Jan 28, 2020 City Council on 2020-01-28 11:00 AM

Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Dent City Council on Tuesday, January 28th, 2020. It is 1102 a.m. We do have a quorum. I'll call this meeting to order. Notice that Councilmember Ryan is absent at this time. I expect him later on in the day. We'll go through our work session item reports or work session. Item one citizen comments on consent agenda items. Any citizen comments? Okay, I request for clarification of agenda items listed on this agenda. Councilmember Briggs. Sorry. One one request or question I have is about tonight's meeting. I do know that the public hearing is at the very bottom under items for individual consideration, and I expect a really large turnout tonight. Is there a way to move that up before so that we can hear the people speak? Yeah, let me. The way I'm planning on doing this is we're holding that public meeting at 6 30. If we're not finished, we'll wrap around any agenda items that we have not completed to follow the public hearing. But it's 6 30. We're starting on time with that public hearing. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I still have a few. Yes, go ahead. Sure. On item G. I would just want to confirm that the staff name is all that's changing. Is that on consent or which one is the text pool? Local government funds. As I read in the backup, it was just that it was staff that had left. And so we're just adding a different name. My understanding that is the case is just to make changes based on organizational folks that have moved on. Okay. And the next one is item K, the installation of 12 vertical gas wells out at the landfill. I would like someone to explain that to me a little bit because I thought we were flaring currently at a large rate because we were making too much gas and there's not enough power to put it out. And so if we're adding more, where's the gas going to go? Where's my question? Good question. I had the same one morning. Brian Burnett, director of solid waste. And you're correct. We are currently flaring existing gas for about 200 SCFM short of being able to bring on another electric generator. So what this will do, it'll get us closer to that mark currently under state and federal regulations were required to manage the methane that the landfill produces. And part of that process is installing these wells and managing that material. So this is part of a compliance effort for our existing permit. Yes, go ahead. Okay. So but with all of these well, the extra gas wells that are drilled, the gas is still going to be short of another generator. So will you be flaring more? And how much currently we are about 200 SCFM short reliable to be able to bring it on another. Gen set at the at the facility. So once the wells are up and running, that will tell us exactly how long or short we are. We anticipate by installing these wells will be right at marginal to be operational on another gen set. And we'll be talking to DTE about bringing that material up. Okay, so this is the process. I'm sorry, Mayor. So this is the process to to continue to install that to reduce the flaring and use this as actual energy production. Correct. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on that? And so you won't. So we don't have an estimate of what these additional wells will produce to get us closer that we have to install them, then decide and then determine how much gas is actually being produced from this this cell that they're being installed. So if we're short, depending on how short we are, if we're close, we might can swing the new equipment based upon negotiations. If we're too short, we got to flare the additional gas until we get closer. Correct. All right. And then for long, obviously, we bring it on. Correct. Thank you. Okay, just real quick. Do y'all have a margin that if you're within so many percent, I mean, do y'all have some kind of goal or benchmark that if it produces so much that you feel you can move forward, even if it's short the 200? Have y'all thought about it? We're just going to wait until see what it produces. Again, DTE, who is our contract provider, this is all in their court. We're required pursuant to the contract to put the wells in and once they're put in, they maintain the system and they manage the gas. So we're working closely with them to beneficially reuse as much gas as possible. But until the wells are in and we get the vacuum drawn, we determine how much gas is being produced. That's one of the answer about putting in the additional effort. Fantastic. Thank you. Did you have a follow up to that? Yeah. So what is the timing of that after the wells are in? What do we know? It will take about a month, 45 days to get all the wells installed and all the headers and hook into the existing system. And then we have to balance the system. So basically it involves it's very technical, but depending on what atmospheric pressure is trying to balance it. Well, so that they do produce, we're not getting too much oxygen in the system. That usually takes anywhere from about 90 days to six months. And once that happens and and the production stabilizes, then we'll be able to make that call. because my mark did you have any more items for clarification I do okay go ahead unless there was another follow-up for question for this agenda item all right yes it might be for you as well yes item L yes I wanted to know if this was had anything to do with the item that we just talked about and I also want to know who had the contract before and does this include soil testing as well or just water testing this is just groundwater testing these are two completely different well types but again they are both required for compliance with our permit the current operator is Solulent which is the the person that we're recommending to apply this contract to they've been doing our well testing for a number of years they're familiar with the system they've got all the background data in their their operations so that as we report to the state on a quarterly and semi-annual basis we can continue that long-standing tradition of being compliant with the the rules and regulations are set forth by the TCEQ okay all right thank you and and the last one I just would like to pull item R please item R okay good all right any other clarifications Councilmember Meltzer and then we'll go to Mayor Pro Tem yeah I had a couple of clarification questions on Pete but in order to not delay getting to you know the next item on the agenda I think I prefer to just pull that item and have a discussion later so during the regular meeting for an item for individual consideration okay okay I'm a protein piggyback off of that just a heads up when that comes back my question is it doesn't outline a method for council to be updated it says council be updated but I'd like to kind of solidify how that with that how that will be done okay for item P yes sir okay all right and then I'd like to pull item B no presentation needed to serve separate vote B B as in boy and then I'd like a presentation on G just a kind of historical look back on what it what that entails just kind of update so we're pulling G as well well either that or someone's here they can speak to it now that's great okay just want to anybody here for an item G Tony point the chief financial officer so councilmember so text pool is one of our local government investment pools it's just very similar to a mutual fund we utilize that to to to park some of the city's cash rather than have money in our bank we actually put it in one of these local government investment pools we actually have a second one called called tech star because of some of the staff changes that we've had in order for us to to change some of the signers approved signers for text pool text pool requires that we bring that forward to the council for for formal action and so we've had a number of individuals that have exited the organization and this was kind of the time now that we have our team in place to have the appropriate signers and so that's what we're asking the council to do we've used text pool for probably the last 10 years and so it's just another way to diversify where we park our cash certainly as we need cash for for various expenses we bring cash in and out of the bank but certainly eliminates the need to have all that cash in the bank fully collateralized paying fees for that collateralization and so we so we park it in these in these local government pools that's vice yes but I have one oh yeah go ahead sure and so is there well I guess it's two questions it's is that what's kind of our range that we like to to hold there and then I think your point is valid on the fees can you not detail but just kind of overview how it compares to bank fees when when when we need to access it limits on accessing it you know throughout the year that type of thing so so right now we're keeping about 25 million dollars in text pool certainly text pool is giving us a competitive rate compared to what we're earning at the bank which is less than 1% I think text pool right now is hovering about 2% tech star is actually paying a little bit a little bit more but you know we want to avoid the proverbial eggs in one basket and so that's what we have to to local government pools the fees I don't have that off my cuff here but but we do have to pay some additional fees for for the excess collateral that we have we are required by the public funds investment act the collateral act to fully collateralized all of our bank cash that's held overnight and so this this avoids that cost as well thank you sir okay any other clarification on agenda items all right so just to read about I have one we're gonna be pulling agenda item 2a and moving it to next week oh 2b I'm sorry what I say 2a yeah 2b pardon me thank you all for that correction so just to summarize for the consent agenda ensure that we've got it all identified we're going to pull agenda item 1b no presentation is needed from you mayor pro tem is that correct 1b no presentation needed that is correct all right then we're going to pull on our pulling G no we were but we're not now the next one is agenda item P we're pulling for an item for individual consideration and agenda item are we're pulling for an item of individual consideration have I missed anything all right fantastic okay then we will move on I was fixing to say call for a motion and a vote but we're not there yet all right so we've gone through our request for clarification and we'll move now to our work session reports work session 3a is a receiver port hold a discussion and give staff direction on pending City Council requests for looks like we've got two of them monument to women's interracial fellowship and municipal brawn bed good morning mayor and councilmembers from Rachel Bother at Mendoza assistant to the city manager just as a little rehash I'll be introducing the pending work session requests up to seven requests will be reviewed each meeting I'll introduce each one the elected official that made the request will have up to one minute and the remaining elected officials will have then up to one minute to provide feedback and indicate their support and will respond accordingly once those have been reached so moving on to item one monument to women's interracial fellowship councilmember Meltzer and just as a little bit of background we provided the informal staff report that was created back a few weeks ago in the Friday report councilmember okay let's go ahead wait till you set the clock oh is it not working oh there we go okay good do all right you're on okay so you've now had a staff report on the impact of the women's interracial fellowship during the civil rights era in Denton this group which included our former mayor the late Eileen Brock we also have one of the original members here today to hear this request miss Pachik and the account we had didn't even include the story of how they bravely and at personal risk integrated the lunch counters that iconic symbol of the era I now ask you to move forward and direct the public art committee to find a suitable place and manner for lasting memorial to their work a previous generation in Denton erected a monument to their heroes while they were still alive to appreciate the honor the women of the interracial fellowship led by example and taught us to treat each other with equal respect they are true Denton heroes to me and I hope to you as well here in this first council work session since Martin Luther King day let's make sure their brave example of constructive collaboration will be presented to instruct future generations okay all right councilmember breaks I'm extremely in favor of this okay that's a member armature I am too we already have money put aside for public art and I think it's an excellent way to honor some a group that really made a lasting impact here in Denton councilmember Davis very supportive of the idea I think it's a wonderful subject for public art to be memorialized my only question would be as to process if there's a way that if if the work session is designed to instruct or direct the public art committee if they take up the issue and don't need our direction if they're already doing it do we then really need a work session ourselves or do we just do a work session on what they come up with when they come back to it so I just wonder a little bit about process if we can short-circuit you not need to have a work session for the purpose of directing them but instead a work session for the purpose of reviewing what they come up with and acting on it a little quicker that way yeah again this process is difficult to have questions I don't the process question for me is what is a what is the what's the art committee's normal way of deciding what they are going to do and what's in queue so I what do we what are we leapfrogging if and how does that work can we mandate down what they look into and so I have questions about what's in queue how do we mandate down to you know but you have a consensus to move forward and then I can just get my questions offline but that's in order to prioritize what they're working on I need to know what they're working on and if we have the ability to direct what they work on okay I think as I read this the council member requests and I believe what it was from councilmember Meltzer and his comments was to avoid the City Council work session and go straight to the public art committee is my understanding of that and it seems like and if that is correct that is the correct understanding councilmember Davis if if that's it are you part of the the consensus to give direction to go down that process road instead of the other sure it's almost like we're asking them to have a work session instead of us to have a work session okay yeah and I'm I am as well obviously anything that will be recommended will come back to council for some type of feedback or approval we're gonna have to approve that so we're gonna see it at some point and be able to give direction and then they can ask for us to weigh in maybe in the beginning of the process we'll just we'll just leave that in their hands okay all right thank you moving on councilmember Briggs requested a discussion about municipal broadband it's there for you and just as background we included section 12.01 of the city charter that details the need for a vote from the citizens if the city were to take on a new utility time yeah we need to reset the time are we having problems with the remote you just got a hold of your your hand just the right way go ahead so I'm not I'm not gonna pitch this really hard because every one of us knows that there are issues in our community from bad customer service unfair business practices not enough option bad connections outages and businesses as well having those outages and they need reliability to those in your districts that simply just do not have any service at all so we need to talk about municipal broadband community broadband we need to know what we can do and how we can do it if if at all so I'm asking for a work session okay all right Councilmember Melcher so I actually was a broadband executive for 15 years worked for the number nine five three and two cable broadband providers and I can tell you that it's a business that is sort of easy to see what you ought to do and really hard to execute the idea that like the large organizations that have access to all the expertise in the world sort of you know they have trouble getting it right doesn't suggest to me that a municipality can that said if the frontier situation enabled us to acquire the assets the infrastructure at a kind of very deep discount and if we were willing to look at models that included bringing an ISP partner in to operate it say for you know an initial period for five years or something like that then I think it's worth looking at the model so I would support looking at it but I've been just to say it's a very capital intensive business you have to replace most of your head and equipment every five years it's and it's also very labor intensive you think that it's a technological product it's a handcrafted service yeah I could talk about it for a few more I really support having this discussion nowadays it's a it's a public need if it ever once was a luxury I don't think it is anymore that is that access it's a great way to ensure access and also equity in that access I will say you know the the cost is whatever it is it's gonna be high and that is a factor for me but what I like about this is we have this very good provision that says that it has to go to a vote from the public to get a new utility and so it will what if it does come to that is ultimately up to the taxpayers to decide so I would ask that that you know my colleagues consider that when thinking about going forward with the work session I think that's a good thing I agree it's worth we're talking about it's exciting to talk about I agree also with Councilmember Meltzer it's a highly regulated and in difficult industry to operate in the reason why Frontier is going bankrupt is not just that they can't balance their books it's a difficult space to operate in and then also kind of in managing expectations for folks if they're going into a bankruptcy process the likelihood is those assets will be acquired in mass by another large company so we may or may not have exactly the opportunity we want to see out of this but it's absolutely worth talking about and looking at where the opportunities might be yeah I am not optimistic that it fits our profile but we can have the conversation I share the same sentiment I mean we've looked at this before and not in that great a death but it's already difficult enough with some of our enterprise funds that are fairly easy to deliver and administer and we just have to be very careful as a city to take on something that is much more problematic than than what we have in the past so that's worth the conversation all right so we've got direction on those thank you very much agenda item 3b receive a porthole let's see the lunch is ready do y'all want to grab lunch right quick and or move forward let's take about a five minute break we'll grab lunch and then we'll work through the session welcome back to this meeting of the Dent City Council on Tuesday January the 28th year 2020 it's 1130 we're moving back through our work session reports we're on work session 3b receive report hold discussion and give staff direction regarding the 2020 Denton mobility plan update with a focus on the northern area of the city hello thank you mayor council I am Pamela mutual traffic engineer for the city and as you mentioned we are focusing the discussion today on the northern area of the city so we are just gonna focus on the updates for the draft plans for the thoroughfare of the bicycle and pedestrian so let's dive into the draft thoroughfare plan we are focusing in on the northern area and the southern limit is us 380 and on the east is FM 428 Sherman Road so we're gonna focus to the west of that so here is showing a comparison between the 2015 plan map on the left and the draft plan on the right the main changes that we are proposing for this area and what you'll see in common for the other areas outside of the downtown area is that we are including what the county Denton County is showing for their thoroughfare plan and how we're connecting to other cities we are also focusing on kind of creating more of an east-west north-south grid that provides more straight roads not curvilinear similar to the 2015 plan and I'm breaking down the presentation into first we're gonna talk about roads that are updated south of loop 288 and then we're gonna focus on the network east of I-35 and then the west side so here's a close-up of the network inside of the loop 288 there's not much changes it's primarily built out so we have six main updates inside the loop the first one is Thunderbird Drive and Northway so this is a residential area and these roads provide this area connection to both I-35 frontage and Windsor and it's acting as a collector so there's not much traffic on there and we're not proposing any updates to the cross sections we just want to provide to identify the functionality of these roads any questions for this update Thunderbird I mean it's I see that the difference between the two slides is that in the 2015 where it ends it's northernmost point you come across now this way and then you go up is that well is the all the Brown all the Browns not Thunderbird is that correct or is that that segment right there is that Thunderbird where's Thunderbird yes this is Thunderbird and then this is Northway okay so you're so you're really not adding anything you're just sort of showing what the alignment exactly so Rainey Road the previous plan had it as a collector from Bonnie Bray and then connecting UNT campus to Sir Garry Park based on the development and keeping the consistency of a secondary arterial we are proposing to make that change and connect to US 77 on the east and create a more of a straight connection what is the the reason for the estimate going almost two or three times what it is right now is is it because of the development out there surely just straightening the roads not gonna triple the size of the number of cars I wouldn't think what what's the that's also the growth these are 2040 volumes so it's just gotcha okay growth rate thank you councilmember Briggs I think from what I understand too it also is probably going to become more of a connection to Bonnie Bray from others with the high school right people may start using that as a cut through more to get to the high school quicker good thank you the third one is Carroll Boulevard we are proposing to remove the section north of Sherman from being a collector to just a local road north of it is primarily residential and it dead ends there are no recommendations to connect so that's the primary reason a dead end so we were thinking it just should be classified as a local not a collector and were there any plans still to look at this section for a road diet and connectivity from downtown to 380 they mean I am not personally aware of it but they may have an answer I pretend this from Deputy City Engineer yes we are looking at that alternative we're looking at a different area in the city so when we cover that downtown area Carol is included in that particular area and as part of that review we're looking at the existing current volumes and projected volumes and see if a six lane is really needed or we can tone it down to a four lane and use the additional right-of-way for other means of transportation okay all right thank you so we're going to go over that in that section you're saying there's going to be a proposal to knock Carol down to four lanes with bike lanes when you go from my 30 well from Eagle all the way up to University Drive yes I'll be interested in when you go north of there then obviously we would be looking at reducing Carol even further because you're getting into that residential neighborhood that'll be a fun time councilmember Armitage I will just add for what it's worth I like that idea the next one is Joyce Lane Evers Parkway and cobblestone row the existing plan has these roads classified as collector again they're dead-end roads and we're proposing to classify them as local and remove them off the plan Sherman Drive the existing plan is currently classified as primary arterial and we're proposing it be classified as secondary arterial based on forecasting on the model we're only expecting about 15,000 vehicles on this road just within loop 288 and down to Carol and based on the right-of-way we have the functionality but there's collectors feeding off to Sherman we believe it should be a secondary arterial so don't disagree with anything you just said the way that we use the road and the way we ought to use the road my concern is especially in the future when 428 builds out I mean we essentially under the draft plan have a freeway dead-ending into a secondary arterial so how does how does that work and is it not a better practice to kind of fund that road as if it were a primary or think about it as one step down from a freeway as opposed to a full two steps down at the intersection so there would be definitely direct connectors for those three for that freeway and then this would be signalized and then it would just traffic would enter the road as it is right now and then Brian is going to add on to that well brands making his way to the mic my thinking is if we estimate a daily volume as you have it up here now based on kind of current numbers do we not expect that some folks from residential development making their way down a freeway are going to instead of making their way around the loop to 388 or assuming to up down to 382 380 don't we expect they would just continue straight on 428 downstream and drive and keep it primary so again Brian John traffic engineering that 10 to 15,000 vehicles pretty estimate it includes those so the model identified that the the primary pathways are 428 to loop 288 that's why we're talking about bringing that controlled access facility with direct connections that demand to continue into town on 428 is represented in that 10 to 15 that's the growth so we still don't see the need for a primary and the this what Pam described is that the section of 428 north of 288 will have the frontage rows and the frontage rows will be serving as the arterial parallel arterial you'll have the high speed high volume connections and that's what's going to connect into the secondary so it's not really you're not going from a freeway to a secondary you're really going to tie in the frontage roads which are those people who want to exit and go 428 south or who want to you know use it's really local access so that the heavy through volumes are going to be they're going to remain on 288 that's what our models telling us and I'm an agreement with that but that 15,000 cars a day is what you're going to see filtering south of 288 from the frontage road connections onto Sherman and more easily are easily accommodated by a secondary arterial so it's not really you're not going from a freeway to the secondary you're kind of going from the frontage roads to the secondary which is more of a that's already a step down the connectivity between the freeway is going to be to 288 which is a freeway so that those connections will stay in place and what you're going to serve with this piece of Sherman is that the frontage road volumes coming off of 288 and coming off of 428 south so it's already a you're taking a step down I appreciate that that I guess I've been a little flip when I said a freeway dead ending into a secondary arterial I don't expect that I appreciate you pointing out that those estimated volumes already include that I think we'll still find probably the shortest shortest distance between two points is still a straight line so we'll be kind of figure out how that how that goes when tex dot finishes that intersection I think to add to what Brian was saying is you also have a lot of connectivity that people will be you don't have a lot of build out in the downtown area that's going to further that volume you have a lot of build out all along the loop the I-35 corridor the medical centers are looking for those access points that give them more of a direct access point so I would anticipate as we work through this with text I you'll see those main lanes not die into a signal they'll be directly connected to the loop so then you have the frontage access that comes into Sherman Road so it won't be this dead ending of a freeway right into a four-lane roadway it'll be the frontage roads come together underneath the freeway actually goes to where people are wanting to go which are those larger centers that's absolutely what the models are reflecting to us can you just remind me because I think the other presentation had the speeds the speed limits for each of these for a primary and secondary that's gonna be okay okay for well for me I am definitely okay with this one because this is an area and people complain about there's already individuals driving 80 miles an hour down the street treating it as a highway or a freeway and have requested that the speed limit be reduced there we have a fire station right on the street as well with the fire truck that needs to be able to get out and there's people crossing families crossing there all the time there's there's actually a crosswalk on Sherman connecting one side of a neighborhood to another so I am absolutely okay with calling it a secondary arterial I just I just want to make sure that the the protections are still in place and that we can do something I feel like having that stoplight there is kind of a breakpoint people can change their frame of mind like I'm stopping here and now I'm entering into your residential area because that's all that's over there our homes and to answer your question everyone received a handout on one side you'll see the class right way classifications and we did updated to include urban suburban and rural and then for the speeds we're classifying them as target speeds which is the maximum operation speed that we would like to encourage once a road is being designed ultimately the goal is that for that speed to be the posted speed it's four-way stop before we stop okay so you also have a signal light at Windsor and Sherman Drive so I want to make sure I'm reading this chart correctly so when I look at secondary arterial and I look at the daily volume capacity in other words now that may be different than the estimated daily volume you have here but I see daily volume capacity 15,000 and I see up here 10 to 15,000 and I see the speed limit is 40 miles an hour for those particular type of secondary arterial is that am I reading this correctly do those values under the daily volume capacity in your handout correspond with the charts that we're seeing the slides where it talks about an existing daily volume or estimated day or is that a maximum or is it a these are a maximum on the table on the table okay so when I see let's just do this one as an example when I see estimated daily volume 10 to 15 thousand dollars vehicles so when I look at this chart and I see the maximum is 15,000 vehicles I guess that's a per day yeah on secondary arterial so would this be classified if you reclassify this under sort of the rural kind of classification for a secondary arterial because of the daily volume I would consider this as suburban so the max it would have the max daily volume capacity a secondary arterial for us of urban is 29,000 which that's the maximum and this road is projecting max of 15,000 so it's within that threshold and I appreciate that clarification so if the maximum is 15,000 on the chart all right let's just take away rural suburban urban we're just going by volume vehicles so if it's 15,000 maximum and this slide whichever Street we're talking about says estimated daily volume with a range 10 to 15,000 let's say this is 15,000 is what you're estimating is going to be the maximum for this particular road as it was modeled so when I look at the chart I'm thinking okay then the speed limit would be 40 but when you jumped up to suburban at 29,000 well that's almost double that maximum whereas we're not estimating this so I just if I need to read the chart differently that's great and I know these are only targeted speeds but I'm just trying to understand the interplay between the chart that was handed out and when I see these estimates on the daily volumes does that make sense am I I'm just trying to know I think you I think you your point is valid but I want to I want to temper the the relationship between the volume and the speed so the speed that we're showing here is a target speeds what we'd like them to drive I think last time we showed design speed and so there's three speeds there's a design speed there's posted speed and then what we call we're introducing this new concept called target speed and again it really that's context-based so if you think about the set this section of Sherman as you come in from 288 a lot of residential you've got a driveway access we don't want that 40 mile an hour speed it's really not appropriate at this point in time and until some major land use changes it will stay that way so our target for this suburban where you've got more of that connectivity to this to the roadway versus the primary arterial your driveway spacing is supposed to be a little further apart your access is lessened because of the nature of this piece of roadway we're proposing that it be the 35 mile an hour more the suburban more residential it's not really rural because you're not out right and the fringe areas so the even though the volume isn't 29,000 we're only projecting 15 that's that context of the suburban it really feels very much suburban you're not there's no pasture so you're not really real so what I'm hearing you say is that when it comes to speed where there's target speed these other classifications as you stated the daily volume capacity is secondary to how you're classifying the particular road based upon the configuration the context of the road correct amenities that just a development around correct but that's the man that's the primary determination of the speed we're trying to do a context-based selection process appreciate thank you very much appreciate that Councilmember Melser is there a sort of hard and fast determinant for whether you classify something as urban suburban or rural some kind of a density measure what governs that I'm going to ask our consultant to come up and respond to that question Rob Ray with Walter P Moore Brian sort of kind of answered that in the sense of context and when we look at urban suburban rural it's really to has to do with the building environment that's around it so if you have neighborhood suburban neighborhoods you know densities from 4 to 10 units an acre that's typically your suburban design your urban is your downtown areas or areas where it get becomes more flexible it's the areas with more activity and pedestrian and bicycle activity such as schools and TWU and T and even it could even be the medical center rural areas for you know obviously are areas that would be not built out not suburban not no neighborhoods in that but it could have ones and rural areas could have bar ditches where that's it's it's drainages on the surface as opposed to underground so those are the types of things that we look at there's a lot more different context levels on for urban planning but for a lot of times for transportation we just look at those three types especially because they are related to the different vehicle the capacities for for for roadways in different areas and that's consistent with what what NCT cog uses as well urban suburban role thank you then the next item is Windsor Drive in Dominion Street so we are recommending to downgrade the classification from secondary arterial to collector from US 77 to loop 288 based on the land use is primary primarily residential in this area and not much people's commuting on that side of so currently Windsor does not connect to the loop are you are you showing that it will eventually collect to the loop I believe Dominion Street okay so you're at you're you're at West Windsor not at East Windsor this is Windsor okay so East Windsor currently does not there's no connection from that neighborhood to the loop and so are you saying now that there will be and that will be a straight shot so as you can see I think if you can look at this graphic text out is currently looking at options to fund the frontage road and get it as a project moving forward so loop will at some point have a frontage road and Windsor will connect to the frontage road at this point here this interchange and this whole assessment is currently not we're not looking at this particular being an interchange at this point but it will connect to the French road out here moving forward I think in our next area we'll discuss some of the other segments right so we'll cover the other segments in the next but once the frontage road comes in at that point we will think about an interchange possibility that only connects to the frontage road not actually to the freeway itself so the main lanes of the loop will be not considered a direct connection but it will connect to the front and become an interchange like any other interchange throughout the city does that answer your question it does I because I just know that if it was a straight shot from the loop on that would not really be rational to be downgrade because that would make it we will not we will not directly connect it to the main lanes okay thank you question do you happen to know if his text had already notified the public about this possibility no this is currently in a very preliminary stages I think cog is looking at different options since there are several other larger projects like FM 428 being considered as a freeway and the realignment of us 380 to go and use the loop 288 there are different alternatives once those projects move forward the next step will be looking at the frontage road so this would be talking years future years thanks so based on pre temps comment we will update the map to show a dashed connection just like before and just to the frontage road so now we're gonna talk about the area east of I-35 and I would like to discuss the freeways and then go down by roadway classification so here you see FM 428 Sherman Drive as we were talking earlier we are recommending this be a limited access facility there has been a quarter study and there have been discussions with tech start on this road being upgraded to a freeway and that is currently the plan for this road and then the other freeway we are recommending is the connection with Milam you can kind of see previously the 2015 plan the the solid green is Milam on the left side and then they there was a proposed freeway just north of it and to us it didn't make sense based on that spacing for it to be just two separate roads so we combined the two and we're proposing for Milam to be part of that highway connection questions on the freeways next is the primary arterials Councilmember Davis okay next for primary arterials so Locust and FM 455 they are staying the same there it has there's no update from the previous plan this over here is a new proposed connection and this southern one also is being proposed we wanted to provide decent spacing compared to the previous plan there's just not much east-west connections north-south so truly the primary arterials and the secondary arterials we wanted to recommend a grid that once development comes in they have something to go off of we don't show collectors because those are typically we're gonna have a guidance where they're gonna be spaced between a thousand feet and a quarter mile and provide a reference just for a rule of thumb for these collectors but we wanted to leave that open to as development comes in and to be applied any questions for this area so I'm just curious so the 2015 was that that was actually the plan back then or that was this is the plan yes that is yeah I didn't know it was just kind of if it was prescriptive back then or just descriptive because it is this was the plan and before and after the mess and the map looks busy and the dotted is future roadway connections so it was a good effort to clean it up yeah so a lot of what drove what's on that 2015 plan was development that was coming in the 2008 2010 2012 time frames large-scale residential plans that were in discussion with staff and they reflected on that plan because that was an anticipated collector it was an anticipated minor or major arterial and what you have now is this is the heart and this is the spine roads that need to go in as development comes in and then you allow development as it comes in organically to determine how they best feed that network and thank you and I just want us for what it's worth I want to say I really I prefer the current approach and I really appreciate it it is otherwise if you wait for the development to come in and then build the road around it it's gonna be messy and it just so this is to me what good good city planning looks like not just road design so thank you yeah just kind of a quick comment I've been paying close attention with close attention to the Hartley Field Road area and in the new plan I appreciate the changes and I know we're not looking at actual alignments or even proposed alignments at this point I appreciate the changes in the 2020 plan as opposed to 2015 I mean you mentioned being busy that that whole 428 Hartley Field area long road just a mess under the 2015 plan very concerning to residents out there who are not our residents they're in an uncorporated county and they're looking forward to us coming through and bulldozing their homes the 2020 plan I think reflects a better anticipated alignment I think it conveys a little bit more confidence that we know kind of what our plan is out there but I'll be kind of paying close attention to that where we bring Hartley Field together with I guess whatever we're gonna call an extension of Hartley Field that continues to the west and hits 428 so continuing the discussion on the west side of I-35 very similar approach so you're seeing the connections based on the Denton County thoroughfare plan for freeway classification you will see portion of the loop 288 west loop that we are matching based on tex dot plans and for freeway we are also recommending universities or us 380 west of the loop to be a freeway that way it just connects together any questions on the freeways and then for primary arterials we have my alum on the north here we are recommending from it to go from secondary arterial to primary arterial that way it connects to and somewhat matches the freeway we're recommending on the east the next one it doesn't it's matching the previous plan this connection in red is Barthold FM 1173 and we are matching tech stocks recommendations and what they're proposing to how to connect to I-35 their plans is put in there developing a feasibility study for it to potentially be four to six lane divided and that's it for primary arterials yeah you answered my quite my part of my question then in the end when you said it's going to go from four to four to six lanes so we're talking like just two lanes now and is that for all of these ones that we're seeing they're going to be expanded that much or is it just a reclassification just a reclassification for my alone and this one is not changing based on the previous plan mm-hmm and then that's tech start update for for hold FM 1173 okay and so when they do that it would be text up that would notify the residents of the expansion I believe so it's a text on system road okay and then for the secondary arterials there's again we were cleaning up that's clean enough but we were re aligning some of the roads based on previous plans to provide decent spacing and connectivity for the west side question okay let's see if I can do this I want to kind of point us down to the the bottom right corner here and there's a lot of difference here then as opposed to over here on the 2020 over on the 2015 we have the Cindy Road there it's Western Boulevard dead ending dead ending but ending at 380 and then picking up over here on the 2015 plan and then it had Cindy Road going into a secondary arterial and but if you notice at that time Mosh branch was a primary and this was not a non-existing and then Windsor Road was protected to stop right at the highway over on the 2020 plan we've got now Windsor coming all the way across as a secondary arterial and we have Mosh branch as a secondary arterial but we still have in blue that Cindy Road and Hampton Road we still have those as collectors if we're not taking truck traffic through from Western Boulevard if we're not taking a new residential traffic through because we don't anticipate any residential development out there do we have a need for Cindy and Hampton to be on the books as anything other than residential service roads my proposal would be that to remove the blue dotted collector status because we have Mosh branches your north-south connection to the new industrial we expect inside the loop and you'll have new Windsor basically parallel for most of the alignment with Hampton so there wouldn't be a need for sending traffic that close to houses if you're not from with the area those are our one in rural houses single-family homes homes with acreage that kind of thing I would completely agree and we will definitely look at that and make the adjustment thank you yeah I was my understanding what talking about Windsor going through that that wouldn't even be connected to Cindy or that anymore that that connection wouldn't be yeah so yeah I'm in favor of relooking at that pre time standing behind me here yes the as you look at this plan the new one you can see that this alignment of Windsor will go behind the existing row of houses along Hampton and there is a large open parcel and we're working to align it once that parcel comes in for development at the edge of that parcel so that it goes behind doesn't have any direct access to the neighborhood and that's a very good suggestion to convert these into local streets for that particular neighborhood they still have access off of 380 but at 380 but then they're more secluded and don't have direct commuter traffic yeah I want to second and thank you know councilmember Davis for bringing that up I think that's an excellent point you know obviously that that's the kind of feedback you get from somebody who's spoken to either lives out there or has spoken to the people who live out there and so I would suggest for you know all of these no matter what ends up in the plan when something comes forward for construction you know that that people be you know not just notified but that I mean of course council's gonna listen to people you know but that staff I know you guys do a great job with that but people can teach us so much about their neighborhoods as I know you know so thank you for that thank you very much for the feedback I'm gonna hand it off to mark good afternoon mayor council members my name is Mark Oliver and the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator for the city and I'm going to be talking to you about the bicycle and pedestrian elements of this north portion of the mobility plan so to start out this is a side-by-side comparison of our old bike plan and our current draft plan what we're currently proposing one thing you'll notice is that we have certainly reduced the number of categories that we're showing on the map we're trying to streamline it in that way so we just have on-street shared lanes and off-street identified this way I'm sorry I'm showing you the current bike infrastructure there the next one getting ahead of myself current bicycle infrastructure on the right there so we have some bike lanes on Windsor and on Stewart and then a number of off-street trails and also we have shared lanes on Nottingham and down there by North Lakes Park so that's the side-by-side comparison and now here's the here is the old plan with what we are currently proposing and you'll see that we have made some changes some additions in here is where we've gone to three categories instead of the multiple categories from before for simplicity sake and so see we have an off-street side path along Bonnie Bray and along let's see Stewart we continue out to the loop Windsor will be essentially connecting the east and west sides of the of the city and I will mention too we are working on an interactive map so that we can show both the current parks and rec trails master plan they have their trails plan underway concurrently with ours we have consulted with them but it was only recently that we found out that they had moved they were using paper maps to sketch all these things out and we were working with them on that but they now have an electronic version that we will be able to import into the GIS system that we're using for to show our current mobility plan map and and then we'll be able to show you both of these together and see how the network the parks network and streets network complement each other and I'm also going to show you so here's a larger map that goes outside of where we have planned for so far so this is sort of the future speculation looking ahead and this is our draft representation of how we anticipate the bike network growing with the roadway network to the north of town and just using two simple categories they're on street and off-street and that that corresponds with the classification of the roads so that any questions about what we have for the bike plan we could I'd be happy to it has it has gone away in a segment previously it showed I think I can show here this segment here we have definitely removed because there is very tight space behind there there's houses that back onto the riparian area for the Cooper Creek and we don't think we can get it in there and we think if we reroute it over to Windsor for that where's my pointer again for this segment yeah if we reroute in that way around it we will well we won't we won't have to go back in there I'd from from my take on that it would either require a taking of backyard space or something like that in order to get it back there well yeah I mean these are it is a plan it is okay so I asked about the Cooper Creek trail mm-hmm yes and why it wasn't on this map and that was what you were speaking of and so I just I know that it was one important trail that was a really nice connection and so what I'm hearing you say is that there's a section of it that cannot we just cannot have that's my understanding I mean we could potentially leave it on there but and there's a balance here right of wow wouldn't it be really great to have this here or is it realistic and so some things have been including both I'll defer to okay so through that particular segment of Cooper Creek you have several challenges a lot of it has to do with drainage and then property lines that back right up to the flood zone so those challenges make it very difficult there's steeper flood steeper slope to the banks and not a lot of space to be able to flare that out feather it out and actually put in a bicycle bicycle capable trail not through the entire segment to where you can actually get it connected so you could go a little ways in say and then you pretty well have to stop and you marry up with the road again so the alternative was try to follow Windsor and bring you back around to Cooper and then you get right back into the park setting on the other side of Sherman okay on Windsor I'm sure you're aware we're gonna be redoing Windsor and not all of it has bike lanes correct because it's different with some of it has bike lanes and then there's parking along and then there's no bike lanes there's just parking and then along Strickland we talked about there's the the issue there of the the parking locking the bike lane so if we intend to use that I certainly hope we we think about the bike lane on Windsor as being protected and continuous and that's absolutely part of the discussion whereas why we've brought the draft plan in its current status to council and then again we'll be going back out to public comment once we've got your feedback that's absolutely why we're having this conversation is to make sure that those things are brought in to focus for staff and we get a chance to take a look at what are some alternatives okay thank you I did have one other thing I wanted to mention which is that so under this new proposal in this north area we are proposing an additional six and a half miles of bike lanes a half mile of shared lanes three miles of trails and five miles of side path for an additional 15 miles within this area of the city this north area when you come back with the you know integrated view that includes the parks trails I think you'd probably agree with me that people are confident enough to use the on-street bike lanes would also use the off-street and would also use the park trails I think it might be helpful to just have one other slice that just shows off-street plus park to see how much of a facility do we offer you know that segment of the population it's just a you know visual aid for me yeah I think we can break that out off-street so it's part thank you I'm kind of a you and I have talked offline a little bit about Westgate and the school district's building project out there the new Denton High School yes and and we'll have at some point it's not reflected on this map but at some point we'll have Bronco Way and we'll have the East West West Gate that behind below the Stonehill Center and the old outlet mall that'll connect in so I'm wondering if it's appropriate to include I know have pedestrian plan coming up in the next few slides but I wonder if it's appropriate to include some on-street bike facilities on Westgate as well I mean that's a significant portion of the DHS students are going to come from those neighborhoods Westgate as it's getting designed right now it does have that factored into it is to make sure that happens we are looking at as the new Denton High School comes in and we're rebuilding Bonnie Bray we're looking at that segment of Westgate any of the roads that feed into the area that might carry that kind of bicycle traffic pedestrian traffic to feed the school for once we're trying to build a school with the school district and put those facilities in place so this is a new venture for us but it's the ongoing venture that we can anticipate to have going forward excellent thank you no one has I had a few more questions before we moved on to the pedestrian plan that I was curious about and had asked and so there we did get a few comments about the current information not matching what is actually on the ground and I'm wondering if you could speak to that a little bit yeah so one comment was about what is currently on Windsor and I will say that the the commentor is is correct that sort of Windsor is a little bit of a Franken corridor at the moment where you got a number of different changes so for example when you cross Sherman going east you you have a line there but I don't but we don't have the bike lane signage up so we went for or I'll say we could have been more accurate in representing that but we're also going for general the general condition of the current area so okay I just wanted to give you a chance to address that thank you and on the Stewart Road it shows the Stewart Road extension and this may be for someone else up but are we planning on doing how do we plan on that connection well this this is again one of those areas where we are we are bridging the the possible and the really nice to have so what we're trying to show there is that as that area grows a bicycle connection will be really useful and important you know between between the current crossings but that I know of there's not any money or a project underway to do that so you got a couple of things that are merging here all at one time especially as you cross Luke 288 so Luke 288 when they build the frontage roads and the thing that texas is also going to be looking at is what roads go up and over what roads go under so there will be intersections and interchanges an opportunity to work with text on that so as we start planning one of the things we definitely want to show is is that we intend for a facility to be here now what does that facility actually look like it could be that it's space going under an overpass or it could be that we take the whole thing over so that Stewart ultimately does have a direct connection all the way across with that we want to make sure that we have those bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities tied to it and whatever fashion it ends up being well I do know that from the neighbors that live there they would like to see some other kind of connection besides just there on the on the loop sure okay and the last one mayor if I can just on Ruedell we talked about a lot of you know mingo and there's not really a safe connection across 380 her say especially if we have and there's going to be a lot of students and we're looking for access to Nettie Schultz Park which would be the 10-minute walk so do we have any connection upgrades along 380 from one side to the other that would be considered safe are we calling out intersections I'm looking to my I yeah I think I think the question would just be are you being specifically about the intersections are you speaking about routes in general well that one that one specific in general as well because if you could take Ruedell all the way to Nettie Schultz and that's not necessarily a safe crossing but if we're also looking at putting a lane or multi-use path and mingo that would be Ruedell would be the ideal that would be considered with Ruedell absolutely would be one of those consider especially as we try to understand better from TWU what their anticipated use is on the north-south connection and then going across 380 and continuing into the neighborhood that's gonna evolve that's why we'll redo this plan and update as better information comes along but as far as individual intersections and their actual configuration again this is a guidance tool for us to know we're looking for policy direction from council on how do we use this to develop as private development comes in how do we start building these intersections in a better more effective more safe manner what it actually looks like we don't know that this will determine what kind of elements we put in place well I'm very happy to see all the extra bike lanes and the work that's gone into it and so I appreciate it I know that there are a lot of people on the north side in the area that ride bikes and we'll appreciate this so I will move on to discuss the pedestrian plan if you'll recall we we just have a number of different maps here this is just like I showed you at the last meeting so first off these are our existing sidewalks within this north area so all everything in yellow has a sidewalk currently and then now I'm going to introduce the second map this map in the blue shows new sidewalk segments that we are expecting to be done in the next few years they are either funded they're under construction they may be part of the bond package but so between these two without any further work we expect within a few years maybe five to have these sidewalk segments completed now this next map shows all of the missing sidewalk segments so areas that were not shown on the last map and we have them divided into two categories the red category is those that were identified as high priority so get to those first and then that gold color are the lower priority sidewalks and again what we use to