art pieces it could be part of 02:54:48.040 --> 02:54:52.000 retreat a retaining wall there's a number of things that the public art 02:54:52.000 --> 02:54:57.760 committee could consider but again the tie is it has to be tied to a street or 02:54:57.760 --> 02:55:03.480 transportation infrastructure speaking of lights like in like in Waco when you 02:55:03.480 --> 02:55:07.120 go through Waco they built the bridge there by the McLean Stadium they're lit 02:55:07.120 --> 02:55:10.720 up with lights that they change colors for different times of year fourth of 02:55:10.720 --> 02:55:15.240 July was red white and blue it's green when they have games but is that 02:55:15.240 --> 02:55:19.800 considered public art when you have LED lights and I was saying wouldn't that 02:55:19.800 --> 02:55:22.960 then be something you could put into the street lighting so that you might might 02:55:22.960 --> 02:55:26.520 not be a street but it would be a bridge or whatever is your lighting 02:55:26.520 --> 02:55:33.600 I would just want to suggest I don't know that we need to be doing the public 02:55:33.600 --> 02:55:38.600 arts committee's job in this yeah determining what is and isn't public 02:55:38.600 --> 02:55:43.200 art I do think it gives us some options to be able to consider putting this in 02:55:43.200 --> 02:55:51.960 into the second proposition I I would like to see us not request the 2% I 02:55:51.960 --> 02:55:58.800 would like to see us request a variation in the policy and not have the 2% go to 02:55:58.800 --> 02:56:02.800 public art in this bond election because we have needs that are so much more 02:56:02.800 --> 02:56:05.920 critical right now 02:56:09.280 --> 02:56:15.600 I'm sorry the last thing in the world you do is tell art teacher that we don't 02:56:15.600 --> 02:56:21.280 want public art we live here in Denton we need to have a quality of life that's 02:56:21.280 --> 02:56:27.600 attached to whatever it is we do whether it's public safety or the beauty of our 02:56:27.600 --> 02:56:32.600 trees or whatever so I really appreciate what Tony said because I think that's a 02:56:32.600 --> 02:56:39.600 wonderful use of that money is to put it into you know our streets and by the way 02:56:39.600 --> 02:56:48.680 there are cities yes I research that do have contests for street lights I'd like 02:56:48.680 --> 02:56:55.800 to make a motion all right can can we move that that million free be divided 02:56:55.800 --> 02:57:03.320 proportionately between the police and public safety proposal and the streets 02:57:03.320 --> 02:57:10.480 and based on not just well it's computed based on vertical but that it be 02:57:10.480 --> 02:57:17.920 allocated to both the police and the street propositions based on their 02:57:17.920 --> 02:57:26.240 percentage dollars well hang on so you let's just clarify you're making a 02:57:26.240 --> 02:57:33.760 motion to spread the the 2% out over the two propositions that's correct and is 02:57:33.760 --> 02:57:49.720 there a second no because we're still this this motion is still at 2% okay okay 02:57:49.720 --> 02:57:56.280 so did I think Queen Queen's Queen got her hand up first as a as the second on 02:57:56.280 --> 02:58:03.800 this okay this is not a motion to reconsider this is a motion for how to 02:58:03.800 --> 02:58:10.600 spread the 2% out and so we have a motion and a second now discussion pay 02:58:10.600 --> 02:58:20.760 just what I said I think our streets I know it's only 2% but 2% can you know 02:58:20.760 --> 02:58:27.640 that's a million dollars effectively or more and that's real money and it can be 02:58:27.640 --> 02:58:33.480 put to better use in this particular bond election at this particular time in 02:58:33.480 --> 02:58:38.640 either streets or the vertical construction Patty would you have a 02:58:38.640 --> 02:58:42.160 suggestion for a compromise amount perhaps it seems like there's several 02:58:42.160 --> 02:58:46.840 members of the committee who are staunch advocates of public art money and others 02:58:46.840 --> 02:58:51.360 who think that this bond