Mar 03, 2020 City Council on 2020-03-03 12:00 PM

Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2020. It is 1202 p.m. We'll move through our agenda for today. We do have a quorum, so I'll call this meeting to order. First item is item number one, which is citizen comments on consent agenda items. I don't believe we've seen any cards. All right. Item number two is request for clarification on agenda items listed on the agenda. Councilmember Briggs? A couple of questions on consent agenda item D for the electronics recycling. I just want to confirm that this contract isn't going to change the rate that we charge our customers for pick up or drop off. I'll ask for solid waste and recycling. No, it won't have an impact on the rate that we charge our customers. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. That was easy. Is that all? Yes. All right. Yes. It's a different item. Thank you. Thank you very much. On item G for the GIS and the data, it's just kind of going back to the conversation we had yesterday about needing upgrading and technology and a roadmap. And reading this caption, it seems like some of that would fit in here. And my question is, is it? Good afternoon. Melissa Craft, Chief Technology Officer. Yes, it is. And part of that is specifically for the DME, they have kind of customized software. So we're going to be evaluating kind of all of their software and seeing if we can replace some of their customized for more commercial off the shelf. So it's going to be kind of part of the roadmap looking forward. So, yes. Okay. Good. And so may I follow up? Of course. So I saw that this contract has been in place for a long time. So where you can do that, you can just kind of add what you need to do as things come up with with newer things that we wanted to request. Or does it have to be very specific? So I think it has to be kind of specific depending on the project and the goal with what you're trying to achieve. This is specific for the DME technologies, specifically for the GIS overlay that integrates their work order systems with the GIS and their responder system. So it's kind of really specific. So it will address some of the concerns that we saw yesterday in that presentation. Not familiar with what I'll have to defer here to Terry. Good morning. Terry Nolte, Assistant General Manager at DME. This particular piece of software is one of our critical pieces that we use as our responders. So every time we have an outage and we have to monitor and map all of our responder effects. So we are extending this contract in order to ensure that that system stays live. We will be in a separate effort be evaluating its role going forward whether we're going to stay with this technology or move to another one. But the vendor was only willing to provide us with an extension of three years. We asked for a shorter extension. They were only willing to give us a three-year extension. Okay. All right. Thank you. Does that answer your question? It does. Thank you for that clarification. Yes, I was a little confused about it. All right. Thank you so much. Okay. Anybody else? All right. We'll move on to our work session reports then. And depending on timing, we may have to move agenda item 3B to the end based upon staff scheduling. But we'll see how this next one goes. Agenda item 3A is receive report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding potential national electric safety code violations and mitigation options along the TNPA transmission corridor that runs through the Windhaven residential subdivision within the city of Denton. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council Terri Nalti, Assistant General Manager. We're bringing this topic back to you per your instructions from two weeks ago. This is to update the information that we provided specifically dealing with the surveys and the limits of the easement and property lines associated with a property in the Windhaven subdivision. You recall in your direction to staff, you asked for this one clarification on the specifics of the property owner's survey. Did it comport with the easements that we have on record? And we'll go through that. We have with us today Mr. D White, who is the property owner, and you may want to hear from him if that would be permissible after I get done with my short presentation. So the issue is, again, we have identified a violation of the National Electric Safety Code, a clearance issue with a 138 KV line that is adjacent to this home. The line is owned by TMPA, but because DME is the transmission operator, we are responsible for the operation and maintenance of that system. This is the home and the line is approximately 11 feet from the eve of the home. It needs to be 13 feet plus to comport with the National Electric Safety Codes. We did receive a copy of the survey, Mr. White's survey. You can see it here on the left. There are a couple of discrepancies that we found on the survey compared to the easements. One of the reference pages of the easement was incorrectly stated on the homeowner's survey, and some of the property limits of the property line, the measurements, distances are a little different from what we see on the final plat. But in general, those differences are considered nominal, and we see those all the time on these types of situations. We did ask our surveyor to go out and do a comprehensive analysis of the existing data, all the survey records and plats. And as you can see, the surveyor's report did agree that the lines that are drawn comport and are depicted properly on both the survey of Mr. White's property as well as the easement itself. And with that, our recommendations or our options are still the same as we had before. We have an option, number one, which was to put a single pole in the easement. That cost is $132,000. The second option is a two pole structure, which is $386,000, a difference of $254,000. Both options are attainable because they're both within the confines of the existing easement, and we have rights to do what we need to do in those easements. And with that, I would ask for any questions. >> Any questions? Council Member Armitage. >> So at the last meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Hatsbeth had suggested a possible alternative regarding city buying the property or something to that extent. I was wondering if there were any inquiries, any expressed interests on the part of the homeowners for that? >> We have not approached the homeowner about that. We have limited our investigation into specifically the limits of the easement and the property survey. >> And- >> That's it. >> Yeah. That makes perfect sense to me. I was just wondering if there had been any inquiries from the property owner regarding that. >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay, thanks. >> Any questions? I know Council Member Davis isn't here. I think we recall what his direction was. Mayor Pro Tem, you were the one really requesting this to come back with the property owner survey? And so, any comments or direction or? >> No, for me, I appreciate the insight because one, to touch on the fact that the differences are quote unquote normal. And so for me, it really is financially, I think that either to my option, my first option is to put in the poll just where it was pushed back as originally designed. But if there's a desire to put in the two polls before we get there, I would ask that we explore other options because it's financially more expedient or financially a better decision. >> So, I want to just try to summarize what I recall from the last meeting as far as direction. I believe Council Member Ryan, myself, and Davis were in favor of the single poll option. Is that, and Council Member Pro Tem was undecided based upon the information coming back. And if I recall correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, Council Member Briggs and Armature, I think you all were in favor of the two poll solution. You didn't really have a- >> No, I don't think that's accurate. I said I felt that moving it back 40 feet was the reasonable accommodation. I don't think it's an equitable use of taxpayer money on individual property. But I was willing to hear the result of whatever it was that Mayor Pro Tem wanted to explore and see if there was some insight to be gained there. >> Sure, so you're the single poll option, is that correct? >> Yeah, like I said, unless there's some kind of new insight that would bring us some other direction. >> Sure, okay. So, I wanted to, if you wanted to speak, because I'd asked you earlier if you wanted to talk. You said you'd wait and hear the presentation, so I forwarded your wife three or four minutes. I wanted to give you an opportunity as well if you wanted to share some thoughts, you bet. And just if you would, again, state your name and your address when you get to the mic, just for the record, I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, my name is D White, Donald White, 5040 Split Rock Drive, Denton, Texas, 76210. Again, just thanks for giving me a moment to just speak. So I know my wife is up here a couple of weeks ago, and just really I think she may have rolled you through the situation. But just really looking at the different options, I know we purchased a home, again, not a lifetime resident, but 16 years. Moved there, there wasn't a poll. So we had other options. When we picked the home, it was never disclosed to us that there could be a chance of it because we saw the wires, of course. That was a thought, and then we got over that because there was no poll. So we put in the offer on the home, even put in a lower offer. They countered back at full ask, so we paid a full price for the home, got our kids set up, everything going. Now, my biggest investment that I make is my home, that's what I do for a living, I'm in banking. So to have it, and I spoke to a bunch of different realtors, and to have them tell me, hey, a poll going up right there is going to affect your value. I mean, not just my own realtor, I talked to several because I run across a lot in the course of a day. So just trying to see the different option because no one wants a poll when you walk out of your front door and it's right there, or you're on the side of your house, because it does affect your value. So just really wanted to look at the different options. I know there were several given, I mean, of course, we'd like a two pole option, but again, there's certain things that we know are going to happen. So mainly what I wanted to do today is just see what the different options, well, we know what the options are, but see who, I didn't really understand one portion of the report. Because it said that I guess there were some discrepancies or there may have been something that was, because at the end of the day, we've had a consultant attorney. So I want to be able to go back to them and say, hey, here's the option we need to