determine the priority level is proximity to schools the universities business areas in high-volume transit stops so here is everywhere that we are missing those I will say I believe that comes out to about a hundred and forty miles of sidewalk in this area and here we have everything shown together so if we got the money and we could build all those missing sidewalk segments between the yellow red gold and blue we would have along our public rights of way a full sidewalk system yeah so on the sidewalks because those do go through people's yards and so someone recently saw this plan and realized that a sidewalk was going to come through their their area and they have really big trees in their front yard and I told them that someone would be reaching out to talk to them before any of that happens and so if you could just really quickly as people are looking at this just address the process and that may be someone else that that they can expect as we look to improve sidewalk segments through neighborhoods Todd so what's shown on the plan versus what actually happens when it became a project or two very different things so generally what we're saying here is we're looking for your guidance this is where you want sidewalks this is where we as a community have committed we're gonna put sidewalks then the real hard work of sidewalks comes next as we get funding sidewalks actually become it looks like the easiest thing in the world to build but actually is the most complicated it thing that we built and it's because we have to work with every single property owner for issues just like this it's flower beds and that's trees and it's all kinds of infrastructure that's there there are challenges that when you look at a map are a little easier to deal with because it all looks flat and then once you get out there you find out that well this house is built with a retaining wall in the front and now I got to move things to get out of the way or I got to do something different so sidewalks becomes a real challenge for us when it gets to we've said this is the plan now we got to go put the plan in action what you will see is is once we go into these areas and start building sidewalks we'll work with individual property owners about what would be the impacts how do we work around them with them there might be some alternatives that we have to implement that's a little out of the norm you know maybe it's that we use pervious pavement in the section to try to help a tree survive but we still got the sidewalk there there might be some other things we do we pull out into the roadway here there there are a lot of things that we deal with that makes sidewalks very very complex so we recognize that a line on the map looks real simple but we absolutely understand that once we go to build these things they're very very complex and that's because of all those issues and so if there's a sidewalk that is on the future bond program what is the so if they they see that will someone be reaching out to them yes so first first step would be to get those design contracts to council and then once we have a design consultant on board and we're doing survey work and we're showing to understand what's underground then the project manager and the consultant will work with the individual property owners about where this goes and what color on the map here are the as the bond the red the red the blue I stand corrected it's blue okay all right thank you very much I have a question this you know kind of a suggestion that is it possible to you know or could you see any maybe negative effects of putting something in there in that pedestrian plan to if not kind of stave off that the kind of objections that that Todd was referring to where you'll have kind of house by house you know people will be concerned about something specifically about trees so you know what if there was some kind of general statement that it said you know we support a you know we support our urban forests and we do not see you know sidewalks and the trees as in neighborhoods as you know can mutually exclusive in a way that would show something to point to that that you know wouldn't tie us into anything but would show look we're you know we're on sidewalks are on the side of quality of life in neighborhoods not against it and so to be perfectly honest from a staff standpoint you will find nothing that is more challenging for us to work through than sidewalks with individual property owners and it is for this reason yeah by and large the neighborhood will say I want sidewalks but it sounds great until it's in your front yard and then that's where we're looking to counsel for the commitment that when we go down this pathway help us determine where you really want these sidewalks because once we go down this pathway and we start working through where those sidewalks go are they on one side of the street both sides of the street everybody has a different opinion about how important sidewalks really are okay and thank you and so it is so could I take it is it not entirely inappropriate to come up with some kind of like a value statement to put in there but it would be but you're saying it would be dependent on what council we can include anything you want to include in this plan but ultimately this plan is going to be adopted by council and this is what we will use to move forward with whatever sidewalk program you decide to put in place okay thank you very much for that I would support you know adding some kind of a guiding principle obviously as you've made very clear it's very case-by-case but as a guiding principle that you know that we seek to have sidewalks coexist with existing mature trees so let me make one one statement here from our side from the staff side our goal is not to go into clear-cut trees it is not nor would we ever I mean we understand completely that there are you see a 36 centuries you have 48 inch trees sitting out there there's a history around that tree on the other side there are things that we're hearing from the community that if you want those things and that is the policy going forward there has to be a trade-off somewhere is it in the form of narrower streets is it going back into properties further is it some trees may have to come down for the replacement of those are the things we're looking for a little bit of guidance on your side because we're very willing to go forward down that pathway but that's the challenge I'm okay with just leaving it the way it is because as soon as you put some statement in there it these issues are going to come up when this council probably is is not around and then those statements can come back to really hamstring so I think everybody understands it staff isn't going to come in there and start clear-cutting things because you are absolutely right okay you want us to save the tree well then we can bring the sidewalk around it which means we're going to come further into your yard well no we want you to put it on the other side so if there's anything put in there it's got to be so vague in general that it really doesn't have any meaning and that that's why I don't I don't think it's needed Councilmember Armitage. Yeah just and of course so I'll just say I'm coming from a perspective as somebody you I was surprised you know to hear resistance against sidewalks from people who care about trees because I had naively thought well these are the same people because we want good neighborhoods and I know that staff knows that and you know so maybe of course we need consensus from council and I agree that whatever language is in there shouldn't you know pigeonhole current or future councils but just something to show which I feel would maybe make your job a little easier and that you could just say look we even have it in here that it says we seek to find a balance you know it's just something about a balance we value trees you know trees and sidewalks are important part of quality of life it's hard to do and we seek a balance and are dependent on public input because I was surprised to hear from people that they do and I think it's nothing specific about city of Denton they just they are afraid they imagine a kind of a bulldozing and I know that that's not how it goes it goes house there are property by property by property and there's always that negotiation right anyway it would help me and I'm happy to speak to people as these issues come up it's a part of my job but I think it'd be nice to you know at least have something in there just to just to just reassure people that look this is a part of the it's a part of the value of the the department I mean we already know this here on council but I don't know if you know if the public does I think the public knows that well I mean good heavens we spend so much time trees and anyway the things such as that so the people who have been manager people who have mr. city manager please I'm sorry real quick just keep in mind that the charts that are being shown here they're gonna be exhibits of a very large document so there's gonna be narrative value statements discussions of all the various public hearings and meetings that have been held and it'll lay out a process too of how as these things move forward that staff working with community working with their respective committees if there are in those areas with departments and ultimately the council it'll lay all that out so these are again these are just exhibits that just shown so the document that we're going to be a final document is going to be much more robust than chart so all those comments that have been said by council whether today in previous meetings in the community then all be sprinkled in the document itself at the end of the day and I think you're you've also got a tree ordinance that's coming or modifications to it anything that we're gonna do on our side has to follow the ordinance is adopted by this council so thank you that's everything that I have all right any other questions councilmember I mean mayor pro tem just one break last week we spoke we talked about the percentages you put up and protected lanes etc any new information on that so yes the graphic that we use that's what it had who's comfortable yes yes actually give me one moment I need to unhide slide here there we go okay this and that all right so we looked at this one together which shows this is a overall across the United States generally what you're going to find I will say though that this is not fixed there is that principle of if you build it they will come so if you go to high bicycle-friendly cities Davis California Portland Oregon you will find that this has pushed that direction more people are are comfortable in these areas and so I see it as we're kind of we're working in two directions we are starting on the far right because the regular street system is comfortable for those people and we're moving this direction making the city friendlier to people to the left and as we do that more people start riding bikes they start feeling more comfortable and we also improve our numbers in the other direction I was going to show you here this is a an interesting comparison of how to sort of how to apply some of these decision measures where we can take an individual road and look at the speed and the volume of that road and it helps us determine what are the best infrastructure choices to go with this is also from the same Highway Administration document am I touching on my answering your question yes sir so if you could walk me through this document and then I will but let me capture what I think yes I heard you say on the last document the what we're looking at as far as plan is targeting the highly confident rider so our plan best aligns with the highly confident rider it using this these numbers yeah no quite you wanna where mark was actually trying to go is is so you notice on our current plan at least I look at our existing infrastructure it's not highly connected so you're gonna look more like this slide here because you're gonna have these areas where you don't have good connection points for the rider so the bicycle rider is forced to be out with traffic or adjacent to traffic that's gonna lean more people do not want to be in that high stress category so as we start to build better connections add to the trail system we add more facilities so that people are more confident in general you're gonna see that that this scale is gonna change that if I build more infrastructure I'll get more bicycle riders more folks will venture out more folks will feel more comfortable and you'll see the scale move further towards lower stress because it's it's built into the environment so if I could take that bite size if I may thank you I'm tracking with you my question then becomes what is our what's our vision is our vision working towards more confident riders on the street or is our vision working towards more confident riders on a separate trail system I would say it doesn't have to be either or it's actually both okay then what is the infrastructure required for someone on a street to be in that category of interested but concerned so it's it's novice riders on the street what infrastructure has to be around them to make them comfortable so generally more protected is going to make a less confident rider feel more comfortable what is more protected by your by what you used what would that physically be in the street okay much space in the street okay well the most protected most comfortable is a separated trail so if you think of our a train like a train around DCTA rail trail right completely separate that is the most comfortable infrastructure for riders and then next to that would be buffered or separated bike lanes so they share the pavement but you have a physical separation between the bike rider and motor vehicles and then and and a physical separation that would be capable of limiting a vehicle from entering so a curb of some kind or something like that and then and then just separations like plastic bollards or something which are only a psychological buffer it wouldn't actually stop a vehicle but it serves to delineate the space for each and then a regular bike lane which is just that line in the road and then the shared so shared lanes share rows you typically have signs and on the ground you have that kind of double-arrow chevron with the bike outline so so from most to least that's to rank them yeah so if I follow you Todd and I thought thank you for that perfect so if you're saying we're trying to create an environment where both were not mutually exclusive and I follow the most protective option on the street so on the street we would put a curb that is somewhat raised to then prevent cars from jumping it easily to make non-confident riders comfortable on the streets we didn't create create a street that has a raised curb there's a variety of measures like that yes where you can do it's it's plastic sticks that stick up about that tall with a wide striped area it could be a curved median a narrow one all of those introduce challenges when it becomes it comes into maintenance so now I've also got additional pavement that still has to be maintained and kept free and clear of debris and mud so can I get a street sweeper in there typically if it's narrow enough to prevent a car from going on that pathway now I've got to have a narrower street sweeper I got to have other measures to keep the road clear so there's give and take on both sides of this argument which is why you've always seen well not always that's why you see cities who try to move into newer categories with bike lanes they start with it right on the street and I got a line well that's a lot easier to maintain but is it the safest possible scenario do you want to invest in the infrastructure to put that divided median in the middle but now I potentially may have to go with some additional hardware on the maintenance side to keep up with maintenance of the complete roadway to provide that safer access what you also see in these larger cities where they are more bike friendly we're moving that needle towards more you know less less experienced riders being more confident so they're using it more often then you also have the scenario where they're also sacrificing a lot of on-street parking and they're getting that on-street parking off the roadway so now I have room for all these things like medians or barriers or buffers to put that bicycle lane in there and they have less of an impediment themselves so there's a lot there's a lot of trade-off here and where you go with it really is going to depend on where you are in the city it's obviously very easy and a residential area that currently is more Greenfield to say I'm gonna pull all these bike lanes off the roadway and the road is for the cars and the bike lanes are for the bikes and you have space for that and you're basically creating that now but when I get into the downtown area like our square itself I have historic buildings that sit right on the corners so what do we give up to be able to put these things in that really becomes the question got it so to summarize so such thank you very much but such that it's it's kind of a guiding document and vision casting for me I would rather forego window dressing the the expense that would go into window dressing a street to make it faint as though it's I want to target the least confident group so that it's used more and I want to have a vision that directs us down that course with more rail tripe rail trails off the street type approaches and sacrifice the cost of window dressing a street to make it look like it's going to cater to that crowd because I think ultimately that's what's going to drive more usage and and I'll do that at the at the risk of appearing to look like we have more lanes when most riders aren't going to utilize those lanes because you get into just a visual of that it's that back and forth and and it just seems like we're trying to be two things at once and so I think we need to do one really well that's going to take a long time you know and it's gonna we're gonna have to have policies that maybe when a new development comes in find those utility easements and figure out where those connectivities are and try to use that to further the cause but for me it's just it seems like throwing good money after bad to window dress a street to make it look like you're you you know a a not-so-confident rider is gonna ever hop on there and feel good about it you know that's just my my look at it. So I have a question that I was saving for the end because it is both a bike question and a pedestrian question and it's about Hercules so I got in today and I got an email I think everybody on council did it you know included Hercules and mentioned that how how narrow the bike lane is and they sent a wonderful picture but I can tell by your smile you know what I'm talking about I mean looks like it's made for stick figures and and just the the previous day I had you know on social media somebody had kind of tagged me about the sidewalk on Hercules it not being accessible to wheelchairs and looking at these two together it leads to a question both about number one of the street if you could speak to it and then number two as far as prioritizing you know both bike and pedestrian improvements on streets you know is there a system by which streets like this that have a need for both at the same time improved you know desperate need for a better bike and pedestrian accessibility which almost always includes you know an ADA problem too does that get kind of bumped up or or or is that is it more you know financially feasible to do them both at the same time anyway if you could speak to both the specific in the general great there's a lot that you just threw out there on Hercules so some of the issues we deal with in certain parts town is we've got some excess striping out there that appears to be something that it's actually not so sometimes when the white lines get painted on the outside because strictly speaking per the manuals and per regulations it's supposed to have that white line on the outside it's not technically intended to be a bike lane that's just the edge of the roadway and it was the limit of the roadway I'll have to check on that one to make sure that's actually what was going on here I don't know that that's actually intended to be a bike lane but it may be being used as a bike lane the sidewalk it looks like it wasn't intended to be a sidewalk either but I'm guessing that that's not the case and the age of the sidewalk this is a specific question about a specific facts on the ground and this is more talking about the pedestrian and bike plan and mobility plan update so if you could get back with her with some of the comments on that but absolutely address that how do you prioritize these things moving forward in the plan how does the plan approach prioritizing when you have these kinds of situations prioritizing really so the plan doesn't contemplate so much a prioritization of putting the infrastructure in when and where and what part of what project that becomes related to an overall funding mechanism so whether it's a bond program or something else the plan just says we intend to have these facilities here and it really becomes up to the city how do we fund that to actually get it in the ground and so the sidewalk the Hercules sidewalk that that's something that was on on your radar the Hercules again we might have to get back to you on the specific details of that scenario the ADA transition plan is actually we're absolutely where existing infrastructure gets handled and how do we transition that to be more ADA compliant but that's not part of the pedestrian plan they do work together but that's not part of it thank you if you could get back with her on that but I think it's getting close to being out of posting yeah yeah last question what is the the distance that we're striving for for the bike lanes to be on this plan they I'm assuming though we're trying to get them as consistent as possible and so we're talking about the comfortness the level of you know non-stress what is that space highway men the Federal Highway Administration says absolute minimum of five feet we we really strive for a minimum of six feet but that's from the edge of the curb face if you're going to do a buffer or something like that really eight feet is ideal because then you can have an 18 inch buffer you can put a bollard in that space so ideally eight feet of space and pay and more is always better all right I'll take the answer I'll take the answers next time we talk about it you don't think some framing questions okay sure yeah yeah if I may this is something as a you might have heard my aside don't expect you to know these answers but I'd be interested to know if it's gettable in sort of best case like friendly communities first of all you know what are they how high is their percentage of highly confident and somewhat confident users so how high is up yeah and in those cases how much I'll leave you to decide how to answer in what in what metrics but how much of a you know separate training wheels type you know facility do you need in order to get your population to that place where more people are more confident and and then how does our plan match up to those examples so I'll be interested to see if you're able to find anything on that thank you very much anything else thank you all very much for that we'll go ahead and take a quick five-minute break and we'll come back and go through our remaining work session items welcome back everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on January 28 2020 it is now 1256 just an item of housekeeping I noticed on the agenda I forgot to mention it at the beginning of the meeting agenda item 3d which is a work session oh no never mind I'm thinking something else I saw a gas well setbacks and I thought it was that work session for that so nevermind because that's going to be in the staff presentation I take that back we'll call agenda item 3c receive report hold discussion give staff direction regarding updating the existing dent municipal electric energy risk of management policy good afternoon mayor council Terry Nalte DME before I turn the presentation over to Phil D of a deep estino who will go through the presentation just a couple housekeeping items I think late last week you were provided a copy of the hedge plan which is a new component of the risk management policy it is a very long and complex document we recognize that is will take some time to digest what is in that plan and we have included on the agenda today a closed session item 1a that is available if you'd like to discuss it however we would recommend you take some time to look at the plan formulate your questions and we'll come back and have that discussion in closed session at a later date there is a great deal of confidential information business sensitive and competitive information in that document so with that I'm going to turn it over to Phil good afternoon Phil deep estina risk control analyst for DME I'm here to give you an update on our energy risk management plan her policy just just a bit of background this policy is the set of internal guidelines the DME uses as it goes through the efforts to acquire energy for the citizens of Denton it was last updated in May the current policy requires that we come to the council and PUB in January and provide an ask you to review it and provide updates and and then we'll come back after these sessions and ask for your adoption of an ordinance that adopts that plan for your information since May when we were last here we've hired an outside consultant Deloitte and they've reviewed our updates and provide some feedback for us the main change in this version of the risk policy is just incorporating the hedge plan that Terry mentioned before we've added an appendix F that provides a summary of that plan and we've made some changes to the transaction limit tables in appendix B to reflect changes to that or the addition of that hedge policy hedge plan in addition we've added some a list of key objectives to this version of the policy we've provided for some greater flexibility and scheduling meetings and providing reports to the council and PUB one of the comments we've received from our outside consultant is that instead of requiring them to provide a quarterly benchmark analysis of the Emo that will push that back to about every three to five years that's what they typically provide and that seemed their feedback was that seems reasonable given that we provided our reports on the Emo every day to our management can you explain what was the rationale behind that I mean I know that their reports are given to the management but is it a you know the the expense in terms of you know time staff time and the cost of that what it is is more of they would come in and review the controls and the the rules that we have in place to oversee the Emo and then validate that they're they're still adequate in the given change potential changes to the market oh yeah so sorry my question not clear I don't mean what you know why why have this evaluation but you know why move to why space it out like that you know why not have it more frequently their feedback was that their clients don't usually do that the standard practices to review the Emo or an energy trading operation periodically not every three months and periodically meaning every few every few years is there any downside any cons to your negatives to a more frequent updating sure let me try to address your your question the the policy as it's currently written and has been reviewed by Deloitte is considered to be a best practice policy that includes daily reports that are provided to management and quarterly the risk committee receives a summary of reports a summary of performance by the risk management staff at DME the initial participation by Deloitte a few years ago as the Emo was getting set up and as it was initially beginning to run a higher level of scrutiny was needed but it's been their assessment that we're currently at a state of continuous monitoring and reporting that we can now move towards a more drawn-out and more periodic three to five year look at the overall program not the mechanics of the program itself but the actual program is it capturing risk properly is it reporting them properly is it being followed through does that answer your question yes and so one follow-up to that and does that include kind of limiting updates to council to that period or is that simply the review you know the the data collection and process on the data collection and processing end the the official per the policy the risk committee is the governing body that that monitors the risk that we manage at DME Council can always request from the risk committee a report at any time okay so they weren't making a recommendation on how often no ma'am so so going on other changes include updating the list of responsibilities that each of the the groups within DME used to provide checks and counter checks for each other clarifying the response of the supervisor responsibility clarifications on the way we talk to each other and record and document energy transactions updating the credit limit section to reflect our current practices updating and providing clarifications to required reports updating organizational charts to reflect current job titles and reporting structure and then finally in appendix a where we have a discussion of the risks that the emo is seeking to manage we've added a few risks to that list we've added some language about deck outage risk about the risk associated with the fluctuations in in renewable energy from day to day and seasonally and then the risks associated with fluctuations in market prices and the seasonal changes in DME load and renewable supply a question about those two different kinds of fluctuations so am I right in understanding that the fluctuation of of gas the cost of cost is less predictable I mean of course nothing's truly predictable but less predictable and riskier I'll say to you know more of a gamble than the fluctuating cost of renewables which we don't know what's going to happen better generally on a kind of downward as opposed to more of a roller coaster you know if you could compare so whether I'm right or wrong if you could kind of compare those two kinds of fluctuation fluctuations so natural gas we we actually have a forward-traded curve for natural gas to provide us with a high level of confidence of what gas is going to cost in the future renewables the big risk is we we don't know how the winds going to blow each day or how much sun is going to shine each day and so the output from our resources vary significantly from day to day we do try to project that on a week ahead basis and we do make assumptions for for annual output actually at the hourly level but that is a level of variability that we really just can't get dialed in and so and how far into the future do you feel you can project with natural gas natural gas trades 10 years out but it's most liquid in the first year summer winter and as you go out in time it's less liquid and the variability of your your confidence level of that price will diminish over time wow thank you I thought it was much smaller than that thank you and that that's all I had I'm happy to answer any specific questions you might have had on changes to the policy or receive any feedback you'd like to give offers any specific questions other than ones that have been asked already councilmember Armitage I've got feedback kind of based on the questions I was asking it's not really direction but it is feedback just to say I'm you got feedback from the questions that you asked currently I mean the questions that you just asked you got feedback so I'm sorry so I want to get so it's as questions and feedback I'm giving you my feedback based on okay I apologize yeah so I I am I'm weary about having so much time you know between those risk risk assessments I'm grateful that that doesn't apply to you know how often count you know council can get updated and I am I'm a little uncomfortable with you know the idea of projecting you know natural gas prices so so far into the future because it you know we saw those kinds of projections at the time when the deck was voted on that was before I was on council but I was very I was involved and aware as a citizen and we saw those projections come out to be you know not just untrue but you know wildly off and I know that we've learned from that and we've got all new people here you know in charge but again we were told also then that renewables are really wild and up in the air and natural gas is pretty steady and predictable and so again like I said this isn't so much a direction I'm giving because you know I'm not as well-versed as Deloitte is it's not my professional area you know but but but I will express you know that's my weariness and I would feel comfortable with a more you know at least an annual risk assessment update and maybe you know maybe somebody can get back to me with individually with more you know basis for this idea of you know wildly fluctuating on unpredictable renewables and a steady trajectory so up to ten years for oil and gas for oil gas for gas prices natural gas prices thank you I think part of the quote some of the questions that you have will be answered in the hedge hedge plan and as we present that to you it'll clarify that we're not actually planning to buy power or natural gas 10 years out in the future but thank you councilmember Meltzer yeah I'm actually pretty comfortable with what's recommended in part because we go through the budget process so that we get you know a pretty that's bolts view of your your view of the future risk management as we reviewed me for the budget yeah I share that same sentiment and I guess in some ways what I was hearing in the questions were really two different types of questions I heard price volatility but I also heard the volatility of the energy that's being provided in other words wind is intermittent you can't really predict when it's gonna blow and how but with natural gas you can always predict if you're gonna need that natural gas or when it's available it's you just turn it on so I agree that I think we've got at least from what I've read in the draft plan a good plan and then if there's more monitoring that needs to occur the council as a whole can can ask the DME and risk management organization to provide that so there if I might one clarifying question would be as we're seeking input here would you recommend to the risk committee that they increase the the the frequency of which we bring Deloitte in because right now the risk committee is recommending three to five years I think councilman councilmember armators is recommending a shorter period I'm okay with three years I mean I'm okay with that and then if it if we begin to and so what you're needing direction so we're gonna need council other council members to sort of weigh in on that we've got two absence so yes customer Davis I'm fine with that that's the professional recommendation if that's in line with their other clients are doing it doesn't prevent us from spot checking as things go this time goes on but if that's the professional recommendation I'm in favor that okay Mayor Pro Tem I think you already stated your preference okay you have your direction on thank you yeah okay we'll move on to agenda item 3d which is received porthole discussion of staff direction regarding the possibility of thriving earth exchange providing a pro bono scientific study regarding the safety of gas well setbacks and reverse setbacks councilmember Briggs is the one that requested this okay there she is all right yeah all right fantastic I know there's an easy way to do this and I'm missing it my apologies can you go to view then two-thirds of the way down full screen full screen oh there you go thank you appreciate that good afternoon mayor city council members apologize for my technical in proficiencies there so today got an item before you for thriving earth exchange and basically this is a an item that was brought up during the December 10th council pending request for work session items and during that time council directed staff to ultimately engage with thriving earth exchange concerning a pro bono scientific study looking at the safety of setback and reverse setback distances for gas wells so a little bit of background on thriving earth exchange it's a it's an interesting group it's a part of the American Geophysical Union and which is a large organization international organization it's been around about a hundred years and has close to this a little over 60,000 members last I checked on it it it really I've tried to put kind of the mission and vision statements up here and summarize those to the extent that I can so that the real idea there is just to foster collaboration among scientists and communities and really to look at ways in which scientific expertise can be brought towards real-world situations and hopefully foster greater scientific knowledge so we initially facilitated a conference call with TEX staff thriving earth exchange staff on December the 17th to discuss the council request and determine what services they could provide and also obtain some information about how to apply for a project so we did learn that the TEX engagement is free of cost to the community and the community is expected to provide staff time and effort in working towards this accomplishing this partnership with TEX and if a project was granted TEX basically provides what they refer to as a community scientist fellow the staff member that we talked to at the time of this call was one of those community science fellows and they're really there to help define the scope of the project and kind of work through some of the initial phases of it and then ultimately match the community with a scientist and then the scientist would work with staff they said that the average is two to three hours per week and ultimately complete the project so we talked a little bit about our gas well inspection program with them and they were interested in it and so we actually had them navigate to the gas well inspection web page and walk through that a little bit and then talked about the interest in having a scientific study regarding the safety of setback distances and reverse setback distances talked a little bit about about the issue within the community and talked about the number of wells that we had and and some of the monitoring information that we have done through our inspection program and then we moved into talking about the Easter research group study which has come before the council before and how that was done for Fort Worth and some of the information that we shared with the council previously when staff was asked about putting together a program of this nature to assess the safety of setback distances so what we found out was that they can provide TX can provide expertise but it's somewhat limited in its scope the expertise tends to be for literature reviews help in scoping a project they can provide support for writing requests for proposals to conduct scientific studies support for public engagement efforts so they do have expertise but they have limited capabilities for sampling and analysis so they they simply do not have the capabilities to perform the level of sampling analyses and modeling needed to complete a study of the nature of magnitude of the Easter research group what they stated was we would have to basically look at going to an outside consulting firm to be able to get that there is a possibility that they might be able to provide some very limited air sampling for a couple of sites over a couple month period but the person that I spoke with said that it was highly contingent on being able to find a scientist that could support that effort and that they simply couldn't guarantee that and basically the services that would have to be provided in order to be able to conduct this study by an outside consulting group would be ambient air monitoring for basically establishing a baseline in the city completing point source emissions to characterize the emissions from natural gas related point sources within the city gas wells pad sites completing an air dispersion modeling using the emissions study results and then comparing that the modeling results to health based screening levels for public health evaluations now I will point out that it's a possibility that if the right scientist was able to be found that thriving earth exchange could help with that component of the data evaluation when you're looking at comparing those health based screening levels to to public health thresholds or endpoints so the recommendations it's really just provided for informational purposes only and I'll be glad to provide any additional information on requests or answer any questions I did go ahead and put together a few questions just for clarification purposes and got a written response back from the thriving earth exchange staff member that I worked with and that is included as exhibit three in your backup so I'd be happy to answer any any questions thank you for reaching out it's really interesting and it's it's a great a great way to bring community and science together yeah it's a neat group and when I spoke to the scientists at National East City she said that they were working on something exactly like this for another city and didn't think that it would be or thought that it would be an option and and it was the it's going on in the process and I don't know what city or or what but she did bring that up to me and so that's why I brought it forward here knowing that it was something similar going on somewhere right I don't know if they talked to you about that they didn't mention it I was I wanted to be sure that they had a very good understanding of kind of where we were at and what we were doing the particular community science fellow that I spoke with did not mention anything of a similar study they've done they've done some studies where they're doing monitoring for discharges from gas well pad sites into waters adjacent watersheds and they were able to talk about that a little bit but I did not get any information regarding an air quality study I'll be happy to reach back out to her and see if she can kind of look through the organization and find that out well yeah and again as we're going into tonight's a discussion there are a lot of people who say you know there's nothing there's nothing to compare it to there's nothing here I know that council has not wanted to do in the past any kind of study like Fort Worth has done or invest in that and I also know that a public health study had been requested and has not been approved and so I was looking to this is that sort of a an option for for either of those just so that we had something that was specific for Denton as individuals have have asked us for so will we be are we being asked for direction on no this is just simply for informational purposes okay well I'll just say I hope I mean free science you know free scientists have scientific opinions who are you know not working for any corporation have nothing to gain other than just loving science and being good at it I I hope that we bring them on and find out even if it turns out that they can't do air monitoring they can help us in so many different ways including with working towards air monitoring so anyway I'm thank you so much for for reaching out to them just for clarification after banks but even with even with even if you were to bring on a scientist or bring this group on board the city would still have to engage go through a process procuring a study going through the there is still something for them to do yes yes it again it's it's very highly contingent on exactly what we're asking them for and so there are some limited things that that they can do from a scientific standpoint but it's very project and issue dependent so if you're talking about sampling efforts of any magnitude or particularly air they just simply don't have the the resources to be able to to do that so they could help us write a request for proposal and we could go out and basically obtain those services from a consultant and they could likely help us with some level of evaluation of the results but doing the actual sampling and analyses that's just that's beyond what they can do I don't know if anyone else here has ever had the experience of calling into an organization a second time to a different person getting a completely different answer I have and you know what I the account that you're giving is so different than what council member Briggs gave that I would say I would caution against making a definitive statement about what they can and can't do and go ahead and make that contact to the person who said they're already doing such a study and just see what see what answer comes back might be totally yes man protein no and I want to highlight those differences because I think it's important so the during that work session it was pro bono study which means free value for free no strings absolutely free and then I I'm going to quote staff's answer to question number two for the backup for people that want to read it thriving earth this is their answer to us in writing thriving earth doesn't provide pro bono consulting services and so for me to explore it further is is good money after bad I think we could write an RFP just as well I think we with your expertise and our our sampling team they could absolutely write it just as well and it really comes back to the two million dollars that that staff had provided before and that's that's where we are do we want to provide do we want to spend two million dollars for that study here and we're right back at square one from my estimation yes I'm just going to follow up on that and read one of the very last bullet points that said this is a volunteer run program which launches projects for free that do not come with any funding it's a benefit that invites and makes space to surface and advance new and exciting and important ideas conversations are enabled that wouldn't happen otherwise it sometimes also move slowly and a paid consultant could do a lot more a lot quicker but the outcome is often very different so this isn't actually the question for this work session wasn't that we get them as a consultant for free it was that they have a process that they use to help communities and they do that for free without charging them so I don't want to get the two issues confused so I need to I just need to interject something there because when this was presented under the one-minute section the it seemed that so I'm not trying to parse hairs here but however we want to discuss this but my understanding was when I left that was that these people will provide a study for free there wasn't a parsing of consulting there wasn't a part so I think all that mayor Pro Tem is trying to say is that what whatever information you were given it probably very accurate but somehow there was a it was lost in translation that they're not going to do a study for free they may provide some free one to two hours three hours a week consulting but but that's the gist of it so I think that's all we're here for is you had presented this is hey this might be an opportunity for us to get a study for free am I am I inaccurate on that no because here's exactly what I read if you are a community leader thriving arcs exchange can help you leverage science to advance your community's goals we offer individual consultations project design and management services all pro bono we will match you with a vested volunteer scientist who has technical and collaborative skills where opposing perspectives exist on an issue thriving our exchange can provide unbiased recommendations that is exactly from their flyer and that's what I read that day okay well that was exactly what I read that day okay I don't recall that but all right so we appreciate those comments I don't think that we're you're asking us to go ahead and engage in a two million dollar study or a study of this where we can engage them is that is that what you're asking for that you're not asking for anything you just gave us information there yeah so I'm appreciate you bringing that information appreciate it being brought up and certainly I think moving forward if there's an opportunity to use them to come alongside on something that that we might need them for it's a great resource to have and I appreciate that being brought to our attention yes councilmember so I I would like to have them somebody a representative from from that group come to us and be able to answer our questions directly for a council be able to have a conversation with them so we can find out what they can do I mean so you've made some excellent councilmember Briggs and you have have done this reaching out it's exactly how that should have happened I feel like the next step would be to to have somebody from there come forward again since it is free if we can agree that there's no risk to it and to have a conversation with council I imagine they would want to ask us questions they would want to figure out how you know how they could help us but we can't decide until we've actually met them at some point they would for us to really make a decision they would have to come because you know you can't you know staff can't can't do that and we can't do that as councilmembers so I I I feel like I have enough to be able to say that we should issue them an invitation to come and talk to us and I want to know if I've got any consensus and I don't know if that needs to be a separate request or not because you were to bring forward to us just information about the company based upon what we read so I'm not in favor of that I think I have enough information to make a decision on what could they be used for the whole thing that this was all about was getting some kind of definitive study or definitive data on some of our air monitoring we do air monitoring not on a daily basis not on a monthly basis but we do it and the reports are there for everyone to see so I'm not in favor of bringing them in to answer questions I think I have enough information to do that. Councilmember Meltzer. To me there's a prior step and I always say once at the risk of you know being too repetitive there's a prior step to having them in which is verify if in fact they are now running a study along those lines and if so what's that structure I think if the information is only exactly what has been provided it doesn't really take us much further it's like two million dollar study or two million dollar study with these guys giving advice but you know it sounds like there's a whole potentially a different answer that would be fruitful for us to understand we should get that information and I and pending what we find out you know see if we can confirm that you know I might have a different opinion about whether to bring them in or not. So just because what I heard councilmember Briggs read on the brochure which is their official literature doesn't really is not doesn't deviate too much it provides more detail actually but doesn't really deviate too much what I think Dr. Banks reported here so I mean I'll take a look at the brochure again I think it provides a plenty amount of information you're just what you're wanting is to understand is there a specific study that they're doing for free that we would be paying two million dollars for all right that's easy to find out councilmember Mayor Pro Tem. Again well I'm gonna disagree with the process and I could be out odd man out and that's fine but I do want to just kind of go on the record of saying that sounds like a separate request to me and it sounds like something each individual council member could come in and talk to staff and sit on and have that call individually without having to really I'd like each individual council member to do that take it upon themselves because I think it belittles staff and that's just me I could be overly sensitive but I think if Dr. Banks said I talked to him and had this conversation provided him information they provided written answers I would say just another call to someone else is not warranted I think I trust his due diligence to bring back valid information and so I think to then say ask him to or another staff member to call back and say hey I know we discussed this thoroughly but I want to run it by you one more time just to make sure I understood it correctly he went that extra step by having them get in and writing which he could have just as easy summarized but he took that extra step in advance anticipating this conversation probably and so for me again I don't know what the direction this council will be but I want to be clear that I trust his analysis and I don't think just another call to another someone is gonna generate a different answer I agree with your assessment that the the the brochure while the language is more cleaned up marketable whatever it's a flyer that's its purpose I think the the essence is the same so first of all I really appreciate our opportunity to talk about this issue and to talk about the possibility I appreciate that this group's name came to us and the route that it came to us it was a conference where we go on behalf of our citizens to gather this kind of information we bring it back we vet it to see if it works for us and that's what we did so I appreciate that and I also appreciate the staff time that went into already into asking these in-depth questions staff knows exactly what we're dealing with up on the dais and they know exactly what kind of emails we get from constituents and exactly what kind of questions we're trying to answer so I trust that that work has been done and those conversations were very thorough but I'm also pretty confident both from the brochure and then what we've heard today from the staff conversations this group's not exactly what we're looking for what we're looking for is the expensive part of a study is the fieldwork they can provide all the desk work and all the office work and all the literature review and the scope they cannot provide the volunteers or the paid staff to go out and actually do the sampling and the measuring in the data collection that's expensive part so for me we've thoroughly vetted the issue it was worth the conversation we've discovered what we need to discover and I think we move on to the next item and I concur with that and so I guess so the issue really is do we make another phone call that's really the issue I know the proposition was do we bring people here on board but I'm I'm hearing there's four that say we don't want to do that there's one of those four saying I would like to have a little bit more information so as far as the other two councilmember Briggs councilmember armature because we're at three right now for just moving forward from this process we've got one that wants to make an additional phone call to see if there's a study go ahead I can make that phone call I could just reach out on my own councilmember armature I stand with my what was the question about just are you just confirming the consensus no I'm asking your position on what we're talking about just same as before yeah no change I still I still feel that we should go forward so councilmember Briggs will make that call and if you could report back to dr. banks and dr. banks can report anything back to us that needed to be reported all right so that looks like that concludes our work session now I guess so catch me on the process I'm not gonna call the closed meeting yet because I'm gonna go through the closed meeting agenda items that we have posted because some have been removed some have been postponed so I don't even know if we need to have a closed meeting closed meeting a is my understanding that was a placeholder no that was that the this is the one related to the work session presentation that was given by DB work session a that's this is the hedge plan yes yes but we put in there because they were asking hey do we need to read the hedge plan to get please review it then come back so does anybody need to go into closed session for agenda item closed session 1a you do yeah go ahead after we get in more detail and be able to read okay yes yes yeah because we got we received the plan I think this week and so they want us to read it I've read I've skimmed through it read all of it it's like 60 something pages or something like that and it's technical so it's gonna take a little bit of time to digest and so number B has been postponed till the 4th am I correct on that February 4th that is correct all right and C is regarding the setback discussion tonight and I just would prefer if we're gonna talk about that at all I think it needs to be talked about an open session so I would be okay with whatever we need to say whatever we need to talk about that be an open session and then D is moved to the fourth as well am I correct on that that is correct okay all right so the only other one is agenda item C which we really don't need to go into closed session on that do we need to have a session on it at all some of those probably can be asked in the staff presentation this evening since it's not a closed session you can you can answer those or if we you know that is correct but it's still there just in case it's still there for case we need to be it based on something that happens on the days tonight it's it's available okay any request in that front at least at this moment all right then we will therefore forgo the closed session and since we just took a break we'll move forward so yeah this yeah yeah this is where this is a special call session the City Council so we just move straight into our our regular agenda so following the completion of not the closed meeting but the work session the City Council will convene in a special call meeting to consider the following items and we will convene on this day which is January the 28th 2020 and it is 1 40 p.m. we do have a quorum and I do expect Councilmember Ryan to be here shortly so we may move some of these things around but we've got the consent agenda is the first item councilmember Meltzer yes I'll move approval of the consent agenda consent agenda excluding items B P and R B was it E nope well that's what I thought was right B as in Boyd yes P as in Peter R as in Richard yes okay and yes no no no I'm just trying to remember who asked for what and I believe mayor protein so yeah that's right all right so we have a motion for approval of the consent agenda except for items B P as in Paul there you go and R so chairs looking for a second councilmember Briggs all right councilmember Briggs second all in favor please signify by raising your right hand looks like it's a unanimous 6-0 we will now take the consent agenda items that were pulled and my only concern mayor and members council is with everything being accelerated because we don't have closed session I'm not sure staffs all here do we need to take about a 10 minute break to get everybody okay that way we can hurt everybody together because I think they're all scrambling getting here okay we'll take a 10 minute break and reconvene at around 150 about 150 thank you welcome everybody back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on January the 28th 2020 it is 1 50 p.m. we do have a quorum so I'll call this meeting back to order we are moving through now our items for individual consideration that were pulled from the consent agenda our first one being agenda item 1 B which is consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton to amend the city of Denton code of ordinances section 2 - 29 City Council rules of procedure did we have a presentation on that no need just