package is pretty large already I wonder what you 02:58:51.360 --> 02:58:55.520 would say to that well I think we have a motion on the floor right now so I think 02:58:55.520 --> 02:59:00.680 we have to deal with it first this motion does not change the 2% 02:59:07.160 --> 02:59:22.840 that's part of my problem again it is you know by being by being tied to 02:59:22.840 --> 02:59:28.040 streets it can be in lots of different places where there would be traffic that 02:59:28.040 --> 02:59:37.920 would see that it could be in multiple places around the city there's not it's 02:59:37.920 --> 02:59:41.880 not limiting to that to these construction projects so that people can 02:59:41.880 --> 02:59:48.960 see it it was proportionately based on the number of dollars in the in the 02:59:48.960 --> 02:59:57.400 proposition so it would not say so you got 40 60 million out of the 230 so 02:59:57.400 --> 03:00:04.680 sixty two hundred and thirties times 1.3 would go to the first pop to first 03:00:04.680 --> 03:00:11.400 proposition I just have to ask how many public safety buildings are buildings 03:00:11.400 --> 03:00:15.640 that the public generally goes to 03:00:27.400 --> 03:00:35.520 that happens to be the police station when you go to the court 03:00:35.520 --> 03:00:43.320 thinking of are you pretty much drive by it there's not really a lot of walking 03:00:43.320 --> 03:00:48.200 traffic so it's harder for people to really stop and appreciate it you're 03:00:48.200 --> 03:00:52.480 going too fast to really notice it so I just feel like there'd be maybe more 03:00:52.480 --> 03:00:55.960 enjoyment if it were you know closer to the street or because I know a lot of 03:00:55.960 --> 03:01:02.680 the safety facilities are little have a bit of a setback in a lot of cases let 03:01:02.680 --> 03:01:06.840 me tell you where I think we are on this I think that that we can continue to 03:01:06.840 --> 03:01:11.320 talk conceptually about it but I think we need to if you are if you have a 03:01:11.320 --> 03:01:14.920 speech you want to make against the motion or a speech you want to make in 03:01:14.920 --> 03:01:19.480 favor of it we need to we need to focus in on that area right now because we do 03:01:19.480 --> 03:01:24.880 have a motion on the floor so I would go to if there is a speech in favor if 03:01:24.880 --> 03:01:28.480 anybody would like to make that at this point or if there is a speech in 03:01:28.480 --> 03:01:33.160 opposition to the motion can I ask a clarifying question about rules of 03:01:33.160 --> 03:01:40.920 order okay what would be the proper procedural method to to seek an 03:01:40.920 --> 03:01:46.840 amendment of the public art policy at this point well that's currently not on 03:01:46.840 --> 03:01:51.840 the floor I understand and so to do that would require another motion a separate 03:01:51.840 --> 03:01:56.280 motion and could that motion be made at this time or does it have to wait we 03:01:56.280 --> 03:02:01.160 have to deal with this motion that's on the floor first question on the 03:02:01.160 --> 03:02:08.200 structure of the proposition so if if you had public art based upon vertical 03:02:08.200 --> 03:02:15.440 structures at 2% how would those be divided within the propositions just 03:02:15.440 --> 03:02:23.040 however the committee because I recall the vote we had before straw poll or we 03:02:23.040 --> 03:02:28.360 don't call it was was more about where where would public art be in a 03:02:28.360 --> 03:02:32.960 proposition should be a separate proposition or should it be within the 03:02:32.960 --> 03:02:39.160 in the public safety proposition and that's how we vote I don't I don't know 03:02:39.160 --> 03:02:47.200 that it was what could be what I'm saying is there was a vote whether we 03:02:47.200 --> 03:02:54.200 have it as a separate proposition and I know this is kind of getting off-subject 03:02:54.200 --> 03:03:02.000 tail but it has a little bit of bearing on how I'm looking at it it's a it's a 03:03:02.000 --> 03:03:09.120 much larger I'm all for public art but I