go, because again, $30,000 to $70,000, I've had different numbers, I've had them low, I've had them high. Of course, the truth probably falls in the middle. But that's money out of my pocket that I've put down on this home that I've got to recover from somewhere. So that's kind of where we're headed now. So I just really, the main thing I want to know is kind of where we're going and what the options are so I know how to react. >> Sure, I think based upon what we heard, at least today, is that the single pole option seems to have the consensus that moves staff forward on that option. It's obviously not unanimous, as you heard. So at this point, that seems to be the direction that council has given is to move forward with the single pole option of moving it back 40 feet from where I think the original location was. >> Gotcha. >> So yeah, that I think is what, Councilmember Armitage? >> Yeah, I was just wondering, and I realize this is kind of a tangential point, but when your wife spoke to us- >> Councilmember Armitage, I just want to make sure, because I don't want your time to be running while we're talking. So you do have, how much does he have left, do you know? Yeah, two minutes. >> I'm sorry, are you done? >> Yeah. >> Okay, all right, go ahead. >> Okay, yeah, so your wife spoke about, I forget what kind of animal, coyotes or somebody was living in the pole, and kids were playing- >> Yeah, and those were closed up, so the ends, they get closed up the next day. >> Okay, good, that's what I wanted to ask about. >> Definitely. >> Any other questions or comments for Mr. White? Yes. >> I'm glad to hear that you've spoken to an attorney. I think there's some topics to explore regarding the non-disclosure, but not my expertise. So if staff could get with Mr. White and give him a contact number so that he had some questions about what was presented in the report, that there were some discrepancies or some different volume and page numbers that weren't consistent with the plat to your particular survey, I believe. So if y'all could just get with him at some point here, either today or tomorrow, and just let him know what those are, so that'd be helpful to him. >> And can I ask one last question? >> Sure, you bet. >> Just as far as timeline, if we do go with the one whole option. Because, again, I want to know how to react is what it boils down to. >> Yes, I think we can get you an answer on that. >> So the existing poll is, part of the poll is in the right away currently in the easement. The other half of the poll can be delivered any time. We have to mobilize a contractor. The actual construction work will take about a week. So we're, right now, with a go ahead, we probably would have the poll up in two to three weeks from today. >> Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you for coming. All right, we'll move on to 3B, which is receive a porthole discussion to give staff direction regarding the 2020 Dent mobility plan update. Excuse me. With a focus on the southern area of the city. >> Hello, Mayor, Council. I am Pam Alamutul, traffic engineer with the city. So today, we are, Mark and I will be discussing the southern area. This is the last sub area to discuss for the mobility plan. We will be going into the mobility plan purpose, the updates for each plan. And then, since this is the last work session, we are going into what are the next steps. So for the mobility plan purpose, city staff that's been involved with development review has been very busy in the last couple months and years with all the development coming into the city. So staff's goal is to provide a concrete plan that they can put into action and start preserving that right away. We will be sharing with council the draft plans by the end of the month, early April. And each plan has these key goals, which is improving safety, continuing neighborhood coordination, providing better connectivity, and providing multimodal options. So let's start talking about the details of the thoroughfare plan. So for the south area, as discussed in the work session held on February 11th, the goal for the south is to identify those key east-west connections. And connect to I-35 west with I-35 east. So there are five key updates to the thoroughfare plan. The first and second is a continuation of that February 11th discussion. So the Allred-Brush Creek-Hickory Creek connection. During the February 11th work session, we did receive guidance from council on the preferred alignment. And that is what we are showing today. Currently, we are showing it as a primary arterial for a couple of reasons. One is that the 2015 plan, that's how it was classified before as a primary arterial. So as developments been coming in, they've been guided and required to keep that 135 feet right away, so that is already in place. And it does continue west of I-35 west as a primary arterial. So it would be a continuation throughout the city. It was discussed and questioned if it should be a secondary arterial, versus a primary arterial, and our plan is to receive input from the public as we go and have our second round of public meeting starting at the end of March. So we will share the recommendations from the public with council as we start collecting that feedback. Any questions for this alignment? So the second is Rhine Road extension. We are proposing to connect vintage to Rhine Road. And due to the volumes and what we're projecting, we are recommending it to be a secondary instead of a primary arterial. It would be great separated because there's a railroad and river, so some environmental features that we need to cross over. So those two east-west connections are going to help the southern area of the city. The third major update is Bonnie Bray. So in the 2015, it was classified as a secondary arterial, but we are proposing it to become a collector along 377. We do have a quiet zone project, so we are removing railroad crossings along Bonnie Bray. And a road to south Johnson because we are adding a crossing for what is this all red, all red hickory alignment. >> I have a quick question. >> Yes. >> When you talk about removing railroad crossing as part of a quiet zone project. >> Mm-hm. >> I know that's in the future. >> Mm-hm. >> We've got quiet zone projects that we've been trying to get done for many years. So I just want to make sure that we have an understanding that we have some that we've been actively working on for many years that I'm not sure where we are. We'll get an update on that hopefully soon. So this isn't one that's going to be done right away, it's- >> No, this is upcoming and we're just because that's upcoming and we know of it, we want to make sure that their fair plan reflects that plan. >> Okay, all right, thank you. >> So this collector we are proposing to stay there to serve parkland that is just located west of Bonnie Bray. The first, the fourth update is John Payne extension. So in the 2015 plan, it's classified as a collector. But we want to upgrade it to a secondary arterial and be continuous to what is classified on the south near Crawford Road. We believe that will be a key corridor that's north-south and parallel to I-35 west. And the last update is FM 2499. This is an existing road and based on the functionality of this road, we're proposing to continue that primary arterial classification south up to the city limits. Any questions? >> Councilmember Amater. >> Yeah, this is kind of a general overall question about the plan. Can you speak to how much right of way purchasing will be necessary for this part of the plan and what the processes for public notification moving forward? >> I think Todd would like to give his input. >> So, Todd, as the city engineer, are you speaking specifically of 2499 or just in general? >> Yeah, just to the whole south. >> So the basis of the plan is just to identify these major corridors so that as development does occur, we have the opportunity to start working with that developer about what we'll need. Over time, as projects are defined through the CIP, then we would end up working with those property owners at the time the project actually comes to fruition. Until that time, we're not talking to people specifically about, hey, we're going to come and take 20 foot out of your front yard or your backyard. Those people may not even own the home when the project actually occurs. So we deal with the property owners when the project becomes a reality. >> Okay, so that answers both the notification and when that becomes a reality, is it just the property owner that's notified or are there surrounding? >> There's a variety of means for that and absolutely individual property owners affected by actual construction of the project. We'll work with them one on one because they'll need to know exactly what the extent of those conditions changing will be. >> And then we work with the entire neighborhood or entire region or a set of businesses, whatever's in the area as a whole, to make them aware of what construction's coming, when, how it might impact their patterns during construction, and then afterwards. >> Okay, thanks. >> Mm-hm. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I was pulling up the satellite view in respect to this segment. Is there an accommodation made for the fact that, I mean, I'm assuming there's a lot of that southern section as you get close to Orchard Hills is bridge. Is there a different kind of accounting that, I mean, obviously it would take, if you're going to widen that, it's a lot more doing. Are you saying it will just, that segment over the bridge will remain as is and fits the future needs? >> We are not recommending any widening. It is what it is. It's a four lane divided road. We're just classifying it what we believe the functionality is. >> And then, if it were to project forward that it does need to be expanded or there's more traffic than what the four lanes can have, how do we approach that? If it's, when you're talking about a bridge and you're talking about projecting costs forward, obviously that's a little different animal. >> Right, so there's several things in this question to make sure to address. So when it comes to 2499, part of what's actually reflecting on our mobility plan is what's reflecting on both the regional mobility plan and the county's mobility plan. So those entities also have this same infrastructure. Most of it's already constructed to six lanes. Even the bridges that go over 2499 over the lake, you have a lot of extra room on those bridges. So there may be four lanes today but they've got extra room already. That's already there. As far as projecting costs, projecting costs, based on what we have delivered in the market, as far as what's being constructed today, as well as across the Dallas-Fort Worth area, we can generate linear foot costs that we project for this particular project. Assuming that we're going to have certain things like street lights, a bridge. What type of bridge? Is it concrete? Is it truss? I mean, there are things that we can use to give a budget number and then we add in a cost for inflation based on projection out plus contingency amounts. Got it. Okay. Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. Any other questions for the road mobility portion of the update? All righty. Thank you very much. I'm going to hand it off to Mark. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, Mark Oliphant. So I'm going to be discussing the bicycle and pedestrian portions of this southern area of the mobility plan. First, we're going to look at the bicycle plan. On the left, we have our existing bicycle plan. This is what we had planned for back in 2014. On the right is what sort of facilities we have in place currently. Not a great deal has been built so far. I think most of our emphasis and priority have been in the downtown areas so far, but it doesn't mean that this area in the near future can't receive more bicycle infrastructure. On the next slide, I'm going to have, here's a comparison between the existing plan and what we are proposing on the right there for our draft bicycle plan going forward. And just overall, basically what it does is it provides more connections east, west, and north, south, and a more kind of comprehensive network for traveling through and to the edges of this area of town, we've included more crossings of the interstates. And let's see, yeah, it's just in general more connections. >> All right, thanks. One question. Councilmember Briggs. >> You mentioned connections along I-35, which are really important. So is there a connection or will there be a connection at Pennsylvania? >> We, okay, I'll point that out here. Pennsylvania is, if it's going to show up, here we go, right here. So currently on one side we have the mall, sort of on that northeast side. And on the southwest side we have a neighborhood. We, as part of the plan right now, are not proposing a connection. Have looked at that, as far as what kind of space is available, if it could just be like a pedestrian flyover. So it's an idea that we can look into more. Is it something you advocate? >> Well, just a safe connection from the neighborhood over to the shopping would be ideal. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, go ahead. Explain to me from where to where on that, I stepped out. What are you talking about, Councilmember Briggs? >> Just from the neighborhood over at Pennsylvania and Southridge to the opposite side of 35 where there's restaurants and shopping. So just a safe crossing for pedestrians and bicycles. >> So you're talking about a pedestrian bridge? I mean, there's another way to do that. >> We don't have plans for a vehicle. >> No, no, that's what I'm saying, I mean, because I think we still have also the I-35 expansion. They have a phase, I think it's two or three, that still is looking to be widened. So, I mean, I get that, I just, I'm not sure, go ahead. >> So I do know that when TextDOT has expansions, there's opportunity for the city to weigh in and pay extra to do certain special crossings at the same time. So this would be the conversation to start having if it was something that we were looking into as they were expanding and building out, right? Isn't that, is that correct or no? >> Do we, I'll let him talk about the broader. >> I'm just, I'm trying to get an answer for you. >> Brian John, traffic engineering. Certainly, whenever TextDOT brings a project forward to widening our reconstruction, we work with them to explore opportunities for both bike and pad enhancements. That's just, that's a norm now. So as those corridors are reconstructed, we will look for opportunities to either partner with them or have them include in their plan that infrastructure to serve the ped bike element. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I guess my only thought is on that, I mean, that's a big deal. And so to me, you would want to have the demand there to do that like they did the pedestrian crossing at North Texas Boulevard, which was part of a bridge. It wasn't a standalone, necessarily, pedestrian crossing. And also, I'd want to see once you get across there, how much connectivity is there around there that's safe? I mean, we've talked about the bike and pedestrian plan as far as will people somewhat use it, sort of percentages. So I don't have a problem with the discussion, I would probably have a problem with actually including that particular thing in the plan. I think it's conversations that can occur, but I would struggle with that, for me personally. Yes, go ahead. >> Just a reminder that the rail trail is on the other side of that. And so there's probably a really great connection from that neighborhood in the parks over to shopping and restaurants to the rail trail, which could go all the way back to downtown and to Louisville. >> I hear what you're saying, Councilmember Briggs, but the rail trail is about a half a mile between the service road. And you've got to traverse all of those shopping centers, parking lots, or you have to go down loop 288 or you come down. What is that one that runs down the side? >> San Jacinto. >> San Jacinto, is that the one that runs, yeah. So as I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I don't know if we've done enough analysis of that to place that in the plan. For me, I'm just only one person here, but those are my thoughts. >> Go ahead, Councilmember Briggs. >> Go ahead, Councilmember Briggs. >> Yeah, I mean, we just saw in my expression was just registering agreement with the idea that we ought to have a conversation about what connectivity will be, right? And I wasn't hearing specific proposal like we know what the answer is, but that ought to be a goal. >> Sure, don't disagree with that at all. >> There's probably different ways to achieve it, but to hear what they are. >> Well, maybe we can call it out in the text that if that were a possibility, there might be opportunities there, something like that. Yeah, I keep bumping this. Other questions on that? Well, the next slide just is a little more zoomed in look at what we're proposing currently. We also put on there some of the proposed trails from Parks and Rec Department. So you'll see in the black here are the Hunter Cole trails. And in pink are other sort of proposed parks and recs. So this is ours with theirs overlaid. And we've also been working with them to incorporate what we're proposing with what they are. So that's really, that's the overall picture. We have a lot more connections. East, west, it's going to be much easier to traverse as well as north, south. And the crossings of I-35 will be much improved. >> That's the proposal. >> Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. >> Now, Mark, you had mentioned on the areas such as that to the west there of 35, where it's new kind of opportunities we're doing better about segregating streets and bike trails. >> Yes. >> So that's more novice. So that maintains here. >> Uh-huh, yes, sir. >> Great. >> Sure does. >> Thank you. >> Sure does, yeah. All right, well, I'll go on to the pedestrian portion. This is pretty straightforward. So our first map here in yellow shows all of our existing sidewalks in that part of town. The next map, we keep the existing sidewalks in yellow, but the blue is all projects that are either under construction, they're funded, they're committed. So no matter what happens with this plan, these are going to happen. So we will have sidewalks in the blue and yellow areas. Now here on the next slide, this shows all the areas where we are missing sidewalks. You see we have two colors, we have the gold and the red. The red is for our higher priority sidewalks, areas that we have identified as being first in line. If and when we get funds to build these, these are the areas where we recommend the sidewalks go in first. And that's typically, that means they're along higher volume roads, near transit stops with higher ridership or closer to schools, commercial areas, things like that. Then the yellow is all the other areas where we're missing sidewalks. And I'll also mention that as new development occurs, sidewalks will be a requirement for all of that. So everywhere that's not built out now, they will be getting sidewalks. So finally here, this is just a map that shows all of those layers together. So yellow's existing, blue is on their way, funded, coming. And then the gold and the red are areas where the sidewalks haven't been built yet. >> Okay, any other questions on this plan? >> And then Pam is going to give you the next steps here quickly. >> So we have started going back to the groups we've discussed before the first draft. So February 20th, Mark spoke with the Committee on Persons with Disabilities. Some of the feedback we received was that they are in favor of the proposed cross sections on the wider sidewalks, side paths that we're proposing. They would like to see some of the sidewalks close to Razor Ranch as a higher priority. And they want to make sure we're working with the planning department on providing access to the new high school that is being built. So we are going to look into those items. Yesterday I spoke to Traffic Safety Commission. Some of the feedback we did receive was to kind of work with DCTA closely on providing and incorporating transit more into the plan. So we are working with them very closely and we are building some flexibility into the cross sections to potentially provide exclusive lanes for buses if needed as they continue working on their efficiency study. They did want us to know that experienced cyclists prefer on street facilities. And they wanted to ensure that all neighborhoods are being included in the pedestrian plan. We are planning a March 12th meeting with the Technical Stakeholders meeting, which does include UNT, DCTA, TextDOT, all of the key stakeholders. We have six public meetings that are lined up in March, April. We wanted to ensure we had a central location, that we have a meeting in each district. And then we're going back to the bicycle focus group on April 2nd. As I mentioned, we will be sharing the draft report with council March, April adoption. And when adoption does occur, we do plan to have an extensive internal and external communication initiative and make sure we're all on the same page on what has been adopted. And Todd has some concluding statement. >> Okay. >> So just knowing the discussion that council had a couple of weeks ago when we talked about the Hickory Creek Road alignment and its classification. We still have not received a written statement from COG as to whether or not they'll support a primary or secondary arterial. We have gotten verbal confirmation that their preference would be the primary arterial to receive funding. In light of that, what we had been thinking of doing was taking to the public in March and April, the primary arterial classification