I'm sorry yes sir no no need just a separate vote okay all right so no presentation is required or requested chair would entertain action on this item councilmember Davis move approval we have a motion we have a council member Riggs second we have a motion and a second all in favor please signify by raising your right hand for agenda item 1 B all opposed by raising your right hand motion carries five to one we're going to move on now to agenda item P which is consider approval of a resolution revising the city of Denton employees ethics policy thank you Rachel reference number 10.0 within the city of Denton personnel policies and procedures good afternoon I'm Cassie Ogden director of procurement and compliance here to talk about the revisions to the employee ethics policy so not I know there were specific questions I don't know if you want me to go through the presentation first or if you want to ask your questions first yeah I'm happy to ask questions at least in my my online view the red line was a red line so a little hard for you to pick some of these things out but one question was what is the rationale behind removing the limit of 120 days in a calendar year for temps I didn't know we had the role so with so what was the point what's the point of changing it and it and it was related in the presentation to nepotism so what's the connection to nepotism so it was a carryover from our previous nepotism policy and we left the language when we revised when we added the nepotism policy to the ethics policy however when we were going through and asking for feedback from the departments on any changes they needed to the ethics policy that they wanted us to consider parks did have some issues with the nepotism when it came to their temp seasonal employees so a lot of times they will have like high school or college age kids that come in and do temp seasonal jobs but then they will have their higher siblings and so we had a hundred and twenty day restriction on that however they'll oftentimes be employed for different seasons so they'll exceed that hundred and twenty day limit so and parks is here if you have more specific questions Laura just walked in that you know exactly answer the question think about what I think about that the other question I had was there's a statement about that employees serving on a border commission that has business with the city must recuse themselves from discussing or making decisions regarding city business I just didn't understand what's intended because I think I think of boards and commissions is entirely having to do with decisions regarding city business so we can give an example I just don't understand what you're going for so we had some specific examples that came up over the last 18 months regarding some of the business or the boards that our employees serve on so their boards that receive funding either financial or have some sort of contractual obligation with the city but not necessarily inclusive of just city business so for instance keep it in beautiful United Way the hundred club so yes it does benefit sometimes it does benefit the city and so that's where we are asking the employees that they recuse themselves when there could be a conflict with an area that they either oversee manage or have direct decision making with in their city role I think they could probably be put a little more clearly that I have the language to offer right now but I guess you're talking specifically about boards and commissions that are not city boards and commissions correct I guess that that so so I would suggest that maybe if if anyone's gonna move approval here as a you know an amendation can I can ask you real quick what where are we in the in the policy itself what's the section number what's the I believe it's page 10 yes page 10 okay it says board commissions and association membership so this was really the biggest change is that we're asking that employees recuse themselves when they're discussing or making decisions regarding city business with the board they're already required to file a disclosure form when they're serving on a border commission where they have decision-making power on that board so for instance we do have some employees that are serving on our keep getting beautiful board and while it is beneficial to have employees in that on that board sometimes they can be put in a in an area where it could create some conflict with their their role as a city employee one of the other concern related this is the employee being able to use their influence as a city employee to benefit the board and commission that they serve as a board member that's that's probably it's also related to this concern and which is why I wanted to be addressed in this policy if I may of course yes yeah I think just just for pure clarity because I'm I don't have any issue with the substance of it just in the first sentence first few words of the first line there if you just added the word something like non-city before boards I think it would just be clear. Councilmember Armitage. Yeah and I completely understand in the spirit of that my concern would be though for instance example keep Denton beautiful you know that is a Denton specific organization. No no it's not I mean it's a separate it's a separate entity. Right. Keep Denton Beautiful is a separate non-profit. Oh yeah yeah but I mean it so what I what I meant was I think we'd want to be clear we understand it now but so that the ordinance doesn't get interpreted in a different way that what we would mean by non-city that is not city government versus not having you know Denton in the name or being about Denton you know so for instance like something like United Way that we just I mean none of these things are part of the city government right does that make sense and I don't know what the language would be or if there is a specific legal way to make that distinction. And I think that's why originally we we added the line of that have business with the city through contract or financial support because originally when we started rolling us out to employees they were like well what about PTA well that has nothing to do we're completely separate it wouldn't create a conflict with their city role however there are some boards and commissions where those lines do get crossed just like United Way, Keep Denton Beautiful, Hundred Club and there are a couple other boards and commissions that were that do have actual contracts with the city but we also have employees serving on their boards. Mr. City Attorney it sounds like you've heard the spirit of what people are requesting it sounds like a fairly easy fix just a few sentences to help define exactly it's non-city but also to make sure that whatever is used legally to describe purely city boards and commissions that are actual official function of the municipal government so you know to exclude exclude those city boards these boards and commissions are only referring to those that are outside any official municipally sponsored or organized you know that's part of actual the city governance process. Okay. Is that makes sense? Yes, did you have a question? Well just for clarification that this is just it's not saying that they cannot serve on the board. Correct. It's just saying that they're not to be in any kind of decision making process. Concerning the city. Concerning the city. Correct. Councilmember Armitage. And I'll just say me for what it's worth I don't I mean for what it's worth I think that the way it's worded now in the proposal the proposed version seems to me to solve that problem so of course I'm in favor of it you know if there's any addition that would make it clearer but I would worry it could kind of muddle the issue more. Well that makes sense so I like the the proposal but whatever. Well I mean maybe to throw this out there the employees are this is also just for city employees so city employees wouldn't be serving on a you know municipal board or anything like that. Well we do though it doesn't like the director of the animal shelter also serves on the animal shelter board. They're a non-voting member. Ex officio. Right. Okay all right any other specific questions and then we can go through the looks like you got four slides presentation. Mayor Pro Tem. Yes. Yeah regarding Pete I just wanted to touch on the notice requirement it says if city manager authorizes he would give notice I just wanted to kind of. Where is that? It was in the summary but I don't know where it is in the document. It's actually the last section of the policy under exceptions generally. Yeah okay so that's all new. Yes. I just wanted to I don't know that and I didn't again I didn't look at the policy looked at the summary so forgive me if I'm wrong but it didn't it didn't give a method for notification so I just wanted to nail that down so that future councils can anticipate it'll be in its Friday report if it's emailed all I just want to nail down what that process is so that there's no confusion. So we talked internally about including it in the Friday report however I'm hesitant to put it in a policy just because I don't know how you know if that if that method changes I don't want to memorialize Friday report and then have to come back and amend the policy but we can add written guidelines for how we how we notify council. Yeah whatever that it here's my concern and you can and Aaron you can tell me if I'm if I'm way off but my concern is if a future council it says if you sneak it in you know not saying this city management but a you know future city manager or you know could just say hey I notified you it was buried somewhere in the notifications and versus an anticipation of where it would be captured each and every instance that's that's my concern you can tell me if I'm way off. You're partially on track I mean that is that is one valid argument that you can make against this I think if I'm remembering conversations with city manager on this specific provision is that writing a policy and actually applying it to real-life scenarios is very challenging and and it just seems like every other week or you know we get a different situation that we didn't contemplate in some cases it would be something that would be living and would be in the spirit of being able to make that exception versus those that now this is just another way to try to avoid the policy. I think what the city manager here was asking for was to have some leeway to be able to act on something that comes up suddenly you know suddenly may not have enough time to come to council to do to ask for an exception so I wanted to build in a provision such as this to be able to address that now your position is equally valid I just wanted to let you know how this was why this was recommended by the staff and city management because of those unique situations that we keep encountering. Yeah no and I'm okay with those I think I'm good with that with the policy with the amendment it's really the notice only is is where I it gives me pause that if if a future iteration of a city manager would want to circumvent notice obvious notice by you know just hey I sent it to you it's buried in a hundred page document but I fulfilled my duty of advising council. You as a council have the ability to specify how the notice how you want to receive the notice. Does that go in this document or no? You would put it in here. That's my question. Right so what I'm hearing you say is you you just want council to be able to see it know exactly what it is and almost as if granted exceptions must be reported to City Council in a separate report. In other words something that's different something that's not together with something else it's its own separate memorandum or something like that. Now that I understand what was intended with 120-day limit and why it was related to nepotism I have to say I feel a little bit queasy about the idea that someone in a position of authority might be able to get their sister-in-law winter job and also a summer job and kind of monopolize the temp opportunities and I feel a little queasy about it. I'd be interested in hearing other council member comments. Yeah I might be looking at it wrong. Councilmember. So maybe I'm misunderstanding but as I understood it it wasn't so much about that about relatives of non part-time staff but a part-time staff and having in their family being hired on. Am I correct that so it's not that it isn't it's about a horizontal at the part-time level and not top-down. Correct they can't. Let's hear from Parks. Parks is here to clarify. Hi Laura Barron's assistant director for Parks and Recreation. That's correct it this is this applies to temp seasonals so it doesn't apply to a professional full-time or part-time position then hiring their son daughter or any of those relations that fall within the nepotism policy but this is specifically addressing for those relations of part-time seasonals. It's about the part-time seasonal doing the hiring. No absolutely not and there's actually those restrictions remain within the policy that do not allow for that so even if you have two siblings there the restrictions remain within the policy that wouldn't allow them to supervise one another or have any position that would influence disciplinary action promotional opportunities or anything like that within the structure of the organizational structure of their related staff member. So if I may let me just take another stab at paraphrasing see if I can be a little smarter about it. So you can hire siblings as temps for more than 120 days. Correct. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay all right any other questions? Okay thank you appreciate it. Alright. So can I suggest that we make those changes and bring it back to you at the next council meeting with the proposed changes to the policy? Yep. Thank you. Fantastic thank you. Okay I heard from Councilmember Ryan and he's on his way so he wanted to be here for R so what I'm gonna do since R is an item for individual consideration we'll just move it down the queue and we'll just start taking up our items for individual consideration when he gets here we'll consider that matter. Agenda item and somebody remind me because I may forget. Agenda item 2a is consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton Texas the Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation authorizing the city manager to execute a public works contract with Archer Western Construction LLC. Good afternoon Mr. Mayor council Frank Pugsley director of water and wastewater utilities. The contract before you today is with Archer Western Construction for the construction of the Hickory Creek Basin detention facility and the West Flow Peak pump station the Hickory Creek Basin detention facility is located in the Hickory Creek Interceptor Basin off Country Club Road south of 377 and the peak flow pump station is located at the wastewater plant. The detention facility is the construction of a bypass system and a 3.5 million gallon wastewater storage tank where we will shave off peak flow during rain events to reduce the flow down to the remainder of the system which alleviates the need to upsize and increase the capacity of equipment downstream. That's going to be a pump station storage tank odor control cleaning equipment to help us clean the tank after it's drained of its contents as well as an access roadway and appurtences. The peak flow pump station at Pecan Creek is on the north end of the plant and it will serve a similar purpose it will pick up and divert peak flows that are coming into the wastewater plant and pump them to a basin that's already on site. For the we can incorporate them into the process at a slower rate. Two proposals were received one from Oscar Renda Contracting and the second from Archer Western LLC. Archer Western was selected as the best value their schedule was nine months faster and 2.5 million dollars approximately lower than Oscar Renda. There was a typo I believe in the in the slide that was included in your backup there was no add alternate A2 and our recommendation is to award the contractor Archer Western for their base bid. They also provided us a best and final offer through the request for proposal process lowering their price just just slightly in the amount of 14 million four hundred and fifty eight thousand and I have a overview map of the the city in the system to show you essentially where the two projects are located. So two questions one will this help with eliminating spills and overflows? It's not directly tied to that but should we have an event yes we could put this system into operation to reduce the amount of flow coming down the Hickory Creek system. The replacement of the lift station which is in construction right now will do a lot more for us at that lift station site. So it'll all work together? Yes ma'am. Okay and the next question I have is because they were so much sooner do we have something contingent on that date that they say they'll be complete as far as in our contract? The contract does have a project completion milestone in the contract that don't have that time frame on top of my head. Their proposal was shorter than the required contract time that we put in the proposal for them. Right I'm just if it's one of the reasons why we went with the contract I just want to make sure that that's something that we followed. The date we put in the specifications regardless of it they propose to be faster will still be the date they're held to. Okay. And they were worth 2.5 million dollars approximately cheaper than Oscar in this so that was the primary driver there. Okay thank you. Anything else? Thank you appreciate it. Mayor Pro Tem. I move approval. We have a motion for approval councilmember Briggs. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 2A all in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Looks like it's unanimous. Agenda item 2B has been pulled. We'll go to agenda item 2C consider adoption consider adoption is do we need to answer something here? Is there something going on? I'm sorry I was asked a question as to what happened to consent agenda item R. This is the one the way we're postponing until council. Yeah council. I stated council member Ryan wanted to come in and we would move it down. Okay. Agenda item C which is consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton prohibiting on-street parking along Hinkle Drive between University Drive and Windsor Drive. Good afternoon Brian Yon traffic engineering. This is an item you've seen before in work session. Again the reconstruction of Hinkle. We had the opportunity to revisit what we want to do with on-street bike facilities. We're looking at the section between University and Windsor. Some of this you've seen before I'm going to go very very quickly. Existing roadway you need to make it full screen. Existing roadways 40 42 feet and we put back very similar. So a little bit of background of the history starting in December of 2018 we had a public meeting with the neighborhood 50 to 60 people showed up and had a mixed recommendation. Predominance of the attendees were supporting of the retention or excuse me of enhancing the bike lanes and but we did have some people that wanted to retain the parking. So we took a transportation safety commission in December of 18 and basically got a no vote. They asked staff to go back and look at additional opportunities and options. We did that we took it back to the safety commission in October of 19 and they approved five to one with for this option. This is a considered option two. Ten foot nine to ten foot protected bike lanes. This has got a little bit of a buffer. It's got the pylons. It does not have a raised curve so it's not really a separated bike and we talked about that a little bit earlier today. So this is the option a little bit lower cost a little bit less protection but we've got a lot of pavement out there that we can get so we got a lot of buffering and a wide bike lane. So this is the option that was approved at transportation safety commission. Took it to council in December excuse me of October of 18. Council agreed with a transportation safety commission and asked staff to move forward with a an ordinance that restricts parking on both sides of Hinkle from Windsor to University and that's what we have before you today. All right. Questions? Councilmember Briggs? Okay never mind it's it's really about the bike lane but this is about the parking so it's probably not the right right time to discuss it. All right. Anyone else? Councilmember Ryan we're on 2C. Any other questions? Council would entertain council chair would entertain motion if so desired by the my colleagues. Councilmember Briggs? I'll move approval. We have a motion for approval on agenda item one or 2C. Councilmember Davis? Second. We have a motion a second for agenda item 2C. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Carries unanimously. We'll move back to agenda item 1R which was pulled. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton of Texas Home Rule. Municipal Corporation authorizing the approval of the First Amendment to professional services agreement between the City of Denton and Lloyd, Goslick, Rochelle and Townsend. Good afternoon mayor members of the council. Brian Burner director of solid waste for the City of Denton. Appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about this proposed action item. As you're aware we currently have our landfill permit modification for review at the state. They have ruled it administrative administratively and technically complete. We have completed our permit comment period and we're moving into the next stages which will be a public meeting. As part of this process the whole permitting review everything has lasted considerably longer than what is normally anticipated in a landfill permit modification. Originally we had anticipated it would take approximately three years to complete this process which is within scope of any other projects similar to this. However given some requests by the state has actually pushed it longer. You may remember April of last year we extended and added money to our engineer contract Park Hill Smith and Cooper to complete the work on this. Because of the time period we were asking that we extend the contract of Lloyd Gosling an additional 18 months with no additional expenditure of fees currently of the seven hundred plus thousand dollars that's currently in the contract. We spent about three hundred and thirty three thousand dollars. There's still plenty of money in the contract. All we're looking for is additional time to get us through the public meeting and if if it goes to a public hearing then then that process also. Okay any questions? Yes Mayor Mouser. If it's unposting and just as relevant background what is your current view on the projected life of the of the existing landfill without the expansion permit? Without the expansion permit and at our current level when we we've been throwing out the number of about 17 years right now. Okay that's what I thought. And you've got a master plan coming up. I forget exactly what it's called. Strategic plan? Strategy. Strategy. And we're at the very beginning of that process. I imagine all that ought to go in the direction of extending that life even further? Correct. So obviously you know I'm not through yet so you couldn't say by how much but hopefully a lot. You know I had it was really my tenure here this subject came up and it was expressed to me in terms of how much had already gone into the process of getting it and that it was very much for way down the road future possibilities just to sort of not tie the hands of council and that it wasn't really anything in our radar and I was kind of disappointed to see how quickly we were looking at actually expanding the landfill and importing trash from other cities you know as a way to kind of monetize that and that wasn't a direction that that I was supportive of. So you know I'm no longer supportive of this process. Okay all right. Anybody else? I have to say I don't support the expansion either so that's why I'll be be voting no to this. Okay. Anybody else? Move approval. I was going to move approval so now second. Okay we have a motion and a second for approval of agenda item 2C. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign. Motion carries four to three. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to agenda item 2D. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton prohibiting on-street parking on the south side of East Windsor Drive from Glenwood Lane to Hanover Drive between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Just out of abundance of caution I'm gonna recuse on this item. Not sure it's a pending matter or not but okay recuse. All right and you've filled out or you will fill out the proper paperwork? Yes sir. All right thank you. Okay. Good afternoon. Brian Yon, traffic engineering. The item before you today is a request for no parking on Windsor between Hanover and Glenwood but it's part of a larger project that the city's working with the school district on so in December of 2019 staff met with DISD at Wilson Elementary to discuss their pending it's actually ongoing with the reconstruction of Wilson Elementary and the district's concerned about pedestrian traffic adjacent to the school on the north excuse me on the south side of Windsor during construction. One of the things they would like to do is close the sidewalk and and move it to the north side move the pedestrian activity to the north side and in concert with some other measures part of that is removing the existing parking that's allowed adjacent to that curb on the south side of Windsor. So subsequent to that meeting though the school district sent the city a letter summarizing the requests that they had and included some all-way stops it included some additional crossing guards it included the no parking along the south side of Windsor and the relocation of the pedestrian activity on the north side and I'd like to just show you quickly this is kind of a summary. We're proposing an all-way stop during the reconstruction of the school at Long Fellow and Windsor. We're proposing an all-way stop at Glenwood and on the south side of the school and we're moving the pedestrian activity from the south side this sidewalk is the sidewalk the school district's concerned about wants to close to the north side and moving the crossing guard from the middle of the campus to Hanover. So we've got a lot of pieces in play the pedestrian facility on the north side of the school excuse me on the north side of Windsor will have to be on street so we're working with the school district in the neighborhood to develop a plan where we can construct a barrier this will be a little bit more of a it'll be something raised might have the pylons might have panels so that the students will walk in what is currently it again this is the the mystery bike lane on Windsor is it bike lane is a parking it closer to get to Sherman it's really narrow so it looks like a bike lane it's a little wider here but we're gonna repurpose that pavement for a pedestrian and possibly bicycle area we've got a lot of pavement to work with in this section we've got a turn lane that doesn't serve anything so we've got about 12 feet or 14 feet of actual pavement we're just going to move everything south and again additional crossing guards additional stop protection during this construction period to try and address that pedestrian safety issue so the issue before you today is this section of Windsor between Hanover and Glenwood the existing parking that's there today is actually occupying what was intended to be a deceleration or queuing lane for the school for pick up and drop off right now what happens is people park adjacent to the curb and then when the parents come to pick up and drop off they use the through lane and then anybody who's not associated with the school has to go around them in the turn lane and it causes some conflicts at Hanover that we're trying to avoid so the first part of this project is the removal of that 24-hour parking we're gonna restrict it from from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. during school hours we're gonna again repurpose that lane as a pick up and drop off lane so cars can pull in there they can queue they can move around pick up and drop off their children but the through lane on Windsor will be reopened for non school traffic so we had we took this to the Transportation Safety Commission I had a 5-0 vote in favor and staff's recommendation is the approval of the parking restriction on Windsor I did but it was about a different part of it that was coming back I guess we'll come back to us individual stages but I also did want to mention that the turning lane is being used as a through lane and so by opening this up that will help that traffic but also the reason why this was discussed was to keep kids and families and pedestrians just walking by a construction zone correct so that because that's where they're gonna be stacking all of their materials and they did they wanted to create some distance there and so that's the the contract will have two construction entrances on Windsor adjacent to the school and the district felt that that would be a conflict that they would prefer to avoid with the construction equipment coming in and out of those entrances and potential pedestrian school age pedestrians walking to and from school so we're going to move it across the street and temporarily provide something safe we I just I want to say that that was those two things is the reason why so the that's why the pedestrians are being moved across on the other side as well so that I can shake my comments are we talking about the pedestrian component now or later the issue before us today is really just the parking we can we will bring back so we we plan to we haven't developed a plan we're doing the process of developing a plan that shows the barrier or the barricade or the physical separation between the pedestrians and the vehicles and we're working with the school district to call a community meeting potentially at the school at the elementary school to roll out some of these concepts with the neighborhood we've done a little bit of this at the Transportation Safety Commission but we feel like we want to do more outreach with the homeowners relative to what we're doing with the pavement on the street because we may be one of the options is to realign some of the through lanes we can if you want to consider that the curb lane on the north side is a parking lane we can recreate that outside this new pedestrian area or during construction we can just do away with that that provision so again there's not a lot of parking activity on the north side most of the parking activities on the south side and it's relative to the school activities little hesitant to move it across the street so again this is why we want to talk with the residents a little bit further once we have a plan formed up once we know that this parking is being removed okay how do we handle this and and we'll throw out two three options for their consideration got it so if I'm at I can't be on board with this if we don't have some sort of agreement in place day one with to provide a police officer during those hours here's why we we closed off parking down below the school there and that's not enforced the the parking in the fire lane at the school that's not enforced and so you're talking about creating new habits and if we don't have someone that is supplied their full-time for those seven hours in between and they can well I'm happy to split the cost the city in the school district but to have one car ignore the rules is going we're going to be right back at square one I'd almost if we're going to do that we need to just ask the contractor to provide scaffolding and create that kind of that hallway that they create for concerned sites downtown etc or something like that if we're not going to go through the expense of having an officer there full-time seven to four I won't support it without it being 100% enforced so help me understand give me back to a map because I'm sort of a little trying to figure out exactly what we're talking about here or yeah maybe blow the one out that you just had up because yeah or I'm sorry zoom it in oh yeah well you're zooming in make it out to where it's bigger yeah okay yeah okay so the red line is the is that the pick off and drop off and what what is this red line represent this is the restriction for this is what we were proposing to restrict for parking and the yellow line in the middle of the that's Windsor that's just the yellow line is just off of Google Earth that's just a centerline okay so and right now pedestrians children walk there's no sidewalk there doesn't look like there is sidewalk on the south side on the south side and so we're blocking that off that people can't park along the sidewalk correct where they could now correct and we're moving that on the other side correct the well we're not moving the parking word but the pedestrian we're moving the pedestrians the school district wants to block that sidewalk physically block the sidewalk so you can't walk in front of their construction site so we're gonna move the crossing guard oh no I remember that so where's okay where's Hanover Hanover is the is the is the eastern intersection okay man let me make sure I read this caption right we're talking about removing parking prohibiting on street parking on the east from Glenwood - okay so Hanover is just a limiting street correct I'd be I'd be truthful I think when it personally I'm gonna have a hard time signing on to this I don't know if I need to go to the same stages or the same solutions as mayor pro tem but to move kids on the other side I mean outside of these big concrete barriers that you see separating highway you know construction or something along those concrete traffic very that's I'm in no way in favor of children and families walking in because you're saying it's similar to Eagle Drive you're saying that it's a it's a grade level just a lane correct it will have barriers but because okay yeah I saw somebody jogging down that lane and it's just we're real odd to see someone either walking or jogging on the same within the same space as the lane with one little white stripe of about four or five inches separating them right and that's not what we would propose I know you're not proposing that but until I understand what that's going to look like I'm gonna be very it's gonna be hard very hard for us for me to approve this I can't support this unless we find a different solution or we have a solution that we were definitively going to do on the north side because there's ways you can you can buffer construction I just anyway so that that's where I am and I appreciate that comment yes councilmember armature yeah so can you show so I understand kind of with a pointer with your finger like the way that pedestrian traffic would go to and from this okay cool I want to make sure I'm understanding okay so let me okay so currently the pedestrian activity you can they come out of the school and they stay on the south side this where this red line is and they can walk over to Longfellow or we're in cross there is a crossing guard currently I think at Bristol to get them across so we're gonna move this crossing guard at Bristol we're gonna move that crossing guard to Hanover we're gonna put them on the north side and we actually looked at the the CTBs those concrete barriers but the very low profile because one of the issues here is these are fairly small humans and if you use their normal size barrier you're gonna block visibility and so we want to be able want them to be able to be seen but still protected so we're gonna move them on the north side and then take them all the way to Longfellow again with a new crossing guard and an always stop and cross them back over to the south or let them proceed the way they would currently and so and so at the at the end of the school day students not only walk but they kind of line up to be picked up along there would they is that practice going to on the well on the south side again the school district is trying to close this sidewalk yeah yeah yeah so that that activity is gonna be that is going to go yeah so I'm kind of I'm wary about that too and yeah I would be curious to know if you know could the contractor provide some sort of something or other it maybe there's some other fix for someone more familiar but so the challenge we're gonna run into in so many locations like this is where do you want the construction traffic to go so you're gonna have big trucks you're gonna have construction vehicles moving on and off site you got loading and unloading of material you really don't want them back on this other road on the other side Windsor is the road for it to go what the school is trying to work through right now is is if they can put up their construction barricades and allow this not to be parked so that during the construction hours this is the only hours they're talking about your construction hours when school is in the session that we're not parking that area so they're not in the way of construction vehicles now whether or not this is what Brian's trying to get at whether or not we continue to allow school children to walk along that sidewalk during construction the preference would be to put them on the other side during construction and as soon as construction is complete this all goes away and you go right back to the way it was before so that that's the piece we need to stand here is is we're talking about safety of pedestrians whether it's schoolchildren or otherwise only during construction and how long is that projected I know that's two years I also just wanted to add that the principal of the school was in the meeting and also requested that that be no parking because of the intense issue they have there with two or three lanes of Windsor just getting blocked at two or two two times a day right morning and pickup so that that was a request from the principal as well to remove that parking so that that lane could then become more of a pickup lane and run smoother through that area and then pay attention to the back where they're going to be other improvements there at Emerson and Glenwood Glenwood to help ease some more of that pedestrian access so if they leave from the back of the school and that's much much needed right there as well but as far as the front parking that was a request as long as they could have that crossing guard there at Hanover and the mid barrier protection crossing like they have similar to Strickland down on Windsor those were the the request are we talking about restricting parking are we talking about restricting parking and shutting down the sidewalk in this in this particular agenda this particular item is for the parking okay so what you're saying is if the parkings if you if we pass this the sidewalk is still there and that's not brought to us in a different item or is that just going to be done in minutes we're trying to work no we're trying to work through what do these conditions look like as a complete package on the other side of the street or even on this side if that's where it ended up going but nobody really on our side nor the school side really wants the pedestrian stay on that side during construction the sidewalk won't disappear is just we want to restrict access to it during school hours during construction and put the kids on the other side now that may be Jersey barriers it may be fencing it may be a combination of those so that you keep the barriers in place yeah no so Todd succinctly how many cars have to park it at no parking zone to gum up the works how many cars if they don't adhere to that rule I'd have to measure that I don't know no no top of my answers one so if one car is parked right then that that line can't flow and it can't function as intended if one car and so that's my point that's why you you can't we can't do it without soup because otherwise you're asking the principal to go out there and tell someone one year he has to be out or he or she or who whatever staff member has to be out there to catch him before they get out of their car because they if they get out of their car then you're having a direct confrontation with a staff member and a parent saying hey get back in your car and move it that's that's a conflict then you I can tell you right now right here and their school staff and there's the ISD employees I have a picture and I'll send it to you parked right here in the no parking zone and in front of the school to drop off supplies there's also we blocked all this off this is supposed to be no parking I can give you a picture of cars parked there every day I can give you pictures of cars parked on this side every day we're and all of this is no parking right now and it's not enforced and I'm okay with that that's fine but here there's people parked there for special events people I mean it's just there's no way it functions for special events so remember this is from 7 to 4 correct so if it's a if it's a mid-school presentation it's a play it's you know Christmas again temporary right so I mean it's during construction what we're looking at here and the reason we're considering it and counseling you have the option to say no to the whole thing the reason we're bringing it is that we're looking at the safety of people in and around the school during construction that's the only reason that was even considered and brought forward and if I may I don't disagree my point is who's going to enforce it if one person if one parent unchecked ignores the rules then the plan doesn't work and so I guess that my follow-up question to the plan is what is who because it's happening right now so I'm basing it on what happens at the school today if everyone ignores it like it is today what do we do what's what's what's the enforcement plan and I'll tell you just because it came up so you walk the kids here you ignore where they normally cross somehow there's no one there to tell them don't cross where you normally cross let's assume they don't do that let's assume they go here they ignore it they cross here they go down here you go over here you cross back to the to the south side but let's say you live in this house here now we're walking you back down what is this Glenwood so we're walking you back towards Glenwood crossing the street unprotected uncrosswalked I mean no crossing guard here to get you back to these houses on this side of road so the whole plan gives me concern we're talking right now no parking I need some understanding of who's going to enforce that between seven and four to make sure we don't have school staff out there confronting parents we can talk to the police department get you an idea what that would look like maybe anyway you look at it I can't enforce it if it's not an ordinance it 100% and I can't put the ordinance there without a plan in place is there some time sensitivity why are we being asked to respond on just the parking piece without the you know the rest of the concept is there something preventing us from seeing it all at once and kind of they're still trying to keep their their construction within a time frame that allows them to be opened by a certain date so every month that they're not going to construction delays them being able to open the school in its entirety as they want to in it two years out for now so if you move the needle another three months then them may not their possibility or the ability to actually be able to move in the time frame and open in the new building may be impacted but but is it three months if any you know what it take three months for you to respond back to what the pedestrian I'm not saying I'm just giving you a this is the timeline we've gotten from the school district I'd have to go back to them and ask that question I think you know you're hearing a lot of comments that are around the same point which is we'd like to respond to the full idea you know including if please sir component I would just chuck in if we do end up going that way if it can come back very quickly with a full concept if police or component I'd say might be better to concentrate that resource on the key loading and unloading ours anyway that's all and if I may members of council that would be my suggestion is let us come back work with PD try to come up with the plan on being able to respond accordingly and see if we can bring back that full that full picture back to council as soon as possible if not next week the week after I was gonna move approval of the no parking on that side well I mean I would like to but if this is if we're gonna come back to all of it then I will withdraw my motion okay so there is no motion on the table for the chair can recognize okay that's a member hello so I want to ask about that because I I'm satisfied you know by the answers to the questions that I had I it sounds to me like these could be two separate issues that we could vote on this now and then come back but it you know but I'm not sure if if people would vote no if we didn't know those other details and that's another issue but I guess that would involve other you know colleagues input or maybe they have already given that input yes if staff has already offered to come back and give us a more complete concept and it's not a penalty to the project if that's done quickly I don't see why we wouldn't want to see the whole picture before voting do we know a timeline when there's wanting to start construction they're ready to move this yeah we can come back absolutely and and bring you an idea what this looks like I mean really the only incident only reason we didn't bring a complete big picture back is we wanted to take the plan that we had and we'd developed and go back to the neighborhood that had helped us come up with the plan in the first place make sure they were on the same page with where we ended up but we can absolutely come back after that conversation and bring that back council we had one neighborhood meeting to come up with the concept but you haven't had one with the specific plan right okay you know I'd much rather want to hear what the neighborhood has to say councilmember and is there a way to block off that parking lane so that there wouldn't be an issue you'd be a street closure so you'd have to close a lane well no I guess because that would be the pickup lane right correct so the only way you could block it if we know parked it and sensitive to the reinforcement question you could put cones out to indicate to the motorist not to park there and then pick them up that would that would be something that the school district would have to manually engage in but you could you could occupy those parking spaces with some kind of a cone or traffic device and then remove those when you wanted to use the lane for pick up and drop off I think we've got I think we've got seems like if y'all can come back quickly Molly what I'm still not really quite understanding is we're saying we don't want people to park there but we're still saying there are going to be vehicles that occupy that lane we're just hoping that they keep flowing during the times when they're dropping them off and picking them up which is still within the construction zone so the the issue with the park vehicles if they're parked there all day if they're staff or construction workers or neighborhood residents the issue that that's causing and there are two separate issues one is the pedestrian activity we would probably be pursuing the no parking regardless because what it's doing to the intersection that Hanover sure and Windsor is unsafe right so if you want to pull it apart the no parking the no parking is to address the issue of blocking the through lane with cute vehicles waiting to pick up and drop off not if that's not really associated with the pedestrian activity the pedestrian is something else that we're working with the school district and the neighborhood but the no parking is actually it's aimed at a different problem it's not aimed at the pedestrian problem is the neighborhood meeting we have not I don't have a date from the school district yet okay well maybe we can get you to come back with council we can have that information if you don't have you to have a date for the neighborhood meeting from the school district I mean if this is time sensitive I would unless they were waiting on us to give them that information so if we could come back can you can you come back in a week two weeks two weeks two weeks 11th yeah and I think we can and by that time it'll give them a chance to schedule the meeting right and so after the 11th they'll have the information they need to schedule the meeting okay okay all right is that I mean we can take a formal motion to postpone vote if y'all want to but I'm hearing that seems like that's my Ryan I really hadn't heard from you I'm fine with that okay all right thank you yeah thank you all right agenda item E 2e considered option of notice of the city of Denton a Texas home rule municipal corporation authorizing the city manager or his designee to execute a contract with genuine parts company NBA Napa Auto Parts through source well cooperative purchasing network contract I'm sorry mayor council Terry cater fleet superintendent so the agenda item today is a contract for vehicle and equipment parts this is a three-year contract with two one-year renewal periods the current situation is that we have IBS Napa on site now and we started that in about 2005 they provide a turnkey system so they supply the parts as well as the personnel and the management of those parts and what that does for us is we have inventory valued at approximately nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars right now that is not our inventory that's Napa's inventory it doesn't become the city's until it goes across the counter and we actually put it on a vehicle that is customized inventory customized for our current fleet and I'll talk a little bit about what that does for us in just a minute or two we have four full-time employees and a part-time driver that works for Napa and they are on call the same as we are for emergencies they operate the same hours as we do for the shop anytime we're open they have personnel there to provide parts for us so the benefits basically if we don't have it's reduced liability we don't have any inventory so we don't have to worry about shrinkage and obsolescence of parts this we can perform and do perform spot checks for inventory to make sure that we're getting the best pricing available from Napa I'll talk about what the contract calls for in a minute also warranties and court credits those are two things are often difficult for a maintenance operation to manage and and can add up to a lot of money so we have every part has some warranty on it whether that's 90 days or whether that's a year or whatever we get those immediate warranties if that part has a problem and fails they give us a new part no questions asked and they work on that in the back end so same with cores there are some parts that have rarely expensive cores on them if those parts are damaged or get lost then we lose that core credit for those parts we don't have to worry about that right now because we're not charged core core credits they also are required to have ASA certified parts people just like we're our technicians are ASA certified they do other things besides just get parts for us they are also scheduled for the disposal of tires lubricants and all the materials that we have those have to be done in accordance with certain regulatory laws and of course fleet pays for that we keep the manifest but they're they're responsible for scheduling that they also provide technician training for us some at no cost and some at very low cost either on-site or at another facility and then all of the Napa branded parts come out of a facility in Coppell their stock orders come in twice a week and they get parts delivered every day from Coppell some historical spend basically we're looking at about 3.5 million dollars this year is what we anticipate spending in parts and keep in mind that there's two components to the parts there's actual physical parts and then there's an operational cost for running the department that's for the management the personnel and the overhead of the part store room we applied a three percent increase over the five-year period of the contract and by the fifth year we're looking at close to four million dollars for that contract our projected spend is about 18.6 million over that five-year period of course this is spending authority that doesn't mean we're going to go out and spend 20 million on parts if we don't have to it depends on the maintenance activities that take place between now and then it also depends on the market for parts pricing there's always a small increase that seems like part of Napa's job though is to go out and get best pricing and actually reduce our parts costs and I think they do a pretty good job of that they've proven that in the past we anticipate that to continue so the contract calls for us to buy parts from the mental lowest landed cost there's no markup on the part they provide the part at the best price they can get whether that includes discounts for volume buying which it often does their network of IBS stores is nationwide and there are many of them here in North Texas City Grand Prairie Center Fort Worth Garland they all have Napa IBS and we can also source parts from each one of those organizations if it's a specialized part contract also calls for a 10% overall profit margin and that's done at the end of the month each month when we square up the the two invoices that we get for parts and operational cost. Councilman Briggs you have a question? No, this is it, our recommendation. So I had a few questions my first inclination when I saw this was that there was an extra zero in it and I sent a message to the city manager and I thought 20 million dollars that's that's a lot of money for parts and then I started thinking and I wonder how many how many vehicles are in our fleet total? Okay we have about 1,100 vehicles in the fleet and if you think about it it's a varied mix of vehicles as well so those parts have to cover 1,100 units that we maintain that the value of those assets are in excess of 100 million dollars so yes we're spending up to five million dollars I'm sorry four million dollars annually on parts but we're maintaining the fleet that's valued over 100 million dollars right now currently the acquired value. And so of those 1,100 how many are under warranty is it feels like we purchase new vehicles? Yes that's a good question because you would think as the fleet gets supposedly newer because we're replacing approximately 10% of the fleet annually every year we replace anywhere from 100 to 110 assets just as a replacement but we also have to look at the fleet that's growing so we also have fleet additions on top of that and so 10% of the fleet that gets renewed those typically have a three-year warranty on them but you got to look at the other 90% of the fleet that's still getting older and going out of warranty. Okay and does this include fire trucks EMS trucks? It includes every city asset yeah police fire solid waste and everything that the city owns that we work on which is everything. Okay and I just have two more. Okay and so it says the historical spend and so was the contract for around the same amount five years ago? We're actually pretty much at the limit of the contract right now that we went a little bit excess and we had to we had to extend the contract a little bit and we've reached right at the very end of our spend from that contract from five years ago. And so it was also for 20 million dollars? It wasn't at that time I think the contract was well we started you can see we started at three million and now we're working up towards the four million mark after the next five years so yes it was a little bit less then. Okay my last question is is there a reason why did this not go to bid or is it just a well in the past since 2005 we have bided out twice we sent our RPs out and what we found out was that both in both cases and we vetted the contract we've vetted the RP very closely because we sent out a massive list of market basket items that was like 200 individual parts that each company that bid had to price out and both times NAPA got the award and the reason for that is that they have been doing this far longer than any other organization and I think at last check there wasn't really anybody else in the market that does what they do with a turnkey situation where they supply management personnel on-site store and source and have their own distribution system. There are other companies that will do pieces of that but not all of it together. And just to confirm I think you said so part of this 20 million is to pay for the employees? Yes so approximately annually you're looking at for instance let's take this year 3.5 million is what we anticipate 500,000 of that will be for overhead for the operational cost and 3 million will be for actual hard parts. And those are city of Denton employees? No those are NAPA employees. That's the cost of their operation. Okay. And also I just want to mention when you think about vehicle parts we're including all the fluids in here oil and coolant and everything else that goes into a vehicle along with tires and tires are big cost of the vehicle parts are probably the second major expense on a vehicle other than fuel. So I don't know if you knew all that was included in what parts. You're saying fuel? Not fuel but tires. Tires included in this? Tires and fluids yes. And those aren't warranted? I mean very seldom. You might have a little warranty on your brand new tires but you still have things that can go out maintenance items on a car that's two or three years old you got your brakes you got yes and things such as that. There's a normal wear items not everything is under warranty for three years you still have the normal wear. All right any other questions on this item? Yes. You remind me what I know we spoke about this at State of the City. What was that award level that you recently recently operation was? That was a clean fleet award for our use of alternative fuels and reducing our emissions footprint through the use of alternative fuels basically reduction of greenhouse gases due to emissions. I'm just wondering if there's any relationship between you know this way of operating and our ability to be recognized maybe that's a bit of a stretch. Well certainly the parts keep the vehicles running efficiently and part of our clean fleet ordinance with Council of Governance is that we maintain the vehicles regularly and keep them in emissions compliance. Thanks and do you have a 2008 driver side mirror? I'm sure they do. Yes. Move approval. We have a motion. Councilmember Ryan? Second. We have a motion for agenda item 2D oh I'm sorry 2E. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries unanimously. Moving on to 2F. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Texas a home rule municipal corporation authorizing the city manager or his designee to utilize a contract through national intergovernmental person purchasing excuse me Alliance Company DBA OM omni I guess partners. Military cater you're stuck with me for just a little longer here so this is for a 16 million dollar fuel contract over a five-year period this is a little background on this we have two main fuel sites that the city operates at the main service center and the alternative fuel center the alternative fuel center was began in 2011 and at that station we do on E85 we do biodiesel and at the service center we do diesel and unleaded we have the capacity of 40,000 at the service center and about 64,000 at the alternative fuels that's important when it comes to emergencies one note to the diesel exhaust fluid or DEF that's something that all new diesel engines are required to operate with and as we replace the fleet with newer engines we get more of these in the fleet so we started out with just gallons and then as the fleet grew we got bulk we got large containers and now we're up to almost 1600 gallons of bulk storage for that and that will continue to grow as well it's not a motor fluid per se a motor fuel but it works in conjunction with that to reduce emissions at the rate of about one gallon to ten gallons of diesel and here's the historical spend on our diesel I've got the gallons and spend that of course those don't always correlate because of fluctuations in price and that's the big thing here is the price fluctuation so in 1819 you can see the prices held steady from 16 to 18 and then they kind of increased a little bit in 1819 that fluctuates daily there's there's nothing we can do to control that however the contract does give us the ability to know what we're going to be paying over the established opus index for that particular day when we order fuel and I can talk about that a little bit too so the contract is through omnia partners which is the same company just a different name that had the old Fort Worth contract Fort Worth many years ago developed the fuel contract and bid it out and it's one of the largest in the nation it's nationwide now with omnia partners we've been on it for many many years now and it's based on volume so the reason that we get the price that we do is through the volume that this one contract has not just with city of Denton and it's basically service through Martin Eagle oil company their local company here that does the field pickup and delivery for us it's based on the oil price information service index which is a company that puts out reports every hour of every day that that the market is open and so our price is based on the 10 o'clock price at the point of loading the truck and it is a plus or a minus so much per gallon is what the contract spells out and it depends on the the type of fuel that we're picking up so it's a little different for gasoline a little different for diesel a little different for 85 but this year what they've done is they used to load the truck give us a price per gallon based on opus and then it would have delivery charges in there based on the type of delivery it was the size of the delivery and this year to simplify the contract they've added the delivery cost into the price of the fuel and it's like tenths of a penny a gallon just simplifies everything we also pay a 20 cent per gallon state tax which is required and there are some federal fees no tax but certain fees that we have to pay based on underground storage regulations and such do we let anyone else use our our fuel like do we partner so that we can make some of that money back on we actually do we for many years we have partnered with the DCTA they order fuel off from our contract and it's just a pass-through cost we did we give a slight it's a 1.5 percent of charge to them just to let them just to let them order the contract so we pay for them we pay for the loads and then we turn around and deal them every month for the amount of fluid that they purchase and so out of the 16 million for the contract for the five years so how much of that do we get back just estimate I mean from them their their quantities are in the 400,000 gallon range annually so they'll be 16,000 gallons 16 million gallons sorry I'd have to do the calculation okay so although we're doing the upfront costs we are getting some money back so that that decreases it's not a very small very small very small it's mostly just because we have an interlocal agreement with them and trying to be a good partner with them so I'm just in favor but I just want to use this time to say that electric cars do not use any fuel zero fuel zero liquid fuel yeah and I'm in favor too and I love my electric car too I appreciate the city's doing it discount which I didn't get because mine is a used car but yeah I'll be approving this too thank you look for the did you know spot coming up soon to be posted on our electric fleet and I was gonna say our program clean fleet program we buys many electric vehicles that will be appropriate for the job that they're tasked to do I mean that's your first priority if that can be done with that type of fuel source we choose that if not then correct we move to something else so we're diligently trying to take advantage where we can one question I have do like when people are out on patrols like police officers fire apparatus if they need fuel do they always come back to the service centers or do they buy it sometimes from commercial I mean from we would typically the patrol taho's will go to one of the two service centers for fuel the motorcycles will they have cards they can go to any station in town and then the fire apparatus if it's out of district they can use these cars as well but for the most part if people who drive who are driving a city fleet vehicle they'll come back for the most part the bulk of the flow that is pumped through these two stations yes okay can a chair would entertain yes councilmember I'll make approval that's memorandum a second we have a motion approval for agenda item 2f all in favor please signify by raising your right hand motion carries unanimously moving on to agenda item 2g consider approval of a resolution of the city of Denton Texas a home rule municipal corporation corporation allowing the city to recognize all the renewable energy credits associated with the electric power purchase by the city from the whitetail wind turbine electric generation facility what's that after this one okay sure you mean for concluding items for this agenda item okay okay okay good afternoon mayor council Terry Nolte assistant general manager DME I'll bring to the this resolution we had a discussion with Council and with the pub over the last two weeks on the inclusion of these renewable energy credits towards our 100% renewable goal under the Denton renewable resource plan today's action that we're requesting is the approval of the resolution to take into account these renewable energy credits the pub voted yesterday unanimously to move this forward as a recommended resolution to you just quickly go over what we covered two weeks ago we have a contract with the whitetail wind whitetail wind farm it is a 30 megawatt of energy with 60 megawatts of equivalent renewable energy credits the contract was entered to in 2014 the 30 extra megawatts of credits were purchased specifically for attaining the 40% renewable energy metric under the initial Denton renewable plan the Rex represent physical delivery of renewable energy to the grid as you know we buy energy from the grid we don't necessarily we have contracts for renewable energy resources but we actually buy our energy directly from the grid each hour of each day we sell energy from our resources to the grid at the same time each hour of each day so the even though they may match up on volumes we're actually purchasing and selling at two different locations one of the things that we're asking for if you approve this resolution is that any credit that we use towards the hundred percent goal we will retire so that it is not traded and can't be used by another counterparty are in the marketplace there is a specified protocol for the retirement in the air cut protocols which we will follow this is the chart I showed you a couple weeks ago this is the whitetail output whitetail is 110 megawatt resource we have a 30 megawatt energy contract and a 60 megawatt wreck contract the Rex are populated into our account on a quarterly basis based upon physical deliveries to the grid from this resource the benefits of the resolution are shown here we just look at the the progress towards our 100% goal if we include the resolution here we are achieving our goal we have enough under contract now to be a hundred percent renewable in 2020-21 on an economic basis this is going to save repairs approximately five point one million dollars and it's about nineteen dollars and 38 cents a year for the average residential customer it does also enable us to give some flexibility in how we replace this resource in 2024 we discussed last time the temporal diversity benefits of having this contract expire and getting into a shorter contract we think costs are continued to come down for these we're going to get RFP responses here in a few weeks and we'll get concurrences to whether or not our our speculation is correct and it also gives us some time to continue to look at battery storage as a way to arbitrage existing renewable resource contracts that are long-term for the benefit of repairs with that I'd entertain any questions so I'd like to thank you all right so I'd like to try to express my understanding of how this all works and just seek your affirmation that I've you know got a reasonable picture first of all when people think about dense energy coming from renewable sources it's it's not as if we have rooftop solar on municipal buildings I hope at some point we do that that it would say directly be powering our fleet I hope we actually do that at some point but the picture was more I'm asking for your affirmation that the grid is like a big lake that you take water from we pay for people to put water energy from renewable sources in wherever they access the grid and we take out near us and the the electrons don't have to mix metaphors here the electrons don't have luggage tags you know we're just taking from the lake but we're in every single case today when we have energy that is from a renewable source you know so we say what what's actually happening is that we're paying for somebody to have generated energy from a renewable source somewhere it's not that it's happening within the city of 10 is that first of all it's a great so far your lake analogy is a very good one okay okay so with with whitetail for instance there's energy that they produce from windmills on their site and we pay for that when it's produced it's out in Munster it's not here but you know we pay directly for that and when they I know we're paying for a particular amount of energy to come at a regular rate so when they don't have enough from their own resources they pay for renewable energy that has been produced somewhere else to you know to supply to us that's what those what those credits represent is that accurate yeah yes sir all right so so if we prove this we are entirely paying for the energy that you know that our customers consume to be generated from renewable resources in other places absolutely okay I'm satisfied and I'm I'm going to be supporting this okay so it says that on one of your slides there was $19 and 38 cent reduction so does that I'm to be clear I'm not saying it's a reduction it's an avoided cost so if we're not to count these renewable energy credits and energy as counting towards the hundred percent renewable goal will be forced to go into the market and buy additional supplies of energy to replace these we would still get value for these by selling the energy from this resource into the market but we have to buy an equivalent amount to replace it the liquidation amount the amount that we get paid for liquidating that surplus into the market coupled with the replacement cost over the three-year period would average about 5.1 million dollars of additional expense if we avoid that expense for the average customer it would be about $19 a year and and by doing this does it limit our ability because we've said now oh hey we're a hundred percent are we going to stop and forgo looking at other renewable energy options oh absolutely not we could we're continuously improving our understanding of how we can get more and more cost-effective renewable energy because you have to recall that in the Denton renewable resource plan there's a it's a two-pronged plan it's both a hundred percent renewable and cost effective specified in the plan so we are looking at how to do that more cost effectively obviously when this contract runs out we'll have to replace it because it represents a pretty good chunk of the total renewable energy credit that we're crediting towards a hundred percent goal we're entertaining proposals that are due here in a couple weeks for coastal winds some additional solar and for batteries with solar combined and if we see prices there that look like they're advantageous to ratepayers we'll negotiate with the proposers to see if perhaps we could start those contracts at the end of this one so so we wouldn't be starting around the same time and then using like say the option number two that we saw where we could still use the Rex and then sell the Rex so we will not do anything or purchase any new renewable energy until this contract runs out it's likely that we'd be back before you to get approval to enter into any new contract prior to the end of this contract because you know if it's a new facility it has to be built right okay okay all right thank you yes so a number of questions related to each other okay so if we count these wrecks and can you put back to the slide it has the 103 so this 103% includes the whitetail Rex does it also include all of the other wrecks that have come along with yes ma'am so if we look at all the other wrecks besides whitetail that we have under contract for delivery in 2020 and 21 it would be 71% if we had the whitetail Rex in it pushes us up to the 103 oh okay so that so if we didn't include any of the Rex that's correct then we would be less than 71% we would be at 71% so the current policy today we do not include any of the whitetail energy or Rex in the tabulation of our attainment towards the 100% goal so today without the whitetail with the whitetail contract but not counting it towards the goal we're at projected 71% but so with previous contracts we've had I mean Rex are you know is as I mentioned before they're awarded to they're given to for producing and as you have said and you mentioned too it's so energy has been produced somewhere you know and there's an award and that award gets circulated and and we can decide or not or decide yes or no you know does this award have value and but we had but previous contracts and current and ongoing contract rather contracts we've made before have had Rex produced Rex too right and Rex have come with those two correct that's correct all of our contracts for power supply that are renewable include Rex that is the that is the defining characteristic that declassifies it as a renewable resource that has been produced and then you get your wreck and that proves it so but this this 71% because we haven't included Rex previously does not include any Rex well we are we are including Rex sorry sorry I'm just trying to understand for myself I think we went over this and so I'm gonna try to we went over this last time during the work session if we do not have any renewable energy Rex that current method where it says 71% that will be zero it is only with renewable energy Rex that we're able to say and make a claim that we're using energy that's renewable and I know last time in the work session you said your preference is to not use any Rex we should just buy it and contract but so yeah I thought we went over this well so over and over again well I'm wanting clarification and he was doing a good job of explaining I don't think it's the case that without Rex we'd be at zero but explain yeah and I think less last time during a work session I explained these these these racks were established for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with a standard under Senate Bill 7 which was the standard that opened up for retail competition that only applied to competitive retailers the use of Rex for the city of Denton in demonstrating compliance with the hundred percent goal is a decision that this council yeah it's a policy you could choose to say I only want to count energy that's from a physical asset that I have 100% control of or you could include these racks which what we've suggested is that since they are recognized as currency in the wrecked world and demonstrate the fact as councilor Metzler councilman Metzler said was physically delivered into the grid you know it's a fairly ubiquitous in in the in the market so it's up to you to decide how you want to do it we can do it any way you want yeah and the resolution is intended to specify to us how we're going to account for these so excellent yeah I just wanted to understand and apologies and thank you for taking the time just just to make sure that I understood what this 71% whether or not they were Rex already in this 71% included but so now I understand that so my second question is so this and I appreciate your having said that this this idea of the savings it's about what we would say from not having to buy more renewable energy right now yes I characterize it more as a an opportunity cost that we won't have to incur so it lessens the pressure on on rights exactly exactly now if we wanted that same goal could be the goal of the the plan for being a hundred percent renewable you know by X date you know could that goal be changed so that we wouldn't be counting Rex and still in other words what is the can you explain why why do we have to to count Rex to get to this a hundred percent or this 103 percent rather than just saying okay we're gonna slow down now well I mean the the Denton renewable resource plan is what we're we're trying to follow and in that plan which this council approved it stipulates what our goal should be which is to have a hundred percent of our annual energy under contract by the end of this year yeah and so that's what we've been working towards how you choose to score so to speak whether a contract is credible towards that hundred percent or not is really what's at issue here and so and thank you that was as I understood it so I will state my preference would be to just change our goal move it up if you know I don't mind moving it up the goal up a year or whatever it takes but you know I don't want I don't like and I worry about what future consequences would be you know if we have it on record that we're counting Rex and then any goal that we make would be for any future purchase would include Rex so to go back to you know term that was used in a earlier discussion to me that would be kind of window dressing instead of solving the same problem by saying okay look we change our goal you know because of the cost we don't want to have to have to have to do that this this year you know we will or within 2021 we can push it up a year for to me that is the more honest solution to this problem and I worry we're basically saying we're not going to be prevent we're not going to be we're not we don't have to buy more renewable energy this year like it's just a way of getting around it instead of just saying look we made the decision not to buy more renewable energy this year and to delay the goal to me that would be more honest so that that's my opinion and that's why I'm going to be voting no councilmember Ryan thank you man can you turn to slide 3 so whitetails actually producing much more than 60 on average over the course of the year because you've got all that blue above correct I think if you if you did analysis it probably be right around 60 so most likely what they are doing is they're giving us the Rex for energy that they are selling to someone else that they're not giving the Rex to them correct probably they might even be selling direct to Urquhart and so they're they are actually physically producing the 60 we're only buying 30 but they're giving us the Rex for the 60 you were paying for them yes yes yes so with with that in mind I mean this isn't a you know behind the curtain type deal this is this is above board it is truly Rex it is truly renewable energy sources that that are being produced and put on the grid in our what the word is our benefit to our benefit so I will be supporting this and I will go ahead and make a motion to approve I have a question I councilmember armature I'm not understanding when you say to change the or to move the goal up what goal are you talking about 2021 100% by 2021 goal okay so what do you so I want to make sure I understand what you're saying because you've made some comments talking about that it's window dressing and almost implying that's a little deceptive and it's not true and I want to make sure that I flush that out because that for one is absolutely inaccurate so I want to go back over one more time that we've gone over now three times all right in the dent renewable plan we've stated that we want to be a hundred percent renewable energy use a hundred percent renewable energy for our load by some date 2020 or whatever it is now you said last time Terry that last time this council can choose whatever way we want to define what we define renewable energy in other words we've got a contract with XYZ and it's a wind farm and there we've got a contract with them for 60 megawatts of energy and we can decide just by the basis of that contract and it being a wind generating facility we can label that as renewable energy is that is that not that's one of the options correct I believe that's what you're talking about council member armatory is that correct yes sir now could you tell me is that a recognizable standard in any particular area of the renewable energy world that Rex typically represent the megawatt of energy that's produced from a renewable energy resource I think you said that if someone comes over here from Europe or some companies in the US if they want to see your renewable energy specifications they asked to see that you have something that represents the purchase of that energy from a renewable energy resource and IE the wreck is that correct that is correct all right so council member armature all I'm hearing you say is that you don't like the Rex system that's that okay fair enough I just wanted to make sure I understood that because yeah okay I don't mind Rex being awarded I think it's important to have something on paper to say this is renewable energy I just think I use the analogy of an Academy Award before if you get an Academy Award for good acting you deserve that Academy Award if you if if somebody if your children inherited you know they've inherited it because good acting has been produced in the world but it doesn't mean that they're a good actor so that I appreciate that analogy but I think that's well I don't think so and I think Terry understands what I'm saying I don't think I'm just saying I don't think I haven't really been hearing any contradictions of the facts what I've just been hearing is different ways of looking at the facts I feel like we all agree that we all understand what Rex are I'm just saying this is how I I see them no no it is a very different interpretation of the fact it's it's really not it is a very different interpretation of the facts you're saying that you're okay which is fine I'm just trying to clarify for the public what you're saying and what you're saying is I would rather define our renewable energy plan and our renewable energy goal based upon simply the physical energy that we buy from a non-renewable from a renewable resource regardless of the Rex that it that it produces if we are only getting 30 megawatts from that we only count 30 megawatts but we don't get 30 megawatts of Rex either we don't get those Rex either so that's I appreciate that I mean I appreciate the clarification I just disagree with that council member Briggs so the you said the pub was it of the full pub yes ma'am okay it was a unanimous recommendation to the council as it was at our work session you reported that as well correct yes councilmember Davis not me to foreclose discussion but I second the motion okay so we have a motion and a second for agenda item 2g I was just saw mayor Pro Tem is not here so okay motion for approval for agenda item 2g we have a motion to second all in favor please signify by raising your right hand all opposed by like sign motion carries five to one moving on to agenda item 2h consider nominations appointments to the city boards commissions and committees community development advisory committee yes councilmember Meltzer yeah the only nominee is my holdover nominee friends from went for community community development advisory committee I'll move approval all right second councilmember breaks I'll second we have a motion in a second let's vote on the board please or raise your right hand if you signify by approval yes yeah motion carries 6-0 concluding items councilmember Briggs okay I've got one I'd like to revisit or just get an informal staff report on the street parking requirements in proximity to driveways I've been receiving calls where it's valid to park within a certain distance of an approach and what I'm finding is especially as I visit these areas that are reporting this that it is very dangerous and just want to get an idea that the council get a briefing from staff and an ISR what that distance is and is there a way that we could modify that if so what are the the implications it's it's it's pretty much traffic issue and a safety issue yes councilmember Armaturn yeah I just wanted wanted to just share my condolences to the family of Darius Tarver that it's just a really real sad situation and my heart goes out to you I know a lot of people in Denton are really sad for this loss thank you I appreciate that anybody else just concluding items okay then what we'll do is we will adjourn to this meeting of the work session at 333 and we will reconvene in council chambers at 630 for I think the only thing we're considering is the public hearing that's posted because we've taken care of all the other agenda items yes fair enough all right thank you yes welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday January 28th 2020 it is 6 31 p.m. we will start by pledging allegiance to the US and Texas flag please stand if you're able okay all right okay all right okay we'll call our one and only agenda item for this special called meeting here at 630 its agenda item 1a hold a public hearing provide overview and background and reconsider the November 19th 2019 adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton Texas amending sub chapters 1 6 and 8 of the Denton Development Code development services before Haley comes up and goes sort of through some of the technical aspects of the of the code amendment what I thought I would do is just touch briefly on on a timeline just to give a refresh for everyone as well as those in the audience this evening that may not have seen this initially okay yeah Billy are you able to turn the mic up let's go ahead Richard give us another mic check check check can y'all hear no okay a little bit louder Billy or whoever's in control of the the podium might check check check still more check check might be the doors it well I don't know if we can close the doors because of it's a it's an open meeting mayor Pro Tem if you'll take the gavel right quick I'm gonna go talk to him for a second check check in the back there can you can you hear okay no okay got it check check better back there check check get some wall there can you hear okay okay there you go check check we're good and for for the speakers and for staff I think it'll be important to come down and I mean you don't have to eat the mic but get as close as you can because I think sometimes that's very important so all right we'll start over go ahead again just for everyone Richard can only development services prior to Haley coming up and going through the technical aspects of the text amendment what I thought I would do is just briefly go over a timeline kind of where we where this started and where we are today I won't read every item but this item started in 2018 council requested a work session to review and discuss gas well setback requirements both in the city as well as other cities almost a year later and in July of 2019 there was an additional work session to discuss gas well setbacks again the only the main difference here was in addition there was a study that was done by the Eastern Research Group for the city of Fort Worth that looked at gas well setbacks 600 feet from the well ultimately this was a study that that we use as the basis for the creation of the of the ordinance that's being presented that was a general consensus at council at that work session and that was really the kickoff point for the drafting of the ordinance on August 27th staff came back again with some draft language or draft ordinance with the 500 foot reverse setback and there was council direction one to draft language to prevent the creation of non-conforming structures as well as pursue a combination of variants options one was a staff approval a reduction to 375 and then insert under certain circumstances and then the ability for ZBA to reduce that that reverse setback from 375 to 250 there was a work session that was held October 16th with planning and zoning Commission again providing that same update that was provided to council and then on November 6 we had a public hearing with planning and zoning Commission which voted five one to increase the reverse setback they had a little bit of a different option they had a option three that if a non-conforming structure was destroyed by greater than 50% that they would have the ability to rebuild without the initial recommendation from staff was that it go to ZBA on November 19th the item was held the public hearing was held with City Council I won't go through the variety there were a number of motions that were made and amendments to initial motions but what ultimately was approved at that point in time was increasing the reverse setback to 500 feet the option to which would require if a non-conforming structure were destroyed by greater than 50% the ability to rebuild if it went to ZBA and that was approved five to almost a week maybe a week less that week after that was that was adopted there was a recall of this item and that was then presented at December 2nd to City Council and so there was a motion set motion and second to reconsider which passed for to which brought us here this evening and there were really three primary concerns one to make sure that we notify those those property owners within the 500 feet reverse setback provide some clarity on the applicability of how this applies to protected versus non-protected and then look at options or ways of addressing how we're creating non-conforming structures motion to reconsider and I just lost my train of thought on the motion to reconsider the ordinance was passed by council but it had not become effective it had not become effective that is correct and if I remember correctly from the meeting for the motion to reconsider if that had not passed if I recall correctly it would have gone into effect the next day or two days after that I believe is either December 3rd or 4th I know it was really close to that if I recall correctly that is correct we had the holiday in there but I believe that the motion to recall I think was was that week maybe the week Monday after it passed and so then it was it goes to the first meeting that we had which was the second there is no I mean it's the status quo as before November the 19th vote that we had it's it's a do change correct thank you and then we did we did send the notifications there were a number of number of ways that we sent this again this is a text amendment a little bit different than a zoning map amendment which requires a specific mailing so we did put in the newspaper in accordance with local government code it was posted on the the website January 7th in addition we had submitted this in the Friday report I know there's a number of folks that look at that as well and then we sent two separate mailings one on January 8th one on January 16th and then on January 17th we posted a separate web page with some FAQs and interactive map that that when individuals called we can give them or guide them to that so they can see how that how they're how and where their property was in relation to the various gas wells and with that I'll turn it over to Haley it's time to really go through the aspects mayor put him had a question really quick okay yeah Richard could you I think it's important you gave the historical data but can you touch on the first notice how many who was addressed the first notice versus this notice do you have that I don't have the act the actual break I could probably pull it what we did is we looked at it we had a number of different database so we wanted to make sure that we hit every single property owner so we had a we had a residential layer GIS layer but then we also used our the certified tax rolls which is what we typically use or are required to use for a public hearing notice and then we also use the utility bills that we typically would use for the courtesy notice and so the card what was sent was essentially followed what we did for the the courtesy notice with the exception of in addition to the utility we also sent to the to the tax rolls thank you good evening Mayor and City Council Haley Zygursky with Development Services so I won't go through the full November 19th presentation but I do have it available if we need to jump into some of that detail this will just be more of a high-level overview and a clarification of those specific items brought up on December 2nd so just to start I wanted to walk through quickly a summary of the proposed changes this code amendment would affect three subchapters of the DDC the first and primary change is the increase in reverse setback so if you're looking in your backup that that is found in subchapter 6 of the DDC that would be increasing the reverse setback from 250 feet to 500 feet in addition we also had to add and revise some definitions so you'll see a slightly revised definition for reverse setback and a new definition for a minimum reverse setback and then also in subchapter 6 we provided some clarification for how this setback is applicable to city parks those are protected use but until now the DDC has not stated whether that measurement goes to the park property boundary to park structures or how that's done so this provides that clarification that this would be to essentially vertical improvements at a park a playground a building but not flat work such as a parking lot or sidewalk the second group of changes are those in subchapter 1 related to nonconformities this is where we get into the four options that we'll be discussing more at length this evening so again the first option was generated from one of our summer council meetings that essentially prevented new nonconformities from being created but did nothing to those that are nonconforming today the second option is again that is the staff recommendation that was ultimately voted on on November 19th that where everything would become nonconforming but it would allow them the right to go to go to the ZBA to rebuild option 3 is one that generated out of the planning and zoning Commission where again those within 500 feet would become nonconforming but that would offer the ability to rebuild by right and then the new fourth option is where everything within the 500 foot would essentially be deemed legal by the adoption yes just a question of clarification on this slide on option a1 it says deem all structures between 250 and 500 feet is that legally conforming yes okay but in either in either option a1 a2 or a3 there wasn't an a2 and a3 they were all nonconforming correct in a one the people 250 feet or less nonconforming between 250 and 500 correct and I do have more detail on all of that ship okay thank you very much appreciate that yes sir the the third major category that again we can get into this more if we need to but I didn't have that immediately prepared for this evening was related to the variance procedures I don't believe there was any confusion regarding those but just quickly that is essentially two variance procedures for new development so not applicable to those that are within the setback today this would be for new development where the 500 foot is applicable so there they would have two options to seek a variance or reduction of that 500 foot down to as low as 250 it under certain criteria where they meet the administrative relief provisions staff could potentially approve a reduction to as low as 375 but not beyond that and then anything that either doesn't meet the staff criteria or that needs to be you know seeking lower than 375 would have to go to the ZBA through the standard hardship variance process and then finally the fourth category of changes and the reason you have a new amendments to subchapter 8 and your packet is with regard to the cluster subdivision procedures under the administrative relief provisions that's an option for for staff to approve those and so those are strictly changes to allow this to be utilized for gas well purposes Councilman Barometer the variance is so under would you say it's correct that that under that fourth option where all of the existing homes are legal and conforming does that render the the variance is a moot point for homeowners that would only apply or owners of structures that would only apply to undeveloped landowners is that correct I think she's going to go through those options more in detail as she gets to the couple of slides is that correct I think I think it'd be best instead of jumping around to wait till we get to that slide if you could repeat that question or she remembers it then we can go over that yeah again I have more slides prepared for I can jump back to our November 19th discussion if we need to look at the variances the short answer to that is the variances would not apply to the structures existing within the 500 today those those would either be deemed non-conforming or legal depending on the vote tonight the variance is only for new development where the 500 foot is applying to their property thanks so the the first of the points of clarification that were brought up on December 2nd was the applicability of these changes so I wanted to walk briefly back through what a setback is and what it applies to essentially there are two major categories of setbacks in the DDC the first are gas well drilling and production site setbacks that is this diagram you see on the left those are setbacks applicable to the pad site itself so when a new gas well site is coming in or alterations are being made on a site that is the setback that's measured from the edge of the pad site outwards towards protected uses the second broad category is a reverse setback which is the setback applicable to the protected use that's developing where there is already a gas well in proximity that setback is measured from and in the case of a school or a church or something similar would be from the structure to the pad site boundary for a new residential subdivision it's measured from residential lot lines towards the gas well site all of the setbacks in our code for gas wells and reverse setbacks are only applicable to protected uses so just as a reminder I put the definition of that here it's any dwelling church public park public library hospital pre-kindergarten kindergarten or elementary middle or high school public pools public transit centers senior centers public recreation centers hotels and motels this is not applicable to any other commercial use or industrial uses so again just as a refresher these are the setbacks that are in our code today so the drilling and production site setback for a new pad site is a thousand feet there is a minimum setback for operators where they can go through a variance process to go as low as 500 for a new site and then the reverse setbacks today are all set at 250 feet this is the table you've seen before just showing what this would look like with this amendment real quick just because I made I just want to make sure we understand that previous slide I thought I heard you just say that the setbacks only apply to protected uses correct all right so when I look at the previous slide so then you're saying that when you have these categories new gas well site non-industrial districts new gas well site industrial districts existing gas well site non-industrial districts existing gas well site industrial districts what you're saying is that if I own a commercial building anything other than a protected use that none of the setback requirements reverse setback requirements for sure or setback requirements I thought I heard you say that apply to anything that's not a protected use is that is that correct that is correct at that point the fire code is what dictates the required separation distance that's do we know what that is fire code varies for class a E&I structures 300 feet for all others it's as low as 50 to 100 depending on which piece of equipment is fantastic all right thank you yes sir so again this is this is what that table would look like with the proposed 500 foot reverse setback applied you'll see there's also a new column added which I mentioned earlier is that new minimum reverse setback if a developer of a currently undeveloped piece of property has the 500 foot setback applicable to them and they wish to try to go lower they through the variance procedures either through staff or ZBA could reduce that as low as 250 feet as the code is drafted today again this is only applicable to those protected uses there was a question previously at December 2nd regarding why do we have a reverse setback in our industrial districts and that's because some protected uses such as schools and churches are permitted in any zoning district so it could potentially apply there so just to give some data there were some questions on December 2nd about the the effect of this and how many properties it affected so I wanted to go back through some of the data if you remember when we looked at similar data over the summer you'll notice these numbers are slightly different so just to address those differences we did have six pads or six gas well sites where all of the wells were plugged within the last six months of 2019 so that reduced some of the numbers and then we also received our 2019 certified parcel layer from the county which updated our parcel layers with plats that have been recently approved and things like that so those are the difference if you compare the numbers we looked at in August versus today so this is our most current estimate based on the 2019 certified parcel layer so you see the acreage within the 250 days at about 1,700 acres 500 feet would be 4,100 acres and then 1,500 feet which was a number that we had a proposal for in November 19th that was one of the motions that would go up to almost 16,000 acres the number of parcels were at 584 parcels within our current reverse setback radius would be at just over 1,400 with the 500 feet some of those are undeveloped so there is acreage that this that this could still greatly impact the develop ability of their land we have 115 undeveloped parcels within the 250 today and 292 within the 500 and then looking at the estimated count of single-family based on the lots that we know we're for sure developed with single-family uses today we have 198 within the 250 and 857 within the 500 foot councilmember Briggs has a question land in this chart they would essentially be counted as one of those undeveloped parcels today because we don't have a land use assigned to it and we don't have their their breakdown of how they'll be plotting that in the future so they are included here so to sort of expand that question so you're saying of the 1,043 Cullen Hunter Ranch if there's two parcels those would be considered just two parcels but are the acreage attributed to those two parcels included in the separate setback acreage inside the COD is that part of that acreage they would be for the gas well sites that exist on the ground today we didn't project out with the other known pad sites that they have within those areas we don't know how much of that acreage of the 16,000 is attributed to those two current gas well developments I don't have that breakdown we just know that it's included in this helpful so to take that a step further we we did our best estimate based on again known known land uses of developed parcels as well as projects that are either in plotting or in development today and this is that breakdown of what the protected use count would be within these setback radius so total protected uses that we identified within the 250 today is at 203 total within the 500 would be 867 it's worth noting for uses like multifamily we this is not a unit breakdown that's simply two properties that are known to be under development with multifamily that are within the 500 and then same thing with the 1500 and these numbers for example the 500 count does include those that are within the 250 those are not netted out so were there any questions over this data I just wanted to have that available for you all okay all right so diving a little deeper into the the larger discussion point for tonight which are the options regarding nonconformities this is a slide that was presented to you all on November 19th containing containing the three options that had been proposed at that time so again option a one is the option that was brought up by council over the summer where we would not create new nonconformities but we would do nothing to address those are that are nonconforming today so anything within the 250 foot setback under a one would remain nonconforming as it is today as the 2019 code is written those properties couldn't be rebuilt or expanded under a one properties within the 250 foot to 500 foot radius would be deemed legal they wouldn't become nonconforming with this ordinance which would mean they could rebuild and expand as they could within their base zoning district again we discussed this in November but that option was not recommended by staff or legal because of some concerns that were expressed to you all regarding the in equal treatment of nonconformities if you would the second option option a two was one that was recommended by staff and our legal department under that option everything within the 500 those within 250 would stay nonconforming between 250 and 500 would become nonconforming with the ordinance however we would write into the code and the ability for those structures to go to the zoning board of adjustment if they needed to rebuild their property this was a process that existed under our 2002 development code it went away when the 2019 code was adopted so this was simply pulling that language from the O2 code and reintroducing it in 2019 this option would be applicable to any nonconforming structure in the city so it would eliminate that concern about an equal treatment of nonconformities because it would be available to everyone exhibit a3 was the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation they liked option 2 but they wanted to take out that extra step of ZBA so it's essentially the same thing everything within the 500 becomes nonconforming or remains nonconforming if it already was but under this option they could rebuild by right they wouldn't have to go to the ZBA to request that it would the ability would be granted to any nonconformity and again that would apply citywide so any nonconforming structure be it nonconforming to gas well setbacks or zoning requirements anything would have had the ability to rebuild by right this table is now expanded as you saw in your backup there's a new option a4 that was crafted by staff based upon the feedback we heard at that December 2nd meeting there was still that concern about the nonconformities that either existed today and would be created by this ordinance a4 introduces everything within the 500 foot being deemed legal so the structures that are nonconforming today to the 250 would become legal by this this option and everything between 250 and 500 would be deemed legal at this time so no nonconformities would be created that means with all those structures being considered legal they would have the ability to rebuild expand do whatever they wanted to do on their property by right under their base zoning so they could do they would just essentially have to follow building coverage setback standards from the lot lines everything that applies citywide and again the same concerns that exist under a4 as exists under a1 for for a legal department regarding the unequal treatment of nonconformities so again that was not a recommendation but it is certainly an option the council can consider I wanted to have this language available in case you all wanted to look at it more closely this was the red line in your backup for option a1 again this adds a new section in sub chapter 1 where we offer that statement that the applicability of the gas will reverse set back to existing protected uses and lots stating that as long as you're outside the 250 foot you would become legal and it defines legally established as any existing protected you structure feature lot or any lot that is part of a project under chapter 245 of the local government code so it extends that protection to projects that are in development today that are going through the plotting process same thing option a2 wanted to have the language available for us this is an amendment to the section the non-conforming structure section of our code that would state that anything that is damaged or destroyed by fire to the extent of more than 50% of the gross floor area would have to go to the zoning board of adjustment for the ability to rebuild that structure similar with option a3 it's essentially the same thing but again it takes away the requirement for ZBA so under this option if you're destroyed by more than 50 percent or less than 50 percent does not matter as long as it is a accidental or natural cause you could rebuild by right if it's a voluntary demolition you would not be able to rebuild and then the new option for same as option one again puts in an entirely new section into the DDC that states that the reverse setbacks are not creating non-conformities this is the table that was provided to you all in your backup that breaks those down in a little more detail and compares the various scenarios if there's interest I can certainly walk through this otherwise I'll just have it available in case there are questions all right and so again I won't touch on the other things in more detail unless you all have specific questions so just for reference here's again that summary breakdown of what these changes look like in the three sub chapters and just for reference here's the the past recommendation and votes regarding this again staff recommended all of the changes to sub chapter 6 and 8 with option a 2 for sub chapter 1 the P&Z again no changes were recommended to sub chapter 6 and 8 beyond what's in your backup they recommended a 3 and then for reference that November 19th vote was again for option a 2 and then sub chapter 6 and 8 as proposed I'm happy to stand for any questions that you all may have and again I do have the November slides available if we need to reference anything if you could before we take public comment of course if there's any discussion with the council members if you could go back to slide 3 because as I've read it I want to I want to go because the order is out on the motions and things so I want to just go over that in detail just factual information not editorial information because it's my recollection if I'm incorrect somebody correct me is that the first motion that was made by Councilmember Davis which was to approve option a 2 or is it a 2 a 2 staffs recommendation which was the 500 foot setback the non-conformities the ZBA amendment and also the administrative relief yes after that we had discussion Councilmember Armitage made a motion to postpone until December the 3rd 2019 I think I forgot who made the second on that was that Councilmember melts Councilmember did you make the say okay anyway a second was made but the motion failed two to five at that time there was an amendment it really wasn't a motion it was it was in the form of an amendment but amendment was made by Councilmember Meltzer and seconded by Councilmember Armitage to substitute in the 1500 foot setback for the 500 foot setback within the underlying motion which all those other conditions stayed in place except there was a request to also in that amendment to take out the administrative relief that failed I think as Councilmember Meltzer Armitage and Briggs had voted for it and the others voted against it then there was a motion to amend to include reverse setbacks from captain plugged wells it was not seconded and so once we extinguished all of those particular kind of procedural motions we were able to consider the underlying motion because there were no amendments that were made and the underlying emotion was 500 foot setback non-conformities ZBA amendment as presented and then the administrative setback and then after that we had the motion to reconsider which I had put on the agenda we could ask to put on the agenda and we considered it had meetings which will discuss the various ideas of that that motion passed four to two counts councilmembers Ryan my pro tem husband myself and councilmember Davis voted for it councilmembers armature and Meltzer voted against the motion to reconsider and those those are sort of how we got to this place because I know there's a lot of people here that that just read some things but it's important that they understood sort of the procedural aspect of how we got to this place and I just want to clarify from what I read on your slide that after the December 2nd discussion on the motion to reconsider is when staff began to really formulate and talk about this option for based upon the discussion that occurred at the motion to read at the hearing for the motion to reconsider correct all right councilmember armature to add something to that so the five two if you could go back a slide that motion passed five to as I recall that the two of us who voted no were myself and I believe mayor pro tem hudspeth set correct yes that is correct that is correct so yeah and you know I will just say for the record I myself was not aware of this of this option for until the agenda came out on Friday and I was thrilled because it was what I had wanted so I'm not doubting that staff had been working on it this whole time just for the record I didn't know that this was in the works I had thought it was an impossibility thank you councilmember Briggs yeah I just wanted to comment because my name wasn't called on the reconsideration and I was not there yes I was absent I had no idea that the reconsideration was going to happen but I would have voted in favor of it I am glad that the mayor brought back the reconsideration so sometimes government is wrong and this is the process that we go through when we need to correct something so so yes the the option for nobody discussed in that November the 19th meeting about grandfathering nobody has requested it nobody discussed it and the motion to reconsider during the whole meeting all the different motions so that's why it wasn't there because nobody talked about it in the motion to reconsider there were discussions about I'm not sure if we can apply these things to people who are already existing and how do we do that certainly we needed to provide them notice and about the forthcoming changes and about what happened at the November 19th meeting I mean when we passed that if it would have gone into effect the next day if or the next two days if the motion to reconsider had failed that ordinance would have gone into effect and some of the discussion at the motion to reconsider was can we fix it through a different process to bringing it back through P&Z through then the City Council and can we fix it and then maybe notice wouldn't be necessary but that wasn't what was the final tally to pass the motion to reconsider councilmember Meltzer actually you you touched on the main point I wanted to to make which is that as the minutes will reflect the discussion at that meeting was about which way to address the points that you validly raised and I don't recall any councilmembers advocating allowing homeowners not to have recourse if there were a fire and so on okay all right councilmember armature yes and and for the record that's how I recall it too as councilmember Meltzer just mentioned you know I remember having asked at the time you know why can't we make a distinction between why can't we just grandfather in as legal existing homes and prohibit develop to have it new development so we're not penalizing the existing homeowners and you know the impression I got was that that's that's not possible or would be legally problematic in some way but but I do want to say for the record that I had been even though I voted no to the first one I was very much in favor of going ahead because I had actually thought that we had already covered those factors that were brought up the ability to expand and the ability to rebuild so anyway I'm happy we are where we are now but you know there has been a lot of misunderstanding and not just in the public's end but I think on on council's end too so apologies to everyone that has been messy process democracies messy but I'm glad we're here and we get to hear from you councilmember Meltzer oh sorry councilmember Ryan I just want to kind of set a couple things straight that yes I was amongst the five that did vote for this initially and I there were certain parts of it I didn't understand had the mayor not done a motion to reconsider I probably would have myself once I found out what was involved in this I wished I would have listened to mayor pro tem a little bit more that evening on what was going on but as I stated when I made the second for the for the motion to reconsider we don't want to put something on the books this would have gone into effect the very next day had we not repealed it and then we would have spent six months trying to fix it that it was better to repeal it and come back and get this fixed in a proper way in short order instead of having to go through the long process of trying to fix it councilmember Davis echoing just a little bit and adding you know I made the original motion to approve the 500 foot setback with the ZBA option that you heard about one of the things that became very clear to us in the conversations we had that you've heard about and that you can go back and watch it's all in the city website what came became clear to us is that we messed up we made we jumped the gun and we didn't give all y'all notice of what was going to happen you know we sit up here and we deal with gas wells as you read the paper often we discuss it often we think about it some of us probably dream about gas wells speak for yourself maybe some of the nightmares about gas wells but what we did not do is try to give y'all some of the same knowledge that we have the same conversations we've been having and that's what the cards in the mail were about and so I want to thank the mayor for asking that motion reconsider so we have an option to come back do it the right way if we do this the right way the things that all y'all are worried about tonight we will we will address I also want to thank mayor pro Tim Hudspeth for being the sole voice the night that we first continued the night I made my motion and the night that we first passed this he asked every single speaker who spoke in favor of it do you live within 500 feet of a gas well does this actually affect you every single one of me asked that