don't it's a much larger number than we 03:03:09.120 --> 03:03:18.480 have ever looked at from a public art standpoint and so being that much it 03:03:18.480 --> 03:03:25.260 would be I'd be more comfortable if the voters decided that we wanted to have 03:03:25.260 --> 03:03:31.400 the public art so you're proposing it be a separate line yeah but that's that's 03:03:31.400 --> 03:03:35.680 that goes that has to we have to deal with the motions on the floor now 03:03:35.680 --> 03:03:41.280 basically we'd have to vote motion down and then make another motion right I 03:03:41.280 --> 03:03:49.400 would be okay withdraw yeah and then make another motion with this motion we 03:03:49.400 --> 03:03:54.960 don't have to ask the City Council to change the policy right and we can 03:03:54.960 --> 03:04:04.200 allocate it in other ways other than I have no problem with asking the City 03:04:04.200 --> 03:04:13.400 Council to change policy they can do is say no on the 27th David I think it was 03:04:13.400 --> 03:04:20.640 on the 27th so proportionally the what the motion you made is about 30% of this 03:04:20.640 --> 03:04:25.760 would be spent on public safety facilities and about 70% on the second 03:04:25.760 --> 03:04:35.680 proposition and I think on if we do 230 million that's what about 345,000 on 03:04:35.680 --> 03:04:44.420 public safety yeah go down yeah but I need to see what the recommendation was 03:04:44.420 --> 03:04:49.600 the paragraph Smith asked on the direction to include the following of 03:04:49.600 --> 03:04:56.320 potential recommendation funding and be included in public safety facilities so 03:04:56.320 --> 03:05:00.560 we'd have to we can't even have this conversation we can't have this vote 03:05:00.560 --> 03:05:07.360 without doing a revision to that one I think the way I'm not a minute I think 03:05:07.360 --> 03:05:12.560 the way this reads would be Pat made this motion but then Tim made a second 03:05:12.560 --> 03:05:23.000 motion that just said 2% but it says calculated from vertical structure 03:05:23.000 --> 03:05:29.240 construction has stipulated in the current policy and public safety 03:05:29.240 --> 03:05:39.600 facilities proposition without it being on the agenda as an action item it is 03:05:39.600 --> 03:05:44.760 not a binding vote and I think I call the point of order on this for that very 03:05:44.760 --> 03:05:56.880 reason I would recommend that take whatever whatever we need to do to 03:05:56.880 --> 03:05:59.880 preface it and just take a moat make a motion on whatever the committee 03:05:59.880 --> 03:06:04.800 desires at this time and we can just as you start the motion say superseding any 03:06:04.800 --> 03:06:12.260 previous motion this now takes effect okay we could go that route and that 03:06:12.260 --> 03:06:15.080 would require the maker of the motion to withdraw the motion the maker of the 03:06:15.080 --> 03:06:28.200 second to say okay I withdraw my motion and are you okay with that you know what 03:06:28.200 --> 03:06:34.480 y'all have to excuse me because this is my first time so yeah I second the 03:06:34.480 --> 03:06:45.560 motion to withdraw correct you're just agree to that motion oh okay okay now is 03:06:45.560 --> 03:06:52.640 there is there a new motion that someone would like to put on the floor I move 03:06:52.640 --> 03:06:57.480 that we ask the City Council to revise the policy or make an exception to the 03:06:57.480 --> 03:07:03.880 policy so that the 2% that has been previously applied to public art in 03:07:03.880 --> 03:07:08.320 vertical construction on bond elections not be applied to vertical construction 03:07:08.320 --> 03:07:17.960 but to go into the the bond to the vertical construction itself or be 03:07:17.960 --> 03:07:28.240 divided between that in streets I think your motion is a little vague right now 03:07:28.240 --> 03:07:32.800 let's let's see if we can if we can find a way to tighten that up a little bit 03:07:32.800 --> 03:07:36.400 let me see if I find well go ahead 03:07:36.400 --> 03:07:51.960 in this election we have too