and getting that public feedback. But wanted to make sure that council was aware that was the step we were taking forward as we go through this mobility plan schedule in the public meetings. >> Yes, Councilmember Montero. >> So question, so I love that we're having all these public meetings. And I was wondering for people who want to provide input by email, obviously people can at any time write to council. But will there be some sort of mechanism by which people can not only submit their suggestions and feedback online. But also where people who attend these meetings can see what the feedback of others has been. >> Great, so online on the project website, if you go to www.cityofdenton.com/mobilityplan, the draft plan that we've been discussing is uploaded online. And there are features where you can online put your feedback. You can drop a little dot or draw a line where you would like a facility. So if you are not able to make a public meeting, it's all available online. >> Wonderful, so I will spread the word on that, and I was wondering if it's possible, even if we don't have this now. I know that we've had for other kinds of public meetings in the city. We've had, for instance, for sustainability, they have on paper a process by which you can, individuals can write their suggestions on post-it notes and put it up publicly. And other people can put sticky dots to see. Yeah, and I love that because it's not only individuals getting their feedback in, but individuals seeing what other people's ideas are and learning from their fellow citizens. So I was wondering if we could do something like that online and/or in person. So that residents can see what other residents are saying. >> That's a great suggestion, so we definitely will consider that. >> Awesome, thanks. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> In the same vein as feedback in community meetings, I did see a couple comments online from individuals who live in rural areas and in the county who would be directly impacted by some of these expansions from the mobility plan. Is there, they're feeling left out and, you know, how do they get notified if they're not an actual city of Denton resident on the impacts coming to them in the future? How does that work for them to register their voice on a situation like this? >> Well, they can definitely do the same things as anybody else. They can attend public meetings in these places that are identified. People have let us know that they're very interested in this. We keep telling them, you know, here are the dates, and we would love to have your feedback. You can go to the website and provide that feedback. It's just like anybody else. They're able to see anything and everything just as any citizen in the city of Denton would, and they can respond to us in the same fashion. >> So I have just a request to see if we could share this with the county commissioners, and maybe they could put it in their update so that anybody receiving, you know, a county email would see our dates. >> So we can definitely push the dates towards the county commissioners. The county has been a part of this planning process, so it's not like they've been left out. We've very deliberately tried to make this a cohesive project with their overall transportation network. >> Okay, so they're having their meetings as well in the county? >> Well, they have a different plan on a different timeline. Ours just now match, whereas the 2015 mobility plan didn't align with the county at all. >> Okay, all right, thank you. >> Yes, Councilmember Maltzer. >> Yes, I did catch that there was going to be public input on the Brush Creek thing, and if you hadn't already said that, I would have requested it, but I heard it, so thank you. There's another topic that, you know, I'm never quite sure exactly when to bring it up. I think it might, so I'll look for guidance, maybe how to bring it up when we look at Cole Hunter again. But in addition to bike, pedestrian, and automobile, there's part of the city that cares a lot about golf cart access, and when we get deeper into the Cole Hunter thing, I hope we will look for golf cart usable connectivity between Ropes and Ranch and the commercial areas of Cole Hunter, okay. >> Okay, what else? Oh, Mayor Proctor. >> And it's really a question for you, Mayor, or just to get your thoughts. I heard staff talk about the fact that more experienced riders prefer on street, and then we hear more novice riders and moderate riders will utilize the trails for, if they're set aside safe. And so I wonder if, my question is, should this body give some direction or at least kind of register its leaning going forward so that people have something to react to, because those are, I don't think we have the funds to do both, I don't think that's prudent. So I think either the more experienced riders need to know where we're going to defer and opportunities that we have to lean towards accommodating the novice and moderate riders. I just think the plan communicates both that, hey, we're going to try to do this, but at the same time, we need to acknowledge that this group says we prefer that, but I don't know what your thoughts are or how we do that as a body. But I just, I want to try to give them clear communication early. >> Well, I guess my first question would be, how do we do that now? How do we make that decision now on a bike plan or where lanes go? I mean, because if, and I think that's a good question because I remember that conversation. I remember that there was a lot of concern with Cheryl lanes, shared lanes where there's just a stencil on the street. And there was some concern about that when that was sort of the thing to do to, quote unquote, increase our lane miles for bicycles. So I think it's a good question because if this body doesn't necessarily, or if the community doesn't want, and I think that's really a question for the community, quite frankly, in these open public meetings. So I'll probably defer to them, but I think it needs to be very clear and presented. Because there has been a shift, since this first became a topic many years back, on the goal was to just, quote unquote, get a higher number in the bicycle lane mile category. And you could do that so easily by just putting a sign up and putting stencils down. But didn't necessarily mean that that was safer or more desired. Whereas now I'm hearing, or at least I heard, at least from the people here, and it may be reflected in the community, that we want to look at those other alternatives to get more people participating in that mode of transportation. So I think that's really something that could be really communicated to the community and to get their feedback through these different means that have been discussed here today to do that. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah, good question. Yes, Council Member Moutzer. >> Actually, just as a follow up, because I had a slight misunderstanding. I would love a clarification from Mr. Alphen on his point of view. I took it that, for sure, the casual riders prefer the off road. But I didn't necessarily take it from that pivotal slide. That the expert users prefer the on road. I just took it that they would use it and the others wouldn't. So is that a fair, is that your understanding as well? >> I think that is fair. My direction would be go towards more protected off street infrastructure. Those who are highly comfortable, highly skilled, experienced. They will use on street infrastructure when it suits them. But they will also use off street infrastructure. Last week, I was participating in a recreational ride in the evening with very experienced riders. And we went down the side path on May Hill altogether and it worked really well and it was great. And on May Hill, as someone who rides a great deal and is very experienced, I appreciated that and I used that. So my recommendation is that our assets and our focus should be towards the more experienced infrastructure and go that direction. >> I just want to point out, you have a little spaghetti on your lapel there. >> So is that the philosophy and policy position that this plan has incorporated into the bicycle plan? >> So I think that sort of answers the question of it's being done with this policy of getting more towards, what do you call them? >> Protective. >> Protective, yeah, okay, fantastic. Yes, Council Member Armitage. >> Yeah, and can you speak to how also the, now I'm blanking on the name of it, not zero deaths, but zero. >> Vision zero. >> Vision zero, thank you. Initiative works with all of this. We need to move that podium out some so we can get more traffic back there. >> So vision zero is really that guiding policy when these projects go to design and construction, it's with the eye to how do we make them as safe a possible conveyance as possible. Whether it's an intersection, or it's a roadway, or a combination of intersections, it's always looking at how do we eliminate deaths? How do we minimize any kind of accidents when we get into those conditions? >> Excellent, thank you, yeah, and I'll say from that perspective also, as important as it is to keep thinking about making bike access accessible to the novice and beginner biker, even the most experienced biker does not stand a chance against a car. And so that I think these two, the vision zero approach, combined with this new approach towards looking at different biking levels is really going to make the difference, so thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay, thank you, appreciate it. We'll move on to agenda item 3C. Receive report, hold discussion, and give staff direction regarding the city of Denton's tax abatement and incentive policy. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. Jessica Rogers, director of economic development. And I have a very short presentation to go over on the policy for tax abatements and incentives. So just to set the stage for why we are talking about this today, chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code requires that the governing body adopt guidelines and criteria for tax abatement agreements to be eligible to offer any tax abatements. The guidelines and criteria are effective for two years after the adoption. During a two year period, the guidelines and criteria can be amended, repealed, or updated only by a three fourths vote of the governing body. We must hold a public hearing, and the current policy expires on March 20th, 2020. So we're bringing this forward for the work session today with the goal to hold the public hearing on March 17th and consider adoption at that time. Staff is currently only recommending minor changes to the policy. The reasons for that is for those of you who were here in 2018 remember that you went through a very significant revision of the policy at that time. The policy has proven to be effective. We have used it numerous times in both successful incentive negotiations with Tyson, US Cold Storage, as well as it has been successful in discussions when we aren't awarded the project, but certainly becomes part of the discussion with different prospects. I'd also add that the policy is being evaluated as part of our ongoing strategic planning process. And so we thought that we didn't want to interrupt that process and go and rewrite the strategic plan before we knew what our strategic objectives would be out of that. And then as part of that, if you'll remember in the internal audit presentation, there were some strategic recommendations that were coming from the internal auditors office. And we'd like to include those in the strategic planning process, and then go back and look at how that would change the policy moving forward. >> Quick question. So we're having the consultant come in and do a study. >> Yes. >> All right, and when do we anticipate that being completed by? >> The study will probably be in draft stage late April, early May, and we're planning for adoption in either late May, early June. >> So help me understand. So we've got to, based upon at least what I read in the slide and in the backup this weekend, if we try to change the policy within that two year period, it requires a super majority. >> Yes. >> So our policy expires May of 2020. >> March. >> March, excuse me, March. >> So the plan, the strategic plan, the consultant's plan is going to come after our next renewal. So anything that they recommend that is new to our policy that recommends implementation or addition, that would require a three fourths or a super majority to implement it within the two year time frame? >> If it required an amendment to the policy, when we discussed this with the consultants, our concern was that if we didn't have, that the bigger concern would be not having a policy for a three to four month window. Which could be longer, once we get the strategic recommendations from the consultant, it may take significant time to research, do the policy revisions, bring it forward, continue that workshop. So we could be in another few months out, and so it couldn't, so our concern was, we thought the safer route. >> I'm not saying we should let the plan expire, I'm saying though, just to understand that the body and the public recognizes that whatever comes forward as a recommendation and is ultimately put before the body for approval, or staffs recommendation, it will require a super majority vote. >> Right, if the strategic recommendations required an amendment to the policy, then yes, it would require a three quarters vote. >> And is it my understanding too that the consultant will also look at the audit, the internal audit report, and either confirm or not confirm that they believe that some of those suggestions or recommendations would be appropriate or not? Is that part of their scope, is to look at that and? >> They're not evaluating. >> Not the report. >> The report itself. >> Right, no. >> But they, that is one of the data points that they're using to make their recommendations. >> Okay, all right, okay, great. Okay, thank you for that clarification, yep. All right, so in your backup, you have a red line version of the plan, and you'll see that there are just a few minor changes that we're recommending. A clarification of the goal to increase the jobs paying more than 75,000, we're just removing some language that doesn't apply anymore. The addition of average to consideration of wages, and that's because in practice, we do evaluate both based on median wages and average wages, so it should just reflect our current practice. >> Okay. >> A clarification as to what constitutes a complete application, the language was just a little confusing, we just wanted to make it very clear. We've provided the updated qualified census tract map, and then we caught a few errors and typos that we just wanted to clarify. >> Councilmember Armitage. Can you explain, say a little bit more about why we're looking at averages for wages and not lowest and highest? >> Sure. >> I myself am more interested in for what it's worth. >> We're going to remember back to algebra class. So with median being the central data point where 50% of the jobs fall below and above. Most jobs are structured or organizations are structured where there's a larger number of positions at the lower end of the pay scale and fewer positions at the higher number of the pay scale. So the county median is actually lower than the county average. And we want to make sure that our applicants are aware that we're looking at both situations when they're applying. And they're measured against both the median and the average as part of the application process. >> Okay, thanks. And will there be, in addition to that, information about what the lowest wage is? And obviously, it's part of how the average is arrived at. But will there be information about what the lowest wage is and what the highest wage is? >> Yes, we actually calculate on a weighted average basis. So if there's a lot of jobs at the lowest wage and only one job at the highest wage, we actually weight those so that it's not just a straight line average, it's a weighted average. >> Okay, thanks. >> Question on the Denton County's median. The median income for Denton County, I mean, you've got several different measurements. You've got household of four, you've got average family or median family. Do we define that in here or what are we actually referring to when we say the median? >> The median wage is of all jobs. So of every job paid a wage in Denton County, it's the median. So it's not household income, it's not family income. It's median wage for all jobs within the county. >> Do you know what that figure is today? >> It's $37,500. >> In the county? >> In the county. >> Okay, all right, good. Yes, Councilmember Nelson. >> Yeah, I would just say that to me the most important part of this is the thought that after we get the strategic plans when we really ought to be looking at this, right? Incentives should be designed to meet goals that we have agreed on. And I would also just tee up for future thought that that can be a lot more fine-tuned than just the number of jobs and that in prior iterations of this policy, there were other factors. I'm not saying they should be the same factors now. Let's see what our goals turn out to be. And the mechanism was for each of these additional considerations up to five, you could get five percentage points more. I'm not saying that's the right mechanism, but there was a mechanism to address whether you're getting an international or national headquarters facility. Whether the project incorporates significant environmentally sustainable practices. It kind of depends on what things are the community's goals. And I think that it would be smart to structure them into our incentives. >> And I would say while those are not given a particular weighting in the application, they are still included as considerations in the tax abatement section. >> Okay, go ahead. >> And then we did present this to the Economic Development Partnership Board, and they concurred with the changes. They have been meeting monthly to go over the strategic planning process. So they certainly understood the timing issue, and they recommended kind of holding off and having a bigger discussion once we had the strategic plan. So they recommended 11-0 to move forward with the minimal changes. And the next steps are just to hold the public hearing on March 17th and then consider adoption immediately following the public hearing. And that's all I have today. >> All right, any questions or direction other than what staff is recommending? Councilmember Briggs. >> Would it have to be an amendment to the policy or could it just be a completely new policy? If there's so much that needs to be done and so many changes that would be made? >> So it actually would require a three-quarters vote to even repeal an existing policy in that two-year time frame. >> Okay, so it's the same no matter how many changes are? >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, thank you, appreciate it. >> Agenda item 3D is receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding a proposed development fee grant program. >> Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Danny Shaw, Community Services. As you recall, we came forward on November 19th and presented a proposal for a development fee grant program that was recommended by Council to incorporate an additional funding for non-profits. We came to you and had six different priority policy areas that we needed a little guidance on before we drafted a proposal. And so today we're bringing forward that draft proposal based on your recommendations and seeking direction from Council to proceed. We framed it the same way as our conversation, and so the guidelines that you received in your backup are very similar to what we discussed when we were talking about the policy conversation. So we did retain that it is a non-profit organization that is eligible and they have to be established in the city for at least two years, or in the state of Texas. One of the bigger recommendations we'd like to make today is to merge two of our existing programs into this one. The affordable housing fee grant program, which already exists and council approved back in April in 2019, we did implement. But because of the similarities in this program, we'd like to merge them, make it a little bit easier process to just manage development fees in one space, in one grant program. So what that means is there'll just be two eligible areas within the grant program. The same, the affordable housing where non-profit developers who are developing single family will be eligible for up to $12,000. And our eligible homeowners who are working with the city in their CDBG and home improvement programs. And then the non-profit facility will be the other eligible activity in this grant. And that will prioritize those programs that are providing housing and human services. The assistance remains consistent with what we do in both programs, or what we're recommending. The permit fees, roadway impact fees, utility waste water and impact fees all would be eligible to be requested under this grant. And then when we talk about how much, because we're recommending that both of these be merged, we currently have two separate funding sources for that, so $75,000 for the affordable housing fee grant program. And 250, I'm sorry, 150 for the non-profit that's been approved in the budget, so we're recommending with that merger that that just be combined to 225,000 total. With the project maximums, as I mentioned earlier, of $12,000 for an affordable housing single family project. And up to a maximum of $50,000 for a non-profit facility. When we had the discussion in November, we talked about what kind of compliance that the council would like in exchange for this grant. And so we did settle