and he was the sole person who raised that issue that night and really brought it home and then before we get into the public hearing I want to thank the staff for the Herculean tasks they've had communicating with all y'all how many y'all spoke with directly or emailed with Haley in the process I think she gets a round of applause don't you all so it's important and I think what's important here the thing that's frustrated me the most about this is number one fortunately the mark of a good organization is can we correct the things that needed to be corrected and we did that or we're a hunch I have a hunch we're going to do that but I must say councilmember armature when you say that you made a comment about grandfathering in and that you were told it was an impossibility I don't recall that at that meeting so I will I watched that meeting yesterday December the second the council meeting I don't recall that maybe it was another meeting it may have been another meeting but you represented in some of your postings that that was that meeting and you've had some pretty strong words and so when we talk about the hearing for the motion to reconsider it was about two processes it was about a process to reconsider the motion and it was about a process to send it through another motion with or without notice now the the important thing about that is that Mayor Pro Tem asked the question directly you know what will happen if we don't approve this what what what happens to the current motion and the fact is as I stated earlier that the current motion that was approved in November the 19th it would have gone into effect so everyone sitting in here that has a protected use within 500 feet of a gas well would have been a non-conforming use and let me say this for I've heard from you all and I've heard some comments about the rebuilding but most of the comments that I've heard are do you know that we now have to say if we sell our home that it's a non-conforming use and that was one of the main reasons that I asked for the motion to reconsider because I understand the implications of that those implications in some ways are much stronger than the implication that you may not be able to rebuild because you have a way to go get a waiver from the ZBA so I think again the mark of a good organization is to turn around and try to correct something that for whatever reason intentional unintentional oversight that we're able to do that and I think you'll see as we have our deliberations and after we hear from you the public that you will see what our guidance in the direction to staff is in that matter councilmember armature yeah so I just just wanted to say that I did not want it to go into effect once I found that my understanding that these things would were not included in what was voted on would word would not be coming to pass so I agreed we needed to change to go back to word councilmember Meltzer was saying some of us thought it should go through planning and zoning first but I don't think any of us wanted people to be non-conforming and I will say I was very much in favor of postcards going out but what I do not like about the postcards was the wording and what I have been hearing from people is that it's not just the possibility of non-conforming that what made people concerned about their home resale value it was the actual fact of the wording on the postcard which people had to had to disclose and right now people have that wording on the postcard and if somebody wants to sell their home they have to disclose that and so I felt that it was irresponsibly worded and that was why I had very strong language I was completely in favor still am of postcards having gone out in fact I was the one who suggested we expand it to not just homeowners but tenants too of properties so I just wanted to make that distinction clear and I hope that the outcome of tonight will undo the damage of that postcard which not only caused a lot of distress but for many people it's something they have in writing that they would have to disclose so I hope this result will cancel that and you'll be able to throw away those postcards and they will be moot so I want to address that because I'm still I really don't understand what your objection is to the language I'm going to read your post it says over the frightening postcard you recently received from the city in the mail warning you of an impending homeowners nightmare of totally unprotected non-compliant status under the new reverse setbacks even though the on the raw unmodified non-compliance it described as nothing anyone on council staff or planning and zoning has ever voted on absolutely false the motion that was made the beginning motion on November 19th was clear every structure is non-conforming the amendment that was made to increase that setback to 1,500 feet was clear every structure was non-conforming there was a misunderstanding at the time about what non-conforming was there well if that was your misunderstanding councilmember armature I wish you would have asked a question because I think staff went over real clearly what non-conforming is and if we need to we'll go over it again but the essence of it is if you own a structure that is not in compliance with a city code or ordinance then you're in non-compliance and that happens under a lot of various ways and means and in this particular case what the council did was to pass and everyone on this dais voted at least for a motion to create the non-compliance now some of those motions failed some of them passed I did as well I did as well and the next morning I woke up and I realized hmm we might want to think about that a little bit more and that's why I asked for this so it was very clear what was happening now whether we understood the full implication or not that's a different story but we can't say that we didn't know what non-conforming was based upon how it would impact the homeowners within this 500 feet and to say that no one on council the Planning and Zoning Commission or staff recommended that is simply untrue the notice that was given stated exactly what was the impact of the ordinance that was voted on on November the 19th and stated exactly what the impact would have been if that motion for reconsideration had not been approved and it states exactly what will happen tonight if this council doesn't find another alternative which has now been proposed by staff after hearing the meeting on the motion to reconsider can we hear from the public now absolutely any more questions or comments all right okay I will now open the public hearing this is how we're going to I've got blue cards I'm not sure how many quite a few as you can see we have people up here I believe we have people downstairs in the overflow room so I'm going to call the first person that comes up and they'll come to speak and you'll give your name and address and you'll have to believe it's four minutes is that correct madam city manager our city secretary boy just promoted you and Todd is going to be the new city secretary and okay and what I will do then is when I call the first name I will call the runner-up and if who if wherever you are if you're if you run if the runner-up is called if you'll come down and sit in one of these seats here that are vacant and then when that person comes up I'll call someone else and so we're just going to have a rotation and what we'll do is when I finish with the cards and these white cards are the ones who have stated an opposition a stated a position excuse me and they've put their name and address and comments and so what we'll do is we'll make sure that these get placed also in the the official record of this meeting but the white cards indicate that you do not wish to speak so my I would hope and just ask for some indulgence that if you filled out a white card once I get through with the the blue cards and those in a public hearing are welcome to speak if you if you are you want to say something go ahead okay if you come and say hey I filled out a white card but I'd still like to speak just let me know so I can try and find it and pull it but we'll make our way through it it it's gonna seem sort of awkward at first but as we move through it the thing I would say is I would encourage you that if people said everything you want to say you have the mic you can say whatever you want to say you can say Ditto you can speak about the issues that are concerning you we've got quite a few people here so just and also if we could there's there's a lot of passion surrounding this issue and I appreciate that in order to get this through as quickly as possible there's going to be things said that you either agree with or you disagree with I simply ask that you hold your expressions of either affirmation or non-affirmation for those comments so that we can have an orderly meeting because if everybody's clapping and all those kinds of things it really does stretch it out we sort of have a history of having big public hearings and so we we know this from experience so I would really appreciate your indulgence in that and if I have to remind you I will but it sure will be respectful to the speaker and also respectful to those who are waiting to speak and all who are here waiting to speak okay councilmember Briggs is but if you have something from a procedural perspective yes I do mayor it's been a long time since we've had this number of speakers to come out to speak on an item and because of that the there is a rule of procedure the council has when there's this many speakers typically the rule is four minutes per speaker but when there's so many as there are tonight the council can decide to limit that to three minutes so that everyone you know otherwise that extra minute times a hundred could and you know how long that'll be so that is within discretion of the council to follow for three minutes if it's so desires but it can choose four minutes the decision is yours okay so I understand is the default three or four the default is four okay and if we want to change it to three that would take an affirmative action by this body yes all right thank you councilmember Briggs well I I'm not in favor of lessening the time okay yeah that's my armature yeah I was gonna ask for a show of hands you know raise your hand if you wanted to stay at four minutes okay that looks like a majority to me raise your hand three minutes well okay I'm not counting so bit so we're gonna stick with four minutes yeah all right so the first speaker is I believe it's Lindsey Donahue and Leo I'm sorry I can't read that so if Lindsey is here and there may be some people downstairs is Lindsey here we'll give a couple minutes I tell you what we'll do we'll go ahead and call that oh sorry councilmember Briggs yeah and just so when they come do they know to fill in these chairs here that's for the speakers yes yeah yeah we'll go ahead and call the next speaker Matthew Merrill is Matthew here okay I'm gonna I'm gonna reshuffle these cards because I have a feeling that the read the most recent cards that have come in are the people downstairs and the oldest ones are yeah yeah yeah well that's that was something that anyway yeah okay all right this was okay here's the I just received the list I wasn't quite sure how they were doing it this isn't this isn't typically the way we do it so this is a new process for us so please bear with us thank you all right okay so Cindy Pritchard Pritchett is first and Marcus Pritchett is second so Marcus will be runner-up if you'll take a seat my name is Cindy Pritchett and I live at 1705 Palo Verde Drive here in Denton I would like to have my brother Dave Dennison speak on my behalf based on his qualifications which are BS in architecture Texas A&M University Masters in urban planning Texas A&M University 55 years experience in land use and urban planning former Planning Commission chairman former mayor former board member of North Central Texas Council of Governments 52 years member of American Institute of City planners former city planning consultant licensed real estate broker lifelong resident of Denton County and currently serves as Denton County Special Commissioner and real estate condemnation cases Dave Dennison if you could restate your name and your address thank you mayor I'm Dave Dennison I live in Highland Village a lot of what I had to say I think have been covered by some of the comments by the council so I'm going to be very brief the effects on the existing homes and lots are really the issue that that my sister and brother-in-law have that that effect basically is to have a significant negative effect on their home home value and their lot value in regard to having to disclose their non-conforming use if if they're selling if the house is destroyed by fire tornado or whatever they can't rebuild so their lot which her lot is valued on the tax rolls at $50,000 becomes non-sellable basically can't use it for anything I think the purpose of your ordinance probably that the the overall ordinance you're considering is to protect the homeowners and check the properties in Denton the effect as it now stands does not do that it damages the existing homeowners within 500 feet it only protects future homes and those are homes that haven't even been built yet so I don't think that's what the intent of the council ever was to do I hope I hope it was so I think that the the solution here is this option for that's that's the option that would cause all existing properties residential properties within 500 feet to not become non-conforming uses they will be conforming uses I think that I've seen something in the notes that staff and the city attorney maybe said that that's not possible to do I will tell you that in my 55 years of working in city planning and consulting for most of the cities in North Central Texas at least 75 percent of them this is done all the time on cases where zoning would create a non-conforming use where that's not intended to be done by the council and they can be exempted it's done all the time so and to to have an option that would require would give relief in that the the homeowner could go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment that's unnecessarily burdensome in the first place the second place they may not be approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment so that's not really an acceptable option at all so in the end I implore you to adopt the option for as the only solution that would be acceptable to my sister and brother-in-law and probably you're going to hear a number of other people say the same thing to you thank you for your time thank you very much I appreciate that thank you the next speaker is Marcus Pritchett with Joyce Poole after Marcus thank you mayor members of the council I heard a good bit in the last few minutes or during the presentation by the planning department that will shorten my talk a good little bit so I'm going to pull out some of the items that were there and leave the items that I think still hadn't been brought up we do thank you for the postcard whoever's idea that was saved a lot of us a lot of misery so I kind of take exception with the postcard being a it was kind of a poison pill all right but I think me and my peeps that are sitting out here agree that we needed that poison pill and and it's just difficult to get this information out there buddy but a but a postcard is the only way to do it my wife and I live in the Oaks of Montecito on Palo Verde Drive and we're right behind a very close gas well and it's not much over 500 feet I mean it's good bit the 500 feet goes way past our house and across the street and down the street we're about as close as anybody to that gas well so we we know where it is and it was built after our home was occupied by us probably eight years after the subdivision was occupied and to put us in that kind of situation we talked about the Zoning Board of Adjustment and those problems but I think there's one more item that many people don't realize it's one thing to say you've got an insurance policy on your house but if you cannot rebuild on that lot for anything over 50% destruction or if you have a tornado anything like that the Zoning Board of Adjustment may or may not approve it there's no assurance of that and that's why we're nervous but we're worried we've been worried about the lot price and the value of the lot going down but the other piece of this is if you have your home destroyed and you go to you want to rebuild your lot or build your home on another lot somewhere else the insurance company may or may not pay anything for that house many other language many insurance policy languages say that the home may be really rebuilt on existing lot only so I doubt many of you knew that so we can you we can lose the value of our lot and the value of our house and one activity and for many of us like in our case who knew what to stock market crashes and and those kind of things were going to happen to 401ks over 20 years but I think we may not be the only people here that that home and lot is the predominance of our 401k now and all of us someday are not going to be living in single-family homes and they need someplace else to go so anyway we we do appreciate your consideration and strongly support the adoption of 4a in your overhead presentation and we will we will await your vote eagerly and hope for that if not I can assure you you'll be seeing us again thank you very much for your time the real question is how long are we gonna have to wait for the vote we got a lot of so it's yeah so bear and just to give you a heads up it's 730 I'm going to probably call for a break at 745 just so that you all understand what's what's happening as far as the purpose of the meeting so this pull this pull you're up and then the next person will be Dennis Dennis Howard and if Dennis is here oh yes come on down in yes if you'll just lay it down there on the squares that will pull that up before I start this is my home over here in the corner good evening mayor and members of the council my name is Joyce pool I live at 3021 North Bonnie Bray my exhibit shows the distance of my home and property from the wellhead behind my home which is the yellow the red line is the 250 mark and the blue line is the 500 foot mark I am asking that our properties be grandfathered at the distances that have been in place and have been legal all of this time also that none of our existing properties be placed in the status of non-conforming now or in the future non-conforming status attaches several legal hoops to deal with and could affect the future value and sale of our properties and it allows the city to amortize certain properties for their eventual elimination who has had the time to download read and absorb all the intricacies I'm sorry intricacies that non-conforming fully implies and creates let alone the confusing options and all the amendments I suggest that citizens need to have a 60-day moratorium placed on any action on this proposed ordinance so we can be informed and make knowledgeable comments then we citizens are at the mercy of the City Council and other decision-makers who have had the advantage of being exposed to and discussed these multiple issues offer us the same opportunity our home and properties are at stake established homes and properties should be grandfathered and not suffer a black mark of non-conforming on their property and homes place a temporary freeze on all permits and development until this ordinance is fully vetted by the citizens I appreciate your time and your consideration and I thank you very much mr. Howard and the next up is Tanya Ray my name is Dennis Howard I own and reside in the home in 1933 Willowcrest loop here in Denton I've lived in this home for 22 years my occupancy predates the installation of the gas well on an adjacent property I am within the proposed 500 foot reverse setback I understand that if the 500 foot reverse setback goes through my home would be classified as a non-conforming structure that it may not be rebuilt if it is damaged or expanded if it intrudes into the setback what was not mentioned in the postcard notification I received of the proposed 500 foot reverse setback is the resale value for my home will be zero under the 500 foot reverse setback who in their right mind would buy a home that could not be rebuilt if it was damaged I believe the answer is no one for obvious reasons I'm adamantly opposed to increasing the reverse setback from 250 to 500 feet I hope and expect that my property and others like it would be grandfathered so that they remain in compliance with the original 250 foot reverse setback I'm a registered professional engineer with a background in environmental engineering and over 40 years of experience in reviewing a video of the July 16th 2019 council meeting there was a discussion that if a 250 foot reverse setback is good surely a 500 foot reverse setback is better during this meeting dr. banks with the city explained that 238 air monitoring events have been conducted at gas wells within the city and there was only one exceedance of an air standard and that was for a low level of methane moreover the downward samples on each site were not collected at the property line but rather at the edge of the pad around the well which is typically significantly closer to the well than the property line this is an added layer of conservatism there is no apparent scientific rationale to increasing the reverse setback to 500 feet a concern expressed during this meeting by some members of the council was who will sue us us being the city if we increase the reverse setback there was a discussion of acceptable risk to the city and some comfort was taken when the observation was made that not every landowner will take us to court I was appalled by this attitude and continued to be so the landowners least likely to sue to sue the city are the little guys like my neighbors and I and yet we are the most likely to suffer a significant loss that being the value of our homes thankfully mayor Watts reminded the council that for those in existing homes the five foot reverse setback would and I quote render their property almost valueless to recap I stand opposed to increasing the current 250 foot reverse setback to 500 feet in addition to being punitive to landowners to affected landowners there is no scientific justification for this action at least as applies to protecting the public health and safety I'm gonna apologize for the terstness of this but I was really agitated when I got that postcard and having heard recently about exhibit a for looks like this hope for what I perceive to be a really nasty situation to be rectified so thank you for your time Tanya Ray is up then after Tanya is Arthur Townsend good evening as a homeowner in the Willow Ridge community my name is Tanya Ray and I live at 3320 Grobland Terrace in Denton Texas as a homeowner in the Willow Ridge community for over 15 years and a mortgage origination in real estate title professional for over 25 years I'm in strong opposition to the adoption of this project for the gas well reverse setback the designation of our properties is non-conforming properties practically renders them of no value all mortgage lenders use Fannie Mae mortgage underwriting guidelines due to selling their loans on the secondary markets Fannie Mae's guidelines are available online to the public per these guidelines lending on a non-conforming property is not permissible due to the risk of losing value on the collateral securing the mortgage loan due to the bar's inability to rebuild the value of the property for the mortgage could further be reduced if the actual cash value that is insured on the property is less than the mortgage payoff the inability to obtain financing on a non-conforming property would affect property owners by the inability to sell their property a potential buyer could not obtain financing if it's deemed non-conforming existing homeowners could not cash out their equity or refinance again because of it being deemed non-conforming and not acceptable to the major mortgage lenders homeowners insurance payouts on a total loss are also affected when a property cannot be rebuilt insurers pay actual cash value even though homeowners must ensure their properties at replacement cost value when their property is financed actual cash value is significantly less than the replacement cost value also I believe the city of Denton considers a loss of 50% or more a total loss major insurers consider a total loss as 80% loss and my question is how can the city impose guidelines for rebuilding that supersede what a homeowner insures their property for the ability the inability to rebuild impacted properties could become a blight to the community and affect more homeowners property values due to being in close proximity to a home that sits in disrepair for long periods of time if destroyed or in inconsistencies in the neighborhoods due to the groups that could be the gaps that could be created by destroyed properties proposed solutions that were discussed per conversation with the City Council office or grandfathering or allowing advanced variants to the affected homeowners grandfathering the properties has to assure that the grandfathering clause applies to future owners a variance is not a viable option for resolution as a variance is legally granted for a specific amount of time once expired the homeowners must reapply for the variance from the city if the variance term is for less than a proposed mortgage term the lender would decline the loan is there is no guarantee the variance would be reissued also going having to go to the ZBA for permission to rebuild would be disclosed in the non-conforming guidelines and this would this would disallow the mortgage lender from lending on the property from a lending underwriting perspective the only viable solution and it looks like it's outlined in a for would be to change the verbiage to deem the properties as legal non-conforming the legal documentation would need to specifically state the ability to rebuild verbiage prohibiting an expiration of the legal non-conforming status and confirmation status that would transfer to any future owners mortgage underwriting from Fannie Mae does allow legal non-conforming property types as an eligible property type is a project is imposed with the results that are detrimental to the large numbers of homeowners affected the City Council could face a class-action lawsuit for the devaluation of our properties the next speaker is Arthur Townsend and after mr. Townsend is when we will take our break and up after mr. Townsend coming back from the break will be Joseph Kratz Arthur Townsend one six zero zero Palo Verde Drive the first thing I notice here on the FAQs is who received the notices every address and property owner within 500 feet of a gas well site was notified with a postcard I believe that this statement is not correct also as I look through this information I see exhibit a 1 a 2 a 3 a 4 and I'm already confused because you're going over 3 I found on the City of Denton website this sheet of paper 3 out of 4 the City of Denton hereby ordains and it seems to suggest that City Council is going to approve this well apparently not because we have four options to consider consider this possible scenario my home becomes subject to this non-conformity and my home is in flame so I call 9-1-1 and I say to the person send the fire brigade and she says where do you live 1 6 0 0 Palo Verde Drive well how much of your home was burned oh about about 50% well in that case you cannot rebuild there's no point in sending the fire brigade to you let it burn is that is that what's going to happen and another possible scenario is that my home might be destroyed in a natural disaster in which case I would not be able to rebuild and I would own a lot on which I could not live so I would lose the homeowner's exemption and I would have to pay taxes on a property of no use to me because I'll bet there is not one person here who will help me fight the appraisal district to get the value of my home reduced to zero if this comes into effect now if I'm in that situation I would have to just abandon the property and walk away from it in which case the City of Denton would seize the property and this takes civil asset forfeiture to a whole new level confiscation of private property without even the suggestion of a crime to my mind this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment now I agree entirely with the gentleman who was the registered professional engineer I'll go a little bit further and say that all of this is based on junk science I'm 75 years of age my health is okay and I do not need or want any member of City Council pretending to care about my health I'm also satisfied that the members of City Council who want this approved are the very members of City Council who are not affected by it it's very easy to make all sorts of grand decisions when you do not have to live with the consequences of your decisions so I would say to you if you are not willing to have this apply to you then do not apply it to us thank you well I'm glad that that occurred on the break so it's not gonna waste this so we're gonna stay an extra minute for the break because of that Albert now we'll take a break we'll come back around 750 752 give everybody a chance to get up and stretch your feet and so on thank you welcome everybody back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on January the 28th your 2020 to 755 we're moving through our one and only agenda item in this 630 meeting which is a public hearing our current speaker is Joseph Kratz and the speaker who will be after mr. Kratz is is it Isla lec thank you I've had some really great orders come before me and that has of course changed what I have my prepared statements have now changed as a result of that and your comments and your information has also done that so I'm gonna try to adjust on the fly accordingly and and a couple of good thoughts I didn't even think about the impact on refinancing FHA different scenarios I didn't even think about that so that was I'm glad I showed up just for that reason alone but I think that I've looked at the I got the card I've looked at the different proposals and I think that council has a great opportunity in front of them and I think each of the folks behind me have really great concerns if I had to speak on their behalf as well as myself I would say that the non-conforming status affecting property value is the common thread of concern and when I was shown this I don't see one choice that works and when it says not recommended by legal because not all non-conforming structures are treated equally well we you know I'd love to have that fleshed out but not on my time so I would love to have the the because not all non-conforming structures are treated equally I'd like to have that fleshed out but not on my speaking time so so I guess I would say that council has a great opportunity in in this decision to to sort of telegraph to residents that have decided to homestead in Denton that there's a desire a capacity on council to honor that decision the the devotion of dollars towards the purchase of a home the the desire to homestead in Denton as opposed to somewhere else in in the great state of Texas the opportunity to generate permits and fees for the city's benefit developers to to have the opportunity to know that there's a predictable regulatory landscape in which to operate on those are that that's sort of the who is then what is it how what how do we characterize their leadership is it a leadership that is predictable that is stable or trendy and volatile because if it's trendy and volatile then maybe maybe some might decide not to set down roots here that but getting back to getting back to that decision that that's for you guys to make but I just wonder what why why not just buy the wells out if they're a bother rather than impact all the surrounding homes because if somebody can't rebuild that puts a vacant lot in a subdivision I wouldn't want I'm in the 500 foot but let's say I'm not but somebody else down the street can't rebuild and all of a sudden and it reminds me in Houston in in a previous sort of a speaking of volatile real estate they they they the developer vacated and left empty lots and those empty lots did impact adversely mr. Kress I'm sorry that's the end of you did you state your name and address at the beginning I couldn't recall yeah it's Joseph last name is Kratz okay yeah thank you and your address is 4109 Roxbury and I'm in the 500 foot proposed thank you very much sir yeah miss Leck and then up after that is mr. Miller John Miller yes so I'm I like I love it 3401 Ocean Drive and the first thing that I did when I got this postcard as I googled what I buy a non-conforming property and if you can see my phone right there the first two that come up say yeah no you shouldn't buy a non-conforming property then I did a little research and tried to find out what non-conforming meant and the first thing I did was call my realtor because why you guys are concerned about existing and future property values and home sales you have already affected mine the night I got that postcard our option period on the new house that we were buying expired we put in a contract on the house with the understanding that we would be able to sell ours it's in a good price point it's good area it's go it's zone for Geier high school we chose not to put it on the market because this meaning was being held and this ordinance was being proposed just by doing what you did and thank goodness you rescinded it you already made this disclosable to buyers because if somebody were to buy my house and I knew that there was an ordinance change and you kept option 2 I am then responsible for that another speaker said to please extend this for 60 days I implore you not to because you will then and still impact any existing cell because I have to disclose that this is going to happen I won't go over what everybody has already stated you know it's going to impact existing property sales you know that you can have a fight with insurance properties somebody already said it I went read my my policy 80% actual cash value I don't know that the city of didn't once that fight with insurance providers I was talking to one of my friends and they said oh well what's the chance that your house could be destroyed well you know what I've lived it I went through a natural disaster thank God I didn't have to go to a planning and zoning committee and ask if I could rent there again thank God I wasn't a property owner at that point I was able to pick up the pieces and rebuild by myself if that happened now I'd have two boys an insurance company to fight and then and again I'd have to go through a planning and zoning committee that won't even tell me for sure whether I can rebuild my house so I know that everybody is talking about the future I grew up in the city of didn't we had our boys why we lived in the city of didn't we're not moving far but I implore you to vote for option four you already know the reasons you already know that it'll impact not just the houses that are impacted in the 500 feet also the houses around my neighborhood will be impacted that aren't affected it'll drop property values and I don't think that in this day and age we want that so thank you for reconsidering and thank you for allowing us to talk Mr. Miller and Miller and then Eric Fullerton is up next my name is John Miller live at 1605 Palo Verde Oaks of Montecito I built my house there about 18 years ago there was no gas wheels anywhere around at that time then years later the city allowed gas wheels to come in I think closest one is two hundred and fifty point two feet from my bedroom I'm definitely in the 500 zone I'm not going to repeat the same things that the previous speakers have all said because they've about covered everything I was going to talk about but I would just say that I do not believe that any existing residents should be made non-conforming that was there before the gas well we did if you want to make something non-conforming make the gas well non-conforming okay all right I'm trying to get them to not do that so if you please refrain I'd appreciate that thank you I'm sorry I will I'll try not to make a comment that'll cause that again no you're fine they I say that tongue-in-cheek but yeah appreciate your respect in that regard in fact I really don't have no problem with with the 500 foot for future for new construction I wish it had been in effect when my house was built but it wouldn't have helped because there was no gas well there then I wish that the gas well couldn't have been built within 500 feet of my existing house but that didn't happen so I'll relinquish the rest of my time to the next speaker thank you thank you very much appreciate it thank you sir oh I forgot that I named the next one yeah Eric Fullerton and then the next speaker will be Mike Spear I wrote this I was a little venomous I had oh and and name an address Eric Fullerton 3015 North Bonnebury okay first off I know it's doctors not city officials that take the Hippocratic oath but I think that you should you know do first do no harm and the proposed ordinance will do tremendous harm to landowners who have been dutifully paying their taxes and working the land putting blood sweat and tears into it the existing ordinance was plenty in itself I already gave up probably a quarter acre to it and this one would take three quarters of the property maybe 90% I haven't really had it surveyed to see what it would do but it would be burdensome if the object of safety maybe we should look at the get Lone Star gas lines that were laid decades ago that none of those are safe I see those taking out two or three houses every time the news comes on the guy I've never seen a gas wall explosion ever I don't think they're they're pretty well regulated they're not that dangerous I do think this the only people that could possibly benefit from this would be somebody who could pick these houses up for peanuts and then the land then get the rule changed and then make money on them this is mine here and the trees are the border and it's taking very nearly all of them including a good section of the house so I'm a little annoyed there I'd also like to get that I I don't think option four is good but totally doing away with the 500 foot reverse setback would be better because this is just wrong I would imagine that the class-action lawyers are probably lining up on the starting blocks trying to find clients if we can't fix this so I'll leave the rest of my time for anybody else that can use it I don't really have anything to add to that thank you thank you very much mr. Spears up now and then Pat Brown is the next speaker good evening Michael Spears 6712 Lipson Drive Wheeler Ridge just want to echo some comments that have already been stated I'll be very brief and yield the rest of my time as well I'll just simply state that imposing these changes and forcing my property be in a non-conforming standard would have a major impact not only my property value disclosing a sale in the future insurance a lot of things that everybody else has already stated so at a minimum staying with the current standard I can support a four I can support that as well anything where you're going to change the status of my property non-conforming I do not support I believe most of people behind me don't support that either so with that said I'll yield the rest of my time and I'm gonna spend the rest of my evening in my conforming property with my family have a nice did I hear you say correct with it the current standard which is 250 you're okay with and or a for yes I mean I'm outside of the 250 inside of the 500 so I get to live with that one okay but a four I could support okay all right thank you very much appreciate it thank you then next up will be Toby Carcano mayor council members my name is Pat Brown I live at 2900 Sienna Drive in Denton in Tuscan Hills however I also own a property in West Glen subdivision that's rental property my home and Tuscan Hills it's about a thousand feet from the nearest well I'm not concerned from my home there I'm concerned for my neighbor's homes if their value goes down that obviously that's going to majorly impact my house my real concern is for the rental property that's 250 feet from one well 350 or so from the second well so in regards to that I did get a postcard for both houses I was a little concerned that my tenant at my rental property got a postcard because I don't think it's their concern but it does impact me now in regards to the postcard I did the way wake several nights as a result of that I think the wording was very poor on it and I've said but anyway I do go for the a4 amendment that you're talking about I do I would like to recommend a grandfathering clause rather than informing or non-conforming I don't know if I'm clear if you have to disclose that to future buyers or not either way so I would ask you take that into consideration thank you very much Karkano is up and then Tracy Reynolds good evening everybody Toby Karkano mr. watch you were very close on the pronunciation so congratulations my family and I live at 4115 Hampton Road which is out Mosh Branch which is on the very very very tip of City of Denton barely we just got annexed probably six years ago which brings us back here for for more fighting I want to first thank you for rescinding or coming back to the table to do the right thing I want to thank mr. Hetspeth for asking the people that started this conversation if they lived in any of those areas that are going to be impacted I would also ask all of you although I know you can't or won't answer but I would ask you to consider that if you haven't already that we have invested our lives in our homes and our properties which and our homes and our properties make up a very large part of our investment portfolios so to have that and everybody that's that's that's talked about the impacts of this these would become worth nothing and to take that type of a blow in any part or any stage of your investment process is gonna hurt especially when you're trying to still support two children and remain in a city that we love so I again thank you for reconsidering this I'm not gonna repeat what everybody else has said any more than I already have I am just here to ask you all if you were in these areas would you vote for this would you put your investment dollars at risk and I just I just urge you to do the right and ethical thing by these I think 659 Denton families that would be impacted by this thank you Tracy Reynolds and then Mark Samuel just to give you all an update I was told that the downstairs at least in the beginning was full as well and then we had people over at the Civic Center so there's been quite a turn out here so I really appreciate everybody everybody coming out so Tracy and then mark Samuels is up as we stand right now if you own a home within the 250 foot you are not able to rebuild you are a non-conforming use is that correct but we're gonna we're gonna answer that but we'll be taking that up also during the discussion but the short answer mr. city attorney because that's a very good point that's a very good point and currently in the DDC that was adopted in 2019 that if your house is not conforming and you and you have just a damage more than 50% then you cannot rebuild and then there is a clause in there that I'd have to ask the planners why the purpose of that clause it says accepting conformance with the DDC which I don't know exactly but the general rule is if it's damaged more than 50% the answer is no it's a no I'm asking today yeah no that's correct as we sit today yes I just want to make sure the things that I'm saying are still based in fact as we stand right this moment that's absolutely my name is Tracy Reynolds I reside at 7,000 Chaucer Drive and Chaucer Estates 20 years ago my husband and I built our home our dream home on a beautiful wooded lot backing the 80 acres of woods owned by Acme brick at the time fast forward several years they sold the land to Endeavor Energy here come some wells I fought them fought them caused quite a bit of trouble so they moved the wells further back from my house and gave some of my subdivision neighbors and a neighboring subdivision the wells closer to their house so I felt that I had made some progress I knew that I was in excess of 500 foot from their wells so I felt that that was a victory so all these years as I see public notices for things you know in 2015 I see notices you know for this and the 250 foot notice nothing boy good thing sucks for these neighbors you know in the neighborhood behind us because those people drilled 250 foot from their lot line that's terrible but good thing we're 500 foot we go through we get this postcard and I go oh we're 500 foot well maybe it's because our lots pointed at the back and it touches the back of our lot so we're at 500 okay so I pull out and I guess I left out the part that I have over 15 years I'm a state certified general commercial real estate appraiser so this is my business I do this for a living I know exactly what every one of these words mean the postcard made sense to me I hated that it looked like a piece of junk mail but I was glad to have at least gotten a piece of mail about it because as I found out when I found a map I found that we actually had had our home taken condemnation without compensation when all of this was done and put on the books because your lines on the January 17th version of the map shows the 250 foot line running through the middle of my house and takes 20 of our neighbors homes in the 250 foot line because of the way the mapping is drawn my questions about the mapping are about the difference between the way your mapping is drawn for property owned by the energy company as compared to property owned by an individual where the energy company has gone in and gotten rights to drill a well and has put a small circle of paving around it on your map you gave eight acres to these people and then you drew 250 foot around eight acres do you know how many houses you take you took 30 houses in 250 foot and there are only two subdivisions there that's not even on four sides that's two sides that you took that many homes by the way the map was drawn and no one can answer to that no one is the contact for the mapping that has taken place to do this and no one's been brought in to answer to that and say look at the map please refer to the map here's the map the definition the legal definition for the site is we chose to use a gas well or a well head and the paving around it well no these aren't even paved areas that were used but a couple other points they want to make the run through being a real estate appraiser I can promise you in a deed restricted subdivision where you can only build a single-family residence where you are zoned single-family and you are legally restricted from building a single-family home or a lot if it burns down the market value is zero and I believe that all of us who are restricted from building on our lots need to be provided a certificate stating that we are non-conforming and restricted so we can take them to the appraisal district to have our land value declared zero for the next tax year Mark Samuels is up and then Leah cook mr. mayor mr. mayor pro temp City Council my name is Mark Samuels and I live at 6600 Lippez and drive in Wheeler Ridge I don't understand first of all why we're moving these from 250 to 500 that's that's number one number two is you know I would be interested and I don't know if the council would agree to do it but I would be interested to know how many of you are affected by this I mean it's easy just to sit where you're at and pass judgment and make make rules and pass ordinances if there's no impact to you but what if there is but like we are affected and I think that's a valid point to get across you pass the the adoption of this this measure to 500 what saying in two more years you can't come to the table again so let's do 500 more what about that property values regardless if you're within the zone or on the cusp of the zone are going to be affected every value is going to be affected now I've lived in this development for five years previously I lived at Briary Trace Court and I live there for 14 years my family and I have lived here 20 years we moved here after I retired from the Marine Corps in 98 we loved it or we wouldn't have stayed as long as we have but we're concerned about what's what's happening in in the community and I think each of you that sit up here on this council need to really take note of that because it's important that you understand that your voice your vote impacts the mass not the one and everyone here is going to be impacted and I'm not going to rehash everything that's been covered because everyone's done it and I'm really not about rehashing everything the gentleman behind me pretty much was very eloquent in his in his verbiage as well so I thank you for allowing me to speak and with that I'll yield back the right remainder of my time thank you very much mayor Pro Tem did you have a question for the speaker or comment yeah mr. Samuels just wanted to say thank you I appreciate your service so thank you very much thank you all right the next speaker I just put my card up Leah cook and on deck will be David lady I'm Leah cook I live at 1905 Wisteria Street I've lived in didn't my whole life I don't remember living anywhere else I grew up here I went to school here I'm a nurse I work in didn't ISD and I work in the hospitals as well I work two jobs it was hard to buy a house and I don't take that for granted at all I'm I'm first I'm not that old and I'm glad that I had the opportunity to buy a house when I did I have two kids they're great y'all don't know them but they pretty much raised the chances of my house burning down significantly so I have a lot of concerns recently about my house building burning down so I just wanted to throw that out there as well I know no offense I think I'm probably one of the youngest homeowners in here my concern which was kind of touched on by the person previous to me is that I believe this will come up again I don't think this is the last time we're gonna talk about this and I would just like to throw out there I work in a middle school I'm in some weird situations all the time middle schoolers are weird and they are stressful but the last you know I don't are three weeks that I've been trying to figure all this out this has been extremely stressful for me wondering where this is gonna put me I don't know if y'all know anything about teacher retirement but I'm a school nurse so that's what I'm looking at it's not looking great you guys so I'd really like the value of my home to rent to remain intact I mean that's pretty much it I think that this is a really hot topic the environmental stuff I mean I think especially after what you know I figured out I'm really not that happy to be living next to a gas well and I think a lot of us aren't I don't think that's really what we want to do but it wasn't really up to us and I get that we won't want what is best for people I'm a nurse I've looked up the health risks of living next to gas wells it's scary they say like you know methane and normal amounts of radiation that just comes out of the ground it sounds scary to me right and I think it's scary to a lot of people and I think we can all understand how people would not want gas wells how we would say let's just not have gas wells but please don't punish the people who live next to gas wells like we didn't we didn't ask for those you know so that's that's really all I have to say thank you very much David ladies up and then Joseph Smoligia Smoligia sorry yes thank you take your name and address your time will begin yes sir mayor members of council my name is David lady I'm the director of government affairs for the Dallas Builders Association we represent the residential construction and development community in a 10-county service area including Denton County appreciate you holding this meeting tonight and revisiting this issue in short and I'll give you a reason why after this Dallas VA our members are opposed to increasing these setbacks that said we appreciate that you've considered the option of taking care of these people who have basically faced having their homes condemned even inside the 250 foot radius and we appreciate that you were considering looking at those future those developments that are in the platting process now however our greater concern goes beyond that I don't have the luxury of just saying okay this group is protected when I look at property rights and future home development I have to look at those who may have bought their property bought the land two five ten years ago have not yet penciled in the deal but we're considering developing those and have not yet entered the inner entered into the platting process homes that are not plotted but you know but planned penciled out the impact is still the same if they are within that 500 foot range or if they were going to develop and they had pads in that area what happens is it reduces the amount of developable lots what happens in those developments where those lots are reduced what would be normally or what is quite frankly safe and developable lots the other lots have to take the burden of the cost those lot prices go up and the result is higher price final prices in the homes we already value face a challenge in this area of getting people to their target sweet sweet sweet spot of what these homes should be didn't County buyers are price conscious you have a lot of people that work for independent school districts hospitals do just various different types of small business who cannot afford to see the exorbitant increase in in home prices so it affects those it hurts the value of those people who have the land who are not developing it because if there were to be the idea of developing the land they are going to be offered less for their property because the amount of lots it could be developed or impacted with setbacks that are already being enforced at 250 feet we already have the question as a whether that taking of a lot space is being counted towards open space and parkland requirements that question still looms out there it's done by PDs often but what is the solid state on that there are reliable builders and developers who are gaining interest in the city of Denton increasing setbacks it's just another policy that would lessen that interest or reduce the Denton's ability to be competitive in the market this is a market mind you that may take agricultural land and flip it to residential property thus increasing the property taxes coming into the region increasing other tax revenues as people move it into the area the loss of developer lots also raises legal questions by property owners and I want you to keep in mind that loss of developer lots it does raise the question not only did my land get devalued what if I'm in this area what if I'm in this area that had the 250 foot setback going did I lose developer lots that are safe and should have been developed it raises the question possibly there may be somebody asked hey is this a regulatory taking and I want you to keep in mind that when you look at that you consider that due to a recent Supreme Court ruling a grief property owners now have a more expeditious process to address that type of legal concern that is something I understand the property values of the property pricing you and I get that the the issue of whether it's legal or defensive we all both of you and I wrangle this every time I'm up here and I appreciate you looking at that but I wanted to give the reasons why we're opposed across the board of increasing these setbacks quite frankly I think you should reduce them considering what you've heard tonight thank you Joseph the customer barmiter and do you live within 500 feet of a gas well no I don't up close to rail line which is all another set of issues but there are a lot of people who may not have homes on their property that are still affected by this and one more item you want to keep in mind these are zoning items these often go into the ETJ those are people who do not have a vote for this council and they would be impacted as well follow-up question would you say that you've represented or you you know people in Denton who have raw land within 500 feet or 250 feet of a gas well I've heard some from some folks and I would be inclined to think that is the case thank you Joseph you're up and then Ricky would is on deck good evening my name is Joe Smoliga I live at 3220 Tamarack Lane in the meadows of Hickory Creek I am the president of the board of the homeowners Association Association for the meadows of Hickory Creek and I want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak tonight and just a note I wouldn't want to be any one of you tonight the idea of increasing the set back to 500 feet for future bids builds I think is commendable the issue is the effect that it has on current property values this is a significant issue for all of us not only those within the 500 foot setback but also within the 250 every home in our neighborhood and you've heard this and I am going to be repeating a little bit but it's okay to hear it more than once the option is presented on the city website as presented identifies homes within 500 feet as non-conforming option number four that we've heard about tonight which is touted as the best alternative I guess identify those at homes in that 500 foot as non non-conforming and I got to say this but a dirty had to come up with that term this is being used to avoid from saying conforming and all it is is legal mumbo-jumbo to try and confuse the subject there are they are still non-conforming and it also states in the article on the website your your amendment for under 1.5.4 a non-conforming structure that has been damaged destroyed by fire and we'll go on into that but it does say that 50% can if it's more than 50% cannot be rebuilt and that is still on your website as of this afternoon so your assurance that that is not the case makes me very suspect because I can't find one place that fits with another lot of conflict conflicting information you also state that the 250 foot or the 500 foot won't affect market value it is going to affect market value is there anyone who can get a bank again to give a mortgage to anyone for a piece of property that has no value it's not going to happen the only acceptable option would be to label all of the current build or platted lots as conforming our neighborhood has numerous homes that are were built since 2014 how they got built after to at 2014 that are within the 250 foot setback those folks are devastated and I've heard from a lot of them that doesn't even account for the folks that now are within the 500 feet all of that being said and from what you've you've heard earlier the 500 foot setback 250 foot setback if it does not exclude everybody who's there currently or the properties that are platted and makes them conformable is not acceptable to all of us because we still don't get the property values that we had and as the gentleman said that's part of my 401k thank you for this time to speak thank you very much Councilmember Briggs you have a question for the speaker question is your mic on you might get a little closer to my mic is on okay there we go because I'm looking at option four and it says not non-conforming but as I read that I read it as meaning that it is conforming is that the city attorney if you'd like to just comment on that just briefly then we'll go back to the public comment I think what that should actually read is conforming okay thank you all right thank you sir for bringing