Dec 10, 2019 City Council on 2019-12-10 12:00 PM

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, December the 10th, 2019. It is 1202. My voice is a little sketchy today, so if I have to pass it off to Mayor Pro Tem, please excuse that and we'll get through this as best as we can. Our first item on the work session is work session item one, citizen comments on consent agenda items. I did not see any blue cards. Agenda item, agenda item number two, request for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda. Any clarifications of items listed on the agenda? Okay. We'll move on through our work sessions. Work session 3A, work session, excuse me, 3A, receive a report, hold discussion, give staff direction on the following with respect to green tree estates. And as we did last time on this particular agenda item, which the practice and the rule is that during work session the public's not allowed to speak, but we can certainly make an exception to that, as we will do in this case as well. We've got three cards, and what we'll do is we'll have staff presentation. And I'd like to hold the questions until the end of staff presentation or at least if there's a logical break, and then after the staff presentation, before substantive council deliberation, we'll have the public speakers come up and give their comments, and then we will move forward with the discussion. So agenda item 3A. Good afternoon, mayor, members of council, Mario Canazares, deputy city manager. Just wanted to make some introductory comments before we get into the presentation. Four weeks ago staff brought forward the water issues at green tree estates. At that time, city council directed staff to provide temporary water services and to develop options for city council to consider on assisting the families for the long term. In addition, it was also requested that staff stay engaged with the residents that are being directly affected by the situation. We have several staff members here today, well, I'm sorry, we're here today to present the actions to date and the options that have been put together by staff, so you'll hear those options here shortly. Also at today's work session we have staff representatives from the fire department, from public affairs, community development, community improvement services, water and wastewater utilities, development services, and of course the city manager's office. Because the material that's being covered is mostly related to utilities, Dr. Ken Banks will be presenting the majority or all of the options that are being covered today. Once he has presented, we've got those, just for a moment, we might have to, we've got a little technical difficulty. So we've had the headsets like we had last time and they're not functioning correctly right now, so we want to make sure that. I can stop? Those get, those get, so we'll just hold here and sit for about, oh yeah, you can start who wants to, yeah. Okay, so, yeah, okay, alright. I don't know if it's the heaviness of the wall, it's just not going to be there. Okay, so. Okay, I'll have Sarah. So are we going to need, is there going to be the simultaneous translation or do we need to take pauses? Is that how we need to do it like we did it the first time? Okay, okay. Okay, alright, okay. Yeah, let's go ahead, let's go ahead and start that agenda item over again. Okay. Alright. Good afternoon, mayor, members of the council. My name is Mario Canazares, deputy city manager. Four weeks ago, we had brought the issue of the water matters over at Green Tree Estates, and at that time, city council had directed staff to provide temporary water services and to develop options for city council to consider on assisting the families on the long term. In addition, staff had, in addition, it was requested that staff stay engaged with the folks in the community that are directly affected by this water situation. We are here today to present the actions to date and the options that staff has put together. Also at today's work session, we have staff representatives from a number of departments, from fire, from public affairs, community development, community improvement services, development services, water and wastewater utilities, and the city manager's office. Because the material that's being presented is mostly utilities related as far as related to the options that are being presented, Ken Banks will be covering those options, Ken Banks will be covering those options. Once he has covered that information, I'll be returning to the podium to review with city council the staff recommendations, the community input that we had received from our meeting that we had with representatives of the community last Thursday, December the 5th, and also seek council direction on how to move forward. So with that, I'm going to turn the podium over to Dr. Ken Banks and let him go through the material. Sure. Go ahead, Dr. Banks. Before we move on, I just want to make sure that that's all going good. Everybody satisfied? Okay. It's all right? Okay. All right. Fantastic. Yeah, and just as a reminder, just a little slower, but also as a reminder, let's save the questions. Sounds like we've got a good break between Dr. Banks' presentation and Assistant City Manager's presentation. So hold the questions until your presentation is finished, and then we'll take some general questions because I want to be able to get the public comments before the council before we really do, you know, a lot of substantive discussion. All right. Dr. Banks? Good afternoon, Mayor, city council members. My name is Ken Banks. I'm General Manager of Utilities for the City of Denton, here today to speak with you about current status at Green Tree Estates and provide some updates. There are several elements to- Dr. Banks, if we could somehow get your mic up a little higher or get a little closer to it because I'm having a hard time. Okay. So if we might need to raise the volume on it, if we could have maybe one of our technical staff, audiovisual, just give it about 30 seconds, somebody come in, maybe. I don't even know if we raised the volume on that, where that happens. It's on, I just think. Right. Is that any better? Is that better? Okay. Let's try that. All right. I'll lean into it a bit. Lean in. Lean in, Dr. Banks. So today, really wanted to discuss actions since November 12th. You'll recall that was the timeframe that we considered the declaration of disaster. The site conditions at Green Tree Estates that have been observed during the time that we've been working out there. Talk about some options that have been discussed that staff is not recommending. Some options that we consider to be viable. And then I will turn it over to Mr. Kanazares for going over the resident input and then ultimately have a discussion about council direction. So just real briefly to give you an indication of where this area is at, it is located north of Edwards Road, near the intersection of Edwards and Swisher and to the west of Evening Wind Road. So since the November 12th work session, we have declared a state of disaster. There have been road improvements that have been completed. The declaration of disaster was signed on November the 13th. The road improvements began around that same timeframe. On the 14th, we delivered the barrels to the neighborhood and then started the tank delivery and ultimately ended up providing water to the larger 275-gallon tanks around November the 18th. We have been continuing that nonpotable water delivery once every three times a week, every other day during the work week. We've also purchased potable water for residents' use if they so choose. And then we've continued the resident and property owner engagement. So site conditions that we would like to go over just real briefly. The existing water distribution system is unknown in terms of where it is actually at on the site and the condition of it is unknown as well, but based on descriptions and its age, it's likely quite poor. The road conditions had some maneuverability and drainage challenge and still have some fire suppression challenges. The work done by our streets department has greatly improved the road, but it still is a small road and relatively difficult to maneuver with larger equipment. The dwellings and structures have been assessed by our building official visually. There is an expectation that there's a high potential for noncompliance with city codes, which may have some complications with regards to water connection and it's unknown at this point if other life safety issues exist. So some options not recommended are to install full permanent infrastructure at city expense. You'll recall we discussed this option talking about wastewater drainage in streets at a cost of approximately $5.7 million. Another option that we had discussed was the installation of water only infrastructure at city expense. That option was about $1.15 million. And then there was some conversation about an extension of the declaration of disaster past 90 days. The challenges associated with these options are that public funds would be in this case used for a private purpose. The precedent that would set, the complications of who owns the road and easements for infrastructure, and the complication of allowing connections to structures that may be substandard. The options that staff considers to be viable, there are three of them, and each option has a different set of challenges and conditions. Those options are the permanent installation of meters at edge of property with private line extensions from those meters to individual services. Providing the installation of a well and providing assistance to find alternative housing. For the meters and extended service lines, the city could permit the installation of meters at neighborhood boundary for the property owners. The property owners would be responsible for constructing and maintaining a line from that meter to their residence. We estimate the average cost of this to be approximately $15,000 per household. That is divided between impact fees, tap fees, and meter fees, and then our estimation of the extension of a service line. I would like to point out that the extension of the service line is an average condition. If a home is further away from the area where the meter bank is set, it will cost more. If it's closer, it will cost less. So it's just an average attempt for the 14 residences at the facility. Problems that we have with this issue is the road ownership is unknown and easement acquisition is unknown, complicated by the fact that we have multiple property owners in this area and by Mr. Roddy having a majority share of lots. The resident coordination of installation and maintenance, anything past the meter would be the responsibility of the residents. And if something were to occur to that system, then it would be their responsibility to repair. We have the same complication with connection to substandard properties. And with this option, the cost would be borne by the property owners. The option regarding the installation of a well, property owners under this scenario would construct one or more wells to provide potable water. And that well must conform to local and state regulatory requirements that in this case the well would be required to be located on a property that was two acres or larger because of the existing septic at the facility or at the neighborhood. The distance from the septic would have to be an appropriate distance for environmental protection and by virtue of doing this, the well servicing the number of people out there would be a public water supply so there would be registration with the state and a requirement for a licensed operator to oversee the delivery of water. So challenges that exist, the lot size may be prohibited. The current septic locations and possibly with the locations being unknown. The same complication mentioned earlier with regards to connecting to substandard properties. The cost would be borne by the property owners and there is an unknown condition of the existing distribution system. If this well used the existing distribution system, the condition of that system plus the uncertainty of ownership of that system may cause complications. And then of course the public water supplier requirements that were mentioned if applicable. And that would come into play if there were 15 or more connections or if the water service was provided to 25 or more people. The assistance to find alternative housing. This contemplates bringing various types of assistance from the city or other programs to assist residents to find alternative housing. Some examples are the barriers fund and housing navigator. Additional funding may be necessary. There has been conversation with the ISD that indicates that the students can stay at Pecan Creek Elementary. The challenges of this are the disruption of the current living arrangements. Very quickly some potential funding assistance for home repair. Includes the community development block grant and home federally funded programs. There are some complications with CDBG. The home must be a single family dwelling and note that we have indicated those items that are local requirements, not requirements at the federal level. It must be owner occupied. The home requires an urgent repair of code deficiencies. The owner must not be delinquent on any property taxes, again a local requirement. The property must meet all zoning and environmental regulations. That is for the home improvement program section only. The resident must be a United States citizen or a legal resident alien. The household income cannot exceed 80% of the adjusted medium income level. So some quick conclusions. The city cannot use public funds for a private purpose. The permanent habitable structures must have a potable water connection to be considered habitable. Property owners must bear the cost to obtain water and meet code requirements as is done anywhere else in the city. Substandard properties may be a significant barrier to permanent water connection. And the city does have avenues to assist with housing. So this is the point at which I was going to turn it back over to the assistant city manager. I'll be glad to answer any questions if it's clarification questions, because I want to make sure that we get through the presentation so we can hear the public comments before we start specific substantive deliberation. Are there any questions of clarification? I thought I had one, but no, I'll come back to -- oh, yes, Councilmember Davis. >> You mentioned a bank of meters when you're talking about that option. >> Correct. >> Being a bank of meters even at the edge of this subdivision, that would require extending the city main, would it not? >> It would. And there would be a cost associated with that that is included in the numbers that I gave you at roughly $15,000 per household. >> And is that to the edge of just the subdivision, so to a parcel owned by Mr. Roddy, or is that to the first parcel owned by someone besides Mr. Roddy? >> It would be to the edge of the subdivision at the right of way of the road so we wouldn't have the easement complications. >> And then the easements would be handled by whoever is running the lines across Mr. Roddy's property? >> That is correct. >> Okay. All right. Anything else? Okay. Thank you, Dr. Banks. >> Thank you. >> Mario Cazares, deputy city manager. So after Dr. Banks' presentation, would like to review the staff recommendations. So based on the information presented, we would certainly like to work with the residents, property owners to understand the options that are viable for the neighborhood. Also would like to work with them to understand what are the requirements, the standards from a building's perspective, from a health safety perspective. At the meeting last week, the chief building official offered the residents a customer service inspection just to provide them the opportunity to understand what are some of the issues that have been identified at the home. So that way the residents have a checklist of those areas that may need improvement. Second, we would like to certainly provide work with our partners at the United Way to provide them with assistance to help them find desired alternative housing and assist them in that fashion. For those residents that wish to remain at the end of the disaster period, we will work with those property owners, certainly come into building compliance. With the option of placing those bank of meters or the well, if that is a viable option for them, we would certainly would like to work with them on addressing any of those challenges, make sure that they understand what the costs to fund those improvements are, and apply and certainly make sure that they comply with all applicable regulations, state and local. And the last recommendation we would like to make is that we need to enforce the building codes on the attractive nuisances. There are several structures out there within the various properties that are not -- they're not lived in. They are in bad shape and they are attractive nuisances and the residents have complained about rats, varmints, other types of issues that are happening out there on the site. As mentioned earlier, we had a meeting with the residents. LULAC was present, United Way, city staff, a few residents from the community along with others that were volunteering to assist them. And the purpose of the meeting was to give them notice of what the information was going to be presented today, at today's meeting. Wanted to make sure that there were no surprises, that they were understanding the options that were being covered. And so we went through that presentation, went through a lot of discussion. And at the end, we made the request of representatives of LULAC and the residents, if they would like to provide input, could they please provide it to me in writing so that that could information could be then conveyed to city council. And so we received an email from LULAC mid-afternoon Friday and we included that email in your packet. And so just for the record, I'd like to at least -- it's on the screen, but I'd like to read -- if it's okay, read the request that were made by LULAC and for the residents on behalf -- through LULAC. So the green tree resident input. They request a 90 to 120 day extension of the city's emergency declaration. End of February 12, which is the conclusion of emergency declaration with a $150,000 allocation. This will allow the city to continue acting in good faith as a discussion of the extension of emergency declaration that was brought up during the last work session when it was considered and also discussed informally with staff as a recommendation to include during the December work session. This extension will allow families and students to finish the school year in their home as the city and residents continue to work towards a permanent solution. Number two, they request that no code enforcement be enforced while the declaration is active. Number three, they request the continuation of water delivery until the end of the emergency declaration, even if the residents have to pay for it. They ask us to continue -- they ask the city to continue to deliver water. Investigate and share eligibility of community development block grants. The criteria that the city -- excuse me -- the criteria and that the city thoroughly exam whether some of those funds could offset some of the $15,000 per resident estimated cost to install those bank of meters. The next one is to consider the implications of the city's recommendation of alternative housing. The city should make sure that the city is not violating federal law by discriminating and playing a direct role in the displacement of families as prohibited by the receiving and using of community development block grant funds. And under the affirmatively furthering fair housing law that legally requires and obligates for federal grantees to act and further enable the displacement of low income and minority families. And then last -- the last item for input given was to take into account the emotional toll placed on already vulnerable families and school-aged children that live at Green Tree. Got assurance that their families be given sufficient time to figure out what they can do and where they could possibly go. Allow students to finish the school year with a hint of normalcy while also allowing the city to do their job and find out the answers to all the uncertainty the city attorney referenced at last night's meeting. So with that, you know, what we're here -- Mayor and Council is to get direction from you all. We would like to know how you all would like to proceed with the staff recommendations that were made. Should residents be paying for the non-potable water after the emergency declaration is lifted, which is to expire on February 12th? Should we increase funds to the barriers fund or some other fund to assist residents with housing or other types of repairs that they may need at the homes if those inspections are made, as I mentioned just a little bit ago? And then also explore -- should we explore any type of general fund grants, programs to help residents to offset costs on permits, impact, meter fees, and again as mentioned any code compliance issues that were -- that may be discovered during these inspections. And with that, nothing further. Be happy to answer questions and we've got certainly Dr. Banks and folks from other departments that can help answer specific questions related to an area that you may have questions about. Sure. We're going to go ahead and take the public comment and then move on to questions. So just for clarification, the amount of time for these public comments -- is it four minutes? Three minutes? I can't remember. Four minutes? All right. So each public speaker will have four minutes. So we're going to go ahead and go through the list of cards. The first resident is Alfredo Contreras. If you'll come up with an appropriate translation. It's double when it's translated. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Sure. Yeah. So it'll be eight minutes with the translation. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Eight minutes with the translation. Hola. Buenas tardes a todos. Mi nombre es Alfredo Contreras. Yo vivo en la comunidad de Green Tree 4055 Ash Lane. La solución que dieron acerca de los medidores es una opción aceptable para mí y para algo otro, o sea, vecinos de la comunidad, este solamente que el costo es muy elevado para nosotros porque no somos familias de altos recursos. Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Alfredo Contreras and I live in 4055 Ash Lane in the community of Green Tree. The solution that you presented to install meters is acceptable to me, except that I want you to know that the costs are very high and that it implies a lot of money for us to put into meet the requirements that you're presenting to us. What we ask is that you give us options for payments so that we can install those water meters and that would be agreeable to us. I think this is a comfortable solution or a good solution for us. It is good for you, it is good for us so that we can both be on the same page. That is all that I have to say. I have nothing else to say. This is my opinion about the meters. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Elva Hernandez. Hola, mi nombre es El Fernandez, vivo en Green Tree Estates. Esta razon es nuevamente, aqui estamos presentes con ustedes, desde hace un mes que tenemos el problema con el agua, que por lo hecho les damos las gracias por lo que han hecho, pero en realidad pues no es algo muy suficiente para el bienestar de nuestras familias por ahora. Hello, my name is Elva and I live in Green Tree Estates. We are again here and it has been a month since we have talked and I am thankful for the help that the city has provided so far and I would like to talk to you about other options. We ask that you give us more time and extend the emergency declaration. I understand that it expires on February 12th and we need more time to be able to visualize, to contemplate what other options are good for our families. Because our concern was the water, now they have taken out new things with the codes, el estres es mas fuerte, venimos por el problema del agua y ahora nos salen con otra cosa hasta querernos desalojar de nuestras casas. A month ago our concern was about water, now with all the new recommendations and all the discussion about code and enforcement, we are stressed and we are not sure, we don't understand exactly what is being asked of us and we need more time to be able to think and assess. We live very well in Green Tree Estates, it's safe, it's peaceful, we have thought about the future of our families living in Green Tree Estates. Y ojalá que se pueda extender la declaración de emergencia 90 o 120 días más, ya que ahorita se acerca Navidad, nos quedaría solamente un mes para podernos buscar otro lugar y no está nuestro alcance eso. We hope that you can extend the emergency declaration for 90 to 120 days. We know that Christmas is coming, so realistically we have a month to try to figure out about options including alternative housing. I ask you that you please consider the families in our community. We ask that you consider our communities and we think that the proposal to install water meters is a good one. We want your help to help us figure out how to come up with the money to make that accessible and a viable solution and we're willing to make payments if necessary. In the handout and in the presentation that you shared with us, you say that one of the requirements for the installation of meters relates or one of the challenges relates to the roads and the easements. It's been a month since this was brought up and we're wondering if you have investigated or are going to investigate for certain who owns those roads. [Spanish] We have a right to fight and to consider that in the homes that we have worked so hard and that we have sacrificed so much to build and to create for our families. It seems unjust, unfair, and surprising that now you're asking us to consider relocation. [Spanish] I ask you to consider, I think all of us here are parents and family members and I ask you to consider the importance of our families. She's saying thank you, I want to invite you to come to our homes, to come to our neighborhood. I think it will be helpful for you as you make your decisions to see what it is like for us to live in our community. [Spanish] We would like a list of the code enforcement requirements and the possible violations. We really don't understand what those are about and we're really surprised that when we started this discussion with you this was about water and now it turns into code enforcement and code requirements. We assume that maybe perhaps you didn't know about this when you started, but it is a surprise to us. [Spanish] Thank you, thank you. Our last speaker is Mariela Nunez-Jones. No, no, we've gone ahead and closed that up. We wanted to limit it to LULAC and the residents. Well, are you representing? You can come up if you want, you can take my place if you like. Okay, I was, I'm going to read a statement on behalf of both if that's okay, is that okay? Elba mentioned she lives in the neighborhood but she didn't give her home address for the recording. [Spanish] Does she have to come here or can she say it right there? She could come there just because it's, we need the microphone. It's 6509 Wilom Lane, Denton, Texas, 76208. 