on a ten year compliance period. So there will be some requirements also within that ten year compliance period. Consenting to city inspections throughout the project. That if awarded this grant, it does have to be completed within 15 months, so we don't have money sitting out there that's going unspent. That they will be required contractually to provide records and reports upon our request, depending on what the request is. And that they're working to either house or serve households that are below 80%, which is consistent with our CDBG and home programs. >> Okay. >> Yes sir, good. >> No, no, no, that was going to be my question on this, because I know 80% of, and that's the Dallas area median income, is that? >> That's correct, we're in the Dallas MSA. >> And that figure is what? >> That's about 83,100 for a family of four right now. >> Okay, so that 80% of that would be 65,000 or 68,000 or something. >> You can do that much better than me, sorry. >> Well, I'm sure I'm off a little bit, but okay. >> And, oh, I'm sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember. >> To that point, is it in there to be specifically aligned with that? Because it helps, or is there a way that we could lower that percentage in our policy? >> That does help to be more consistent along the lines, otherwise we'd be requesting paperwork that looks different or reporting that looks different. But if that's something that you would like to give direction on, I'd be happy to consider. Other programs in the community are at different levels. So, for instance, if you fund a habitat project, you can be assured that that's 60% of AMI, because that's their maximum. They're not going to serve, they're going to be serving the lower income levels anyway, so. >> Okay, so. >> You're going to benefit from whatever the agency's criteria are as well. >> Okay, so it's likely the non-profits or the agencies have something that's lower than that, or just that would be. >> Yeah, that would be consistent with the CDBG and home maximums. We would not go over that. >> And if they didn't have that requirement, then it would just fall to our requirement. >> Correct, as a maximum, okay. >> Is the 80% of CDBG, is that a federal requirement? >> It is, yeah, it's considered anything extremely low, low, up to moderate income. I mean, when I first saw that, I think probably, Council Member Briggs, you and I were thinking very similar things. And that is part of what we're struggling with here. I mean, again, I don't know how many times I've said this, I sound like a broken record. We've never decided on a policy amongst the council what affordable housing means. I know what the federal government means, but you have 50%, you have 60% of AMI, you have 80%. And a lot of the struggle in our community isn't with housing at the 80% AMI. It's housing at the 50, 60% AMI. I mean, and even below, but of course, you've got to be reasonable within that range. So I certainly, I would be open to a conversation which might require a little bit more research on if we were to change that number, how would that impact? My hesitancy to do is how would it impact our current programs? >> Right. >> But, so could someone use both of these programs? I mean, could you get assistance through CDBG home program and then also because those seem like those are more repairs? >> Right, it depends on the program. Our internal programs are more home repair assistance. >> Right. >> So helping those families stay and stay. >> Right. >> So the preservation of affordable. >> So that's absolutely correct. We're not doing any new development. >> And that's what this primarily pertains to. >> Right, well no, actually we would be a very small part of this portion. It would be the habitats for humanities, didn't affordable housing corpus, interested in developing again. So it would be those types of entities who are developing housing. >> But it's new development. >> It would be new development, yeah. The bigger funds would be for new development, new construction, the creation of new. And then to answer, just to extend on your other question, even though it's a little outside of the scope. We did approve our affordable housing assessment, so we're hoping to be able to answer some of those questions better as well too. >> So if we left it like this and after the assessment if we needed to change it. >> Absolutely. >> We could change it. >> And we will certainly look at it, learn from it, and iterate as we go and make recommendations for the future. Because we'll probably learn a lot in the first year about how we're able to spend, or if we are. There's not a lot of new projects in the pipeline, but two years from now there may be. So just making sure we're keeping you informed of those. >> Thanks for the answer. >> You're asking an interesting question that, I don't know how far we can go on this posting. But I wonder if the data would be available to see, let's say within 10 percentile chunks. Kind of what the housing imbalance is, right? Like people in the lowest, the first 10 percentile of income. What would the sort of formula driven rent, affordable rent be? And what's the apartment stock? So is that an imbalance? And then the next 10 percentile, the next 10 percentile. >> I believe- >> To see kind of where the stresses are. >> I believe this is the answer we're going to be able to give you as soon as we're done with our assessment. >> Yeah, I agree. >> I'm confident, and something similar, if not that. >> Yeah, good, I look forward to that, thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Okay, thank you. With the limitations, we did discuss a couple of different things, and there wasn't. When we had this discussion about how we would either do a reimbursement grant or an internal transfer, there wasn't, I didn't feel like a full consensus from council, so we did something to help with that. So we actually made both options available in the guidelines. So we have this as an expectation that it's a reimbursement grant, but if anyone had demonstrated financial need, they could request an internal transfer from us through the application process. So we would be able to accommodate both situations, and hopefully, that's a way we can manage that. The applications do have to be submitted before the start of a project, those consistent with making sure they're not owing any taxes or debts to the community. And that they don't have any, we worded this specifically this way, any unexpended or open grant funds from any other city grant at the same time for the same project. So it does leave the door open for them to ask for funding for different projects in different ways and they'll be funded in multiple ones if they had that scope of projects happening. And then the process, which is laid out in the guidelines that were a part of your exhibits, it really is detailed much more extensively than here, but it's really just making sure that they're submitting the application to community development. And then the process we will look at to review those and other things that might come up with that application process. Like prioritizing the project if we're multiple projects coming forward at the same time. >> So then, sorry. >> Yeah, just on the number five elementations. I just wanted to clarify, it said cannot be in partnership with a for profit entity, and that is for both of them, correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Yes, very quick, yes. >> Thank you. >> I felt that was very clear from you all. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay, and then our final slide, just our options for you. If you're to proceed with it as proposed, we'll bring an ordinance in the guidelines to you as soon as possible. Next week or the week after, okay? >> And I have an objection to option one, Council Member Armitage. >> No, I want option one, I just had a question. >> Okay, sure. >> Yeah, so Denton Housing Authority would qualify for as? >> Denton Housing Authority, it's possible. >> Okay, depending on the project. >> Yeah, depending on the project. Enclave would not, because that was a for profit partnership, but it's possible the way that it's written. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They'd have to be prioritized, I mean again, looking at the guidelines the way we did, they'd have to be prioritizing specialized populations. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay, I'm glad they qualified, depending on the project, yep. >> Anybody else? When do I anticipate having the housing study completed by? >> Well, we have in the contract, they have to complete it in 150 days. We just had our first kickoff meeting with them. We're already collecting the data, so hopefully in the summer. >> Okay, great. All right, sounds like option one, proceed with the development fee grant program as proposed to bring something back to council. Not heard any objections to that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, we'll move on to agenda item F, I'm sorry, E, we're skipping over the most, the easiest one. The commercial paper program, that's the easiest one. I see a report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the implementation of a $100 million general obligation extended, sorry, extendable commercial paper program. >> David Gaines, director of finance. I also introduce, we have Adam Lankhart here, who is with Hilltop Advisors, our financial advisors. This presentation's going to discuss commercial paper and the possibility of an extendable commercial paper program. Previously, we had this discussion with the Audit and Finance Committee last month. So the objectives of the presentation, talk through the financial considerations we have for the 2019 bond program and some of the considerations that we'll have over the next six years as we work through the program itself. Introduce commercial paper and extendable commercial paper and ultimately recommend moving forward with $100 million extendable commercial paper program. >> So to start with and why we began looking at commercial paper and understanding this is an option as we get to it, are some of the considerations we have when we issue debt in the city and we have our long term planning for capital projects. One of them is appropriation authority. Before we can enter into a contract, we have to have the appropriations, we have to have the money set aside and the ability to access funds to enter into the contract. So, and I'll show an example here in the following slide of what that means. That means we, in any given fiscal year, we have to ensure that we have all those funds available prior to entering into the contract, even if the expenses happen in later years. So that's one of the issues we have as we look at a six year program and we have one solution that could possibly be used for that appropriation authority here in this presentation. But also, it can lead to us to build balances in