Feb 18, 2020 City Council on 2020-02-18 11:30 AM

Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, February 18, 2020. It is 1134 a.m. We do have a quorum. Mayor Pro Tem will be here shortly. We'll move through our work session items. Our first work session item is citizen comments on consent agenda items. I have a blue card, but it's not for consent, so we'll address that as we get down to that agenda item. I don't believe we had any...okay. Request for clarification on agenda items. Councilmember Briggs. Okay. So I have a few. First on consent agenda item F for the West Hickory, I just want to confirm that it's about the long-awaited most asked about section of Hickory from Welch to Carroll. [inaudible] To do that work. Okay. So that's like the beginning of the process that we're going to see and... Correct. Okay. Thank you. And on G, I'm just wondering if...I know that we are rejecting this, but will we be putting a new one out or we can...or is there another one out there somewhere? This was the bid that was received in 2018, and as you recall by action of this council a couple of weeks ago regarding the use of renewable energy credits and our desire to get some temporal diversity, shorter terms. That's why we're asking for this one to be rejected. We are receiving additional proposals actually this Friday as you guys directed on coastal wind, utility scale solar, and then solar with battery. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. M.K., the solid waste department. I know we recently bought smaller trucks, but these are the larger ones. The front end loaders. Is that correct? No. Terricator Fleet Superintendent. No. These are the small trucks. Oh, these are more small trucks. These are two more of the eight yard for the downtown square area. Okay. All right. So does that bring us up to four? So we have three of these now. Three. Okay. So it worked out really well then. The other trucks are doing well so far and they needed two more. Okay. So if it's smaller, it does less damage to our streets. Oh, yeah. It's a lot lighter footprint, lighter emissions, smaller diesel engine. Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. And then I'd just like to pull item M, please, for our presentation. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right, we'll move on to our first agenda on the Work Session Reports 3A. Now we do have a request to speak during this from the homeowner, which typically we don't solicit or receive input in work sessions, but in this case I'll go ahead and make that exception. However, the only question that I have is when would that request for speak from the homeowner, what's the desire to be at the front end or sort of the back end of the presentation? So if I could just take a moment to maybe inquire as to Miss Scott White, would you like to speak now before the presentation or at the end of the presentation? Okay, she reported she'll speak at the end of the presentation. All right. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mayor, Council, Terry Nolte, Assistant General Manager at DME. This item is to talk about a National Electric Safety Code violation that on a transmission line owned by the TMPA, DME is the transmission operator of the DME -- of the TMPA system in the Denton region. So one of -- TMPA, as well as DME, does routine inspections of transmission wires to ensure that our lines are compliant with the National Electric Safety Codes. This particular line has one criteria that is not met out of three. It was discovered during a routine transmission inspection using LIDAR by TMPA. And basically the issue is that a home was constructed too close to the transmission easement and creates a violation of one of the three criteria. We have been aware of this problem for some time. We did approach the prior homeowner, had a number of detailed conversations, and that prior homeowner did agree to the placement of a new transmission pole in the easement that would remedy this problem. The home was sold after that agreement was made. When the transmission pole was delivered to the easement and laid down in the easement, the current homeowner became aware of it. We understand in our conversations with the current homeowner that this information was not disclosed by the prior homeowner. And so we are here to talk to you today about a couple of options that we could proceed upon. So a couple of questions before we get started. First of all, because when you say that the house was constructed too close to the easement, but what you're saying is if the pole is put on the original option, that if the pole is placed, that that resolves the issue. So there's something, and I think I know the answer to this question, but for the purpose of the public and those listening, when you think of an easement, you think of usually a straight line, and it's delineated here's the easement. Is it because that the wires, there's too long of a span between the current two poles and during certain wind conditions, that that swing goes outside of the easement and then creates, it violates this third condition? You're correct Mayor, that the violation is due to a wind loading condition. Okay. However, the line never swings outside of the original easement. It remains in the easement. The issue here, as you'll see, is that when planning went through their process to permit this particular subdivision, an easement line was not followed through the entire subdivision and consequently property lines are now inside of the original easement. Okay. So when you say that easement lines, I want to make sure that we're clear on this because it's my understanding that in the original plat, that somehow there was an easement line that looked different at one point at this location as far as a narrowing, and that seems to be what everybody was using to represent the easement line on the plat. Correct. All right. So I just want to make clear that when the City of Denton issues a permit, they go by what the official recorded documents are, which are the plat and those submitted by, I mean, we rely upon third-party engineers for those type of services. We don't go out and verify that they've done their work as they were supposed to do, that here's the plat, here's what it looks like, here's the permit. So I just want to make sure we have a clear understanding of those particular facts. Is that fairly accurate? Accurate. Very accurate. Okay. And secondly, I'm not -- I mean, it's good that we're going to have this presentation, but this is a TNPA line, and the ultimate solution to this problem as far as the authority that has the -- the agency that has the authority to make the decision is TNPA. Is that correct or is that -- That is correct. Okay. So Denton bears the cost of the remedy because it was clearly due to a result of a mistake made in the planning process, and TNPA is not going to be paying for this remedy. Okay. So I'm going to -- I'm going to take just a slight disagreement with it. I mean, if we want to pay for it, that's fine. When we say it's a mistake in the planning process, when we're given platting documents that are sealed by engineers and surveyors -- Yes. So I really want to make that clear. This isn't a mistake by the city planning department. I'm sorry, Mayor. I didn't mean to state that it was. No, and I'm not getting on. I just -- it's just easy to -- When you see the documents, the plans, the plots, the plats, you will see where the mistake was made. Right. And the city planning department, it was actually on those plots. Right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Now, as far as the city bearing the cost, that was a decision that TNPA already made earlier, or is this still to be made? No, sir. That was made by the TNPA board. Okay. All right. Okay. So here -- Sorry about that. Your meeting. No, no. Go ahead. I just wanted to sort of lay some of those out, and we're probably going to go over some of them as we -- Okay. So here's where the location of the property is. It's located in the south part of the Denton. You can see the lines that run through the subdivision. There's two lines that run through the subdivision. One is owned by TNPA. The other is owned by Encore. These -- this easement and the rightways were in place well before the construction of the subdivision. This is the house in question. As you can see, here are the two lines. This is the Encore line here, and this is the TNPA line. This is the house that's impacted. As you can see, the issue is that this lowest line is 11 feet from the corner of the roof here, and that needs to be 13 feet under all conditions. So that 11 feet is during the period when we model it with the maximum wind loading, it blows in to 11 feet. Okay. So I want to make sure that I understand that, because the way it looks there is it's 11 feet from that line to that -- either gutter or a roof pitch. That's when everything's still. I mean, when I look at that picture, I think, okay, that line is 11 feet from there. But you're saying when you do the modeling on the wind loading, that's when it becomes 11 feet. So if there's no wind, it's just sitting right there, it's not in violation? Correct. Okay. Thank you. So here is the timeline of how we ended up in this position. The original line was constructed in 1983. We had zoning changes, preliminary platts were issued in 2013. Back impact analysis again in late 2013, the conveyance plat was in October, and the final plat was issued in February of 2014, building permit in 2015, and the building permit finalizing construction was completed in 2016. This drawing demonstrates where the issue was on the plat. On the preliminary plat, you can see here's the subdivision. This is the easement, where the two lines run through. As you can see here, the extent of this easement was out here to provide the 75 foot of clearance on the easement line. For some reason, this line stopped here and jogged down to here. And this became the edge of the easement through the subdivision. One sits in this property right here. The preliminary and final plat had notes on them that were explicit about the requirements that -- these are the normal notes that we have on our plat. So everyone was aware of the construction standards that needed to be met at the time. There's two options. Option one, which was the option that we -- the prior homeowner agreed to, was the installation of a single pole adjacent to the home. This creates -- this avoids the swing out during those wind conditions. So we basically stabilized the line in the middle of the 600 foot span by putting a pole in place, and we raise it up a little bit as well. We have enough slack in the line, we can raise the line up a little bit and move it over. Here you can see the options that were considered. This is the pole that would be erected, the single pole. This is the configuration of the two poles on either end of the 600 foot span. The second option is to raise the -- go back to the prior -- so the second option is to raise these two end poles an additional 15 to 20 feet in order to lift the line up and get it outside of the interference envelope that would -- that occurs when the wind blows. So here are the two pole structures. This is the single pole structure. This would be the replacement pole structure. Those are the existing ones that are in place. This table basically shows you what we found. And this is the option that was agreed to. You can see it moved the violations are now all -- everything's positive. All the clearances are met. And it's the least cost option as well. Here you can see the cost, the cost for the single pole option, $132,000 -- I'm sorry, $132,000. The option for the two poles is between $366,000 and $386,000, the difference being that since we've already purchased this individual pole, if we can reuse it, we'll gain that value. If we can't, it would be the higher value. So you can see here are the options, $132,500 for option one, $386,424 for option two. Option two has not been discussed with the TMPA board. It would require TMPA's approval, although we will be responsible for the cost. It would take six to 12 months in order to implement that because not only do we have to seek their approval, we would also have to order the poles, and the poles have about a four to six-month lead time on these poles or individually designed and constructed for this application. So with that, I would answer any questions. >> Councilmember Briggs and Councilmember Armitage. >> So I have a few questions. Are there any requirements for the new pole, the actual pole itself, to be a certain amount of distance, not the wires, but the actual pole from the structure? >> There are no requirements. As long as the pole is in the easement, it can be placed right along the length of the line. So we don't want to move the line -- you know, we're not bending the wires out. We're actually placing the pole right in parallel with that pole option or with the existing pole structures, just providing that stabilization and raising it up. >> Right. So -- but adding the pole in the middle, it makes the pole, the actual pole itself, closer to the home, to the structure. >> That's correct. >> So my question was, is there a requirement on how far away that pole needs to be from a structure? >> No, there's not. >> There's not? >> As long as it's in the easement. >> Okay. >> So my next question would be for the mayor, because I think you said earlier -- you're on the TMPA board, right? And did you -- have you discussed this on the board already? >> We did. I don't know if we went into as much detail as to the origin of the issue. So that will be something we should discuss again, especially if there's an option that calls for a greater -- because if there was any vote, it was for the -- I can't remember if it was for a specific cost or bear all costs, but we may revisit that. >> Okay. And is it -- so if it was on the engineers, the plat, and then that's where the home was built because of that, would the developer or the builder be responsible for any of this cost if they -- >> I would have to ask legal counsel or planning to answer that question. And I think it -- I may -- I haven't decided yet once we do the presentation here from the speaker to adjourn in closed session to address some of those issues. >> Okay. All right. >> Because I mean, I think there's a lot of questions raised here. There's questions of subrogation of rights against the old seller. There's questions of -- all kinds of questions of who drafted the plat, discovery rule, what applies, what doesn't apply. So yeah. >> All right. Thank you. Council member Armitage. >> Yeah. A couple of questions. And then eager to hear from the homeowner about their preferences. I have -- I've been concerned about this issue. I didn't know about this particular instance of it. In the past, I've met with Tony Puente, who's been very helpful in helping to explain to me about the required distances between homes and transmission lines. I was wondering if you could explain what counts as a structure, obviously, the house. But there was -- when I first started learning about this issue and expressing my concerns about proximity between homes and power lines in the city of Denton, I learned that fences and swimming pools count as structures or not structures. I was wondering if you could speak to that. I don't know if you'd feel more comfortable, someone from planning. >> Yeah. I think, Scott, if you want to -- >> So if I could get you to be a little bit more specific regarding this particular posting with this particular issue, because that's a very generalized question. And so are you asking if there's something on this lot other than the actual physical house that would be considered or defined as a structure? >> Would I want to know -- well, sure. Plus, I also want to know as far as future, you know, if they wanted -- if the owner wanted to put in a swimming pool or something like that. >> Yeah. >> I want to know both in terms of the -- >> Yeah, I'll let Scott explain what the code says. I will say that swimming pools under electrical lines are not permitted for obvious reasons of safety hazard. >> Yes. Yes. >> Hi. Scott McDonald, Development Services. Yes, a structure would be anything that would be permitted. So a pool would be permitted. A fence would not be. So anything that would be built or permitted would be that structure. >> Okay. So a fence doesn't count as a structure. >> It does not count as a structure. >> So there could be a fence there. And does there have to be access to the pole or are there requirements about that through the fence? >> The pole's in an easement. So this is just the national safety code issue. It's not anything that's within the easement. It's a safety margin area and what TMPA is regulating. >> Yes. But so the national codes, the safety codes, don't say anything about access. >> They have to have access to the easement. >> Right. >> Yeah. And would that be if there's a fence there? >> Correct. >> A gate or something like that? >> They wouldn't permit a fence to be built across that or through that. >> They wouldn't. >> Typically. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. To be clear, we -- that we do not -- that's not our preference. There are instances where there are fences and easements in Denton. If there are fences and easements in Denton, we must have access rights through those fences, either through gates or through agreements with adjoining property owners or the property owner to be able to get around that fence because we must have access to the easement at all times. >> All right. Thank you. >> Councilmember Melchor. >> Three, if that's okay. One is you make a point about the timing difference between the two options, and what is the sort of dimension of risk associated with the timing, just that something might happen during that time with wind because of its closeness? Is that kind of risk? >> Yes, we've advised the current homeowner not to get on the roof with any objects like a ladder or anything like that because of the clearance issues. That would be the risk. There's no risk in terms of approval by TMPA because we're bearing the costs, and even though it's their line, but we do have to follow the procedure that's mandated in our joint operating agreement with TMPA to seek that approval from TMPA. >> But I guess what I'm asking is why is timing a consideration? Why do we care? >> Because we want to abate the violation as quickly as possible. >> Okay. That helps. And second, was there a written agreement with the previous owner? I don't know if it would make a difference if there were or weren't, maybe that's for a closed session. But was there one? >> We did not have a written agreement. We had a number of discussions with the previous homeowner visiting, staked out the location of where the pole would be, and have met with the current homeowner and have agreed to even move it further down the line out of the line of sight. If you look on this drawing right here, the original homeowner agreed to putting the pole right here. We've agreed to move it back 40 feet. We can still accomplish the same objective, abating the violation by moving it back 40 feet. That's the limit to which we can move it back and still abate the violation. So this takes it out of the walking out onto the front porch of the home. You would not be able to see the pole located over here. There is a fence here, and we've offered to the homeowner that we would at no cost to her move the gate that's located right here in the fence. >> That's good information. Thank you. And lastly, I think Mary may have already indicated that this is the case, but since option two would require going back to TMP board, is it a possibility that they would also revisit who pays? >> We could always request it. I suspect that they would not volunteer to pay for that. >> Thank you. >> That's member Davis. >> My first question was going to be along the same lines you mentioned, we might end up having a consultation with the attorneys on here in a second, how exactly this landed in our lap if it was because of our membership and agreements with TMPA or because we granted the permit or whatever. I'd like to hear those answers. But my next question is related to the service life of these lines and the use for which they exist for TMPA. Is there any reason to think that these lines would go out of service or be on a replacement cycle any time in the near future? >> No, sir. They have a 50 plus year life. To site new transmission lines is very difficult. And these are part of the overall Texas ERCOT grid, it's actually controlled by ERCOT for the reliability of the total transmission grid in Texas. >> So no impact to this line and being in this place because of TMPA's wrapping up the old plant or anything like that. They'll be there for a while. >> No, sir. >> Anybody else? Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That's member. >> Does DME and TMPA, do we have the same, do we follow the same guidelines as far as- >> We do. >> The electric safety codes are uniform across the country. Easements are specific to each utility. So our easement requirements, the 75 foot around a 138 KV line, that's a specific city of Denton requirement. >> Okay. So that wouldn't be applied here and so- >> Well, it was. The original easement was 75 foot around that 138 line. >> Before the home, okay. >> Before that line was moved over. >> Thank you. >> Next member. >> Just a quick question for clarification. So 138 KV line, is that defined by what the line's capacity is or how much power is actually running through it? Because I know we have some cases, you know, some lines that have capacity. >> Yeah. So 138 is 138,000 kilovolts. That's the voltage level of the line. That's the highest voltage levels in Texas are 345,000. This is 138. It's one of our key transmission paths for moving power into the Denton area. >> So that I understand. My question, trying to word it more clearly, is does it count as a 138 KV line if it has the capacity for that regardless of how much power is running through it? So for instance, in the case of a high voltage power line, so we have some high voltage power lines in town that aren't -- where there's not the full capacity of transmission going through it. >> Yes. So this particular -- this is a high voltage transmission line. Anything above 69 KV is considered a high voltage transmission line. So these are transmission lines that are regulated by ERCOT and controlled by ERCOT. And they're critical to the operation of the total grid. As far as power going through the line, lines are rated for certain amount of amperage that can go through it. I don't know what the specific rating of this line is. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> So let me try to get some clarity, I think, on the question. The easement requirements of distance, the safety distance per the national guidelines, you have different -- do you have different guidelines for a 138 KV line or a 345? They're different guidelines? >> They are different. Yes. >> Okay. And so then the way that you choose which guideline applies is not the ultimate capacity of the line. It's what is actually flowing through the line. That's what gives you your requirements to those standards. >> Is that correct? Like this is a 130 -- let's say this is rated for 345. I don't know if it is or not. >> It is not. >> Okay. But since it's not, then the 138 applies, whereas if you were to go in and say we're going to upgrade this to a 345, you've got a whole different set of national standards that you have to apply, which you're going to have some -- >> Yeah, there are seven pages of standards that apply to a 138 and there's 14 pages that apply to a 345. >> Okay. >> So that's -- what's the line energized to and obviously -- but if it was a 345 capacity capable of being 345, you really don't do that, do you? >> No. >> Do you have a 345 line and it's only got 138 going through it? >> No. >> Okay. >> The rating of the line is based on the transformer size on either end of it. >> Okay. >> So it can only carry 138 because -- 138 kV because there's a transformer that transforms the power from 345 to 138 and that section of the line was built to only carry 138. >> Gotcha. Okay. Good. Thank you. Any other questions before we have the public speaker? Okay. Ms. White, you're up if you'll come stand behind the podium and you'll have three minutes and once you state your name and address, your time will begin and then if the time expires you'll just hear a little ding or something or we've got a timer up here. >> Okay. My name is Lynn Scott White and I live at 5040 Split Rock Drive here in Denton, Texas and I guess I'm here because I have an issue, a huge issue with this transmission pole being installed next to my home. I was not advised by the previous homeowner that they agreed to this and I have spoken with several staff members who have come by my house and said, "Hey, this is where we're going to put this pole." The first that I knew of it was December 31st of 2019. I got a phone call from Mr. McDonald and he says, "Hey, we need to talk to you about moving some power lines away from your home." I did not know what that entailed until he came out and showed me basically and said that this was a gigantic metal pole and that it was going to take a few weeks to put in and get it all situated and it appeared the next, let's see, January the 3rd it came out and it was laying next to my house at this time. Since then, children have come by and played on the pole, they've gone back there and there's trash by the pole now too that we have to keep cleaning up. There's also a resident coyote who lives in the pole. Not only is it an eyesore, but there's a danger to my kids, my pets, everything and to come in here and hear about not being able to install a pool, which is your new house, you want to be able to put a pool in there and to have an ugly eyesore of a pole standing next to your home that you were not advised of is infuriating. My husband and I really wanted to list the house for sale, but how do we do that without telling someone else that a pole is coming? I wouldn't have wanted to move there, I've advised the gentlemen here that have been to my house that I would not have purchased this home had I known a pole was going in. Yes, I know it's in an easement, but the agreement was with the previous homeowner, not with me, not with my husband, I think that this is not a good option. I do like the second option which says, hey, let's raise those poles up. The house has been there almost five years, it's not been, I mean, we've had some really high winds come through and they advised us that if the winds were in excess of 60 miles per hour, you wouldn't want to have somebody up there on the roof. Well, only a dummy would be up there on the roof if the winds were that high. So I'm just really trying to figure out why we can't do the second option. And I understand the price of it, but I think that the pole could probably be used somewhere else. So I don't understand that they're worried about this cost, there are poles going up around the city of Denton everywhere, use the pole somewhere else, don't use it at my house. Okay. That's just my opinion. I just think it's going to decrease my home value, because I know that I wouldn't have purchased it had a gigantic hole been sitting there next to the house. That's really all I have to say. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you. If I could ask Scott, if you could, because I want to make sure we get clarification on something that you said, a couple of things. So or maybe it was someone else, but about the pool, I just want to make sure that there's clarification for that, because that's a seems like a pretty blanket statement. So you have the utility easement. So this, this might be for Deering. So you have your utility easement. All right. And so according to the standards, all the swings, everything associated with that power line is to stay within that easement. Is that correct? And so what you're saying is you don't, you can't put a swimming pool in the easement. Correct. So if it's outside of the easement, you can, you can put things outside of the easement. You just can't put it in the easement. I just want to make sure that we have a clarification of that. Okay. All right. Okay. That's, that's what I wanted to clarify. And I think it would be good for us to go into closed session, but we'll answer all the questions in open session. Council member. So are we getting fined for this? I mean, is this, is this a, like a finable? There are no fines imposed by, by ERCOT. There's been a new piece of legislation passed by the legislature this past session that requires us to inspect and report all transmission and distribution lines. The bill was actually, or the, the regulations for that particular bill were finalized last Friday and I haven't had time to review them in detail. The reporting, there are reporting requirements to verify compliance with the national electric safety codes on all lines. I do not know whether that, that new regulation has fines imposed in it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Council member. Can I ask a question of the homeowner? I wish you would, no, I'm just going to let that just because she was here and so I have a question. So if you have a question for him or she's, she'll start to hear your question and then if we take a break or something, you can get that answer to you. What is the wind speed in the modeling that pushes this outside of that easement envelope? 60 miles per hour. Okay. But, but, and even though that that wind speed is only, you may only see that, you know, once or twice a year, the criteria are very clear that that's the criteria. No, I understand. And my question isn't to say, oh, it doesn't have, no, I just wanted to understand at what level are we talking about? Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions? All right. At this time, as much as I hate to do it because everybody's situated, I think I want to request that we go into closed session on this particular item. So we will, we will move into closed session at 12 oh at 12 11 pursuant to Texas government code section five five one point oh seven one consultation with attorneys and we shouldn't be that long. So we'll let y'all know when we're completed. Coming back to this meeting of the density council on Tuesday, February the 18th, 2020. It is 1245. We are back from closed session on agenda item three a or work session reports. Want to open it back up for questions for I guess I had a question. Could you pull up the slide that showed where the original not the original out by the street, but the one next to the house and then y'all are moving it back. So can you sort of I'm trying to figure out where the property line is on that on is that north, you know, where it says split pole option is, is it following that dotted line or the property line is right along here. So the shadows. This is a shadow I think of that's the fence. Okay. That's right there. That's right on the property line. And then it goes back up, comes back up here. I'm talking about the other end down behind the house. I'm just trying to get the outline of this lot. It goes right back here. Okay. All right. And then here. And this is just for my own curiosity. So the pole, this particular pole is the same height as the two poles at the at the other ends of the pole eight and six and eight and seven. I don't know what that means, but it's just a bit taller. Okay. Just a bit taller. All right. In order to get that clearance. Okay. Is that the are you at the maximum height for that single pole that you could realistically get? I mean, I'm sure there's some kind of the other engineering, the tension in the span dictates how high we can put the pole. So that's the maximum height. Yes. The one you've got now. Yes. All right. And so to move it a little bit further back towards the rear of the house towards the back rear property line. Are you? Yeah, I mean, is this the is this the furthest that direction you can move that pole and still be within the requirements? That is correct. So that red dot represents the furthest to the southwest that we can put the line, put the boy. Okay. Appreciate that. Councilmember Briggs. I have a question about the options as well. So the pole that's there that's been laying there. If we went with the two and not the one, would that poll be one of the ones that's used and then you just need to purchase one exactly like it for the other end? No. No, the poles are the two poles that we would replace are significantly taller 20 foot taller than the existing poles. So this this poll would be well short. And because those poles are holding up spans that are 600 feet long, they're designed differently as well. So their structural integrity is different than the single pole structure. Go ahead. Yes. Yeah, because there's the the two turquoise ones. That's what's there currently. The the black, the black ones are the existing poles. Okay. And so are those going to stay the same? Those would be removed and replaced with taller poles that be 15 to 20 foot taller. They don't need to be that tall because you have the but they're there now. But if they need to be taller, then you would need the middle pole, which doesn't get 15 to 10 feet taller. I'm just trying to understand. I apologize. I wasn't clear on that. So in the second option, there is no middle pole. We simply replace the two poles on the end, these turquoise ones, and we lift the line up and we abate the compliance issue by lifting the line up. The single pole option abates the abates the violation with the existing poles remaining in place. We're just adding that one pole. Because you remove it, not lift it. Well, what we do is we actually we lift up the center of the span, if you will, you get the span, we're lifting up the center of the span and we're eliminating the amount of movement laterally that the line could move during high wind periods. Okay. So that's where the cost difference is. It's the two need to be significantly taller than the one. Well, there's two poles versus one, and then whether we can reuse that single pole or not. Okay. All right. Yes, ma'am. Can you go to the options slide? This one? The options for consideration? Yeah, that one. So just to make sure I understand, where it says that this roughly $20,000 difference, if the pole procured for single pole option can be reused. That means... So you're saying it's just reused by the city in general? Yes, for other... It would not be reused for this? For other projects that we might be doing. So given that that's the case, why are we factoring that in to the cost difference for this particular problem resolution? So again, the poles are designed for specific application. And so the single pole option, we design that pole specifically for that application. If we move it and use it somewhere else in the system, it may or may not work. If we build the second option, which is two new poles, we'd have to engineer those poles, issue an RFP, have them built and delivered, and then erect it. Yes. So just because a steel pole is a steel pole doesn't mean it's ubiquitous and can be used anywhere. They have to be used in specific applications. I understand. So that's a cost, that's an expenditure that the city would be, hypothetically under this option number two, would be taking on as a result of not using this pole in this case. Yes, because we've already incurred the cost of that single pole. Okay. So I understand that. Can you explain itemized, not to the dollar necessarily, but at least what, besides the two poles, the costs that go into option number two? Yes. So here's the breakdown. It's purchase and install the poles, that includes the fabrication, construction labor, the old pole removal, disposal, matting, cleanup, rough surface restoration, and our labor. And then you can see the other costs here, sidewalk repair inspections. We have those costs in both cases, but we have it twice, and the two pole option would be more disruptive to the neighborhood because we've got to be in there longer and we're further up and down the easement. Okay, so this right here is the most, this is the itemized breakdown. Yes. Okay. Councilmember Davis. Excuse me, can you go back to the next slide, number 11? Any of these options, first questions, any of these options, where are these coming from in the budget? Is this DME capital fund? We did not budget this item, this will be a contingency item that we'll take out of operating revenues. And are we, if it's a contingency item and we're, what, February, almost March through the fiscal year, do we have remaining contingency funds built into the budget that we feel comfortable or is this something that we should be thinking of as a separate budget supplemental for next year? We don't specifically budget contingency. We have monies earmarked for other projects. We do have some discretionary use of that money in our budget for things like consulting, the timing that we might do consulting work, engineering design work, and as a result of this we would probably have to push some of that work out because of these costs. Mr. Mayor, as I'm considering these options, if these are our lines to maintain on behalf of TNPA, and if someone's going to fix the code violation, it's not going to be TNPA. They're ours to maintain. It's going to be us. So my direction would be that we pursue option one, the single poll. Option two is in a responsible use of city funds. If the only reason to do option two would be preference of the homeowner and not having a poll in the electrical easement, the transmission line easement outside of her property, that's not a reason to spend an additional $150,000 of city money. So my direction would be that we pursue option one, but that we also pursue segregation or reimbursement of those funds from whatever source, including the cost benefit of legal action. If you go back to the slide that shows the placement of the polls, what I'm hearing you say is that to replace these two polls is going to be more disruptive to the community, and number one -- second, the corner of Split Rock Drive and Lodhouse Drive, those two houses there, and they know that there's a poll back there now, but what we're saying is we're going to come put a poll in that's 20 feet taller. That's correct. It's bigger in diameter. Yes, sir. I would presume. I mean, it's just a substantially bigger poll. So in some ways, we could create an accommodation issue, not necessarily a legal issue. I mean, we can go and put whatever poll we want to put in there as long as it meets those safety requirements. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. All right. Okay. Council Member Briggs. The poll at the top, if we put a bigger, taller poll in there, would that be in violation of an easement that's there? No, ma'am. No. The poll -- all these options involve putting polls in the easement. Okay. Okay. Council Member Baumgartner? Since Council Member Davis gave his direction, I feel ready to give mine now. I'm for option number two, the two-poll option, and I want to explain why. For me, I see it as a customer service issue, and I understand that there is the additional cost. As you mentioned, this is a contingency fund issue. We have money put aside for things like this come up, so it seems to me a reasonable use of that. And my hope would be that moving forward, if we do something like this, that there will be more of an incentive for us, for the city, not to replicate this kind of situation again when we're looking at poll placement, regardless of whether it's a TNPA line, any kind of line. So that is why, to me, it is a reasonable expenditure for the city from a customer service point of view in this particular case, and also moving forward, so we will avoid future such situations. Council Member Ryan? Thank you, Mayor. Would it not be true that a span of 600-foot is more dangerous than a span of what looks like 250 and 350, how we're going to split this? We're adding additional support so we're actually making it more safe, not just that we're getting those lines away from the house, but the long-term condition of those lines? Yeah, I think, General, that's correct. The 600-foot span is designed to be that 600-foot span. The fact that this home was built closer than what we would have liked is a result of the fact that they are 600-foot spans, and therefore the wind can blow that line out further than if it was a shorter span. Correct. So this is, to me, this is a safety issue, and I don't see where adding 20-foot, raising them up by 20-foot necessarily increases the safety other than a little bit of distance. We are actually adding additional support by adding the single pole option, and that's why I would say I'm for option one. Okay. I'll weigh in. You know, this is a hard one. You know, we've got the homeowner here speaking to us, and we understand that this isn't an issue of her making. I guess, though, I mean, I understand the customer service aspect, but I think part of that customer service aspect is when we've also said we will move that pole back as far as we can move it back and still be within compliance, because that's really our responsibility is to be in compliance, and to spend an extra $190,000, if we're going to call that customer service, then that's going to be a very interesting -- there's going to be a lot of people asking us to spend that kind of money. I think it was unacceptable where the pole was originally set, which is near the sidewalk, and then as it was moved back to next to the front porch, I totally get it. But for me, I think moving it back almost to the edge, out of the line of sight, and it still is within the easement, because then when we go to make those other two poles, the one in the bottom left-hand corner, that's probably not going to impact people very much, but also the pole at the top. So we're going to almost go down the line here potentially to say, hey, we don't want another 20-foot taller pole. When we bought our house, this pole was only this tall, and now you're making it this tall. But we can do that because it's in the easement. So as much as I -- you know, it's tough for me to do, I'm going to have to go with option one in this regard. If we had left the pole, if we could only leave the pole where it was, it would probably be a different situation for me. That's why I wanted to know how much further -- so we don't have another foot, another two feet, nothing that we can do on that. >> That's correct. >> Is there -- is there something -- because I know -- I'm not going to go down that line. So that's my direction. Councilmember Briggs? >> So I would prefer the two pole area. And I would like to also -- because the house was built close to the easement, somebody at some point, whether it was planning, the builder, the developer, the installation, somebody didn't do what they should have done. And I know that a lot of us here don't feel like that falls upon us, but this is a resident of our city. And I think that there is an opportunity here to leave that open and ask for payment back from someone whose fault that it is. We just have to figure that out. >> Councilmember Meltzer or Mayor Pro Tem? >> I am actively looking -- here's my thought as I'm processing. And Scott, I don't know who would be able to answer this, but someone get me close to the value of that -- the praise value or the value of the home at 5040 Split Rock. Can somebody -- give me a number? >> I have no idea. >> Yeah. They're not going to be able to get a number. >> Okay. And so here's my thought. Assuming it's mid-300s, we're paying for the house to put these lines in, to then -- to Mayor's point, which I think is significant, thank you, yeah, to then inconvenience two other neighbors that have no idea, who don't have a legal recourse. I think there's a legal argument made here that everyone's aware of for this homeowner. I think to then blindside the other two neighbors without -- they're not here. Again, it goes to this notice issue that we've had. They have no notice that we're going to take a larger, taller pole and put it outside their home. They're not here to say if they're okay with that. They're not here to say if they don't want that. And so that to me is a problem. We have a notice issue if we're going to consider that option. And then I think if we -- you don't have to answer this, but if we spend 300 and -- what's the number? >> 386. >> 386, that's about the home value. Remove the home and you remove the issue as well, yes? >> That would abate the issue. So I can't support spending the value of the home to abate the issue when we could just purchase the home outright and abate the issue and avoid the pole -- use the pole elsewhere, recoup that money. So the most fiscally responsible, if we're going to go -- if we're okay with the $300,000 number, is to purchase the home, use city staff, demolish the home, and now it abates the issue. We take the pole, resell it, recoup what money we can. So I'm for option one, and with this caveat, and here's my notes, if the homeowner purchased the home and did their own independent survey, I'd like to see that. Because that survey would then -- if it shows the same lines or it shows different lines, that's important to me. And that drives my decision. But absent that information, absent a copy of that independent survey to then evaluate what their surveyor found and what they were made aware of, then the information I have today, option one, caveat, if they produced their -- if the homeowner was able to produce their survey, we were able to review that, see what their surveyor found, that may compel me to do something different, but I -- that's where I fall today. Before we spend $380,000 to inconvenience the neighbors or make those poles larger, I would advocate that we go into home negotiations and buy the home. >> Okay. You don't want to speak on it? >> You have your four, so it wouldn't matter either way in terms of the outcome, but I do think that the balance of the arguments is actually that the move back 40 feet is the accommodation. >> Yeah. >> It is. >> Okay. So we got direction, so I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to change people's minds, so if y'all want to speak, that's fine, but let's -- we spent about an hour and a half on this, which -- yes, go ahead. >> This is not about changing someone's mind. It's about following up on the things that we asked about or discovered earlier, and I want to make sure that even though this option has been chosen, that those requests and questions do not go unanswered. >> No, of course not. Even as far as surveys, as far as if there's a different survey out there for a different subdivision, those kind of things were asked for. >> Right. And if there's something that TMPA needs to review, that they do so. >> Okay. >> I just want to say, in matter of public record, that as I understand it, this agreement with the previous homeowner was not something that's memorialized in writing, that it was a gentleman's agreement, but so that is something that, you know, I think home buyers should be aware of, but also we moving forward thinking about what kinds of agreements the city makes with individuals, make sure to put things in writing, it's always good, so I look forward to at a number of different levels addressing this kind of issue so that it doesn't happen again, but that is one that I want to mention now, about making sure that we put things in writing. >> Mayor Pro Tem real quick, then I have one more. >> I just want to say to the city manager, my apologies, because I think staff at no point has any, there's been no discussion about any gray area between the conversations with the previous homeowner. That's undisputed. So staff did exactly what they're supposed to do. It is not secondhand information. It's firsthand information from city staff to speak to those issues. So there is no gray area there. It's undisputed. And so then the gray area then becomes the previous homeowner to this homeowner, which has nothing to do with city staff, and to carry that further, if we were to start to act upon those suggestions, then we would never have a neighborhood meeting without first having everyone sign in, give some level of ID to say who they are, then we stipulate everything that's talked about in the neighborhood community, and then we then have everybody sign off at the end to say, hey, you were here at this neighborhood committee meeting or this new project meeting, and you're made aware of what's coming. That seems a little heavy handed. And so I think how we've been conducting ourselves is great. It was great of our staff to go out and offer this service to the previous homeowner. It is regrettable that the previous homeowner did not convey that information, allegedly. That's not for us to know firsthand. But for me, I think I just want to get it very clear on the record that city staff did exactly what we asked them to do. We asked them to engage with people. We asked them to be responsive, and no, you don't make that punitive by having people sign off on stuff to say that it's a neighborhood meeting, it's a courtesy, here's what we're doing out of the goodness of our -- kind of at a good spirit, you know? And so that shouldn't become laden down with bureaucracy or paperwork, because then it becomes a barrier for people to attend those meetings. >> Yeah, just to wrap it up, I mean, whether or not there was any memorialization between the previous homeowner and staff has no bearing on whether there was a duty to potentially disclose this material fact -- the alleged material fact to a subsequent buyer. That's something that others can decide the truth or the liability of that if it comes to that. Additionally, if there was a survey on this property, surveys are typically supposed to show all the easements, and, you know, banks rely on surveys, property purchasers rely on surveys for that very reason. So I think that if the survey's incorrect, then that's certainly another issue. And just as a comment on if the house were to be purchased, you know, for that amount of money or whatever money, if there was a desire for that, we wouldn't necessarily be using that, because if that were to be the case, you put the single pole in, you own the house, you turn around, you sell the house, people know the pole's there, and so I don't think it'd be that big of an issue, quite frankly. Okay. I think you have your direction. >> One clarification, because I heard some stipulations on the discussion. We'll wait -- I guess the direction is we'll check to see if there's an existing -- there was a new survey done. >> Okay. So that was Mayor Pro Tem. So Mayor Pro Tem, you requested that if the current owner had a survey performed when the property was purchased, that you would want to see that survey, and that may change your decision. And what I'm hearing staff say is, well, what I'm hearing is we really don't have a decision, because it's sort of a -- it's a -- unless Councilmember Meltzer were to -- >> Well, I'm interested in hearing how that -- how you would process that information if you had a -- I don't really understand that point, to be perfectly honest. What would you look for in the new survey? How would it affect your thoughts? >> I think it's an independent look to see if the same mistake was made twice, is really it, because if I assume that the easement was reflected in error, did a independent survey or make that same error is what I'm looking for, or to see if they showed it correctly on their -- on the survey that the purchaser had executed. >> So if you don't mind following up, so given those two possible outcomes, what decisions would that -- would each of those outcomes lead you to? >> If the purchaser just -- it's informational on one side. So it's informational if the purchaser has a survey that shows a easement through the middle of their home and just thought it was missed some kind of way, that then takes some of the concern away, because, you know, your independent surveyor said, hey, this is here versus relying on the city's process, what we were provided. So you were provided a separate survey that said, hey, here's the easement. And so to me that's compelling from just the do the right thing component. >> So my question on that, because I think staff's needing some clarity on direction. >> Yes. >> So if -- is your decision to go with option one contingent upon and conditioned upon using that survey? >> Yes. Because I don't think retroactively we can go back and recoup our money, and my answer was given in closed session on preserving that. >> Okay. So what I'm hearing -- so this is what I'm hearing is that unless Councilmember Meltzer, you chime in on option one, because right now it's three to two with one -- is that right? >> I mean, you know, the preponderance of the considerations do point to one. But I'm perfectly willing to, you know, be open to the possibility that the mayor pretend is on to something, and if something comes up and he can make a persuasive case to go the other way based on information that I don't have now either, I'm open to considering that. >> Let me do this. So I would ask this. Give staff a week to collect whatever -- that document and hear from the homeowner, because we've not been able to, if there's an -- because I think your point is great. Yeah. Buy the house, put the poll in, sell the house, and move on. >> Okay. So again, I want to make sure that I've got -- so I'm trying to clarify for staff where we are. What I'm hearing is that we don't have a consensus in the sense that, Mayor Pro Tem, what you'd like to do is have a week to see that document, and then once you see that document, and if there's any other discussions that occur between the homeowner and staff, you'd like that information. And Councilmember Meltzer, what I'm hearing you say is sort of -- you're saying I'm leaning towards option one, but you're saying that you want to hear the other -- >> I'd be with one, but, you know, maybe Mayor Pro Tem's on to something, so I'm willing to hear it. But I'm wanting to abate or to hold your direction for option one until this information comes forward. Okay. So then we have our direction. >> Yes, sir. Thank you very much. >> If we need that information, we'll get it posted as soon as we can. Real quick. Real quick. Councilmember Armitage. >> Yeah. I just wanted to say, just for the record, that to me, that is a kind of dangerously government overreach type issue, and we're talking about the city possibly purchasing homes that are not even for sale. I feel uncomfortable with that idea. >> Okay. Councilmember Briggs. >> I was going to say, since the conversation may come back to us, that if -- for some reason, with the survey and the conversation, that when it does come back to us, that the people who are affected by the other two polls have been spoken to, so that that's not an issue that they haven't been made aware of what is being discussed. >> Okay. This is a possibility. Right. Right. Yes, Councilmember Davis. I'm sorry. I skipped over you. You'll get the last one. >> And in the meantime, I also like kind of some updates if we're bringing it back next week on our legal options and especially the legal options for who can help us pay for this thing. We're the only ones in a position to fix it, but if someone can help us pay for it. In the meantime, can we send animal control to check on this coyote allegedly living inside of the poll? >> All right. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Let's take about a five-minute break. It's about 1.15, and we'll come back. Thank you very much. Welcome back to this meeting of the Dent City Council, Tuesday, February the 18th, year 2020. It is 1.25 p.m. We are moving down through our work session reports, but we're going to switch B and C to accommodate people who want to come and listen to the presentation on B. We gave sort of a more specific timeframe on that. So we're going to go with item 3C, but also we've got three closed sessions that are scheduled. We've got some other, you know, pretty substantial work session reports here. So I'm just going to ask that council just be mindful of the time because we are going to start the meeting at 630, and we do have some attorneys that will be here, and we certainly want to get them out before 630 instead of holding them over for the sake of, you know, economic efficiency. So let's try to be as efficient as we can, and I'm going to try to run the meeting that way as well. So just letting everybody know. >> Hello, Mayor and council. I am Pamela Mutul, traffic engineer for this city. So Mark and I are back to continue the discussion on the mobility plan. So far we have discussed the downtown and the northern area. Today, we will continue the conversation for the west. So this is our agenda for today. We will quickly just touch on why it's so important to work on this mobility plan and then provide updates for age, the thoroughfare, the bicycle and pedestrian plan. So we wanted to highlight some of the reasons we're working on the mobility plan. And the city has grown tremendously, and it's going to continue to grow. So we want to develop a transportation plan that leads the city in the right direction. The plans themselves focus on several things. We want to provide infrastructure that serves various modes of transportation. We want to provide continuous connections that go east-west, north-south, and we want to utilize these plans to apply for external funding. So let's dive into the details of the draft thoroughfare plan. So for the western area, currently the land use is primarily -- yes? >> Pamela, just a question of clarification. You said we will use this plan to potentially also try to secure additional funds, and you mean through the mobility, the regional mobility councils and things such as that, grants and everything? >> Right. And when it's adopted, we'll reach out to COG and share -- >> So that's part of the purpose of this? >> Exactly. Part of the purpose. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate that. >> As I was saying, the western area currently is primarily industrial and rural land use, so that has helped us develop the proposed alternatives for the primary arterials. And as you all know, there's a lot of development coming in the west. So we have incorporated the ropes and ranch and hunter coal developments. We're working with the planning department very closely. So we will continue the discussions as we work on the mobility plan. So we wanted to provide a visual of the western area of how we approached making the east-west connections. So on the right, you will see the freeway intersections, and on the left, you will see the existing crossings for the railroad that exist on the east side of FM 156. Because it's so difficult to add or remove a railroad crossing, we wanted to utilize those existing connections, and so that definitely dictated where we proposed the connections for primary arterials. With this image, I also wanted to kind of touch on the proposed freeway for US 380. We want to preserve the right-of-way in this area and provide that continuous connection to cities west of us. So I'm going to quickly go over eight of the primary updates for the western area. The first one is Loop 288 west. The alignment that you see here is what TxDOT schematics plans detail. So this would be a freeway. In the 2015 plan, it was freeway, and then south of US 380, it was supposed to be a primary arterial. Questions? Any questions so far? No. Councilman Melcher. I'm not sure I understand exactly how this works with respect to other municipalities. We've got Ponder and Dish on there, and we're showing the roads going into there. I mean, are they party to this, or how does that work? So we did extend the limits of what we're showing, and those reflect what the county, Denton County, thoroughfare plan show. So Ponder doesn't have their own thoroughfare plan, so if we did go into their limits, we would be working with the county, but we are making sure any changes, any extensions, alterations, so we are making sure they're within the city limits. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. So on Loop 288 West, I know that you're saying that we're doing this and we're planning to approve this so that we can use it for funding, and I know that Loop 288 was one of the roads that we sent in as a priority on our priority list, and so having this in here, would that help with TxDOT if the plans match with the plans that they have for funding? Yes. It will help, yes. Coronation and making sure we're all on the same page, utilizing their funds, our funds, we can work together. Okay. Thank you. So the second update for the thoroughfare plan is the providing a primary arterial that connects US 380 to Ropes and Ranch. It would be a primary arterial that's just west of I-35 West, and we just wanted to provide a continuous primary arterial, and based on the volumes, we feel it's justified. The third update is TN Skyles Road and Tom Cold Road. This is a primary connection for the west of the airport, and it's going to FM 156. Previously it was just a secondary arterial, and we're utilizing existing roads for this update. The fourth update is at Ropes and Boulevard. The previous plan had us a secondary arterial, and based on the spacing of the proposed primary arterial, secondary arterial, so we are actually recommending to downgrade it to a collector, and to classify the section south of H. Lively as local, since it's gated currently and will continue to be gated. The fifth update is H. Lively Road. The previous plan classified it as a secondary arterial. We are proposing it to be a primary arterial. It will eventually, we're proposing to connect to Allred Road, and then it continues to Hickory Creek, and provide that continuous east-west connection. The sixth update is Seawolf Road. Another primary arterial we're recommending, from US 380 to Ropes and Ranch. Lively it was classified as collector secondary arterial, and we would like to recommend a primary arterial. The seventh is Nail Road and Florence Road. We are keeping the same secondary arterials, but we are utilizing existing roads to provide that continuous north-south alignment. And the last update is Jim Crystal Road. We are proposing to continue the secondary arterial classification to I-35 West, and the volumes justify that downgrade. Any questions? Questions? That's my barometer. Yeah, so can you explain, this was the change that I wanted to make sure that I understood exactly what was happening. If you could kind of flesh that out a little bit more, what you just said, we're going from a secondary and primary to fully secondary because of the-- Based on the projected traffic that we're seeing through here, and then when we discuss the southern area, we are continuing that secondary arterial, and on the land use, there's some residential plans in the area, so we believe we just need a secondary arterial on the area. Okay, so based on estimated for the near future, not estimated. So currently, it is the 2,300, and the estimated by around what date does-- 2045. 2045. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Davis. At the western end of Jim Crystal, kind of moving down 156, there's another secondary arterial going off to the west. Is that Old Stoney Road, or is that further south? I would have to check that. You can get back to me. It's just fine. Okay. I will. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Briggs. I have a question about the entrances and exits onto the main streets from Jim Crystal. So who's responsible for how the road exits onto the main road? Is that like the Texas, Textodd, or would that be the city, or do they work together on those? Or I-35 west, or how it makes the connections? Yeah, just at the connections. Yeah. So those, we definitely work together. Both parties review the plans whenever we get to that point, because it's their right of way and combined with our right of way. So we just work together, and then we, both traffic engineers, roadway engineers, approve the plans. Okay. So do they drive it and flow and see the flow of traffic to make sure that it makes sense? As far as the proposed classifications or the design? The design. We don't- Some would just ask me, you know, about, you know, do engineers actually drive the roads and enter and exit onto them? So I'm just curious if that, you know, was part of this, if we do that. Well, it's not part of the mobility plan. Right now we're focusing on the connections and the alignments, but once we get to the design phase, yes, there's a lot of design criteria that go into how we connect some best practices, like we don't want a skewed intersection, things like that. But that's when we go to the design phase. Thank you. Councilmember Ryan? Thank you, Mayor. On this slide, you showed Jim Crystal on the other side of 35 going to a secondary as well, and that is Oak Street, and I don't recall when we spoke about the downtown area of us downgrading that from a primary to a secondary. We will have a completely separate work session for Oak and Hickory. We will be touching on one-way versus two-way so that we will be talking about Oak at that time. Okay. And just with the growth that we have out in there, I would have to have a little bit more information to be open to downgrading, because I think that Jim Crystal is a primary or could just be with Airport Road and Western Center and what all we're doing there that I could be open to it, but right now I don't see that as a good option. Well, thank you, and I'm going to hand it off to Mark. Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Mark Oliphant. I'm the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator for the City. I'm going to talk to you about our draft plan for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the western area of town. So first, I have a comparison here. On the left is our existing, our 2014 bicycle master plan map, and on the right is our current bicycle infrastructure. You'll notice there's nothing there currently. That is due to the land use, the predominant land uses in that area, which are rural, agricultural, industrial at this time. So we have no infrastructure, and we didn't have a whole lot planned beforehand, but with our iteration of our new plan, we're really building, proposing a robust network out there. So we'll go to the next one here. On the left again is the old plan. On the right here is our draft 2020 bicycle plan. You'll see we have in blue our on-street network, in green our off-street. You may notice there's a slight difference in the pattern. That's just because of two different layers that we were working with in the mapping. Just pay attention to the color for now. So it's a fairly complete and robust network, and some of this does extend beyond the boundaries of the city currently, but we're just thinking about termini and a complete network. Next map here is, this is a work in progress, but it is something that was requested and that we've been working on. This is a match-up between our map and the parks and rec master plan for trails. If you look sort of in that center bottom area, there's all those black lines. That is the trail network that they've been working on with the Hunter Coal, Hunter Coal branch development area. We're still working on combining our two maps, and I'm not trying to steal any of Parks is Thunder either by showing this first, but we did want to just get something in front of you, let you know we are communicating. We're talking about this. There's actually a lot of interesting questions because Parks takes care of the frontages of our roads, which is where a lot of these side paths and so forth are. So from a bicycle and pedestrian perspective, there's a lot of cooperation between the streets and traffic and parks. So along those lines, I got an email, I'm assuming it went to all or at least some of other council members as well, pointing out a number of different areas where there are rail crossings and saying this wasn't pointed out on the map, should this be included in the mobility plan. So is that what you were just saying, is that your answer to that kind of inquiry, work in progress? Yes, work in progress. We did receive that as well. It's great feedback. We really haven't had time to incorporate that into this presentation, but it's been shared with Parks. We've looked at it, and this is also the bones for our network, but we are going to go back to the public, have more public meetings and so forth, so we are continuously receiving feedback. This is not fixed. I would say the bones of what we are showing you is what we plan to bring back at the end, but we certainly hope to refine it in the next... Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, yeah, and I'll just say thanks to all those volunteer citizens who are helping flesh out the bones. I know it's appreciated by staff, appreciated by me. They're doing a thorough job. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind going back a slide. Sure. Assuming there is some cost to adding on-street as well as to off-street, that everything comes at some cost, does the grid, does the additional, does the addition to the grid of the on-street trails add a lot of mobility to what the off-street provides, or would you really accommodate the same needs with the off-street? Before you respond, I think I'm noticing an emerging consensus. Others could say no, if I'm wrong, to favor off-street since more people would use it. That's the background of my question. Maybe I could restate. Sure, you can make it clearer than I do. No, and you don't think as well when you're up here. Is it around different users on the on-street versus off-street, and if you are, maybe? Well, okay, let me take another step. I have a couple of assumptions. One is that everything we add costs money, so you have to be conscious about it. Second is that maybe the on-street and the off-street are kind of double covering a bit in terms of east-west and north-south coverage, and if that's true, given that the people who would go off-street, many of them won't use on-street, but the people who go on-street probably would use the off-street. Could you kind of more efficiently cover the need for more people by focusing your resources on just the off-street grid for this part of the city? Well, this is, in many ways, this is carte blanche. Existing roadways, they're going to be rebuilt in the future when this redevelops. And so, yes, we are taking the opportunity right now to stake our claim that this is important and because these haven't been built out yet, the right-of-way will probably be available, so yes, especially in areas where right-of-way is available currently and this is being planned out into the future, a focus on off-street infrastructure is appropriate and the smart thing to do, in my opinion. Okay. We got through it. So that's everything I have for the bicycle portion, I'm going to go on to the pedestrian portion, so talking about sidewalks and so forth. Again, because of the nature of this area, we don't have a great deal of sidewalk infrastructure. These are your existing sidewalks. There's not very much there, highlighted in yellow, very little currently. There are also no planned and funded sidewalk projects out there as of this very moment. Some other areas of the city, we have bonds and so forth. Largely, there's no commercial areas, no university needs and no schools, so we don't have those there. As far as areas that we have identified that are in need of future sidewalks, that's what we're showing here in yellow. The map shows low and high priority. We don't actually have any areas of high priority right now because of the way that we are calculating low and high priority. Again, no schools, very little transit, no commercial areas. So as far as looking at the city in its entirety, this is not a priority as of this moment for new sidewalks. And also because it's largely underbuilt in the future, when roads are widened, when subdivisions come in, all of those will come with the development. Next, this just combines the existing and the future sidewalks. So in the bright yellow is our existing, this is the future. And I have one more slide that I've added, which shows the big picture that when we eventually build out and these future roadways come in, those dashed gray lines are going to be future sidewalks along the roadways that Pam just presented to the council. So these are all areas where sidewalks will be built in the future when we grow, according to this plan. Mark, can you touch on, so for example, you show Highway 380 there and along I-35W, that's not realistic to say that we're going to hope to have future sidewalks? True, no, but it's easier to have it on there in case maybe in the future a strip mall or something goes in and we have it on the plan. I don't know. So I agree. It seems like overkill. I don't want to touch on that. To your question, 15, 20 years ago, I would have agreed, but TechStat is much more aggressively pursuing sidewalks with all of their reconstruction projects, so I think we can fully expect that as the freeways are reconstructed and new freeways are constructed, TechStat and the city will be putting sidewalks in adjacent to frontage roads. I think that's just a given now in the current development approach that we're taking. We're looking for sidewalks everywhere, so yes, even along freeways. And if I may, and so that's from a safety component? I get it from a, I think I get it from a just kind of transportation kind of options, but from a safety look at it, is that the best practice? That's what's recommended practice? So there's two answers to that. So one is we see pedestrian traffic along 35 today. So the sidewalk, the need is there, and the need will be there in the future probably to a greater degree. The second answer is that if we know we're going to put pedestrian facilities adjacent to a frontage road or high speed, high volume, that allows us to design it safely so that we put it a little further away from the pavement, we design it so that it is as safe as we can and still provide that pedestrian mode of travel. I'll use the university as an example. There are a lot of places on university that don't have sidewalks because TechStat didn't use to put sidewalks, but they're needed because people walk up and down University Drive. So again, having, as Mark said, having them on the plan indicates to developers and TechStat and anybody who's going to develop or redevelop that roadway, we intend for pedestrian facilities to be in place. So we will design them to be safe, but we recognize that the need is there. Thank you. Yeah, so my comment was actually I had a couple of them questions. I don't know if this was the end of the presentation. I think it is. Okay, I was trying to wait. My comment was about University Drive because we see people walking. There's a large section, maybe a mile or so, from the bridge at 380 East to where they did the, started the new construction where they did include the sidewalks and people use that route and walk on it and there's bus lines as well or it's just grass. So if we could ask TechStat to consider that at some point, or development goes in, it's really nice to have that those sidewalks are there. Just because they're not there doesn't mean people aren't using them. So my other two questions, on one of the slide about the bicycles, it had the pink path. It's going to be the bike path, I believe, that goes 380 East out to the Greenbelt. On one of the slides, that right there, it says side path, on the opposite side of. Oh, oh, oh, from the old plan, from the previous plan? Yeah, so on 380 East now, with the new going out, not this one, how, I hope that we are trying to find if we're a way for people from the community to get to that side path safely. Is that something we're looking at when we're looking at the bicycle plan, the pedestrian plan? I mean, if we're going to invest and use grant money to get a side path out to the Greenbelt, are we making sure that we can get people to that side path safely? Yes, and in two weeks, we are going to cover the East side in depth, and so I can specifically talk about that when that comes in, if that would be good. So will that, is that when we also talk about Mayhill? Okay, so because my question then, there's a large section of Mayhill, I noticed driving it. There was a family with their bikes, and they were on the sidewalk, and then they were all walking along grass to get to the bike trail from the DCTA bike trail, so there's that section there where there's no connection, and so if that's addressed next week, I'd like to know more about that, too. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? On questions, at least? Councilmember Amater? Yeah, I was wondering if you could speak to what extent is DCTA a partner in discussions about where new sidewalks should go outside of the school prioritization, in addition to school prioritization issue? Yes, so one of the criteria, we created kind of a small formula to calculate which sidewalks are high priority and which are low, and one of the criteria is the transit stops with higher ridership, so we did communicate with them, and we got that data from them. They're also part of our, we call it the technical steering committee, but that's the right title, yeah. So we have kind of a working group of the major organizations that we're working with each step of the mobility plan. Wonderful. So I take it because of that you're probably aware of the issue over by on the Razor Ranch side of the university where there are people who work at Walmart and that Walmart plaza are let off around the waffle, I forget what it's called, the waffle, whatever, and then they need to go under the bridge. Yeah, it's actually great timing on that question. On Thursday, the Committee on Persons with Disabilities will be hearing a presentation about Razor Ranch and providing feedback. Wonderful. Yeah, because that's a big issue, and a number of them are disabled, so thank you. That's great. Council Member Briggs, do you have a question? Just a follow-up on that, because it's about DCTA, and you said that they have the ridership and all the information, but as I understand it, they're going through a big overhaul. Mayor, you may weigh in on that as well, with looking at stops and consultants, and there's a lot going on. So my question is, so as they update their information and get their information back, we're still going to accommodate and follow through. We're not going to just stick with the old data. Yes, yes, we do communicate with them regularly, yeah. The switch is just basically from the very fixed route traditional to they're trying to use technology and some other things to have kind of more of a dynamic network, and we're right there with them, communicating. Thank you. Yes, Council Member Davis. This slide is a good one to illustrate, but when we talk about things out in the ETJ or even further out, and earlier in the presentation we talked about with the thoroughfare plan, we kind of mesh up with the county thoroughfare plan. Are we doing the same thing with the VeloWeb with these projections outside of city limits for the bicycle plan? Are we kind of overlaying the thoroughfare plan with what we'd hope would be on-street facilities for bikes later on, or is there some plan external to us that we're meshing up with? That's a good question. So the VeloWeb is the plan done by the Council of Governments, it's a regional plan that tries to connect more than just within cities, a broader bicycle network. Funding also is available with that. We've absolutely factored that in, and we've kept all of those facilities. I guess we're trying to have our cake and eat it, too, we're trying to do both as best we can. I don't know if you can clarify further, possibly. I guess my question is, when we put a dashed blue line on the 2020 plan for going out Jim Crystal to Stoney or whatever, even though that's not in our city limits, are we doing that dashed line because that's what we aspirationally would hope our regional partners and our county partners would jump in on, or are we doing that because it meshes up with an existing plan someplace? I follow you better, thank you. At this time, this is our desire, so yes, we go way outside of our city limits, but I think Denton compared to its neighbor is a larger city with more assets and staff time and so forth. But our intention, we're going out sort of shopping this plan to our neighbors, and so this is our brainstorm, our hope, and then we take it to them. But no, what you're seeing here is not part of the bellow web or a separate plan, like a county plan or something, right? This is our ideas, original Denton product. Anything else? Is that on the slides? Oh, yes. Okay. One last, we will be here next week for number four out of five of the areas of town, and it's probably, stay tuned. Yeah, we'll figure that out based on some responses we needed. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. So we'll go back to agenda item 3B if someone could alert if there's anybody out in the foyer. We're just going to, let's take a quick five minute break to let everybody get set up with the headsets and things. Welcome everybody back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, February the 18th, 2020. It is 2.04 PM. We are moving down. We're going to go back to our work session report 3B, and we do have simultaneous translation occurring during this meeting, so just if you could be aware of that, and we'll make sure we've got a correct cadence to be able to provide that translation. And I want to thank Miriam Tapia and Armando Palacios for their translation that are in my office. I really appreciate their help in this, really to help with the citizens here and also help the meeting move slowly, I mean move more quickly. And if certainly if there's an issue that we need to slow down, if somebody could just alert me and we'll make sure that we do that. So I will go through, I will read the caption, receive report, hold discussion regarding state requirements applicable to the septic systems in Green Tree estates, receive reports, hold discussions and give staff direction regarding water service extension from the city water main to the point of connection of meters for Green Tree estates. Thank you Mayor. Ryan Adams, Public Affairs. Today we're going to give a brief review of the discussion for the February 4th work session. We will also discuss the extension of a city water main to the boundaries of Green Tree estates and we'll also discuss on-site sewage facilities or more commonly known as septic systems and some common requirements for those. So just briefly, the last time we met with council on February 4th, the direction from council out of that meeting was to continue outreach to the residents and property owners of Green Tree estates, but to also come back to the council and provide information regarding options to extend the water line to the boundary of Green Tree estates and provide some general septic system information. Moving right on into the extension of the water main. Currently, to provide water to Green Tree estates, the nearest city water main must be extended roughly 20 feet to the Green Tree estates boundary. At that location, meters would then be placed that the residents could connect to from their homes. Typically, the cost of any main line extension to a property line is paid for by a single property owner, often a developer, or it's paid at once by a collection of property owners. The challenge with Green Tree estates is that there is still uncertainty over the ultimate number of connections, how many properties will actually connect to the city. It's still unknown. It's not defined. And then the timing of those connections. It's very unlikely that all those who will connect will all connect at the same time. Just to give a brief reminder for the council of a map of Green Tree estates showing all the residents that the city currently provides temporary water to under the declaration of disaster. If you can follow my mouse, the meters would all be set at the eastern edge of the Green Tree estates property. However, the closest city water line terminates about 20 feet from that point. So the work that we're discussing today would be to extend that all the way to the Green Tree estates property line to the point where the meter would be set. Does that mean that the homeowners would then just be responsible for the line from their home to the meter? Outside of the extension of the meter, the other costs that would be responsible for the homeowner would certainly be the private costs to actually connect their home to the meter. And that varies just by virtue of where the property is. And then you also have a meter set, an impact fee, that's a standard fee, that would also be charged for each connection. And those are and still are being placed upon the homeowner? Correct. Okay. That is correct. Yeah. Actually, my next slide will address that. Okay. Thank you. Real quick question. Yes, sir. On this slide, so are these the properties that we've identified that are the -- is there 14 up there? There are 14 dwellings. And these are them? These are them. There is another dwelling that is owned by the well owner that is not included on this map. Okay. So this is the question I have. So in the response to the questions, we received an email about response to questions. Yes, sir. And one of them is regarding -- okay, is everything all right over there? Just kidding. When I look at this one, it shows that it's regarding the individual who had mentioned at the last council meeting that they would be open to an inspection by the city. And in the staff report or the email, it shows currently renting, there's a home at the corner of Meadow Lane and Rolling Hills. Correct. Which is not blue. And so that's where this person is renting. So -- I believe I can clarify that. This map, and again, if you are able to follow my mouse, there is a residence here that is occupied. However, we serve the temporary water to the rear of the property, and that's why this map reflects that. But the actual residence that is being occupied is on the corner of Meadow and Rolling Green. Okay. And why are we serving it to the rear, which is a different address than where that property actually is? That is where we could actually locate the large containers. So it's more just a logistical thing? Correct. Yes, sir. But what we're saying, though, is that lot, that's a vacant lot, I believe, is it not? 4055? These are all right here. These are all vacant lots. There's no permanent dwelling on them. All right. So you're showing that that is one of the lots included in whatever solution we provide for either a waiver of fees or something like that. That's one of those lots included in the 14. Is that right? It could potentially be. If that's where -- if that resident wants to connect on that lot, that's correct. It could be. Okay. So all right. Because I'm a little -- my understanding is it's Mr. Rod, he owns the house where the family is renting. That's correct. And that's why it's not on there in the sense because it would be interesting if the council approved that we're providing water to a property that is owned by the person who put us in this situation to begin with. I understand. All right. So I just want to make sure that it's these 14 and none others that we're talking about in this state of emergency and any of the solutions that we're talking about today. That's correct. The only discussions we are having with -- insofar as connections to the city, the city system is for the 14 property owners. I do not believe that we could deny connection to that 15th. I'll defer to our attorney on that one. But so far that particular property owner has not had any interaction with the city and nor expressed any desire to connect to city water, likely because that person is already being served by a wealth that they own and operate as a private resident. Sure. Well, and I'll just bring -- and we don't even go into too much here, but at some point we're going to have to discuss what happens when this issue is taken care of if other people buy lots in there and those kind of things, which is not part of this discussion. But okay. And then the numbers underneath the addresses, what does that mean? Like a 9, 5, 2, 6? Is that -- Those -- oh, pardon me, sir. Go ahead. Those are rough approximations of actual people living in that dwelling. Oh, how many are occupying it? Yes, sir. Rough approximations. Okay. But we still don't know of those -- how many of those are owner-occupied that own the property? And then how many of those are renting? We don't have for certain right now that's something that we're working on based on the feedback from our last machine. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Just wanted some clarification on the -- from the e-mail. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yeah. This was the table that was presented at our last meeting. Of course, it outlines the different cost areas to connect to the city. Of course, you have the tap meter and impact fee, which is a standard cost. You have the line tap main line cost, which is actually the line extension. And of course, because the line extension, that cost is going to be incurred no matter how many people connect. What we had done is we essentially showed what that would be per resident based on the number of connections. Of course, going back to what I said earlier, we don't know how many connections there will be at this point. The city did evaluate different options because there was concern that some residents, say, if one or two decide to connect and connect early, they might share -- pardon me. They might hold the burden of actually funding that entire extension of the main line. Council asked us to come back with different options for extending that main line, possibly involving a pro rat agreement with the residents. And so that is what we did evaluate over the last two weeks and what we're here to discuss today. We are presenting two different options to council, one of which is recommended, to essentially facilitate the extension of the line, knowing what challenges we have with the uncertainty of who will connect and when. Our first option is the recommended option. With this option, the city would cover all the costs to extend the water main from its current point of termination to the Green Tree Estates boundary line, and that would be done under the disaster declaration spending authority. Staff is able to accomplish that within the $100,000 that was previously approved by council. This would remove the barriers that are dependent on those uncertain factors such as who is connecting, and it would allow us to be able to connect anyone at any time because that line would be at the property line. We could set a meter within a couple of weeks, and the residents would then have to facilitate that connection to their home, which they would do as we discussed last time we talked to council through a privately procured licensed plumber. And this would essentially work to abate the public health and safety emergency that constituted the disaster. The second option is similar to option one, however, the city would still front that cost, however, the residents would be charged a pro rata cost when connecting. It would still have uncertainty as to when there are connections and who connects, so the city would likely not recoup a lot of that cost regardless, not knowing how that would work, because it really does depend on how many connections we foresee happening, and at this point in time the city does not have a firm number of how many connections there are going to be. If you go back to the previous slide, so the number you're talking about, the recommendation option one, you're talking about the $69.38. I'm talking about the $9204, the middle one. So that is the total cost. Okay, right there. Yes, sir. All right. So that's to get the manifold built for these meters to be able to hook up to. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. And that's the total for that. That's our estimate. It's not the TAP fee or the impact fee. No, sir. We're not going to pay that per connection. Yeah, if you could go back to the options slide, why do you show a concern regarding gifting in the option where residents are paying, but you don't express a concern regarding gifting where the city covers the cost? I just don't understand the intention there. Because the, and I'll probably ask Larry to chime in on this one, or Catherine if she's available, but the, oh, go ahead, Larry. Well, I would get asked, I'm not sure where they're going on to option one, because we're under the declaration of emergency, we're able to spend that money to address the problem of not having potable water made available to the residents out there. In under two, we're just looking at, that's really kind of an enlarged situation and bringing in more infrastructure than just the meter by itself, and doing it outside of the declaration. Option two, we would consider outside the declaration of disaster, and I believe as a result, and Larry correct me if I'm explaining this correctly, because we're doing it outside of the declaration of disaster, anything we do for one area, we could conceivably do for another. So, if we did it for one, but did not do it for another, then we would then be subject to this being viewed as a gift to the green tree estates, rather than something that we was net, like the first one, which is necessary to abate the health and safety issue under the declaration of disaster. Isn't the doing of it on the same timing in option one and option two, it's a similar to option one, and the difference is whether people pay or not? Similar in that the city fronts the cost. Okay. Maybe it'll become clear over time, to me it seems backwards. Can you go back to the previous slide with the chart? So if the city were to spend the roughly $10,000 to extend the water main, we'd be basically disregarding the second, excuse me, the third and fourth columns on the chart here. Each homeowner that wanted to tie in would still be responsible for the roughly $7,000 to set a meter, pay their tap fee, pay their impact fee. Is that correct? That's correct. They would still pay the tap meter and impact fee. Has anyone at green tree estates said, yes, I have $7,000, I can get $7,000, I'm interested in paying a tap meter and impact fee? We have had several express their intention, but I do not believe we've had any formal request to set a meter. Have any of those that have expressed an interest allowed a courtesy inspection of their home or of, and I know we're going to get deceptive in a second, made any indications at all to the city that their homes are up to code or that they have a septic system that's up to code that they would ultimately be allowed to do a meter and tap in and make the connection? We've not received any for a dwelling. We have not received any requests for courtesy inspections, although they have communicated that they are seeking to do that with a third party. And then we've not received any specific information from any of the residents or property owners related to the condition of their homes, not in any formal way. Last question. Yes, sir. If someone, we'll pick Mr. Contreras, for example, he seemed very eager and interested and open to talking about solutions. If he walked into city hall and under this plan put down his $7,000, paid for his meter, we went out and set the meter, had it all set up, and then he ultimately was not able to connect because he couldn't get the easement for the line, the home wasn't up to code, so he couldn't connect, he's not going to get that $7,000 back, right? We set the meter. Might be a Dr. Banks question, but my understanding is that, no, we could not refund those dollars because the work has been done, the meter has been purchased and set. So if they went out and spent the money to get all ready to do this because they thought they could and then they ultimately could not, they're out $7,000 and they still don't have city water. That's possible. Thank you. Councilmember Armitage. Yeah, so just to kind of following on that line of questioning, my understanding is that it wouldn't be until after an inspection that any of that, the meter would be put in, that anyone would invest in that, those impact fees, correct, or is that up to the individual? At least I couldn't see why anyone would want to make that investment until after doing the inspection. The inspection, I mean, the actual city inspection. So let's, I really want to move away from, we're talking about a line item on this chart that we're really not discussing right now. We're not discussing the tap meter and impact fees. We're really talking about how do we, this council has been presented to us two options because until there is a water line that is capable of being tapped into and meter basis set, it's a moot point as far as tap fee and impact fee. What we're discussing is how do we provide the infrastructure to where now there is the capability for the private connection to come to the city water line and tap into that water line. So I don't, I want, I mean, we're going to try to keep this pretty much within the rails. So I really want to move away from that discussion because we've got two options on the table. And if the question or comment is regarding those two options, as far as do we pay for it through the city funds or do we still do this pro rata share, that's what I'd really like to try to keep this discussion within. Just because every time we talked about this particular general subject, it really does get very large and this was really a specific work session that was brought back for specific points so that there could be clarification on the septic system and just the first step of having a water connection out there that people decided they could do it and they were able to do it after an inspection with the money that there would be that opportunity to do that. Councilmember Briggs. How much is left in the emergency declaration that we approved? When we last reported to council two weeks ago, we had expended roughly $31,000 and we are spending on average about $1,200 to $1,500 a week delivering water. So we feel pretty confident that by the time the current disaster expires on May 22nd, that to do this would fit well within that spending cap. So today roughly $65,000 is remaining. Okay, so $65,000 is still remaining. Okay, that's good to know. I have a question about the chart. It was something the mayor brought up. Could you go back to the guest survey or drawing? So I'm confused, I just want to understand a little bit better because we talked about number 14 and number 15. And I'm assuming that's those two there on the left. One is where the home is and the person is renting it, but it's owned by Mr. Roddy. But we're delivering water to the renters on a vacant property that lives in the home served by a well. So we have 14 properties that we are delivering temporary water to. They're all shown here. This map outlines where those properties are. The 15th actual resident on the Green Tree Estates Boundary that we are aware of is actually Mr. Roddy, the well owner who lives on the western portion. We've not had any interaction with him. And he has had the opportunity but has not expressed any desire to receive temporary water. He's not on this map. That property is not on here. No, sir. That is not on this map. And this is where something, and I will use a more representative map next time around. We deliver water to the property. While someone occupies a lot that my mouse is hovering over, we actually deliver water behind it because of logistical reasons it's easier to access and to deliver water. So that's why that property is highlighted, but the person who is actually receiving water is right here. Okay, and that one that you just went, that's right there is not a property owned by Mr. Roddy? It is. I believe that it is. Okay. Yes. So my question then becomes if we are counting them in our 14, the renter would then be responsible or we would need the homeowner to make those connections. I mean if we're counting them in the total, but we don't know, I'm just trying to understand it and it may go to something that you said we need to talk about. And your question is particularly on this one because the way it's presented, but actually what's happening is that the gentleman or the family that lives at the corner of Rolling Green and Meadow Lane, they're part of the 14 families. It's just that instead of delivering water on the actual physical lot, it's more logistically possible to deliver it on the vacant lot, which my understanding is those vacant lots are owned by the individual that, according to our email that lives there. But your question is a good one, but it applies to all the properties. The question is if they're renting, whether it's owned by Mr. Roddy or not, I mean that presents its own other interesting caveat, but who has the authority to execute the water meter, to get the tap, to get the water meter set, and that's why I think it's important that we find out sort of who's renting, who owns, because I'll save my comments on that. So yes, it applies to all of these, that question that you asked applies to all of these. The property owner would be the only person to have the authority to connect to the city system. Well, I'm in favor of, are we doing options now? Sure, if you want to give direction, absolutely. I'm in favor of the staff recommendation, giving all of the money that's left and doing our part in bringing the infrastructure to the development and then leaving it up to the homeowner, the landowner, whomever, to make that connection, get everything up to code, and all the other things that the septic would be their responsibility, setting up an account and then paying the bill. All right, so yeah, if we can begin to, because I think we've got another set of direction that you wanted to get, or information on the septic, so this is really the direction. Yeah. Mayor Pro Tem. So, and am I correct in reading there's two of the 14 that have not responded, or is that a different topic? So I think you might be thinking of who has perhaps paid their water bill recently, and actually it's down to one. We had someone pay a little bit late. Okay. So but that one potentially could affect the numbers, right? Ultimately, here's my direction. I think, how many, how long did you say we would need to execute that, the work we would do to bring it to, bring those stuff out? Oh, to actually extend the line? Yeah. Last we discussed, two weeks. Right. So my direction would be to do, to wait, to wait until there's action taken on the home inspections to see work done on the residence side, because we can always execute our end pretty quick, but it becomes difficult to execute that prematurely, and then no one avail themselves of it, or take advantage of it, or opt out, and we have, I think, done the work in advance with no reason. Council Member Davis, and Council Member Armitage, I mean, Council Member, Councilor Starr. I agree with that generally. I'm a little frustrated that we have this item before us today, because I think this conversation, to your point earlier, Mr. Mayor, about talking about impact fees and tap fees, that's all part of it. I mean, $10,000 is not a huge amount of money for the city to spend, but we have no indication whatsoever at this point that anybody's going to actually tie in to this 20-foot line that we do at taxpayer expense. We don't have any indication that anybody's going to have the legal ability to, because we don't know the status of the homes. We know for a fact that certain structures out there are substandard. We don't know if the ones that are wanting to tie in meet our code or not. The second half of the slide presentation was about septic systems. We don't know the status of those, and those have to be up to code before we can tie in. We still have a $7,000 fee due to each homeowner who wants to tie in. In addition, we still don't know about the easements. We don't know that they can legally run their lines. All of those things, they've got to work out for themselves before we can even think about tying them in. So, I feel like we're very premature in this conversation. We're not even close to it. And then on top of that, let's say we're under the emergency declaration, we're willing to pay the $10,000, again, not that much in the grand scheme of things. But does that mean that we're going to be willing to do the same thing the next time this happens? That's something we have to consider, is the next time this happens, and it will happen again in the city limits, are we going to have another disaster declaration and run a water line? And my final concern is, again, not $10,000, not all that much, but what happens when we run that 20 feet of line and we have now brought water service to the property line and instead of tying in, these homeowners do decide to go elsewhere, someone else purchases the property or Mr. Roddy himself, who still owns a lot that's very close to where this line is going to be, then what we've done is made it easier and less expensive for them to develop this land. We have now enriched Mr. Roddy, the exact person who put us in this position. I'm not saying no, I'm saying it's not today. We are not ready for this conversation yet. We need a better indication, I think, from the neighborhood that this is actually going to be a feasible plan going forward and not just $10,000 spent for the next developer. I think we have ample indication that the residents want the solution, although actually implementing it, you know, clearly there's a number of hurdles. I do share the question about staff's point of view on precedent-setting, whether that's a sustainable situation or do we kind of almost create an incentive for this to happen? I wonder if a better outcome and still very palatable would be essentially to collect over a very long period of time, in fact, we've heard residents talk about the willingness to make payments, and I think regarding the other components of the cost, too, I think the clearly needed component in this whole situation is financing availability to the residents and I'd be interested to hear if there are discussions with other members of the community or whoever to identify financing opportunities, so I'd say directionally doing it, option one and two are the same in that regard, so to say we are willing to do this and to front it and to front the expense, you know, within the disaster period but then to, you know, I guess it's really a question, would we be better off from a precedent point of view if we made some extremely palatable kind of payment opportunity available over a long period of time? Council Member Ryan, you haven't spoken yet. Thank you, Mayor. I do believe that this is premature, there's too many unanswered questions, is the one thing that hasn't been talked about, mentioned yet, I agree with everything Council Member Davis said, but what hasn't been talked about is the easements in order to run those lines, those haven't been straightened out. The cost of the plumber, I can tell you from having run water and sewer lines in the past, they're looking at if they think the $7,000 is high, they haven't looked at what the plumber is going to cost them yet to run that line up to the house. That's going to double up and they'll have to think through as to whether the overall cost is worth it and, you know, the ones on the east side may find that it is palatable, they're closer, it's great at distance, and so until we have a little more certainty and they have a little more knowledge themselves as to what their total cost is going to be, I don't think it's a decision we should be making at this point. So I am for option one and I want to underscore that we already have this $100,000 that we have decided is worthwhile to address the emergency. So if we can agree that this issue that we're looking at, as staff recommends, is related to the emergency and alleviates that emergency, I'm not quite sure why anyone would object to the expense, especially when you consider that there's, that even with this expenditure, there is about, there are, let's see, how much is left after that, 60, we have spent 30, 40, so about 60, 60,000? That's a rough approximation. About 60,000 left. I'm not saying throw it all at the problem that doesn't solve anything, but it is 60,000 that could potentially be spent to resolve these issues as we need to resolve them. And at a later point, this is not related to, or it doesn't affect my approval of option one, I would like to know what could be done as far as zoning or some other solution to make sure that an area like this is reserved for affordable housing so that whatever happens to it. Councilmember, we're way outside of the posting and what we're supposed to be doing here today, so. Okay. Other people were offering their little things. No, the ones that I've heard have been saying why they're either choosing or not choosing a particular option up there, so I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Well. Councilmember, you said option one, correct? I sure did. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. I want to address the premature comments because however, I mean, I do think that what you're saying seems valid, but the last meeting that we had, we saw the same chart and the fees to the city and one of the discussions, you know, one of the issues that was brought before us was that, hey, the $16,000 is a lot different than the $6,000 we're seeing. They were two different amounts and so we asked staff to go back and try to figure this out and give us options for what we wanted to do and that's what they're doing here today. So this presentation has come to us to answer a question that I know that I even asked. I wanted to see last time before making this decision and so I think it's that the $6,938 that they were shown the first time is the amount they saw and the amount that they agreed to have. And so by us covering the city cost, it allows them to all have the same amount that they're paying so that if one person does it or two people do it. So that's where I'm coming from when I'm giving you my recommendation. So I'm going from the conversation we had the last time. I could be wrong, but this is what I thought we asked for. So if it feels too soon for some of my fellow council members maybe we set parameters or something but until we get this one thing figured out, I don't think that anything else is going to be able to follow. They have to know what they're in it for and if we don't say yes or no, then they're going to be unsure of if they pay $6,938 or you know $16,000. So that's what this discussion was for. Mayor Pro Tem and then Council Member Davis. Yeah, I want to be clear about my position and I'll try to be as short as possible. We've offered to inspect the homes and that process is going on outside of our kind of process that we offered to move towards this step. For me to make a decision, I have to see some action taken and the bare basic information has not been provided. To this day, we don't know who owns and who rents and we'll see in this next presentation that obviously someone knows because Habitat has the same stipulation. They will work with homeowners so Habitat knows who owns and who rents. The city does not and so that is really my issue. If we're going to partner with someone and work with someone, I'm happy to do it, but that requires mutual respect and mutual actions to move that forward and I think that's not unreasonable to ask for a few steps forward and we'll meet you in the middle. Council Member Davis. Thank you, Mayor. I'll be very brief. I think the conversation last time centered around the residents receiving two different pieces of fee information at two different times, not the existence of the fees or was somebody going to have to pay these fees or who's going to have to pay these fees. It was about them believing that at least one speaker believing that at first the fee was limited to the meter fee, the $6,000, almost $7,000 and when in fact the entirety of it if we were going to charge them just like we do any other builder or homeowner, the entirety of it was going to have to take into account extending that line. I think to Mayor Pro Tem's point, I would be happy having this conversation if there's an indication that if the city were to pay this, I can do this. If the city were to pay this, this is my plan for getting water hooked up to my house. If the city were to extend the line, I have the ability and the wherewithal to connect my home and I'm willing to demonstrate it in these ways. We've seen none of that. Unfortunately, from the beginning of this conversation, I have seen nothing that would inspire confidence in me that we know where water lines are going to go, that they have the legal ability to run those water lines in those places, and that once that water line gets to a home, that it's going to be able to be legally connected to the home. I would be very happy having this conversation if I can get any of those things demonstrated for even just one home. So I think maybe there's a solution that will meet both of the interests that have been expressed here, the interest of how can we give some certainty to the residents, but does that have to come today based upon, you talked about parameters, how can we provide some parameters, can we give additional requests for information or parameters to the residents to help us move forward in our decision? If I recall correctly, we said that on April 23rd, which is about 30 days prior to the expiration of the emergency, that we wanted to know by that, that we wanted to know where everybody was within 30 days out from the expiration, have they applied for a meter, have they done the inspections, you know, where exactly are we? And I think that's a good deadline. I think because you said that this particular component of the construction could be done in what? A couple of weeks, you said, two or three weeks? A couple of weeks to extend the line, correct. So we're well within the timeframe between that date and the end of the expiration period. And by that time, we'll have additional information, hopefully, about what the circumstances are because there's still several unanswered questions about this city line that we're talking about here. And that is, I don't know what the capacity is for this line, but does that mean that anybody else who comes in and buys a lot in that community comes in and can just pay the tap fee and pay the impact fee? And that's it. In other words, we sort of subsidize the rest of those lots that are outside of these 14. And secondly, is that line that we're installing capable of providing water if all of those were built out? There's a lot of other logistical questions that we have to answer here, but it seems like the more important one is who's going to sign up, who's going to provide the inspections, because we don't want to charge them something if they can't do it. We don't want to do that. The city's not in the business of doing that. We don't want to put ourselves in that position, and we certainly don't want to put them in that position. That's still another what is that? Over 60 days to really get an idea of, you know, to get the process moving, to get the application for a water service in, and if all of a sudden we see five or six or seven that have gotten that in in the next week or two, and we're able to confirm some of that information, we can begin that process. We can have another meeting here. We're not limited to just one meeting on the 23rd. If there's material changes or facts that emerge that, you know, I would happily think we would meet again to be able to continue to move forward with a solution if we're seeing, but my concern is this, and I knew this would happen. I knew it would happen. When I saw the backup, because I really don't have an issue with the $10,000, I would like to see more information on who's going to sign up and some of these other sort of logistical questions, but my concern was if we do it here, is it going to be precedent setting for somewhere else? But if we do it here, when's it going to be the first ask to use that rest of that budget to provide other monies? Well, it didn't take very long for that to happen because I got an email with that. Why don't we use the rest of the budget to help offset some of those impact fees? We heard it here today at the dais, and I can understand paying for the city to build a 20-foot line and to provide a meter base for $10,000. But I'm not okay with using that budget to provide for the private option of fees that anybody would pay. I've known friends who have paid $9,000 to hook up to city water because of their well going bad. And as far as payment options, we can't offer this group, this community payment options if we don't offer payment options to everybody else that's going to want to tap in to the fees. So I really -- I don't mind the $10,000, but I have to say that's where I'm drawing the line, but I knew that that would come up, that hey, we got this extra money, why don't we use it to help with some of these other private fees? There has to be some stake in the game. There has to be something, you know, having city-supplied water tremendously increases the value of property. So I want to make sure that everybody at this table understands that those people who are renting, all right, when they move, the investor who owns that property will have gained a tremendous valuable asset to his or her property without necessarily paying the expenses that everyone else who does that has to do. I, for one, am going to say, okay, it's an emergency, let's look at that. So I think if we could say, hey, April 23rd is a date that we've set. We can say, yeah, we'll do option one contingent upon that or let's wait because it doesn't sound like we have a timing issue if we decide on April 23rd to pull the trigger on that particular option. We still have the time to do it and we still have the time to get people connected if that's what they're choosing to do, especially if they're working on it that quickly. So I don't mind waiting until then to get a little bit more information and to see what the demand is for this particular solution. And to date, we're still trying to get questions answered that we've said over and over and over again that are so helpful in us being able to make an informed and efficient decision on how to resolve this issue that's equitable to everybody. So that's where I am. It sounds like I'm hearing a couple that want to -- I say toll it until I put out there that date's certain and I'll just wait to hear from everybody else, but let's try to, you know, get this resolved so we can move towards a more informational aspect of septic systems because to me, that's just as critical of an issue as this we're discussing because if you can't put a septic system in, you can't repair it or replace it, I mean, it's a tough decision. It's a tough place to be. Councilmember Armitage. >> Yeah. So I'm going to try again to address some of the issues that have been raised. I would like to know why the city hasn't been -- hasn't held Roddy accountable and if I can't know that, then what can we do to hold him accountable because I, too, do not want him to benefit from any of this. So it's a related issue. I would like to know what can be done. I mentioned zoning for whatever to secure -- to make sure that this area is for -- I'll call it affordable housing -- I want to know what can be done to avoid these kinds of issues. >> And that's a very reasonable request and I think staff has taken that down and that's something we can certainly come back on a global scale in the city to take a look at, but that's not the issue we're talking about here. That's going to -- that's a whole different work session. Well, it's not related to whether it's option one or option two or waiting until April 23 to see what the demand is, whether we provide that water line and at whose cost because if there's no demand, then what you're discussing is a moot point. So if we could get direction on what we've talked about for this option, I would greatly appreciate it because we're going to move on from this and if we don't have direction, we don't have direction. All right? Councilmember Briggs. >> Yeah, so I said mine and I'm going to say it again. One of the reasons why I wanted to hear this conversation and look at this chart again was because the individuals got the thing that said it would cost them $6,938 which someone spoke that they were okay with and then saw the chart and realized that if only one person did it, then it would cost $16,000 if we didn't go with option one. So that was the difference in the -- >> No, with all due respect, with all due respect, I brought this up in this meeting last time. Someone raised the issue saying, really sort of accusatorily, that we've changed the fees. That we changed the fees. And so I simply asked for clarification and I had staff up and I said staff, when you sent out the original letter, if you could pull the chart up. >> Oh, no, no. It was the same. >> That's what I'm saying, but what I wanted to see was that if this city part was done, the $9,000 was paid, then it would cost the homeowners the same tap and meter impact fee. Am I not understanding this correctly? >> Yes. But the difference was that what the chart that they got was based upon all 14 paying only $657 plus their tap and meter impact fee for $7596. That's what the original letter said. Now when they saw this chart and saw the $16,000 where it was only just one was going to be bearing that whole cost, really the policy decision for us, at least at that time, that the request to come back with options was do we make a policy decision to say we're only going to base what they have to pay upon either all 14 being in, no matter how many come in, or we base it on how many actually sign up and then there's some kind of reimbursement if there's an overcharge. And that was all discussed at the last meeting. >> Isn't that what option 1 and 2 were about today? >> No. Option 2 is about taking that line valve, main line, and pulling it out of the equation which reduces on 14, number of meters 14, you subtract that 7596 by 657 and that's what it's going to be that 69338. So this option wasn't discussed at the last meeting. >> That's why we're having it today. That's my understanding. We're having this discussion today because of that conversation last time. >> They're adding a different option. They could have come in here and said, okay, y'all need to make a policy decision. Is this 16,100 or this 9,204, is that divided by 14 and no matter who signs up, that's what they pay or do we wait and just do it on a single basis? But what they've done is staff has said, well, there may be another way to think about this that eliminates that policy question that you had altogether. Because if we paid the 9,204, the policy question becomes moot. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right. Yes. Councilmember Melcher. >> I would like to understand your response to the idea of payment options. I mean, I introduced the question of precedent and my thought would be that you would be establishing precedent for situations like this, which we know there are others of, where you've got private wells in annexed land where then you've got people who have got to find some way to bridge the gap, but I wouldn't have even contemplated that this means payment options for all situations at all times. So do you think that there's anything helpful in that or that really is an unconsiderable thought to you that payment options for this kind of situation? >> I don't think payment options is an -- being against payment options for me is not absolute. I think that would have to be really corralled with the tremendous specificity of facts and parameters because you can't base it upon income, you can't base it upon necessarily need because if someone's in this situation and they still got to pay $9,000, they may have the means to pay, does that mean we don't say but you can pay it out if it meets those certain parameters unless you use that as one of the parameters. And that to me is a -- I mean, that's a very lengthy discussion, so we can have that discussion maybe even before the 23rd, which probably might not be a bad option, but on its face, I think we have to be very careful in that regard because it might provide -- you don't want to incentivize people to create a situation that they may -- and these people did not. This community did not create this situation, but sometimes people can think around systems and things such as that, but no, I'm not absolutely opposed to it if it were really defined as to what that would look like. Okay. So let's -- we got to move on from this. Is everybody okay with gathering the information that we've asked for to see where everybody is on April 23rd and if there's something that comes up -- I mean, it's not like that's the only meeting that we can have. If something changes, we can certainly -- or do we still need to keep talking about whether we do it today or we do it at some other time? I'm okay with waiting until the 23rd and seeing who's going to sign up and information and then we can do it at that time. And if I can briefly summarize staff's direction that we would go out and buy that meeting on or about the 23rd, if not sooner, that we would have more information on those concerns whether it's who's gotten a courtesy inspection, what movement has there been in that direction. Just so we can provide some -- probably certain level of cost certainty to the residents, would it be fair for staff to communicate that if there is movement seen in that regard, council would favorably consider that as they discuss this issue again on or about the 23rd. Unless we define what those parameters are right now, I would hate to make that general statement. Like if we said if half of the people fill out applications and sign up for service -- I'm just saying -- I'm just using that number. But to just say, hey, they may look favorably on it, I don't know if I would depending on the information that's gathered unless there's some certainty as to, hey, here's what would help me get to that place. Councilmember, I'm at your turn. I would not want to bind individual residents to the decisions made or not made by their neighbors. So I like the -- which is part of what I like about option number one is that the city is offering something, and then it can be up to each resident to decide to -- or I should say homeowner to make this call or not make the call. I'm very wary about, you know, tying any one resident down if others are -- however many, half or less or one, two, three, it doesn't matter. I would like it to be up to individual homeowners, and that is why I like option number one. And the timing of it being just that this is going to happen. To decide to give that direction today instead of waiting on the gathering of other information. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. Anybody else? I've already said mine. I'm sorry. Refresh my memory. It was option one to provide that level of consistency for the homeowner so that if -- no matter if one or 14 signed up, they would all be paying the same amount. It gives them -- they need to go get loans, they need to do something before that April date. They know exactly what they're in for. So you're saying give that direction today for option one? Yes. Okay. And if you guys need to set parameters, then I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get them water. Okay. Councilmember Davis. I'm happy with what you proposed, the April date, and that we revisit this conversation at that time. I agree with you. I'm very wary of setting parameters. Parameters can be easily misinterpreted. Giving kind of this general sense we're moving in a certain direction can be very easily misinterpreted. I don't want to give anybody false confidence that the city council is going to do something when we in fact have not committed ourselves to do that. So I prefer for a yes to be yes or no to be no, and we don't make that decision today. Councilmember Neltzer. Yeah, I'm comfortable with the idea of directionally saying that we would front it. I mean, I'm basically for what I said before, which would include, you know, requests of staff to help think through, you know, what might a boundable sort of payment scenario would be that would result in the same offer being available to each individual. So I agree with that sentiment as well, you know, that I think that's, you know, impact fees, we don't make people pay based on whether others act or not. All right. So you're saying to be able to give direction today for option one with the just additional request of, hey, see if there's any kind of payment option with certain types of parameters that would be available. Well, it's kind of really, too, with payments, right, because I mean, I'm -- Oh, okay. So you're wanting -- I apologize, you're absolutely right. So you're saying you want them to be responsible for that, but to provide some opportunity where there's some payment options that would help alleviate that large cost. Yeah. Stretching out over, let's say, the life of such a system, I think that would be maybe a starting point for thinking about the term, and to be thinking specifically about the extensibility of the idea to annexed private well situations, and if there's other bounds that ought to be introduced, you know. I misunderstood. I apologize for that. Yeah. Mayor Pro Tem. Yeah. So I would agree with the timing you've laid out. I think I want to be clear that the -- they do have water currently, and they are, using their words, okay with the current system, such that they ask to be extended for a year. So they're happy with what is on the ground now and ask that to be extended. So I think along -- if I take that instruction from them, to wait is not punitive because they're okay with how it functions currently. And I think it is important to, again, Councilmember Davis, you touched on it, be very clear and careful about our words. I think -- I don't know that enough people have latched on to what Councilmember Ryan said. Different distances, either same or different plumbers, there's a variable there that no one's really highlighted to say, even though there's some predictability on its face, that's not the end-all, be-all. And so that leads me to my follow-up request, given direction that it's option one, given we talk about it in 23 -- April 23rd. I would ask staff to educate me in a document, and let's make it English and Spanish version document that would kind of highlight those steps. So I'm ignorant to the process. So if staff could give me a document that says, if the meter's there, what is the process to connect to it? Just the city's process. Lay that out for me. It could be bulleted. It could be checkpoint. Just lay it out for me. And on the back side, do it in Spanish. But that's to educate me on what those steps are because obviously -- and you can just have a little icon, a dollar symbol if it's outside contract and there's a variable cost. And then that's a document I can look at when we have these conversations as a resource. So you're with revisiting this conversation on the 23rd based upon additional information and movement in the community. Yes. Okay. All right. Councilmember Ryan? Yes. I'm also with that because at this point, because we don't know easements, we don't know if anything other than the one lot on the corner there is even -- can even run their water lines. We don't know -- or if they're going to have to acquire easements over time and how difficult those might be. So I think I'm definitely good with the 23rd. Hopefully they can bring plenty of information back to us by that point. Okay. All right. All right. So it seems like work is continuing to gather that information so that when we get there, we have a good idea of where people are in the process and we can talk about it again. And then we've got the septic, I think, coming up. Yes, sir. So this is just an informational presentation on onsite sewer sewage facilities, also known as septic systems. So in short, any residents that receives water, any property that receives water must also have a means to dispose of that water. As a result, each green tree state's connection would require an offsite sewer system. What the city is responsible for with regard to septic systems is the permitting, permit inspections and complaint investigation. We do not do any ongoing inspections of septic systems. If they continue to work and operate, they continue to work and operate. We only get re-involved if there's ever a complaint, for instance, if you have wastewater running free across a property. There are lot size requirements according to the city code. The city requires a minimum of a one acre lot if it's served by a public water supply. However, the state allows any land that was platted prior to 1988 to be grandfathered in so they wouldn't necessarily be held to that specific lot size requirement. Green tree estates was platted in 1973, therefore residents may operate, maintain, repair any offsite sewage facility systems on their current lots. New installations are allowed, but they have to meet all technical requirements of the state. One of the technical requirements I want to highlight is actually the separation distances. You do have to have a separation distance for any water line, and it's a specified distance for, depending on the different type of septic system you have. Smaller lot sizes, as you can imagine, generally reduce the locations within which water lines can be placed. So if you have an existing septic system and you are putting new water lines, new public water lines on that property, there are areas where you cannot lay that water line, and of course the smaller the lot size, it's less room to work in. In addition to the water line setbacks, you also have property boundary setbacks and a host of other technical requirements that can be discussed with individual property owners if and when they decide to connect and run their private service lines from the meter. What I was hoping was, and we might want to send it out in an email and also to the residents, is just a summary of what those state requirements are. We can send that out. Because I think there's a, there's also, is the only requirement as far as lot size is that this, that separation distance is met, or is there, you have to have a certain size lot to have a septic system together with public water. So that's very important because then that lets people know, because what I'm hearing you say that right now by law, they, these 7,500 square foot lots can have a septic system on it. Grandfathered in, so they can repair, but if they have to go to replace one, then it has to meet the current code, the state code, of septic systems. It doesn't have to meet the city's code of one acre and those kind of things, but it does have to meet the state code. Is that correct? I'm actually going to defer to Scott on this. Scott with Founded Development Services, yes, they have to meet the technical specifications which are in the state law, and we've just increased the size of the lot to make sure that we have capability for if they have to build a secondary field, et cetera. But the standards are the same either way, new or existing, if they had to replace a system, they still have to meet the setback distances. If they have a functional system today, they can prove it's functional, they're okay. Right, right. So the state doesn't have a minimum lot size for a septic system with public water? They do, but this is the pre-plating to '88 that allows for the reduced size. There's just a lot of technical requirements that go with it. Okay, so sometimes I just learn by example. I've got a lot out there. Right now, my septic is working, and it's not an aerobic system. It's a regular, what is it? Lateral line? Yeah, anaerobic. Yeah. Which is the one you have the tank and it sprinkles it? Is that anaerobic? Aerobic. That's aerobic. Okay. Yep. So it's no longer functioning, and I go to replace it, and I have to meet the state specifications. Does the state require, whether it's aerobic or anaerobic, can you put in the same sort of lateral lines, or do you have to go with the aerobic system per state regulations? Well, I can't answer that in the City of Denton, so I don't know specifically, so whether Kenny can answer that, or Heather? I don't know if anybody can. Yeah. Well, okay. Because I thought in the city, for this particular situation, because it was platted before '88, the city's codes don't necessarily apply, it's just the state. So the state code for existing small lots will allow replacement or repair alteration extension if it was before that 1988 date. Our code came into play in 2006, so that's when we extended that. So for the state, it's a half acre and an acre. Yeah, but that doesn't apply to this. It does not apply to this, because they're platted before. Okay, so let's take the city code off the table. So then the state law allows, since it's grandfathered in, that they can come in and replace that with a system of their choice. Not exactly. Okay. What do they require? That's where the technical requirements come in. A designer, either a professional engineer or a registered sanitarian has to come in and design a system for that lot based on all sorts of different criteria. And soil is one of the things in Denton that drives us to have to have the ATUs, the aerobic systems, with the surface irrigation. Because the soil can't handle the lateral lines, it's kind of methodological. Exactly, because it's clay or we have water too close or we have a restrictive horizon, which would be rock. And I appreciate that. That's very good information, because what you're saying is that if one goes out, there is the opportunity and the right to come put one on, as long as through a professional engineer or a registered, what do you call them, sanitarian, they design a system that would be functional on that lot if it meets the state guidelines of separation and so forth? Yes. All the other requirements. Okay. All right. That's very important. And that's why I said if we could provide some kind of summary of those state requirements, because I think those can probably be somewhat burdensome, or we can't provide that. They are, and I can. So systems are broken into two parts, the treatment system and the disposal system. Both of those sections have two different sets of requirements, and the disposal systems have -- there are several different types of disposal systems, and each one has its own set of requirements. And I can show you setbacks for each one of those, but as far as the other technical specification, it gets real deep into the weeds about size of the house, how many people, how many bedrooms, and so it could go on forever. No, and I appreciate that. Suffice it to say that when one needs to be replaced, it doesn't sound like it's an absolute guarantee depending on the configuration of the lot, the water lines, the soil, the number of people, all these factors, it's not that it's an absolute guarantee that you will be able to install the new septic system given all these technical requirements at the state level. Correct. Okay. I just want to make sure that we make that clear, and that's nothing that the city is prohibiting. No. Those are the regulations that are provided for by the state. Correct. All right. Thank you. Well, just picking back up. So there are certain times when we would discuss septic with the property owners over at Green Tree Estates. The first is during the courtesy inspections where we'd provide guidance on their septic systems. We would also do a little bit of a more thorough inspection with the customer service inspection prior to connection, as prior to the meter set. And then during the plumbing inspection, that's when a lot of those technical requirements with regard to specifically water lines, making sure that we're not violating a setback distance with a water line, when that would come into play first by the licensed plumber determining that they're placed appropriately, and then by the city upon inspection. We've already received direction on the first item, and then this is primarily just a summary, and we will absolutely get those specifications out regarding septic systems to the council and to the residents. I want to make one correction to the last line on the slide. Must meet all state and local regulations. If you're referring to local regulations of septic systems, what I thought I just heard is the city regulations don't apply to this development because it was platted before 1988. Is that, am I understanding that correctly? I just want to make sure everybody's clear, because that will avoid a lot of confusion in the future. We have some other issues with separation from water lines, setbacks, etc., which may be some of our regulations. It would be in both places. I thought, though, one of the first slides said that if you were grandfathered in, you could have it, but then you're saying -- go back to the first slide, please, if you wouldn't mind. I just want to make sure I understand. The sewer -- yeah, there we go -- the next one, maybe -- oh, no, there it is. The last line says state allows any land platted prior to 1988 to be grandfathered in, if you'll go to the next slide, all right? Must meet all the technical requirements of the state, but it doesn't say that they must meet any technical requirements of the city. So do they have to meet -- like this separation you're talking about, separation distances? Yes. So the state prescribes separation distances, is that correct? We'll have both the state as well as our local code. They're the same, but there may be other provisions within our code of ordinances that may have some impact upon this. That's unrelated to the installation? Not specific to the onsite septic system. Okay. All right. I just -- because we're talking about septic systems here, and if there's other codes that may affect that that don't relate to this, because my understanding was when I read this was because they're grandfathered in, that it's really the state requirements that are the ones that they have to abide by, separation and all that. So if we -- yeah, is that -- we don't have to get -- I just need clarification on that. Do you have clarification -- yeah, okay. Thank you. Because, you know, the residents are here, and I want to make sure that we're all here in this information at the same time. Sure. I'm sorry. I don't think I introduced myself. I'm Heather Goins, Pre-Tubment Program Manager. So, right. So our code went into effect in 2006. So anything that we make more stringent went into effect in 2006. And those items are the lot sizes. So we bumped it up a half acre, an acre, so an acre and two acres. And then also we have some maintenance requirements for some specific types of systems. But as far as the technical requirements, we did not change anything there except for the lot size. Okay. All right. So those would apply. But if -- like, I think you have to provide a year -- a contract -- A two-year maintenance contract for an ATU for the aerobic systems. That is a state requirement. Okay. So primarily state, there may be some city ones that are not as restrictive, but there may be some. I'm just trying to get people to understand that what is really going to apply to the replacement of -- these are old. I mean, these septic systems are old. We only have two permits. We don't have any information on location or type, size, anything on those out there. Right. So that's a good question then. Right now, since there's existing septic systems that are grandfathered in -- in other words, they don't have to have these lot requirements and so forth and so on. So the requirement for inspection and the requirement for a maintenance contract, is that one that, even though they were platted before 1988, that they would be subject to? Just for aerobic -- For the maintenance -- Just for aerobic? Correct. Not the lateral line one? Mm-mm. Okay. All right. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. That's helpful. Well, we don't -- he was asking about proof that it's -- that it's functioning. We don't go out and proactively inspect and we don't get maintenance reports for those regular septic systems, the conventional ones. The only time we go out is if we have a complaint or if the homeowner calls and requests it. Okay. All right. Or if they're replacing it with an aerobic one, then that's when those other regulations kick in. Correct. And then they pull a permit and then we go out and do construction inspections and -- Right. Okay. Yeah. Fantastic. Thank you very much. Council Member Briggs? I just wanted to -- while we're trying to get clarification for the residents and homeowners since they're here, since staff recommended option one and council did not at this point choose that option as a majority, I missed what the next steps were and what day this was going to come back. Well, I think what the direction was, at the latest it would be April 23rd when we set that date at the last meeting to try to have as much information as we could and that conversation stemmed from what happens if we come to May 22nd and there's people in the pipeline that are sort of in the process, can we -- you know, do we have some time to maybe let those run through instead of extending it another year? That's why we chose April 23rd. That date, and I just said this one would provide us an opportunity to revisit to see where everybody is, to see what the need is, but if something certainly arises before that, we can schedule another meeting to discuss that. So just April 23rd would be the day that we review these options, option one and option two? Right. Together with the information that we've received on who's done what, who's ready to sign up, is there any payment options that this council would consider based upon certain parameters and we could even, you know, maybe -- so, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Armitage? So I know that it's kind of a question at mayor's discretion, but in the past there have been some meetings where Green Tree residents have come to the work session where we normally don't have input, and I wanted to ask if anybody has any -- any of the residents have any questions or anything they would like to say, and if that's the case -- I'm going to ask that they submit those to us because we've had two or three meetings and I think what I've seen is the information is very similar, so I think that we've got given staff charge to go out and continue to interact and to find information, to find solutions to get, you know, some ideas of where we are, and so, no, we're sort of short on time and I think we've heard in that respect, so -- and they can come any time during city council meeting during either scheduled citizens reports or open mic or if we have some type of agenda item, action item in the regular council session. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ryan. Just kind of basically for the record, the 23rd is a Thursday, so is there anyone opposed to changing it to 21st? Of course not. It's actually on a Tuesday. No, no, no. Of course not. No. Of course not. Just so it's on the record. And it's sooner. That's good. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Fantastic. All right. We will -- let's take a little quick five minute break and we'll come back with agenda item 3D. So we're probably going to move agenda item 3E to another work session date, so -- welcome everybody back to this meeting of the Dent City Council on Tuesday, February the 18th, 2020. It is 328 p.m. We're moving down through our work session reports and as I announced before our adjournment, our break, we're going to go ahead and move to agenda item E. So we'll move on to agenda item 3D, receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the development of Hunter and Coal Ranch master plan -- master development plan. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Ethan Cox. I'm the director of public works for the city. My pleasure to bring this matter before you today. We've done a couple of work sessions already regarding this planned community. As before, both Brian Carlock and OC Vester here from Hillwood and Stratford respectively, they brought a battery of consultants, attorneys, so have we, so I think everybody is loaded to bear. We should have a pretty productive work session. Just kind of a little bit of a reminder of what we covered. We had two discussions back in December regarding this development. The first was regarding the master plan community itself as well as some of the land uses and zoning. On the 17th, we talked about the MMD powers and also previewed some of the terms of the agreements. And so for this work session, really what we're going to try to dive into is some of the studies that the city commissioned to kind of evaluate this development and we'll also talk about some of the salient terms in the agreements. I think we broke a record with 52 attachments for this item, so I know you all have had a lot to review. Also note that there will be a project and operating agreement incoming as we talk about next steps. That being said, this is a lengthy and a dense presentation, so I'm going to try to move swiftly through it just to make good use of your time, but please do stop me if you have questions and if I can't answer it, I'll call the appropriate party to the podium. In terms of background, most of this is the same as we've talked about in the last two presentations. I do want to remind council that the MMD, while it was approved with enabling legislation last summer, it does require action from the council in the form of a consent resolution to actually activate the district. If that does not happen, then the sunset date for the enabling legislation is December 31st, 2020. I talked about today's discussion. We do have a few follow-up questions from 1217 that I'll hit off the top. David will come up and talk about one of the studies, and then I'll return to the podium and knock out the rest of this, so that's kind of our points of order today. In terms of questions from the 1217 work session, one of the first questions that we had had was district meeting locations, particularly in the early days of the development. Where were those meetings take place, and so there is language in the operating agreement now that the meeting location will be City Hall or another approved city facility. Until the district does one of two things, it either contains 100 residents, or five of 50 qualified electors residing in the district request the meetings occur within the district, and that's whichever is sooner. In terms of MMD disclosures, I believe Mayor, you had asked a question about how that's communicated in title searches. The MMD is required to file a notice to purchasers in the deed records, and also sellers in the future will also be required to furnish that notice to a buyer as well. Applicability of the city ethics policy to the board of directors also came up. To the degree that it's not in conflict with laws and TCEQ rules governing the MMD, the developers have agreed to adopt those standards for the districts. There was a question about recreational activities being restricted within the gas well reverse setbacks. To address that, all parks have been removed from the reverse setback areas, so those are in compliance and will be operating as elsewhere in the city once the development takes hold. Lastly, are there different gas well setbacks in the MPC as opposed to elsewhere? Both developers have committed to the new gas well standards in the 2019 DDC, as well as the recently adopted amendment, which I believe is the 500 foot reverse setback. So before we dive into the studies, I'll pause real quick to see if there's any questions on the councilmembrometer. In the future, if there are changes to the gas well ordinance, they would have to adhere to those too? I'll need to defer to legal on that question. I'm going to ask Cynthia Kirkoff, Deputy City Attorney, to answer that question. She's been working on the MPC ordinance. Hello. The answer to that question is that the many DDCs that have been submitted to the city, once those are approved, those are the final documents, so that we'd have to amend those. They would have to agree to amend those in order to change anything with the gas well setback. So this is outside of setbacks, or in addition to change in setbacks, say there's something about new changes to other aspects of the gas well ordinance about, say, inspections. I'm just throwing that out there, for instance, something that doesn't necessarily involve setbacks. Right. If it's part of the many DDCs that will be acted on, then that many DDC will have to be amended. It's a standalone development code for each project. Got it. Okay. So the consent of the board, the developer, the governing body of the DDC. Are you talking about the district? Yes. No. This would be the governing document for coal. Ranch would have its own, and Hunter Ranch would have its own. So those would have to be, their development codes would have to be amended. Yeah. I apologize if I'm not articulating this correctly, but we'd have to amend both of them. Okay. Got it. I understand. If there are future changes made to our gas well ordinance, then whoever is in control of the development at that time, say 10 years from now, if it's still, obviously, vest or Hillwood development, then they would have to more or less agree to come forward with an amendment as well. Got it. Thank you so much. So we're going to dive into the, oh, I'm sorry. Just real short, I just want you to kind of set the expectation for who did the reports, right? So we're going over the report data, but if you can set the context going in so everyone kind of knows connections and kind of sets that that affects evaluation of the information. Reflecting the studies and the analyses that have been performed. Correct. All right. Who did it? Obviously, I understand it to be a third party, but I'll take your kind of summation of that. Sure. Sure. So there's going to be four studies that we're going to highlight today. You do have detailed reports as some of your first four attachments in there. The first one is going to be David Gaines. He's going to go through the fiscal analysis. That was conducted by Tischler Weiss. The second one that we're going to cover is the transportation study, which was covered by HDR. The third is going to be the water and wastewater analysis, which was conducted by Freese and Nichols. And then lastly is a city facility needs assessment that was conducted by Quorum. Okay. So with that, I'm going to hand it off. I'm sorry. Now go. Council member Briggs. Did the city pay for all of those studies? It's basically funded through an escrow account by the developer. The city selected the firms and the developers agreed to fund the studies. Through that account. Thank you. So I'm going to hand it off to David. He's going to give you a few slides on the fiscal analysis, then I'll come back to the podium and walk you through the rest. Good afternoon, David Gaines, director of finance. As Ethan mentioned, Tischler Weiss, a consulting group did our fiscal analysis of the MMD developments. The entire analysis is obviously included as a backup and about an 80-page analysis and also a supplemental analysis that goes along with it. I'm obviously going to be touching on those that are very high level over the next few slides. Also during this fiscal section of the presentation, I'm going to talk about another tool that's currently in the operating agreement for consideration. So first talking through the study and at a high level what the study was intended to do, the fiscal impact study, it really was there to say do the revenues sufficiently cover the costs that we anticipate from the developments from the MMD into the future? Are the incremental costs that we take on as a city at the same level of service covered by the revenues that are brought in? So to do that, and again, in the study itself goes into significant detail of what all those cost estimates were, what the assumptions were with each of those cost estimates. But they look at every operating cost that we have now and apply different factors to them based on the category of cost they are and anticipate what those would be in the future from salaries to operating costs and the different methodologies that are appropriate with those. Also look at the capital costs that we would expect with the development as we move forward. Those are going to have different benchmarks where new vehicles come on board, new facilities are needed and things like that. The study in particular is really a derivative of those other studies, the HDR study, the freezing nickel study and the quorum study. The pieces within those studies were directly influenced, the fiscal impact study itself. Touching quickly on the revenue projections, sales tax revenue projections were based on the developer's assumptions on what that mix of commercial would be and the amount of revenue we currently receive on a square footage basis from what we have in our current stock throughout the city. And then property tax and utility rates were held steady throughout the study. In conjunction with that, on the expense side, there was no inflation included. So for the purpose of this study, having both those levels gives us a more accurate picture of what the ultimate impact would be, not necessarily what things are going to look like in 15 years because obviously rates and property taxes are going to change, there's going to be inflation. But for an apples to apples comparison, that's what was used in this study. A clarification on the facility capacity, because I see that associated operating costs are on there and you mentioned salaries, but does that account for salary increases year over year and benefits and all of that, is that all included as well? Right, so we didn't do no salary increases, it was the same thought with all the inflation where the costs are kept steady throughout the entirety of the analysis, but also the revenues are kept steady. So that we know those factors are going to be there in the future, but once you start playing with one of those variables in a study like this, it gets difficult to project out for 20 or 30 years. And definitely we have Tisha Rice here to talk about that methodology if you want some more detail on it. Well, yeah, I have my thoughts on that, but we can continue, but that's good to know. Thank you. So here's the high-level summary of what the analysis looks like. You know, the numbers you see before you are based on the developer's assumptions on their growth year over year, what they project is their values, what they project is their mix of commercial development. To answer the first question that we asked is do revenues cover the cost? The answer is yes, based on the assumptions that we talked about last slide and the projections that the developers provided, obviously, so these are in thousand-dollar increments, so the general fund has a significant positive impact of close to $500 million electric at close to $286 million, having the biggest impacts. And really when you look at that first slide of general government, that's just directly driven from the increased property tax, ad lord taxes we'll receive, and the increased sales tax we'll receive versus the cost that we plan on, that we would anticipate to bear in the general fund. One, I think it's important to note, as we say, you know, we'll bring in $860 million from this development. That's going to be a year-to-year decision. Obviously, it wouldn't necessarily be that we're going to take in that money and go into our funds. It would impact the decisions that are made with utility rates and property taxes and things like that. Sure. You know, they're sort of different documents, different appendices, and so I didn't track back to this one, but isn't there another document that shows that it's a net $7 million average per year? So in over 40 years, you know, even without time value and so on, that's $280 million. So how do I tick and tie it back to that? I think, I'm not sure exactly which number you're referring to, but I can talk a little bit. Yeah, that'd be great. I can talk about it on the next slide as far as another scenario that we have. I do want to point out, obviously, water, wastewater, solid waste are not quite as dramatic as electric and general government, and a lot of that's really the capital cost and just different cost estimates that go along with each of those funds, but overall a positive impact to each of the funds. Either in this slide or in another, however better fits the presentation, but could you speak to ongoing maintenance costs and where those are baked into the study, and then also to the extent to which eventual replacement costs are baked into the study? We know everything we build has a life to it, so if you could just tell us, either here or in another place, how those are factored in. This is a great time to touch on that, and obviously for any of the specifics or detailed questions, Tisha might come up and talk about the methodology behind it, but at a high level, it says we have our operations cost for the city right now, we know what our population is right now, we know what our service level is right now. As we add, say on the general government side, as we add residents, we anticipate an incremental increase will be appropriate. Now, it's not going to be as simple as I said, each line item has a different assumption behind it, but that's the thought is as each resident comes in, there's going to be a marginal increase in the cost, not only on salaries, but also on operations, each one of those line items, and it's going to be the same thing with capital, I think the difference with capital is you kind of hit thresholds where you need more, where every X number of residents that come on, you need another vehicle, you need another building, you need another fire truck, things like that, versus the operations cost can be more kind of a marginal increase as employees come on, so each one of those line items have their own assumptions with them to try to say here's, it's kind of viewed as here's the cost of service, here's the service level we're providing now with the cost that we have, each resident that comes on, we're providing the same service level, here's the cost that we would expect with them. Does that answer your question? It does, and when you say that we kind of know our margins and our marginal increases with population, does that, the second part of my question was about replacement costs by the time this thing is built out, we're talking 40 years down the, I mean we're basically taking a factor that's known from our current city budget and our current population, our current road maintenance schedules and those kind of things, and kind of extrapolating it out over that course of time? Right, exactly, so every variable we have, even the replacement schedule, so even if we say we're going to get a vehicle in year five, we know that by year 20 or less than that on a police vehicle, year seven we're going to need a new police vehicle, so that's all baked into the assumptions as they move forward, essentially say here's the level of service providing now, here's how we would keep that level each year into the future. The reason why I ask the question is because the concern I've heard is 40 years out we've got a fully built out project, it's got a tremendous amount of new infrastructure, you know built out over time, a tremendous amount of infrastructure that the city is maintaining, I guess my overarching question is, is that concern addressed and built into the analysis that's being done here that we're going to be able to afford it year two, year 10, and year 40? It is, I mean that was the whole intent of the study was to do that, when we talk about large capital projects, there's some impact to be considerations, which I have a couple of slides on which are a little bit outside of the study itself, but that was the intent is as best as we could with the information we have, here's what we would estimate year 10, year 30, year 40 of cost coming forward. I think the question, to be a little bit more specific, with the utility funds it's going to be a little bit easier to answer that question because everything's kind of funneled through a cost of service, which includes all of that replacement, the debt service, that sort of thing. The issue is going to be with the general government, and part of my concern is if we don't figure out a way to account for this, as long as the average EAV of a home out there is significantly higher than it is to the rest of the city, it should never go negative. The question is if we start, if we don't find a way to account for this, a dollar starts over time, let's call it year 15 or 20, when you start getting some real population density out there, it starts subsidizing other parts of the city, you're going to end up the same place we are today. So that's really going to be the key is the companion with this is going to be some kind of an accounting method for that particular area to make sure that as it gets fully more built out that you have a very common level of service because early on because of the MMD, there's going to be this influx of EAV new taxes in without the corresponding service demands and it's going to be real easy to allocate that other part of the city. That's going to be the issue with the city and setting up that kind of an accounting system long term, but the utility funds are really not, we're not so concerned about that because of the way we recover them through our cost modeling. So if I'm understanding what you're saying, that's about the city being able to keep its hand out of the cookie jar early on and figure out how we're going to manage this influx of cash. There's going to be so much money early on, we've got to figure out how to responsibly manage it so that we are doing the same responsible things as the amount of money kind of tightens up. Yeah, I think the discussions we've been having the last couple of summers regarding, this is an example, absorbing the wastewater treatment plant, water treatment plant expansions, we started looking at five to eight years out and making some real assumptions in year 10. That's going to have to start being done on the general government side because there's going to be a natural ramp up as population density hits certain points, there's going to be a ramp up of services that are needed out there, which is part of the reason we pushed so hard to put the police station, substation out there, but that is going to be the issue is there's going to have to be some dollars that are always kept in this area to ensure that as it gets more dense and more built out that we're not taking from other areas of the city heading back here. So it's just got to be managed very carefully. Like a capital sinking fund or something for that area? Very well could be and that's a good way of handling it. Also you might have an ongoing expense sinking fund that might need to be done in order to smooth. We've had to do this in other jobs we've had where we've integrated large TIFs into a city for instance now to make sure that everything is kind of kept even. But that that kind of a model is going to need to get set up. Thanks. Just as a heads up, I'm giving us till about 530 on this because we got a couple of closed sessions we want to get to before the 630 meeting. So we're going to answer all the questions. But I'm just. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, just for clarification, because that was one of the things I was interested in is making sure that we are collecting enough for operating staff salaries for the future that that's built in. But what I heard you say was that we were using current models. And so the concern is that our current model isn't even capturing all that we need to do to sustain the services that that were or the streets. And so I mean, is that no, no, that's that's what I was that really applies to our current condition. This Council member Davis was asking a little slightly different question there. And that is when you start mixing all the E.A.V. together, this area will be subsidizing other parts of the city if the housing E.A.V. projections out there are accurate. And so the question is going to have to be how do we set up this model to ensure that as population density starts occurring, that we've got the dollars out there to provide the service and that the current residents issues are are also handled in a fair manner. Otherwise, you can start having a balance. It's just going to be a financial model that's going to need to be set up right now. Even their even their low case assumption, they're still exceeding the baseline E.A.V. values of the city. So that's going to put it by definition in a positive position. We didn't make one change to the operating expenses. And that one change was for public safety salaries, we bumped that up to what we currently have, anticipating that that's going to increase faster than other other salaries in the city. So the baseline for the analysis already had a jump up in our public safety salaries in our police position. Yeah, we ran we ran a scenario assuming that our public safety staffing would need to increase 25 percent over current population estimates or per capita estimates. And even then, it's still significantly positive. Yes, just to make sure I'm tracking, is that the stress case? Yes. That was in the regular case, not the stress case, the police 25 percent. The stress case only had to do with and I'll talk about that in the next slide. Police was in both scenarios. So at the aforementioned stress case scenario, we also wanted to say on the revenue side, if we don't hit the developers projections, what levers can we pull to see what this would look like if things don't pan out the way that that expectations are set. So we ran a scenario that had a 10 percent reduction in assessed value. So instead of hitting that $350,000 mark for home values, so $35,000 off of that. And we also adjusted the commercial mix instead of having 75 percent retail, bumped that down 50 percent, had 50 percent office. So we made that change knowing that that would reduce sales tax revenue and knowing that the ABs would reduce property tax revenues. So obviously, there's a number of changes that we can make. Those are the tools that we decided to do just for this analysis itself. And you can see just with the general fund, it bumps that total net impact down to $321,000,000 as opposed to the close to $500,000,000 that was there previously, so it's still positive. But it just shows that there are variables that could affect the way that the numbers turn out. So here's a very high level chart. This is all funds, general fund, all the utility funds together showing revenues over expenses. So the green line that you can see there are the revenues as they ramp up throughout the course of the study based on the assumptions of growth. So you can see those first two years as the houses start coming in, as development starts, and margins smaller, including capital expenses and operating expenses, but that delta between those, that gap, really increases as we go forward. As we get out to the out years, we've really stopped paying some of that debt service on the capital items, those significantly large expenses have gone off the books, and then we have a large gap there in the out years. So that was a very high level. Those slides really touched on the study itself and definitely answer any more questions on those. But what we wanted to do in the next couple slides or talk about the study really looked at the scenarios we had in front of us, looked at the marginal increases, the operating costs, looked at those capital costs, but they assumed on impact fee revenues that we would get all the impact fee revenues that we anticipate. And the risk that we lay out here on this slide and then the tool that we proposed to use to mitigate that risk is something that we have with any development that comes in. Any development that comes in that's a large development, we would anticipate to get impact fee revenues in. And what we're showing here is the risk that's inherent whenever we have one of those developments. If we put in a large capital project, whether it be water, waste water, or roadways, we have anticipation of bringing in impact fee revenues in future years to help pay for that asset, there is always the possibility that the water line gets put in the ground, the station gets built, and then the development falls off, the build out schedule doesn't meet expectations, and we don't have the revenue source that we were anticipating to help pay for those capital costs. So this slide is really intended to lay out what that risk itself is and then talk about how we plan to mitigate that to some degree. - Councilmember Armitage has a question, thank you. - Yeah, so it's fair to say that this, to get those impact fees and mitigate the risk, we would be hoping for more development in this area, or one would be hoping for this area to be further developed. - All the impact fee revenues that are considered here are within the development itself. - Okay, so this is just for within the development itself? - Correct. - Okay, so additional development in the area outside of this particular development would not, the impact fees would not apply to the general area in the same way? - Right now it could be in the same zone as we have today, but we don't have any development like this in Denton that represents this kind of risk. So one of the things that we talk through as a staff, when I was in Arizona and the recession hit, for instance, there was a number of communities that were really addicted to impact fees that couldn't pay the debts and had to go through tremendous rate increases when those impact fees didn't come through. So we created an impact fee mitigation strategy here that Dave will take you through as a contract tax. And the reason for that, the logic is there's so many projects here that are representing such a huge impact to the city that we needed a way to make sure that if the economy, if we experienced a recession or we experienced something, we'll get debt out there, a fund getting major off-site improvements to the site that we wouldn't be in a situation where we'd have to pass rate increases on to the tax payer or to the rate payers. So we created this tool with O.C. and Brian's assistance that would basically create a buffer for the city rate payers and that if we got hit with the recession, we wouldn't have to, because of a project that was specifically related to one of them, one of these 14 projects David's showing you that represent about $92 million, there would be enough of a buffer through the contract tax. We wouldn't have to raise rates on the rest of the city. So it was kind of an insurance policy for our residents knowing that that was a kind of a fear in the community. Yeah. Even in the case of a development drought or the... And this contract tax is collected and ensuring that we can pay the debt off that had been, it was supposed to be backed by water and wastewater roadway impact fees. So this, we've treated this development as if it's its own self-containable city and trying to insulate the rest of the rate payers. Okay. So I think Todd did a good job of summarizing that. I'll add just a little bit more to the contract tax itself. So this is a six cent tax that would be on the residence bills within the MMD, that would be in addition to the 49 cents that would go directly to the city to help us pay for identified impact fee eligible projects. So you can see those listed there of $91 million, roughly $91 million for 14 projects from water, wastewater and roadway. This is not all of the impact of the eligible projects that the district would pay for or be eligible for through our studies, but these are ones that have significant impact on the district and that we've identified to help us mitigate any of that risk of not getting impact fees revenues and ultimately having an impact on our rate base. So, question. I want to make sure I heard that right. Yeah. What you're saying is that this six cents, okay, I think in the presentation and I've seen it's 49 cents is what the proposed MMD rate has been, I think, for a long time. Is that right? Am I right on that? Correct. Is it? Yep. This would be in addition to that. Correct. Which would be another six cents added. Would it come in on the MMD rate, so that would make that a total of 54 cents? 55, correct. 