6009 Wilom Lane, Denton, Texas, 76208. Thank you, thank you. I can start? Yes. Alright, yeah, I'm Mariela Nunez-Jones. I reside in 3449 Lake Country Drive here in Denton. And I'm going to read a comment that was shared by one of the residents who was not able to be at the December 5th meeting and was not able to make it today. And this was in reaction to the proposal and the suggestion for alternative housing. So she says, and I quote, "Why housing assistance," and this was in English, it was not translated by me. "Why housing assistance, me and my family, three homes here, we ain't leaving our homes. If they want to come in and board it up, okay. We will put a tent in the yard like the homeless that live in the park and under the bridge next to city jail. The city needs to take care of them and leave us alone." I mean, dot, dot, dot. We have a roof, we pay rent. We ain't on the streets and in all caps we have young children. And I'd like to share with you now just an extension of the recommendations that were shared with you by LULAC and also the organization that I work with, Movimiento Cosecha. I also want to let you know that I have a PhD in cultural anthropology and my expertise is in Latino education. And so I come to this problem with both the hat of an expert as well the hat of an advocate. So some of the comments that I'm going to add to the recommendations relate to some of my scholarship and experience working with Latino communities. So here are some of the recommendations, again, to read them that were provided by LULAC and Movimiento Cosecha after the December 5th meeting, to extend the emergency declaration for 90 to 120 days after February 12th and allocate $150,000 for the needs of the community at this time. This extension will allow the city to act in good faith as long-term solutions are worked out and will allow school-age residents of Green Tree to finish out the school year in their home. To continue the delivery of water while the declaration is active, Green Tree residents are willing to pay for this continuation of water delivery. To adhere to staff's December 5th assurance to refrain from sending in code enforcement while the emergency declaration remains active. The residents continue to do, as you have heard, everything that they can to provide water for their families. It is inhumane and unjust to add additional burdens on them as they fundraise and try to plan to remain in their homes and communities. Staff was not able to communicate on December 5th the exact regulations and the exact codes that pertain to this recommendation, particularly as related to installing meters. Residents need to know what these are. They need time to work with the city and to work with advocates to figure out options. In addition, residents need to be assured that the city continues to act in good faith and that code informants is not a retaliatory measure to displace the largely Hispanic residents of Green Tree and the working-class residents. 74% of the residents are Hispanic. They ask why the city has waited until now and why the owner of the well has not been cited previously for the abandoned homes and the other debris that are found in his property. Related to the consideration of the implications about alternative housing to these families, residents have maintained from the very start that they want to stay in their homes. They have communicated this to city staff informally and also they have come here various times to let you know of that. The contrast between Green Tree and the community that surrounds it is stark, and if you go and see it and you visit, you will see what I mean. It may be easy to assume that residents would be better off somewhere else, even if this means an unstable housing alternative. I warn council against taking actions based on implicit bias or unconscious stereotypes that judge the life of working-class and Latino residents as deficient. Like many communities that I have worked with in my role as scholar and as an advocate, Green Tree residents take care of their homes and they take care of their community. Their modest houses are well-kept and they are inviting. Their community is filled with neighbors who know each other and who act like family, and they have received us as family as well, always welcoming us with something yummy to eat and something warm to drink. Their modesty is filled with a kind of neighborly interconnections and relationships that wealthier communities aspire to achieve, including mine on South Benton. We want you to account for the emotional distress placed on the already vulnerable families and school-aged children residing at Green Tree. The McKinney-Vento Act protects children affected by various forms of displacement and requires that students are kept in their schools of origin. This is why they need to stay at Pecan Creek. This act also acknowledges the disruptive effects that changing schools have on children's social, emotional, and academic well-being. The lives of these children and families have already been disrupted by the fact that they don't have access to water. It then would act to that disruption. And again, given the fact that this is a tight community that is really thriving, except for the water issue and some of the conditions that you're mentioning, I think it is in the best interest of both the city as well as the families to remain in their homes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That concludes our public comment portion. So now we'll open it up for council questions. Council Member Briggs? I have a long list here, but the main one is I just want to follow up with a question for the city manager. Also, just remember it's being translated, so just - no, no, no, you can keep speaking just maybe just because I talk too fast as well, so I have to learn to slow down in this situation. Thanks for the reminder. The first question that I wanted to start with is why now? Why hasn't the owner, Roddy, been cited for the code violations as a landlord? And the homes that are dilapidated that no one lives in have - are still allowed to stand? Yeah, in researching this issue, there was an active code enforcement presence back in 2013 through 2015, and he had been cited several times. There was some concern, I guess, or caution raised by the prosecutor and the judge at the time that with code enforcement's efforts that they be able to physically see the code enforcement violations from the right of way, and that became a real bone of contention. And you know, they have worked through that. There is a plan moving forward, but quite frankly, this I think was on the heels of some other issues at the time that you're more familiar with than I am, and the manager at the time made a decision to have kind of a cooling-off period. The code enforcement issues clearly should - the ones that are seeking the right way, just from a consistency say - a precedential say, they should be acted upon, and Mr. Roddy should not be treated any differently than anyone else in the city. That's where - that's where in code enforcement world that gets us in trouble is if we do treat them differently. And I guess I'd clarify on the other thing, there's been some confusion with the residents today that I've heard about the building code enforcement. The point that's being made with that is if the residents were to choose to connect the water systems to their homes, A, there needs to be some assurance that the homes meet life safety codes, and B, you know, part of that is physically connecting a water line into the home has to meet the building safety codes as well if we're - now that we're aware of it and are obviously aware of the pending solution. So this is not about singling anyone out on the residents' side. It's about making sure we're treating everybody the same. And I think that that was staff's attempt to try to present some options on how some other funds could be brought to the table to help them. Okay. Thank you. And so has Mr. Roddy contacted the city at all since any of this has begun? We contacted Mr. Roddy a couple different times. Staff has been dealing, it's my understanding, with his wife. He's had a recent health incident, and I guess that's probably as far as I could elaborate on that. And so on the list, one of the options was to provide assistance to find housing. What is the assistance to - what does assistance mean? What all does that entail? Could very well entail utilizing the city's housing navigator that we fund through United Way. There's barriers, funds, dollars to help residents relocate, you know, help them with things such as security deposits, that sort of thing, which we offer to anyone under that program. But the point we want to make here as well is it's two-fold. In order to - we're not sure how many of the residents own their lots, you know, because there's one thing, you know, having programs applying to residents, it's another thing having the property owners, the ones that are actually - and there's about seven property owners in the 52 lots out there. So that's what we don't understand is whether folks even have the right to make improvements to the property. That's got to get worked out. So that's been the main issue. But if folks did not own the property, could not make the - could not either afford to or legally could not make the improvements to the property, there is another option to help them. And so just to follow up on that, so the 15,000, it sounds like the connection is what the residents or the ones that spoke here are in favor of. And so the 15,000 for that, is that for just the seven owners or was that amount - My understanding is it could be one, it could be 15, so - Oh, okay. So no matter how many decide to do it, the amount stays the same. Again, as Dr. Banks mentioned, it's all contingent on the distance from where the connection would be. So it could be more, it could be less. It's just an average. That was just the average. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind getting the mic a little closer. Yeah, thank you. I would just add, because I'm very cautious on that, that that solution probably benefits easily one of the property owners out there who's very close to right away behind them. The challenge is going to be obtaining right away, in some instances, from the other property owners or Mr. Roddy, including in the road, that is - in order to accommodate a clean distribution system. So that is still part of this issue that has to be worked through on top of those costs. Okay. And then on there, it says that the - one of the requirements that the residents asked for was that if the assistance or the declaration was extended not to enforce the violations, and so would that - were they willing to work on the list that the city gives them during that time period so that they're just asking, don't enforce this, while we're working to correct them? Correct. They asked that based on the feedback that we had received on Friday. That was the first day - sorry, last Thursday. That was the first time they'd heard about doing the customer service inspection. So I think it's - they're unsure. I mean, they certainly - Scott McDonald can elaborate further, but, you know, he was very clear about, you know, this is an opportunity to identify the issues, not to be punitive in what's identified, but to identify and allow the residents to understand the conditions of their structures and work - and create a plan to work forward. So it's not to do anything from an enforcement, but just more from an identification, awareness of the issues identified during that - during the declaration period. Right. To help them understand what needs to be done to get these other things - Correct. - the connections - Yes, ma'am. - in place. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Yep. So a number of questions, just to clarify. So it - as I understand it, that of the homes on Mr. Roddy's part of the property, that roughly 60 percent of the property, only two of those are occupied. Is that correct? That's on - that's on our understanding. Yeah. And so - and of those two, one is inhabited by Mr. Roddy himself, and the other he grants out to somebody else. Is that - is that - We're not aware of all of his - that's part of the issue that we've been trying to work through is who actually owns the lots versus who lives on - and, you know, the folks that are out there - the folks that are out there who owns the lots they're living on. So we don't know for sure at this point. Okay. So that's what I heard from the residents. And I think - I would assume it could be - I'm not sure what the difficulty is in, you know, in establishing that. And then on the other 40 percent of the property is where the remaining occupied homes are, correct? And there's 13 of those. Is that right? Was it 13 or 14? On that 40 percent of the property. Of the other property's occupants. You've got a slide with - you've got a slide with a map or a legend. Yeah. There you go. Well, yeah. I guess that's the issue, member - issue with that, Council Member, is because we're not a utility customer, it's - it's difficult to really ascertain as to, you know, all the ownership and who's the renter, who's - so we've attempted to do that during the delivery of the containers, but - and we think we have a good count based on what's been delivered so far, but there are still some uncertainties trying to work through the ownership issues. Okay. Okay. So just to - so if you could leave that slide up for a moment, you know, just to share what I understand from, you know, from the residents, because it's - and there's nothing wrong with this slide that I see, but I think it's important for people to understand, anyone from the public listening, that even though we've got all these lots on Mr. Roddy's property, that only two of them are occupied. So say, theoretically, if Roddy were to sell his part of the - his land, that would only affect two homes that are occupied. The others are these unoccupied homes, at least that's what - that's what I hear from the residents. Well, but you also have - you also have folks that are tenants, that are renters of properties that are owned by others that are not Mr. Roddy's. By other - exactly, exactly, and that's - and so on that 40 percent of the property, we've got a mix of homeowners and - so seven homeowners, as you mentioned before, and I believe six renters - six renting families. So I just wanted to establish - just to establish that, so that people understand when people hear about all, you know, all of these lots, 50-something, that it is - that we've got a number - I know you know this already, but a number that are unoccupied. So I wanted to - the first question I wanted to ask, you know, if you could explain - if you could go to this slide that talks about the recommendation to end the February - not to renew the state of emergency past February 12th - yes, that's the one, this is the one the option's not recommended. I should slow down, I'm sorry, I just realized I was talking fast, sorry. So as far as precedent goes, what precedent would it set to extend the disaster declaration past the initial 90 days, other than, you know, a precedent that we're extending the state of emergency for as long as, you know, that state exists? I think there's two answers to your question. The precedent is that there's anywhere from six to eight hundred lots out there that we are aware of that are on water systems similar to this, that for whatever reason we annexed in and those liabilities are out there. The other part of it is there's the legal definition of what a disaster is, which Mr. Collister can speak to better than I can, but even if you don't extend the legal disaster declaration, that doesn't mean that the council can't give us permission or direction, however you want to look at it, to continue water service for an additional period of time. So it just wouldn't be under an emergency declaration. We've identified a solution, we've provided the tanks out there, we've got a way to get the water filled. If you wanted to say we'll continue this to the end of school or whatever it is, but they're going to pay for the water until that time, that's perfectly okay, but I'll let Larry just answer specifically why we don't know that it continues to meet the definition of emergency. Well part of the issue when this was, when the disaster declaration was first set up is that the city didn't know what the condition was out there of the water system at all. And Dr. Banks and I have discussed that this morning in that going forward on this, what we have, what the city has determined is that the residents have been buying potable water on their own the whole time they've been there and they've been getting non-potable water from Mr. Roddy. Now the non-potable water issue has been addressed, there have been staff has made arrangements for them to have the, I guess it's the large containers to be able to have non-potable water put in. So now it's just the only issue remaining is how that non-potable water is provided to them. This was the original declaration and that's it and so everything that what was set out in the mayor's original disaster declaration that was approved by council by ordinance has all been resolved. So just to clarify just to make sure I understand, so are you saying that the state of emergency and by the way that's synonymous with disaster declaration right, state of emergency. Yes. So the state emergency declaration was originally based on incomplete evidence or kind of misunderstanding that it was based on the misunderstanding that they were without drinking water whereas in fact it was simply the potable water situation which would not have, had that been known that would not have constituted a state of emergency? Well first I'm not going to say it was based on any misunderstanding because the city didn't understand anything at all at the time the declaration was made and the city, the staff was fact-finding as to what was going on out there and I can let Dr. Banks and staff go through what we understood, I mean this goes back to July of this summer about what was going on out there and I'm just concluding on the facts that we know that would support continuing or discontinuing the declaration of disaster of the ordinance and I think, you know, I think what you need to listen to is what the city manager is saying is that the situation while it may not legally fit a continuation of the disaster emergency declaration, it's a disaster situation for them. staff recognizes that, I think council recognizes that and the city manager is offering up solutions to address the non-potable water situation and how to bring in infrastructure out there if that's decided to do that. And thank you, just to respond to that and then I want to hear your response. So you mentioned July, so it was my understanding it was August, right, or was it July that staff, that the city was aware, I know that council didn't find out and the residents didn't find out until late October, early November, I forget which. Ultimately, when the official notice, if we can call it official, that Mr. Roddy, the owner of the well, gave the residents, gave them basically a 30-day notice and so when we brought this to council, it was prior to that November 15th cutoff date of the water and so what we were trying to address with obviously the council's direction was to provide residents with water during that timeframe. Yes. So, I mean, so that's really where the impetus of where all that started and so gave, would give the city time to review options just like what you have requested and just give them time. I mean, what we were trying to ensure or work with the various state regulatory agencies was to give the residents 120-day notice, they only received 30 from the owner of the well and so adding that additional 90 was to give them that 120, basically 120-day notice. Okay. And that's interesting because I hadn't heard it explained quite like that when we first made the declaration, but that's interesting to know. So I myself for what it's worth, when I found out about the situation, I spent some days doing fact finding and I went out there once and then I went out there another weekend and I spent a whole weekend there. I can testify to what Mariela said about just what a great community it is and I found out right away. Now, of course, this is just from asking people and listening to the residents, it would need to be checked on, but everybody, what everybody said was consistent. They all said that they, that the well provided them with potable water and those residents who didn't have a filter, so some had a filter that could filter out the mess, you know, could use it for cooking, but you know, everybody else had their own drinking water. So I had not been aware that staff was not aware of that. The reason why I'm asking these questions and I can tell you're getting frustrated, Mr. Mayor. Well, I'm just trying to understand what's the thrust about it. Because you talked about the, excuse me, you talked about the 90 day, so really the issue is here before this council, one of the decisions is do we have an emergency declaration of an extension of 90 days, which we've heard our legal staff on that, which, and we've also heard that council can say we can extend it by 90 days. So I'm just, I'm hoping you get to the point where you're stating what your position is. So my point is I'm still not convinced that anything is different now than it was when we made the original state of emergency, although apparently there were some things that I knew from talking to residents that I guess staff wasn't aware of. So for me, don't worry, I'm not going to make all my recommendations now, but I don't understand why it is no longer considered a state of emergency. I'm not worried about a precedent issue, because if it was an emergency then, and the conditions are still the same. Councilmember Armitage, could you go ahead and state what your preference is in this regard? I just did, that's my preference, I was just explaining the rationale for it. Okay, thank you. If you could, I think you've been going for almost 10 minutes, so if we could let somebody else talk because we can't, I mean, I think we need to be succinct here and efficient in what we're being asked because we have residents here, so to go into our own opinions and our own understanding, we've got a job to do here and that is to try to figure this out. Yes, I understand. I just wanted to ask some questions. I want to- I appreciate that. Yeah, I'll say one more thing for now. Councilmember Armitage, we need to move on, we're going to come back to you, but we've got other councilmembers who have questions and comments, I appreciate that, thank you. Councilmember Davis. Question for city attorney's office. So when we talk about the roads, the exact ownership, title ownership of those roads is in question. Among the options could be Mr. Roddy, could be members of the Roddy family, could be held in common by some group of people, but the thing that's clear is they are not city-owned roads. At a minimum we know the city doesn't own the roads out there, there may be some prescriptive easements or something by the residents, but the city does not own those roads. Am I correct in that? That's my understanding of what we've reviewed. And we've said already that no one from the city has had contact with Mr. Roddy, we've been talking with his wife a couple of times. Do we have any knowledge of any of the residents having any opportunity to communicate with the Roddies about obtaining easements or anything like that? We do not at this point and we have not gone to the expense or the trouble of doing title searches on each one of those main roads and then the roads that serve the homes primarily because they're private. Is there any reason from anybody, staff, attorney, anybody, is there any reason to think or any evidence that we have at this point that Mr. Roddy or the Roddy family has any interest whatsoever in granting easements for water lines? They're trying to sell the property outright. It doesn't seem like the incentives are there for them to run water lines. Do we have any indication at all that the Roddies would be interested in other people's water lines going across their property? No. Okay. Council Member Moutzer. Would it be correct to say, and I'm asking Mr. Callister, would it be correct to say that whether there's an extension of a disaster declaration or not makes no difference to anything we do or don't do? Well, it would have in terms of how the City can fund what it's trying to accomplish because that's one of the things that the City discussed doing the disaster declaration is it