projects as we've seen when we issue debt for a project. But we know it's going to last for multiple years. We'll sit on balances within those projects until we actually spend the dollars in future years. And then, selling bonds in advance can lead to accelerated tax rate increases. Obviously, if we're having to issue, as the example that we'll see, $60 million for the public safety facilities in the first year, that tax rate impact is going to hit us the first year versus spreading it out further down the road. So here's an example just kind of showing what I just referred to with the public safety facilities. Obviously, this is just an example, not necessarily how the public safety facility itself is going to work out. But this is how we could see it working out as we look at the schedule right now. If we didn't have a commercial paper program or another tool to have short-term debt and just went with our traditional issuances of GOs for the bond program, we would need to issue the entire $61.9 million for the public safety facility projects this fiscal year in FY20, even though we know that project's going to last 18 months or so, all the way until FY2022, the beginning of FY2022. As you can see there, we would issue it, the entire $62 million here in FY20, and really sit on those funds as we expend them and draw them down. But that does mean we'd have that resulting tax rate impact hit us in FY21 on the debt service side to pay off the debt issues that we have associated. So that's the traditional example if we move forward with how we issue debt right now. >> All right, I had the advantage of hearing this in a lot of finance, but I'd just like to ask a clarifying question. So with the commercial paper, I think you're about to give us case B, right? But you're not necessarily actually borrowing the money upfront, this is all a question. You just have the authority to borrow the money, and that's why it wouldn't affect the tax rate. Because you're meeting the requirement that you could have all the money upfront if you wanted it, without having to actually borrow it, is that fair? >> That's fair, and I would agree with that for appropriation authority. But I would add to it, we could still issue, and I'll get to it later in the slides, right? But we could issue the commercial paper and still not have it impact our tax rate right away. Because the way the commercial paper works, we could do a short term note for 90 days, that note either rolled or extend to the next fiscal year, issue the long term debt in the following fiscal year, to pay off that short term note. So even if we do issue it, it does give us that ability to spread out some of those debt payments over future years. Especially as we're looking at next year having a $90 million issuance just for the 2019 bond program. It is possible it would make sense to actually issue some commercial paper later in the year to help mitigate that large increase the following year. >> In the bridge. >> Yep, exactly. So now, I'll get a little more into the detail of what commercial paper is, try to stay at a somewhat high level, because I know we were introducing the topic to council today. So what is commercial paper? It's a short term note for a maximum maturity of 270 days. Obviously, significantly different than the debt we typically issue of 20 to 30 year or short term debt, which is 5 to 10 year on the CEO side. That's really meant to kind of bridge those projects as we discuss or for appropriation authority. So interim financing that would be used for the same purpose as the debt we would ultimately issue. The program we're talking about here, the tax supported commercial paper program, and it would be limited just to the 2019 bond program. So the only projects that with this program that we have put forward to us now would be related to those projects that were approved by the voters. The commercial paper program is revolving, so whether it's 90 days or 270 days, once we hit the end of that maturity, we can either reissue commercial paper or at that point decide that we're going to issue the long term debt to pay off the commercial paper and move forward with long term debt like we would traditionally do or use some other mechanism with the regular commercial paper. And I'll get later to what extendable commercial paper is to mitigate this impact. You do have to have a separate agreement with another bank for liquidity, to have some credit, to eliminate some of the credit risk that comes with it with commercial paper itself. So that is an added cost for commercial paper to provide that liquidity that goes along with it. And one point we do want to point out is even if you're using it for appropriation authority or actually issuing the short term debt, entering into those contracts does obligate a council in the following year or in the future to issue that long term debt or find other finances to move forward with the projects. So benefits of the program, you have immediate access to those funds. If you actually issue the funds, say later in the year, the construction costs are coming in higher or moving faster than we expected. We can issue those funds immediately with this authority to move forward more quickly. The appropriation authority as we discussed, the interest rates are very low in short term, in short term debt and commercial paper, where really right now the interest rates are between 1.15, 1.2%. So significantly lower than even the low rates we have on GOs right now, which is about 2.75. >> Councilmembers? >> So like you said, this is new for us. >> Yes. >> It's not something we've done in the city, is it ever, or have we in the past? >> I don't believe we have in the past. It has been part of the debt policy, but maybe many years ago, we've never done it, yeah. >> And so it's being brought up because of the amount of bonds and the size of the projects? >> Yeah, that was why we started discussing it was knowing we had, this is obviously the largest bond program we've had. And if you look at larger cities, you really see this as a tool that larger cities use for that purpose specifically. And so this obviously is just talking about on the general government side with the bond program. But it could be a consideration if we wanted to come back to council and do it on the utility side as well. If we know we have significant programs coming up, either related to the bond program for water or wastewater, or on the electric side. We could do the same thing on the utility side as well. >> And is it more risky? Is there more of a risk to it or is it the same? >> The only risk would be if, and I'll talk about extendable commercial paper, but with either one. If you get to the end of the 90 days or the 270 days and there's not a market and you wanted to roll your commercial paper and take out new commercial paper. That's really the largest risk is out there. At that point, we would just issue the CEOs or GOs like we would anyway. So as far as comparing it to our normal process, I don't see much risk there other than just as all. But it does take more administrative work, right? You have to actually stay on top of it and know when you're going to roll the debt in the future. >> It's basically giving you a six to nine month head start on projects that you know you're going to do anyway. That's the key is that these are projects that you're trying to do and it allows finance department to manage the debt rate a little bit better as we're talking about property taxes. But one of the strategies we've talked about heading into this next bond package in terms of lessons learned is to get out front, designing these facilities and trying to mitigate the crazy construction inflation we're seeing. So this is exactly the kind of tool that we're looking. In many other parts of the country, it would be called tax anticipation notes and you use them for the exact same reason. Especially in a high interest environment where you're seeing construction cost go crazy. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Yeah, well that makes sense to help with the construction cost because we have seen that from year after year and the bonds that we're still trying to fill how much more we have to come up from our general fund. And so what happens, you did say you'd have to stay on top of it more as far as, what would happen if it got past us and we weren't there to roll it over, or there was not someone on staff paying attention. I'm just trying to figure out, cuz it sounds great, but it can't be. >> Yeah, I'll cut it. >> Is that in our later on? >> A little bit, when I talk about the extendable commercial paper, I'll kind of talk about what, cuz that's what we're looking to use, extendable commercial paper. >> Okay. >> So once I get to this slide, I'll talk specifically about that and definitely if you have any other questions. >> Thank you, yeah, thanks. >> So I did want to just walk through, especially on the appropriation authority, that same example we looked at earlier and how that would look on the public safety facility with having at least the appropriation authority for commercial paper. So as I noted earlier, with our contracts we have coming up at the end of this fiscal year, we could have to issue the entire $61.9 million this fiscal year. The advance to the next two years where if we have the appropriation authority, at least from the commercial paper, we can spread that out where we're issuing $10 million this year, $34.9 million. The following year, $17 million in FY 22 to really tie directly to those costs as we incur them. So you can see that layout here with the two examples we walked forward. The issue in the entire 61.9 up front and then spreading it out over three years. And the difference really is you have that entire debt payment increase in 21 versus having it spread out. And the knock on effect of that would be the increased debt service tax rate early on. >> Question. In your issuance utilizing commercial paper, where you have potential annual debt service increase. Are those, those are what the amount of the increase is. Like it's 6.90 the first year, then you're at, you've got the 6.90 as part of the 2.408 100, or no? >> No, I was just showing the increase. So this 4.271 would really be there each year. I'm just showing the incremental increase in each fiscal year. >> Right, that's what I'm saying is for the commercial paper, you're paying less. You're not paying the full debt service payment when you haven't really even started the project. You're paying for all of it when you've not built it. I'm saying on those figures, let's say for instance, we got a million dollars worth of debt service before we start this. >> Right. >> So the first year under the commercial paper would be 1.69 million. >> Right. >> The second year would be 1.69 plus 2.4? >> Correct. >> And then the 2.4 plus the 1., why is the, why is the second one? I see it's smaller because