55. Okay. All right. So, we're sort of right back where we started. To the 55. Right. That was the original number I think contemplated at the beginning, it went to 49, and this is an option to use the other six cents that had been contemplated at one point to help us mitigate that risk on the impact fees. Okay. So, that's paid no matter what. There's no trigger for that. It starts out with that, and if we're in good times, that's just additional revenue. If we never have bad times, then... Well, I think there's a couple... Yes, help me understand. Yeah. So, the way the impact fees work themselves, obviously we do our impact fee studies, we just determine how much do we want to collect on those impact fee studies. We can't double collect for these projects, so we can't have the impact fees so high that they're paying for this $90 million, plus paying the tax to double pay for the project. So, the anticipated revenue from the contract tax from this amount would reduce the impact fees within the study itself in the district. So, they would be paying less in impact fees to account for the fact that we're bringing this revenue stream in, but this is a more secure revenue stream and one that we can project out into the future so we don't run into a situation where we put a project in the ground and we don't have the $10 or $20 million in impact fees over X number of years to pay for. Any questions? Okay. Great. So, I just wanted to walk through what that would actually look like in practice because I know this is a new concept and one that we've been working through with the developers. So, this chart, and obviously this is just for example purposes, but this is what it could look like. The bar chart we have each year are the costs that we could anticipate from those $90 million of projects. Obviously, the first few years, we're not really seeing a large amount associated with those projects, but I'll take this final year here, 2034, as an example to show what the different segments of this bar chart represent. In this year, we could have $6.2 million of expenses, could be related debt service for a water project, could be related to a roadway project. We would anticipate this year, given the development growth assumptions we have now, that we would bring in $1.6 million from that 6 cents, so that $1.6 million would reduce the burden that we have from that $6.2 million, and the remaining $4.6 million would be paid with impact fees. So, instead of, if we didn't have the contract tax, obviously every one of these bars will be blue, and if impact fees didn't start to not come in here in '22, '23, '24, by 5%, we would be exposed to some degree, right? So, this just helps us mitigate that risk, basically the red portion of this bar chart helps us mitigate that risk. So, what I'm hearing you say, correct me if I'm wrong, is that, and this is the whole thing with impact fees in general, so we're collecting impact fees based upon studies, zone studies, what they should be, technically to fund capacity enhancements based upon the growth. In other words, the water impact fees, we're going to have to build more water lines, and this development is, that's what we've decided, this is how much it is per single family equivalent, yada yada. Correct. But, what I'm hearing you say is that, we're sort of, impact fees are, I'm not sure quite how to say it, if we just relied upon impact fees, then we wouldn't be getting impact fees in the out years, which we would have relied upon to continue to meet the debt surplus, this is what I'm trying to say. All right, because somebody brought this up one time. So, we're collecting impact fees in let's say 2028, for the development that's occurring in 2028, all right, according to, just whatever it is. I mean, just hypothetically, but when we get out to 2034 or 2040, we've incurred debt service to build capacities to deal with the 2028 and our projections, whether it be this development or something else in that regard. If that doesn't materialize, what we were relying upon were those impact fees in the future to continue to make the debt service payments that we accrued and incurred back in the latter years to, in advance of this development. And if they don't materialize, we're using them as a funding mechanism for the current debt service. So, you're saying this is a hedge against the debt service revenue that was going to be produced from impact fees. Exactly. And so, that was kind of what I was going to show with this chart from an earlier slide of, if we put this project in the ground in year seven, but then knowing impact fees are volatile, if the market, if we hit a recession in year eight, nine, and 10, we're not getting the impact fees we would anticipate. That's the risk that we incur. And again, that is a risk that we incur with any big development that comes into town and we rely on these fees. But given the magnitude of this development, the thought was, we have this contract tax which helps us mitigate that risk in the out years. There are obviously projects such as the wastewater treatment plan expansion that benefit everyone. And in most cases where you're sizing lines, there's a lot of folks to spread those costs out over. Some of these projects we've identified are so huge to just fund hunter and coal for the most part that you're in a position, let's say you hit a recession, you don't bring enough impact fees in. In 2034, as an example, if the contracts tax dollars aren't there, that's a $1.6 million fee that's got to be recovered through the rates. So your hedge is right. That's exactly the concept here. But also giving credit on the back end. Sure. But this is not how we do it. No. We've never used this. Yeah. I mean, if this were just to be developed in individual parts, if these weren't big 3000 acre developments, 400 here, 300 there, we wouldn't recommend it. Well, no, I'm talking about, I'm not saying recommend this. I'm just saying if this weren't the situation, these were just different landowners and we had a 300, you know, acre development, or we're not going to employ this, it should just be our standard process of impact fee collection. And then if it just gets down the road, okay, this is this is particular to this kind of context. Right? Okay. Councilmember Romerton and Councilmember Briggs. Yeah, it said earlier that it's recommended that the impact fees be reassessed regularly. That makes perfect sense to me, what is it, how, how often would that be? So we have to bring them back every five years, especially on the water wastewater side. In the agreement itself, given the way this contract tax is set up, it does allow for the MMD itself, if they, if there's something, their growth patterns change, because that obviously impacts the impact fee studies, it looks out 10 years, they can come to the city and ask for one update to that impact fee study within that five year window as well, particularly for them, so that their impact fees could be adjusted based on the anticipated revenue received from the contract tax. So the answer is, at least five years, but it could be more frequently, either at direction of council staff or the development itself could request. I mean, I would want more frequently for the city, especially considering the changing cost of construction being another factor, regardless of whether or not the development meets the future projection. Absolutely. A process kind of clarifying question, so earlier in the discussion, we were told that if you know, an ordinance was amended or changed, then the MMD would have to be approved that. So what about impact fees, is that separate? So would the MMD or the board have to approve that impact that just kind of over developers have agreed to whatever the current impact fees are, and they will buy buy as well as building codes as various codes that we've identified there. So they've basically they've helped us kind of work through some issues that we've had with with other developments. Another master plan community I can think of right now where we didn't make draw those kind of lines and give ourselves that flexibility. So we're constantly comparing back 20 years to see which code involved. So they helped us work through it that way to make it a little bit easier to administer all this and not have to renegotiate every time. So there's some that would be used on the regular that they would just go through and not have to approve each time? Yes, that's right. And one more other question. We were talking about this. Why do we stop at 40 years? When we when we're looking for all of this cost of what, what is the thing about 40 years? What happens after then? That is after they reach build out for a number of years and that was just kind of the number we were picked from from the build out schedule that was provided by the development all the way through the study that was it wasn't like year 41. Everything just goes crazy. Yeah. Okay. So question. Having tried to read through all the exhibits in the backup, I don't know if I clearly and readily identified which codes because what I'm hearing is these many as they're called DDCs, I sort of compare that to be invested, if they're vested, I mean, in 30 years from now, whatever the codes were at that time, not understanding building codes are probably so I would just like to get a clarification, just a summary on which specific codes are sort of set, they're, they're, they're finalized, and then which ones do continue to move along with the project. So plumbing code, electrical code, and those kind of things, but which ones continue to apply, our most recent codes continue to apply to that. And if there's a summary to say which ones don't, that'd be that'd be great, that'd be helpful. We'll put a matrix together. This is a chart that we've shown the past couple of times that this item has come forward to you. We've updated the MMD tax rate to $0.55 with the contract tax, but showing at various home values what a tax bill would look like at that home value for a residential, for a residential home at for someone not in this, not in MMD but within the city and then the total tax bill for someone within MMD and then in the middle there called out what that MMD tax would be with $0.55. So that because, I mean, this is sort of a different twist, right? So a couple of things on that MMD, it's $0.55. So then the contractual obligation to submit back to the city, the $0.06 is located in the operating agreements or whatever the agreements for that be contained, operating agreement. And so on this chart that you showed the hedging, the graph of the impact fees with the contract and that $0.06 is paid by the residents, the commercial businesses, the things that are within those MMDs. Correct. So the $1.6, the contract tax revenue, is that limited and restricted to just projects that serve the two MMDs exclusively? There's an exhibit K to the operating agreement has those 14 projects listed and that's the only project they can be submitted. And as I said, it's all okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. I hope I got that letter right. I think it's the whole alphabet. So the key findings from our fiscal analysis is that MMD provides a positive impact to the general fund. As we noted in those few slides that we went over at a high level, MMD will require the city to make citywide investments into our infrastructure, but we anticipate revenues will come in to cover those costs. Having all else equal, the MMD will not result in any rate increases in the utility funds and the contract tax utilization will mitigate the risk for those wastewater and roadway projects identified. So is the contract tax, we know what it is, but when it's presented to people who are purchasing property within the MMD, it's just this is what your MMD tax is? Or is there some caveat within that disclosure that part of this is this? Well, you know, it'll be similar to the way that residents here see their taxes now. They'll see their total tax rate, but as a board approves the tax rate, they'll be approving the six cents in addition to -- Okay, so it'll be broken out at the approval process. It'll be itemized. Right, but when they get their tax bill -- They might just say the MMD -- I don't even know how it shows up on the tax bill, but -- Any other questions on the fiscal studies, fiscal analysis? And just to address the 40-year projection, and I know that's the end of the life, but every budget year when we come forward with a five-year budget plan, we're always told a caveat of when you get out into the fifth year or the fourth year of that forecast, it's really becoming not just speculative or just throwing darts on it, but you have your assumptions. So you could have put in salary increases of 2%, but then you would have also gone, "Well, I've got to increase the tax revenue," because we also have that assumption. And it would've just been almost like a five-year forecast with a 40-year kind of -- and the choice was just to, "Hey, let's keep it even," understanding that those increases will probably be pretty much -- Right. Yeah, if we did inflation and salary increases on the expense side, we'd have to start doing A/B increase assumptions on the other side, and it's difficult to have those -- But when you get out three or four or five years, it's like you're just guessing. I think we can assume they're both going to happen. We're going to have inflation. We're going to have revenue increases. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so we're going to proceed through the remainder of the studies. The next one up is the transportation study. Really the objective of this was to assess the adequacy of the proposed transportation infrastructure. So there is some infrastructure out there now, roadways that are leading to this area, but there are significant assets that will need to be put into the ground. Some other things that were looked at whenever we looked at this study is what percent of the traffic is going to be related to this development. As we start moving through the presentation, David's alluded to some of those projects that are what we call city off-sites, that's infrastructure that the city will need to put in that will serve the development. As David stated, the developer will fund a proportionate share of those assets through both the impact being the contract tax, and so for both transportation, water, wastewater, we are looking at what's the proportionate impact that the development's going to have on this. And so as you see us go through this, we're going to be dividing up these infrastructure items between on-site and off-site, and we'll be subdividing those into, is it the developer paying for that, or is it the city paying for that? So if there's any confusion, stop me before we get too deep into the rest of the presentation. So for both transportation as well as utilities, we did utilize the land use projections as well as density estimates that the developers provided. So in these next couple slides, it's really just background on the assumptions that HDR used in terms of building out the transportation analysis. So for Coal Ranch, you've got about 9,000 residential units with the breakdown between single-family and multi-family here, and then you have commercial about 8 million square feet. Hunter is very similar in the residential units just north of 10,000 with 4 million square feet of commercial. One of the things that we touched on last time is there's certain positions where these land uses are obviously going to occur, and there's also phasing that the developers are proposing. And so as we start looking at those roadways, it's really critical that we figure out, okay, at phase one, what assets are we expected to be on the ground? And so the developers have put that together. That is going to be part of the exhibits that you all will see, whatever you consider this during the public hearing. So that leads us to what are basically the backbone infrastructure components that need to be there. We're really not focused. This study is not concerning itself with neighborhood roadways, so if it's strictly just a neighborhood street that's not contained in this report, really what we're looking at is arterials, secondary arterials, and collectors. So arterials, those are your six-lane roadways. You can kind of see those by the orange font up here, the burnt orange. The secondary arterials are your four lanes. Those are kind of the yellow dotted lines. And then your two lanes are your collectors, which are in purple right around here. As I stated earlier, we try to distinguish between on-site and off-site. Anything that has an R coded here, that is an on-site asset that the developer is 100% responsible for funding and constructing. You'll notice that some of these roadways extend beyond the development, come into the development, and then exit. The city will bring the asset to the development or improve it up to the development, and then the developers take that on from there in terms of responsibility. Question, will those be built to capacity when they're first built? No. So a couple of things that I'll get to here in just a minute that we ask HDR is we need to know what the capacity is, ultimate at ultimate build out, but we're not going to ask them to construct a six-lane roadway if only two lanes are required right now. Number one, it's probably not a good use of our maintenance dollars to be maintaining something that's not needed in the ground. So there will be kind of a phased component of that. In addition to just recommended roadways, the study did contemplate what's the required right-of-way. And so for instance, it may only require a four-lane roadway up to that 40-year point, but with additional growth in the area, it may need a right-of-way for six lanes so that future growth can be accommodated. Does that make sense? Yes, sir, and I would just put a pin in that to say I don't know what the prediction factor is. We have to stay in front of that. I mean, you look no further than 380 and getting in and out of those on to 380. I'm excited about the different routes, the options there if you go back. So there's different options to avoid 35W if whatever happens or traffic stacks up, whatever that is. It's just imperative that we stay in front of that, right? I mean, I think when you're looking at that, the premiums paid, that's for a reason, in my mind. In most of the cases with the larger roads, it is the right-of-way that slows us down, you know, and having to condemn properties, condemn -- so by kind of thinking that through a little bit more in the future, I think we can definitely, you know, greatly escalate on that end. But that is the time stuck on these big projects. One other thing to add on to that, as part of the platting process, there will be a transportation analysis done each time the plat or a phase is contemplated. And so whenever we're doing that, it's basically going to be a requirement for the developer to say you have the appropriate infrastructure in the ground before we ever approve that plat. So that's kind of the safeguard there in addition to the right-of-way that the city manager talked about. >> Councilmember Ryan and Councilmember Briggs. >> Thank you, Mayor. On this, you show Loop 288 as a primary arterial, and our mobility plan that we saw earlier for this area enlarged has it as a limited-access facility, which is going to be a different right-of-way. So I just would ask that we make sure that this and our proposed mobility plan line up properly. >> Certainly. I see pre-TAM stirring over here, so I'll let him talk. >> It's a pre-TAM nation with Deputy City Engineer. Yes, we have been coordinated, and we have talked to the developer there in coordination with TxDOT. They understand the right-of-way take is approximately 280 to 400 feet right-of-way take. It will start as a two-lane roadway in the beginning, and it obviously has phased approach towards implementing Loop 288, but it will be phased, and the right-of-way will be reserved right from the get-go. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> So on this infrastructure, roadway infrastructure, because there isn't a build-out, and we're doing it all pretty brand new, and I've mentioned it before with DCTA, but are we including public transportation in this, or is this just individual vehicles, and when we're looking at these different arterials, are we planning on where those access points will be? Are the streets wide enough for the buses, the different buses, I mean, are we thinking about that? >> Yes, absolutely. As part of our mobility plan as well, we're looking at some of these arterials that would become regional connectors for not just for vehicles, but transit, for we're talking about accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians. One of the things that is included in the report is the developer has agreed to follow the city cross-sections. The city cross-sections within our transportation criteria manual includes an entire cross-section for complete streets, so yes, we're looking at all modes of transportation. >> And even on the inner streets, the ones there, that would be the complete streets, but they would be built and big enough for all different modes of transportation? Okay, thank you. >> And just to let you know, DCTA Board did have a presentation from Hillwood, not just on this project, but just in general. The I-35 corridor is really engaged in conversation to continue to find ways to move the many people who are in that area and who are going to come to that area. So it may not be specifically to this yet, this discussion, but there is that ongoing relationship and connection of how can DCTA and Hillwood work together, because they're the major developers of that corridor from Denton to Alliance. >> As we talked a little bit earlier about the kind of proportionate use, so that's really what this map here depicts. It strips the boundaries off of the development, but just bear with me. So for project traffic, anything that's 90 to 100% attributable to the development is in dark green over here. I believe 100% of those in dark green are actually internal, what we'd call an on-site project that the developer funds 100%. Anything between 20% and 90% is a lighter shade of green. So there are some on-site roadways, like I stated earlier, that are extending through the development. FM 2449 is one example. We mentioned Loop 288. You also have the Allred extension, which is a little bit unique because the developer will be handling a portion of that, the on-site portion, and will be handling the off-site portion. And then like we talked about with the impact fees and the contract tax, for all of our off-site roadways, you'll see the proportionate use on our project list, and that really tells the developer, "Here's what we anticipate you needing to spend in terms of impact fees or the contract tax to fund that." So this, I know not everyone can read the table that's up here. Really the purpose of this table is to just kind of brief the council. When you look at your report, essentially what the consultant looked at is, what is our existing infrastructure, proposed infrastructure? What's the volume of traffic being added by growth, as well as Hunter Cole Ranch? And then based on what we have out there right now, what is the adequacy of that roadway? So they basically assigned a litter grade to those roadways, and then we asked them to go back and say, "Okay, if we want to maintain a standard of grade C or better, what is the roadway that needs to be put into place whenever that phase comes online?" And so that's ultimately what this chart communicates. We provided that to the developer, as well as their consultants, we're all in agreement on what the ultimate number of lanes, as well as the ultimate right of way, needs to be on all these assets. Last thing here is basically just the breakout of on-site roadway infrastructure versus off-site roadway. So on-site, again, that's fully funded by the development. That is all these projects up here. Off-site roadway is, again, funded by the city, but also with that proportionate share of impact fees and contract tax. Any questions on the roadway before I move on? Real quick. The ones down at the bottom that are funded by the city, funded through the impact fees and contract tax. But I know that they were limited, the contract tax was limited to the 14 projects, was limited to those 14 projects. I said, "Hey, this isn't going to be paying for it." And these are a subset of those 14 projects, or are these both city? I thought I heard you say that this is both city-funded and impact fee and contract tax funded. Aside from Loop 288, these are those projects that David was referring to. Okay. All right. Thank you. So Loop 288 is a tax dot project. Yep. There's no exposure there for the city. Yep. Thank you. Oh. I'm sorry. Councilman Briggs. So before we move on, I just want to piggyback on a comment that Mayor Pro Tem said that was a little concerning, your answer was that I thought I heard you say just to make sure that the ultimate build out of the roads aren't included in the, say if it's a four lane needs to go to a five lane or a six lane, that's not included in the projections if it needs to be done after a certain amount of time or even before a certain amount of time. Just to kind of put a finer point on that, what that means is, so let's say for instance, let me find one here, all red road east of John Payne, ultimate cross section is for a six lane right of way. If, say that's tied to phase one, phase one may only require, the density there may only require a four lane roadway at the outset. We really don't want the developer to build a four lane or a six lane until those two additional lanes are required, because as soon as that lane is constructed, then the maintenance clock is ticking for us. So ideally what we would do each time they come in with that additional phase, that will trigger another transportation study, and that transportation study will tell us when it's time to go from that four lane all the way up to the ultimate build out configuration. Does that make sense? It does from their side, but from our side out, if we need to do the ultimate configuration, we'll have the money to do it. What we're getting from this development will cover that cost, even though it's not assumed in the projections. Well I think all the projections that we have, the costs that we have here, again, this doesn't have inflation built into it, we'll talk a little bit about price tag here in a minute, but that's really what we try to contemplate, is not these interim steps of building the infrastructure and phases. The cost here that is reflected in the agreements is really that ultimate build out cost. So for utilities analysis, very similar to the roadway analysis, it's really looking at the impact that the development and necessary improvements that the development is going to require for our utilities assets. Many of the same assumptions were used, the developer build out schedule, we looked at historical demand as well as our city criteria manuals. So with that, Fries and Nichols helped us develop a capital improvement program, again, split out between offsite and onsite as well as developer and city funded projects. Much like roadways, a lot of these are going to be constructed based on the build out timing tied to phases of construction. Ultimately, what we ended up with is about 20 developer funded infrastructure projects split evenly between water and wastewater, and then we have 14 city projects split between the water and wastewater systems. In terms of the developer funded, again, those are going to be constructed 100% by the developer. They are in agreement with what we had come up with as part of Fries and Nichols assessment. For the offsite city projects, there's going to be that proportional financial contribution there as well. For water, this is kind of just a mix of what some of those projects look like. So we have two treatment plant expansions that I'll touch on in just a moment. You also have booster stations, transmission lines as well as another booster pump station. For wastewater, you have a plant expansion as well as lift station as well as a new interceptor. Talk a little bit more in depth about the water treatment plant expansion. So one of the things we looked at in terms of the growth that Hillwood and Stratford are bringing to our doorstep is, does that expedite what we already understand as a capital improvement need? And so I believe council was briefed this last budget cycle on the need to expand our water treatment plant capacity, and I think that in the out years that was really looked at is that will probably require a rate increase for water customers at some point. When we ran the analysis, or Freeza Nichols ran the analysis, we saw that that expedites that construction by about one year. So we took that back to the developers. What they've agreed to do is provide about half a million dollars of funding to kind of stave off a premature rate increase associated with that plant design. And so that half a million dollars, I'll revisit it here in a couple of slides, but that is really to prevent a premature rate increase. Council Member Meltzer. One thing I kept wondering as I was looking through this, I know we've got projections for population growth and therefore demand for wastewater, and this, I guess my question is reviewing coal and hunter as the fulfillment of that population increase and demand increase, or do we understand this to be additional to what we're already seeing? And I hear like, well, it's a little bit accelerated, but we're talking about more than a third of the city again, right? So that's, you know, sort of seems like familiar scale to what we kind of already think is coming, but that assumes, we're already assuming some growth in all the rest of the city too. We've got their absorption rates, estimates for the next two or three, four decades, and basically when I say that, I'm talking about the number of homes that they're looking at bringing on an annual basis, and we can kind of layer that in to what we've already been projecting. We did not assume that coal and hunter would supplant any existing growth that's going on in the city. We assumed it was all incremental too. So that's why we ended up moving the treatment plan up a year, and they've helped us, whenever you're in the phase where you've got a treatment plan on the way, you've got to start design and pre-design about five years ahead of time. So that was the purpose in helping us expedite the preliminary design, but this is all anticipated. It's in addition to the existing growth trends. Yeah, and it might be addressed on the next slide too, but regardless of the treatment plans and the facilities, I mean, do we have enough water in our supply? Will we continue to have? I remember a few years back we had, or a couple years back we had Dr. Banks give a presentation to us. You know, we were doing pretty good, but there's a certain period of time goes by that there's going to be something we have to look for in a drought, and are we looking at that and factoring in the water usage and what we have and what we'll need? I'll yield the podium to Dr. Banks for that one. And very succinctly and briefly, because I think what she's referring to is that, I know we had this discussion, but it was this worst-case scenario that we're required to do if there's like a 20-year drought or something like that, so go ahead. Just to make it succinct, my question is, how does this growth impact that? Okay. Good afternoon, Council, Ken Banks, General Manager of Utilities. Yes, we're planning for the water usage associated with this growth. When we're looking at the city as a whole, we're anticipating that growth is going to occur somewhere in the city. This area would grow in some form or fashion. In terms of our water rights, our additional approximately 6MGD total build-out that we got through our indirect reuse permit is going to be very helpful in the early stages of this. Eventually, keep in mind that we always plan for our water usage demand through Regency as a region. Eventually, we will get to a point where we will be purchasing water, most likely from the city of Dallas. My question is, is that assumption in this financial analysis? The purchase of the water? Uh-huh. Yes. Okay. Essentially, we think that this component of it is going to be capable of being dealt with predominantly through the indirect reuse, but yes, I mean, we've accounted for our needs for water rights of whatever forms within this analysis. Thank you. In terms of the consumption component of it and in terms of what we anticipate for cost. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Councilmember Nelson. I mean, just to kind of follow through logically, so Dallas, I assume, is expecting to grow as well. Correct. We do not have the incremental capacity to supply this population. That's correct. That's why we're required by the state to plan as a region and those plans are adopted regionally and deal with all the players in our particular region, which is Region C, as well as all of the other regions in the state. So to answer your question, yes, it is planned as a group adopted by, as a group and abided by as a group of water providers. And I don't know if this is accurate. So there's a new lake coming on board. Correct. And who manages that and does that factor in? It will be managed as part of the region. I'm not going to say categorically that it's not going to come into play for us. It's unlikely that it will, but there's always a possibility of inter-base and transfers and things of that nature as we go up into the future. So again, what we do is we meet every five years. We plan. We see where everyone is at growth-wise. We understand where everyone is at from a water supply standpoint. We plan for a drought of record with a safety factor. And then we do that again every five years. Any other questions for Dr. Banks? Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. A similar analysis was performed for the water reclamation plan expansion. This one's a little bit further out, but there is kind of that acceleration approach there if the growth assumptions hold. The difference here as opposed to the water treatment facility is this is far enough out that if the growth is not coming in, that we can adjust our plans in terms of the design construction of that. So really if growth does happen as anticipated, you're probably constructing the water reclamation plant in 2031 as opposed to 2036. The last study that we commissioned was a facility needs assessment. So obviously, like we talked about, this is a much larger development than the cities contemplated in the past. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Before we leave that last section right, I have two questions. One I guess city manager or whoever can answer it, what is the history of kind of these new master plans when it comes to identifying lines, et cetera? So it's brand new, right? So oftentimes now it's like, hey, we didn't know the line was there. Now this is all brand new. Obviously, there's some higher way to track that, kind of where we place that. So where I'm going is can we make it punitive if someone doesn't call in a dig test or someone hits a line going forward, right? There's no excuses. It's absolutely from scratch. We absolutely know where everything is and for someone to do that at that point should be punitive. I don't know what our options are to do that, but I want to try to stress that. I mean, because unless someone can explain that to me why that would be okay that, oh, we didn't know that line was there. I need help understanding that. I think we need to wait and have some legal research done on that down the road. Okay. Well, then just know, I'm going to ask that question repeatedly so that you can plan ahead. And then could you touch on what, if anything, Robeson Ranch kind of existing development ties into this and if it doesn't, that's fine. I just want to kind of understand that. Yeah, I think this did factor in essentially system-wide assets in terms of when are these facilities needed. So kind of this blue bar right here, that's your existing customer base and then growth is layered in on top of that. The yellow here is Hunter. The green is Cole. So Robeson and their build-out is also factored in as part of that growth. Does that answer your question? Well, yeah, but do they not have kind of existing infrastructure that we're going to either redirect or take over? No? Yeah, and I think we can ask Kenny Banks to answer that real quick. Sure. Yes, the Robeson community currently has a small batch plant that services the existing community. The intention is to take that batch plant offline and basically route the sewage from the existing residents through full build-out to the Pecan Creek facility. And at some point, depending on how growth occurs in the area, we will probably be looking at another wastewater plant located in the Hickory Creek Basin. Ethan alluded to that a little bit earlier, and depending on how growth occurs at Robeson compared to everything else, there may be a portion of that that's directed to the new plant. It's all contingent on planning for the growth and how the growth actually occurs. And if I may, taking that plant offline, if you will, that's a net positive, I assume, for just maintenance costs, et cetera? Absolutely. Yeah. There's two issues going on. The capacity of that plant will be reached at some point in the not too distant future, depending on the growth pattern of Robeson. And essentially it is a long way out. It's kind of a satellite plant that we have to service and maintain. And so by putting this new system in, we'll be able to essentially route that all to Pecan Creek, preventing us from having to go out there, having to worry about two permits instead of just one. So it is a net positive. It's a net positive for Robeson, too, because of the cost. To put in the new plant would be very expensive for them. This is a better option for them. Excellent. Thank you. Sure. Council Member Reese, did you have a question? I did. It was a follow-up. Thank you, Dr. Banks. Appreciate it. Ethan, yeah. In the back of the slides, you said that the developers were going to cover half a million dollars to stave off a rate increase right at the beginning, but I didn't get how long that would last. So essentially the growth from both Hunter and Cole is accelerating the timetable for that design and construction by one year. And so essentially it's a $500,000 convenience to the city to prevent that rate increase happening that one year earlier. For them or for us? It keeps our pro forma whole in the five-year pro forma that we put together. So it mitigates a need for a rate increase by expediting that planning exercise. For the current city customers? For the current city customers and the current five-year plan. Okay. Just a quick point, David Gaines caught me on that. That $500,000 is eligible for impact fee reimbursement to the developers, and so they are affording that money, but as the development comes online, they will be reimbursed. All right. So city facility needs assessment, like I stated a second ago, this is like adding a small town on the southwest side of the city. So a few things that we wanted to make sure that we understood, obviously with this development going in, that's going to require additional employees, additional equipment, and as you have those things, you need office space, you need parking, you need storage. So we did bring quorum in to really kind of look at our current facilities as well as assess the needs for servicing this area on that side of town. So currently our service center is at maximum capacity. So as we evaluated that, really some of the operations we were looking at were streets, drainage, water, waste water, parks, solid waste, et cetera. So they assisted us with really a very preliminary design to determine what kind of acreage we would need, and also think about do you have some other needs that you might need to contemplate in that area. Ultimately, this is just kind of a rough sketch of what we would need to have in that vicinity. The recommendations there were to acquire 35 acres for a future service center. For solid waste, because there is a lot of lost efficiency traveling back and forth to our landfill, we also are recommending 15 acres for a future solid waste transfer station site. That's something that Real Warrant, a separate pro forma, based on the direction that the council gives on this development, is certainly something we can take back and take council direction on. But the developers have agreed to be obligated to fund 50% of the land acquisition costs for both of those property purchases. Are you talking about a mini landfill? No, a transfer station is basically just that. Waste or recycling is brought there. Think about it, the recycling center is essentially a recycling transfer station. Materials are all brought to one facility, they're sorted and sent their separate ways. And so from a waste standpoint, what this would do is prevent our basically neighborhood trucks from going back and forth to the landfill multiple times a day, you'll lose two hours of efficiency pretty easily that way. So the way these function is you would bring the waste to this facility and you put them on larger trucks to transport the waste or transport the recycling is really what that does. Provides a more efficient operation. Council Member Armitage. In the future, if there is municipal composting, residential and commercial, something like that, would the residents and businesses in Cole Hunter Ranch be automatically ushered into that? Or would it be something like as with the gas fill ordinance they'd have to? I think from a utilities and service standpoint, they're going to be just like any other customer. Okay. So whatever changes there are correct. So that wraps up the the studies. What we're going to move into now is just a real high level review of some of the salient points of the project and operating agreements. Let's take a real quick five minute break since we've sort of got a natural break in there. Thank you. Welcome back. Welcome, everybody back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, February the 18th, 2020. It is 4.50 p.m. We're going to resume back with our work session reports, work session item three D. Thank you, Mayor. So quick time check. We have, like you stated, about 40 minutes left and about 17 slides. So we're going to put the throttle down and go. Parties and agreements. Just a quick briefing or overview or reminder of kind of the parties and all the agreements that are tying the parties together here. So obviously we have the City of Denton at the top. We have a project agreement between the City of Denton as well as the developer slash owner being Hillwood and Stratford. We talked a lot about MMDs. That's referred to as the district here. We talked about the consent resolution creating the districts. Each district will also have an operating agreement with the city. Between the district and the developer, there's a reimbursement agreement. That's partly because or solely because the developer will front the funding for improvement projects. We'll be talking a bit more about improvement projects in the next couple of slides. So that basically obligates the district to issue bonds to reimburse the developer, those expenses that are eligible for reimbursement. And finally, the districts do have the ability to subdivide to four districts per development for a total of eight districts, and each time that occurs, the districts are made party to these agreements up here via a joiner agreement. So really for the remainder of the presentation, we're going to focus on the project and operating agreements. That's not a deep dive into these, but basically just highlighting the salient points and where the negotiations have taken us. For development standards and design guidelines, I'm not going to spend a ton of time on this slide. I just want to hit the highlights. I think a lot of this has been discussed in previous council sessions or council meetings. But a few things that I will highlight, the developers have agreed to adopt the 2019 DDC as opposed to the 2008 version when the NPCs were created. Regional obligations that aren't necessarily required in other developments. Both developers or both developments will be constructing amenity centers. Those will be constructed at 1,000 homes or be triggered once 1,000 homes are constructed in each development. Design materials, design and building materials, House Bill 2439 prevents the city from requiring developers to adopt certain standards. Both Hunter and Cole have agreed to adopt those design standards as part of those NPCs and the project agreement. Another example is for perimeter fencing, there will be no chain link. It's essentially masonry and wrought-iron materials. During a last discussion with council, there was some concern about a highway buffer zone, particularly with Loop 288 going through the middle of the development, wanted to ensure that there's not detached single-family homes right up on that interstate or freeway. So in terms of that, there are 600 foot setbacks from those TxDOT roadways. Increased tree preservation landscaping requirements, I believe it's two to one over city standards in terms of tree preservation. And lastly, for the roadways, both developers have agreed to construct major roadways to the super pay spec for TxDOT. Essentially reduces the maintenance requirement and is more rugged and able to handle some of the construction equipment that will be traveling those roadways. Yes, a question about the roadways and also the materials. Will