gave them more errors in their quiver to address the situation and that's what they were able to do initially with really what they brought to bear to address the situation and find out what was going on. So what options would we not be able to pursue if we didn't extend the declaration? Is that too many double negatives? One of the things I think that it's been just brought up by Council Member Davis is the declaration disaster, it gave the ability for the City to get onto property that was of uncertain ownership to bring water out there but I think there would be, as Council Member Davis stated, there are going to be certain implied easements that arose by conduct out there. They would have excess easements. I think we could probably extend that into being able to deliver non-potable water out there to them if that was a decision that Council-directed staff would look into. Beyond that, I really think that's the only issue from my understanding of the boots on the ground of what's happening is where it would be problematic. Then I think the City Manager can address the funding aspect of it because, again, the emergency allowed the City to kind of buy it to really short-circuit purchasing matters and get really to the core of the problem to address what the issue was that the City was finding out out there and now it gets into a funding issue about how Council wants to direct whatever solution there's going to be. So now we've got, before we were in a very compressed time frame, now whatever decisions are going to affect February 12th on, you've got between now and February 12th. Does that, Mr. City Manager, I hope you don't mind my continuing to pursue this. Oh, no, no. Does that take any options off the table for you now or does it affect anything that we might or might not do from your point of view? No. I think, as Mr. College said, the whole point of that was to allow us to enter private property. We spent money in terms of staff time, equipment, that sort of thing, grading roads, getting everything prepared, buying emergency water vessels for them, that sort of thing. But going forward? Going forward, I think, no, I think it's fine. I just want to reiterate, it gets down to who's going to take the lead on trying to assess the easements on those roads because if Mario, if you could pull up the map, this is really the question, heading down that evening wind on the right where you see evening wind and rolling green, we'd probably extend the main there, but from all the way down rolling green and those little fingers at Meadow, Willow, Hilltop, those are all private roads and the distribution system and easements have to be obtained in each one of those roadways in order to facilitate a solution. So we have time, the question is going to be, can the residents get organized and deal with the easements to facilitate any solution we put forward? Yeah. Okay, I really meant in terms of like the water delivery and so on, if there's nothing about the emergency declaration that affects whether we extend that or not. I think if Mr. Collister and our legal team is comfortable that we can continue doing that for the next, you know, until the end of school, we're certainly happy to keep providing the service if that's where council wants us to go, but I'm thinking more of your question that at some point there's got to be a where are we going type resolution and I'm just trying to lay out that that is the issue. Yeah. Okay. Can I ask a couple of others? Okay. So I've, to me it seems that on the whole, before anybody including, you know, especially including the residents, can make good decisions, there's two large areas of unknowns that need to be worked on. One is what exactly the code requirements are that aren't being met and, you know, what would be involved in remedying those. And then the other is what actually are the housing alternatives that might be contemplated. I think when you, you know, when you don't know either of those, it just leads to anxiety and fear and anger. You know, the possibility that, you know, we don't know that someone might see a chance to make a change for the better, to have safe streets, to have heating system that isn't an immediate danger to their children, to have potable water coming right out of the tap, that that might be appealing if an opportunity can be identified, especially if the entire community could be kept intact somewhere. We don't know that that doesn't exist. So my question is, is there anything preventing staff at this point from making the assessment of where the gaps versus code are to be able to give guidance to the residents? Not at all. The main point of today's meeting is when we last met in November, I promised you we'd be back a few weeks later after we had a plan to move forward and had identified some options and what might need to be overcome there. But we can certainly, especially with the residents' cooperation, do a code enforcement assessment. I believe Scott's offered that. Hi, Scott McDonald, Development Services. I will say that when we met with some of the residents in LULAC last Thursday, I offered the fact that Development Services Building Safety staff will absolutely come out and evaluate what concerns there may be. It is very challenging to put a box around what specific items, so it's not check boxes that we're going to look at. We want to do an evaluation of if we connect potable water, the city's potable water system, to the residents what items are there that are of concern for just as far as the minimum TC, the Texas Department of Environmental Quality's requirements, so we don't have cross-connections. And then we have to evaluate if there are any eminent life safety hazards as well. We're not going to go in and do a code compliance. We're going to look at the basic life safety. I offered the fact that we will do that today without any enforcement, so we'll go in, we'll just be civil servants, good stewards to the community, and provide those services. That sounds very helpful and pertinent. And then on the other side, and I know we've talked about this a little bit before, I personally think it would have been helpful to even know at this point even what some of the housing options might be out there, perhaps there have been obstacles to us putting resources into investigating that. Are there any obstacles now to us either partnering with an agency that can help or we're directly providing assistance to just see what the options might be out there, especially those that might enable the community to substantially remain intact? If that is what the council would like us to do, we're happy to do it. We've already had conversations with our housing navigator, navigation team over at United Way. I've given them a couple suggestions that the council has asked me about and shared, but it really gets down to two things, if this is something that the council would like us to pursue, we're asking your feedback for that, and we're happy to do it. And I think secondly, it's probably going to require some changes to the Barriers Fund and the Housing Navigation Fund, so it'll probably have some policy implications to change some of the rules there, but we're happy to bring those back if that's what we're directed today. Okay. Thank you all. I'll yield. Okay. Let's go ahead and take a five-minute break and then we'll come back with questions. Welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, December the 10th, 2019. It is 1.34 p.m. We're on work session agenda item 3A, so we're going to pick back up and resume 3A. I want to try to get to everybody who hasn't spoken first, if they choose to speak. Council Member Ryan, any comments on this round? No. Okay. Let's see. I'm not sure where Mayor Pro Tem is, so Council Member Armitage, if we could, I want us to try to limit each individual discussions to four or five minutes because it gives everybody else a chance to talk, so I would appreciate that. So questions about the roads. So it's not known exactly who owns the roads, but it's known that the city doesn't own them. So what I'm worried about is in such a situation -- sorry, that's frightening -- so in a situation like this, so there might be people who know that they own the roads, but they're not telling anyone, but it's also possible that the ownership of the roads is just a big mystery. And that worries me because if the ownership of the roads is unknown not only by the city, but by any potential actual owners of the roads, then these roads are going to go neglected for perpetuity, you know, of course, unless a developer comes -- you know, buys it up. However, if -- what I'm wondering about is, you know, can we set a kind of time period by which if we haven't established who owns the roads by this time that the city could take possession of those roads for public safety rather than, you know, the alternatives of just, you know, letting them continue to exist in such a state where it's difficult for, you know, for fire ambulance to get out there or the alternative, you know, to let developer come in, which of course, you know, they have the right to do, but because we get CDBG funds, you know, we have to show that where -- as I understand it, that we're doing whatever we can to keep affordable communities affordable and make them safe and help residents make them safe. I'm wondering if you could kind of speak to that roads issue. So I guess the question is, could the city take possession of the roads? Yeah, if after a certain period of time, it's still not clear. In other words, we won't -- if it becomes clear, look, we're never going to find out who owns the roads. So and that's really a legal question that I think is more suited for either to allow staff to research that. Also, if I may, because I thought about this and I'm real okay with extending the declaration 90 days, emergency declaration 90 days, because we do not have access to be able to deliver that water but for our emergency declaration because it is private property. So I think that's the first thing we need to resolve. I mean, we're going to -- I'm not going to let this meeting drag on for three hours when we're talking about this kind of in the weeds detail stuff that we've only been trying to figure this out for 30 days. So I appreciate us coming back to give the residents some direction and that's what we're here to do in the time that we can't, the direction we're able to. So for me, the direction first and foremost is I am okay with extending the emergency declaration until -- for 90 days from the expiration of the first one, especially to get it through the school year at the concrete. >> Secondly, Councilmember Armitage, please. >> I thought it was still my turn. >> No, because I think once you hear what I have to say, I think -- you still may want your question answered, but I don't think this is the forum today to do that. I think that we can extend the same amount of money. I think our first declaration was $100,000, I believe, of funding to make sure that that's enough to cover what we're doing out there. And that is the delivery of non-potable and potable water in the fashion that is being delivered today. In other words, to me, this extended 90 days keeps the status quo. It's not additional funding for additional things. It's not additional funding for additional things. And I think this Council needs to come up with a date certain. Whether it be in January, whether it be February, whether it be March, whatever date would be enough time to give the residents notice of whatever is decided, because we're not going to -- we don't have enough time in this day to day, if we had all day to go, to make a determination on who owns the roads, how are we going to get roads out there, do we even want to do that. I've learned that the annexation agreement is a recorded document in the property records, which means if someone is buying a piece of property, from my understanding at this point, I could be wrong, but I think this is it, that if they do a title search on that property, that this annexation agreement would come up. Nevertheless, it would be constructive notice to anyone buying the property. So for me, it's a critical question on who are tenants and who are property owners. Because I believe property owners assume more of the risk when they're buying property. Those who are leasing from property owners may not be privy to all of the different legal terms and information that is out there. So I think it's imperative we know that, because we may -- we're going to have to decide, do we want to give whatever option we choose, do we want to provide funding for people who own the property, which they should have known or they are charged with knowing about the annexation agreement, or are they renters who all of a sudden this is a big surprise to everyone. So we've got to somehow find someone to do title work on the roads. I'm not so sure that that's the city's responsibility, because this is a private development, purely private contractual obligations between property owners, tenants, and the well service holder. The city has come in because that relationship has faltered and has been damaged to the point that now citizens are left in a situation that they aren't able to advocate for themselves because they have no control and they have no leverage or power. That's why the emergency declaration is important and imperative because it gives the city the opportunity to take care of those basic needs. But in the end, this is a contractual issue that the city is being asked to find a solution for. And before I can decide what solution I want, there are those questions. Who owns the roads? If you put a water meter bank in there, are they all going to have to go ahead and sign up or do some of them get to sign up and some don't? I mean, the whole point is this community has come together. What about the rest of the lots? What does that open us up to as far as precedents for the rest of the lots? Someone comes in, a developer comes in who has the financial means, buys some of the lots and says you did it for them, now you're doing it, you're not doing it for me. I'm not saying that that's not a viable solution. I'm saying this council in no way has the knowledge or the information to even give staff direction on what options we may be considering. Councilmember Melcer, you had a good point. Sorry to hit you. There are two things, for you there were two things, two large things. What are the housing alternatives and the code requirements? There are probably ten things or 12 things that this council needs to know and the residents need to know to be able to make an informed choice. So for me, the first item is give us time, which is the extension. And the second is for us to give staff direction on the parts of information as councilmember Melcer did on these two things. What do we need as a council to make this decision and what do the residents need as far as information that we're getting to make that decision so they can make a decision themselves? Because we've heard of payment plans. I don't know if I'm going to want to give a payment plan to an owner of a property who is charged with knowing that the city is not required to provide water except for the annexation agreement. But I'm certainly okay with providing assistance to maybe tenants who were totally unaware if it's within our lawful ability to do so. So I'm going to open it back up for questions or comments, but I want us to understand let's not get into the weeds because we need time to answer these questions and we're not going to answer them today. So if your comment could be more of this is what information you need to know in order to help you make a decision. I would really appreciate that. So let me just get one thing first of all out of the way. Is there anybody that objects to the extension of the 90-day emergency declaration with a funding of $100,000 solely for the same purposes that it was originally conveyed on I think it was November the 15th and if so I certainly would now invite those comments. Mayor Pro Tem. To that point, succinctly my issue is going to be if the water is free. Because I've had direct contact with residents that have sought relief for water bill issues and I had to tell them no. But if there was some agreement that the residents could enter into for some kind of remuneration for that water, you're okay with that extension. That gets me fistified. Okay. All right. Yes. Councilmember Davis. I have a question on your question. When you say $100,000, is that an additional or that's the $100,000 we are operating under from the original emergency declaration? I would say my reason for saying it's an additional is only because if we gave $100,000 for the first 90 days and if we don't use that much, then we don't use that much. So it's just we had a pretty substantial conversation about why $100,000 for the 90 days and how much things cost. If we see that it doesn't cost that much, then so I'm just saying 90 days for some type of funding to allow us to deliver the services that we're delivering. Do we know how much we've spent to date? We have an approximation. I think you have a slide. Okay. Mayor, while Dr. Banks comes up, I was asking staff to look into when school actually ends. School actually ends May 21st. Okay. The 90 days gets you to about May 13th, so it may be maybe 100 days just to kind of get us to the end of the school year. Okay. Just so you know. All right. Well, that's good information. Thank you. And that's the kinds of things that I think as we try to make these decisions on the fly without having that information that we want to make sure that we don't have to come back and stub our toe or stumble when it's a simple answer. So yes, go ahead, Dr. Banks. The information in your agenda information sheet did contain some expenditure calculations. That is a little bit dated. This is a little bit more current. So we've spent approximately $25,000 so far through 11/29. So that's through November 29th? That's correct. So we started it, I think the declaration became effective the 15th of -- Yes, I believe it was the 13th. Okay. So basically $25,000 for every two weeks. Correct. But keep in mind we had a lot of purchases. We purchased the 55-gallon drums, the totes, and we did a lot of road repair. And so that won't be needed again. Right now, roughly the staff time and equipment is about $1,450 to go out there and actually service. And so that's on a weekly basis. On a monthly basis it's about $5,800. The maximum amount of water, if all tanks were empty, I didn't know any other way to calculate it, but this kind of gives a range, $110 a week, $440 a month. So you're looking at right now an approximate spend rate for just the water delivery of about $6,240. Okay. Council Member Deggis. With that information, what I'm okay with is an extension of the emergency declaration for the 100 days. I'm not okay with additional expenditure beyond the authorized $100,000. I don't think we're going to hit the 100,000 that we already authorized, and I don't want anybody to get the wrong idea based on just on the numbers that we're authorizing. But I also would like the residents to start paying on February 13th. I think our original 90 days, they got free water for 90 days, and then February 13th, I think they need to start paying for the water delivery. So to follow up on your comment, Mr. City Manager, City Attorney, if within that extended 100 days, if that passes, and we begin to hit the wall on the current funding, we're able to come back and fund that, is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. And I'm okay with that, with the residents paying in February, because based upon the water usage, it's not going to be, I don't think, very expensive, and we can figure that out. Okay. Anybody have objections to that? The 90 days, sorry, extension for 100 days, we'll keep the funding the same. If we find that there's a deficiency, we will look at, you know, acquiring additional funding, and then work with the residents beginning in February to calculate some best guess estimate of water usage, because I think they said they were willing to do that, so I mean, yeah. Okay. Are we okay with that? All right. All right. So that's the first piece of direction, is we've got that done. All right. Now as far as what information are you going to need to know based upon these other requirements or these other recommendations to help you make a decision, so if we could really keep it to the information, keep the editorializing to a bare minimum so we can give staff as much information as we can in a very efficient timeframe. Member Davis. So part of me wants to say, you know, all the information available, I'd like to know soup to nuts, how this came about, who owns the roads, who's out there as a homeowner and who's out there as a tenant, all of those things. For me, however, what we've just done, the direction that we've done to do the stopgap provision of water, to me, that is the city's responsibility. At this point, I think we do for these residents what we do for every other resident of the city. And that's what they've asked us for. They said treat us in the same way you would any other resident of the city, acknowledge the rights that we have as a resident of the city. And that means that we don't do a lot of, you know, engineering and design for folks on where their water lines ought to go. We don't secure easements for folks on where their water lines ought to go. We don't negotiate with their landlords on their behalf. I think we make our city services available, and those are numerous. Whether it's assistance to relocate, we make that available to anybody who comes and asks for that assistance through the housing navigator program. I think we make that available. The meter bank idea, that's not special and new just for the subdivision. We make that available to other residents, that you put your meter in one place and you secure the easements to get the water to your house from your meter. I've been through that process myself. It's something people do and it's something the city can help you understand, but the city doesn't do that process for you. So I know at this moment, as a city official, what I need to know to have created the provision that we've done, the emergency declaration that we've done. It is now the resident's responsibility to comprehend their legal situation and to comprehend their ownership situation and to make their own decisions going forward. And they have community advocates who can help them do that. They even had somebody talk about knowledge with wells and they have folks out there building the plumbing systems that connect the water we're providing to their homes. All of that's happening without the city, and it's now their responsibility to figure out their own next steps. It's not our responsibility to decide for them what they do next and what their rights are. All right, Council Member Briggs. So I'm okay with everything that you said and everything that's been said thus far. I would like to know, when we come back, what the inspection results were for those who signed up for inspections, what those are and what that cost would be. I would like to know what barrier fund changes would need to be made, if any. And then I would also like to know the easement issues and the results of that, like if they have permission to get those easements before we make any more decisions on the meters. Not that the city finds out, but just that the homeowners know that that's something. So continue working with the residents to make them aware that they would need to kind of work through that process. And I know if they have any, if they have legal representation, that that may be something that they work on for them. But as long as the residents continue working to make progress, that's your complaint. Right. It's going to make a difference on the water meters, for sure. Right. Council Member Archer. So I hope I made clear my questions and concerns about the roads. I'm thrilled with where it looks like direction is shaping up, and this is what the people were asking for, and I'm very happy to see the emergency declaration extended. As far as I'm looking at the direction, can you go to the directions line? The last two main bullet points, the barrier fund, general fund grant program. It sounds to me like this would be something that could come back later for discussion. I don't know if we have to decide that now, I'm fine giving direction on that now. But it sounds to me like that could be decided later. I would like to see, I'd be happy to follow this up, a staff report on some possible options since we now have more time, and then that discussion could be had when we've got something more substantial. So I'd like to see that. As far as, I have a recommendation that comes from the list that you put on the board that came from LULAC and Movimento, from talking to the residents, this is a recommendation that doesn't cost any money, but it's important to the residents, so important to me, and that is that because people who do want to stay in their homes, which I haven't heard from anyone who doesn't, that I think we should respect their wishes to not have all this talk about relocation and housing assistance. People know now that it's there if people ever want it or need it, so I just want to be sensitive to that since people know that that's available. It is my understanding as far as to go back to Councilmember Meltzer's question about what kind of housing assistance do we have. It sounds to me like what we've got and what was being described is what is available to anybody in the city who's in need of assistance, who wants to take advantage of it, so as opposed to these two bullet points right here, which are talking about kind of creating, possibly doing something new, but again, it seems to me a little premature maybe to talk about that until we get a staff report and maybe hear a proposal from the residents, so I'm very happy right now and pleased. Thank you. Okay, so I appreciate that. I'm concerned. I mean, relocation is simply an option