many streets that need too much repair okay 03:07:51.960 --> 03:08:01.680 so that is not what we had talked about having the motion to be so I think so if 03:08:01.680 --> 03:08:06.360 I may what I'm hearing is potentially there would be some compromise if the 03:08:06.360 --> 03:08:12.060 amount were reduced from 2% but that would require council action to make an 03:08:12.060 --> 03:08:19.360 exception or modify the policy and then the choice of whether we assign it to 03:08:19.360 --> 03:08:29.480 one or the other proposition or would be up to us but if we wanted to as sorry 03:08:29.480 --> 03:08:37.800 sorry just past you yes no not just past Janet okay Randy as Randy suggested 03:08:37.800 --> 03:08:43.760 potentially again reconsidering having it as a third proposition that would 03:08:43.760 --> 03:08:49.960 also require an amendment to the policy is that accurate okay so I would like to 03:08:49.960 --> 03:08:58.960 move that we I'd like to move that we ask council to amend the policy either 03:08:58.960 --> 03:09:06.760 temporarily or permanently so that we could consider a value down to 1% and 03:09:06.760 --> 03:09:16.200 that we would have the freedom to assign it to an individual bond item sorry 03:09:16.200 --> 03:09:22.600 proposal if that's what the committee decides we already have that freedom we 03:09:22.600 --> 03:09:26.480 can we can say we want it to be a standalone proposition okay then then 03:09:26.480 --> 03:09:32.320 just strike the last clause of that and just say that I move to ask council to 03:09:32.320 --> 03:09:37.960 make a an amendment to the to the proposal so that we could consider an 03:09:37.960 --> 03:09:44.660 amount down to 1% just the the change would be to the policy itself not to the 03:09:44.660 --> 03:09:49.400 establishing resolution of the committee yes so it's oh I think to do that you 03:09:49.400 --> 03:09:53.240 would need to have a percent because right now says two to four so yeah okay 03:09:53.240 --> 03:10:00.000 thank you so I move thank you for your patience I move that we ask council to 03:10:00.000 --> 03:10:07.400 change the policy so that an amount for public art can be considered from the 03:10:07.400 --> 03:10:11.200 range of one to four percent as opposed to two to four percent which is the 03:10:11.200 --> 03:10:18.620 current policy would you be willing to make that a standalone item so that the 03:10:18.620 --> 03:10:22.800 voters can decide that's an option that's before the committee already this 03:10:22.800 --> 03:10:27.520 yeah we're just asking that we're asking the the count the council to change a 03:10:27.520 --> 03:10:34.360 policy it where his motion is to change the policy to as low as 1% the 03:10:34.360 --> 03:10:42.160 standalone proposition is something that's still at our discretion just a 03:10:42.160 --> 03:10:48.080 very quick comment you know certainly the committee has a limited time so in 03:10:48.080 --> 03:10:51.720 order for do kind of what you're saying we can certainly do that I think the 03:10:51.720 --> 03:10:55.400 easiest way would be that if the committee is really wanting to consider 03:10:55.400 --> 03:11:00.520 1% that part of your proposal back to the council along with amending that 03:11:00.520 --> 03:11:06.840 policy is that you've submitted to them a 1% of public art to go into one of 03:11:06.840 --> 03:11:10.960 these propositions or a standalone proposition and I think that that would 03:11:10.960 --> 03:11:15.560 cover you and it would avoid us having to go to the council next week have this 03:11:15.560 --> 03:11:19.240 conversation and that way it's all just packaged together so I think I think 03:11:19.240 --> 03:11:24.580 your your recommendation is a valid one I would just encourage you to if it's 03:11:24.580 --> 03:11:29.040 gonna be 1% where would you want that in which proposition or would it be a 03:11:29.040 --> 03:11:33.480 standalone that does that make sense yes it's a bit it sounds like your 03:11:33.480 --> 03:11:37.480 suggestion is that we don't need to ask for the policy to be amended