there be -- how will we be making sure that the construction is going on to that higher standard? Will there be kind of an onsite inspections along the way? I'll defer to development services, Richard, do you want to take that one, or -- there's pretty tame, look at that, didn't see that. So this -- we will be treating them as the plats come in, like any other development, where we typically have a private -- sorry, the public right-of-way component of the project. So all the public infrastructure will be inspected by inspections on the engineering side, similar to any other project that comes in. Okay. Thanks. And then just about the materials that have been agreed to, is that about just the residential or residential and commercial? I'm going to ask Richard. Well, I want to make sure we clarify, and make sure I clarify with legal, that any developer can agree with the city to conform to some -- a certain design standard and material for the exteriors, for the elevations. Again, the city is not able to enforce that if somehow it deviates from that. Now, I certainly don't worry about this, and I don't worry about it really in general, because I think, for the most part, developers want to make their properties attractive and to where they're marketable. But my understanding is, even if we have an agreement that -- it's sort of a -- I'm going to say gentle person's agreement, not gentleman, not gentleman, gentle person's agreement, that you're just doing it voluntarily, compliance is voluntary. Is that correct? That would be correct up until there's a test case out there. Okay. Yep. Richard. So do you need still your question? Yeah. Okay. Just curious to know if it -- Just briefly, it's the minimum masonry requirements, both for single-family and multifamily. If you recall, we did not have those standards previously in the old version of the code. And there are some standards for commercial that we also worked on, but there isn't that minimum masonry on non-residential, like the single-family and multifamily. Okay. Thanks. Mayor Proctor. So, no, I'm good. Thank you very much. The -- well, the thousand homes, that phase one, what are the phase numbers, if you will, your understanding? Let me take a look. I don't believe I have the phases here in front of me on a phase map. What's the question about this? Is that spanning across multiple phases is the question? Correct. It could be. I don't think that -- well, I know for a fact that the phases will not be completely built out before proceeding to phase two, phase three, phase four. And so this will be at least phase one, maybe a potential combination of an additional phase coming online. That one thousand homes? Yes. Okay. Got it. And then I'll just speak to my understanding of the development standards is, one, they have their own internal mechanism, and they have to be, you know, to a standard that's energy-wise, et cetera, that exceeds anything we could do. So I'm grateful for that, just their own internal processes, so. They've voluntarily obligated themselves to these standards. Yeah. That's correct. I know there was a lot of discussion during the last meeting regarding environmentally sensitive areas, particularly the upland habitats and pilot knob. So this is essentially a table that Richard had presented last time. Both developments have agreed to adopt the 2008 MPC requirements, which is these preservation standards. You have acreage, and then you have the percentage there. The current DDC requires 30 or 50 percent preservation in aggregate. The development will be 58 percent. We spend a little bit more time on pilot knob in the next couple of slides, but just kind of for frame of reference, if you follow my mouse, this is upland habitat A, B, and C, which are the most prevalent, and obviously C being pilot knob. Speaking specifically about pilot knob, I know there was some question about how are we going to ensure the preservation of that upland habitat. So what the parties have agreed to in principle is conservation easement being that mechanism. Again, we'll be preserving 74 percent of that upland habitat. There's really going to be a two-step process in which that conservation easement is put into place. So step one will be to preserve the entirety of pilot knob, and if you'll follow my mouse, it's that inner blue ring right here, is really the 29 acres that we're talking about. So that will be the first conservation easement to be filed. Essentially the thing that's tying this together is the consent resolution that council approves if a hunter does not go out and get their conservation easement within 180 days, it will undo the consent resolution passed by council. So they're extremely motivated within those first 180 days on approval of the consent resolution to get that conservation easement in place. Step two, which is going to be preservation of additional 44 acres in a conservation easement, if you follow my mouse again, is this outer blue ring that runs all the way to this outer green ring right here. So most of the trees that are surrounding pilot knob will be preserved as part of that secondary conservation easement. That will be filed prior to the first plat going in, and that first plat is irregardless of where it's located on the site. So again, high motivation to get that conservation easement tied up before significant progress is made. Questions on this? So you all remember, I had lots of questions about pilot knob last time. So if I'm reading this correctly, tell me if this is the intention of the slide. Step one, you say preserving the entirety of pilot knob, that means what, a certain elevation or everything that we think of as the hill or why are we confident in saying that that inner blue ring is the entirety of pilot knob? That's where the elevation change takes place, is essentially the thinking, am I correct on that, Brian? Yeah, if you're, we'll need you to, if there's going to be a response, maybe do it at the mic, sorry. Yeah, I'll let Brian Karloch answer how that was determined. Thank you. Brian Karloch with Hillwood. Yes, the inner blue ring is really 100 foot of elevation, it's the 840, which is the peak of pilot knob dropping down right 100 feet, it kind of gets you to the base of where pilot knob becomes a knob, right, it's where you see that deliberate elevation gain. That was an area that I think we can all just agree that is the knob, that is the peak, that's the mountain per se. So that's an easy thing to just grab, that's why it's step one. As we go through our planning process, up until we kind of get ready to do our first preliminary plot at that point, once we've had some time to plan the entire 3000 acres, we'll have a better way and a more predictable way to grab the remaining 44 acres to kind of get to that 74% if that makes sense. So really step one, step two, step one is just something a little more obvious right now, which is grab, protect the knob, that really is probably what I think everyone is most actively trying to protect one step further as let's grab all the remaining trees around it that make up the rest of the upland habitat. So that ESA/ESAC is significantly larger than just the hill, you know, what we think of, what we can see from the highway, what we think of as the hill, and so the total 74% is not preserving 74% of the hill, it's 74% of that total ESA, including some of the flat portion. The hill is inclusive in the 74, so it's almost half and half if you think about it. The way we define it, that first 100 feet of elevation is about 30 acres-ish. The other 30, 40 acres is really everything else. You can't see it from the highways, you can't see driving around, but we know there's significant tree coverage and some elevation. It's in effect still part of the hill, but not exactly the steep knob that we think of. So we think this is the area to preserve all the great trees and the knob itself. Is this ESA, I know we have them kind of in a string, the big significant ESAs, is there some green space connectivity between them? Are they just kind of islands of trees? They really are islands. There's nothing from an ESA or an upland habitat perspective by definition that really connects the three per se. We have thoughts about ways to connect those once we kind of go through our planning and we figure out how development's going to happen around the trees. There's certainly been some emerging good ideas on how it might be a good idea to connect them, but we're not quite ready to say that's going to happen yet. So you might think about them as islands, because there is a pretty good gap in between each one of the ESAs. Is there any kind of recreational connection, like do you have trails between them contemplated? And that's what I was trying to speak to, is we think there could be some good ideas on how to do that. We're just not yet ready to commit to how and where and when, and really if, we think it could be a good idea, but until we really plan everything around those large areas, I'm not sure that we're prepared to connect on exactly how that might happen. Right now, the focus is on preserving each one of them as an upland habitat. Thank you. Yes, sir. Actually, it's a statement to you, but happy to have you stand at the podium to hear it. I would just tee up the thought that while things are still kind of in motion in the planning, there's, I remember the previous session, there was like a patch of park up here, a patch of park down there, one was Hazard, one was Cole, but not thinking about additional acreage, but just in terms of making it into something that would be a real significant lasting value together to Denton as a whole. If all of the upland habitat, A, B, and C, let's say, were preserved with that kind of recreational trail connectivity, that kind of adds up to more than the sum of the parts perhaps. So I just offer that to you for consideration. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yeah. Can I follow along real briefly to that? Sure. If you're a scholar in the business of doing this, you understand the marketing and you have a whole other team of people who will market this development, but I think Councilmember Meltzer is completely correct, a big trail loop, a run, a named run, up the hill and down the hill. I know lots of people who do trail running and they drive other places, they go other places because they don't have a trail to run that is inside the Denton City Limits. They go to Flower Mound and Grapevine and places like that. I will comment that I don't know how much we're going to get into the MBC part of this, but the obligation, the minimum obligation, we're signing ourselves up for at the project levels, 58 miles of trail. So we completely agree with the value of trails, the different types of trails, connectivity, the thought pattern of how they connect significant places, neighborhoods, places of business, schools and such and things like these hills and upland habitats. We're 100% there. One last additional slide on pilot knob, I know there was also some discussion talking about those trails is what kind of trails would be permitted up and down the upland habitat and so there are provisions within the project agreement that the trails, walkways, back paths must be in a natural state and a pervious surface. So that is also a distinction that those will be natural trails that are permitted. In terms of kind of switching gears a little bit, some of the things that we talked quite a bit between the City and the developers about is default and remedies and I want to be very careful about how I walk through this, but I think this is something where we have agreement in principle. We haven't papered it up yet, but then in case of the default, we want to make sure that the City Council has the ability to essentially encourage both the developers as well as the developers as any potential bad actors to straighten up, get the project back on track. And so in the event of that, the City Council may elect to withhold MMD reimbursement until the default is remedied. I'm going to steal O.C.'s line a little bit, he said that's the biggest hammer we got, so I think that's kind of what we're going with right now and really what we're talking about is in the event of public infrastructure default, prior to plat approval, the process that we've kind of agreed to in principle is if there is a default there, the City will provide notice of the default and then the developers must demonstrate proof of enforcement and really these sub-bullets are the process in which that would take place. So if a default is there, let me back up for a minute, within the project agreement, both parties are going to agree to enforcement provision language that will be incorporated into each of the developer's contracts with their contractors and builders. Once we sign off on that, the City will have the right to audit that on an as-needed basis. If we notify the developer of a default, the developers must show enforcement of contract provisions after receiving that notice. That can be demonstrating a demand letter, filing suit against the party that's in default, etc. If that occurs, then that meets essentially the remedied provision that the City requires. In the event that the developers fail to do that, fail to pursue enforcement, fail to try to get that bad actor back in line, then the City, if we're in a position to carry out the enforcement, the developers will agree to reimburse the City's cost. And lastly, the master developers are released from this provision once the final infrastructure has been installed and accepted by the City. I don't have this slide in my presentation. There were a couple of last-minute additions, I'll be sure to circulate this to the Council. Okay, thank you. We've talked a little bit about some of the land and capital contributions. Thank you. What would that enforcement look like? Who does the enforcement? The way this is contemplated is the developer is basically responsible for enforcing. So like I stated earlier, it would be a demand letter to the party that's in default. If the party does not correct whatever default that they have out there, if they don't cure that, then we would expect the developers to file suit. Failing to do that, that's really where this third bullet point would come into place. So we provided notice, the developers had failed to pursue this and to try to cure it. That's when the City would step in from an enforcement standpoint. The one thing that I will say that both parties have talked quite a bit about is this is not tall grass and weed complaints, this is material defects and the infrastructure projects, the improvement projects that we've been talking about. So as in kind of dangerous buildings scenario or? No, we're trying to avoid a situation, it's probably highly unlikely, but we're trying to plan for the worst case scenario that let's say that there's a 300 home subdivision that's sold off. The developer gets partially into it, can't afford to put all the infrastructure in, goes bankrupt or refuses to perform. I think that was our City Attorney brought that up because he said to get involved in a couple of situations and our point was well, we expect you if you're in a contractual relationship selling this property to a developer, they don't perform for you to be the first line in terms of making them perform and taking action to actually bring them into compliance rather than the City Attorney's office having to get in there immediately. So we're trying to learn from some of the scar tissue and these developments that we've seen in the past, it may or may never happen, but at least there's a provision we're thinking through. If it does happen, how we would deal with it? The final language is still being contemplated, but I think the other thing that was important similar to how we have the Gaswell owners who are selling the developers, basically we have asked that our City Attorney's office be privy to the contracts, make a review to make sure that they've got the rights and that everything is done in an appropriate fashion in accordance with our laws. We're also requiring that they demonstrate proof of any notice of default provision with any contract where they're selling it to another developer so our City Attorney's office is comfortable that there is a mechanism to enforce. So just trying to learn from some of the negative experiences we've had in the past. Thank you. That's good. So we talked about land and capital contributions before, really this slide is just kind of encapsulating all those. It is highlighted in the project agreement. So there are a number of land conveyances that the developers have agreed to. We have the fire stations in both developments that are depicted here in these little red boxes, three acres each. DME substation, called the Underwood substation, that's right up here if you follow my mouse, that will be serving the development in this area out to the west of 35. We have a water storage tank that's on the far north end of the coal property. And then we talked a little bit about city parks, I'll highlight that again in an additional slide. 124 acres total there, so 145 acres worth of land conveyances. In terms of capital contributions, we've talked about a few of these, so I'll highlight the ones that we have not talked about. For emergency services, both developers will be contributing $5 million each toward the build out of the emergency services, so that includes these fire stations here, as well as the police station that is, I believe, situated off of Vintage. We talked about the treatment plan design, the service center annex, and the solid waste transfer station. There's also additional land needed for the booster pump stations and the lift stations that we highlighted in the freeze and nickels report. So all of that taken into consideration, today's dollars is $11.4 million in capital contributions. Additionally, affordable housing, both developers will be taking a portion of the bond proceeds until they accumulate $3 million in total that will be given to the city's affordable housing program. For parks, I know we talked quite a bit about this before, so I'm really just going to hit the highlights. One of the things that is interesting about the park dedication requirements, both developers not only agreed to meet or exceed the current requirements, if we amend the ordinance to a future state, changing those requirements, they've agreed to meet or exceed those requirements as well. I believe we do have some changes that are contemplated for that park dedication and construction ordinance. City parks, we have two of these, if you follow my mouse, little asterisk looking doodad here. One for each development, 50 acres each, construction is triggered at 1500 building permits respectively for each development. These locations right here, I will highlight that those are tentative and being finalized as planning continues. Neighborhood parks, there will be two per development for a total of four each. Those are in most cases, I believe, butted up against an elementary school. So construction there will be triggered by either elementary school permitting or 1000 and 2000 building permits, 1000 and 2000 because there's two each per development. One of the other benefits here is the developers are responsible for constructing any horizontal improvements associated with these parks. If it's vertical, let's say, for instance, the city wants to put a rec center or library on one of these parks, we would be responsible for the construction and maintenance of that. The developers are responsible for the construction of horizontal park improvements, as well as responsible for the park maintenance normally performed by the city of Denton staff. Just if you could go back to that, because the conversation we had earlier about connectivity and then the mention of islands, we were talking about really moving people and trails, but also we need to think about moving the wildlife that lives in this upland habitat in the ESA. So connectivity to those, or a source of water, or to the other ESAs is something that we look at in our current ESA ordinance. So I don't know if that's been discussed or looked at through here or not as well. I know there's been some discussions from a development standpoint that I haven't been privy to. Anybody have? If they get any practices currently required by development of these ESAs, they will be held to the same standards from the same planning and development standards. And I guess I should step back. So whenever we're looking at development, what we do is when we preserve one, we look to see that it connects to another just to try to enhance that connectivity for the wildlife so they're not open in large areas while they're trying to get from one space to another. Okay. If we haven't addressed that point from a planning perspective, we can certainly do that before we bring it back. So this is kind of the map and the previous slide in table form. A couple of things I want to highlight on here. So here is essentially all the parks, facilities, and amenities that we talked about. Ownership of the city, the city parks and neighborhood parks will be deeded over to the city upon construction or completion of construction. I mentioned maintenance. District/HOA is responsible for maintaining all of these. Saved that vertical construction that I was talking about. We've talked about access in the past, aside from the public or the amenity centers. All other amenities are open to the public for city parks, trails, lakes, upland habitat. And then we have the quantities, the acreage, as well as I think Brian alluded to a moment ago, 58 miles of trails, et cetera. The preservation of the upland habitats, that 58% comes out to just a little over 150 acres as well. One last thing that we're continuing to work through on the project agreement is easements, similar to what Todd was talking about with defaults. We have run into some disputes in past practice with language-regarded temporary construction easements as well as permanent easements. So that's something that's still being tied up and finalized in terms of language for the project agreement. So we're going to move on to the operating agreement, and this is really fairly focused in on the improvement projects, the funding and reimbursement mechanisms built into the MMD. So as I stated earlier, the developer is advancing funds for the acquisition and construction of certain improvement projects, the district through their bonding capacity that will then reimburse the developer at a later date. So when we talk about improvement projects, it's really the stuff that we hit with the studies. It's water, wastewater, drainage, roads and right-of-ways. We've talked about this before, but just kind of revisiting the definitions, development on-site is backbone infrastructure that's located exclusively within the boundaries of both developments. Development off-site is regional infrastructure that is either extended to and/or through the development, that the developer is responsible for constructing and funding. And then city off-sites are essentially that regional capital improvement infrastructure that will serve this development as well as other customers in this area. I think amenity is the definition there, it's fairly self-explanatory. So this is kind of a lot to take in on this slide, so I'm going to walk you through how it's laid out. Project type over here is really where we distinguish and break up those various projects into off-site, on-site, amenity, etc. Land and funding, that is what we talked about a moment ago on a previous slide. Maintenance and operation, that is the maintenance and operation of the district. And then additional costs, David alluded to earlier, there's not inflation factored in here, so we do have contingency inflation as well as developer interest on each of these line items. So running left to right, you have all of your services underneath each of these project types, so water, wastewater, etc. This column total cost is aggregated between the city's cost for major infrastructure and the developer's cost for major infrastructure. I'll highlight again for the developer that this is not inclusive of all of their cost, these are just those major improvement projects that we've been talking about throughout the presentation. The other thing I'll highlight on the city major infrastructure, as David talked about earlier, the developers will pay their proportionate side of these things through impact fees and contract tax, but the entirety of these will also be collected through other customers and developers as well. Finally over here in the far right-hand corner, we talked about the developer being reimbursed by the MMD. So this is really a subset of the developer's major infrastructure cost. In some cases the developer will be eligible for 100% of that reimbursement, but in other cases like the land conveyances or the M&O, they're only eligible to receive a partial reimbursement through the TCEQ rules. A couple of things that I do want to highlight on here, the developer as part of the operating agreement and project agreement is capped at $350 million each in terms of reimbursement. So there is a portion of their major infrastructure cost that they will not be reimbursed through. The other thing that I'll mention is that cap, if costs exceed that $700 million, they're limited to that $700 million reimbursement. If costs are less, they're only reimbursed actual cost. So the city does have a mechanism. We will be tracking their cost as they work begins as well as when bond issuances occur. We will be basically tallying this up to see where the money's been spent and where the reimbursements have occurred. I know that's a lot of numbers on the slide. Any questions here? All right, so in terms of those improvement projects, like we mentioned, the MMD does have bond issuance capacity, and again, that's related to the design, acquisition, construction of those improvement projects. That bond is basically assured through ad-borne taxes, revenues from other assessments, contract payments, or other district revenue streams. We talked about the cap of $350 per developer. There's also a bond issuance cap that is a little bit more at $395 million. That's essentially just the administrative and bond issuance costs associated with that $350 million. At no point can the district issue bonds that exceed 10% of the assessed value of the district. That ensures that any of the districts don't become over-leveraged. Then lastly, in order to seek reimbursement through a bond issuance, an improvement project must be 95% complete, essentially 95% constructed in order for that reimbursement to occur. So essentially, these are the guardrails and kind of protective areas for ensuring that the improvement projects are constructed as proposed and the reimbursement restrictions associated with that. That leads us to the last substantial slide, which is the tax rate and assessments. David hit this, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time here, but we do have that 49-cent benchmark tax rate. That does cover the district's debt service requirements as well as their M&O tax to handle the maintenance and operation of the district. One thing that is worth noting is if the district has excess reserves for M&O, they do have the ability to essentially cash fund that reimbursement through the M&O tax as opposed to issuing bonds. But there are stipulations in the operating agreement that really tie that down to specific standards, i.e., the reserves have to match six months of operating reserves, etc. The contract tax, like David mentioned, is $0.06 per hundred dollars, and as he stated, that is necessary to essentially diversify that revenue stream and mitigate the city's risk for those impact fees not coming in as planned. So that is pretty much it for the high-level summary about the project and operating agreements. In terms of next steps, we do have a public hearing planned for planning and zoning commission on February 27th. It's our intention to have everything buttoned up in terms of final agreements drafted for council review prior to that date, and then assuming all goes well, planning and zoning will be on to council for a public hearing on March 17th. And with that, we're happy to stand for any additional questions. I need to give a hard stop date, stop time, more often. Councilmember Davis? I don't have any additional questions. I just want to say how impressed I am by the amount of time and expertise that staff brought to bear on this project. I've been floored consistently through this process at the traps for the unwary that staff has identified and has corrected. We've invented this contract tax to mitigate our risk regarding impact fees. Never in a million years would I have thought to worry about that. So I just want to say how much I appreciate the time and expertise that staff has put into this and really holding this developer's feet to the fire and really, really pushing. Anything else? Again, thank you. Obviously, this is still some work to do, but this is the lion's share, and it's been a lot of work and a lot of commitment and dedication by everybody involved, so I appreciate that. All right. Well, then we will now adjourn our open session and convene in our closed session. Yeah, we're going to convene pursuant to Texas government in closed session at 526, pursuant to Texas government code section 551.071, consultation with attorneys in Texas government code section 551.072, which is deliberations regarding real property. Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Dent City Council. It is February the 18th, 2020 to 634. We do have a quorum. I will call this meeting to order. If you'll join with me in our first agenda item to pledge allegiance to the US flag and Texas flag and stand if you're able. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible. Our next item on the agenda is proclamations presentations. We have none for this evening. So our next agenda item is presentation from members of the public. We do not have any scheduled open, excuse me, scheduled citizen reports. So then we look to see if we have any open mic requests. And I had one open mic request, fill out a blue card before the council meeting starts. Paul Juarez, Paul, are you here? I saw Paul earlier. What are we doing? No, there's not one here. Oh, there is. Yes, I'm sorry. You're right. I missed it. So we'll move back. I apologize. So we do have a scheduled citizens report. It's in a different area. Chelsea, Chelsea Lewis, regarding development service fees. Sorry about that. You should have just raised your hand and said, hey, wait a minute, you forgot me. If you'll state your name, address, your time will begin. Yes. And you'll step up to the mic, please, and just adjust that as you need. No worries. That's okay. Yep. I'm Chelsea Lewis. I'm here representing the Denton Community Market Board of Directors and also staff from the Denton Community Market, some of which are here with me today. Okay. I'm here to discuss the Farmers Market Department fees and their increases from last year. The fees apply to our vendors who prepare food on site at the market and a food truck or who prepare items that are not listed on the cottage food list. This is a permit they must obtain from the City of Denton's Consumer Health Department. These fees, just generally speaking, annually amount to an $84 increase or a $41 monthly increase. Myself and the Denton Community Market are concerned that the fee increases will have a detrimental impact on our ability to attract and keep local food members at the market. The vendors most impacted by these fees are some of our top customer draws. In addition to these fees, vendors must also pay our membership fee at a cost of $90 to $125 annually plus daily booth fees of $25 per market day that they're in attendance. The DCM, unfortunately, cannot lower these fees without seriously compromising our ability to cover our overhead cost. Additionally, as of January of this year, our liability insurance has changed and now all of our vendors are now required to supply their own insurance liability coverage. This added cost is already proving to be of substantial deterrent for some of our members. We've already lost and may continue to lose vendors for this upcoming year due to this extra cost, estimated about $100 to $300 per month. Granted, we recognize this cost imposed by our insurance is not imposed by the City, but it's just an example of some of the struggles we're facing presently in this upcoming year. The Dent Community Market is unable to change these new insurance liability requirements and we cannot decrease the membership and booth fees and still be a sustainably and responsibly run organization. So in order to continue to provide Dent with the best vendors and locally made products and in order to support local small businesses, we are here asking for the City's help in decreasing the farmer's market fees required through the Consumer Help Department. We hope that you'll consider changing these fees before our April 4th opening day so that we can retain the best and most sought after venues and continue to support the community through supporting our small businesses. I have included some information with the Secretary outlining the fees in more details and there's some more information concerning the market in general on the back of one of those pages as well. We appreciate your consideration for this request and your continued support of the market. I believe you have a couple of questions. Council Member Armitage? Sure. Thank you for speaking. I, too, am concerned about those fees and have seen the effects that they have had. So thank you for speaking to that. I was wondering if you had seen the staff report and this past Friday's staff report, I believe, from a question from Council Member Briggs, I think, that provides some information about the fees. Yes, I understand. I actually just thank you for sending that over to me. I just read it about an hour before coming into this meeting. I understand that it's a reflection of the labor costs required to, I guess, the administration of checking the fees and everything. I've also been in contact with Kevin Cummings at the Department of Health Services, though I think that he's not the contact that was listed in that report. He did express that they do want to continue to support the market and that that was some of the concern. I'm not aware of what y'all's budgetary requirements are concerning that, but I am aware of that factor. Thank you. Council Member Briggs? Thanks for coming. So am I, I'm trying to add all this up. So the annual fee, so if I want to start up, is it just the community market itself or each individual member needs to pay the new annual fee plus monthly? So if I want to have a booth for six months, I have to pay the $81 a month, so that's like $486. Is that me, as an individual vendor, would have to pay that? Correct. So the market, so if you were going to do the fee, if I'm understanding your question correctly, I apologize if I'm off space, yeah, it would be for the individual members. It wouldn't be for like, it's not just for the market as a whole. So if you were the vendor, you would require this, like you would need a permit for other fees. Monthly, as well as the annual? No, no, no, no, no. Okay, so it's either/or? It's either/or, yes. Okay. So as I think for some members, like for example for our holiday market, they're only represented one month. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so we're back to the open mic, those were all the scheduled reports that we had. Paul Juarez, is Paul here? I don't see Paul here. So we'll move on to our next agenda item, which is the consent agenda. Chair would entertain action on the consent agenda. Council Member Mouser. I move approval for the consent agenda, all items excluding item M. Okay. Is there a second? Council Member Ryan? Second. All right. There's a motion and a second for consent agenda items, except for M, which we pulled for an item of individual consideration. Please vote on the board, please. Motion carries, 7-0. We will now take the consent agenda item M, which is 4M, that'll be an item for individual consideration. Consider a resolution of the City of Denton conditionally consenting to the creation of Denton County Municipal Utility District number 11, encompassing approximately 247 acres of land located within Division 2 of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the City of Denton. Good evening, Mayor, Council Member Richard Canone, Development Services. Just briefly, just a quick recap to provide some background on creation of a Municipal Utility District and how they are created in the state of Texas. There's essentially two options, the first being an adoption of a district through a bill through the Texas Legislature. The second is through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or TCEQ. There's a process within the Texas Water Code, and this is governed by Section 54016 of that code, as well as Section 42042 of the Texas Local Government Code. The TCEQ option, which is the option that the property owner is pursuing, has a couple of different steps in order to get to approval of a MUD. The first is to petition for consent for the creation of the political subdivision, petition for consent for the creation, sorry, within the political subdivision in the ETJ, which is where we are today. So the city has 90 days to consent or refuse to consent. If there is refusal to consent, then the city has 120 days to negotiate a contract for water and sewer service. If an agreement is not reached within that 120 days, then the petitioner is authorized to initiate proceedings under the Water Code with TCEQ to establish that MUD. Just to give this narrow view as to where this site is, this is 156, which runs here, also here on the map. The distances that are highlighted or identified are distances from the municipal boundaries of the city. The yellow and blue differentiates between ETJ1, ETJ2. ETJ1 is where we have plotting authority, ETJ2 we do not. Plotting is handled by Denton County. The second series of maps shows our CCNN, which also follows that same area on this western boundary of the ETJ1, essentially 156 is that border. And in looking at where our existing infrastructure is, it's about three and a half miles from the subject site. And with that I'll be happy to answer any questions. I know the applicant's representative is here, and also water and wastewater if there's any specific questions. Councilmember Davis. The map you're referring to, I don't think we're in our original backups, but is the purpose in showing us this to demonstrate that we would not really be negotiating for provision of water services? Correct. It is not within our CCNN. If you go back to sort of the flow chart, outside of just the expiration of a certain number of days, what's the advantage to getting consent? I mean, if we don't give consent, it's 90 days plus 120 days, and then they can still petition proceedings with TCEQ. Is that a different statute than if we give consent? It's all contained within the same provisions. Any other questions for staff? I'm sorry, Councilmember Davis, I thought that was still Peter. Two bites of the apple, I thought of another one. So they're geographically closest to Ponder. Is there any water district out there or municipality that they could negotiate with for water? Does it look like? There is, and I'll probably have Frank answer that, he's a little more knowledgeable on that. Good evening. Frank Pugsley, Director of Water and Wastewater Utilities. They are actually in the CCN of AquaTexas, so they are in the service area for AquaTexas, and Ponder does bound their southern boundary as well, so they could theoretically work with AquaTexas. Okay, all right, Councilmember Briggs. Whose authority, will they be under TCEQ for everything if this is approved, or does it come under city standards, or who regulates? Lean on Richard, but from a water and wastewater standpoint, since they're outside of our CCN, we have no real authority to even serve water and wastewater utilities there, so they would not be necessarily under the city standards. If we were going to negotiate with a MUD for their creation, those are some of the things we would negotiate, would be to make sure they're constructing it to city standards for water and wastewater utilities. This is not part of the negotiation? It would not be. We don't have a legal right to serve in that area at all, so we wouldn't have a real opinion on whether or not they do that to our standards. Okay. Thank you. It seems like the main policy reason for the consent requirement within the ETJ, I guess Division 2, is that if there was a desire to serve a community like that, then you sort of have a right of first refusal, so to speak. Is that sort of the practical aspect of this whole thing? Correct. For MUD, yeah, sorry, I'm just a little farther away. For MUD formation, if we were going to petition to form a MUD within our CCN and within our ETJ, we would definitely want to, if we were to permit it, negotiate those terms, would they be building to city standards for both water and wastewater infrastructure, so at the time when we were to take their system over, we could theoretically connect it directly to our existing distribution and collection systems without having to do any upgrades, but that would apply, generally, if they're only within our legal service area. Council Member Armitage, before you ask, if we were getting a little feedback in the mics, Billy, so if I'm too close or we're too close, just help us get that corrected if possible. Council Member Armitage. I apologize if this is too much of a repetition of Council Member Armitage's question. I just want to make sure I understand, so if somebody within that, within a MUD, has an issue, a problem, they go to TCEQ with the problem? They're water and water system regulated by the TCEQ assuming that it meets the thresholds for a public water system. So if they feel that something, if an individual within that district, utility district, has a concern, they go, that is who they would go to. That's correct. TCEQ. And TCEQ would address the issue. Correct. Thanks. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Chair would entertain action on Agenda Item 4M. Council Member Armitage. I move approval. Mayor Pro Tem. Second. We have a motion and a second for Agenda Item 4M, let's vote please. Motion carries 7-0. We're moving into our items for individual consideration. Just as a reminder, items for individual consideration are not public hearings. So if you want to speak at an item for individual consideration, which typically, sometimes they're just, they're new items or they're items that were public hearing that have been moved forward as an item for individual consideration, you'll need to fill out a blue card. So if you are wanting to speak on an item for individual consideration, you'll need to fill out a blue card. Just want to make that. If it's a public hearing, you can fill out a blue card, but you don't have to because of the public hearing status. Okay. Our next item is 5A, Consider Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreement with the Denton Central Business District Association. Good evening, Mayor and Council, Jessica Rogers, Director of Economic Development. Tonight I'll be presenting to you the negotiated program agreement with the Denton Main Street Association. Just some very quick background, these are slides that you saw during the work session presentation previously. Just to remind you of the ongoing partnership and the benefits of the Main Street Program, and that has been something, more than 400 rehabilitation projects at this point. These numbers get a little outdated each and every month, and over $140 million of public and private investment that have been invested in Denton's downtown, 500 new businesses, and 2,600 new jobs have been created through the Main Street Program. One of the reasons we're here tonight is that Denton is the only program in the state that operates under the hybrid urban city model in that we have a private association, a private nonprofit association that works with a city in conjunction on the program. So again, this is a slide that you've seen before, but to remind everyone that the city and the Main Street Association have a long history of working together in one of our core and valuable areas of the city, an area that's an attractive place for both residents and visitors. It's definitely a central piece of our tourism and marketing campaigns. It's a place where our history, our architecture, our art, and economic development all converge in one place. So when I started in this position, one of the things that I was doing was evaluating our ongoing relationships and looking at things that were working, and things that if they were working, how could we make them work better? And I'm happy to say that's where we found ourselves with the Main Street Association. We had an excellent program, but we sat down with the Main Street Association president John Cartwright, who's here today, and talked about what could we do to improve that relationship? We know we've been successful, but how could we make it better? And so we brainstormed possible changes and looked for those inefficiencies. And so at the January 7th work session, what we presented to you were options that we saw to sort of reduce those inefficiencies and those redundancies in staffing, and we decided to pursue a hybrid staffing model, whereby the program manager for the Main Street position would be funded by the city, but hired by the Main Street Association. This would reduce the number of FTEs supporting the program from 2.75 to 2. It would maintain the strong connection between the city and the Main Street Association. It would allow each entity to focus on their core functions, the city on the economic development component, the historic preservation component, and Main Street on the tourism and marketing component. And they could also then work towards increasing their memberships and sponsorships. So before you tonight is a contract, a program agreement between the city and the Main Street Association. The general terms are on this slide. The city would provide $90,000 in funding to the Main Street Association. Main Street would hire the full-time program manager. I apologize every time I turn away from the mic. It gets a little, if anyone else can hear me, would hire the full-time program manager. The city would retain the assistant program manager. The term of the agreement is one year, which it would be effective upon execution through the end of the fiscal year, and then eligible for up to one additional full-year term, if the council chose to execute that. And I will say that prior to tonight, or prior to this item in your consent agenda, you approved item 20-289, that's the agreement that's referenced. That's the agreement between the city and the Texas Historical Commission that outlines all of those sort of metrics and requirements of the program. So under the agreement between the city and the Main Street Association, Main Street would be required to fulfill those 10 criteria that are listed in that program agreement. And that is it, and I will stand for questions. Any questions for staff? Councilmember Briggs? I move approval. Councilmember Armitage? I second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 5A, let's vote please. Motion carries 7-0, thank you. Next item on the agenda is agenda item 5B, consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, a Texas home rule municipal corporation, authorizing the city manager to execute a contract with SNJ Construction, Inc. for the construction of the North-South Water Main Phase 3 project of Bonnie Bray. Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Pritam Deshmukh, deputy city engineer, and I will be talking about a couple of projects, this item and the next one, as we push forward with projects into construction, total construction costs of $14 million. The first one is North-South Water Main, it's the Phase 3 that is a water main along Bonnie Bray, it's a 42 inch line, approximately 4200 feet, and there is another other line which is about 900 feet smaller, 12 inch water line. The bid was sent out, approximately 296 solicitations, we received eight back, and out of the eight the lowest bidder was SNJ Construction, this bid amount is under the engineer's estimate, the engineer's estimate was approximately 4.56 million dollars. So here's a quick schedule of what are the next steps, it is a 12 month project and it will start this February after the council passes this, or awards this contract, and is scheduled to finish by February 2021. Staff recommends adoption of the award and awarding of the construction contract to SNJ Construction for the North-South Water Main. Any questions? Any questions for staff? Council Member Briggs. Can you talk a little bit about how this works with the construction already going on and how that's phased in, will what is already currently be working on be complete before this gets started? So currently they are working on the southern portion of Bonnie Bray, this is south of 35E, that project is still ongoing and there will be an overlap. This project will not completely shut down Bonnie Bray, there will be lane closures, they're planning on closing two southbound lanes, most of the water line will be laid on the west side of the Bonnie Bray, so traffic will continue moving. There is a small portion in here where there is a complete shutdown between Oak and Hickory along Bonnie Bray but that's really late in the phase, by that time we should be able to wrap up the southern construction. Okay, so something will not be completely shut down before another route is open? No, we plan on leaving the access open through Bonnie Bray. Okay, thank you. Council Member Davis? A similar question, but how does this construction project interact with the Bonnie Bray and scripture project that we are getting closer to completion on? We are in the last phases of wrapping the Bonnie Bray scripture, one of the only things remaining is the landscaping. So we are not going to impact anything around the roundabout as well as the transitions into these roundabouts. The water line actually shifts and goes across the street into the property that was acquired on the east side and it's offsite so it's not necessarily, it won't be impacting the traffic that's currently happening at that location. Is scripture going to have closures at some point so they can get across scripture? So all of that work was completed as part of the roundabout, that's why we had to expedite all of that construction. Thank you. Council Member Ryan? Okay, well and that leads exactly into my question because I thought we'd done a change order on the water line around the roundabout and I'm seeing, it might just be that the map is drawn in such a way, but it looked like it goes up past the roundabout. So is this just from where it stopped on the other end of the roundabout? Correct, this is just through the McKenna Park, it won't really impact any of the Bonnie Bray traffic. So this particular graph that goes up, it's through the McKenna Park property. So the change order we did a few months ago on the roundabout project for, was that for water lines as opposed to transmission lines? No, that was for the water line, just through the intersection itself. Okay, all right, thank you. Council Member Briggs? So you said it's going to go through the McKenna Park property, so that of course brings me to my next question. Will there be trees that need to be removed? No, we won't be impacting trees as part of this project. Okay, thank you. Okay, seeing no more questions for staff, Mayor Pro Tem? I'll move approval. Council Member Davis? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for agenda item 5B, let's vote please. Motion carries 7-0. Agenda item 5C, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, a Home Rule Municipal Corporation authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Quality Excavation LLC for the 2019 Street Reconstruction Project for the City of Denton with geographical limits as follows, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, so this is the second project I talked about, it's several segments, there are four segments in this particular project. This is a street reconstruction project, part of the 2012-2014 bond program. We have completed design, went through the bidding process, and this is a complete rehab along with the utility work. So this is a combined packet, we've talked in the past how we don't want to repeat the same things that we've done, so this is more of a contractor completing the wastewater utility work at the same time while they're doing the repaving right after that. So the lag will be very limited and the contractor will be pushing through areas. So these are the four segments, we're talking about Hercules Lane between Locust and Stewart, Scripture Street between Thomas and Panhandle, I'm sorry, but it's just, I forget the name, Malone or Jago, Thomas Street between Panhandle and all the way south to Oak Street and then Windsor between Locust and all the way where it terminates Armstrong Lane, I think it's the name of the street. Four firms actually bid on this project, it was sent out 324 firms for this solicitation, four responded, the lowest bidder was Quality Excavation, our engineers estimate was approximately $14 million, a little over $14 million, the bids came in low at $10.2 million. Quick schedule, we will award the contract, I think the dates are a little bit off, but we'll award the contract and there is a pre-construction meeting that will be held the first couple weeks of March and then we'll assign notice to proceed by March 23rd. The project itself is a two-year project, so it's quite extensive work for water, wastewater and roadway, and then staff recommends award of contract of Quality Excavation for reconstruction of the constructions. So I'm going to move approval, but I also have a comment, one comment is that I'm glad to see more than one person bidding on all these projects that we've seen recently, there's several bidders, so that's a good sign. The second, I know that you mentioned that this one contractor gets all of these projects to allow them some flexibility, but is the city going to have any weigh in on that or not, say so, because Windsor, there's two school construction projects going on there now and if they choose Windsor first, it might not line up, so is there communication going on and your recommendation to them? I'm glad you asked that question, we, based on the contract timeline, we included two summers in there, so we made sure that we had that conversation during the pre-construction meeting with the contractor about laying out several segments, within the contract itself we're having the contractor work 2,000 feet at a time, so he's not going in and working on a section which is larger, doing the utility work, leaving it a while and then coming back, we want them to work on 2,000 feet sections and get completely out of those sections before they move on to the next. So yes, in the pre-construction meeting we will have a discussion and preferences about during, when the school is out, those are the times when you work on the sections that are next to the school, so we have two schools on Windsor that we're aware of, so they will be working in those sections during the summertime off and we will definitely coordinate all our, rehabilitation work with the Denton ISD work that's been scheduled for Wilson Elementary. And so the 2022 completion date is for all of the projects? All of the projects, all segments. Thank you. Councilmember Meltzer? Glad you mentioned that, thank you for getting utilities and roadway done all together and creating neighborhoods all at the same time, so needed, Hercules, Thomas, great news. Just curious, about what percent of 2012 and 2014, the 2012 and 2014 bonds does this take us to then? I don't have a direct number right now, but we can get you a quick number. We've got to be getting, after this bundle, we've got to be in close to about 80%, 85%. Thanks. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. Pre Tem, could you speak to the part that's not listed here, I know that was in the works, we talked about it, but that's on Hercules, because it's critical, Hercules, Stewart to 428. So that piece is part of a development agreement that will be coming to council pretty soon. What happened is we took the piece of Hercules between Sherman and Stewart out, and because there is a segment of that, that is part of a developer who was responsible for developing or widening that portion of Hercules, and we thought it would be more beneficial to have them just reconstruct the remaining portion of Hercules, so we're currently working on the development agreement with them, that agreement will be coming to council fairly quickly. Currently the developer is already broken ground, he's working on some of the internal roadways and internal systems, so he's very ready to move forward as soon as this item comes to council. Soon weeks? Yes, most likely. Councilmember Briggs, I believe you made a motion, is that correct? I certainly did. Okay. Councilmember Davis? Second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 5C, let's vote please. Motion carries 7-0. And item 5D, consider adoption of an ordinance approving a municipal services agreement pursuant to Texas Local Government Code section 43.0672 between the city and Sharon Losak McCutcheon. Sorry if I mispronounced that. All right, good evening, mayor and members of the council. This is one of three items on the agenda tonight related to the Sagebrook development. So this particular request is for approval of a municipal service agreement pursuant to section 43.0672 of the Local Government Code, which is the voluntary annexation procedures. The subject property is outlined in yellow on this map. It is just under 132 acres, located south of Allred Road. This site was before you back in January on the 7th for a work session, so it should look relatively familiar. Significant changes in state law regarding annexation have required that what was traditionally a service plan as part of an annexation ordinance come before you as a separate written agreement. So that's what this item is. The agreement contains all of the standard service plan language. If this development moves forward and is annexed, then you can expect to see back before you relatively quickly items for zoning, platting, going for the planning and zoning commission to pursue the development that you saw in January. This is just a snapshot of the schedule, whereas annexation was previously a multi-step, multi-meeting process. We've got it down to two meetings. So we'll handle three of these items tonight, and then the other one will come back before you in March. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, the Chair would entertain a motion for this item. Councilmember Briggs? I move approval. Councilmember Ryan? Second. We have a motion and a second for Agenda Item 5-D. Let's vote, please. Agenda Item 5-E is consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, approving a specific use permit to allow for multi-family dwelling use on approximately 15.34 acres of land generally located on the northwest corner of Dutchess Drive and Loop 288 in the City of Denton. This item was postponed at the February 11, 2020 City Council meeting, and this is one of the items that if you're wishing to speak, if you could fill out a blue card, that would be great if you're wishing to speak on this item. Go ahead. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton, and I am presenting S1912 Denton Grove Apartments. This one probably looks very familiar to you. We talked about it. There was a public hearing for the item on February the 4th of this year. It's a specific use permit for a multi-family development along Loop 288 and Dutchess Drive. It's about a 15-acre site. It was submitted under prior to October 1st of this year, or I'm sorry, of last year, and so it would fall under that 2002 Denton Development Code. And there was a resolution of providing for no objection for an application for affordable and market rate housing earlier in 2019. So I just wanted to first talk about the recommendations for additional conditions that City Council discussed at the February 4th meeting. I want to make sure I captured all of the intent of those recommendations. So the first, a traffic signal. That condition would require $400,000 to be deposited with the city prior to the recording of the final plat for the design and construction of a traffic signal with a pedestrian crossing at the corner of Dutchess Drive and South Loop 288. The $400,000 fund would be entitled to reimbursement of the pro rata cost. The reimbursement amount would be credited toward the development of the Pebblebrook open space that is across Loop 288, and the terms of the pro rata agreement would have to be approved by the City Council prior to beginning construction of that traffic signal. The second had to do with tree preservation. That recommendation was for a minimum of 30% of the total DBH of heritage and quality trees on site would have to be preserved in accordance with the 2019 Denton Development Code. The third recommended condition was the vehicular access, that a north access point would be added to that site plan for that third access point. It would connect the multifamily development with East McKinney Street through a cross-access easement. The developer would have to submit evidence of a recorded easement prior to issuance of a building permit. The fourth related to income averaging, that income averaging would be required for the life of the affordability period as set forth in Exhibit C, and we'll actually talk about that next. And then finally, a sidewalk extension, that an offsite sidewalk must be constructed concurrent to other required public improvements along loop 288 frontage, extending from the subject property's north boundary across the adjacent property and connecting to the existing sidewalk. Want to talk a little more about that Exhibit C, the income averaging. Just to discuss what income averaging is, it allows for a range of incomes, provided that at least 40% of the units are for incomes at or below the 60% of AMI. So this is the applicant's proposal for that income averaging. If this was approved, then it would be added to the ordinance. This is their proposal. It does meet the requirements for the income averaging, and that 40% at 60% AMI or below. And then Planning and Zoning Commission did hear the project and recommended denial. Staff does recommend approval with conditions that we talked about. I do have the rest of my presentation that we went over on February 4th. I'll be happy to go through that, or I'll stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We've got a couple of cards to speak. We have one, the applicant. In an individual item, is it that the applicant still gets the same amount of time as pursuant to a public hearing? I think it's 10 minutes or something like that. Let me double check the rules. I think it's different. Okay. In an item for individual, I mean, in an item for individual consideration. It only has, under your Rules of Procedure 2-29, the city code for these types of items, it just has for generic speakers of three minutes per speaker. However, I mean, if I recall, there was a meeting a couple meetings ago where the applicant on a zoning item that came back for IC, that the mayor allowed them to speak 10 minutes. If you all wish to do that, you all are authorized under the Rules of Procedure to waive the rule with regard to this particular speaker, the applicant, to speak 10 minutes. Okay. All right. Council Member Bryan? I move we suspend the rules. Okay. We need to vote on that. Is that correct? That is correct. All right. We have a motion to suspend the rules. Do we have a second on that? I think the subvention, I think this is a three minutes versus 10 minutes. Yeah. Yes. For the applicant. Okay. So we have a motion and a second for suspension of the rules on the time limit for the applicant. I guess we'll just take a hand vote since it's not up there. That's fine. Is that okay? All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign. Suspension of the rules carries six to one. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. So then we'll go ahead and call the applicant, Jean Blacha, if you'll come down and you've got 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you for that. I don't think I need 10 minutes. I won't do the entire presentation again. I know we had quite a lengthy discussion last time I was here. I just want to go back a little bit, though, the resolution of no objection that was mentioned that was approved here in August, and I went back and looked at some of that and was kind of questioning really why it is that we made some of the decisions that we did make, and we really felt like we had the support of council back in September when we were making decisions about how to proceed with pursuing this specific use permit. There was discussion at that meeting about the connection to McKinney Street, about the number of affordable units in the area, and we went over that again a couple weeks ago. I had focused on three specific things, which were the use of the property, and we know that there's some desire for some mixed use, some commercial development there, the traffic, and then the number of affordable units. I just want to say we chose to pursue this development plan because we really did feel like we had the support for that development plan. Since, it seems that that's changed a little bit, and we can offer to do some more things. We've already offered to do all of the things that Julie listed, the $400,000 for the light, the income averaging, which does cost this development money, and a number of other things. Just a couple of things that I want to point out here. There was a discussion about the number of affordable units in this area, and those units really are being lost. I know, I confirmed with staff that there's no other tax credit developers that are seeking a resolution of no objection in order to preserve any of that affordable housing, so those units really are being lost. There are, right now, 7,375 renter households in our market area that qualify to live in this housing, meaning they make enough money to pay the rent, but they're not over that income. That's a really compelling number. I guess what I want to say here is don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I realize that there's some desire for some commercial development here, and we've talked with the adjacent land owners, and we can submit another application later and offer to move this entire site north a little bit, because there's some desire to have commercial on the south end of the site instead of on the north end of the site. I do personally think that is kind of sacrificing the perfect for the good, and it's a risky venture. It's something that we're willing to explore, but we'd really love your vote here tonight so that we know that we have a plan that we can move forward with. I can tell you that if we have that approval tonight, that we can still submit something else, but we might be faced with a new council by the time that application comes in. We have a new code. That's new purchase agreements that we would have to figure out. We do have a willing land seller who does own that land to the north, so we think we can get some of that done, but that's really, really risky. We might not be able to get that done. We will do it. We will pursue the one that is closer to perfect, but I really do worry that if that doesn't happen and this entire project just goes away, and I really do think that this project could be a huge benefit to this community. The issues that were addressed, the pedestrian safety, and we're addressing that with the traffic signal, the loss of affordability, and the infeasibility of building some commercial development right there. I won't go over all of it again. I just ask for your vote here tonight and can tell you, too, that if we do get this approval tonight, that we will continue to work with our adjacent landowners and to work with what might be a new council, what might be a new code, and what might be a new application, but we would like to have some sort of certainty that we can move forward with some project here, and I'll take any questions. - Any questions for the speaker? Council Member Meltzer. - Yeah, well, I'm not sure if it's for you or for City Attorney, but how would that work if you're approved for this? I'm interested in the possibility of having some commercial in there. - So how would that work if this is approved? What would the mechanism be that would compel a different application? - At this point, because this is an SUP, they have a plan that's associated with it that actually fits the application. If they're proposing to rearrange buildings and uses that may be allowable in that district, I would think that the development services staff would want to view that first before they come before you to make a recommendation. Otherwise, I'm not certain if they have had an updated concept plan submitted to them for review. I know that's a mouthful. - Well, I don't think given the current process, it seems like what your question is, if that's sort of in proffered, how do we not guarantee, but is there any enforcement mechanism that says based upon this particular SUP discussion to give that a little bit more teeth instead of just sort of voluntary kind of approach? And my understanding is we probably don't with this particular SUP. It would have to go back through, to get it included on this SUP, it would have to go back through the concept plan and all that because it would be a pretty substantial change in what's presented to us and quite frankly, what was presented to planning and zoning. So it may even have to go back through planning and zoning. - That is correct, depending on what they're proposing to change, if it's a significant enough change, it may have to go back to PNC to review it once again. - All right. So I mean, realistically, we would have to be completely at peace with whatever is said regarding that. We have to be completely at peace with it going forward as proposed. - Yes. - Yeah. Okay. Thanks. - Okay. Any other questions, Ms. Beaker? - A couple of things that we could do under this SUP would be to add a limited amount of commercial space or even to take a building off, make this 256 units and open up that southeast corner. I think those are things that could be done under this actual application. - We'd prefer to keep it at 276, but if there's things that we can do under this SUP, we're willing to do it. - Yep. Yep. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Next speaker is Kent Key. State your name, address, or time will begin. Kent Key, 3100 Triple Crown Court, Denton, Texas. I own and control a lot of the adjoining land that Jean's talking about. We had always thought that that was a mixed use development. That's what we expected. That's what I think the council expected. That's what was on the zoning, and that's the reason for the SUP. We have talked with them. I think we've worked out a plan that we could go with, but it will take going back. Jean wanted to know why we didn't work this out in August, so we wouldn't be here today. The reason we didn't is because we didn't know about it. Until you gave a public notice and you put signs in the front, we were never contacted. In fact, I was asked, I had to ask for a neighborhood meeting because they weren't going to have a neighborhood meeting, which is highly unusual in this city. We always have neighborhood meetings. We asked for it. We got it. We figured out what they were doing. We went back, looked at it, and we're just now. This has all happened since November, December, so it's not like it was just that it's months and months. Months and months have gone by since you all approved the deal that you would look at it, but I don't think you should feel obligated to vote for the project because you looked at it then. There is plenty of affordable housing that is going to come to Denton. This may be one of them, but this is not the only affordable housing project, and still my concern is the density of it, the location of it, and where it is, the clustering. I went over all that, and I'm sorry I wasn't here at the last meeting, but I'm actually glad I wasn't because you all spent the night talking about it. I'm not going to spend the night talking about it tonight, obviously, but I think we can work out a compromise. I've talked with Gene. Gene's willing to compromise on it, but it is not on what it's up to be voted on tonight. I would ask you to vote it down tonight and come back with a proposal that actually does everything that the city wanted to do and what the adjacent landowners are asking them to do. Thank you. - Council Member Meltzer, I believe has it. - If, as was suggested by the applicant, if they excluded the southern building so that the fate of that part of the parcel remained up for discussion at a later time, does that square with the concept of a compromise that you think you might like? - No. No, we've asked them to push the project to the jack-in-the-box and leave that for commercial development along the duchess, like the commercial development that we have going over there, like the DRC, DATCOOS built a building there. I have three more projects to bring in to put commercial development over there. I'm developing it as you all put forward and wanted us to develop it. So I haven't asked for an SUP on anything over there because we don't need it. We do it by rights. So I would just ask that they do the same thing and if it was a mixed-use commercial development, they wouldn't be asking you for the SUP tonight. Okay. - Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Oh, Council Member Bromertor? - Sorry. - No? Okay. Any other questions for the speaker? All right. Thank you. - Thank you. - I do have a question for legal, and this isn't a public hearing, so that was the only blue card that I had. So if, and this was something that I was thinking about. Under this current SUP proposal, and of course there was a statement made about doing commercial, because the SUP requirement is because there's no commercial. Is that correct? I think that's correct. Is that? Yeah. - That's correct. Under the 2002 Debt and Development Code, it required an SUP because it was a single use. - Right. So if there was a commercial component to it, that would require going back through the whole process, just because it would be something very different? Is that? - That is correct. Are you talking, I want to make sure I'm clear, are you talking about that mixed-use component under the 2002 Debt and Development Code? Or just- - No. My understanding, yes. My understanding is we're here as an SUP because it's a single use, whereas if there was a commercial use that had three different types of uses, the residential and two other types, then the SUP wouldn't have been even required. Is that correct? I mean, that's what I'm recalling. - Yes. That is correct. Under the 2002 Debt and Development Code, the 2019 Code that came into effect in October of last year did not have that provision. So the zoning that the property has now, even if it were mixed use, it still would require the SUP for multi-family. - Gotcha. - Yes, sir. - Okay. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. That's helpful. Council Member Armitter? - Yeah. I just wanted to comment, not a question for staff, but to comment that I find it unfortunate that apartments need SUP under so many different conditions throughout the City of Denton when this is one of, if not the most affordable kind of housing that there is, just apartments in general, as far as in the short term anyway, because so few people can afford the money down to become homeowners, which does save money in the long run. So I don't want myself to hold that. I'm not going to hold that against any applicant for apartments that they're not doing something by right, because this is, it's a rule that we have, that the City has in place, and they have to follow it. - Council Member Briggs? - So I have here, I'm gonna motion to approve this project. I have a list here of all of the things that we've asked for, or I've asked for, and all the things that these developers were willing to do, and they're all circled, and then I added two or three more tonight, which, and I don't feel obligated to vote for this project. I really want to vote for this project, 'cause it's great for our community, and I sat through a presentation in the Economic Development Department recently from our consultants talking about how important affordable housing is if we want to build up that part of our community. So I do have a question, though, because this is an SUP, and I've heard before or after, and this SUP specifically says not commercial, because if the developer wants to work with the landowners, I don't want to prohibit that. So is there a way to allow commercial within this SUP as an amendment if we pass it? - So to allow commercial development within, or commercial uses within this development? A lot of commercial uses are permitted by right in the zoning district, and they wouldn't require an SUP, so the SUP would just be for that multifamily use, and then if commercial uses wanted to be folded in, they could be done. - Okay, so by approving this project, it doesn't prohibit the commercial from going in? - And verified. - If they were to maintain the existing development program, but incorporate a sort of mixed development or a sort of mixed use component to our commercial, they would need to amend the SUP. And there'd be a number of things we'd have to look at, both parking and access, just to make sure, because it is gated, so we would just need to look at all of that. - May I follow? - Sure. - So an amendment to an SUP, does that take less time than starting a whole process all over again? - It is essentially the same. It would go through P and Z and follow the same procedure. - Okay. - Mayor Pro Tem. - Thank you. Julie, can you help me process something? Because I think there's six one way, half a dozen another. So 2002 code is what they're functioning under for the development code, is that right? And which tree code are they functioning under? - It was originally reviewed under the 2002 tree code, but there was a condition added on the February 4th city council meeting that they follow the 2019 tree preservation requirements. And so that is one of the proposed conditions. - Okay. And then help me understand again, so you touched on the 2019 development code. What's the difference between the two as far as what's allowed? - As far as just use? - Yeah, use in this area. - Yes. So under the 2002 zoning, the property had a zoning designation of CMG. It permitted multi-family either with an SUP or as part of a mixed use development. That zoning district transitioned to SC suburban corridor, which permits multi-family with an SUP. - So both versions require SUP for multi-family? - If yeah, the 2002 had that little provision that if it was considered a mixed use development that had the associated development agreements, that it wouldn't require an SUP. The 2019 code does not have that provision. - Sorry, I'm trying to track with you, I'm working hard here. So let's focus on 2019. The commercial component required or no? - Suburban corridor permits quite a few commercial uses that if it weren't a part of this request could be built provided that they met all use specific standards and other development requirements. - Got it. But multi-family could go there with? - An SUP. - Got it. Okay. Thank you. And then Erin, we received the legal status update. Can you speak to that just so those that, I mean, obviously I just want to have hear you in this setting on what that said, such that you can. - Yes, there was a legal status report, but there was a particular section in there about the income averaging and the enforceability. Our opinion was stated in therein, and that is something that I would not feel comfortable saying to this council in open session. - Sure. So that's not been, those concerns you laid out have not been rectified as of right now? - That particular concern, no. - Okay. Thank you. - Any other questions, comments? Mayor Pro Tem? - Thank you. Julie, could you, it probably is a Danny question. She answered it before. Am I, correct me if I'm wrong, my notes, but we're talking the basic savings, if you will, is $100 a month. Is that, I think that Mayor Watts asked that question during the last hearing and I know Danny spoke to it, but I don't see her. - She's not here this evening. - Right. Right. Okay. - I'm not quite sure what those rent calculations are. - Got it. I think that's right. Thank you. - Council Mayor Meltzer. - Reluctantly, I'd like to suggest we go into closed session. I'd like to understand where we stand on the matters that were raised in the note. - In the what? - In the note, in the big status. - Okay. All right. Okay. We can do that. So we will, council will now convene in closed session, we'll convene in the work session room at, I guess I called the time now, 737, pursuant to Texas government code section 551.071. And it shouldn't take long, so we will, we will be back. Welcome back to this meeting of the Dent City Council on February the 18th, 2020 at 746. We are back from our closed session on agenda item 5E. Are there questions for staff or comments? Mayor Pro Tem? - Did I see someone say that Sarah was... - Oh, that had an answer to the question on the... - Yeah. Or no. - Yes. I thought, but, well, yeah, I think had a question on the rental rate, but she just left. Scott? Is Sarah, did, yeah, could you just find her, because I think that was, that's the question on the, on the floor. Council Member Davis, why don't we wait on... - Sure. I can, I can riff for a minute if we're just killing time. Now just to, to kind of reiterate my concerns from the last meeting, very briefly, my concerns with this project would be whether or not it was affordable, there's a reason why we have an SUP process for multifamily inside of SC zoning. We get to decide where multifamily is appropriate and where it's not appropriate. If I had a magic time machine, I would go back and not allow the building of the apartments that are already fronting 288, because I don't think that's appropriate, and I don't think the deciding here is appropriate. Right on 288, in a cluster with a whole bunch of other multifamily, to me, some apartments and a jack-in-the-box and a 7-Eleven are not mixed use. That's not the purpose of a mixed use zoning like, like SC. - Okay. Is she coming? Oh, no. Oh. Okay, all right. Any other questions or comments on this? So I'm going to weigh in. I don't, I don't need to know the answer on that. It's a hard decision. Obviously, you know, I've supported and advocated for affordable housing since my tenure began. But what makes this difficult is we've got a 4-3 denial, which requires a super majority, and a lot of these issues have been presented at the Planning and Zoning, so I'm just going to be candid, honestly. I regret that this council is, this is our job, so we've been put in a position where what I've heard from the podium, from both the applicant and from the adjacent property owner, which were really at odds in their perceptions and what they wanted to do here two months ago, that seemed to have come to at least some kind of common ground prior to this meeting. And the unfortunate thing is that we're being asked to, number one, approve it and then just take it on faith and trust that this thing will be worked out. And then on the other hand, it's like, no, I really don't want to do that. I want to be able to operate in the same environment of risk and reward. So I'm inclined, and I don't know if there's a process whereby this SUP could just be sort of tabled instead of withdrawn or denied to give an opportunity to see if there's something that can be worked out and resubmitted, because you're right, there may be a different council, and there's been a lot of time, there's been money invested in all this, and I understand that. But I trust the process, and the process was, we're going to bring this forward to council with the supermajority requirement based upon the resolution, well, at the time of the resolution of support. I mean, all of these things had not been vetted out, and I can't speak for the rest of the council, but I certainly like it when we have disputes like this or some kind of passing in the night of interest, when people can come together and they can meet those interests. Because my understanding is that at the Planning and Zoning Commission, part of that recommendation of denial was based upon some of the comments that were made by the adjacent property owner. So I can't imagine that if there's a common presentation that the issues have been worked out that there may not be that same result. Obviously I can't guarantee that, I can't guarantee what's happening up here. But I'm really hard pressed to make a decision to move it forward based upon a good faith effort to resolve it, to bring that alternative forward that seems to have been discussed and quite frankly may have come to some pretty good conclusions. I don't like things to be that, I like things to be clean, and so it would just be better for me if coming before us, and then if there's an opportunity to work it out and it doesn't get worked out and it comes back before council and Funding and Zoning, that's why I asked that if somehow this application, let's just say for example, it gets tabled or postponed until whenever, and there is this working out of the issues and the compromises and the collaboration between the landowner and the applicant. And they do submit a different application, because it will be very different, it might not include any buildings on loop 388, it might include some wrapping around. Is that a conflict because we have something on the table that isn't quite exactly like it, but it's similar? Or can it stay there and this is a whole new different process moving forward? Does that make sense? Does it have to be withdrawn or does it have to be defeated in order for the other option that would be substantially different, you're taking three, I don't know what the option is, but if you move those buildings off of the frontage of loop 288 and you move them over to the north side and then that leaves commercial development in the front, and the reason I say that is because if somehow there's not a meeting of the minds and that can't get pushed forward, instead of having to bring back this current application all the way back through, can it just be pulled off the table as long as a time factor, a time limit hasn't expired within our code? And you have two simultaneous applications that are not the same, but may involve a subset of the same land. One maybe is sitting idle and the other one is moving forward. If the application is significantly different, and again it would depend on what they propose, and that layout is different than what is before you tonight, then if this one is pending, that one would be circulating up through as an SUP, and if I remember correctly for what you said, if it's a mixed use component under the new 2019 zoning map, because this would be a separate application that would have to comply with 2019, would an SUP be required? Yeah, it sounds like it would, based upon it. And if it is, then it would be under different standards, and that's something for the planners to do, and then it would go through P and Z for the recommendation and come up to city council after that. If that's approved, then the one that you have could be taken off the table and basically denied or withdrawn by the applicant, yes, that is correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Council Member Briggs. So I can read the room, and I certainly don't want to motion to approve something that's going to fail, which pushes this project all the way back out over a year from now. So I'm open to suggestions on, and I'm trying to understand about tabling this, so that – okay, so it would be postponing, and how would that look like for how long? Go ahead. I was going to say that I guess the – if that is allowing the applicant to file another application, then what I might suggest, based on our schedules, just to be on the safe side to postpone this item for four months. Is that a reasonable time or five months? It would really depend on the planning schedule, the review, how fast the applicant can submit a new application. So I'm using four months as a rule of thumb. Well, and most of – I mean, if we're – and I don't know what any of the discussions have been, but if what I'm hearing, if I make a reasonable assumption, a lot of that work has already been done. You've got traffic studies, you've got all these kind of things. Yes, you have some things you're going to have to change a little, and then some of it may change. We're not going to provide the $400,000 for the streetlight if we're not going to have anything. So there's some other things in consideration that are in play here, but I certainly would rather err on the side of giving two parties an opportunity to see if there can't be an amicable solution, because I think that would make that area – I think it would maximize that area if they're able to do that. And if not, then the application can come back and a new council can – and a new planning and zoning, if that's what it is, can make those determinations, and I understand about the delay. I really do, but I think for me – and I'm only speaking for myself – that's the path for me forward, is to give an opportunity to see, given now that we all know – everybody knows all the information, it's all out on the table, everybody knows the risks, everybody knows the opportunities or the lack of opportunities, if there's not an agreement, this thing could get approved if it comes back to the detriment of the landowner, it could come back and get denied to the detriment of the applicant. So there's really nothing being hidden here. So everybody has the same level playing field. So that's sort of how I'd like to proceed. Well, I'm okay with that, and since I'm the original mover, I mean, I don't know if I need to amend my – if somebody else can make a motion that would overrule that or – Well, you can – we do have a couple more people wishing to speak, but go ahead. I did want to ask if I could, the applicant, on the timing – if there's timing for funding, because I know that that's part of this project. So I would ask the – and I've asked that question. I don't know if that's – I think there's some other issues besides. I don't think it's an issue of the financing or anything like that. It might be something else. Okay, thank you. But I mean, if you want to – if the Council wants the applicant to be able to address that question, certainly would be open to that. Is that something that you want to ask the question and the applicant have the opportunity to answer that? Well, if we're postponing, having a time would be helpful. Okay, all right. Yeah, I don't think this will be three hours like the last time. Three-and-a-half? Oh, two-and-a-half. Well, you ever take a half hour? Oh, yes, yes, come – yes, come on. Yep. And Councilmember Briggs, if you could just ask your question, then she'll answer, and then we'll just move on to the request. Sure. So that was our conversation about postponing, and I remember last time you were here, you did some presentation about financing, and there was a timing to the process. And so how does this postponement of three or four months affect that? It puts it slightly at risk because the rules of the program change every year, and the further we get into 2020, the more likely we are to have a 2021 application instead of 2020 application. Where I am – where we are right now, we would probably still be able to get in, in the 2020 rules, and we also wouldn't necessarily anticipate a huge change in those rules. So probably okay, risky though, a little risky. Would two months be better than four months? Yeah, shorter is always better, yes. Well, but they have to be able to get through, I mean, yeah, if there's a different process that they want to try to pursue, that's, I mean, yeah, anyway, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Okay. So, right, and it was just a matter of the timing of being able to get out of some purchase agreements, get into some other purchase agreements to make sure that we would have control of it, because moving this north, as suggested by Mr. Key, means working with the landowner to get a different piece under contract, which is why we were asking for this approval here and then to say, we'll still try to do that, right, but. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Jean. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. We're going to run down through the – Councilman Briggs, I'm going to – Yeah, go ahead. You're going to remove your – okay, as movement, I believe I was – you wanted to remove it instead? Okay. All right. Two or three people just disappeared. Council – Mayor Pro Tem, you were requesting to speak, but you withdrew? Okay. Councilmember Armitage? Yeah. So, the public might not know because – I might not be clear from what was just said, but there had been a – Councilmember Briggs had pressed the button to be in line to make the motion. I had pressed the button. I was prepared to make a second to approve, and that's what that was about because we didn't vocalize – have an opportunity to vocalize our motions yet, but they are here on our computer screen that we can see. I just wanted to say because I see how – I'm counting – and I see how this would end up if we ended up going ahead, how the vote would end up, and it looks like it would not pass as is, so because of that, because I want this to happen, I will – I am in favor of postponing, but it makes me very sad that just to have some essentially workforce housing, we have to spend so much time, so many hours with all of these hoops for people wanting to put affordable housing on the ground here in Denton to go through. I'm not surprised that we don't have more affordable housing like this coming before us because of all of these obstacles, so I'm calling them obstacles. I understand it is the process, but I think it's unfortunate how difficult it is, so that is – I just wanted to publicly state that, that I'm sad, but I will go along with the postponement. Council Member Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. I've got a question. I'm not sure if this is for legal or for development services. If – obviously, if we denied – if we were to proceed and it got denied, they would end up getting – if they came back in the queue, they would be into the 2019, but if they're just doing revisions to what they submitted prior to October 1 when they were under 2002, would they have to go to the 2019 since it's a somewhat substantial revision, or would it be considered that they were vested because the original application was in prior to that and it really has not been denied? And then second to that, I haven't seen it happen in a number of years. It happened once while I was on planning and zoning that council actually sent an item back to planning and zoning because there was a substantial amount of change just to take another look at it, and that might be the postponement event certain of when they can get through development services and get it on the P&Z schedule. I can take a stab at that. If it's a night-to-night, they have to start the process all over. But if they're making revisions to that and they go back down to P&Z, I guess the question would ultimately depend on if they added the commercial component or rearranged buildings and added the commercial component, is that considered a mixed-use development as was defined under the 2002 DDC? And if it was, then they would not have needed an SUP in the first place. If that is something that the mixed-use development was actually a term that was -- there's some definition and I'm going to rely on the planners to tell you what exactly a mixed-use development was comprised of under the 2002 DDC. Councilmember Meltzer. So if a mixed-use development that would fit the 2002 DDC requirements were also somewhere in the ballpark of what the parties might agree to, I'm not even sure what I'm asking. Maybe I'm asking development, like Rich and Julie, might that be -- because it no longer require an SUP, might that be doable within two months? That's an answer for the planners. Okay, I'm going to take a drink of water first. I think we're trying to micromanage the process here. I think what we're talking about is there seems to be an indication that a motion to postpone this particular item is probably going to be on the table. And all these questions that we're asking are questions that the applicant can talk with planning about is how much of this -- if there's a meeting of the minds and we make some changes, can we still bring it in under this, and so we don't have to go back? Or if we do, it's a faster process? I don't think we're going to be able to answer those questions tonight. The point being, we're trying to give some time to find an amicable solution amongst all parties. Mayor, I'm happy to make that motion. I'm just looking for guidance about how much time to ask for. I think Councilmember Briggs is up, but I think the city attorney had said four to five months, and if they get it done quicker than that, then we can get it back sooner. If there's more time needed, then we can make that adjustment as well. So in other words, if it were to an event certain with a time maximum, that would do it, right? Because if it's to a date certain, then you can't come back sooner. If you postpone to a date certain and you're ready sooner, you're postponed, right? Not if you word the motion, table it for 90 days -- Postpone, I'm sorry, thank you -- motion to postpone for 90 days or bring it back sooner if the process has worked itself out to be disposed of or decided. So it's flexibility, depending on how the motion is worded. Gotcha. Yes. Okay. All right. Councilmember Briggs. So I would like to move approval. I'd like to motion that we send this back to planning and zoning to an event certain so that they can revise the SUP, have a neighborhood meeting, and then once that goes through that process and it comes to us. So it's event certain so that they have time to review it again and it goes straight back to P&Z. Okay, so that's very different than a motion to postpone as we've been discussing in this context. Yes, because when you send it back to P&Z, you typically will add certain suggestions or recommendations for P&Z to look at. And so right now I'm not so sure that the council is ready to give some recommendations to P&Z to analyze on remand, so to speak. So they wouldn't look at the revised SUP. That's what I'm asking and have a neighborhood meeting on the revised SUP and then that would be the event certain and then it could come back to us. That's assuming that if there is an agreement and things are moved around, that that could be incorporated in this current SUP and not require a new SUP moving forward through the process. It's the same. If the process is the same, if you create a new SUP, you've got to go to P&Z and then come to council. Or if you use this SUP, we send it back, but we're sending it back with not really knowing exactly what we're sending it back for them to review because there's not been any formalized agreement with the developer and the landowner that has any kind of expressed substance. I mean it's discussion right now and so we may be sending it back and nothing happens. So it doesn't have to go back to P&Z regardless anyway? Well, it does, but it's a nuance what your motion is saying, which I'm not criticizing the motion. I'm just trying to make sure that I understand exactly what the goal is of the motion because I know council member Ryan brought that up, so I'm not quite sure because you're saying take this same SUP, we're sending it back down to planning and zoning, we're asking them to reconsider it. We can't even tell them what they're going to reconsider because we don't even know what the discussions have been. In other words, we're saying send it back as a blank slate and whatever they come up with, then it moves forward and that just doesn't, it just didn't seem very clean to me so I'm probably not going to be able to support the form of that motion. But you can make it and you've made the motion and I'm going to recognize council member Armitage. Okay, I'm going to withdraw my motion and allow someone else to make the motion. Council member Ryan, council member Meltzer, you're still signed up to request a speaker, you? Okay. I'll try to handle the motion. So I'm going to move to postpone this item for 90 days or until, and help me a little here, Mr. City Attorney, trying to enact what you were suggesting. Or sooner. Yeah, or sooner if, I'm going to fill in blank here, if the parties agree to an alternate proposal or not, you know where I'm trying to go, it's really, or sooner if the parties don't agree, right, then they can just come back and do this. By alternate proposal, are you saying alternate SUP proposal? Well, I'm trying to give them the flexibility to come, you know what I'm trying to do. So I, you know, I'm quite open to your suggestion for how to word it, to give the parties the flexibility to see if they can come to a meeting of the minds sooner than 90 days. Can I take a stab at this? Yes. You want me to withdraw and let you? Please. Are you willing to do the moving? You know what I'm doing, right? You have the right to make a motion. I can make a motion. I'm happy to withdraw. I said I'll take a stab at it. If you're willing to do it. Well, let's go. All right. I'm going to withdraw. Okay. So are you going to withdraw your motion? I just did. Okay. All right. Council member Ryan. Okay. I make a motion that this be sent back to have a neighborhood meeting and then remanded to PNC to go over and review what happened at the neighborhood meeting to see if the parties have been able to work items out and then it would come back to us. So it's the event certain of after having a neighborhood meeting and then being able to schedule on PNC. So I've got a question. You know, I'm just going to, I'm going to do this. That's not a motion to postpone, correct? The motion that you made council member Ryan is not a motion to postpone? Well, it's a motion to remand back to PNC. Okay. But that, Mr. City Attorney, is that a motion to postpone? No. All right. Motion postpones take precedence over the motion on the floor. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. We're going to at least get this vote out. I'm going to make a motion to postpone for 120 days, maximum of 120 days. And if planning staff deems that this is ripe to bring back to council, then it can come back before 120 days. That's my motion to postpone. Council member Meltzer. Second. Okay. Sorry. Let me recognize council member Armitage. She was up. Council member Armitage, go ahead. That's fine. I was going to second. Well, you can go ahead. Will you withdraw your second letter? Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. Go ahead, council member Armitage. It doesn't matter. Yeah. I understand. But I want to make sure I follow protocol. I just want to get this done. Yeah. No. I like this better than the planning and zoning. Okay. So you're seconding? Yes. All right. So we have a motion to second on the floor to postpone for maximum 120 days unless staff deems that this application is ripe to be reconsidered prior to that. I'm sorry? If I could just have some clarification, I just want to make sure what we're taking back to PNC. We're not taking anything back to PNC. I'm sorry. Or postpone. Okay. Yeah. We're postponing this SGP application. Yep. Yep. No. You're good. You're good. All right. So yeah, we've got a vote and it's sort of not set up. So do we want to vote by a show of hands or can we get the board set up? I believe I made the motion and Council Member Armitage seconded it. Question. Council Member Briggs? So does it still follow the same supermajority rules if it comes back because it didn't get back to PNC? So when it does come back to us within 120 days, it still has to be... Well, my hunch is... Well, that's a good question. Go ahead. If the same thing comes back, but my hunch is we're postponing it to see if there's something new that can be created that's going to be required to come back through PNC. I mean, the whole purpose of this is to give them an opportunity to work things out. If they don't work anything out and the exact same thing because we're postponing this SGP, if it comes back to us in this same form, then yes, because there's been no overriding motion from PNC, it'll still require supermajorities. And if they do bring back something that's significantly different and they come back before the 90 days and this council decides they want to remand it to PNC, because it's different for a new vote, you can certainly do that. Again, it really depends on what is brought back. Okay. So my point on that is if it's materially different, it's got to go back through PNC. That is correct. Okay. So it's not going to come back to us before it comes back to PNC? No. Because of Robert's procedure, it's still within this dais, this body, it would have to come back to you to make that remand down to PNC. It wouldn't go straight to PNC unless you remand it down to them. You're what? Okay. I'm just stepping into the role of a parliamentarian. The motion to postpone, you've done that and it's ready to come back. So what you're saying is then it comes back to this body, then we'd have to remand it back to PNC, because if it's a material change, it does not go back through PNC? If it's a material change that you decide it is, then you remand it back to PNC to make a determination. Okay. All right. That's when the decision is made. All right. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. I'm still going to let my -- I still have my motion on the table. We'll figure it out then. I mean, if we had to remand it, because if we remand it today, there's nothing -- we're remanding -- we don't even know what we're remanding. We're remanding this back to PNC. You're not remanding anything back. No. What I'm saying is if this motion to postpone, if we had the motion to remand, then we're saying we're remanding this back, given that it's going to become something else. But if it doesn't become something else, we've just now gone through PNC one more time. No. No. If they come back with something that's just the same or almost identical to what you have before you're nine, it doesn't go back to PNC. It goes -- it's here. If we remand it to planning and zoning, it comes back to planning and zoning. If we make a motion to remand it to planning and zoning, then it's going to go back to planning and zoning, whether there's a material change or not. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. If you all decide that, yes. Okay. All right. So if this fails, we'll go in a different direction. We have a motion and a second to postpone to -- and I've stated it three or four times. Are we going to be able to reset the board? Okay. So I'm going to hit that. All right. And then Councilmember Armitage, if you wouldn't mind doing that. All right. Let's vote, please. Motion carries 7-0. All right. Thank you all. All right. We're going to move on to our public hearings. Agenda item 6A, hold a public hearing and consider an application for voluntary annexation of approximately 131.94 acres of land, generally south of Allred Road and west of Fort Worth Drive by the City of Denton County, Texas. All right. Good evening. This is the second of the items for Sagebrook on the agenda this evening. So this request is that you hold a public hearing and consider a voluntary annexation for the 131.9 acres located on the south side of Allred Road, west of Bonnie Bray and Fort Worth Drive. It's outlined in yellow on the map. Again, this did come before you for a work session on January 7th. If the annexation is approved, their intent is to develop the property with a single family subdivision with approximately 491 units, which are shown on the concept plan here. Notices were published in the newspaper and on the city's website. The property owner did speak to many of their neighboring properties and received six favorable responses that are reflected on the map. Those were handed out at today's work session. And again, just that snapshot, we're at the second step of the process for this evening and then the final annexation piece would come before you in March if we move forward this evening. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for the speaker or staff? Sorry. And I will go ahead and open the public hearing. So this is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this, please come down, state your name and address and your time will begin on agenda item 6A. Anybody wishing to speak? Okay. We will now close the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem? Move approval. All right. We have a motion. Council Member Briggs? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote, please. Motion carries 7-0. 7A, items for individual consideration continued. Conduct the first of two readings of an ordinance of the City of Denton for voluntary annexation regarding the same acres, 131.94 acres of land, more or less generally located south of Allred Road and west of Fort Worth Drive. All right. Good evening again. So here's item 3. This is the first of two readings required by our charter for an annexation ordinance. Again, the same property, 131.9 acres located on the south side of Allred Road. Again, same plan that was presented on January 7th is what they intend to develop. And so I will go ahead and read the title of the ordinance. An ordinance of the City of Denton voluntarily annexing approximately 131.94 acres of land generally south of Allred Road and west of Fort Worth Drive by the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, more specifically described in Exhibit B, illustrated in Exhibit A, providing for a correction to the city map to include the annexed lands, providing for a savings clause and an effective date. And again, after this, the ordinance will be published in the paper. And then 30 days later, we will be back here for the second reading and a final vote on this item. All right. This is a public hearing. I will open the public hearing on agenda -- oh, no, sit in the public hearing. This is an item for individual consideration. I apologize. So I have -- It's just a reading. Oh, it's just a reading. So there's really no action. There's no action. The action will be on March 24th. All right. Fantastic. Because we do have one card for our next item. So with 7A, we've moved through. 8A is the public hearing continued. Hold a public hearing. Consider approval of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving a change of zoning -- excuse me, a change in the zoning district and use classifications from the residential 2, R2 zoning district and use classification and the suburban corridor zoning district and use classification for residential 4, R4. Thank you. Cindy Jackson, for the record, Development Services Department, I have before you tonight a request to rezone approximately 16.79 acres of land from the suburban corridor SC district to the residential -- and the residential 2, R2 district to the R4 residential 4 zoning district. As you can see, the site is located between Country Club Drive to the west and approximately 318 feet north of Hickory Creek and the railroad to the east. I thought I'd show you an overall plan of the entire development. This is actually -- the subject site is actually Phase 2 of Country Club Terrace Edition. Phase 1 was preliminary plotted in December. Phase 1 consists of 30 lots and it's on the north side of the subject site. The subject site, site Phase 2, consists of 53 lots and I want you to note that it does not front on Country Club. Access to the site is from Phase 1 through this way. And then the rest of the site follows this tree line along here and this is proposed to be dedicated to the city as park land. Here's the current zoning map which shows the site set with a split zoning of suburban corridor and R2. If this is approved, this will be what the map looks like and it will be a continuation of the R4 district that is located to the north of the site. We have general criteria for approval of all applications in section 2, 4, 5E. I went through that in detail in your backup and I'm not going to go through it right here. Instead, I will focus on the zoning criteria for approval in section 2, 7, 2D. Let's go through them quickly. Criteria one is consistency with the Denton Plan 2030. The site is located in a future land use map transition area between the neighborhood mixed use to the north and the low density residential to the north, to the south. As such, it does-- it can comply with either of those designations. It does comply with the low density residential designation. It's a typical suburban development. It's going to provide a transition between the higher intensity SC zoning that is to the north and the lower intensity, low density residential to the south. It's adjacent to key corridors. Criteria two, is it consistent with relevant small area plans? Well, there are no small area plans for this area. Consistent criteria three, is it consistent with the R4 district purpose statement? Now, the R4 district purpose statement provides for a variety of housing types, encourages walkability to neighborhoods serving retail and other amenities as parks and schools, and serves as a transition between the single family neighborhoods and mixed use neighborhoods and commercial areas. And I just-- as I just previously noted, the R4 district in this location satisfies that locational criteria, the site is located south of-- the entire site is located south of property zone SC. And as such, the entire country club territory subdivision will serve as a transition between the future commercial development of the SC district to the north. Criteria four, there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change. A significant change in the area is a recently approved CIP project for the improvement of Hickory Creek Road. When this Hickory Creek improvement is completed, it will serve to improve access to this general area. Criteria five, the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district is not expected to increase or create in significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding area. First, we'll look at streets. Per the traffic impact analysis that was recently completed for phase one and phase two, a southbound turn lane, left turn lane at the southern entrance to phase one from Country Club Road is required. And I went ahead and included the plans from the construction engineering plans that are recently-- that are currently under review for this left-hand turn lane. It will happen with phase one. So whether or not this is approved, this turn lane will happen. Streets continued. Well, Country-- excuse me, Country Club Road is designated as a secondary arterial with ultimate right-of-way width of 110 feet. The right-of-way will be dedicated at the final plat stage, equal to half of that required width along the frontage of this site. There is a CIP project in the planning stages to improve Hickory Creek to the south of this site, which I already mentioned. West Dot has plans to improve Country Club as well. They have completed the schematics for Country Club at this time. While there's no real date for when that will actually be improved, they are working on it and the schematics have been approved. Water and wastewater, public water and wastewater services are available to the site and there's capacity within the system to support this proposal. Parks-- the land located to the south side of the subject site is planned to be dedicated to the city for parkland and it will serve as a continuation of a regional trail system that the parks has on their master plan. Per the student generation formula used by DISD, the site will generate approximately 13 elementary students, seven middle school students and eight high school students. A DISD representative has indicated that Ryan Elementary cannot accommodate additional students, therefore the students for this subdivision will attend Boorman Elementary School. And Boorman Elementary School does have room for them. The subject property is approximately 3.8 miles from fire station number 6 on Teasley Lane and that is within the eight minute or less response time boundary. We sent out the notifications within 200 and 500 feet, the newspaper ad for city council was posted on February 1st and the property was posted on January 23rd. We received three responses that were in support of this request, two of them were from adjacent property on the other side of the railroad tracks and then one was from the property owner that surrounds this-- the area in question. If you take out the property owner's response, the percentage was 4% of the area within 200 feet. With the property owner's response, it is 61%. A neighborhood meeting was not held, however the applicant spoke to property owners and explained what the project was. At their meeting on February 5th, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request with a vote of 6 to 0 and that concludes my presentation and the applicant is present. >> Okay. These are questions for staff before we open the public hearing. Council Member Briggs. >> Yeah. On the-- for Boorman, did the district say if a bus would run through the neighborhood to bring the kids to school? >> No, I did not request-- ask that for that information so I know it-- I don't know. >> And so is the neighborhood above that was recently approved, would they also be going to Boorman or were they-- >> Yes. >> Okay. So-- >> Yes. I sent the entire development to the DISD representative to let him know and this is-- he told me that it would-- they would go to Boorman. >> So I would like to know, maybe you can find-- somebody can find out about the district because students are going to-- it's-- they can't walk. So they're going to need a bus ride. So hopefully they will serve that area even though it's not Boorman district. And does this-- will this have to comply with the 2019 tree code and code of ordinances? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Council Member Armitage. Oh. Yeah. Go ahead. A couple-- yeah, I'm sorry. No, no. Go ahead. Did you have a question on the floor? >> My questions are out there. He can answer them when he gets-- >> No, no. Yeah. Come on up. >> Yeah. >> I think my presentation will answer. >> Oh, okay. >> If you want me to give the presentation-- >> Yeah. Let me go ahead and get through these before we open the public hearing. I apologize. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You bet. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Council Member Armitage. I'm sorry. Council Member Armitage mentions that no neighborhood meeting was held. Can you refresh my memory on what the requirements are for a neighborhood meeting? >> We recommend it, but we don't require it. >> Mm-hmm. Yeah. And so I guess I can ask the applicant, you know, what kinds of conversations substituted. >> Yes. >> Okay. And can you speak to the 2030 plan and how the proposed change fits with the 2030 plan? >> Mm-hmm. Okay. What did you want to know particularly about the 2030 plan? >> Just however you-- I don't know. Put words in your mouth. However you would explain it. >> Okay. This isn't a transition area. We have different land use types, we have transition areas so that either use can be placed in the transition area. Therefore, this is transition between neighborhood mixed use and low residential. And low residential, it requires dwelling units up to four dwelling units per acre and walkability to nearby parks and commercial areas. And this would comply with this particular requirement. We're going to have actually a park on the south side. And once the site-- the area develops more fully, we will have some neighborhood residential up here. >> Thanks. >> Council Member Ryan. >> Thank you, Mayor. I've got a question on your Criterion 3. It talks about the R4 district, this location-- let me skip forward here a little bit. The site is located on the south of the property zoned SC. Aren't we rezoning from SC? >> We are rezoning from SC, however, the-- there's SC zoning more north of the site. >> Okay. Not north of this site, but north of another R4. >> North of the entire development. Yes. >> Another subdivision of Country Club Terrace. >> Okay. >> It's north of that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I've got a question because I know on the last couple of presentations we've had that the school district kind of-- what school they would go to and-- is that officially a part of our Criteria in our code as far as checking with them? Is that-- >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It is officially part of our Criteria. So what we do now is we usually send something to the school district. We have a representative that we work with and we send him a site plan or concept plan showing the number of lots that are proposed and they let us know where the students would go if there's room in the nearby school or if they would have to go to another school. >> And so that's part of the Criteria for a rezoning. >> That's right. >> Is it just to send them-- is it to get this information or just to let them know? >> It is just-- it serves two purposes. We let them know anyway. >> Right. >> However, it gives us the opportunity to find out whether or not the schools that are nearby can accommodate. >> Okay. I appreciate that. Councilmember Ryan, you're still showing requests to speak? Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Zena, thank you very much. >> Sure. >> I will now open the public hearing. We do have an applicant wishing to speak. Mr. Thomas Fletcher, if you'll state your name and address, your time will begin. I believe you've got 10 minutes. Well, yeah, because it's a public hearing, right? Yeah. >> I think my presentation got removed. Let me load it up real quick. I apologize. [ Pause ] >> Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Thomas Fletcher. I'm the engineer for the applicant. My address is 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas. Appreciate the opportunity to present to you tonight. I do have a quick presentation. The slide before you shows the land area that is proposed for the rezoning. On the north boundary, everything to the south is currently owned by one property owner. Everything to the north is owned by a separate property owner. What we are -- before you denied is the zoning change so that most of the area shown is what's located currently out of the floodplain. So it is really the developable area. So when we went through and looked at the zoning change to request a zoning designation consistent with the use to the north, really we brought before you what is -- could actually be developed. And we're proposing 53 residential lots. This is the layout. We're proposing the R4 zoning, which matches the zoning to the north. Within the R4 district, the minimum lot size is a 7,000 square foot lot. The average lot size for these 53 lots is just over 8,600 square feet. So it's significantly higher than the R4 minimum. So I think that's important to point out. Also would point out the residential neighborhood kind of to the northeast, Ryan Meadows. It was developed under NR3 at three and a half units per acre. The typical lot size in that development is about 6,000 square feet. It ranges between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet. So if you were to go in and look at Ryan Meadows with today's current zoning districts, it would fit more closely in an R6 or an R4, not the R3 district. So I did want to point that out because it is in close proximity to this development. Within this land plan, the darker color green is what's being retained by the HOA. The lighter green or more transparent green to the south is what we are proposing to dedicate to the city as parkland. With the two developments, when you go through and calculate the current parkland dedication requirement, it's under two acres. That land area is about 34.1 acres. So when we started looking at this project, we went and had a meeting with the Parks Department to see if that would be something that they would be interested in. And talking with them, they're in the process of redoing their master parks plan, trails plan. And this is actually one of the corridors that they identified as wanting to construct a regional trail. So this worked in line with that. So they were pleased that we would be open to the land dedication. So the lots are well over the typical minimums for R4. So we are proposing a larger lot. This just kind of shows the topography and kind of see that the majority of the track to the south is within the 100-year floodplain. That shows kind of the 100-year floodplain in the area. So this area, although it's shown as mostly rural and rural residential, a lot of it is likely to remain undeveloped because of the floodplain. When Hickory Creek Road is reconstructed, there may be some reclamation there that occurs by removing the road, but likely most of this area is going to remain rural. The overall parcel is 56 acres, a little over 56 acres. So for the overall parcel, we're doing 53 lots on 53 acres. For the zoning area, we're doing 53 lots on just under 17. So that's 3.2 units per acre. So it is well under that 4 units per acre low residential. This is the left turn lane. We did do a traffic impact analysis. We did determine with the development that we would need to make improvements to FM 1830. We have met with TxDOT. We showed them the proposed plan. They've looked at our driveway spacing. They've looked at the left turn lane. They looked at the storage, the transition. We did get positive feedback from them, and we've made an unofficial submittal to them for review. And then that, as Cindy mentioned, that is a requirement as part of the initial project. So that would be constructed with Country Club Terrace phase one and be in use for phase two, if we're so approved. This just kind of shows the tree preservation. The project would be under the 2019 Denton Development Code. The project has over 75% tree preservation. And with the majority of those trees being located within the parks area, that would be dedicated to the city for use as part of the public park system. There is areas of the trees that would remain within our HOA that is kind of north of that east-west line that you see. Because we met with TxDOT and they did have schematic designs on FM 1830 for a four-lane divided roadway, when we went through and did our calculations for preservation, we went ahead and showed the trees along Country Club Road to be removed within the calculation because we know that when that's widened, those trees are gonna go away. So the over 75% preservation does include removing the trees from the calculation along FM 1830. There's no proposed ESA impacts, and then the parkland dedication provides the opportunity for the regional trail. So really, I'll stand with that. I'll stand for questions. The other thing that was on the last slide, none of the residential lots, there's two gas wells that are somewhat in the area, but the proposed residential lots are in excess of 1,500 feet from those gas well sites, so I did want to point that out as well. With that, I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. Mayor Bell, sir. I just want to make sure I understood what you're telling us about the trees along Country Club Road. Those ones that you surmise are gonna be removed anyway, are they in the 26% or I forget. They're in the 25, and actually when we went through and did the initial calculation, we were showing about 82% preservation, so I didn't, just to kind of be conservative here tonight. So you added them into the denominator. Right, right. So if we remove all the trees to do our development and the trees get removed along Country Club Road, there will be in excess of 75% preservation. Thank you very much. Council Member Ryan. On this, you had a floodplain map as well, I think, on this area. The section between your development and Country Club Road, they're still small. This is, I don't know if it's under, is it the same landowner that owns all the way out to Country Club? The correct, the piece on the south that's between the zoning change and Country Club Road, that is the same landowner. That's correct. On the west side of the development. No, no, on the west side of the road, this is a different. No, no, not the west side of the road, the west side of your development, between your development. Yes, correct. Right there. That is the same property owner. And the only reason we didn't include that in the zoning case is just because we didn't have any proposed residential lots, and we were just trying to keep from a, what were we actually developing from a density standpoint? We were really only wanting to include the area that was actually going to be developed. Okay. So this is probably more of a comment for staff in that what we're, when you look at the zoning map that was in their presentation, we're left with this little tiny box that's all in a floodplain that's going to be SC that looks like a spot zoning. It's not spot zoning because it's something that got left out of zoning. It's not something we've rezoned to that, but it just, it would just make more sense in the future that if the person is, if it's a common owner and there's this little bitty chunk to go ahead and make it all the same. Yeah. And what it would end up being is just an HOA lot, an open space lot. So on the zoning map, there would be a little sliver in there that's SC, but it would be, it would be an HOA lot with the development. And as I'm thinking about it, the question councilwoman Armitier had about the neighborhood meetings, because when you look at our zoning, our proposed zoning boundaries, when you look at 500 feet, there's no, it's all large property owners. So we talked to Mr. John Lott, who's the property owner to the north. I think with his work, he travels, he sent me an email of support. It was a little bit vague, so we didn't forward it on, but he was in support of the project. We, the, the estate for Mr. Calvert provided their support of the development. The property owner that we're working with owns all the surrounding areas. So we did reach out to all the large property owners. So but the reason we did not have a neighborhood meeting was just because there really wasn't a neighborhood formation within that 500 foot notification boundary. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs? I move to approve. Councilmember Meltzer? Second. Not yet. No, I will. Thank you. Do we, do we need to do the motion second again, or can we take that within the public hearing? Close the book. And then do it again. Okay. Yeah. I apologize. That's my fault. Okay. So I will now close the public hearing. Sorry. Councilmember Briggs? Well, that gives me a chance to say thank you for being conscious of the environment around your development. I appreciate that. And with that, I motion to approve. Councilmember Meltzer? Yeah. Really like the clustering. I second. And I, I mean, truly, even though it's all floodplain, that dedication of parkland, I think is very significant and I really appreciate that consideration in this particular proposal because I think it will really benefit not only that subdivision, but many others in that area just provide another quality amenity for our citizens. So please pass that along. Really appreciate that. All right. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you very much. Concluding items. Councilmember Briggs? So just a few real quick. Surprise, surprise. It's been a long time. I would like to just give a big shout out to all the people, the community members out there picking up litter right now. I know I've seen a lot of different posts and a lot of different community members stepping up and doing that and so I appreciate that. Next I wanted to say congratulations to the Parks Department for their water park pass, the sale. We added the payment plan and I've read there was over 345 new passes sold and I know they worked really hard to do that to get that out to the community and I just want to say thank you for that. And last, because of our speaker earlier with the fees, I know we passed an overall fee schedule and that was looked at but I would just like to see a little bit more of what's involved in the price for the community market because the annual fee for them is the same as a daycare, nursing homes, small grocery store and so just what's involved in that permitting fee is I just want to see a little bit more detail. Any other concluding items? Mayor Pro Tem? Thank you. Just I'll touch on the fact that the Black History Program is at the MLK Center on the 22nd, 10 a.m. Thank you. Any other concluding items? Alright, we will stand adjourned at 847. Thank you.