that has been identified because we don't know what the information will be that we gather here, so I know we have all talked about it. I don't think anybody's going to keep bringing it up, but we needed to make sure that we let everybody know and be transparent with what the process is. I'm sort of with Councilmember Davis that I think because this was a private contractual matter that created this situation, I think that it's incumbent upon the residents and those that are helping them to provide the information regarding the private development. Who are the property owners? Who's the owner of record that the deed is in? Who are the tenants? How do you do the title work for the subdivision as it was? This subdivision was platted when it was in the county, so it came into the city in its current form, so I certainly would agree that we're going to do what we can on our end to solve what we can as a city, and I think we need that information from the residents and that help from the residents to get that information so that we can then begin to move forward, and we've got to decide, and I think we need to decide it today, on a date that we agree to where we have as much of this information compiled as possible to begin to give hard direction on what the alternatives that have been presented to us, because we're not going to keep kicking this can down the road, and so it's incumbent on all of us, the city and the private development, to help answer these questions, to get these questions answered. And I would propose that sometime in either late January or February, I think we need to really get to work hard on these, the residents work hard on what we'd like from them, the city works hard on what we would like from our staff and our options, so Mayor Pro Tem. For me, I think the information, I'll send out a more detailed email of request, but I think what I want to stress today, I think Councilmember Davis touches on a key point, I'd like to know pretty quick more about this pumping system out there, and what exposure that brings to the city, so it's our water, we're not pumping it in the house, they're pumping it in the house, just a general declaration that that gives the city no exposure, because it wasn't talked about when we put out the tanks. So I'd like that to come back as soon as Friday, if possible, just to understand what has been done to it, and what that exposure is. I think another thing, just so that I can speak to what gives me consternation about the housing placement, or any participation in that, is everyone that comes to us seems to threaten some level of lawsuit against us. Some level of, you're breaking this law if you do this, you're breaking that law if you do that. I don't know why we would then participate in that placement feature, unless we get some sort of indemnification clause that protected the city and said, hey, we're working in your best interest, we're willing to take this step, but we have some protections in that regard. Because, again, the letter today, the last bullet point in the letter LULAC provided, says, hey, you're threats of breaking the law. And what I'd like to come back equally as fast as a pump information is an assessment of those security, safe and healthy health issues, because this council often levies that to say this drives decisions. And so I want to put this council on record, is if they believe that, then we have decisions to make. And so I'd like to have that conversation sooner than later, to say, hey, if we believe that these, what safety and health concerns are we okay with ignoring for the time being? And that each council member can speak to that best they can, but I'd like that to come back sooner than later. And then my question for you, Mr. City Manager, is why, best guess or informed answer, why don't we know who lives where, who's the keeper of that information? The issue is the title company is going to be the one that keeps records of all the owners of the property. We would actually need to go door to door, have a survey done, which we'd like to have the residents assist us with, who lives where, who owns which lots, because save for a title search on the roads and the lots, we are not going to have 100% confidence for you on a more permanent solution. And that is the issue and the reason that we continue to remind folks that there is this housing assistance is we are not sure what that ultimate end cost is going to be to the end user once they secure easements and actually extend the distribution system. So we need that information so we can not do the work for them but help them understand what those costs could be so they can make an informed decision. And a follow up question that is, have we asked LULAC to help us get that information? We certainly can do that and you can do that right now. But we have not in the past? We have not. Yes, then that would be, in our communication back to LULAC, I would ask them to provide us that information or document that they don't know either. You can find out, I mean, anybody can go to DCAT and look up who the owner of record is at least according to the appraisal district and then you can go to the Denton County website for property searches and see a copy of the actual deed. So this is what, to summarize, but let me do this first. As far as coming back with this information, I believe our 100 day extension ends May the 21st, is that, 23rd? 23rd. Okay, so if we go back 90 days from the 23rd of May, is that February 23rd? Roughly. So if we were to say about the first week or second week of February, if we could charge city staff, charge the residents with the information we need them to acquire, with having that information back to us by the first or second week of February, not sure what the council meeting is, but we can send that out, we've got plenty of time to put people on notice within the next few days. Is that a date that this council is comfortable with, gathering that information, and quite honestly, to me, that is the date we decide, and if the information is incomplete, if somehow, you know, we don't have the information that someone else was supposed to help us get, we just have to take that, because there's plenty of time to get that information. Especially with, I think, how everybody has come to help, and the different advocacy groups that are helping, surely there's someone that can help them with that information. So is February the first week of February, is that an okay date, second week? Council Member Meltzer. It seems at least reasonable to ask staff for, you know, input on knowing what you've heard about what the list is of information to be, you know, accumulated, how much time do you think it would take, and obviously, you know, get everyone a point of view about that answer. Sure. Okay. Council Member Armitage. Yeah, so I just wanted to be sure exactly what decisions are you saying that we'll be making on February 1st? I think that my goal would be on February 1st we decide a permanent solution. I think that's, I mean, whatever the recommendations, whatever the residence options that have been put before us, whatever the options that staff has put before us, whatever options that council can come up with, that we're going to try to give enough notice to say here's what we're going to do and so that everybody has time to adjust to that, whether it be some extension of time or whether it be looking somewhere or whatever, that we have time to do that because look, we passed this ordinance on, what was it, the 15th? 13th. The 13th was the declaration, 15th was the ordinance. And Mayor Pro Tem, I agree with you that it was disappointing in that meeting when we've had already threats of lawsuits when we haven't been able to even work through the factual issues of the problem. And so, you know, people have to do what they're going to do and I certainly am a big believer in the process, whatever path someone chooses, but I will tell you as someone who's taught negotiation and mediation for many years, that that kind of discussion is usually towards the end when you reach an impasse instead of at the beginning when you start setting all kinds of attitudes and boundaries. I mean, it's just not a good practice. Now, if we come back in February and we're not any further along, people can, I mean, of course they can do whatever they want to do anyway, but I really hope that people see that the city is working very hard, but we also have a responsibility and it's incumbent upon us to take a responsibility for the entire city, for the entire public utility process, and so this is what I think we're asking the residents help for, and that is to help us understand what address, what are the addresses out there that are occupied, and is the occupant of that address the owner or a tenant? And if a tenant, are they renting from the owner? And if it's owner-occupied, then it's owner-occupied. I think we're asking for the residents' help to say, hey, engage your advocacy groups to help you determine what is the nature of any kind of easements that might exist out there? What kind of road configuration there is? Who may own those roads? I mean, that property was platted. There's deed records that are probably within the chain of title, and there's certainly very competent people who I've heard come before this council and advocate for this group who are able to do exactly that. And let's see, then I think we need some help from the residents. And once we have that information, who is going to be from the residents as a group to talk to the soon-identified owner of the roads to acquire particular easements? Because we are taking a shotgun approach to this, and this is going to fail us. It's going to fail the residents. It's going to fail this council if we don't get a better structure and get this information out, and this is not hard information to obtain. It's very doable. So I think those are the things, and if I've missed something in that, Council Member Davis, you got that? >> I'm sorry. Can I finish with -- >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you. So a couple concerns. So about the February 1st, the courtesy inspections or whatever we're calling them where there's going to be no enforcement, you know, I'd want to know -- I don't have to know right now, but before I decided on any -- before I gave my own direction on a February 1st date, I would want to know roughly when those were going to occur, and then, you know, if we can place ourselves in the position of the homeowners, you know, when you find out information like that about your home, it takes some time to find out what the options are because they'll want to find out what the options the city has to provide and they'll want to talk to, you know, private plumbers and all of that kind of people, so, you know, I would want to give at least a month after finding out at least a month this -- what the results of these courtesy inspections are. >> So you're saying 30 days? >> Well, but to me -- I mean, at least a month after the date of those inspections, but to me, because of that February 1st seems premature, given the holidays, you know, I don't know how much enforcement we can really get in since I assume this, you know, staff isn't going to be working over the holidays, so that just -- that has me a little concerned, and then kind of the -- then the issue about kind of renters and owners, I don't think that'll be a problem just by talking to people, you know, LULAC already did the census. I just ask -- every time I ask people, I get consistently the same -- >> But we need a schedule of that. >> No, no, no, no, I understand. I'm agreeing with that. I'm just saying I don't think that'll be a problem. The easements, though, will be trickier, and I would ask that, you know, that of course homeowners should be expected to have that kind of information, but the tenants, I don't want to put them in the position of having to, you know, ask their landlords, you know, try to get this information from their landlords. When it comes to getting information from landlords, I think it would be nice if the city were to do that, too. Of course, LULAC can ask and find out who the landlords are, but that is something where I would like the city to try to find out the information from the landlords, if that makes sense. >> Yeah. And I don't agree with that. I'm still on the position, and we're going to have to get some direction from council that I believe that -- we're not asking the tenants to do it, but if the tenants are asking for water, they cannot do anything on those properties. They cannot install any infrastructure without the landlord's information, and if the landlord is going to get that benefit, the landlord needs to make some concerted effort to help. If the landlords aren't willing to help, then -- >> I completely agree. But my point is it puts a renter in an awkward position when you're hitting up your landlord for information. That's why I think that the city should do that. >> Okay. All right. Councilmember Ryan, because I want to -- okay, first of all, I want to try to -- as far as the inspections that councilmember Armitage, I feel very comfortable that we can get those customer inspections done by the middle of January or something like that with the results. >> One thing I want to make sure that everyone is aware, it's purely voluntary. I mean, we're not forcing ourselves onto those homes. >> Okay. Then we can do that. We can meet the deadline. >> We've made the offer, and so if we get taken up on the offer, we can certainly make it happen. I don't know. >> Okay. All right. That's good. Yep. That's good enough. It's voluntary. There are people here listening to our discussion that represent the community. And what we're saying is we're determining a time when you've asked for us for a permanent solution, we're going to pick a time, we're going to gather information, we're going to give you a permanent solution. Part of that, councilmembers ask that you allow these courtesy customer service inspections and that you allow them to be completed and reported to council 30 days prior to the February 15th deadline of whatever we're choosing for this. So if they don't want to do that, then that shouldn't impact our date. So councilmember Ryan, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> It's all right. Yeah, February 4th is the first meeting, so I would recommend that that's the first meeting in February. That's the date I would recommend. And I'd also like to point out we've talked about United Way for barriers funds, but for the owner occupies, there are also several nonprofits that will help with repairs that if something on code compliance comes up, that they can assist them with that as well. And that's something we need to point out to them as well. But I'm good with what councilmember Davis and you have said. >> Is February the 1st, February 4th, is that okay? I'm seeing shaking heads. I'm seeing more than four shaking heads, so okay, all right. Go ahead, councilmember Mulser. >> Well, when I spoke before, I was actually kind of expecting an answer from staff, saying what does staff think they need in terms of time to get these things done? So I'd kind of like to get a reaction, at least, like if we're going that way, doable? Not just like if we agree with it, but what's the point, you know? >> I think it's all doable, especially if they're invited in to do the custom inspections, the voluntary inspections. I go back to in order to make the February 4th meeting productive, we need to understand the ownership of the roads and whether easements can be secured to pull off any plan at all. And that is the key issue that we need help with. >> Okay. Okay. Yes, councilmember Davis and then mayor Pro Tem. >> I just want everyone in the room and everyone watching at home to be very clear about what we're saying we're going to do on February the 4th. February the 4th is not the day that we decide to run free water lines to houses. And February the 4th is not the day that we have sorted out the easement issue on behalf of the residents. February the 4th is the day when we decide that we're going to turn off the water that we're supplying. February the 4th is the day that we have a plan in place for the city stepping back and the residents solving this issue with their community advocates and the nonprofits working on their behalf because the city's role is done and from this moment forward, they could have been doing it the whole time, but from this moment forward the residents also need to know it does not require the city council deciding that they get a water meter. They can go apply for a permit now. They can start talking to city staff now about pooling their resources and extending the main and putting in water meters. They don't have to wait for February 4th. February 4th is not the day the city council provides answers for all the problems at Green Tree. February the 4th is the day that we decide that we're done solving problems at Green Tree and that it can take care of itself. So I don't want anyone to delay in trying to figure out where their easements are, to delay on hiring their plumbers and trying to pull a permit for a water meter. They need to get on that now if that's how they're going to solve the problem. It's on them to do that right at this moment. One, I just want to succinctly agree with you on the no easement. The city participated in that. I don't think that we should not do that, so I agree with your statement there. And then two, stipulate that just for the clear of the record, DISD has agreed that if the, per the request I made, that if a student currently attends Pecan Creek Elementary and lives in Green Tree, as long as they're in DISD, they've committed to facilitate that student maintaining their schooling there at Pecan Creek. So that issue is solved. And I want that to be abundantly clear so that those that would have that concern know that clearly. And I appreciate staff reaching out and making those accommodations. And then last statement on this topic for me, really, I want to point out the diversity in the city of Denton, and I take it personal when people don't acknowledge that and approach us as though we're not diversified at every level. And pointing out our upper management between Tony wearing two hats, Aaron being our head of our legal department, Laura Barons has moved up through the ranks a number of different ways, our city secretary, our assistant city managers across the board. You've done a great job, Todd, and I appreciate you, and I wish more people would share their concerns without being accusatory or thinking that we're devoid of understanding what it takes to run a city this size. And so it's important for me to have a clear record that as a person that doesn't always blend in the meetings we go to, I wish more people would point out when people are doing great things. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Nelson. On the list of things that should not be delayed, where people shouldn't wait, life safety must be at the top of that list. So I can encourage those who have been given the opportunity to get a second pair of eyes on that to take advantage of that. And to those who advocate for this community, I surely hope that you will put at the top of your list life safety. Thank you. Yes, Council Member Briggs. We're going to wrap this up, Council Member Briggs and Council Member Markford, real quick. Real quick. This is just a follow-up in regards to the kids at Pecan Creek, because I know now it's just a short distance to walk to school, and if they're -- I know that the district said that they could stay, but has transportation been a part of that conversation, and can that be confirmed? It was discussed, and the answer I received is that would be dealt with, and that is part of keeping them in the school, is physically getting them there. Thank you. Council Member Robter. Yeah. So the question occurred to me really just confirmation, I was assuming, but I want to make sure this is clear. So is it still the case that the City is guaranteeing that there will be no code enforcement action until the end of this emergency declaration, which is now through May 23rd? I don't think we were making -- that that had been finalized. There's clearly abandoned structures, attractive nuisances that we'll be working with them on, and especially on the one side of the property, where you can easily see the code issues. I think the issue that is concerning here, and I don't want to set any false expectations, Council Member Meltzer said it very well, the life safety issues need to get identified, and they need to get fixed immediately, you know, by virtue of us knowing that there's life safety issues that puts the City in a very difficult position, and we will certainly do everything we can to work with folks, but those things -- those code issues have to be identified and rectified before we can -- before either the TCEQ or the City could ever allow a water tap anyway. So the sooner -- just to reiterate what he said, the sooner that the residents can get ahold of Mr. McDonald or his staff, get those courtesy inspections, we will work with them immediately on a timeline to start getting these issues addressed. But that is going to be the biggest issue, either short-term or long-term. Okay, sure. So just to follow up, so as I understand it, you know, the -- nobody who has been affected by this water issue has a problem with the most unsafe -- the most visibly unsafe properties, the ones that are on Roddy's property that are in the most obvious state of decay being taken care of whenever. It's talking about those 13 households who were on Thursday, and I'm just trying to get some information for the residents before we leave so that -- because I know that they're wondering because on Thursday, you know, they were assured that, you know, we're going to give you these courtesy, you know, inspections without enforcement, and we guarantee you that there will not be -- that code enforcement is not going to get sent in to enforce anything that's found until after February 12th. So now that the date has been changed, it would be nice to at least have a new date. Does that make sense? Because they were given a date. So if that has to be earlier, then fine, but we're kind of moving from a definite date of February 12th, you know, and nothing's going to happen until after then to -- could be any time. I think we're intermingling two separate issues here. One of them is the code enforcement issues, which are the abandoned structures and those things that we can see that need to be dealt with immediately. The other issue are building code inspections, which are -- it's very different in the life safety issues, really go along with those. But I'm happy to ask Scott just to give you an overview of how he will approach those and how he typically deals with them with anyone, not just Green Tree, but with anyone in terms of giving them an opportunity to rectify. Yeah, I think the residents would appreciate that. Thanks. I think it's very important to note the intent of the courtesy inspection is to help identify any potential problems or what it is that it's going to take for them to get into compliance in order to be connected. I think we definitely have to separate vacant, attractive nuisances and those eminent life safety hazards that could exist on any of the properties. I would never put staff in a situation where they were to walk into a structure and there were something eminent that could ultimately affect the inspector or the people living in that structure not to say that we have a problem. Not the intent of the courtesy inspection, however, any of those properties and all of those properties, there's just unknowns. It is our intent to be helpful, to provide a service that we do to citizens across the city and they can start doing that as soon as today. Real quick. Yes. My final question, again, just because residents are here and this is about their homes for them, it would be great if residents could be given, and I know there's no way to predict what's going to be found, but maybe if there are some possible issues that tend to be common with mobile homes or manufactured homes, if they could have an idea, not now, but privately about here's some things you might want to look out for before we come in. I'd be happy to visit with any of them or staff can visit with any of them. I think that's probably the safest way to do that. Great. We've got a white paper prepared that I think Legal has or has provided to LULAC. I'm not certain. If not, we can get that out and happy to visit with any of them individually if that would help. Wonderful. I'm not sure there was a whole lot of clarity in that whole discussion, so I'm going to try to provide some. Thank you. So when it comes to life safety issues that the inspection department identifies, as you would with any other property that you go into, they're not asking for special treatment on those code issues, those life safety issues. You're saying that if you go in there and you find a life safety issue, whether it's imminent or let's say a smoke detector or a carbon monoxide detector when you know that there's natural gas appliances in the unit, that like anyone else, if you see something that's not imminent, I mean, if you see an arcing wire, you're going to call the electric company out and tell them to turn the electricity off, but those issues that are real life safety issues, you work with property owners and say here's what you need to do, here's the amount of time frame you need to do it, and if you can't get it all done, you can have an -- you know, we can talk about an extension. We have a process to deal with this. We don't have to micromanage this at the council level. What I've heard you say as an accommodation is that those issues that are found that you may find out there in just your normal kind of code, your community service drive-bys and inspections is like anyone else. You can give time. You can give -- you say here's how you need to fix it. But like we do with everybody else, I think we have 90% or 95% compliance, voluntary compliance. But just to clarify, the life safety issues, there will be much more immediacy needed in addressing those issues because it could result in serious loss of property and/or injury or the loss of life to an individual or family. I think that's made that clear because I think what happens is people hear a lot of different things and a lot of different venues, and we just want to make sure that this council is the one that's talking and you're the staff, and so we're giving you direction. I think we have this resolved as far as the direction that you have for now. And I would ask that as you do those inspections, I think Council Member Armitage asked for those results. As you get information, Council Member Briggs, as you get information on who -- in other words, don't wait until February 4th to provide us with who are the owners, who are the lessees, who owns the roads, who doesn't, because it's going to take a while to digest all that. >> We'll send out periodic updates in the Friday report. >> Fantastic. All right. Thank you all very much. Oh, go ahead. Council Member Galee. >> Please. Don't do that. Don't do that. Please. >> Yeah. >> No, I just wanted to make sure -- recap. >> Yes. >> Just for the benefit of the residents. >> Yes. >> And also kind of the direction. So what I heard is extending to 100 days, which gets the emergency declaration to another school year. >> May 23rd. >> May 23rd. >> Day specific, as my understanding. Okay. >> Maintain the existing funding. And then that the water -- excuse me, that the water -- the water -- the provision of water that the residents pay, and again, one of the things is the all-in cost or the cost of the water? >> I just -- I think they -- I think it's the cost of the water itself. >> Okay. Just wanted to clarify. >> Yes. >> I thought about the -- I thought about the same, but I think I can get comfortable with, you know, the water. >> Yes, the cost of the water, sure. >> And then -- so that's one piece. And then the remainder is between now and February 4th, work with the residents to -- to understand -- to help them understand, A, not only the courtesy inspections that Mr. McDonald mentioned and help facilitate that process, but also work with them for the residents to identify and provide staff identification of tenants, property owners, and whatever mixture there is of -- within the subdivision. Also to identify and try to get a better understanding of any easements, ownership of the roads, just trying to get clarity on the -- on just -- >> The makeup of the subdivision. >> The makeup of the subdivision as far as the road and infrastructure. And then if those issues are identified through the courtesy inspections, obviously provide a path forward for the residents to make those requisite repairs, and if they cannot, work with the -- whether it's United Way or other not-for-profit agencies to help them with assistance to facilitate those repairs. >> Yeah, and on that point, we're sort of distinguishing between life safety as far as the immediacy of that. >> Correct. Correct. >> And then the other that we find typically. >> Right. >> Is that everybody's understanding? >> Is that clear? Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Let's take a quick five-minute break. >> Welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council. On Tuesday, December the 10th, 2019, it is 2.37 p.m. Agenda item 3B, receive report, hold discussion, and give staff direction regarding Stoke, Denton's annual report. >> Good afternoon, Mayor and Council, Jessica Rogers, Director of Economic Development. I'm going to go ahead and turn over the presentation to Marshall Culpepper, who is the owner of the owner of Hickory and Rail Ventures, which is the company that is operating Stoke, Marshall. >> Thank you, Jessica. Can you guys hear me okay? >> Yes. >> Awesome. How are you all? Good to see you. >> You're well. Good afternoon. >> It's been a year already. I can't believe it. So I wanted to take a quick second before we dive into all the nitty-gritty details just to update everybody about what we're doing. So for a while now, I've been sort of trying to figure out this idea of how do we make Denton a entrepreneurial and technology hub, grow startups here that really create and sort of give us a new sort of economic outlook. Obviously, our city is thriving and growing, but to go with that, we need high-paying jobs for all these people, and we want to be a city of innovation that kind of leads our region in terms of both jobs, but in terms of what we're seen as. We've, for a long time, attracted people because of our music scene or our creative scene. We want to see the same sort of attraction from a tech perspective as well. And there's a lot of reason for that, not just because I say so. If you've ever read the book, The Rise of the Creative Class, it's actually really clear that if you are musically inclined or if you're artistically inclined in almost any way, there's a technology sort of correlation that goes along with that. In fact, most people that are artistic in any way have some sort of natural bent towards technology. A few interesting anecdotes, for example, we have several members of the Cubos team, my space software company, that are all musicians. They all play in different bands. In fact, we've all joked about putting the Cubos band together because we have such a array of different musical talent in our company. And I know that's true for pretty much any tech company we know in Denton. But the basic idea is that we don't want to just attract talent here. We want to have an engine for growth that is self-sustaining, but also is kind of like a feedback loop on itself. And so we have two things that really give us a huge advantage. One is the local universities, they give us every year a new base of talent that we can tap into to create and expand our economy. And the other is access to amazing companies and economy of existing sort of businesses all over the Metroplex that those new companies can feed into. And so what I set out to do roughly, what is it, five years ago now, was to first create a community around who's techie in the city, but it kind of expanded into coworking and some other things, angel investing as well. But the basic idea is if you're a UNT student graduating this year, like whatever start-up idea you have, don't go to Dallas, don't go to Austin, stay here in Denton. That's the basic idea. So Stoke, our coworking space, is a home for these people. And while we are building a sustainable business based on this idea, the core concept here really is to give entrepreneurs, freelancers, and people a home to kind of wave their flag. So in the first year we reported pretty tremendous growth. We went from something like 42, 43 members all the way up to around 60. This year we've gone even higher. We've started off around 60 and are now just an inch under 100, about 98 current members. So we've had over 40% growth in membership and revenue since this time last year. And the average retention of our members is about 12 months, which is for a space that goes month to month is not bad. And then finally we've also had an increase in our percentage of tech, a slight increase, and we all know we've had this conversation a few times. This is a continual path to growth around how we get tech and tech people into this coworking space. I have more to say about that in a minute. On the sort of qualitative side, I have a spotlight I'd like to direct to an interesting startup that started in our space about a year ago. Two guys, Mark and Nathan, one of them is here today here in the council. Team of Defenders is a pretty awesome startup that has basically taken this idea that you can track and secure devices using the Internet of Things and trying to commercialize that for consumers. Their first business is a company called Storage Defender, where they literally put a small tracking device in your storage, in your personal storage unit. If someone comes into it and you weren't expecting it, you get an alert on your phone. It's a really basic enablement, but it allows you to have a personal level of control and security on your own storage facility. Now what's cool about this is there was two local founders, they liked Stoke, they decided to move their business to Stoke because they saw what was going on here in Denton, they were very passionate about it. Within that year, they've gone from two to eight or is it nine now employees, and they've moved at least one if not two people from other areas to Denton. One of them was in Houston, I believe. Not only that, but they've hired three people from UNT. This is just one of many of these similar stories that we have going on, where startups that are creating new technology, finding lots of traction and fundraising and all that, have been able to attract talent locally, but also bring talent here. These are really two crucial points of what we're trying to do in this growth of this economy. Events similarly have spiked up. We had a really great event this year. It was our first annual FlintConf. What we like to say is the annual event for hipsters, hackers, and hustlers, the intersectionality of all of our loves. It was great. We had a great attendance. We had incredible speakers. Many of you in the panel probably know Emily Rodin was our keynote. She did an incredible talk on the genesis of Reddy Rosie and what a success that business has been. Since then, we've had several other large events that have been well attended. We did a new Global Entrepreneurship Week Summit this year. Global Entrepreneurship Week happens all over the world. For the first year, we're participating in that. We had events every day for that week, all the way from fireside chats to women entrepreneurship, fundraising panel, and all kinds of other things. We've had several Denton Angel investor meetings and all kinds of other tech and tech-related events. Denton Angels this year, we had two additional startup investments. We joined both the Alliance of Texas Angel Networks and Angel Capital Association. These are both local and regional capital associations that have their own deal flow. We share that with the Denton Angel Group now. We had a new member join the group. Then on the forward-looking, we started a new ... We're calling it an innovation group for now. This name is still pending, but the idea is that we know that tech is something that Denton cares about and wants to be in its future. I think part of the conversation that's getting lost right now is how do we actually achieve that? How do we get ... Maybe the question, the elephant in the room, is how would we have gotten Amazon to come here? How would we get Google to come here? Those basic questions. To do that, we need the people that are the experts in tech, the people that are experts in economic development to come together and to collaborate. The idea with this group is to figure out not only how do we get bigger employers to come, but also how do we have some homegrown tech companies that will grow and also exponentially grow our economy? We kind of want to see it from both sides. We want to see students stay because they have gainful employment with a really high tech field, but we also want to see businesses and people attracted to come move here because of what we're doing. We started this group about a month or two ago. We've had a few meetings, and the basic idea is to be an advisory group to the economic development partnership. Obviously that all requires some approvals and some whatever, but that is our eventual goal. Ultimately, we are planning to build an accelerator program that this group can kind of plug into. The accelerator program is all about taking new startups that are brand new, like just an idea, just founders, and giving them a little cash and a little bit of mentorship for three months and turning them into either profitable or fundraising businesses that actually have a product that are going to market that are expanding their business. We'll talk a little bit more about that, I'm sure, later. With marketing, we've spent a lot more this year, actually almost triple in total marketing spend. Because of our new hire, Lacey, had a huge uptick in the amount of content we're putting out, both blog posts, social marketing, et cetera. We attribute a lot of our growth to some of this new marketing effort, and we will continue to expand and increase our spend on marketing to increase membership as we grow. We've also expanded the amount of external events we sponsor, and we've increased total number of goals that were completed in our marketing pipeline. Okay, and just a refresher on the team, hi, I'm Marshall, Heather Gregory, our executive director, co-founder of the business, and Lacey is our community specialist. So I definitely cannot be here without these two, they literally do everything. Let's talk a little bit about how we've, you know, improved the space. We spent about 9,000 so far in total improvements. We entered, we created, sorry, we purchased a new private phone booth room. It's literally room, that's the name of the room. That should be arriving at Soak within the next week or two, we ordered it about seven weeks ago. We've really put a lot of effort into fixing the echo problem in the event space. This was a huge problem when we first got started, and everyone's aware of it. We, if you went in there and you were speaking, it was really hard to like have a conversation because of how much echo there was. So we put a lot of money into rugs and furnitures and acoustic paneling all throughout the space to really solve that problem, and now if you come to an event in that space, it's a night and day difference. It's not that we've completely removed echo, but there's such a less amount of it that it's really enjoyable. We also replaced the picnic tables outside. We have a nice little space outside that people can eat their lunch or sort of talk on the phone. And we have finalized some plans for our new office build out that we'll talk about in just a minute for expanding by five to seven new offices in the space. Okay, so talk about our roadmap a bit. The DIG group is new, we'd like to formalize the relationship of that group with the Economic Development Partnership. What that looks like is not completely clear to me. I actually could use y'all's help in figuring out how that would work. But basically, we just are passionate about the economy in Denton just as much as y'all are, and we want to make sure that our voices can lend a hand when it comes to setting policy for how we're going to grow that part of our economy. We're going to do FlintCon again this year, and we have some really, really exciting plans there that will come out soon. And then finally, in 15 months, we take over the lease. And so there's some issues there that I'd like to focus on at some point here. But essentially, we've had a lot of success in growing our capacity. But we have some risk factors to take into account. Right now, the cash we have on hand is either going to be earmarked for lease or for burning when we end the lease, or sorry, for the loan or when we end the lease. And so I'd like to talk through that at some point, but right now, we're in a situation where we're doing really well in the growth that we have projected. We've outgrown by certain metrics, but we have work to do. And yeah, we are interested in talking about how we can still provide value to the city moving on. Let's talk about the projected growth. So we did well over 40% this year, and we're looking at at least 33% next year. We think we can get close to 300K annual revenue. And then three months after that, we'll end the city lease and we'll take over the lease. We've already been in discussion with the owners to take that lease. We have some ballpark estimates of what the lease amounts will look like. So we're starting to get an idea of what the total expenditure will be for us after taking over the lease. But yeah, that's it in a nutshell. I guess now it's time for Q&A. Questions? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Councilmember Briggs. Yeah. So just on the dig, I think that's great. Yeah. I'm glad to hear it. I know there's lots of potential there. But I do also know that we're doing our economic development strategic plan. And so I think that would be a great thing to bring up and try to see how we can integrate that into the plan. That's probably something you're already thinking about, but that's just the first thing that popped into my head to see if that was being considered. Yes. Just today, actually, this morning, I started putting together lists of focus groups from specific industry areas for the comprehensive economic development strategic plan. And tech is one of the industry areas that's a targeted sector and so would be included in the focus groups. Okay. Yeah. And just so the dig, the group as well, and how that could be involved. We were thinking they might be a great group to serve as the tech focus group. Oh, okay. Perfect. Thank you. And I just have one more question. Yeah. Just so on the angel investors. Yeah. Can you help me understand, is there an amount of money that comes straight to Denton or that is available for Denton or is it just project by project? How does that work? Yeah. So angels are sort of individually responsible for how much they want to invest in a given company. So while there's like maybe a cap on what we could invest in total if we all decided to, there's not really a, it's not like a pot of money available to anything if that makes sense. It's more like an individual decision process if that makes sense. Project based? Yeah. Like company based essentially. Yeah. Like this company wants to raise money. We're going to invest this much into them is the idea. Okay. Yeah. All right. Awesome. And I just want to say welcome. Glad you chose Denton. Thanks. Thanks for having me. Council member Armitage and then council member Mouser. Yeah. So this is a question for staff. It says, you know, we're supposed to give direction. I'm a little unclear. This is to, you know, what kind of direction like standard posting. Okay. Okay. So this is really just kind of informational. Certainly. Or if there was any additional information that you wanted us to bring back that we certainly can take that direction. Yeah. I guess so. And thank you for things. Thank you. Thank you. So I guess two questions. One, so if you could explain, and I know that, so I know what technology is, right? But I also know that technology is so much a part of our lives that everything we do is tech. It involves tech. And so, you know, what makes, and I'm sure you got this question before, you know, what makes Stoke tech and not just office space? You know, what's the distinction there? That's a good question. Part of it is the content that we create. So the programming. So in other words, we have, for example, all kinds of meetups related to programming languages. So that's about programming computers. It's a very tech thing, right? The other part of it is just having a sort of a open sort of concept to the whole office thing. So if you go into a, you know, typical office, lots of individual offices that are closed off, we have a more open environment, you have a much more collaborative workspace. And so collaboration is kind of the key of working on technology. And so there are both like cultural parts of it that make it tech-focused and also content things that make it tech-focused. And so like FlintCon, I mentioned, it's hipsters, hackers, and hustlers. Clearly, we want entrepreneurs and tech people in the conference. So I would say it's a bent towards tech in the way that we market and attract the space, if that makes sense. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. And so you had mentioned something earlier about, and I didn't write it down, but about something about the lease, and you're getting ready, and congratulations on that. And if you could repeat kind of what you had said before, it sounded kind of important that you're going to be acquiring ownership, but then there was a but after that. Yeah. Yeah. So let me be a little more clear. So we know that we're not quite on a revenue standpoint exactly where we'll need to be to cover the cost of where we are plus the full lease, but we're projecting enough growth and we have enough cash on hand that we think we can make it. But we are also potentially looking for help to see if there are other things we can do as well as just running the space beyond all that, but I think that's a future conversation probably. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Mayor Meltzer. Yeah. Maybe you've already answered by saying it's a future conversation. Yeah. I was kind of along a similar line. I know you need to be on a path to your goal, which is also a question, is to be on a path toward becoming an independent entity. Yep. So, you know, how are you tracking P&L-wise? You know, like it's all got to work. Yeah. So, we basically have pro forma projections for the next three years that we've kept up to date every month. We just keep an eye on that and what it looks like as we go, as we make strategic decisions, how it changes, et cetera. We have different versions of the pro forma based on the outcomes of different decisions even. We're not completely decision tree oriented, but there's a few things that we do to keep an eye on it. Yeah. And so we just watch it that way, I guess, like in normal business. So are you on track or to the extent that you're not, you know, are you considering different strategic alternatives to fill the gap or, you know, how's it going? Yeah, yeah. So what I can say is, like, we're not there for, like, breakeven the first year, if that's what you're asking. If that was what the trigger was, you know. But so I also come from a venture startup background, which means it's okay to burn money if you think you'll grow fast enough. And that's part of what we're looking at. The other part is also the idea of building out, of investing a lot of build out of that specific space versus having more modular office and room architecture that we can take with us and also have on the books and that kind of thing. So we're looking at a few different alternatives to see how we can get there. And then we're also looking at upping the game in terms of our programming to go to the next stage. I mentioned the accelerator program that we're starting. We know we're working with a few partners with the eventual goal of not just starting businesses but also upping the quotient of tech people in the space. And so with that will come more revenue, because we'll have a lot more members in the space. So we're looking at it from that angle as well. Those are kind of the three big levers I'm pulling right now, if that makes sense. Do you want to fast forward? Well, if it's about the report, because I don't want to get off it. He said three times that this is for another conversation. Yeah, I was going to ask something, and it's really mild. Okay, good. General interest. No, no. Yeah, sure. A little bit of a build on sitting down. I'm just really curious. What are the 41% that are not tech enabled? I can't imagine anything isn't tech enabled now, at least got a website or an app or something. And if your definition of tech enabled is like that, I think it would be a much lower percentage. What we're looking at more is tech is a primary focus of their business in some degree. So like, maybe tech is not what they sell, but tech is like a primary function of what their business does. And so just because they use a word processor, we wouldn't call them tech enabled, for example, right? Does that make sense? So, you know, granted, there are some arbitrary sort of definitions within that. And, you know, we try to use, we try to use like the same definition today that we did last year. We're not trying to move the goalpost there, but it definitely is. It's more than it's, yeah, if we were talking about the website, it's not tech enabled. Yeah, yeah. I got you. Yeah. Everybody uses tech. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. First, this is a great slide for me because I got here in 2017, and so I'm going to get a picture of this printed and ask you to autograph it because, man, we've come a long way. So I appreciate your leadership. And then I question for staff, and I'll come back. So staff, I'd like to see if there's a path that allows a city, under a budget item, I don't know what that would look like if it'd be maybe a sponsorship or a hosting an event for the angel investors group. I just think it would be important for us to kind of participate, especially if it's a homegrown business or opportunity, somehow to kind of dovetail those two together. I don't know what that would look like. I don't know what their financial structure is. But if there's a way for us to participate, I'd love to know what that is. Sure. We have been involved in that group other than providing some meeting space for them. But we certainly can have those conversations and bring something back. Sure. Yeah. I'd just like to understand during budgeting what that would, you know, if there's something would look like. And then, Marsha, I think if you could open up and just kind of share for in this opportunity. So there's developers that come to the city of Denton all the time. What is it that is appealing to people in the tech industry that you've observed that would be beneficial and would be attractive? So that and really what I'm thinking is someone watching this meeting or for staff's benefit is they're kind of educating developers on what is kind of important to the city. What kind of the profile of that? Yeah. So a few things I would say that are part and parcel of why a lot of remote tech workers decide to live in Denton. One of them is just the creative culture here, the downtown, the walkability of it all. Tech people tend to be the kind that want to have like a connected urban lifestyle of some kind. And so there's a lot of benefits. We have tons of restaurants. We have tons of bars. We have great music scene. All those things make Denton very unique for what it is. And that is actually when you talk to other big cities that don't have that kind of culture, that's what they're trying to figure out how to solve. Like that is like our superpower in my opinion. Like if that really is the thing that I think puts us over the top. Beyond that, what we see people getting really interested in when they come here is a handful of things. It's the community and culture. And then ultimately, does it line up, does the city line up with their potential business model or their customer base, for example? So Reddy Rosie is actually a great example while Emily and Kevin have been here for a long time. The reason they were successful here is because they were an education tech company and they really focused their customers on local education institutions and had a lot of early trials and stuff for their technology here. And now they're in like 600 school districts. So that's the kind of thing where if you can get like a trial customer or a big customer from that city, it's a big deal. So we see a lot of interest from Ed and Creative Tech because we have such a vibrant base of business and culture for that kind of thing. Got it. Thank you. And then Mayor, I don't know if it's imposed. I'd like to know more about the group he highlighted in that kind of what their growth trajectory was and kind of what a, for me, the interesting point would be kind of the understanding salaries that come up, new hires type thing. So that when we're having a conversation about low moderate income housing, that sort of thing, I mean, it's kind of this is an organic growth pattern that's very informative. Would that be okay to provide counsel and maybe an informal staff report to come back for a different conversation? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Just so we can understand because we're making decisions about what the proper rent is, you know, those type things. And so to get guidance and say here's an example of they grew to this and this is what we're able to pay. This is full time. This is part time. Really is key information that we don't always have access to. So that'd be great. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? Yeah. And I want to echo the sentiments of the mayor pro tem that this graph really is illustrative of your hard, your team, you and your team's hard work and dedication to your mission here when you first took this over. So really I do remember those conversations. And so thank you so much for that for what you bring to that facility and to, to the city. So thank you so much for that. Yep. Any questions, comments? And then we're working on, I guess, getting the strategic plan in the focus groups and all that. So they're going to be actively incorporated. I just want to make sure I got that summary. Yes. That'll be done separately. But okay, sure. Okay. All right. Council member, did you have something? When you say strategic plan and focus groups, you mean about economic development? Yeah. So what they did? Yeah. No, it's just what they were talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. C, receive board hold discussion, give staff direction regarding solid waste and recycling grant applications to the North Central Texas Council of Governments, solid waste implementation grants. Well, good afternoon, mayors and members of the council. My name is Brian Burner. I'm director of solid waste here at the city of Denton, and I do appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today about some proposed solid waste grant projects that we hope to submit to the North Central Texas Council of Government for potential funding. The objective of this presentation is really provide a briefing on the grant program itself, outline some projects we've identified for potential funding, and then receive approval and feedback on the direction of these projects as we get ready to submit them. You've seen a little bit of this information before. We talked about our comprehensive solid waste management policy or strategy, but I did want to go into a little more depth about what this grant program is. It's actually funded by the -- it's managed by the North Central Texas Council of Government as part of the cooperative of all the Council of Governments, each biennium, they receive an allocation of money from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from revenue generated through landfill tipping fees in that we are -- have a landfill here. We pay the state basically our tipping fee or our landfill tax, and it's an opportunity for us to receive some of that money back by going through this process. The goal of these projects really is to support the regional solid waste management plan and with some key goals of reducing waste, ensuring materials are reused and recycled whenever possible, reducing illegal dumping, and then at the end of the day, safely handling any remaining waste at permitted facilities. We have about $1.2 million in this biennium for local governments and other nonprofits to use as part of this grant program. There is some minor reporting requirements quarterly as we're going through the project. We owe the COG and the state updates on how the money is being spent. Right before the next legislative session, there is a report due, basically a results report and then a year at what we call a year later report to show how the projects are doing and how they're being funded or how the money is being used and how it's being provided to reduce the or to implement the regional solid waste management plan. There are several categories that are eligible for grants. You see them listed up here. A few that I'd like to point out is source reduction, household hazardous waste, illegal dumping, solid waste management plans, technical studies, these are the type of things we've focused the potential and we put our heads together where we would like to focus some of our grant applications. This year, the COG has decided to place a higher priority on projects that focus on increasing participation, targeting education, construction demolition, food waste diversion, so these will receive a little higher priority, but again, it's the top projects that are really eligible and what the evaluation committee will be looking at when they're distributing the funding. From a timeline standpoint, we're here at this blue arrow. We're considering the proposed projects. Hopefully today we'll receive approval to move forward with one or all of these projects. The projects are due to the COG beginning of January, January 6th. By the end of March, we'll know whether we receive the money or not. In April, we will execute the contracts and then we have roughly a year to actually spend the money, implement the projects and move forward from there. So at this time, the brief introduction, what I'd like to do is introduce a couple of folks. They're going to walk through each of these projects. We have two ways we can handle this. We can talk about each of the projects and then get approval or we can lay them all out at once and then take questions and comments at the end. So it's your pleasure. Lay it out and we'll do the comments at the end. Very good. Then what I would like to do is go ahead and introduce Tina Eck. She's with Solid Waste and she's going to talk a little bit about the project Solid Waste have proposed and then Deborah Viera will talk about a project that Watershed Protection would like to propose. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. The first project that we have for you is to review the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy. So we've spoken a little bit about this one already. So what this would cover would be $100,000 would be the request. It would cover the consultant fees to come in and lead that strategy development. The next one is the Recycling Dumpster Contamination Reduction for Lids and Locks. So we've noticed specifically at our multifamily properties an increased contamination, oftentimes due to bulky items being placed in the containers. What this would do is would size restrict the lids and have a locking mechanism that comes down over the lid that would still allow adequate room for a container but not a bulky contaminating item to go into those and we've seen, we've done a little bit of research on this and come up with a container type and lid type that we feel that would be effective to test that. Next one is the Public Disposal Area and Recycling Center Improvements and Upgrades. So this is kind of a two-parter, so both with existing facilities that we have. One of those is the public disposal area that is co-located with the landfill. When we develop the next cell of the landfill, this one will need to be relocated and so what we're asking for is design fees to relocate and design the facility at the point in time that that occurs. And also our existing site, North Lakes, will be moved as well and so what we are asking for there is additional resources to provide cameras and litter control fencing and other measures to control some of the illegal dumping that's occurring there. Our next offering is for the Home Chemical Collection Program. We would like a program enhancement to include a mobile trailer so that we can have events that move out into the neighborhoods and to the public and we would have collection events at that time. This would have kind of a three-pronged approach of it has equipment but also an outreach program as well and materials for education that would come along with that and collection and packaging supplies to accommodate those events. And then our final submission would be for yard waste collection of craft bags. So what we would like to see with this is craft bags that have messaging included on them about the program that we recently rolled out at the beginning of October. You all are well aware of it. And so this would help hopefully increase participation, diversion, and also outreach, increase education to our residents. So I'm going to go home with Debra first. Okay. Debra Vieira. Good afternoon Council Mayor, Debra Vieira, Environmental Services. What we would like to request as a part of this grant is to get $15,000 for remote cameras for illegal dumping. Those are areas probably in the outskirts that are people that are prone because they are not that visible for people to drive in, dump their trash, and then take off. Illegal dumping is not only an aesthetic issue for the city, it's also a water quality. It is a health and welfare for the community. So with this grant, we are hoping to get funding to improve our security camera system. We met with COC last week. We got some advice for them, and they have asked us to actually look into a more expensive type of camera that are less easy to be stolen and tampered with because that's one of the problems that we have been facing. So with this grant, it would allow us to actually try new technology out there to improve our surveillance program. So with that, that's six projects that we would like to submit for consideration to the COG. Respond to any questions or comments you might have, and then we'll take next steps. So I was glad to see the craft bags on there, I think that's really fantastic, especially after seeing several people comment that all the stores are out of craft bags recently and they didn't really know what to do. So I'm good with that one. I just have on the North Lakes Recycling Center, because I know that was a budget item that was approved for the relocation and design. So you're saying the fence and the cameras would just be what is added to that? Yes, that is an enhancement to the existing design. So basically, what has been proposed is picking up what we have and moving it to a new place. What we want to do is enhance by putting some litter fencing up and then putting cameras out to help control some of the illegal dumping that's occurring in that area. Okay. And on the solid, what I didn't see was that conversation we've had and has been prevalent as far as zero waste or waste reduction, it seems pretty important to the community. Is that, because it's not its own individual slide, is that going to be folded into the solid waste management strategy? Yeah, as we've discussed in the past, that is going to be one element of the strategy as we move forward. There'll be several different things we're looking at, and part of that will be zero waste, waste reduction, diversion techniques to be strategized as we move forward. And on the dumpsters, how many lids does $45,000 purchase? A little over, what, 400? Yeah, about 400. Okay. So that would go on our commercial or multifamily? Mostly multifamily. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any kind of strategy that applies to, you know, the application process? Like, well, you know, you shouldn't ask for all or, you know, it's better if you focus on some or is it really like play as many times as you want and kind of take them each yes or no, you know, as they come? Well, you know, I've been doing this for almost 30 years and, you know, was what sat on the committee that actually developed the program, and you're going to see everything from soup to nuts. You're going to see some cities that basically everything in the kitchen sink and then some that are very, very focused. And at the end of the day, it's based on what the committee, the Resource Conservation Council is looking at and what they're trying to promote. So as long as we can comply with what the goals are and try to focus in on creating some synergy with what we're trying to do with the regional program, that's where we make hay on this. That's what we've been very deliberate moving forward in what we put forward here. Is there, you know, other than some objection that I might not anticipate, assuming these are all good things, is there any reason why we wouldn't allow them to look at all of them? No, I think that, you know, I think we have a very good opportunity to receive money for all of these. The issue is there's a $1.2 million cap on it and, you know, they'll order them all and they'll just, you know, when they reach $1.2 million and they run out of money, that's where the line's drawn. Yeah. And they won't necessarily look at all of Denton's as a group? No. Each one is a group. Each project stands on its own. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So you mentioned that, you know, zero waste would definitely be a part of the plan. I want to make the case for having zero waste be the framework for an entire plan and a directive to whatever consultant ends up being chosen. One case is that, you know, as you know, when we had our council retreat, that was something we decided to be a priority and I can't think of, and maybe you can since you know your department better than I do, anything in, you know, in solid waste that doesn't apply, that couldn't apply to that idea of zero waste, even, you know, I mean, paying staff salaries to do the stuff that they do, which should be about, you know, diverting, everything, the craft bags, everything has to do with that. The second reason, it's just from a strategy point of view, and as -- Councilmember Armitage, can I get a clarification? You're giving your reasoning for, to include zero waste as the overall theme for the solid waste strategic plan? Exactly. Because he had mentioned that it will definitely be a part of it, and I'm saying I think that it will make a more effective application. The reason I asked you, because I'm not sure we're in posting, I mean, I think what he's asking for is -- you're advocating for the solid waste strategic plan to be some kind of, to change the theme. This council hasn't even talked about it yet. Sorry, sorry, Mr. Mayor, so just please let me finish, you can weigh in on this later, so -- I'm asking, Mr. City Attorney, is she on posting? Sure. You're starting to go off, I just wanted to know how you're going to wrap this up to the actual grant applications, because you're starting now to talk about a policy of -- for a council -- So, no, no, no, I'm talking about, in applying for grants, okay, one is more likely to get a grant if there's a consistent big picture, right, and so the way that this -- so as far as that first recommendation goes about the strategic plan, if it is framed in such a way that there's a vision, and that -- and I think what better vision than zero waste, so that is -- it is absolutely on posting, and I want to add, as having had experience, I've served on the Fulbright committee a number of times, and where we look at all kinds of grants, proposals from really well-qualified people, and the ones that make the cut, as I'm sure you know, are ones where every aspect of the application has kind of a consistent picture to it, right, where you can say, this is what this person -- this is not just a person who has five different interests, but it all falls under this umbrella category, and I think that if we do that with any of these measures, under the umbrella of zero waste, which is something we -- again, I can't make that decision as a council to give direction, but I'm giving my direction -- yes, but I'm giving my personal direction. And it is what? What is your personal direction on the grant application projects? I'm just responding to what you said, that I -- well, exactly what I said, that the -- that zero waste should be the framework. It will make our application better and more competitive, okay? And just to go down -- So a question, then. On the project that is the grant for the solid waste management strategic plan, are you saying you are not in support of putting that project forward unless the overall umbrella of that strategic plan is zero waste? That's what I'm trying to understand. That's the direction we're supposed to be giving on the project. Mr. Mayor, I understand. So I think it would be more strategic to do it that way. I'm not going to say I'm going to block it. We need a strategic plan. But I think it will help our application and help our city. So I wanted to -- about the dumpsters one -- Councilmember Armentor, as far as, again, the strategic direction. I mean, I don't even know if zero waste is actual policy that this Council has decided previously. I know you're getting into -- and so I'm looking to Mr. Vermeer up there to say, is that part of the Council's strategic policy? That will be a decision to be made at a future date. What we're looking to do right now is hire the consultant to put this together. Oh, I know. That's the plan. I'm talking about our retreat. It was one of our -- I understand, but the Council hasn't decided on that as being the actual overall policy goal. Oh, I know. It's in my direction, me as an individual. So as far as the dumpsters -- I haven't heard the direction. You said that you would -- you're not going to block it, but you're making a suggestion. Yes. So that's your direction? Yes. On that particular issue. Okay. All right. Yes. So as far as the -- okay. Moving to the -- thank you. So moving to the dumpsters, I like the idea of the dumpsters that avoid contamination. And I think -- so I approve of that no matter what, but I think, again, under an umbrella of a larger zero waste program, and coupled with an ordinance, I think would help if we had an ordinance coupled with it for business and commercial properties or apartments. I'm not saying that I will block it, that I'm saying no otherwise. So I'm happy with it, but, again, I think it would be better for the city and more strategic to couple it with an ordinance, and so I will leave it at that for now. But actually, no, I will add two more things that -- sorry, one more thing. Food waste diversion policy is another thing that people who have written letters to -- a number of letters to us who have been asking for a zero waste plan have talked about, but the chemical -- because I realized I forgot to mention the chemical collection pickup. I really like that idea a lot, that it's -- that's not food waste, but it helps contribute to that zero waste goal. So I like that, and I know that other council members have gotten these letters, too, and I just wanted to thank the people who have written to us. Thank you. I'm okay with the projects that you've submitted as staff has presented them. Anybody else have any problem with this project? Councilmember Davis and then Councilmember Meltzer. I just want to say I'm also okay with the projects I've submitted, but I want to echo something Councilmember Armitter said. I think based on the criteria you showed us for this grant, I think it would be advantageous to point out in the application. I know the management strategy is a bigger thing than just a zero waste strategy or just how we manage the landfill. It's a comprehensive strategy. I think it is worthwhile to mention that we want a consultant -- we intend to engage a consultant who has experience and at least some experience with zero waste strategies or has that in their toolbox, that that might be something that they recommend to us as part of our overall strategy. So I'd also like to see that in the grant application. All right. Councilmember Meltzer. To be perfectly honest, I'm really agnostic about whether it says that in so many words. I think probably -- you're taking the point though that like you want to be strategic in the application and you're probably already doing what I'm about to say. They laid out their four things. The real priorities for the purpose of getting these things funded is to say these things fit your priorities, which are reducing waste, insuring materials, et cetera, it's on slide three. So I would just suggest for each one that we go somewhere in there. This is the thing you said you want? This fits that. Exactly. Okay. Exactly. Real quick. Councilmember Rae. Well, on there it says proceed with project/purchase. And so was that just in case we didn't want to apply for the grant and just purchase them outright? No. The next steps are the applications are due on the 6th. We're going to go ahead and complete that. But one of the requirements is by the 1st of February there is a council resolution that basically says yes, we've considered this, yes, we support this, so on and so forth. So in January you will see a resolution which will forward to the COG. And then if we are awarded, then at that point we will go ahead and proceed with the purchase and the implementation of the plans. Well, I would just like to take this time to ask the city manager that if for some reason one of these projects does not get funded but council seems worthy that that show back up to us at some point in a supplemental somewhere. We can do that. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Councilmember Arbiter. Real quick. I just want to shout out to Deborah Veer, I realize I didn't mention her. I didn't get through all the lists, but yes, I mean, all these things, these are good things. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. You bet. All right. We will move on to item C, receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the Texas Department of Transportation's proposal for the removal of certain roadways within city limits. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'm Preetam Deshmukh, Deputy City Engineer, and I'll be talking about the TechStop Turnback Program. Presentation. So a quick overview of what will be presented here. Background on the state highway system that goes through the city. Talk a little bit about what is the Turnback Program, then get into details of the proposed roadway system that TechStop is currently working on turning it back to the city, and then last, options available for the council at this point. So as you can see in this map, there are several roadways that go through the city. They're within the city, all these numbered roadways are actually TechStop roadways. And majority of the residents that live in this community feel that they are local roadways. They're owned by the city. A lot of the concerns are directly funneled to city staff. So they perceive it as local roadways. There are currently 12 state highways within the city limits. You can see them. They're all highlighted. Two of them, two to three are actually limited access facilities, like a portion of loop 288, 35, and 35E. The one major highway that goes through the heart of the city is US 77. It starts way up here at 35, traverses through the city, and then ends again at 35E. So this is the main focus of the Turnback. So what is the Turnback Program? It was first implemented in 2014 when TechStop came up with this whole Turnback Program. It is designed to hand over maintenance and operations and control of the state highway system back to the city. And then this program is completely voluntary basis. So it is not forced upon on the city, it is cities up to the discretion of the city to take over these highways as local roadways. So what is the, how does the program work? The main objective of the program is to hand over the control back to the city. So TechStop will hand over maintenance, operations, and the control of this, of the entire state highway facility that's turned back to the local government, and they can make their own decisions on the roadway. What are the good candidates for some of this Turnback Program? Roads that are lower in traffic. At some point in time, there were huge highways that went through the city. At this point, there were bypass highways and limited access freeways that no longer require these older highways that went through the city back in the day. And the volumes on these roadways are fairly low. So it's pretty local traffic. No one's using them as regional connectors. And then what's the action by which this is going to be turned back? Once the local government agrees that these roadways are okay for the local government to take it over, then there is an action that it takes it to the transportation, Texas Transportation Commission, and they will do it by their minute order. They'll grant over access to the state highway system. What are the segments? As I mentioned earlier, the primary one is US 77. First at 35 here, all the way down to 35E, and then there are a couple other roadways, and I'm going to get into details of each of these in the next few slides. The first segment is US 77 from 35 all the way to US 380. This segment is a four-lane divided highway, most of it, and it is a concrete pavement. And I'll get into the details of why I'm talking about concrete pavement when you get to the maintenance aspect of it. The second segment is FM 2164. This is the small segment of Locust between where it merges with Elm and Locust to Loop 288. This is a two-lane undivided highway, and it is currently an asphalt pavement. The next segment is Elm and Locust itself that go through the downtown. It starts as US 380 and goes all the way to Eagle and Carroll. So it's a four-lane facility. It's actually a two-lane one-way couplet, and the primary pavement type is asphalt. So all these roadways are asphalt roadways, and they're fairly wide. The next segment is the last piece of US 77. This extends from Locust to the north all the way to 35E, and this is--the pavement actually is composite, it's partially concrete and partially asphalt. So some portion of the roadway is concrete, this north side, and then the rest of it is asphalt. It is a five-lane undivided with a turn lane in the middle. So you have two lanes in each direction and a two-way turn lane in the middle. Next one is FM 428. It is a four-lane undivided facility currently, and this extends from Locust all the way to Loop 288. Now, FM 428 is an asphalt pavement. A little bit more detail on this one. City currently maintains this roadway. So this segment is actually maintained by the city and under an existing MOU, under an existing agreement with TxDOT. And then the last segment is FM 1515. If you look at the big picture, FM 1515, pretty much is the small portion that goes nowhere. It's within the city. TxDOT does not look at it as a regional connector, and that's why they're interested in handing this over. Currently, it's a two-lane highway, and it's between the airport and I-35W. And this roadway will ultimately be converted to a four- and a six-lane facility. So there will be a six-lane widened roadway segment between Western and 35W, and then a four-lane widened segment between the airport and Western. Currently, TxDOT is working on the design for this. They're in the schematic phase. They will be going through the process and widening it. And once it's completely widened and constructed, that's the timeline when they want to turn this piece over to us. So what are the benefits? Here's a list of benefits. Primarily it's getting the local control over the facility, which allows you to do a bunch of things, which allows you to control parking, which allows you to control access, driveway access, which allows you to detour traffic onto the state highway system, which allows you to start construction on some of the projects, like intersection widening projects, without any approvals or any permits from TxDOT. So there's a cost saving there. There's also an economic development benefit. When we have a local control of some of the roadways, especially Elm and Locust, we can actually look at adding pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, making it more attractive for businesses that are looking for, you know, foot traffic or even slower traffic. We can actually slow the speeds. We can reduce the cross sections instead of looking at a wider segment where people are zipping by. We're slowing the traffic, letting the businesses be exposed to extra traffic. So these are the things that we can do in order to make it more attractive economically, bringing all the businesses to that particular roadway segment. And then the other important aspect is obviously the amount of right of way. The public right of way that we maintain, especially in these state facilities, our utilities are typically outside of the state facility right of way. So we have to go by additional right of way easements and land to put our utilities, which even further sets back all the businesses that are fronting these. So that's an added benefit. And then one last thing is, yes, it allows us to do the maintenance, but there's also a cost implication to the maintenance, and I'll get to that. The maintenance aspect, what are the cost projections? If you look at a life cycle of any roadway, starting with the asphalt here, asphalt section, but typical life cycle of a roadway is between 25, 30 years to a 40 years. So if you look at the entire span, and this is the 40 years, starting with zero all the way to 40, if you maintain it right, you expand that life cycle further on. So if you're maintaining a pavement, you start your first crack ceiling at four years, and then you do a first micro seal and crack seal at eight years, you continue there, and then there is a major overlay, so you go in and reconstruct a major overlay at year 24. And after that, you continue maintaining, and after another 25 years, you'll do a major overlay. So it's never that -- this is a complete life cycle. It's never that you're going to, at some point, hit a point where you have to replace the whole roadway. Because you have efficiently maintained it, you're continually elongating this curve. So this curve continues to go further along. So that's for asphalt. Similar things for concrete. If you continually maintain it, the panels that are failing, the areas that are failing in damage, you renew them, they become brand new. So you're continually maintaining it. It's the whole life cycle. So that's what I want to emphasize. At no point will be a point where, oh, after 40 years, now I have to go and spend another $2 million to replace the whole pavement. No, that's not -- since we're doing this preventive maintenance and maintaining, it's like a vehicle. If you're maintaining and servicing right, you continue to prolongate and elongate the life cycle of that. So that's what this chart shows you. And based on these life cycle costs, typical average annual maintenance cost over the 40-year life cycle of an asphalt pavement is about a little over $6,000. Similarly, average annual maintenance cost for concrete is slightly higher since you have to do full-depth replacements. It's a little over $11,000. So based on the existing width of the roadway segments that are being proposed and the lengths of the roadway segments being proposed, the total cost for maintaining these roadways, it's an annual average. So as I mentioned in these graphs, you won't hit the maintenance until the first few years are gone. But if you annualize that over the 40-year cycle, these are the costs, so we're talking about $450,000. Yeah, excuse me, Preeti, I'm on the concrete slide. Why is the 10% panel replacement in year '36 so much greater than in year '20? So what is happening is in year '20, you're replacing 10% of the panels, but you're not doing anything to the base, so you're not looking at other issues that are going on. In year '36, you're looking at the whole structural integrity. There are sections that have started caving in, and you're looking at a larger segment. So even though you're just replacing 10%, you're replacing the worst 10% and going deeper. Thank you. One last thing on this slide is before we take over, we are working closely with TxDOT, and they have agreed to rehabilitate and/or reconstruct all the segments up to our standards or better in order to -- for us to take it back. So we won't be receiving any of these facilities that are in poor condition. We won't be inheriting any of the issues that are currently out there. So we'll work with TxDOT the way the agreement will be written. They will rehabilitate. They have maintenance dollars tied to some of these segments already. They have maintenance dollars tied to Elm and Locust segments between 380 and Eagle. They have maintenance dollars on Dallas Drive as well. So if you look at the summary of all these different segments, the longest segment is obviously the first segment by the UNT campus on the north side. It's 3.7 miles. It's a concrete segment. Expected turn back -- these are some of the expected turn back dates according to TxDOT. But the thing is, since they already have some of these dollars for maintenance to move forward the minute council says, okay, it's okay, the city's ready to turn them back, then they'll go ahead and award contract for maintaining and adding, you know, any sidewalk improvements that are needed. So just based on the curves that we looked at previously, the maintenance wouldn't begin until 2028 for this particular segment. And then it will be incremental. It won't be all at the same time. Finally we have sidewalk on one side. This is something that is really important. When we take over a facility, we're talking about the whole facility as a whole. We're looking at what kind of pedestrian infrastructure we're going to get. What kind of safety issues that -- so we're talking about lighting as well. As you know, majority of the TxDOT roadways do not have lighting. It is something that TxDOT does not do is provide street lighting. And so as part of these projects, TxDOT is not willing to invest any money in the lighting, but they're willing to go ahead and if the city decides to invest some money, they'll go and hire a contractor and get it up to our requirements and then hand it over. So they're willing to work with us. While they do their maintenance, they will be willing to add some lightings, add some sidewalks. Really on the segment of Elm and Locust, they are currently improving sidewalks. They have a project and money is tied to a contract that will upgrade all the existing sidewalks. They're starting with Elm today or very soon and then work on Locust at a later date. But they will be ADA-compliant sidewalks replacing all the panels, making them ADA-compliant and up to our standards. So that's something that's ongoing. There's still no lighting at this point, but they're willing to work with us. And then as you can see, there are some sidewalks in some of these segments, but there always is negotiation available with TxDOT and they're willing to work on the sidewalk aspect of all these facilities. As I mentioned, FM428, we don't have any costs here as far as maintenance because we already do that maintenance. And then 1515 is a future roadway that will be brand new. And so we don't have the cost estimates at this point. So options, these are the options, approve the proposed roadway segments for turning back and/or provide the staff direction. So we heard this in mobility this morning and my direction is still the same. To proceed and go forward but cautiously with what Mr. Polster had told us with the resolutions and the concerns he had with the other city, just so that our resolution is specific for projects and not general and there's date certain and things that it's where when that resolution is passed, TxDOT just doesn't say here you can have the street back without fixing anything. So that's still my direction and I'm in favor of moving forward with this. I do have one question though on 1515 because we had talked about a roundabout there. So is that still part of the design that TxDOT is going to implement before we take that back or is that something that we'll put in after? No, correct. You're right. The roundabout has been incorporated into the design and they will construct it before giving it back to us. Okay. And the roundabout is at western. Okay. Thank you. So I approve and along the lines of what Council Member Briggs said, I'm not on the mobility committee but that makes a lot of sense. It sounds like kind of like, you know, buying a house when you're buying a house and there are some problems and you want to make sure that so but anyway but I assume that you're on that and that legal is on that. I was wondering if you could speak a little bit to kind of how and I know you already have to some extent about the criteria for choosing these roads to take back and but if you could speak to what extent did pedestrian and bike problems have to do with this selection and I'll mention as you're answering that as an example, so Teasley, right, which is in front of Sam Houston and also you can show schools in there, you know, when for kids our smallest pedestrians, you know, as you know, you know, that's one of the issues that I had really, well, y'all had really worked well with a kid at the school who came out, who had addressed the city and went down there and looked at the issues and so many and the solutions were clear but the big obstacle was text dot, you know, we could do this but it's text dot road, we could do that but it's a text dot road and this is true about so many pedestrian safety issues and I know you know that very well so yeah, how do you, if you could just kind of speak to that and again, and just to make clear, I'm not saying that no unless Teasley is on there, I'm just genuinely wondering because I know you're concerned about these issues too, you know, why isn't Teasley on there? So there are a couple things as I started alluding to the reason, I'll go back to the map, but the reason that these are, this is our primary target is the original intent for this particular segment was to be the regional connector. It was the highway back in the day before 35 was implemented. Now it's pretty much a local roadway with local traffic. It's not intended for regional use and that's why these are primary and it's within our loop, this is our main core of the city and within the core of the city you can see that these are the primary arms and legs that we need to take over. I think this is a start. If in the future council wants to look at other roadways like Teasley, then there is always an option, but this was primarily selected just based on low volume and regionally it doesn't become a connection. As for Teasley, it passes through a couple cities and connects the freeway so it goes through Corinth all the way to 35E as well. Okay, well thank you. That makes sense and I would definitely, as you know, would like us to, would like this to come forward and I think all council members should consider this and in the future and we'll see how this works out, but I'm really happy. It feels like a no-brainer to me. Thank you. Definitely not a no-brainer for me. As I recall back, way back to when we saw this at 9 o'clock this morning, I like all the soft benefits. No question. I just, I'm unsure whether I like them $450,000 a year worth and I think if we could quantify some of the benefits so we could see like is it, can we get close, then it might feel good about saying okay, worth the delta to get the very real soft benefits. For instance, less approval time, you know, going through the state that has real financial consequences. Also, the state is offering up things they would do if we would take these off their hands if they're incremental to what they would ordinarily do, right? Presumably, they're supposed to maintain the roads anyway, but if it's sidewalks and things that have real value to us, you know, we could compare those, but you know, that even if, I don't know what our cost of capital is, but $450,000 every year at something like $15 million present value, I mean, I think it's possible, you could imagine a world where we had them, had the roads already, and you might be presenting to us, the state will maintain them and it'll save us $450,000 a year. We might find that very appealing. So I would like to see how close we can get on that quantitative analysis. On the other hand, if they're willing to say, take these roads off our hands and we'll give you other forms of local control too, I might be interested. So I know that we, the chart you showed us a little while ago, that we don't anticipate actually having maintenance costs for some of these roads for some period of time, not next budget year, not the one after that, but some period of time. Do we have a plan or an idea where the additional, you know, almost half a million dollars on average a year? Is that just kind of something we're going to have to consider in future budgets? We're hoping that our growth curve continues and eat some of that? I think that's exactly the issue and the concern. Elm and Locust may make a little bit more sense since they cut right through the community, right through the downtown area, and if there is a strong argument made for control, it's there, but yeah, you're right. We probably could have doubled the roadway referendum this year, and I'm not sure we would be able to catch up yet. So that is a, that's a real concern. I don't want to overplay either the impact that we can have on speed limits and that sort of thing. We still follow the federal impute TCD standards. So it may, we may be talking in between a 35 and a 30 mile an hour. So there's some of those soft benefits that, that they're real, but I'm not sure how huge they are. I think the incremental funding down the road, especially after this last year when if you start seeing growth slow and we're tax capped, this could become a problem. And I would probably start with a couple of these and sort of, you know, one of the things I've liked that Todd and Preeto have done is built an extremely beefy cross sections, which I'm not sure most cities would do, you know, which is going to really delay the amount of time that you've got to go in and rebuild them, but yeah, I think if that is the argument to being very slow and kind of integrating these into a five or 10 year lookout in terms of, you know, just basic growth rates, that sort of thing, because you don't want to put yourself in a position where you're going to referendum to rebuild these before existing rows that need work. And that's exactly the kind of scenario that could happen if you take them all on at the same time. I have a follow up to that and it kind of ties with something you just mentioned. You talked about design to pretty beefy cross sections and let's take Locust as an example. If as part of the agreement and the resolution that we pass, TxDOT is going to at this segment between 380 and the loop, Locust is going to be, or let's just make it up to the split, Locust is going to be repaired or reconstructed in places, any of that. How much can we build into that? I mean, you mentioned that they're going to work with us on the sidewalks. How much direction do we have into what is actually happening? We say city standards and we define what those are in the resolution or city standards, there are our handbook for our own roads, like how does that work? So based on the discussions we've had with TxDOT, we can build that into our agreement. The resolution is just an understanding, city's willing to look at taking these overs. You don't have to take them over until there's an agreement that's signed between the city and the state. Within that agreement, you can stipulate that these roads will be built to our city standards and then we'll accept them back. They currently have dollars tied to it. They're going to maintain them. They're going to reconstruct Elm and Locust particularly with their dollars and that's why you can see right now we're working on the utility segments for the first half between downtown and EGLE, we're relocating all the utilities and the state comes in and redos all of the pavement completely. So we have control over the cross-sections and we can spell that in the agreement. I'm in favor I think of a phased approach. The chart that we saw in the last slides kind of gets us there. Maybe even stretch that out a little bit. I like some of the timeline you've got there, the things that are, I think we need to probably stretch that out a little bit further even from my comfort level. I think with the focus on the interior streets, Elm and Locust in particular and Preetam and Todd know my interest in Elm and Locust and having local control over Elm and Locust and some of the flexibility we'd have there, but I think there's benefits to focusing on those two first and then kind of rolling us into the future. Okay. I'm going to reiterate a couple of items that I spoke about, mobility this morning and one of those is to make sure that the agreement is based on events and not on dates. I think that's what ITS's biggest concern was with another city was that they did a date in there and TxDOT had not fixed the road yet and just turned it back over to them. And then the other item of concern is Bonnie Brafe, Phase 7, that they are going to do between 77 and Loop 288, do that connection point, and they're doing it because these are on-system roads and if they haven't gotten started on this and it becomes an off-system road, then there's a chance that they could end up backing out on that. So those are my concerns on those. We'll definitely include that in our agreement. So I'm assuming, John, his advice was to have these built to our standards, we don't accept them until we've actually signed off on all the work and met the requirements, so it wasn't date-based? That was the one component, but his issue on Bonnie Brafe is typically they have federal funding coming in and they have to tie in state facilities. If we take it off-system, that's no longer a state facility, and that's a concern. Okay. All right, so, May 4th, 2010. I think I align myself with Councilmember Davis on the focus on Elm and Locust primarily. I really wouldn't entertain Airport Road until we know what 35W is going to do. I just think it's too important to have that fully solidified before we even begin to talk about that segment. As much as I'd like to see that done, I just think there's just too much that's going to happen in that stretch and not understanding the timing or not having a kind of nailed-down plan. Obviously, in your chart, it captures that, but I agree with that. Councilmember Briggs? Yeah, so if we're going to do a phased approach, then Elm and Locust for sure, because Locust needs to be redone. There's a lot of opportunity there. I think that we can work with. The reason why I'm in favor of taking these back is there's a lot of confusion with our residents of who owns what, and we get complaints or requests and we just forward them on, and then we kind of lose control, right? We don't have control over what happens after that, but I would like to ask Council to, since we are already paying and maintaining Sherman, that that be included, because it's not going to be an additional cost, because it's already included in our cost, and that could help us as we look to do the speed limit there, because there's a lot of speeding on Sherman or add another light at a certain intersection. So I just don't want that one to get ignored. And then on Dallas Drive, I brought this up, and this was a request I made a while ago, was for all the polls on Dallas Drive, and Councilmember Ryan asked, well, when we talk about redoing that, we should look at maybe putting those utilities under the road. And so I know that if Dallas Drive is going to get pushed off and it's not something we're looking into, maybe we have a little bit more time to look at that option in the future. To underground the utilities along Dallas? Right. Over the 120 polls or whatnot that are up there. I think we've actually got those numbers. I'm pretty sure we do. We can dig those out. It was several million dollars to underground those, but if that's something the Council wants to do with enough planning and time, we can do it. So just so I understand, and I'm fading fast, so I'm either going to make it through this meeting or I'm not. So when we talk about Almond Locust, because I get confused with US 77, all these numbers. So what we're talking about, the first three, or the first two, Almond Locust is from 35. If you show the map again, just so that we all, so I can refresh my memory. Okay. It's coming from, it's the red, coming from there all the way to, so that's the first two on your chart of costs. So the first two is, one is this segment up to 380, and then 2,164 is Locust. Okay. So those are the first two segments. All right. So if you go back to your cost chart. So when we talk about Almond Locust, I don't think we're really talking about that part of Almond Locust. No. We're talking about from 380 moving north, I mean moving south through the square onto Dallas Drive and all that, and those two sections are this right here. Number three and four. Number three and four. So I'm confused. Maybe you can help me with this, Council Member Davis. So you're talking about the segments, you're talking about the interval approaches, which ones? The first two on here? So after the mention of Sherman Drive, I think phase one would be Sherman Drive and south of 380, and then a future phase two or two and three would be north of 380, especially because we've got the Bonnie Bray issue where if we take 77 off their catalog, then we maybe they lose out on some funding and we don't get our thing constructed. So we're talking about there, we're talking about the FM 428 to Luke 288. That's the Sherman Drive one. Is that correct? Is that the Sherman Drive one right there? Yeah. Well, we don't have a cost on that yet, right? Well, we already maintain it, so it would no cost you. So they're just going to turn it over without doing anything to it? Yes. Okay. And then so the other two are the $48,000 and the 77, oh wait, no, the 770. So the $150,000. Correct. Is that right? Mm-hmm. Okay. So we still have to find $150,000. Mm-hmm. Looking forward. It's just a matter of, yeah. And I'm okay with that. Yeah. Council Member Nelson. You know, I think Council Member Brink's point is very salient to me that, and this is all going to become a question to you, do we get anything from the state for today in exchange for 428 and 1515 being stayed now since we maintain them? What does the state do for us? Does it create obstacles? So the way the agreement is written, the control is actually maintained by the state. The state has control over these facilities. We maintain them as far as crack ceiling and the asphalt pavement on FM 428. Yeah. So we maintain it. So what does the state do? So state maintains control of access and maintains control of driveway connections, roadway improvements. Does that help us? Mm-hmm. If you ask me to-- No, okay. So why wouldn't we, since we're paying to maintain them anyway, just relieve them of the responsibility of creating obstacles? Right? Why not just take those? Well, I don't understand why you wouldn't do those. The others, you know, I mean, you're talking about a dog park every 16 months of expense. So at least there's something to think about there. But what's even there to think about on the last two? Yes, 1515, we don't-- is still a state facility. So we don't-- so Sherman Drive, we maintain. 