we can just 03:11:37.480 --> 03:11:40.600 decide what we'd like to do and then make that as part of our final proposal 03:11:40.600 --> 03:11:44.600 certainly and if the council does not want to amend the public art proposition 03:11:44.600 --> 03:11:49.160 then either council just drops public art entirely or the council could come 03:11:49.160 --> 03:12:00.080 up with a different allocation okay okay so I think I think we needed we we need 03:12:00.080 --> 03:12:05.880 a motion that that addresses that and I think your motion is your motion would 03:12:05.880 --> 03:12:16.040 be that that we suggest that there were that you would move a 1% rather than 2% 03:12:16.040 --> 03:12:21.400 yes and and my primary reasoning for that is that I was more comfortable with 03:12:21.400 --> 03:12:26.240 2% when the vertical construction total was around 40 million and now it's up to 03:12:26.240 --> 03:12:33.520 60 million so so is there a second 03:12:42.520 --> 03:12:45.680 so I think the right I think the right way to start that off is that you're 03:12:45.680 --> 03:12:51.280 moving to include in our final recommendation insert whatever it is 03:12:51.280 --> 03:12:56.240 that you would like to have in final recommendation then we all vote on that 03:12:56.240 --> 03:13:11.600 okay so so so I'll move to include for public art a total of 1% for vertical 03:13:11.600 --> 03:13:18.560 construction but distribute that between the well I'm sorry I withdraw my motion 03:13:18.560 --> 03:13:23.160 I don't feel like we've finished the discussion about how we would want to 03:13:23.160 --> 03:13:27.520 allocate this I've heard several different ideas 03:13:27.520 --> 03:13:32.920 why don't we shift the focus of our conversation why don't we table public 03:13:32.920 --> 03:13:35.880 art for now because we're not making much progress on that let's get to some 03:13:35.880 --> 03:13:41.120 of the other not to say that they're more important but the more higher dollar 03:13:41.120 --> 03:13:56.200 value items on our plate at this moment so we can get through all this I think 03:13:56.200 --> 03:14:00.320 I think ultimately when we come back next week obviously we're gonna be trying 03:14:00.320 --> 03:14:04.360 to get to a decision so we're gonna come in with with three or four action items 03:14:04.360 --> 03:14:08.720 of let's decide public art let's decide the total amount dollar amount let's 03:14:08.720 --> 03:14:12.440 decide the projects and then make that ultimate recommendation so we could just 03:14:12.440 --> 03:14:15.840 roll that into that I think this is obviously a good conversation in advance 03:14:15.840 --> 03:14:19.760 of that and that way we don't have to do a motion that you've got to try to figure 03:14:19.760 --> 03:14:24.080 out what what what it is we mean we expect the best motion that any of us 03:14:24.080 --> 03:14:40.880 have seen an entire committee next time my hope was we were going to get to the 03:14:40.880 --> 03:14:58.880 prioritization list and how late do you all want to stay and I know for many 03:14:58.880 --> 03:15:07.200 others as well and it's yeah my day is not over yet can I actually make a 03:15:07.200 --> 03:15:11.600 motion yes and it's gonna be crazy y'all are gonna think I just want us in this 03:15:11.600 --> 03:15:15.960 thing but I'm gonna make a motion that this bond committee recommends to the 03:15:15.960 --> 03:15:22.400 City Council items 1 through 10 the police station the fire station the 03:15:22.400 --> 03:15:26.560 substation the street we have added the rehab program of 70 million Bonnie break 03:15:26.560 --> 03:15:31.960 Hickory Creek right at 34 million sidewalks at 12 mean street lights at 03:15:31.960 --> 03:15:38.280 13.8 million actually and Ryan road right at he's making a motion yes Ryan 03:15:38.280 --> 03:15:45.080 road at 4 million and Robinson road at 12.3 that's exactly 235 million dollars 03:15:45.080 --> 03:15:49.560 with no funding for public art 03:15:49.560 --> 03:15:58.320 was that the bad one okay retractable no funding public art but if the public 