that up appreciate it Ricky wood is up and then Troy Bosch, Mr. Mr. Wood all right I'm going to set his card here just in case he may maybe one of the ones and I will tell you just to show you the white cards which their cards wishing not to speak have multiplied so we will certainly make sure those go in the record but those may be primarily from the people across the way so mr. Bosch if you want to come forward and state your name and address your time will begin so the next one up will be Eric Foster thank you and thank you for giving me a new pronunciation of my last name I've heard many of them but that's unique I appreciate that Troy basham 11 1905 knob Hill court along with my family and we are in a new home we moved in there two years three months ago it was a brand new home and forced meadow subdivision now I was I brought some stuff in here just because I was thinking of some things to say and as I'm listening over and over I'm getting more angry more angry because now I realize that I'm within the 250 foot range in fact I'm not only within 250 feet I'm 99 feet because I went out got a rangefinder today went and shot my house turn around shot there the pipeline of the gas fumes coming out and it's within 125 feet of my yard and so when I got this form that people call a postcard I almost threw it away but I didn't throw it away why because I got two of them and I think I only got two of them so it must be important so I read it and like many people that spoke before me I was confused with the language I'm a simple man I'm not a lawyer my attorney I don't know fancy words I mean I've won the military I've got a bachelor's degree but some of this stuff makes no sense and so I think okay I want to do what anybody would do I go to the internet first thing I do is go to YouTube and I type in 500 foot setback gas well the first two videos I clicked on one was in Denver Colorado in which they are arguing of moving 500 foot currently to over thousand feet in fact one group people people want to move it to 2,500 feet so the gentleman who says hey we're gonna be here again when you're thinking about a thousand feet once you pass this to 500 feet is right then I'll click on the other video the other video was in Pennsylvania because there's a video when a gas well went up in flames they already have there's 500 they want to push it beyond a thousand feet within a gas well and what got me concerned about that video is when I heard that first responders when they showed up they could feel the heat of that fire within half a mile from that place that would nuke melt my home in minutes now that I found that I'm with what basically a hundred feet away so then I go well what articles do we have well there's an article that we have from Texas fracking setback distances inadequate and you look at that article and you realize that 89% of the people agree that it should be a quarter of a mile that's 1,320 feet away not 500 feet then I come up across another article this is within 10 minutes of research ladies and gentlemen this is not I'm taking days and weeks to do this this is within 10 minutes I find an article on Denver Post says cancer risk eight times more likely you're at risk if you live within 500 feet of a gas well in Denver and then I look at another one to come across a quarter of ask for business and they have an article there they're saying that if you live within a gas well for an extended period of time you're at risk of having heart disease so this got me thinking why bring up the 500 why change it to 250 in the first place why have a radius it must be because of safety reasons you're concerned about your citizens I hope you're concerned about your citizens I'm one of them and if you are concerned then you should say hey we need to push this back to 250 to 500 but you didn't push it back and compensate those people who are at risk and potentially having harmful to their health not let alone the values of the house that have been mentioned that are declined you want to know what declines the house value go to my backyard you hear and there's a gas pump right there behind my house is devalued but it doesn't stop the city from jumping up and raising my tax my tax is $300 a month last year at $300 a month a year before that so I'm worried what are you gonna do to compensate the people within 250 let alone the people that are fighting to say hey don't do the 250 yeah I'm a person doing the 500 because I don't want those people outside 250 to be in the same situation I am and wondering what in the heck is gonna go on with my life moving forward because now how I'm gonna sell my property I just bought it two years three months ago how much equity you think I have according to you people I got a lot of equity it's gone up over $70,000 I doubt I could get fair market value if I sold it today but if these articles are even remotely true about health issues then I think you should seriously compensate those people within that and seriously consider how far do you really want to take it because when you go to new developments saying we don't want you to be inside 500 feet what you're really saying is the people who currently live there we don't care about you we care about the future citizens that haven't paid taxes yet yeah councilmember Briggs I was just curious if you knew that was there when you purchased the home no we were look we expressed concerns with a realtor we expressed concerns with the builder and we were told it's not a big deal it's more of a noise and noise and nuisance than anything else at the time when we got a house the reason why we can have that house on the lot where it's at is because I have my mother-in-law living with us it was driving me crazy we had a small house it's either her or me we got to find a multi-gen home this was the subdivision that had a multi-gen home but this one lot was the only lot big enough to put that house in I feel like I was conned into doing that not knowing and maybe it's my fault for not looking at the safety to begin with but when you go on and you see things you know and you're thinking oh my gosh and then this this man I mean talked about you know calling the fire department I'm like they would just say you're 123 no worry about it councilmember Armitage yeah I just wanted to thank you for your words and I feel that anger too is one of the reasons I ran for council so anyway thank you for sharing that do what so I just wanted you to know that if you didn't know that you could go to our website and you can check on that gas well and you can see the report history of that and everything that's going on and if there's and so if you could follow up I would I would like to speak with you more about about your situation in the future who else can we talk to there within that radius because when I asked this young lady earlier who do we go to when we don't know about this stuff it's like a swept up on the carpet because right now if we wanted to move I mean that card was not a postcard ladies and gentlemen that was a key to Pandora's box in my house the last week and so and I haven't heard anyone talk about the safety thing or what it does within that so I appreciate it thank you mr. Foster is up and then Maria Herrera thank you good evening council members mayor city staff my name is Eric Foster I live at 2300 Winhaven Drive in Winhaven a very small South Dent neighborhood located a little north of Geyer High School on the west side of Teasley just south of Hickory Creek before I share my comments which will certainly echo a bit I commend the responsiveness of Mayor Watts and notably councilmember Armitter and certainly project manager Haley Sagerski as well I've appreciated your calls your emails which helped me in my neighborhood by proxy to come to a better understanding of this issue that's been helpful the general desire to increase health and safety and didn't a certainly good one and proactive building restrictions of some nature in regard to gas well proximity are understandably prudent that inclination which was the backdrop for your vote last November fits squarely within our city's history of nullified fracking bands and the more general goal just to improve our general well-being in the community it thus becomes a matter of degree as to how much of that buffer zone is justifiable the anecdotal Evans I've seen reported would suggest the 500 to 600 foot range though I'm not convinced that the council actually has enough relevant and specific analysis on hand to make a more conclusive and well-founded decision about increasing our zone restrictions to 500 feet or to the much larger radius of 1500 has been suggested that said those specifics really aren't the focus for me this evening my clear concern as with many others is instead the potential retroactive application of any associated setback limitations on current homeowners like those of myself and my Windhaven neighbors I have confirmed with Ms. McGurk see that nearly half of our families at least 30 of 66 homes would be impacted impacted by a 500 foot setback application which is quite alarming as an owner and now also as a new Windhaven HOA board member that actually happened because of all this this doesn't even consider the broader impact across didn't of more than quadrupling the number of homes impacted by such setbacks from about 200 to well over 800 as was indicated tonight and again also doesn't address the inside 250 that's already there serious and sizable issue the simple fact is that we nor any future buyers that may come after us would be helped in any way by a reclassification to non-conforming status it wouldn't make us any safer nor keep us any healthier as we'll still be just as close to our gas well and thus at the very same risk for explosion or exposure however little or large that Rick's risk might actually be but we would potentially be saddled with new rebuild limitations that would certainly complicate future repairs would undoubtedly impair our ability to resell and would very likely reduce the value of our homes possibly by a significant amount so in an inherently unfair exchange we'd get none of the carrot but all of the stick I'm willing to accept that the problem we've reviewed tonight is truly an unintended consequence and that this council didn't knowingly decide to penalize actual current homeowners in order to better protect potential future ones but since that problematic issue is now clear in regard to the November vote I'm asking the council upon this reconsideration to fully shield current homeowners from financial and other preventable harm by only proactively applying the non-conforming structure tag in whatever action is ultimately finalized it appears that the new option for added since November may be that very action apparently not forcing any retroactive negative consequences on current homeowners and maybe even offering new grandfathered protection to those lying within the current 250 feet buffer assuming I am indeed understanding option for correctly this newly offered approach is the action I would recommend to this council so thank you for your time and your consideration Maria Herrera is up and then we've got Pedro Martinez major mayor and council thank you for allowing me to speak tonight I just want to say I am really confused with all this if it wasn't for all this I wouldn't have known about it I got four notices saying you know when I started reading this it was really confusing to me I did not understand what this was all about when we built our home in 2015 with dr. Horton we had no idea about this 250 setback we excuse me it took us 11 years for us to save to have our dream home my husband worked out of town for 15 for 11 years for us to be able to build our home and now for us to be told that we would not be able to have the equity on our home and be able to sell it's really you know a heartbreak and so I just I just want to ask you you know please consider this a lot of us families are you know fearful what's gonna happen to us I am and I'm pretty sure everybody in here you know but we have kids that are gonna go to college you know we still have a little one and we got to think about you know the future so I please beg you to think about this what's gonna be causing you know us to be in this confusing passing of whatever you guys want to do think about us we're in a position that we don't know what's gonna happen I mean I am I am really confused when you say you know about this number four and what is that really gonna do to us I am in the 250 I am actually across from the well that I had no idea they you know we were told that our home was if we could have that there we go my home is right here and this is the well right there we're not even within the 250 we're literally right across my house is right here I can see right there across from us so you know it is quite like I am angry too because when we build our home we were not told about this why was the builder allowed to have the permits in the first place if this was passed in 2015 this is the first time me hearing about this I had no idea and now that I hear that back in 2015 it was passed about the 250 that's what I'm confused why was the builder allowed to have the permits to build the homes right across from that well although it's not producing it is still my question the builder didn't tell us anything about this and I didn't know anything about the other meetings too until I received this and I started looking right now when you was talking about the previous meetings what was happening I had no idea about that I don't know if anybody else got the notice but I didn't so I just want to say thank you and please reconsider okay thank you customer break did you did y'all withdraw it's probably something we could talk about whenever we do our deliberation yeah okay sure all right Pedro Martinez and then John Brown next up okay my name is Pedro Martinez I live in a 4024 Hialeah Drive in Denton yes first of all it first of all thank you for the time and give me the opportunity to express my my questions I think the people before me they already did a good really good job expressing several of my of my questions being an accountant and being a finance person for sure I'm really worried about what is going to happen about the value of the house or whatever guys you said I know what is going to happen to the value of my house even the Q&A questions here they say okay you know it's depending on several things about the condition this is but automatically as many people say this whatever is said in this paper that is a nonconforming zone yes it's a problem yes so I moved into Denton in 2016 I rent a house for one year and then I buy my house here and something that I did this for one reason because I've been relocated several times with my company and I and something that I really know is that you have to check several things and the and the construction codes and all of that so back three years ago when the my house was built yes my house was built under the the right code so for me some notice that somewhere and back in in the summer last year somebody brought a study that says that it's not safe yes anymore my house and I want to show yes my house is exactly in this corner this is a corner yes so this is my house in that corner so even my wife asked me okay so what is the meaning of this letter and for me was difficult to explain her that we can only use the throne bathroom because the back the backpack drum is not safe anymore why because somebody says that back in back in Colorado you have because I watch all the meetings that you have guys so back in Colorado was 1000 feet now in forward is 600 so that's meaning that the 10 feet is going to make a difference or I cannot understand that and if I cannot understand that I cannot go to the insurance company and say okay guys so yes if something happens to my house yes you can reveal one part of that because he's conforming song the other one is not conforming song yes so he's already the the other people already expressed yes a most of our concerns so the only thing that left to me is just as you guys first of all to grandpa a grandfather yes and thank you I English isn't my first language but I have learned so many things to come today yes but grandfathering could be a solution yes and mostly because most of our houses were built under the code yes and the other thing is it's the first time that I see that a safety issue yes we are going to penalize the people who are doing the right thing and not taking care well or whoever is the safety issue if the safety issue is the wealth close the well that's it because my concern is the in some years you can say hey the gas station that is close to my house is an issue now we're going to penalize because of all that and all of us were built under the the rules of the over the code so thank you very much for for the time thank you very much appreciate that mr. Brown and then Kyle Rohn yes customer yes mr. yes he's got a question if you come on down this reconsideration was called in order to correct this problem of the possibility of someone losing their home and not being able to rebuild so it's your impression from the postcard that the purpose of this meeting was to correct that problem or to create that problem no to correct the problem and in fact several options okay good thank you appreciate that okay yeah mr. Brown and then Kyle Rome yeah my name is John Brown I'll leave at 32 32 Tamarack Lang and and meadows of Hickory Creek we're in the city of Denton in the orgal ISD our subdivision has been real desirable because everybody seems to want to go to the orgal ISD and our values have stayed up but if these rules are implicated to 500 and keeping the 250 then it will affect our values I retired after 23 years as chief of deputy chief appraiser at the appraisal district here in Denton and I know what this can do to your values we'll be taking care of a lot moan it and we won't even live on it and as far as we're concerned I guess somebody can just foreclose on it or whatever they want to do with it because we don't need it anymore I have one question under 4a is a 50% rule been taken out of it it has been taken out of it all right well we'll get to some deliberation on that we we can say it's been taken out of the option but the county is if we're going to be grandfathered in what good would it do if you kept the 50% well we will go over that as we deliberate after we hear the public comment but whatever the presentation was no no we'll we'll deal with that when we go into deliberation with with a okay so yes and another thing is that if we are conforming after y'all make your ruling and y'all raise it to a thousand feet are we still conforming within that 500 feet or do we have to come back to the City Council start all over again that remains to be seen at that well I just can't see if you're going to be ruling for conforming and if you do it all over again then you're not conforming because I know you said that you could go the planning and zoning and request an exemption and I've never seen an occasion where you give one an exemption and another one comes in you don't give them the exemption you'd have to give it to everybody that's in that 500 feet so I don't think it'd do much good to go before the planning and zoning board to try to get an exemption because I don't think they really would approve it but I can tell you that the values would not be the first one to go down to where I used to work and because my value would be decreased since I cannot rebuild or since I cannot sell the property because anybody would be crazy about that property if they couldn't rebuild after a after a catastrophe would happen to your property and everybody else has said everything I need to say I just want to go with 4a but I need to make sure that has 50% rule taken out and conforming for maternity on our 500 feet thank you very very much mr. rone and then Jodie Ismert is up Kyle rone is Kyle here I guess not all right we'll put his Jodie Ismert Jodie Ismert Bill Campbell Mr. Campbell here all right and then the next speaker will be Ivan Thomas yes my name is Bill Campbell I live 3640 Tuscan Hill circle here in Denton the purpose of the setback of course is mitigation it's a word we haven't used very often here mitigation means to make something less harsh less hostile less severe less painful what we really need to clarify in our mind is that a setback of any kind regardless of the size applies only the value of it applies only to future construction it has absolutely no bearing regardless of whether it's more or less your house is still going to be in the same location the well is going to be in the same location and the risk is going to be the same so there is no mitigation value whatsoever for existing property I think we should have an axiom that would say all structures should comply with the ordinances that exist at the time the building permits were issued for the present or the future they should be based on the permits that setbacks existed when the building was built another axiom that we should have is that the distance of a setback should be proportionate to the degree of risk from the well the more danger there is the farther away you should be and exactly how much risk is there to a well now we've got opinions a lot of opinions here on how risky these wells are but you should not have an ordinance built on just on opinions it should be based on facts nothing but facts I thought the best way to find out how dangerous wells are here and then was to contact the fire department and ask what their experience was with the fires and then in the past couple of decades I talked to Mr. David Boots who's the public information officer for the Denton Fire Department and he reported that the fire department has responded to one fire this is in the past many many years more than two decades only one fire and that was 18 months 18 years ago at the corner of I-35 North and Windsor Drive there were no injuries there was no property damage and the fire was caused by lightning strike what was referred to by insurance companies as an act of God excluding that one fire what that means is we have 293 active wells at this time and 293 wells and for a period now many many years in fact something more like two decades the fire department's only responded one time the point that I want to make is that the well the setback should be directly related to the risk and it appears to me that the threat does not justify an increase so my question is why are we doing this why are you increasing the setback what are you going to accomplish by it absolutely absolutely no mitigation will occur to the existing structures in Denton and it causes a great deal of heartache a great deal of we've heard from many of people here and talking about the property values have gone down so my recommendation is that the council reject the proposal to increase the gas well setback and we stay with the current 250 by 250 there's a there's an old alley old adage it's poor range but it's good advice if it ain't broke don't fix it was your time I'm sorry thank you thank you very much Jody came in so we're going to go ahead and come up state your name and address and then so the next speaker will be Ivan Thomas Jody is Mert 819 Anna Street I just I'd like to say I was here at the PNC meeting in November when they talked about potentially grandfathering in the homes and it seemed like a good idea to me as a matter of fact I wrote to the city afterwards to find out more about it because it was brought up by one of the PNC people and I was informed I was given more information it's very obvious that the 500 foot setback was meant for new residents to protect them not to harm existing residents I don't know why the council well I do know why the council chose not to go with that it was it was by recommendation by our city attorney to not do it I was there the night I spoke in favor because we know we know the dangers we know the dangers of being right up on a gas well they're there they're present it's carcinogenic people need to be protected from that new residents should not be exposed to that the fire that was just talked about actually it from what I understand it was actually dumb luck that it did not harm the people in the neighborhood more and it was it was actually I think three years ago 18 months ago maybe I don't know but people said that they could feel the fire from inside their home and they evacuated the area the fire department wasn't trained yet and so they they put water on it and they melted they melted a portion of the well itself that capped the fire which created the circumstance for it not to explode and that is why there were not that nobody was harmed but it is very dangerous to be right next to a well we should absolutely protect new residents but we should absolutely not harm the finances of people who are existing in homes right by these wells we should actually try to I like what somebody else mentioned you know about if our city allowed a developer to build a home within that 250 range which I was sitting by somebody you know who has experienced that after 2015 they built a home after 2015 even though we had the 250 foot reverse setback I mean shouldn't those people be compensated in some manner I mean that's that's outrageous to me that our city would allow that to be built knowing that people you know knowing that that we already have the reverse setback should people be compensated for being in that dangerous zone when we know it's the case you know people have come up here and mentioned that today I mean maybe that is something we should look at as a city because we know the dangers but you know everyone right now in our country is struggling financially we know we know the statistics we know not everybody but a lot of people are struggling financially in our country right now there is a huge gap between people who are doing very well and people who are just doing moderately well and homes are a huge investment for the majority of Americans if you were fortunate enough to own a home that is a huge investment and we should not take that asset away from people but we absolutely should go with option four to protect future residents and we should look at protecting current residents who are existing right by those wells and the real estate agents need to tell them they need to tell them that they are buying a home right by a well because I wouldn't buy a home right by a well I would not buy their home because I know these things thank you thank you all right Ivan is Ivan here yes you look up state your name and address and then the next speaker will be Joe Klesch or Klesch Klesch yes go ahead sir states name and address please hi my name is Ivan Tomas my address is 2412 Windhaven Drive and so I found out that I live next to a gas well because of all this I had no idea when I bought my house I looked over a fence and I saw tanks and didn't think anything of it and turns out that they are gas wells and they are 480 feet from my house and I understand the spirit of increasing the setback I have a four-year-old that has been diagnosed with asthma and there's research done that gas wells could potentially make asthma worse now I'm not one to jump to conclusions but I do know that a short period of time after we moved to this new location every single night he would cough he would throw up we all had to wake up we all had to change the sheets and that have that has been happening for about three years now it could be a gas well I don't know maybe but if it turns out that if it turns out that it is and we have to move in another to another single-family home that's not close to a gas well then I don't want to be affected in the from my kids health and also from the financial side I live 480 feet from a gas well and my neighbor lives 510 feet I want to have the same rights as he does when he sells his house if I have to disclose certain things that's gonna make my house less valuable and he doesn't then we're not both being equal I I hope that the council does approve it but with the option for a if the option for a means that I can still sell my house just like my never can just like I can today in the future and not have this way over our heads while going through other other other matters that we have to live through thank you just member armature so I just wanted to thank you for speaking in sorry about your your kids asthma and I wanted to ask if you knew if you were aware that that several of us on on council had been trying previously long before this postcard went out to try to get notification citywide for people who live near gas wells and we didn't have the the consensus for that on on council until until these postcards I don't know if you knew that but if it makes a difference but some of us have been trying I'm sorry this is the way you found out well I mean sales agents I'm not talking about my real estate agent because they might not know either they might know the area but the cell late this I know for enough for a fact but I have a really good suspicion that the sales agent of the development company knew exactly what was have what was back there and because when I I had to jump over a fence and I saw what I saw and I didn't know what I was looking at and while I was doing that he told me all you need to look back there there's nothing back there so I understand the spirit of why we want to increase the setback but not but there's going to be consequences from the financial side for me and many others that we just can't bear aside from medical bills and now and our property declines it's a double whammy for me thank you thank you the next speaker is Joe Klesch and after Joe is Lynn Hamilton and after miss Hamilton we'll go ahead and take a five or seven minute break state your name and address your time I'm Joe Klesch and I live at 1916 Pavilion Lane mr. mayor council members thank you for the opportunity to speak pretty much everything that I wanted to say has been said tonight I just like to make a couple of points that anything that council does that doesn't that that has us have to go to a zoning board to request a variance is unacceptable it's unconscionable to have that done we bought our homes in good faith we spent a lot of money for them and it's just a terrible situation anything that falls short of making us homeowners whole if anything should happen if our homes are valued at $100,000 and if we go to sell them and they're only getting 50 that difference should be made up somehow and council needs to address that to somehow make the property owners whole once they try to sell their home if indeed they're going to be able to allow to be sold the anybody would not buy it from my end I wouldn't buy it if I had known this was gonna happen I wouldn't have bought the house I bought anything short of that is just terrible and you shouldn't allow it whatever whatever you decide to do must take into account the 857 homes that are that are out there protect everybody certainly but you must not ruin the people that are already here thank you thank you and then then Hamilton and then up when we come back from break will be Renee Shober mayor mr. and council members nice to be here this evening thank you for allowing me to speak I am a resident of Forest Meadows I live on knob Hill Court at 1908 one of my other neighbors just spoke and I'm also a licensed realtor and I've been a licensed realtor for probably over 15 years so I'm really kind of talking tonight from the realtor perspective I know we've all heard the issues with property values and what can happen and that's certainly a big concern and I think one of the things I heard tonight was interesting because I came here because of that little red card I got and what I found out tonight from my neighbor and from hearing this is that I've been in the 250 zone since I purchased my house in 2017 and it was built there's a real problem that Megatel Lenar apparently DR Horton all got building permits to build these homes which were in a zone that's non-conforming how did I get a loan for this how I mean that is just amazing and should I have knowledge of that being in the business that I'm in absolutely and I didn't know it these other people's realtors weren't knowing we don't can't disclose something that we're not aware of so I think that's something that really has to be addressed also in looking at promoting Denton so we know there's new homes going in with toll brothers Perry homes off of Ryan Road and I've sold some homes the DR Horton homes it really makes a realtor negatively look at the city of Denton and wanting to promote someone moving here when you find out oh hey guess what happened to me I'm a realtor I should know better I should have known this how did I not know it would make me not want to sell a home in Denton and it also represents the reputation that the Dent City of Denton has the City Council and the city that you need that you really need to take the considerations of your residents and look at making those properties conforming because it's really hurting people and that's not something that you want to have a reputation for and it's not something as a realtor that makes me want to promote the city of Denton thank you thank you all right it's 915 let's come back about 925 and then Renee Schover will be up I had a question of the speaker okay yeah yeah yeah do you mind hey a ma'am miss Hamilton there was a council member Mel sir had a question yeah sorry about it without everybody I didn't see his request sorry my question is between y'all and break I just wanted to understand is is what would make you as a realtor reluctant to promote a home in Denton was it the idea that you might create a nonconformity which I think you've heard we're trying to not do tonight is it that or is it the presence of the gas wells it's the idea that you're doing the nonconforming I won't mention the fact that the Teasley Road has not been fixed at three years that's a whole nother issue so there's a lot of things but this whole tonight we're talking about this issue and that's a big issue to say you could buy this home and it may be fine but the city from what I've read on the website - there's been several changes that have been made with the ordinances around the gas yeah okay thank you all right we'll come back about 925 welcome everybody back to this meeting the Denton City Council on January 28 2020 it is 928 p.m. just to give you sort of an update where we are we've got about 18 blue cards left and and then we've got the white cards which I will have to read every name and the record together with the comp I'm kidding you we don't have to do that kidding you so we'll I mean I don't know how many blue cards not wishing to speak it's probably in the in the hundreds or over a hundred all right so we're gonna bring back our speakers are I believe our speaker up when we took a bait break was Renee Schober is Renee here all right we'll put card aside in case they show up Kristen Lawler is up and then the next speaker will be Judy Thompson Kristen Lawler is Kristen Lawler here oh right here okay I'm sorry miss Thompson yeah you're after miss Lawler here yes thank you hello I'm Kristi Lawler I live at my family and I live at 328 Red Fox Lane in Denton and I want to give my time to my friend and neighbor Andrew Sullivan to speak on my behalf okay and if you could state your name and address that'd be great too sir thank you my name is Andrew Sullivan I live at 4212 Stone Trail Drive off Ryan Road and despite my fear of public speaking I'm actually up here today so bear with me since today we got this postcard we began looking houses actually outside of Denton County because of our fear of our home values what's gonna happen what's gonna change found out you're voting on it tonight and that really kind of puts a damper on that because I can't even try to get ahead of that and one of my questions that I have is if we become legal non-conforming does our property insurances will skyrocket so we wouldn't be able to afford to stay and not being able to afford to stay is exactly why I moved to Denton Texas from out of state two years ago the well near my house has been retired for six years I'm just curious why the gas company isn't responsible for cleaning up for the city of Denton after they shut down why is that becoming our problems as citizens in my opinion to change any policies after a home inside 250 feet or not 500 feet or not is not unfair but just plain wrong and I know that many of you in here don't know but right now I promise you there are people clapping in one of the three or four holding rooms because they've been clapping every time somebody talks about inside 250 feet that's something nobody's really speaking for it doesn't affect me but there are hundreds of families that it is affecting if the city allowed developers and homes to be built and sold because it was safe then new studies change that the same city that is proposing it isn't safe needs to purchase back our homes at the full appraisal value that both the tax assessor and an independent appraiser sets that shows care and concern for your citizens all the proposed amendments hurt at least one citizen here tonight and to me one is too many if you deem it necessary to change a building code to do so to all future builds don't punish the citizens for putting their faith in you to protect their investments in their homes public opinion is very strong and real from now on I'm gonna have to worry if you guys reverse this decision tonight that you could change your minds in the future and that's terrifying and makes me wonder staying in the city of Denton is a smart play assuming we can afford to leave depending on your decision tonight you thought that the whale that is close to you has been capped or plugged or it's no longer active is that correct okay if you could if we could just get the information here at name and address so that we can get that so we can contact with you regarding that because that's a different situation a lot of these people have active gas wells and that's so I appreciate that we signed on paperwork and said that the gas well had been retired okay well let's make sure we can get that confirmed it will get with staff and have somebody so if you could somebody could catch him before he leaves to get get some information I appreciate that thank you very much thank you all right next up is Judy Thompson and then up after miss Thompson is Michael Guthrie okay my name is Judy Thompson my address is 9827 Fort Worth Drive my property is on highway 77 we purchased it in 1972 in 95 we built our home on the property and also my daughter's home we have six acres that measures approximately it's a square about 500 feet by 500 feet several years later and I couldn't find my paperwork but anyway several years after we bought our home dune energy approached us and wanted to drill a well and a gas well on our property sounded good to us I am strongly in favor of our country producing its own energy we have enough energy resources in this country to fuel all of our needs for hundreds of years and we do not have to buy our energy from foreign Arab nations so I was in favor of drilling that well and at that time there were no setbacks of any kind so our house is about 150 yards from the well my daughter's house is about 200 yards from the well I was planning on building a house for my grandson on this property also but last summer a church approached us they wanted to buy our property and build a church and we were strongly considering selling it to them but then they found out and we found out we didn't know anything about it before about the 250 foot setback so they could not build their church they've discovered after doing their research and we discovered most of our land was now not usable well when we first purchased our land in the 70s it was all country now of course our gal is growing like wildflower right now our property is located between two businesses between ranch house rescue and t-serve and it's right on the highway and it's a prime location for business in the future and probably if we did if we could sell our property but now we can't they would tear down our houses and want to develop but now because of this new proposed ordinance in fact because of the already ordinance for a 250 foot setback we can't sell our land because you can't develop it so you've made our land virtually worthless the whole thing because it measures about 15 by 15 in our house right now is right in the middle of it and no one will ever be able to develop that property so we can't sell it it's it's worthless thanks to this city of Denton I think that old wells should be grandfathered in and that new ordinances should not be allowed to be retroactive and to affect buildings that have already been built in the past and I just think it's extremely unfair to place limits on the use of land that was purchased before an ordinance was ever enacted and to say that now I can never make any more improvements on my property I can't build that house for my grandson or no or can anyone else build anything on it miss Thompson that was your time if you have just a real quick wrap-up remark what I said that was that your time the bell was the ending of your time if you just had a real quick wrap-up remark if you wanted to say something okay okay thank you very much I appreciate that all right the next speaker is Michael Guthrie and then after mr. Guthrie is Greg Johnson hi Naaman address please go 30 2471 Hickory Creek Road I'm the big red one I'm not here for that I'm here for all that blue stuff right there those are my neighbors all of them and I kind of want to know something seems like this is coming from from you three here you've kind of retract everything since we started this thing but is it true that you you pushed it back 1,500 feet was that your initial yes but I wanted 1,500 with as much as we could grandfathered in as possible really so it's not the fact that there's over 5,000 people watching and in attendance today that changed if you go back from the beginning we had been I'll get off her I would like John you're in my you're my my council member if you could please go over in the beginning he said that in a lot of this in the back room we couldn't understand that you were here but you didn't read it or could you clarify on that in the opening minutes well it really this is the public hearings are for the for you to speaking it's not necessarily for a question and answer dialogue I mean we've answered some questions that to give some clarification but we will answer if you want to ask them because we will answer them during the deliberations for sure okay yeah and then also just curious are you aware of how many homes you would have destroyed so I am have been totally against here but we can talk thank you I have yet to hear from anybody up here why we're doing this really you took a third-party test from Fort Worth it hasn't where's the other testing that's what you're basing it on it's ridiculous no but when's the last time I was drilled here and if you can maybe stand behind the mic because we are we are broadcasting I apologize for interrupting well I'm not apologizing I want everybody here right now if they need legal counsel it's right here I've already done it Aaron Lille you might know this guy I don't know Art Anderson this is what he does for a living but I'm not gonna sit down I stand to lose half a million dollars and I don't care because I can survive that my neighbors can't so if you pass this tonight mr. Lille hope you got hope you're ready because I'm not going away I'm not gonna do that for my neighbors I can survive this some of these people can't and you're shaking your head but you did this and you did this if you if you could miss I read all of your all of you can see Guthrie if you could if you could just although my tone a little bit can you imagine how you how you would feel sorry if this was you understand I stand lose half a million but I'm not here for that I'm here for my neighbors people that work for the city that are losing everything go back go back to this picture see that blue right there by that yellow that's my neighbors right there they work for the city and this is what you're doing to them for what for your green bill for your Mr. Guthrie house mr. Guthrie mr. Guthrie okay I'm gonna I'm gonna give you I understand but you're gonna have to direct your comments to the council as a whole please I know you're allowed to do but if you could just have some decorum and civility I would appreciate that I wish you would too sir all of you because you all have put us in a very hard spot and guess what may everyone nobody voted last year did you see that no one did 800 people in your election but y'all really stirred up a hornet's nest now so know that I don't say that to scare you but I'm young and I have fight in me and some of these people that can barely walk yeah slip that in their mail slip this in their mail I got four of them none of y'all care you don't there's no reason to do this you're driving out the people that pay taxes you're driving out the elderly why nobody can give me a clear answer nobody up here today has said the clear answer why oh do you know that we also have the worst pollution because of where we're at and if the wind blows right because we're north of Fort Worth and we're west of Dallas so you're telling me that one case of asthma is due to that natural gas well the cleanest gas that there is and most of these wells don't produce nothing to see all know so it ain't about the money it's about the people people will come now that you've made it clear thank you where you stand thank you sir you bet thank you all right it mr. the next speaker is mr. Greg Johnson now mr. Johnson has filled out a green card which means that he has he's able to speak for ten minutes because there's four people well I guess yourself is included in that is that I see three names and that's so according to the rules the people who are on the card that you're advocating for have to be present so I'm going to read the names and if they're here if they could just raise their hand just so we can acknowledge that so wheelchair so he's not in here he's okay overflow okay and then once here and then so the other ones in the overflow so Randy Sorrell's is Randy and Jack are in the overflow okay and Jack Smith and then Stephen Shannon Stephen Shannon okay all right okay thank you if you'll state your can we put customer Meltzer are you do you have a request of speakers at an old one okay thank you very much I appreciate that all right if state your name and address your time will begin thank you mayor I was afraid I'd get a little fired up here tonight but I think it's gonna be well I forgot to say who's the next okay now so the next speaker I have is Randy Sorrell's on the blue card so he yielded his spot that's okay all right just want to make sure so any of the other three or two that you called I will pull their cards out because they're arts okay all right okay and so then after mr. Johnson is a JC keffer keifer I apologize all right okay all right thank you mayor council thank you for your service I'm gonna need the overhead here in just a minute if they could get ready for that so when I received my card at my home my first thought was why the heck are we doing this again like this all got solved five years ago I had no idea that there had been any meetings or discussions about it so I went did my research and went and watched the the meeting in November and then watched the the meeting to reconsider and I found that quite interesting so as I did more research and I I pulled the back up because I was so perplexed why are we revisiting this issue that we spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on and 15 that we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on and 2015 and so I thought well there must have been something that changed so as I look through your your your information from previous meetings criteria for approval so in order for you to approve this amendment to an existing ordinance these things have to exist so number three is interesting it's necessary to address a demonstrated community need so I thought well what's the community need I mean there must be people who have an outcry going on here right I mean they live within the 500 feet so there must be people raising their hands saying I got a problem it's noisy it's smelly my nose bleeds I'm dying I've contracted cancer protect me and so I'm sure one of you or many of you asked the question of your staff since 2015 how many people that live within 500 feet have called and said help me I'm sure when he asked that right so I asked it the answer is none not one or number four is necessary to respond to a substantial change in conditions and or policy so what's changed since 2015 as it relates to setbacks or oil and gas exploration in the city nothing no change other than pricing gas went down they're not really drilling new wells but what's changed nothing so but you have to have a reason to revisit this right so as I watch the meetings and read the backup the stated reason is what's a health and safety concern we're concerned about those people that live within 500 feet of the two acre pad so there's somewhere around six to seven hundred feet from the wellhead and and we're concerned about their health and safety right that's the stated reason that you're revisiting this issue is the health and safety of your citizens so I'll come back to that so given this alone my opinion is you have no grounds to change these existing ordinance because these things don't exist so then why would we be revisiting this well let's call it what it is you've got three council members because the reality is it doesn't matter how much you move the reverse setbacks the people that are against fossil fuels are against fossil fuels they won't be happy until you can't drill for gas in Denton Texas well we tried that so that shipsail it ain't happening so what are you gonna do as a municipality to stop oil and gas exploration in Denton well now you've decided that we're gonna damage the surface owner and one of the things I heard was fascinating that one of the council members opinions is that if we can make it so that the land developer there's so much land they can't use they'll buy and cap the well right because we've seen a few of those happen in the last year why because gas isn't worth anything so you can buy and cap a well pretty cheap surely you wouldn't legislate under the guise of health and safety to try to drive behavior for an economic interest because that I'm sure would get you sued so the reality is why are we here it's because the people that are against fossil fuels DAG that mean they're passionate good for them and it's important to them so you give them five hundred then they're gonna want a thousand then I want 1,500 you know why they don't own property they don't care it's easy to take what somebody else owns that's why you're here because they have council members now that either took donations from them or are a part of them or whatever it is right so they have sympathetic council members who are using their elected seat to further a personal cause it's what it is so on that topic you have a meeting in November you don't notice any of the people that you're going to impact you've been talking about a 500 foot reverse setback in your work sessions you have a meeting and you're going to vote on something that's going to impact 1,400 homeowners you don't think it's important to give me a notice transparency right I mean hell some of you ran on transparency transparency and ethics but you don't think it's important to notice the people you're going to impact to the tune of you can't rebuild your home or of course you're walking back in on that right so here's November 15th you've been talking about 500 500 500 November 15th Meltzer makes a motion for 1500 never talked about 1500 until that moment motion gets seconded by our mentor there's your vote 1500 feet 14,000 acres of privately owned property you're going to take now you want to buy it you just want to tell people they can't use it it's theirs 1500 feet 7,000 homeowners 14,000 acres of privately owned land we don't need to give them notice in fact we're gonna talk 500 feet we're gonna slip in a motion for 1500 feet that's transparent right there huh so let's be consistent so the mayor after that vote goes man we shouldn't have done that we really shouldn't notice those people so it makes a motion to reconsider and everybody can watch the video Council member Briggs couldn't make a meeting motion to reconsider let's notice these people let's give them their day let's hear from them and then let's vote councilmember Meltzer councilmember Armentor vote no don't want to notice the people don't want to hear from the people no and had that motion to reconsider not passed your original vote would have gone into effect the next day in fact in that meeting councilmember Meltzer said we don't need to do this we can just fix problems on the fly if we need to so here's your here's a slide from one of your presentations this is somebody's property it's nine point seven acres 250 foot setback they've got 61 percent of their property left that's what exists today your 500 foot setback you're proposing they're left with four percent of their property so this person doesn't have a gas well on their property they own it they bought it they want to be able to sell it build their house on it build three houses on it like the lady who spoke previously there's a gas well next door to his property he doesn't even have a gas well you're gonna take his property from him for what purpose zero data to suggest that there's a health risk and issue a difference between 250 and 500 there's nothing out there so this is my favorite because this is about health and safety what you're doing right we got to protect people of course the people that live within 500 feet you're gonna leave them there me you're gonna leave me there if you're real concerned about my safety so much that you're gonna ruin the value of my property but then you're gonna leave me there I mean if I'm gonna die by my house you're so worried about me right but this is my favorite your direction to the staff on August 27th an administrative reduction in the reverse setback down to 375 if a site is greater than 50 percent undevelopable due to the reverse setback well wait a minute in this about health and safety in this about protecting people from nosebleeds and cancer why would you have an administrative variance by the staff to reduce it to 375 if you need 500 from 250 better yet your next one or we'd allow ZBA to approve to reduce the 500 down to 250 for a variety of reasons the ZBA is the zoning board of adjustment what in the hell do they have to do with health and safety why would you let them administratively approve 375 or let ZBA make it 250 if this is about health and safety the fact is it's not that's why in fact Councilmember Briggs said in a work session when somebody brought up the idea why don't we just measure directly from the well like Fort Worth does it she said we won't get as much land that way who's land I'm not soliciting any comments from the from the gallery so so here's my point let's talk about transparency and ethics that was ten minutes gosh I wasn't a roll yeah all right so so what's your so what you're proposing is a taking you're taking people's property so then and you don't have a right to do mr. Johnson we got a couple well okay councilmember Armitage so some questions so first of all obviously disagree with you on some things but I do agree with you that minimums are minimum variances are kind of ridiculous so from from a perspective of somebody who's in the real estate development business are you concerned about either where you live or anywhere in Denton do you think there's a problem with too much development too much new development and the traffic safety and fire issues first responder access issues that come with that is that a concern for you we're talking about gas wells here well it's a question that's related because well I don't want to make the case but I'm just I'm just curious because we're because we're talking about we're talking about two sides of the same coin we're talking about on the one hand protecting existing homes and then there's limiting new development and I know that I hear from a lot of homeowners that they're concerned about traffic in their neighborhoods and the impact of additional buildings so I just want to know I think we're a little off posting I mean my question is do you my question is deep from I'm just curious to know your perspective as somebody who is in the development business you know what do you think about develop this situation now in Denton do you think that there's an over development problem do you think barometer if you could if you could narrow your question down to issue this related to the gas well setbacks which are the subject of this public hearing tonight if you're asking him what does he think about the development and then in general do you think that issue is related to the gas well setback issue or no I think I know the question you're asking you don't have to answer yeah and my answer to that would be people's private property rights are theirs so for an example if I didn't leave my house in the morning my chances of getting a car accident would be a whole lot lower all right if I if I don't smoke my chances of getting cancer from smoking are lower however I have the right to get in my car and drive I have the right to smoke if I want to and I should have the light to direct to live where I want to and to use my property as I see fit and not have you tell me what I can do with my property okay all right okay with any I don't see any other any other questions here so thank you thank you sir you bet okay miss Kiefer I'm sorry I messed it up again I'm sorry it's not like we don't all know you good evening council members my name is JC Kiefer I am a resident here in Denton at 1824 South Bonnebury Street I am going to read off my phone because I might get a little passionate or forget what I'm gonna say but here we go I just I was born and raised in Denton and I have graduated and here from the University of North Texas lived here my whole life I've bred loved and just loved everything about Denton I was sent and I sent an email on behalf of our whole family state on behalf of this whole topic it was not included tonight with the agenda which I learned was it should have been submitted by February or not February but Friday sorry February's Friday but it was not nor was it noted on the postcard so in the future that should definitely be noted on the postcard when those submissions should be submitted so on behalf of them I am here on behalf of the postcard in the mail in regards to the notice of the public hearing to consider the increase of gas well setbacks to 500 percent of an increasing gas well well drilling a production site and yes we are family is here within those setbacks and even though we have more than one well that is even to be considered we understand this to mean that any person or developer even if it's us as a family and any building that should be a structure or future development would be occupied any person would now now become be considered non nonconformity and within this we do not approve with any of these options even option four we want the 250 foot to be grandfathered in as what it already has been is which it should be our family has had this family with there or this land since the 1900s the early 1900s our whole family this family has regardless of the decisions of what our family makes is the decisions upon the future of