1515 is a farm to market that we don't maintain. Okay. So we do have on-- We don't have them on the books yet. But then also 1515 is going to be completely redesigned, reconstructed. So for me, putting that one out a little bit, it's the one that's the least concerned. If the-- everybody who's trying to get a driveway out there is a Peterbilt or a US cold storage or a sophisticated actor, having text art in our backyard there is less of a concern for me. I may have misunderstood 1515, but my question still stands for 428, is what is-- what is the downside to even consider on that one? So you're saying include it with those two in the first phase, those three? Or-- Orman? Orman Locust? I would just say if you're going to do anything, do that because there's no downside. Okay. So, all right. Because I'm-- I mean, I still stand on, you know, my original position which is you've got to quantify the benefits before you show me that, you know, this is a-- that I wouldn't prefer, you know, the offer the other way, you know, okay. So what I'm hearing, let's put this on the table first, is Sherman Drive and then the Orman Locust, the ones that you have outlined in red, all right, and what would be called the phase two and you'll come back-- or phase one, you'll come back and give us some other direction on the other ones. Correct. All right. So do we have our council members? I don't think Council Member Meltzer, you would agree with that, but-- all right. What are other council members' thoughts on that? Okay. Council Member Briggs, I'm seeing you in affirmative, is that correct? Council Member Ryan? Yeah. I'm fine with that. One of the benefits that was mentioned this morning at the meeting is the fact that these-- they're going to do the repairs for these roads now before we take them over and it may be many, many years before they do the repairs if we leave it on system. Sure. Sure. Okay. Council Member Davis, you'll go with that. Mayor Pro Tem. All right. Is that the-- the 428, has that been built to our standards or will it be? It's currently not. It's-- When you say begin maintenance, it's ongoing? It's an ongoing. It's been-- we've been maintaining that for a long time. So we're taking over-- they'd be giving us a road that's not built to our standards currently? Well, but we're maintaining it already. Well, I know, but part of the-- I guess my point is, part of the negotiation with these turnbacks is you get them to go in, redo the base, and build it-- build it the way we would want it built. Yeah, we can ask. And I think that-- I think that'd be the only caveat is, before you do that, if you get two and a half miles of road, it doesn't meet our standards right now, so I just don't think that's wise. I get the PR value, and I totally agree with you, but I would just say with that caveat that they'd build it to our standards, so we're not maintaining it any sooner than we need to. Well, okay. That-- it doesn't look like this one is on the-- on the slate for them to rebuild. So we're saying we would take that off and say, "We'll only take it over if you rebuild it." Yes, that's-- Is that what I'm hearing? Okay, well, we're-- I don't-- I wouldn't take anything over from them unless they-- unless they rebuild it. Okay. But then we just go with the first two. You give yourself 10 years of time to plan. Okay. I mean, I think we need an answer on that question. Okay. What we need an answer on is, okay, we know we've got the first two. Correct. The 77,000 and the 78,000. Right. There's been some question or some suggestion made that we should go ahead and take over Sherman Drive now because we're already maintaining it and therefore what we get is the control over all those other peripheral issues that you discussed. Speed limit, curb cuts, all these other things. City manager brought up that, "Hey, do we want to do that or do we want to go back to them and ask them, 'Hey, we'll take this over if you will bring it up to our standards or rebuild it and we'll take it over at some date certain-- date certain.'" Is that my understanding of what the real question is? We've already got the two so that's the question on Sherman Drive. I think we need an answer at least. Will they do that? Will they entertain it? You know, because that's really the benefit to them with all these turn backs to get it off their books. Okay. So I think we just need an answer on whether we really have any negotiating authority there. So we've got the two and maybe we can put that to an answer for them and if they say, "No, we're not going to do it," then we'll come back and revisit this question. Okay. We'll ask the question definitely. Council Member Riggs. Right. Well, my comment wasn't necessarily not for them to do what they needed to do, just that it's already allocated in our budget yearly for maintenance. So if that was one of the reasons why individuals were pushing the roads down not to accept them was because of the maintenance, we're already assuming that cost. I would-- I would like for them to bring it up to our standards but I'm just saying we're already paying for that maintenance. That shouldn't be a reason why we postpone that one any further. Okay. We'll definitely ask the question and then we'll assess what the payment is. Council Member Archer. Yeah. I feel like-- I mean, if I'm understanding it correctly that the cost, you know, to us would be more if we took it before the-- yeah, so that's why-- and I had-- I guess I misunderstood. I had kind of assumed from the beginning that-- yeah, that this was the plan. So anyway, so it does make sense to me for that reason. You know, again, it's-- yes, we are paying something but it would be even more if we had to do the-- again, kind of like selling a house, you know. You're paying to keep up your house but then if you had to completely redo everything to make it perfect before the next person buys it, that's why this-- I just assumed this is what we were talking about from the beginning. So one question, maintenance is one thing. So we're maintaining it. If it gets to the point where we believe and under anybody's standards, text dots, ours, anybody's, that road needs to be replaced. If it stays the status quo as it is now, who does that? So it would be a text dot facility and I'll have to look at the agreement exact language of who is responsible. That's the key here. The city is owned by text dot, which means-- Yeah, that's the key is we're talking about maintenance and all this. We're already doing maintenance. The question is when the road deteriorates to a point that it needs to be rebuilt according to our current agreement, who pays for that? Because if text dot pays for that according to our current agreement, then you're right. We shouldn't-- we should wait until it just deteriorates and then talk about it because they're going to have to fix it anyway but we don't want to assume that liability of replacement if we don't already have it. So I think that's an important question. Yeah. All right. Okay. So it sounds like we've got direction for those two in red, not the FM-428 as far as consensus. All right. Is that the direction you need? Yes. Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Appreciate it. All right. We'll move on to agenda item. I can't remember last time we took a break. Well, hopefully we'll get through this pretty quick. Agenda item 3E, receive a porthole discussion and give staff direction regarding the creation of a bond oversight committee to monitor, evaluate, and report on the progress of bond election capital improvement programs. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council, David Gaines, Director of Finance. This item is a continuation of the conversation that Council had at the work session last week on the 3rd and brought back some of the requests for information that Council had as far as the attendance records for the 2014 bond committee over the past-- oversight committee over the past three years, in addition, the 2019-- the attendance records for each of the meetings in the 2019 Special Citizens Bond Advisory Committee. So just to recap what we're looking at is the establishment of a bond oversight committee and those are a committee that we form to meet on a quarterly basis to review project status, issuance schedules of projects associated with our bond programs. Our 2014 bond committee not only reviews the 2014 bond programs but also the 2012 and the continuation of the 2005 program. So the new committee that we would form, our recommendation would be to have one committee that review the status of the 2019 bond program but also the close out of the 2012 and 2014 programs as well. If you recall, last week our recommendation, our initial recommendation at least for discussion by Council was a seven-member committee composed of the five current members plus the chair and co-chair from the 2019 Special Citizens Bond Advisory Committee but obviously it's at Council's discretion and we can go with any formation of the committee number of members. The discussion last week was to have seven members at least that was the tentative direction given and a discussion on how we comprise those is what is before you today. So they're obviously very high level and you have the information as far as the attendance records and we can answer any questions that you may have. So I wasn't here last time. So it sounds like the consensus was the number seven members but there wasn't a consensus on who should make up that seven. Was there, I mean was it a three for one, three for the other, was it all just sort of peppered with different, do you recall? It was somewhat scattered. I think there definitely was some, wanted to see the feedback on the attendance, wanted to understand of those seven members who was interested or not interested. I can say I've talked to six of them and they are all interested. There's one member of the 2014 Bond Oversight Committee who I haven't heard back from yet so I'm not sure if she's interested in participating right now. Alright, discussion. That's a member of Davis. So I think I'd like to go with, I've had a chance to review the attendance records and knowing that six of the seven people we're talking about have replied in the affirmative that they want to either continue on or the chair and co-chair from this year's bond committee going on, then I would reiterate what I said last time which is I'd like to sub out the person we haven't heard back from and replace them with Eric Pruitt, would be my preference. Okay, so you're saying that's the one name that wasn't known, I think you mentioned it last time, but you're saying the six people who have said yes and then we haven't heard from someone to put that, to put Mr. Pruitt in the place of that person we hadn't heard and that comprises the seven from. Yeah. That's right. Okay. Council Member Meltzer. We have all the information. I think if six council members each want to pick someone who's on that list, you end up with that result. But I would favor allowing us each to nominate someone from the pool of people who've been on the bond committee. Okay. Alright. Council Member Romter. Yeah, and I agree with, you know, Council Member Meltzer. I think that if we each pick one person, then, and we would still have to, as I understand it, we'd still have to vote on the whole, so if anybody has any issues with anybody else's choice, you know, that could be under discussion, but see who everybody picks. And as long as they are on those, the, either they were from the recent bond committee or the previous, you know, the previous, I'm fine with that. I much prefer that to just kind of, you know, recycling the previous committee. This is a nice, nice mixed approach. Anybody else? I have, I guess my question is, one, it's not my preference, but just in case we get there, my preference is I'll align my kind of thoughts with Council Member Davis. I do have a great deal of respect for Eric Pruitt, so I'm comfortable with that. My question becomes, have we, has everyone on this list, Mr. City Manager, gone through the new vetting? I know they served, but there's one in particular I have a question, because we've not, my understanding, we've not nailed down an address. And so I think we need, if we get there, we'd have to, I'd press that issue. And that's one of the six that have said in the affirmative, or that's just somebody who's on the bond committee? That's somebody who was on the previous bond committee, yeah. I'm okay with the proposal as proffered by Council Member Davis and sort of affirmed by Mayor Pro Tem, I think that's just right. Council Member Ryan? I'm okay with that as well. Okay, so sounds like, so just to summarize, it's the six who have already spoken in the affirmative that they would be willing to serve. The one that has not returned, gotten back to you, would substitute Eric Pruitt for that, so that would comprise our seven bond oversight committee, 2019 bond oversight committee, which would look at the 2019, 2014, and 2012 sort of, okay. Okay, Council Member Briggs? Can you say the names of all these people, please, so we know who we're talking about? So as constituted, it would be Brandy Robinson, Tim Crouch, Brandon McCluskey, Janet Shelton, Pat Smith, Susan Parker, and then Eric Pruitt would be the seventh at this point. So my recommendation would be that, it doesn't look like I have majority here, but for five men and two female, I would prefer that Council get to nominate. Okay, Council Member Amjur? Yeah, I mean, I think if we each nominate, it leads to more other kinds of diversity as well, including gender diversity, Council Member Briggs mentioned, and just to reiterate what I mentioned last time, that I predict, and I might be wrong, but I predict that when the news comes out that we reappointed the same bond advisory committee that oversaw the previous bond, that it won't have a good look for the public, that people will look and see, and I hope I'm wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but that people will question, given that all that went wrong with previous bonds, you know, why we're having the same committee, and I'll add, as I mentioned last time, I do not fault the people who are on that committee for mistakes made by previous staff who aren't here. So I want to make that clear, I'm sure people will accuse me of that anyway, but I do not fault the members of that committee. In fact, if I had been on that committee, I would also say myself that, you know, I don't think that we should replicate the same committee. What I'm recommending is a mix of, which I think would be a mix of old and new, given where people have stood. If I really thought that previous committee was the problem, I would say nobody from that committee should be on it, but I definitely don't think that. Okay, any changing of position based upon comment? Okay. All right. I think we have direction on that. We'll bring this back on the 17th. Agenda item 3F, Receive Report, Hold Discussion, Give Staff Direction Regarding the Vision Zero Roadway Traffic Safety Initiative. This is the one we saw last time with the posting that didn't give direction, so this should be a very, very quick. Very quick. Okay. All right. No. Okay. All right. It's three slides. All right. So quick recap of what we saw about Vision Zero and then Council Direction overview of the presentation. So we presented, we were back last week on December 3rd. The whole concept of what Vision Zero is was presented in front of Council. The published agenda did not have a caption. It didn't include the part, provide direction to staff. So we're here now to receive direction. Some of these options are establish a Vision Zero goal and a commitment from Council, develop a Vision Zero action plan, and then create a Vision Zero tab. These are some of the recommendations from staff that we need direction from Council. And I think that's it. That's the last slide. I think we got a good presentation last week. If anybody's curious about what we're talking about, go watch last week. I think you should do those things on that slide. Wow. Can I say that one more time? I think if anybody's curious what we're talking about, they should go back and watch last week's presentation. It had roundabouts and traffic lights and all sorts of great stuff, and we should do this stuff on the slide. Okay. So you're saying you would be in favor. Okay. Yes, Council Member Briggs. I am also in favor. All right. Is there anybody not in favor? Okay. All right. You have your direction. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll move on to our last agenda for the work session, is agenda item 3G. Receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction on pending City Council request for plug gas wells and pro bono scientific setback study. Hold on a second. Oh, go ahead, Sue, I'm sorry. I was looking at the clock and thinking, yeah. It's all right. All right. Good afternoon. Stuart Berzai, assistant to the city manager. I am here for our weekly City Council pending request for information work session. Just a reminder of kind of the process here. The requesting council member will have one minute to present their idea. The other elected officials will have one minute to respond to that, indicate consensus for staff to move forward and give direction there. Our first item came from council member Melcher. It is for plug gas wells. The request is there. There's information from staff here. There's also kind of expanded previous research that they've conducted in the backup, so. Okay. My name is Paul Meltzer, I reside in 1914 West Oak Street. These are actually two items that flow from our discussion of setbacks that came up. One was plugged wells, and my request would be to just gather what the safety and health risks are based on the current literature, and to see whether that gives us guidance for any regulatory protections that might be needed. Secondly, we are sidelining a lot of land with setbacks, and I wonder if there are uses that we might have created zoning obstacles to that thinking about it. For instance, just an example, could be solar farms, could be wind farms. Things that could be done in land that wouldn't be great to have people on all the time. And I would just ask for whether staff could assist in identifying those land uses and whether there are regulatory obstacles that we could conceivably consider clearing. All right, okay, Councilmember Davis. So I'm very interested in the first part, the setbacks for plugged wells, and how do you mark those on that big tall flagpole that's got a flag on it that says here lies a dead gas well. I'd be fine with that. But the second part, I think, we already kind of have some land uses kind of spelled out. We have protected uses that are prohibited inside of the setbacks, but I think it just takes a little bit of digging in the code. So maybe if there's a way to just kind of compile the stuff you're still allowed to do or point us to the right code sections, that may not be a whole work session. So I don't think we need a work session on that. If I kind of originally understood the request, I guess I was wrong as to incentives related to plugged wells, you know, what can you do with your land that's now available because you plugged your well? If you get your density bonuses and that kind of stuff, I'd be okay with that topic, but that's not, I guess, as I understand it now, what you want to talk about. So I'm all about the plugged wells topic, but the second topic, I think, is already in our code. I support this request. You support both of them? Yeah. Yes, I support both. I support the entire request. We need to maybe not make two requests in one, but Council Member Briggs. Yeah, yeah, I support this, and I feel like it could go into my request as well. Okay, anybody else? All right. So it sounds like there's a direction on the request for a work session regarding the risks and appropriate public protections regarding plugged wells, but the other one does not seem to have the, yeah, all right, okay. Yes, sir. Our second request today, as was foreshadowed just a second ago, came from Council Member Briggs. It's a request to engage with a pro bono scientific research group, and I will mention that in the Friday report this past week, there was an informal staff report with some background information about the project, and that didn't make it into the agenda backup because it had to be submitted kind of concurrently. Okay. All right. So I hope everyone did get a chance to read the Friday report and the backup. So I am asking Council to agree to apply for a pro bono scientific setback study here in Denton with our local geography, which has been mentioned before in conversations about setbacks. I met Natasha at NLC and learned of projects that Thriving Earth Exchange has done, and they can help you leverage science to advance your community's goals. They offer individual consultations, project design, management service, all pro bono, and match with vetted volunteer scientists who has the technical and collaborative skills to help carry out successful project in communities where opposing perspective exists on an issue, and they can provide unbiased recommendations. So I feel like there is a lot of other things that I can read on this, but we have had conversations about setbacks back and forth, what's safe, and I thought this may be -- Okay. Oh, sorry. I'm done. Councilmember Archer. Yeah. So I think this is a great idea, and I just want to underscore pro bono means free. It means free, and also this is a study, and so it doesn't commit us to -- as I understand it from what I read, to anything except having the study done. So the study could be done, and then you could decide, "I don't want to do anything with this information." But so we would be rejecting a free study with free information, no strings attached. We don't have to do anything. I'd be curious to know if anybody -- why anyone would have an objection to that. Councilmember Davis. So I support having a work session on this. The -- my sole concern right now really is pro bono is free, but that doesn't mean that staff time is not accounted for, the interaction with staff and GIS and all that kind of stuff. But I think it'd be great to hear about it and find out what they can do for us and find out their willingness to work with TECQ and all that good stuff. Oh, man. Councilmember Malesvier. That's good. The last quote we had on the study was $2 million, so that seems -- if we could get that value for the price of pro bono, that sounds worth hearing about. I'm not quite sure I understand what the TCEQ reference is. We're not governed in setbacks by TCEQ. It's got to meet our requirements, but maybe we'll hear more about that in a work session. Okay. Anybody else? Yes. Yeah. No, I'd be happy to have the work session to explore free, because -- I mean, absolute free, like no travel, no staff, no -- I mean, I just want to understand -- everyone's throwing around free, and -- right, and I'm intrigued, so I'd like to -- I'll test that theory. Yeah. Okay. All right. It sounds like that that's moving forward. All right. Okay. Fantastic. That concludes, I believe, our -- workshops, yeah, my mind just -- all right. We're going to save the closed session for last, because we've got staff here, and we've only have, I think, our open session -- or special call meetings, only the consent agenda and Concordia items. So we will adjourn the work session portion of our agenda, and now what we will do is take formal action and call to order this special call meeting of the Denton City Council on December the 10th, 2019 at 428. Our agenda is as follows. We've got consent agenda and concluding items. Staff is pulled. Our only agenda for agenda items 2A. And so chair would entertain action on the consent. Councilmember Briggs? I move approval of the consent agenda. Councilmember Davis? Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Will the consent agenda please vote signified by raising your right hand? Vote is unanimously. Moving on to now our last agenda item for the special call meeting is concluding items. Concluding items. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. Let's see. December 12th, 4 p.m., county court -- 211th county court. There's a drug court graduation. So those that have never attended that, that's really good. I think that's Judge Shanklin's court. When is that again? That's the 12th this week, 4 p.m., and that's the 211th. And then on the 14th at 11 a.m. out in Pilot Point, there's the soil collection ceremony and that's put together by the remembrance group. It's Doc Treat and some other folks there have put together an event there in Pilot Point. And then on the 17th, 1030, there's the runway grand opening there at the Dinton Municipal Airport. So I look forward to that and seeing that. And then the 17th as well, that evening, 630, LULAC has their holiday party at La Milpa. Okay. Good. All right. Any more concluding items? And I really appreciate you mentioning the drug court graduation because that's quite a moving event and how people's lives can be changed. Okay. I don't see anyone else requesting concluding items. So we will now adjourn our special call meeting at 430. And I will now, we will now convene in close session, consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code Section 551.071. Is that the only government code section that we are convening close session about? All right. So we will now be in close session.