03:15:58.320 --> 03:16:04.400 art has to be taken out of that number then it's still one through ten and it's 03:16:04.400 --> 03:16:07.800 still one through ten but maybe maybe the street lighting or the sidewalk 03:16:07.800 --> 03:16:14.600 problem has to be addressed all right there's a motion is there a second 03:16:18.840 --> 03:16:29.400 I think that motion is gonna die second I had to try I like the way you're 03:16:29.400 --> 03:16:35.960 thinking I would like to make a motion that we make a recommendation of items 03:16:35.960 --> 03:16:48.480 1 through 6 1 through 6 exactly as presented and then we're gonna have to 03:16:48.480 --> 03:16:52.080 discuss about the rest of it I don't know how to put that into my motion 03:16:52.080 --> 03:16:57.920 though but I would like to have a at least that we can agree and not have to 03:16:57.920 --> 03:17:03.160 sit here and go a line by line by line by line so my motion is to first make a 03:17:03.160 --> 03:17:08.360 recommendation of 1 through 6 those be included that those definitely be 03:17:08.360 --> 03:17:15.320 included no discussion we're done let's go there's a second for that motion I'd 03:17:15.320 --> 03:17:19.440 like to offer a friendly amendment is it possible after the second you know 03:17:19.440 --> 03:17:24.360 according to Roberts rules there's no such thing as a friendly amendment so 03:17:24.360 --> 03:17:30.360 what do you want to do I think there's probably more disagreement on Hickory 03:17:30.360 --> 03:17:34.380 Creek than the other five projects so would you be willing to just say one 03:17:34.380 --> 03:17:42.200 through five for now and then then have that discussion for the conversation yes 03:17:42.200 --> 03:17:49.720 I will change my motion to one to five and I will agree to that to be included 03:17:49.720 --> 03:18:02.480 in our final recommendation all right there is a motion there is a second is 03:18:02.480 --> 03:18:08.480 there any further discussion so let me ask question if we if we approve this 03:18:08.480 --> 03:18:14.720 motion 1 through 5 is there any change that can be done on the first five not 03:18:14.720 --> 03:18:19.480 taking them out for reducing but increasing yeah it's like Tim said so the 03:18:19.480 --> 03:18:23.640 someone who originally votes on this in the future would have to come back and 03:18:23.640 --> 03:18:36.720 make a motion okay any any other discussion seeing none all in favor of 03:18:36.720 --> 03:18:41.800 the motion to make one through five part of this bond package would you please 03:18:41.800 --> 03:18:59.520 raise your right hand opposed did you get it or not what okay all right so 03:18:59.520 --> 03:19:09.760 that motion does pass the we can go on or we can take up the rest of it next 03:19:09.760 --> 03:19:17.640 week what's your preference can I just make one note about next week next week 03:19:17.640 --> 03:19:22.240 that I think the intent of next week will will be to just kind of jump 03:19:22.240 --> 03:19:25.760 straight into this conversation and the public conversation if you have questions 03:19:25.760 --> 03:19:29.240 on projects we can answer if we answer them but there won't be a formal 03:19:29.240 --> 03:19:32.640 presentation on on any other projects we're just kind of getting straight to 03:19:32.640 --> 03:19:36.920 this so that we can get that action because last next Thursday is really our 03:19:36.920 --> 03:19:42.720 firm deadline okay David when we come back can we also have it was on an 03:19:42.720 --> 03:19:49.120 early presentation I think it's in the first or second meeting of what the 03:19:49.120 --> 03:19:57.000 leverage factor is on the rest of these let me just suggest maybe that on the 03:19:57.000 --> 03:20:02.320 spreadsheet to sort of show that as a separate column that way we need to have 03:20:02.320 --> 03:20:05.640 a presentation or discussion about it just to see that yeah just put the 03:20:05.640 --> 03:20:12.200 visual up there is a motion to adjourn is there a second all in favor 03:20:12.200 --> 03:20:18.960 opposed that motion is carried