our children our grandchildren in the development of anything we are here for the future of didn't and the best interest of didn't and that's what we want not of the impact of the city of Fort Worth which we are not in the city of Fort Worth we are in the city of didn't any of the decisions you guys are considering tonight should be thrown out the door we are city of didn't we are not the city of Fort Worth that does not impact didn't that impacts them not us if we want to throw future dollars into that that's what we need to do instead of future lawsuits which is probably going to happen as we all know now I am very passionate about this situation I'm very aggravated about the situation I'm very discouraged that none of us was as we are within the 500 setback I know I've spoke to several council members about the situation I know that they said oh this won't affect you but guys let's be honest the zoning and board commission is affected by the decision of our council members it's political so the decision and who is sitting on our council truly governs if we are going to be approved as an ordinance or an exception to this a proposal you guys are putting out there based on your political views and I see that I read through that I will respect all of y'all's decisions I will respect each and every every one of you as a person but what I want you to know is there's a lot of families involved I live on a lot of acres that are involved with a lot of people thank you thank you thank you I appreciate that the next speaker is Alan is it bar the HRE it's Alan here all right we'll put that card here in case he's in one of the other rooms Robert Garfatt is Robert here and then after Robert will be that Carol Ackerman state your name and address and your time will begin sir my name is Robert Garfatt I am in the metals at Hickory Creek subdivision I'm at 3316 Tamarack Lane several people have spoken here and I really appreciate to the gallery everybody who has spoken up here tonight who are experts or subject experts on real estate and zoning and different types of things you know I myself when I got the card called a lawyer land and zoning lawyer just asked some questions and I was basically told well city's gonna do whatever they want to do you can give a lawyer your money but he's not gonna do anything for you in this situation I take offense to that I'm here because I purchased this property as a safe and quiet place for my to raise my children where unlike other neighborhoods you could actually hear cows lowing from behind the farm behind our neighborhood it's it's not like living in the city that we are surrounded by you know there's no to low traffic in this area and the way my street is situated nobody comes into this part of the neighborhood unless they live there because it's not connected to anything else you know was told by dear Horton that there would be no future development of vintage I was told by them nothing about the gas well other than I knew it was there I just didn't think it was an issue didn't know anything about any kind of setbacks or anything else I'm not a big fan a big government and I just don't feel like there's any reason why something that I purchased with my hard hard-earned money should be able to be taken away from me and or decisions made upon it that aren't my own decisions you know I'm not a big fan of the HOA I've got that going on over there you know I can't put up a basketball hoop for my son now I've got vintage going we got 35 that's four lanes 377 I thinks going up to four lanes and now vintage is going to become a six lane road behind my house that's what I hear I don't know if that's true so crazy things are happening in my neighborhood that you know I basically picked this area so that my kids could be there at least for all their high school years we got North Texas right up the road and this just really puts a big ding and all that and just wanted to bring the human element to that how it affects people and families you know what is the true ad value of adding a 250 feet I really think none of this should be in play no not 250 not zero I mean you can see my neighbor here in the picture is right next to it I mean if you're talking about the pad site he's not even he's right on the other side of the fence so it's this how did that house get built if there was a 250 feet minimum so just a lot of what I feel relies in play with the builder and some other things but it's it's frustrating I'm not here to express anger or frustration I'm just here because I don't understand and when I got the card I really didn't know what it was I set it to the side at first then I got three of them and decided to look at a little closer and the more I read it and took it to some legal friends of mine I realized what this was and how scary it was and and just what a damper it really puts on my biggest investment and my family's future in in the Denton Argyle area you know I was my initial questions you know a lot of them have been answered today but still worth tabling is is the council prepared to reimburse us for or grandfather us or help us in any way could I even if this passed could I even build a patio on the back of my house obviously I don't really have room to build extra rooms onto my house or anything like that in my yard but you know my property value has gone up seriously and this is just going to take all that away so I'm just really just frustrated I guess in a lot of ways but I don't even know really what it means to be non-conforming I've heard a lot of things tonight and I've learned a lot but if it's safety that's the issue I mean that's that's my biggest thing is like I really didn't understand why it was happening so that's all I got okay thank you brought the next speaker is Carol Ackerman and after Carol's Robbie Burks is Carol Ackerman here Carol are you here all right Robbie Burke Robbie Burks burns I'm sorry well no they're also putting these down on which number you are so it could been just a mistake in translation that states your name and address your time will begin thank you good evening mayor city council my name is Robbie burns and I represent Westwood Apartments which is right next to the zoning there we have 224 units we paid a little over 20 million dollars for this asset and when we got the notice saying that the property could possibly come non-conforming obviously very alarming don't have to say most of the homeowners here have spoken it I don't have to go into great depth with it Fannie Mae Freddie Mac when you do these commercial loans you're doing like a 200 page document you know if they hear non-conforming I don't know exactly what they would do they might even call the note too so I am with the homeowners expressing the extreme concern that we've got that and especially you say non-conforming and if a building burns down then possibly we could not rebuild ever that building and and that's alarming in itself we took great pride and looked for a long long time investing this money we loved didn't we love the atmosphere we thought that it was a very family community and was very business friendly the reason why we picked this location and still do and I would like to say furthermore that tonight I think that the City Council will show the support and the concerns of the homeowners and the business owners and probably hopefully and pray that you do the right thing thank you Councilmember Melcer if you don't mind I'd like to ask you a question I asked another speaker too from the notification that you got did you have the impression that we were meeting tonight to create this problem of not being able to rebuild in case of a fire or to avoid that problem you know I went back and unfortunately we got noticed a little late like everyone else but I took the time to go back and to look at some video online from planning and zoning and I got the direct reflection as most of the homeowners here that this was something that was already perceived by planning and zoning and some of the council members and I understood that this is what it was going to be thank heavens to the council people the mayor that said hey maybe we ought to take a vote on this and see how this is going to impact the homeowners and the businesses in this location okay so it's interesting if you if you you know when you you are in others if you do after this have any interest in reviewing the meeting I think you'll see that even though the mayor voted for this and because over Davis and myself and you know several others that once the mayor quite rightly pointed out that problem that we created the only discussion was how quickly can we fix that problem although I would also point out that even though we could have fixed the problem or we could debate which way might have ultimately fixed the problem more quickly this way of doing it did have the effect of giving notice to everyone which I think is a great benefit although I sure wish that it hadn't been done in a way that just scared the wits out of everyone well unfortunately I think probably should have gotten an opinion of the public and the homeowners prior to it got to this point thank you thank you so and I'm gonna say my comment I'm sorry my comments are because we're gonna have a good discussion because to try to listen some of the people understood exactly what that notice said and some didn't so we're gonna have a discussion about that once we go into deliberations a pretty robust discussion quite frankly because that's exactly what the council voted on so the next speaker will be Lindsey Donahue oh I'm sorry is Lindsey here okay Darrell stubblefield is Darrell here I'm sorry I skipped your name mr. stubblefield if you'll state your name and address and then Lindsey Donahue is Lindsey here all right we'll set this card here in case she returns cam Darrell stubblefield at the 25 high view circle house was built in 86 I moved in in 91 long before there was a gas well on the Woodson's property behind me and that upsets me because I've got about four square foot that's within 500 foot of the pad site and I don't think I should not be able to use my property if it happened to be destroyed of more than 50% this is the second time I've lived in Denton first time was in the 60s and I actually worked for the city for four years when I went to North Texas moved back in 90 when my son and my wife was getting her masters we've got six degrees from North Texas love Denton but I don't like this so I would don't know what option to vote for except that I wanted to be grandfathered in that I can do what I want to on the property that I bought in 91 thank you thank you Matthew Merrill and then Doug Buell and I believe is Matthew Merrill here it's Matthew here all right Doug Buell I believe I spoke with Doug and I think he was going to leave early so he's no longer here Jennifer Lane and then Jonathan wait is up state your name and address yes hi my name is Jennifer Lane 1526 Willowood Street Denton I am a bit stunned to discover this meeting at all given that yesterday's ZBA meeting was cancelled without any mention of it the ZBA there was cancelled because the reason given was that there was no case which is sort of hilarious if you think about it there technically wasn't but still this is really something and the ZBA could have met to as it usually is supposed to do at the end of each month to at least provide feedback even if not in the form of an opinion the members feedback of the ZBA ranges all over that the ZBA is experienced if I could just interrupt you just for a moment you are here in your capacity as an individual not as any official party on the ZBA or any of the board of commission is that correct exactly all right thank you however the ZBA does could discuss could have it on its agenda could meet and discuss it and provide feedback to counsel whether it be something as simple as you know we don't want anything to do with this please do something else don't involve the ZBA could be the ZBA has managed this sort of issue in the past in 2002 here's the history ZBA members could be tapped for their individual opinions all kinds of range but at least take it there and that brings out the issue that perhaps the city could trigger staff or council could trigger when boards and commissions are meeting shortly before council meetings to discuss various issues that it trigger a notification to those boards and commissions so that they don't find out after the fact that you would benefit from what they might have to offer the other item is that especially since ZBA was referenced by council and staff but P and Z had a split opinion about the ZBA and its potential involvement would seem that even more important that ZBA's input and thoughts and not as a single entity necessarily but its members and its function be brought into the discussion and be allow some input and the cancellation was simply because there wasn't a a case involving an individual but it also seems that there's a kind of a loss of memory from about five years ago and this is all bringing it quite real when we had when the city decided that the best approach after about five or six years of struggling with zoning of these health and safety issues regarding gas wells was just becoming impossible it passed a ban very short-lived about six months and then that was overturned so the understandable ire of the citizenry about now having to go back to discussions of what happens to individuals people people's property what the homeowner has to do instead of simply not having to worry about those those wells being drilled near their homes that flip over to having it be about the builders and about the homeowners and who lives near the wells what happens to wells if you live near them rather than the citywide approach to let's just not do it in congested areas is unfortunate and perhaps could be taken back to the state of Texas in the form of statements from the public of look what you've put us into look at the position you've put us into the council could do this as well look at the position you've put us into in addition since those years we have seen a lot more pollution come into the picture automobiles are a far greater source of pollution than even guess well as dangerous as they are and we have more people here we have more gas pumps we had we now have Buckeyes we have a gas plant we have much more in influencing our environment and our safety and we also have much more research on what gas wells near homes can do to public health and safety can do to birth defects babies so on this is a lot less amorphous from what it was even five years ago when we passed the ban so I would wrap up just by saying that I think get some input from your own bodies and to everybody take a step back public as well and take a look at again at our history here in Denton and what we can do together to solve this problem thank you appreciate Jonathan wait is the next speaker and Michael is it geyser geyser will be after Jonathan if you'll state your name and address your time will begin John thank you excuse me my name is Jonathan wait and I own the property at 45 16 lacewood it's a rental property there that I currently own so somebody obviously thought that doing this was a great idea which is why we're all here discussing it but not one person this evening has spoken and said they're in favor of it so my question is kind of theirs so why is there a need to do it and what is the actual purpose the council should be making decisions that benefit citizens not penalize them and not to be cliched but the council is elected by the people for the people and not enough research has been done to say that these wells are bad for the citizens at large and as such I can't figure out what makes this such a priority that's taking an entire council meeting and risking monetary damages to the city that said with the stroke of a pen should this ordinance be proved approved the council has the ability to erase over 250 million dollars in property value and that's based on an average figure of 300,000 K times 800 issue so properties although now I've heard that one of them is worth 20 million so then that figure may actually be higher and the tax revenue associated with that as well the amount of money and time resources associated with this ordinance as a cost to the city will be monumental time and resources it could be better spent on the citizens of them beyond what everybody has said all right side which I agree with with pretty much what's been said one thing that wasn't brought up at least I haven't seen the information on is ETJ issues so Denton obviously has a very large ETJ section I actually own my house in a dent in ETJ and it is within 500 feet I did some research of a gas well so if that property was to be annexed by the city of Denton then my property for that would become non-conforming and if the council decides that they want to you know go forward with one of these things that isn't really exhibit a for I think that they need to take pause for a minute and really survey the people will be affected in the ETJ zones as well because there are quite a few of them there's a lot of ETJ property that has these gas walls in it and given that they're under the dictation of Denton for planning zoning plating and all those kind of things I think that's a very big issue that hasn't necessarily been addressed at least I haven't heard that and the last concern that I haven't heard a lot about is obviously there's a lot of concern about people having current property that is by wells some of those people have said we've bought the property before the wells happened so we're talking today about you know potentially saying okay everybody under 500 feet of residents that already exist may go ahead and be able to be you know legally conforming or however that may work but who is looking at new well approvals and how that'll affect current houses that are not in this and so I would hope that the city wouldn't approve new wells that would then affect properties that were never a part of any of this to begin with and never had an opportunity to come before anybody and say hey look you know this isn't good for us either so you're you're taking you're fixing maybe if depending on how we vote what's right for all the people that are today but if we still go forward and say 500 feet are we stopping people who own property today or I'm sorry are we making people own property if a well was to be drilled then non-conforming as a result as well so I think those two things ETJ and the new well approvals for me are also very important things to consider as we go forward with this because that affects not just today what everybody's here for but the future of citizens of Denton and also those in the Denton ETJ area councilmember Meltzer I would actually just like to cite current law just for general information that the situation of a home being built near an existing well is different in our ordinance than a new well being driven near exist being drilled their existing homes and the rule related to and you know correct me if I error a city attorney and the rule for a new well being driven being drilled is a thousand feet that's gonna be a thousand feet from existing homes have I might correct in what I said pins is it close the the rule is that when a new gas well development plan or we call them site plans nowadays is actually being filed for the first time means it's coming in from scratch that doesn't exist those have to be the boundaries of that gas well pad site which we require them to give us the dimensions would have to be greater than 1,000 feet from the nearest protected use which earlier during this presentation about four hours ago you heard all the different uses are under that that that provision is in there does that mean that the person drilling the well needs to own all that thousand feet around it then as well no because if it's raw land no usually it's gonna be raw land they're gonna come in so typically they'll build something at a 300 by 300 foot print and that then they'll give us a dimensions and the thousand feet would be calculated from the boundary or the perimeter of that would belong to the well owner no no because if it doesn't then you're still affecting and we could we could spin we could spin yeah no but but that was one of the point is this I mean your point is well taken as there's a lot of nuances to this because of the state of the mineral estate being the dominant state in the state of Texas to the surface estate so it's not as easy as saying new wells can come in at a thousand there's a lot of nuances it's if you're this if you're that so we'll probably discuss some of that and our deliberations to help educate and then I think we'll probably cover that comprehensively or we need to address it simply because he's raised the issue just going brief primer about about that so I appreciate you bringing that up because that's a lot of the issue as well is that the nuances and the complexities of this issue that has developed over the last 15 or 20 years thank you very much is is Michael Michael yes and then after Michael is Mason Decker Mason Decker okay thank you state your name and address your time will begin good evening my name is Michael Geyser I live at 416 Sanders Road thanks for the opportunity to come up here and speak I am a little disturbed first and foremost that I wasn't the only one they just found out about this by a postcard had you guys not decided to retable this I didn't ever know I have the rectangular parcel right here which is five acres at the time that I did this I was just going off the actual gas well come to find out with information tonight it's actual pad site so it's kind of hard to see but this circle demonstrates the amount of land that would be deemed pretty much non-usable so now if we figure in the actual pad site that's pretty much going to take all my land I'm a blue-collar guy raise a family work hard for my money this isn't the house of my dreams three bedroom two bath house built in 1968 bought it a couple years ago knowing full well the 250 rule given that as it is now I fall outside of that just last year the 32 acres on the other side of my fence was approved for a subdivision it's going in this year that is my intent when I bought this was for an investment we all know you don't get rich working for the man it was my investment knowing the the growth that Denton has and if this goes through you've pretty much taken my investment away I mean that's I can't say anything more than that like I said it's not my dream home it was my investment I've already been contacted by people about my land it's not gonna happen now you know so I just hope you guys take that in consideration you know it here a lot of people you know that you know they're in these subdivisions and all that kind of stuff I kind of feel like I'm a different situation because of the investment purpose that I bought this land for is now going to be useless and then going off of what other people have talked about if I show you that and we go off of the the actual pad site then I fall into what everybody else was talking about too and that my home couldn't be rebuilt you know where it's at or it'd be grandfathered and whatever I'm just not in favor for any of them for one of the reasons is we didn't know about it I didn't have time to do a lot of research and I just hope you all take that in consideration people work hard for their land they don't need government overreach to tell them what they can and can't do with it especially considering it's what I bought it for investment to have it developed so hope you take that in consideration thank you sir Mason and then the next is up is Stuart welcome my name is Mason Decker I live on 6512 Wrigley Court I'm 25 years old I've been very fortunate to live in den for eight years now seven of which who have been spent in the land surveying business where I've seen a lot of this happen myself as far as how it affects clients developments plats I've done several plots of the city of den other municipalities and I have seen this come into effect and it is a major issue that I have experienced with already this does not currently affect my house I am very fortunate that I was able to buy a house here because of all the den has provided me as far as opportunity and growth and as I said this does not affect me directly but it does affect many people here and I cannot imagine how that how that would feel although it doesn't affect my property directly it does affect my future here in Denton many of these people are my peers including all of you sitting here before me you have been on this planet longer than I have you've been around here more than I have you have more experience than me many of you have gotten to reap the benefits of the growth of the North Texas area this is something I'm just now getting to get involved with and it is something I went to be able to reach benefits of one day as well just as many others here have and are trying to do I had no intention of speaking tonight but when the opening statements happened I heard several members sitting before me say things along the lines of they didn't know what was in what was being voted on they didn't understand individuals were allegedly not here and that kind of concerned me being 25 years old I think many of you being much older than me that that's not something that I deem is acceptable if I do something at work that I do not understand or I don't under I don't know what's going on it would get me canned it's not good and Mary you did say that good good organizations correct their mistakes and that is very true however I would also come back and say that good organizations do not move forward with things that they do not understand and don't get if you don't know the ramifications of what you're doing you have no business doing it Amazon doesn't make bad decisions like that Xerox doesn't make bad decisions like that we see this all the time in our country and our growth and I thank you guys for your time tonight all right next speaker is Stuart is Stuart here all right and the next speaker after Stuart is Nick hooks just state your name and address your time will begin hi yeah first of all I just want to appreciate say thanks to everyone that turned up today I guess when you open up Pandora's box and you piss her off this is what you get but anyways my name is Stuart Beltram I live at Poppy Valley Lane on Ryan Meadows first of all I appreciate that you're looking after our safety however someone should have thought of that before you approved to have these homes built near a gas well either from yesterday or 20 years ago I want to know what the difference what does the difference of adding an extra 250 feet do if that gas well blows up I'm already dead my whole family would be wiped out killed my house is only two years old the back of my house sits 10 feet away from the current 250 foot setback I would like to know why the city hasn't cemented in a written like a Denman for the sellers and money greedy home builders to make sure that buyers are fully aware of the risks about living close to a gas well if I would have known this while signing the contract I would have sought that and went see ya also I want to know who approved my home to be built within touching distance of a setback knowing that in later years or future current setback could expand further as building codes change year to year I'm in construction codes change every year why sorry I don't see why I should suffer the consequences for someone else's mistake and piss poor planning the reason I say piss poor planning is because you got to realize if there's a setback and a gas well I don't think we should build a house so close how about let's put it a thousand feet then I wouldn't be standing here today and wasting your guys time everybody else's time I do not want to feel like a prisoner in my own home being told what I can't do when I a hard-working immigrant pays for my bricks and mortar it's easy for you to move a line it's impossible to move standing bricks and mortar I want my house to be grandfathered in so that gives me the freedom and the right to invest in my property three months ago I've just invested $28,000 in solar panels to make Denton green to make Denton great so not just me but for you guys too and you go throw that shambles it kind of upsets me a little bit I have been told that America is built on freedom and the rights for the people you guys here are responsible for the well-being of the people that pay your city taxes and once finally 57 seconds a leader Winston Churchill once said the true guide of life is to do what is right so please do what is right and fair for the people for the future and for the people that live in existing properties so I appreciate it thank you thank you Nick hooks well thank you for allowing me to be here my name is Nick hooks and let it 4100 feet a place as I sit here and continue to listen to you all it be funnels me to the growing ignorance that has been held prior to this meeting you all made decisions in a brass the way that impacts a vast majority of people here I work at medical see didn't work in the ICU and I don't think you would want ignorance to be had with any of us if you were in my unit and you're on a ventilator and I didn't know how to tie try to prevent and what the actual unit of measure was and I just said hey let's throw something at the wall and see if it sticks you would die now this may not be vital on the capacity of the definition of itself however people's livelihoods are at stake here in your ignorance should not be tolerated now the irony of this is I built our house in 2017 with Lamar our permits were denied initially because of a new energy code that delegated our house was so green and so efficient that we had to have a ventilation system installed so it was delayed six months fantastic we thought all the while as I found out tonight my house is bifurcated at that 250 mark effectively my house is non-conforming effectively I can't do anything with my house I'll skip around a little bit because every year get my taxes session and every year it's gone up but you all know so does an hour that my land value is worth zero so why do I keep getting an escalation of my taxes I want to go back to the builder if I'm responsible responsible excuse me for disclosing the information that my house is non-conforming to a potential buyer why isn't Lenar DR Horton whomever responsible for disclosing that information to a potential buyer Carol Ackerman who was supposed to be here who she obviously isn't here she said Lenar made her sign an agreement that said if they did any kind of fracking within her house that they would not be responsible for upholding their liability and warranty for her foundation did any of you all know that probably not so my rhetorical questions are one about the disclosing of information for non-conforming house to potential buyer but as a homeowner I'm supposed to do the same that's rhetorical question number one my last question is why do my taxes keep rising if my land value is effectively worth zero and I had no idea about it until now so I'll reiterate my first sentiment ignorance should not be accepted but have you watched the previous meeting online okay would it interest you if there was one council member that I asked everyone and if they lived in that area and advocated not for us not to do that would that be of interest to you to do what - would it be interesting to you to know that one council member asked everyone that spoke at the first hearing if they lived in that area and because they did not said council member quoted I'm voting for the people that aren't represented here with that speak to your question about ignorance with that with that separate that council member from your group of ignorance how many of there are you though there's seven correct so one out of seven yes sir it's a step in the right direction but I think as a democracy it should be a vast majority and not a singular unit a hundred percent agree thank you okay all right believe it or not that's all the blue cards we have oh well the good thing is we call the blue cards first this is a public hearing so you don't have to have a blue card to speak so those who have not spoken who wish to speak feel free to come down state your name and address and your time will begin and sir could we let this gentleman and then you'll be next yes sir if you'll come down and state your name and address and your time will begin here we've been here all night so get this done sure all right my name is Mike Trevis I live at 2317 lighthouse Drive in the Windhaven been the president of the HOA for the past three years as John knows I've contacted him many times on different things that D.R. Horton has done that have screwed our HOA completely out of whack we have 66 homes and pay six hundred dollars a year which not might not be nothing but we have nothing we have no part we have no pool we have mowing period so when this came up we have three homes that are actually in the 250 zone and we have another 30 homes that are within the 500 if we pass this which will literally cripple the HOA and make it null and void my home is right here I have literally two feet over the line and so I do not know if that grants me you know full pardon or that area itself we don't know because that hasn't been addressed either so if that's the case I'll sell that two feet to the guy behind me because he's already screwed anyway so but if we do this it will literally cripple an entire HOA a whole community we have 66 houses like I said it's not very big at all but we're trying to get things together and this would really hurt it so that's all I needed to say thank you thank you sure if you'd like to come down and state your name and address and your time will begin my name is Clinton like I live at 3401 Ocean Drive council y'all remember new coke I assume it was an albatross Coca-Cola realized it was an albatross they pulled it off the shelves and they went back to the classic Coca-Cola classic 1898 through today number one in the world what I'm asking y'all to do quit trying to patch this thing addendum addendum a 1 a 2 a 3 a 4 why not just go back to what was working you see that all these people don't want anything to do with this new stuff you just keep putting lipstick on a pig it's still a pig it don't matter if it's a show pig or if it's a wild boar it's still a pig that's what this is y'all can smirk and smile and just stare through me but you know what this is you're messing with everybody's lives it's gonna escalate just put a stop to it you already got it at 250 feet you're already messing with people within that continuing to let people let these builders build within the 250 feet but you can put a stop to it 250 feet it's already there throw it out what you got what you're trying to bring in people don't want it it's a trash just put it out y'all pick it up on Wednesdays at my house you want me to put it out I'll hold it I'll take it out tonight and put it out for you but this whole situation is new coke and I hope y'all realize that nobody here wants this they just want to be left alone they want to live their lives the way they want to live their lives and they don't want to have to go through this hassle so please I implore you bring the Coca-Cola classic back everybody loves the classic it makes it good it goes down smooth it's good on a hot day it's good on Christmas they got the polar bears they got Santa Claus keep Santa Claus get rid of new coke thank you thank you okay this is a public hearing anybody who wishes to speak that has not spoken feel free to come down state your name and address and your time will begin and I don't know how many we have if there's people still left in the overflow well I'm thinking that if they're able to get up here so all right okay and I think probably most of them have filled out this stack of white cards all right one more time anybody else wishing to speak this is a public hearing fixing to close the public hearing here in just about five seconds oh somebody you know you've already spoken I'm sorry Joyce yeah anybody else once twice okay we will now close the public hearing let's take a quick five-minute break and then we'll come back and move forward in our council deliberations welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on it is still January 28th the year 2020 and it is now 1052 we have closed the public hearing for our agenda item 1a we'll now move into deliberations councilmember armature yours was the first up to request something so I recognize you well so I was gonna make the motion but I'll wait till after the deliberation for that okay all right so okay councilmember browser there's been a lot of questions about why are you even doing this you know when all these people everyone here has got a problem with it first of all I think the main thing I'm hearing that folks have a problem with the same thing the council had a problem with once it was pointed out was that the idea of creating an unconformity destroys value and kind of punishes and punishes people who were not the object of this effort at all so so I agree with that but why do it at all then we've heard you know go back to class of coke and so on we you know some people said it must be easy to be up there and kind of make these rules I assure you it's not because we have to take into account what's best for all the people your property values and people's health and safety too and so when the science mounts that says that there are dangers to living within 500 feet of an oil and gas well with eight times when one speaker referenced the study showing eight times higher risk of cancer chronic rhinocytosis asthma fatigue migraines low birth weight preterm birth fetal death I don't think you would be happy with us if we took the position that you know one speaker advocated that we should only act if people are actively saying we're sick we're dying when we when we know what the science says now why are we even talking about 500 feet and what's the difference between 250 and 500 well you know I've advocated in the past to say let's get the politics out of it and do it based on the science we should do a study well now the answer has been that to do a study that would withstand scrutiny on indent in our geology in a way that that the TCQ would respect would cost two million dollars to do and take two years and I can just tell you there has not been support even as early as as recently as today you know for the idea of council spending two million dollars on a study so the question is what what factual data is available that that we can make our decisions based on and the advice we've gotten is that the only study that's on our geology it's Fort Worth it's not dead and is the Fort Worth study and that's the one that showed that it was acceptable and it's kind of politically acceptable frankly is an agreement in the community but but health and safety wise acceptable level of risk to have the setback at 600 feet from the from the borehole and contrary to what was characterized before the representation us is that 500 feet from the pad site which is what's been proposed is comparable to in you know it's gonna vary a little based on the size of the pad site but it's comparable to 600 feet from the borehole so so that's why when you see you know why are we even bothering to do it I can tell you it happens frequently that people come before council or address me personally and say this is so easy why don't you just address my concern you you'd be done but you know we there's there's more than one set of concerns and you know we have to care and I and I believe that the mayor and councilman Ryan and others who voted for this initially care very much about the health and safety of of dead nights and we also have to care very much about your property values your hard-earned investment so you know it's it's it's a balance and I believe that the right balance is to enact a 500 foot setback but with the target being new construction and you you know I believe you should as many speakers have noted should have been advised of how close you are to a gas well so that you know you were making your consent on an informed basis and I'm sure that'll come up again in council you know what kind of notification should should occur but you know it's it's a it's a it's a balance we've got to draw and I think that's the right balance I've heard many speakers support that they to go forward but with option for a so I I expect to support that I'm sure there'll be more discussion you know on some other parts of the nuance nuances of what to do about what's already been plotted and so on but I wanted to share with you my thinking so far mayor protein yeah so mayor one procedural question I'm free to make a motion because that was passed on right attorney I recognize the movement the movement did not desire at that point to make a motion so therefore there there is the opportunity to make the motion is that correct there's correct all right thank you so thank you so I moved denial of item what number are we what what is a 6a no one a one a here in the public hearing section and then my comments are these and I have them succinct but there's a lot of them because 44 people spoke so if I have specific quotes and I'll get power through it so here's what drives my decision and I would ask anyone to go back and look at the look at the the different meetings and and you'll see I've been consistent this way 44 people spoke tonight 17 people spoke previously before you were given notice I advocated for you before you got here I'm sorry you have to be here this evening for this this amount of time I think it was avoidable I'll note that those one or two of the 16 returned or 17 and that's disappointing because those people to advocate it against you aren't here and and I look forward to a robust conversation between both sides that being said here's what drives my decisions the silent points are these several and several people mentioned their home predated the well I think that's significant and that drives my my decision and then number six mr. Townsend mentioned the six-speaker mr. Townsend mentioned he lives in the area ask if we lived in that area and and would we suffer those same consequences my answer is no and I think that was that was compelling to me and then I look at number the number eight speaker miss leck I do believe was was gonna buy a home and or is gonna sell a home and now it's not conforming so we've already done damage to someone and I just don't think that's that's equitable and so for that I apologize and then number 10 mr. Fullerton mentioned the rule change and then making money that was noteworthy to me so a future council could benefit in theory from us not allowing development and then they turn around and and act upon those those actions and it could be capitalized and that's not to say that that would happen but that's noteworthy to me and captured my attention and then the number I didn't get the number mr. car car can Carson oh I think I'm doing that miss Carson I think I forget I didn't note the number but she mentioned being annexed into the city so you're not affected by then you brought in that that's problematic to me and then number 17 mr. David Lake and at Lachey and I'm probably saying that wrong properties not plotted we've not talked about that but that's noteworthy to me we have to these decisions affect people that have purchased land long ago and allocated resources to develop those so that was compelling I'll reference number speaker number 25 mr. Campbell future home values versus existing values and and touched on the fact that there's 293 active wells in the city so that that resonated with me that were you know we're parsing out how we apply our rules and that to me is that inconsistency is problematic and he requested we base our decisions on facts there's a as you said if we're not willing as a council to spend two million dollars on us on a study then we can't then just wing it and say we're going to apply these rules universally without doing the work if if we're committed to taking again there's a we were one boat away from 1,500 foot setbacks which would have wiped out an entire city for the most part then if we're willing to take that measure then we should be willing to pay the two million dollar fee to get a study done for Denton and so I if this council or a future council decides to spend that money then we'll have that conversation when that happens and then speaker number 26 mentioned it affects him two times mr. and mr. sales I think was it because it was his family and then they had an additional house or something along those lines it was it was it affected him twice there's a the 1,500 foot vote as I mentioned we're one weight vote away from that and that that's noteworthy to me that if we're talking if we're saying we're talking about 500 and people were with a lot of the speaker said well what if you go and change the rules down the road well we already tried to change the rules down the road and so we as a body you know it's it's a collective unit and so that that's concerning to me and then number 32 mr. Johnson spoke about the the safety concerns and and if that was valid and and so I thought that resonated with me and then number 35 miss Burns talked about her apartment complex that multifamily has not been mentioned 20 million dollars is significant and a lot of those families there that they're serving being displaced or being affected by that ownership having a having their loan called would be traumatic for the entire that touches a lot of families and that resonated with me two more or three more mr. number 38 mr. weight again mentioned the ETGA and this one is really compelling so number 39 mr. Geyser and I could be saying that wrong mentioned not enough time to research that's a fact so staff's information came out Friday night that's when we get our Friday packet so option 4a would have hit the email or hit that that would have been Friday night and those are released then you have the weekend Saturday Sunday then you have one day and basically a half this evening to research what that means for your livelihood forever you know and so that's not enough time to make a decision and that drives my decision tonight if we want to do some research again if we want to do the study that takes time so to roll out a decision that's life-changing in two and a half days if you can't leave the weekend that's problematic for me and then the last one number 41 mr. Belder it's not as simple as is moving along and that's a true statement so question procedure question for mr. city attorney so we've had a motion for denial we've got two council members requesting to speak and so can we have discussion since the motion was made now there's not been a second made but can we have discussion with the two that are requesting to speak and the motion continue to be open or do we need to get a second is there some kind of time frame on that or is it I mean under Robert's rules of order which we supplements our council rules procedure a second should be made okay and have that and then open the the item of for this or the motion up for discussion amongst all the council members so I guess I what I want to do is call to see if there's anybody willing to make a second and then we'll recognize councilmember Armitage and councilmember Briggs councilmember Ryan well would I be able to ask one question of staff prior to just informational eyes before well the second well since we've got two speakers requesting ahead of time what I would say is if you wanted to second the motion you can always come back and ask staff's question and if based on the answer you can yeah I will second with the option to withdraw from staff okay councilmember Armitage okay so first point of procedure I had thought that when I had asked if I could wait till the end of the discussion out of respect to my colleagues to make the motion I I thought that it was okay to do that so I apologize for not understanding I thought that was one of those areas where the you know chair of the meeting could agree to that so I want to say why I don't support this motion those of you if the firm can begin by speaking to those of you who live within the 250 foot setback and I'm curious curious to know the people who are here physically present raise your hand if you some of you have already spoken right so currently your home is non-conforming we have the ability tonight by voting to make your home conforming I want to do that I want to come out of this meeting tonight with that if this motion is to deny passes that means we've lost this opportunity to make your home conforming that I cannot accept that I think we have an opportunity tonight to make things better than the way they are now and not just for those of you within the 250 feet so I really hope that my colleagues really consider that that we have the opportunity to do this night and these people have come out here and said that they're just finding out through this postcard that their homes are currently non-conforming which is even worse than finding out that it might be depending on how we vote so I would ask again I hope I've made that clear okay number two those of you who are within the 500 for more than 250 feet less than 500 okay I haven't heard anybody here today and maybe it's because the discussion hasn't started yet oppose number four most of you have have been for number four I certainly am I voted no the first time to what was being proposed because I didn't think it provided enough protections for homeowners and it had been the impression not just of me but I think most of council and most of P&Z planning and zoning at least by watching that the discussions that we were getting the impression from the city attorneys who is as you saw in the slide the one slide that said that the city attorney and mr. city attorney can explain that but that he he has has some issues with this number option number four which would make everybody's homes legal and conforming so he has some concerns he can speak to that I'm not an attorney but that is what I want for you and I want to make everybody's home including those in the 250 feet legal and non-conforming and again we would lose our we would lose our opportunity to do that the reason why nobody on this council or planning and zoning had brought that up before and I am ashamed and sorry that that we did not know you have every right to be angry at us for that we were given the impression that that would make us liable and it was either impractical impossible not on the table so I was skeptical of that but I didn't know and that is why when this agenda came out and I saw that this fourth option was available which is what I think many of us had been trying to do by essentially trying to make non-conforming as much like conformity as possible because we didn't know conformity was an option anyway this can help as long as we make all homes conforming this can help to ensure your property value and you the attractiveness of your home for resale by prohibiting future development in your home that would add to traffic problems if you're already experiencing traffic problems there's an empty lot near you with trees and you like the trees there and you don't want someone to go take out all those trees and put out apartment put up apartment buildings and housing developments if you want that for your neighborhood if you want if you want that and if you think that will help your property values then I guess then then I feel differently than that I feel that by protecting your neighborhood and what you like about it the way it is well making your home legal for those of you in 250 feet and keeping it legal for those of you in 500 feet this would protect your quality of life the attractiveness of your home and I believe make it more attractive to a buyer so that is why I'm going to be voting voting no to this and I would implore my colleagues to at least amend the motion to take this opportunity to legalize those homes that are in the 250 feet because we owe them that and there are a number of other issues that I have that I would want to bring up that have been raised by people about you know why didn't we know why aren't realtors required to disclose why didn't these home builders disclose I think we need to change the non-conform the definition of non-conforming I think it's ridiculous this 50% rule but these are all things that are outside of what we're voting on today but I want you all to know that that I am listening thank you councilmember breaks thank you I have I have a few questions but I want to start with the one for our city manager I guess two of them we were told earlier looking at criteria for approval that we don't even have the right to sit up here and think about this item and address this topic tonight by someone who spoke and I just want to confirm or deny that is that for the city manager city attorney city attorney yeah I'm sorry can you repeat the question the criteria for approval was put up there and earlier to change a code or discuss the code yes yes it was and that there were items that had to be met and that those were not met and so I'm just looking we shouldn't even be discussing this topic I'm looking for the those same items that were shown by one of the speakers on an overhead are part of the staff's analysis and exhibit 2 if I'm not mistaken and they list those four factors so you part of your decision to approve anything tonight would incorporate analysis an analysis of those four factors so those four factors have been established that is for you the council to decide okay I'm just the attorney yeah and also if I could okay mr. C turning out I failed to let you respond to the to the comment about somehow that you were responsible for something so after councilman Briggs after you finish councilman Brian I'm gonna let the city attorney respond to those comments yes go ahead I'm sorry okay um and so I'm gonna address a few things earlier somebody mentioned that I said something and I don't I don't even saying let's take enough land I will tell you the conversation had to do with the pad sites and we were talking about in that work session the Fort Worth study does from the wellhead to the property and what this council decided to do a long time ago was measure from the pad site because that pad site can be drilled again wells can come back in they can be fracked a whole new site can be there right by your house so it turns a residential area into an industrial area and what we can do today for you is to help you with your home and make it become conforming but we cannot stop the fracking if it the natural gas goes back up from coming into your neighborhoods but what we can do for future homeowners is add a little bit more distance not a lot just a little bit more so that I just wanted to address that that's that's where that comment came from it was about the measurement from the wellhead and the pad site next I know that we've had a lot of questions about structures existing and when the less than 250 feet so there are homes I spoke to somebody earlier 99 feet 98 feet how is that even possible how could the city let this happen and so I wanted to give a little bit of time for the city attorney to address what we have here it's platting and vesting and how how that can happen and there's really not much the city can do about that are you through with your comments okay you through with your comments or do you want I just seem you get through all years and then he can respond to your question and also to council members armatures comments okay yeah I'll just go ahead and let him okay all right go ahead and you respond to whichever one you want in whatever order you want to respond I guess prior prior for all those homes that were and some of you are here tonight who were impacted by the 250 foot reverse setback that was implemented in August of 2010 it was ordinance 2010 - 196 that created the 250 reverse setback you know that was the why some of you are here tonight you were impacted by that they were created as non-conforming because the general rule that when you do change zoning ordinances whether it's change from residential commercial or a setback and you don't know you no longer comply the general rule under under law is that you're non-conforming most cities will correct that in certain ways our city has done that if your debt if your properties damage more than 50% you can or less than 50% you can rebuild or fix that the the damage so but going back and the reason why there there are homes that were allowed to build in in less than 250 feet and the one that I'm most familiar with is metals of Hickory Creek because that is what led to a lawsuit in 2013 and to me in my opinion the genesis for the 2014 frac ban petition what all those that plat metals of Hickory Creek was filed and back backtrack when somebody wants to build a residential subdivision there is a document that is filed with development film and services that is called a plat in that plat they mark all the different lots that they proposed to build the streets utilities there's other features that they have to put on there that document for especially metals Hickory Creek and it was the same for others that I can't I don't know their names off the hand those because that document was filed before August of 2010 and it was approved before August of 2010 they you know they were allowed to continue because the new law that the reverse setback didn't apply to them because they were already starting construction on some of those lots you had took them you know you have to remember that when that plot was approved and until they really started building the lots there was a recession and so they were building little by little but they but they had already had the right to build according what they fought was filed and approved that's why you have some lots out there that are less than 250 feet that are even that they're basically 100 feet or higher depending because the only separation distance rule we had was the fire code and that was 100 feet for rent for residential homes that's why they were allowed to build it had nothing to do with any special permits that were granted or after 2010 their plat their approval to build the lots at their at their pace was already approved so that's why we have that that that quirk and there's a lot of homes that are within that with between 100 and 250 said I hope that answers that question on why there's why that was why that happened the second thing that I wanted to address is is in the first speaker brought it up who was Cindy Pritchard who had a relative speak for her who was a former council member urban planner all of us and he made a statement that kind of more or less it's a misstatement of why I have a concern with options one and four he said yeah you can adopt the higher reverse setback and make them all conforming it can be done I agree however the statement that has been going out there in the community and on social media was that I said it was impossible to be done that's in consent that's incorrect the concern that I have with options one and four which the difference between the two under option one if you're within 251 to 500 under the new rule you're conforming if you're under 250 if you're 250 and under you're not option for zero army one everybody from one foot technically to 500 is conforming that's basically the difference the same legal issue or legal concern I have is you have to think what the whole purpose of the ordinance and some of you who spoke tonight kind of hinted about that what is the purpose of this ordinance why are we doing this the purpose of the ordinance starting from Joe before July of last year you know the council myself the city manager receiving emails from citizens who wanted to giving us air quality studies from other states and wanting to increase the setbacks the reverse setback so eventually the council agreed to have a work session and so from that time until November and even tonight the whole basis for proposing to increase the reverse setback is upon the the the air the health impacts from the air quality or air emissions that are emitted from gas wool pad sites that is the whole premise the purpose of the ordinance when you create everybody you know an exception that makes everybody conforming whether it's 250 to 500 or 1 to 500 then your rationale for enacting the ordinance is you're not being consistent with that purpose if you really are want to protect the citizens from health the health impacts you would leave it at non-conforming and so some people might say that creating the exception when the purpose was air quality health impacts could be arbitrary and capricious in the end for that that if if we were challenged it would be a very difficult lawsuit to defend if somebody wins that lawsuit and it's except on that challenge then the entire ordinance is undone and there is no reverse setback so that that has been the advice that I have given the position that I've had and there's a lot more but this legal opinion that's confidential but that like this is what I can tell the public so that is my reason why I've had concerns with one and four it has nothing to do with whether it's impossible to be done it's a different issue and I hope you all understand that but with that said I mean I do have an option five but but but that's something that if council members are interested I can I can explain that but at least I answered the two questions councilmember Ryan thank you mayor that somewhat goes to the question that I wanted to ask staff can y'all hear him a little bit here question that I had for staff currently is it just explained by the city attorney we have anything that's under 250 is is considered non-conforming how are we notifying the how is that made public record such that a title company would even pick up on that is that I mean if if we've allowed them to be built in there's no notification out there there's got to be some way I mean if we're not we're not sending them a letter saying you're out of compliance then how would they even know there there would unfortunately there would be nothing that would be recorded against the property that really would come up entitled the only time that something like that may occur is and we're actually starting to relook at how we're doing these anyways when someone asked for a zoning verification letter or they'll ask are we consistent with with zoning in that category and those are the times when we may send a letter back saying well yes the use is permitted however the structure is non-conforming due to this reverse setback for the gas well but there would not be unless someone really dug pull the plat looked at where the gas was measured it out which I don't think I can't speak for a title company but I don't know that they would dig that deep okay I guess my follow-up on that is is kind of for legal and that is when we passed the DDC this past year we put a section in there that made all residential structures that we would not create non-conforming uses on residential structures this section is part of that is this is part of the DDC that was dropped into that so did that not get covered by that same section when you say this section was dropped into that are you talking about the one we're considering tonight yes as far as I know okay so you're saying did the dissection that is part of option four part of it is to amend the DDC to remove this non-conforming status and does that sort of fit into when we passed the DDC original when we did the rewrite of the DDC we said at the passage of the DDC this new rewrite if this code by itself this new code creates a nonconformity and single-family so forth that it doesn't do that correct and even though it was a copy and paste from our old code it is still part of this code and that's how the verbiage was in the way the wording of that DDC provision is it actually that at the time of the adoption that a conforming structure on the you know that the day before it was adopted would remain conforming these homes have been non-conforming since 2010 and when the residential lots before the homes were built so they were non-conforming their status didn't change by that that provision the provision only protected those that were going to become non-conforming on the date of the adoption so they were so in essence that didn't didn't change their status so anybody else who was legally nonconforming before the adoption date stays legal not conforming okay let's see if I had any other yeah and I will say right from the start the fact that we've been using the 600 foot versus we've been saying 600 foot is what Fort Worth found they found that acceptable that there was no issues at that point they never checked lower than that what but yet they're 600 foot from the wellhead and we're using it from the pad site and I've asked staff in the past how big's a pad and there is no definition of how big a pad is we had one person tonight come up and talk about it is a nine acre well some say it's a two acre some say it's a five acre all that all that variance in there changes what that distance really is and it can be very dramatic how much of a distance that is and you know I'm not going to say I wouldn't be willing to increase on future properties but because of that variance that I'm hearing even more so about tonight I would really like for us to to be able to fix the nonconformity issue for existing structures in that and I don't know if there's an amendment to denial that could be made we'll address that yeah I think there's we've got some other speakers okay yeah so we've still got the motion second for denial yeah councilmember Davis thank you mayor thank you all for being here I think y'all for taking us to task when we need to be taken to task thank you for responding to that postcard we sent you in the mail I want y'all all to recognize and not everybody's still here that was here at the beginning of the night with us but I want you all to recognize the amazing diversity that you've seen tonight and I know sitting out there in the seats you're all kind of a raid against us here you might think you're all locked arm-in-arm against what the council has been doing stop and listen to what your neighbors and your friends have been saying you've all agreed that we should have brought you into this process earlier some of you believe that the setback ought to be 500 feet some of you believe that the setback shouldn't be 500 feet because it's all based on junk science others of you have done your own independent research into the health risks of living close to gas well and you're here defending your right to be healthy but at the same time you don't want your current home to be non-conforming so and then there's others of you who are professionals in your fields you might even be developers yourselves some of you have a single-family home that is suddenly non-conforming if we pass this without grandfathering you in some of you own acreage and you're worried about your ability to capitalize on your investment all of those are good and legitimate things but I want everyone to recognize that we're here for different reasons and different motivations except for the fact that the city ought to have brought you in to this process sooner the reason why I bring that up is the same thing I've been saying from the beginning of this process from the beginning of the time that I was running for council and now I'm on council people ask why 500 feet how do we get to this magical number I've said from the beginning is a balance of three things surface rights owners most of y'all who own homes have the surface right to your home surface right owners have a right to enjoy and develop their property with reasonable regulation mineral rights owners the people who own the gas and the oil under the ground they have they have a right to develop those minerals with reasonable regulation and the states kind of said what we can do what we can't do there and third the further you live from a gas well the better it is for your overall health the science is very clear regardless of whether it's one feet one foot 2,000 feet the further you live from a gas well the better it is for your health so we as a council taking to account all of the diverse opinions we hear from y'all and from the 17 people who were here back in November when we did this the first time around and from the hundreds of people who are here back when we were having this debate back in 2015 we have to balance all of those things along with the property rights that are at stake for the surface owners and the mineral owners that's how we end up at 500 feet we kind of have two different things going on here we have the homeowners who are concerned about being grandfathered in we've discovered a new problem that we didn't have adequate grandfathering in of our 250 foot setback to begin with we can correct that tonight we can correct our mistake from November tonight by grandfathering in fully grandfathering in everyone within the 500 foot setback that really leaves and that's most of y'all right that's most of y'all here tonight you're worried about your homes being put in the same position you were before your City Council started messing around with this that's what we can do with grandfathering y'all in then there's another set of concerns and those are those are coming from those of y'all who have acreage those of y'all who are investors or developers that you're hoping to to develop your property we have clients who are hoping to develop their property that is a separate and different concern from homeowners who are already there the intention of all of this was primarily new construction and to hear somebody say from from that microphone that we are ignoring the health and safety of the rest of y'all because we are concerned with who's coming in after y'all who's coming into the new homes that's simply not the case it's just the simple fact is we cannot reasonably ask just as y'all told us tonight people within that 500 feet already to move we cannot as a city just as y'all told us tonight remove the value of your homes without compensation so to say that because we want to protect new residents that we're ignoring the old that's not true why in the world with this City Council be talking about reverse setbacks if we are ignoring health and safety I'm also less concerned than some others I think about undermining the purpose of this ordinance by you know kind of watering down the purpose of this ordinance by making it apply proactively to new homes and not retrospectively to existing homes for that same reason it is simply impractical for any city in any state anywhere in the United States to say that anybody within a 500 foot swath of any nuisance a gas well or anything else suddenly has to pick up and move y'all have made that very clear tonight and I want you to know that was never our intention so so I'm less concerned about that I don't intend to vote to deny my intention is if we have the opportunity here in a moment to move again 500 foot gas well setbacks reverse setbacks fully grandfathering in existing homes with the option that is most palatable to our city attorney I hope I get that opportunity and that will refocus this conversation where it should have been in the first place off of y'all and on to the new construction and our challenges as a growing city council member Armitage and this is your second time so if you could be a little brief and same with councilmember Briggs I mean I've got a few words I want to say but I want to get y'all cleared off well a couple things well thank you so much councilmember Davis I agree with everything that you said that was excellent councilmember Ryan brought up a really good point and I wonder and by the way I think that that is another reason for this confusion because we've got something in our ordinance that says that against but before we started having this discussion not today but what was that November back in November I didn't even know that we made new non-conforming properties because I thought that was something that we didn't do Mike so I have two questions for the city attorney one if we do have this in our code and it says even if it was left in there by accident saying that we don't make new non-conforming properties wouldn't that be a liability if we then made properties non-conforming another I mean you couldn't of course someone could sue for anything but if it's if it says that in there you know it that would make me concerned about making any property non-conforming which by the way I don't want to do that anyway but if you could speak to that whether or not it's a liability to have that in there I'll put this way whether it's a liability with that in there if we were to have this motion to deny and or some other something else that would come out of council tonight that would make new properties non-conforming or keep other proper existing properties non-conforming in that 250 foot setback can you speak to that I'm confused as to what you're asking so so basically I'm saying is it a liability that if we make new properties non-conforming and we have sorry if we make existing properties non-conforming and we have something in the ordinance that says that we can't isn't that a problem in other words shouldn't we because it says that in there shouldn't we follow that advice and just not make non-conforming properties if you put provision I mean in theory I mean what you're asking I think is something different than what councilmember Ryan brought with the provision he was referring to the provision he referred to is just a snapshot in time if you were conforming the day before this was adopted you're going to remain conforming but what you're asking is if we put in a provision that says the city of Denton will not any time it amends a zoning ordinance or a text amendment that somehow will create that would create a non-conforming that it that it will not be non-conforming in essence it will continue to be conforming and you're saying that if we put that provision or you're asking if you if we put that provision in there and we act contrary to that are we liable I'm not so sorry I was just asking because I genuinely don't know the answer about what councilmember Ryan brought up is that a liability it sounds like you're saying no it's not no no I genuinely didn't know but I was concerned about that okay thank you councilmember Briggs so if we pass the motion to denial then that means that the people that live within the 250 foot setback walk out of here still non-conforming so I'm just asking I'm just asking for the people not to respond okay and so I also wanted to address someone spoke earlier about fires in the the last one was 2015 and it was a blowout but it was a non-active well and so and that was the the homes closest to that were 250 feet that was the one that the gentleman spoke earlier and I think another speaker spoke about it too and people could feel the heat within their home and what I'm concerned about are the active wells so that was a non-active or non-producing well so if the lightning struck an active well who had more wells on it than just one on these pad sites what could happen so those were the concerns that are on my mind and protecting people when we're talking about setbacks I also wanted to kind of go ahead and explain because the situation it was talked about new wells coming in and it gets a little bit confusing but a new well coming into an established neighborhood that would be where there was no pad site that's where that thousand foot setback comes in and then that thousand feet can be reduced with a variance from the Board of Adjustments to 500 feet so I wanted to go ahead and just put that out there since this is an information and we're learning about the processes of things that can happen to us so okay just got a few comments I'm going to talk for all the time accumulated by everybody else talking I get all that time I'm kidding it's really hard to know where to begin on this suffice it to say I've been disappointed I've been disappointed since this issue came to light after the motion to reconsider which was done in a city council work session room I don't even know if there was anybody there it was after a school board joint school board meeting you know the old cliche you know really how people are when what they do is what they do when they're in their homes how they are when not that nobody's watching but this conversation that we're having up to this point in time has happened in a what I would call a public vacuum in other words to be quite honest nearly everybody in this room there were over three hundred people on the on the city campuses you all had no idea what's been going on and what's been disappointing is the misinformation that has been on social media and I and and council member armatures not here so I'll save my comments because they're a direct response to a comment she made tonight that just is not true but first of all I'm glad you're here because finally we have the other side of the coin we have those people who are just living their lives living in their houses wanting to just enjoy the rights of their their private property rights and this whole oil and gas thing has been going on for years and I've been here for most of those years so I can tell you the reverse setback originally there was really no talk and I was here when that happened there was really no talk about the homeowners it was primarily everybody was concerned about the well drillers so when we made this motion and so make no mistake nobody mentioned anything about grandfathering during a city council meeting also think of the position you're in right now now think about the people who are in a similarly situated position those people who just have raw land who have a gas well somewhere it might not even be on their land it may be on their land it may not be on their land we had a motion on November 19th to move the setback to 1500 feet now that would have made everybody nonconforming we're going to correct that but what about the people who have raw land do they not have the same right to enjoy that bundle of property rights private property rights that you all have that if because we've talked about 500 feet here but there has been discussion as there was November the 19th for 2,000 foot setback and we talked about the health and safety we've received a lot of studies about the health and safety we've had the Fort Worth study I read the study that was from Colorado that was mentioned somebody's mentioned the Denver article is probably from that it was a 2019 study that study I had the executive summary here that study said that within 500 feet of the wellhead the facilities all emissions were within guidance now they said if you use the worst-case scenario for meteorological conditions if you take the worst emissions and you take a hypothetical person and you put them outside all the time so the the facts surrounding the health consequences I think would be safe to say they're highly debatable they're highly debatable you could get everybody in here to talk about and you're gonna have a lot of difference of the opinion so when councilmember Davis talks about the balancing of the interests we also have to take that in consideration but what about those people who were not going to be who are going to be affected by this ordinance that they are going to have property that they cannot develop the way that they want to if they wanted to do residential property so y'all will be granted conforming status if if one of these options passes that does that but people who don't have an existing structure people who are just there with maybe a single house on 10 acres there's going to be 500 feet maybe not on their land or someone else so we need to remember them because they're in the same situation that you're in you have a remedy they do not so I want to repeat councilmember Armitry you made a comment to a gentleman tonight that when you voted for the 1500 foot setback that you had asked for grandfathering and there's no way councilmember Armitry you you've had time to speak I'm gonna be allowed to speak I didn't say I asked for great grandfathering I said that I wanted everybody to have those we'll go back and look at that but in your email in your social media post you talk about striving for I've been asking and striving for all along for grandfathering but was previously told was impossible by the city attorney those are two false statements the only time grandfathering ever came up was today all right and also the city attorney just said and I've read the email and I've read the post that there was nothing that the city attorney said saying it would be impossible all right so as mayor I get really frustrated when we have such a delicate sensitive issue that impacts so many people and then there's posts you can say not you people can say what they want but at least let's be factual and it was not factual so I after the vote I voted to for the ordinance on November the 19th I did we had 17 people here who were advocating for it to be larger to be 1000 feet to be a motion was made to 1500 feet nobody mentioned anything about taking nonconforming status and making it for me you know why we had that discussion that way you know why this turned out this way because we didn't have all of you all sitting in here telling us that there is a different opinion there's a different impact to what you guys are doing go back and watch the tapes because it's a whole different ball game up on here once we started getting our first emails of the notice that went out so we had the motion for reconsideration I made that I put it on the agenda quite honestly ladies and gentlemen I did not think it was going to pass I did not think it was going to pass and what I realized and I won't say who but I realized that one person changed their mind based upon I think upon one question a series of questions and that is how long would it take for us to get there were two proposals do the fix put it out as a motion for reconsideration notice people or try to do it a different way and if we can fix it we don't necessarily need to give notice and then there was the question that was asked well what happens if we don't vote for this what happens if it fails the city attorney said that ordinance goes into effect the next day or two so if that motion had failed you would not have received one notice you would not have received two notices some of you received four notices I don't know how that happens but four notices we certainly would not be having this meeting tonight till almost midnight so I applaud you for being here I applaud you for coming and sharing your concerns and sharing your concerns for your neighbors and so I want you to understand that this is a watershed moment in this discussion I want you to make sure that you begin to look at council agendas that you begin to see that we are up here making decisions every day and this is a prime example where when we only hear from one specific sort of group with a sort of a common message and we don't hear the other side it's impactful so I cannot tell you how proud I am that you are here tonight and how this demonstrates to me what happens in Denton now I'm not going to vote for the denial and I'm going to tell you why I don't know if I can vote for a 500 foot reverse setback I'm gonna be honest with you I'm gonna hear some more deliberation but we have to no matter what we do correct the problem that's been around for ten years we have to give relief to those in the non-conforming status within 250 feet we also need to figure out because several people said we may be up here again it's very likely in a couple years we'll be back here again I'm gonna tell you all stay diligent keep a watchful eye if you know people who have raw land around gas wells you need to tell them make sure you pay attention because the reality is we were one vote away from a 1,500 foot setback let's just say it applied only to new properties that everybody was grandfathered that was not the motion but let's assume for discussion it takes 14,000 acres out of development for single-family multifamily schools churches and the like the many of you said hey you need to compensate us if we applied that same principle that you're advocating for for yourself to those people that we take and we say you can't use your land for these uses it's in it's almost in the billion dollar range so we're gonna have some more discussion but I've sat here all night like you have and I've been fairly quiet but the one thing I want to say is I hope in the future that when we have a situation like this that we can resist the temptation to post things that are inaccurate because the last thing that you all need is inaccurate information the last thing that you need is to have somebody show you a post or a social media site or something that you take as this is exactly what's gonna happen and I'm glad the postcard went out whether you think it looks trashy whether it should have had okay all right we can do better with that but the content of that postcard first of all it reflected what happened on November the 19th and second it reflects what could happen should this council decide not to take any of the options and option four was never presented to this council until the agenda packet came out but it's been in the works since we had the motion to reconsider and the feedback from those who wanted to go ahead and vote for that motion because of the unintended consequence so I'll take responsibility and accountability for my vote but I'll also take the responsibility and accountability for going home it was a long night waking up the next morning calling the city attorney and getting some questions of clarification and realized we got to do something different and we got to do something quickly so we're going to probably we are going to fix your initial problem I feel certain of that even if I don't agree with the vote my concern what about the next time what about that person who owns 50 acres that wants to put in a residential development or somebody wants to buy it and he's got one or two gas wells which may not even be their wells the surface interest and the gas interest could be bifurcated this council is going to say potentially we're going to build a 200 2000 foot setback or 1500 foot setback it's been so vitally important to hear your voice tonight and it's vitally important to hear the voices of those who were here on November the 19th but the point is we need to hear them both almost at the same time so that we can make a decision that balances those competing interests as councilmember Davis had alerted to I would just simply say this and in these comments I hope this has been a lesson to all of us myself included make sure that we know there's always a different side of the coin from what we're hearing from people that are talking to us and that we make sure we do everything we can to solicit that feedback and ensure that that feedback is given and that there's knowledge in order to do that so we have a motion on the floor a motion to deny this current agenda item it's been seconded that correct all right and if there's no changes to that motion we don't see any requests to speak we're going to go ahead and take a vote on that oh go ahead okay sure yes mr. mayor pro 10 yes sir so I think here the points made by a couple of councilmembers are noted Aaron can you speak to your fifth option and in in there also speak to what my options are to address the existing 0 to 250 nonconformities so two questions 0 to to use your term 1 to 250 nonconformities what is the option to address that one to what is your fifth option my fifth option is related to one your one point it is simply to correct the the nonconformities created by ordinance 2010 - 196 and basically would revert all those to conforming and the reason why you have heard the same statements made in the record to support such as such a move it is also within the posting you've heard comments and I'm just going to be paraphrasing I know Cynthia deputy city attorney has been out there writing them but impact property values impact of selling their homes buyers not possibly being able to get loans current owners or buyers may not current owners may have their insurance canceled or new buyers can't get insurance coverage there was and there's other reasons so there's a factual record to support that the people the people who are concerned about facing those within 250 to 500 but the ones who actually came here and said this is the dilemma I have including a Robbie Burns for the Westwood Apartments who has 1,224 units and they basically took out a loan that that could be called upon I think you have a record there just to basically take an action to simply reverse the non-conforming status of all those homes impacted by 2010 - 196 and make them conforming and the recorders there if you that that action would also include not increasing the reverse setback because you don't have a record there to support an increase to 500 it would the setback would remain at 250 so question so he asked that the second part of his question was procedurally is he so would withdraw his motion and make a different motion and he's able to do that yes it would have to be withdrawal because when you deny a motion to deny is just simply that to deny the entire item a motion to approve is the one that can be amended by a superior motion as you all have done in past meetings so that is the one that can be amended a motion to deny is simply that councilmember that's but mayor pro tem hudspeth yeah so I'd like to let me get my ducks in a row here make a motion well first of all are you withdrawing your original most yes and I've done so on the screen as well yeah I just want to make sure that that's for the for the audience and also for those watching thank councilmember Ryan you you've withdrawn your second to that original motion is that correct okay thank you so being compelled by the discussion here tonight and and the subsequent conversation and and discussion after my motion I want to make so I've removed that that and and I make a new motion to I move approval of item 1a of the public hearing DC a 19 that's zero zero nine and add to so I move denial of this item and yeah yeah so what can I make sort of a I say suggestion but what I'm hearing you say is that you're wanting to make a motion correct me if I'm wrong it doesn't necessarily have to be approving any option that was presented you could simply say I'm making a motion to if it's to have the reverse setback of 250 however remove any nonconformities that were in existence at the time that was originally I mean something to that effect is that is that sort of if the intent is to is to follow the option that I've described it would simply be a motion to for all those homes and residential lots that were impacted or that were made nonconforming by ordinance number 2010 - 196 be made conforming that's it got it that sounds doable all right so take three so I move that the all homes affected by ordinance 2010 - 196 be made conforming thank you that's it Councilmember Ryan no second so I have a question does that mean the 250 foot reverse setback for new properties is still in place or what or does that mean we don't have a reverse that no you have a reverse setback okay that's unchanged by this okay gotcha all right okay all right councilmember armature so question so point of procedure for city attorney so given what the posting was would in order to just pass what what is what the motion is for now would there have to be first a denial of the gas of the amended you know gas well ordinance and then this new issue or is it within posting I generally don't know the answer I just wanted to it would be within posting because what we posted was the reconsideration of the ordinance amending sub chapters one six and eight relating to those of topics but sub chapter one is the one that where this nonconformity provision would be found would be put in and it's also procedure so that that's why that motion does fit within the caption and simply can be made that way nothing they don't need you don't you all don't need to deny anything else just simply if the motion what he makes he's made actually passes that is sufficient and then in second and I think I know the answer to this but I would just want to be sure so if I vote in favor of this because I want at the very least I want us to leave tonight with things better than they were when we walked in here and so if I vote yes to this then any question of expanding the the reverse the size of the reverse setback that would have to be taken up at a later date you know right if that can we couldn't do that tonight and I also want to make it the answer clear I think that the answer is yes I just want to make it clear to the people here and that is correct if this motion is approved then any discussion by council wanting to look at the reverse setback again would be at a later date sometime in the future wouldn't be tonight okay so I will I will just say right now you know to the public I want that 500 foot reverse sent back again I think it should be even more than that but only with not creating new non-conforming properties I don't want to create new non-conforming properties so however given that or I shouldn't say given I'll wait to see what other people have to say but if there is enough support for this motion that it would pass based on what people say now then I'm going to vote in favor of it because like I said I want us to leave this room with at least things things being a little better than they are now I'm not going to vote no just because I want my 500 foot reverse setback because I can get that anyway at some future or try to get that anyway at some future time but I just want you all to know we didn't know just listen listen okay if we could excuse me yeah the size of the setback and I think in councilmember Davis I think mentioned this and explained it pretty well the size of the setback is one issue the issue of conformity and nonconformity is another issue these are two totally separate issues you can have any different combination okay you could make a hundred foot set but reverse setback and have have everybody nonconforming or you could have a 1500 setback if it foot setback and create no new nonconformities while at the same time making those who are currently nonconforming conforming okay I know it's really complicated but my point is these are two separate issues the one of the things I don't like about that postcard is that it conflates these two issues it gives you the impression that a 500 foot setback automatically means that you wouldn't have the right to rebuild okay so anyway if I vote yes to this then that's gonna then that is gonna be why but I'm gonna wait to see what my colleagues say Davis help me understand why a motion to do something that is contrary to the stated purpose of the post of the mode the posting and the public hearing we've just had which is different from it even I think everyone here on the dais would vote for a standalone motion to erase the nonconformity under 250 feet if it didn't foreclose discussion on our main purpose the whole reason we voted to reconsider and come back I I feel like there's an attempt here to do a parliamentary end run and put the thing that y'all care the most about right up front and center so that if we don't vote for it so that we can get on to the thing that we posted to be here about then we're the ones who are shutting down the conversation I feel like we have the right to answer both of those questions tonight and I don't understand why a vote to fix our problem from ten years ago forecloses our problem our ability to fix the problem that created that problem ten years ago the wild west no reverse setbacks going with the the motion I made I know that the the motion that I laid out for for mr. hudspeth our councilmember hudspeth or explained to him that that fell within the actual posting of the caption this is a sub chapter 1 amendment your whole discussion and also when I when I advise y'all on December 2nd that this hearing would be totally done from scratch it's a do-over everything is under consideration again which is the setbacks the nonconformity issues there was a there was another item all those could be approved one of them could be approved none of them could be approved or a modification of those could be approved staff wrote the caption broad enough to be able to it's more or less the same as the one you had in November 19 to be very broad to give you that that discretion on how to on how to proceed forward with an ordinance amendment I feel that this does fit in there and if this is approved I mean the the reverse setback but this this motion is not allow is basically not addressing the reverse setback at all this is what would be approved in the reverse setback is remaining unchanged I understand what you're saying is that you're wanting to also talk about the reverse setback and make a separate motion to approve that but all your items on the agenda it's one motion and to approve and that once that's approved the item is closed and you move on it's not a parliamentary procedural you know trick but it's just basically it is what it is I don't disagree with you that's within posting and I agree that agree with you that question that motion is within posting my my lack of understanding here is why that one vote forecloses I mean because we're in a public hearing we get one motion we get one bite at the apple and and that's it we get to take one vote even if it's something that is not in in the words of the posting I mean we're on posting we're on topic but the emotion that's been proposed is for an ordinance that's not drafted it's for a vague idea that we would then put into an ordinance language to fix the problem it's not why we're here it's not why these good people are here it's a corrective problem we figured out sitting here together but it's not why we're here and that's a perfectly valid you know argument to make councilmember Davis councilmember Briggs councilmember Briggs Oh councilmember Meltzer I propose an amendment to contain everything that's been moved and also to change the reverse setback to 500 feet without creating new nonconformities okay that's we have an amendment a motion for an amendment we're looking for a second to the motion for the amendment mayor pro Tim councilmember Briggs the slide that we saw with the variances both of those are included in this as well correct not based upon the motions that are on the table no okay well I'd like to make another amendment to add those variances in for the okay could I could I make a suggestion could you ask councilmember Meltzer if he would accept a friendly amendment to his amendment and then add all those in instead of getting three or four amendments that were going on it yes okay would you please make the amendment or add in the variances for the landowners for the I don't have the slide in front of me for the options the variance yes staff could you put please put up option so that it can go back to 250 feet the summary slide probably shows what all the components were no no just it sounds like people wanting option a for who are wanting to do something or something similar to that we're just needing to see the options that were represented by a for the first page where you were was fine so I want to include those which would be on that first page right there the variance relief procedures I'll accept the alterations to my proposed amendment to include the variance and relief procedures as presented here guess I want to make sure I understand because there's two there so you're saying that your amendment includes changing the reverse set back to 500 feet your amendment also includes the standard ZBA hardship process 200 to 250 feet with criteria is I think that's part of the motion that has been made here and then administrative relief to 375 was criteria as was presented by staff at that time is that my understanding first of all I want to make sure I understand what councilmember Briggs was was proposing is that what you were asking for those two bullet points well I wanted to make sure that they did not get left out since it was part of the summary of proposed changes and that that would provide some relief to those landowners who had the the well set back on their property yeah and I understood them to not be mutually exclusive but they offer degrees yeah kind of degrees of process so so probably worth taking a moment to if I can just add that's correct six essentially items three and four subject or six and sub chapter eight those changes are essentially a package a package deal if you will the the there were some limitations or some strict guidance for staff to offer those that that reduction and it was tied to that ability to do cluster not have to do the PD okay yes yeah because it's important we get this right because quite frankly I'm going to be truthful when the motion for 1500 foot setback was made on November 19th these provisions you're talking about were stripped out that administrative relief was stripped out of that amendment so I want to make sure that if you're adding them back in that everybody is clear everybody is clear so go ahead I just wanted to clarify the with the 500 foot reverse are we also still including the new minimum reverse setback of 250 I would assume so if we want the variance but but that would need to be included in the motion and then also the clarification on measurements with at Park property is that included and if you'll refresh my memory those were included in the 500 foot that we voted on that I voted for that the mayor voted for as well yes for clarification if the motion that's amazing it's just amazing go ahead no I just wanted to clarify if it was everything that we had proposed for sub chapter six or just the 500 foot increase it's your amendment sir yeah administrative the same administrative relief and okay refresh my memory all the items you just described were part of what we voted for last time is that correct yes because that motion included all amendments of chapter six and eight as provided in the back up so is that what you intended council member breaks to include all those items that were included in you know in the item when we voted on it previously yes and I just I want to speak to that because hearing everybody speak hearing people who own land speak I you can change your mind sure you can you can hear both sides and you can hear the importance of a variance and a relief procedure for someone who has property and wants to develop it and that has happened and that's why I'm asking to put it in to this as an amendment and that's why I'm thankful that you all are here so I got a question it seems like the four of you don't support this underlying motion instead of I mean we can do the amendment we can vote on it why don't we just vote on the underlying motion and if it denies you create your own motion from scratch because the city attorney just said we can't do that no no he didn't say that he didn't say that at all then the motion is denied then that leaves the floor open for another motion it does leave the floor motion if it passed you said it's some very few I understood you to say at some point though in the very distant future if this passes if this motion passes the only thing that's adopted was undoing the nonconformity for those within 250 feet and that means that that's what's passed okay so that's why but but if it's denied then we're going to seek another motion so so well you know I stand by my shirt by my amendment and and you want to restate that please so that we have clarity on what it is because we've got so many different things going on we just need clarity on what your amendment is okay so my amendment is to include all the components of what is currently on the floor and extend the reverse setback to 500 feet without creating any new nonconformities and including the recommended subjector subchapter 6 and subchapter 8 variance relief procedures and cluster subdivision procedures and applicability do you have enough information in that amendment to staff does staff have enough information in that amendment to know exactly what that amendment is because this is this is my concern we've got a draft ordinance so we're gonna be we're basically drafting this thing sort of on the fly I heard somebody say that but that's fine I mean kept safe I think at least we're what we're going kind of cobbling our notes together we're essentially doing option four with with the if the amendments go through it's essentially I think option four the two yeah taking it to 500 and then all of those within 250 or 500 yeah it's it's option four plus plus yes the underlying motion the no the the amendments as proposed together with the underlying motion and the additional is we call that basically option four plus because there's okay so now we have four plus okay okay I've got council member Melcer you've already spoken council member Armitter you want to speak or you've already spoken okay let's let's I mean we've kept these people here a long time let's try to get a little bit of clarity and efficiency thank you so let's move forward please go ahead what I'm about to point out is what we have just done is recreated from the ground up this ordinance that was before you with option number four we stripped it down just built it back up again I think that's it it's kind of silly I'm a little embarrassed we just did that but I am pleased that now it looks like we're gonna end out with exactly what I wanted coming into this and what a number of you not all of you but have been asking for too okay if we could if we could have some quiet in the gallery I'd appreciate that thank you council member Davis I originally requested to speak to to clarify what we were just doing which is essentially the the substance of the amendment was to take us back to the proposed draft ordinance that's been posted for a long time I also want to take the opportunity because we're about to enter into a series of votes it looks like to state that I will not be back for more the the statement has been made that you know a city council in years in the future could could move the line again absolutely your city council can do all sorts of terrible things if you're not paying attention if you're not staying vigilant I am here as an elected representative doing exactly what I told you all I would do on the campaign trail I'm doing exactly what I told you to do back in November I'm gonna do it again tonight 500 feet is where I'm at not a foot more that's gonna make some of my friends mad on one side it's gonna make some of my friends mad on the other side that's how I know I'm making the right decision that's the balance of the equities that's where we're at secondly if the statement was made that we're ignoring property rights that we are ignoring the right of people to be able to develop and enjoy their land years ago when we did this by plat those of you who live ten feet from a pad site your home is there because we deferred 100% and the law deferred 100% to those property rights build where you want to build drill what you want where you want to drill we have to have reasonable regulation and we are what we're doing tonight if this vote goes the way I think it will is building in a process where people with acreage can get all the way back down to that 250 all the way back down to where it is today if they really need to if the zoning Board of Adjustment the citizens of Denton decide that's where they need to be and remember this only applies to protected uses if somebody wants to build an office park that's not who we're talking about if they want to build storage units that's not who we're talking about schools churches places of assembly parks homes that's what we're talking about we're trying to keep good people from being right there in those seats where you are today I wish somebody had done this 15 years ago councilmember Ryan thank you mayor just a point of clarity because if if we go back to option four which is basically what's been stated in this unlike the what was on the underlying motion that's on the table we are allowing construction to take place on a lot that's within the 250 whereas the underlying motion only made those conform made them into a conforming structure is that correct I don't think that's what you're doing I think the only the underlying motion was simply to revert the status those that were made not conforming in 2010 are reverted but it does if there's still some lots and subdivisions that still need to be built out that were impacted then those are going to be allowed to be built but they would have been allowed to be built under within without the reverse setback impacting them okay so so today they could have they could have built if they were planted prior to 2015 2010 or 2010 yes mayor pro tem yeah no we had a perfectly good understandable process and that went away so I won't be supporting this because we had a good understanding understandable process my question for you Aaron it's because I want to have a clear record is there any part of what's been proposed that gives you concern legally regarding taking claims etc. it's the same I'm back to the same what I described to the council and audience earlier about my concern about option four so the answers yes yes okay thank you so I have a question of clarification for the for a councilmember Meltzer I know that in the backup it stated that the people that would be created to be conforming change to conforming would be existing structures and those who are within plats those who are either in a preliminary plat stage or in plats somewhere they're in the system is does your emotion encompass those types of situations does your amendment encompass those types of those those property owners as well as those who have existing structures but it's also for those developers those single-family owners who may you know want to build a house or so I need that clarification well I don't I mean I don't think it did so I'm asking you is are you excluding that I'm not I'm not excluding don't answer too many negatives in it it addresses what I said addresses it doesn't address more than that so for clarification are you only limiting your amendment to existing structures that therefore if someone if someone has a plat currently in process and they have lots within 500 feet of a well that therefore those become non-conforming if it's only limited to existing structures well you know we've just had a big lesson in unintended consequences so I'm going to actually defer to the city attorney because you know we've all had the experience or at least you and I have had the experience of voting for something and then realizing the next day you know that it had some unintended consequences I understand that but so I'd like to so I like to understand you include me in that I've very rarely I've readily admitted that but the real point is you and I did vote differently on the motion to reconsider and that's why we're having the meeting today so you can answer that question yes what this council has done in 2010 2012 and 2015 is when it's when it has amended setbacks what it has created a separate provision in the body of the adopting ordinance that basically and I'm going to paraphrase it all sub residential plats residential subdivision plants that were filed before the date of this amendment will continue to be processed under the old rules and not be impacted by this change and that and that is what past practice this council has had so is is you know as moved so far would that be the effect or would something have to be added to do that and you would have to add that you'd have to have that statement otherwise the planners would would want to know how to treat those plats that are in the pipe so to speak we have staff here that Aaron was referencing is in the draft ordinance that was included in your backup yes yeah that's I believe section 3 in the draft ordinance and in addition option a for as it was crafted and provided to you all also includes similar language that would then be inserted in the DDC so if your motion was for option a for wholeheartedly with all the other changes to six and eight then yes that is included okay so let me ask another clarifying question I heard mayor pro tem for his own reasons say that he has withdrawn in support if you withdraw your withdrawn your motion as well so are we looking at a new motion now that is just straight up before a rather a for you know including all the components that Haley just described no if you withdraw your motion I'm gonna make a motion and go back to what I understand it's very simplistic I didn't say anything about which I understand that but I'm just telling you if you do I'm gonna go back to what is simplistic these people understand and we're gonna go home okay all right thank you thank you all right so I'm gonna try to summarize this as best as I can so if I'm incorrect somebody let me know we have an underlying motion from council member mayor pro tem to what's the ordinance reference number mayor pro tem you got it written down 2010 yeah okay 2010 - one nine six okay to have all houses be made conforming that were created non-conforming in 2010 - 196 for existing homes and could only be applicable to new properties that's that's what seems to be your motion is that correct that is correct all right so then there's an amendment made which we have yet to vote on I don't even know if we've had a second on it yet because we've been trying to figure out what the actual amendment is so it sounds like the amendment is to add to the underlying motion the provisions as presented by staff for option 4a in staff presentation which includes the things that we mentioned the variances the language about platting and those kinds of thing is that is that reflect yeah that's probably the simplest way to put it you know as in addition to the very worthy component that is in the underlying motion sure yes because the amendment will be tagged onto and become a part of the original motion if the amendment passes so council member armature second all right we have a second for the amendment and so pro tem you've got a yes discussion okay go ahead and it's it's very to the point so the gentleman I don't have time to look up his number but the gentleman pointed out question for Aaron gentlemen pointed out he has five acres that he that's his investment property he wants to sell it after the date we're passing this this vote which is he 500 foot setback or 250 foot setback if he's selling this house for development if this passes if this passes the amendment and the underlying motion yes then he would be subject to a 500 if he had not files or if he doesn't file a residential plats so we wipe out his five acres basically yes unless unless he comes in for variants or some other type of administrative relief right that's bad okay all right I know it's all late so let's try to gather us councilmember Meltzer so if your purpose is to affect new construction you have to affect new construction okay that's protecting to protect health and safety if you don't affect new construction as I've heard many speakers tonight say we ought to do then we have to affect new construction that's not already in the process so I'm gonna be voting against the amendment because of exactly what you just said and that is if you want to protect the health and safety on one out of one side of our mouth we're saying we're protecting the health and safety by prohibiting those who for some reason have either not filed a plat who don't have residents on that property or whatever conforms to this creates a conformity but we're saying it's okay for those people who are there already you're there and we're gonna let you stay there and that you can sell your house and so we're gonna let other people move in so I understand the rationale so I don't need a big debate on that but that's my problem with this inconsistency because number one if it gets challenged just go read the appeals court opinion for the city of Austin where the appeals court reversed their Airbnb ordinance based upon an inconsistency of findings basically and that there were other ordinances to accomplish the same the same purpose so that's one of the main reasons I'm gonna be not supporting the amendment is because we're saying for some people we're protecting your safety and yes to avoid the catastrophic event of nonconformity we're saying but you guys don't count because trying to fix something else it's that balancing of that interest as somebody might say so councilmember Davis so we have a motion councilmember armature did you second that I did all right councilmember Davis and then we're gonna vote yes sir I'll be very brief mr. mayor I have to respectfully disagree that we are not protecting the safety of folks who are not trying to do our best to protect the safety of folks already there we are doing everything we can equitably if we were to fully protect their safety in the way we're talking about for new construction we would be talking about exactly what everyone in this room agreed earlier would be a travesty and that's to declare them nonconforming and to tell them they can't live there we cannot equitably do that our hands are tied by the decisions that were made by past councils past developers and past gas well drillers past producers we are doing everything we can to address health and safety within the practical bounds of reason and equity the other thing I want to mention is that the statement was made that we're taking this man's land if you have a wetland or protected environmental area on your property that prevents you from fully developing the way you want to this is the exact same process we go to to allow you to develop go ask the folks at Fisher 59 they weren't able to fully develop that property there's a variance process that allows them to do that because the wetlands and the ESA is the environmentally sensitive areas took too much their land that is exactly what we're doing here we've done it for years it's an approved process we are taking no one's land we are trying to keep y'all and future folks from living within 10 feet of a gas well pad site well I didn't say that we were not taking care of him I'm pointing out that someone could challenge that with that perceived inconsistency so that we can we can respectfully disagree on that all I know is I've seen cases that that will bring that up okay we've got an amendment and a second the amendments already been stated I'm not going to go over it let's vote on the board please the amendment passes four to three and so now we will consider the underlying motion that has the amendment attached to it as just approved and councilmember Hudson but you were the movement and councilmember Ryan you were the second or correct yep okay that's correct all right there we go I just needed to get the board set back up all right so let's vote on the underlying motion with the added just approved amendment motion carries four to three that concludes our council meeting I don't think we have concluding items on this do we on this one after this one no all right thank you all for coming thank you for your patience for being here till 1235 on Wednesday morning please be safe going home we stand adjourned