it's only 17 million, but you got to roll those over, do you not? That 39.4 in FY 2021, you haven't paid that off. >> Right, I'm just showing the increase here. >> Got you, based upon that amount. >> So basically, by FY 23, you have to save that service payment. You're just spreading it out. >> Okay. >> So I'll go over very quickly the process. We determine the cash flow that we need. We contact a dealer and actually issue the notes. We wire those to the paying agent and then we have the money immediately as we talked about previously. So we're going to shift and talk about extendable commercial paper, which is a variant of commercial paper. And I think here I can talk a little bit about what those, what the process would be. With extendable commercial paper, we don't need that extra bank facility. We don't have to contract with an additional bank to have credit enhancements. We would essentially take that risk on ourself and instead of, it is 270 days for extended maturity. But really with extendable commercial paper, it's a 90 day maturity. And after those 90 days, we really have three months. That's when we would either need to roll it to another extendable commercial paper or issue the long term debt or find other financing. So in this scenario, if we hit 93 day, 91 days, and we didn't take care of it, we weren't on top of it. Our rate, interest rate would start going up starting after that 90 days. So between 90 days and 270 days, our interest rate would be higher than it was previously. So we would have to pay that premium for not keeping up with it. So that's really the risk that we would have and obviously we would be doing everything on our side to mitigate that risk. But as far as the program itself, that's one of the risks that would come with it. So we went into a little more detail here about how that reset rate is calculated and what it means. But that's at a very high level, how that process would work. So some of the benefits and drawbacks as we compare extendable commercial paper to commercial paper, I know I'm throwing a lot of concepts out here. But the reason that we're recommended to go forward with the extendable commercial paper is because we don't have to pay for that added cost. Of having that credit enhancement from the bank and we don't have to have that liquidity support and we can manage the program on our own. The drawback is it is a slightly different interest rate. I mentioned it's 1.2 for extendable commercial paper and 1.15 just as an example for commercial papers, there's a slightly less interest rate. But you don't have to pay for that additional bank liquidity with the extendable commercial paper. >> Okay, go ahead, you had a question. >> So I do know on the traditional way, every now and again we'll get an item to refinance, which would get us a lower interest rate. Is that process available with this type or is it just completely different? >> Yeah, it's different, now at 90 days you would roll it, you could roll it to another commercial paper. So at that point it would essentially be a refinance, but within the 90 days you wouldn't be doing any kind of refinance within the 90 days. >> The instances I'm talking about, it was refinanced with a lower rate, so we were saving money. So if it rolled over, it would be a different rate, but it might not guarantee to be lower one. >> Right, yeah, so in that example, it could be higher or lower, it's going to be a variable market, just depending on market conditions. But at that time we could also be going out and actually issuing the general obligation bonds and long term bonds. And then it would again be a market, whatever the market conditions are. >> Yeah, that could be a benefit of the commercial paper program itself and one that many entities use it just for that purpose. If they anticipate the bond market's going to change significantly, the 20 year long term bond market, they could use this as a kind of bridge to get there. If they think in 90 days the market's going to be better, they could use that 90 days of the commercial paper until they have to actually issue the long term debt. I don't think that's how we're intending to use it, to kind of play that guessing game. That is how some entities use it. So here's the process that we've had so far. Obviously, we presented the program to the Audit and Finance Committee. We have selected a dealer and paying agent with Hilltop and then sent out our draft comments. We've worked through the month of February, obviously having this meeting today. And then on March 24th, we would bring this back for consideration by the city council. And obviously, one of the reasons we want to get that decision made this month is so that as we issue our debt in the summer, we know whether or not this is something we're going to have in place. And we know the amount of debt that we need to issue for the bond program. So give direction to proceed with the program as presented or reject the program. And I'll take any questions. >> So I like option one, and there's still a lot that I don't know. But I've had my preliminary questions and concerns answered both in this presentation and in researching leading up to this point. One thing I was wondering, and again, I've already given my direction. But can you speak to what kind of transparency there is in commercial paper program, or in our participation in that? Or is that entirely up to the cities that are using it? And so I'm thinking of, under the past bond elections, there was a lot of confusion among the public. And I think, even though I wasn't on council at the time, my sense was on council too, about where exactly the money was and what was happening. Will this, in addition to making it easier to move forward faster, does this change the tracking of any of that, at the city level or the public level? Or is that a separate issue? >> I guess there's two different forms of tracking that I think you're referring to. One would be just tracking of the projects. Are we keeping up with how we're spending the funds each fiscal year? And I think the improvements that we've made with the bond oversight committee and the reports that we do at bond oversight committee, the reports that we do to city council, go a long way to alleviate those concerns on actually spending the funds. And as far as transparency and the amount of debt we have issued, those are reports that we put out. Obviously, annually, we have to keep up with the amount of debt we have. We have our annual financial reports, but we put a report, which you'll actually be getting this Friday, in your Friday report. And it'll go on the website of just our total debt that we have outstanding for the city. So I think in both areas, there is tracking. It is a different process, commercial paper, than our traditional COs or GOs. But obviously, I think we have steps in place to be as transparent as possible. >> Excellent, thank you. So just to make sure I understand, so you're saying that a commercial paper program doesn't come with its own special rules or transparency requirements, but under the improvements that the city has made already, this will just work, just sync with it, perfectly fit into the current system, is that correct? >> Correct, right, it's a different process of issuance, but yeah, definitely, all of the souls, yeah. >> Yeah, okay, and thank you so much, thanks. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Meltzer. >> So I'll go with number one as well. It seems like it's a way to have programs sooner, take out debt later at lower interest, if I heard you correctly, something like 1.2 on the high side versus 2.7 on the low side? >> Yeah, but right now in the GO market, it's about 2.75, whereas social paper is 1.2, yeah. >> Yeah, so that's like less than half the interest cost, that's kind of compelling. I believe, Mr. City Manager, this could help us move faster on parkland acquisition, conceivably. >> It's possible, what it does to you, it provides us the ability to be a little bit more flexible with that six year program that we laid out. And with the parkland acquisition, we're already starting to rebuild the tree fund, and we're going to be bringing within the next 30 to 60 days to you another program on the 9, 15, 16 program to enhance that. But what it really does is gives David and Tony the ability to sort of manage our property tax load and what needs to be levied on the debt service side while still this program should always pay for itself by blending inflationary costs. >> And then just my last question for David. >> Yeah. >> Unless you just got like a different answer from Tony now that we need to hear. >> No, we just want to make sure that it's 2.75 for our COs, GOs, and then 1.25 for you. >> So there's a period of time where you'd be covering that at less than half the interest cost, right, my misunderstanding. And I know I asked you this not a finance, but give you an opportunity to share your answer with the total council. So, especially for those of us who lived through 2001, 2008. So what could go terribly, terribly wrong? >> With commercial paper, I mean, I guess, so I mentioned the interest rates change. You issue commercial paper for 90 days, expecting that you're going to issue a 20 year debt in 90 days. Within those 90 days, the market goes crazy and interest rates shoot up from what they were 90 days prior. Now, the market doesn't typically move that fast over 90 days, usually it's more long term. But thinking about a worst case scenario, I would say that's probably the worst case scenario. >> And what would our recourse be in that scenario? >> I mean, at that point, we would just move forward with, I mean, I guess the options would be we could either roll, say we think the market's going to change in another 90 days, and we kind of roll. Obviously, this is all under the assumption we're issuing the commercial paper. We roll it for another 90 days to see if the market levels off and what the interest rates are long term. >> That's my answer, I don't know if, you know. >> That are you paid off cash? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, he'll need to come to, yeah, okay. >> I think we're good. >> Go ahead. >> One last question. I'm generally okay with option one. I'm learning more, it sounds good, but they're also kind of weighing the risk as well, especially since the market. >> When we go to DC or recently, there's been a lot of talk about municipal tax free bonds. So how does that, does that weigh in commercial paper as far as taxes go? I mean, do we get any benefit as a municipal entity doing this with taxes or is it not? >> Yeah, these are tax exempt bonds just like our regular issuance. So if something changed at the federal level at some point, and we couldn't issue taxable debt anymore, it would obviously impact this. But it would impact our entire debt model with GOs and COs and everything else. >> So our advocacy would still be the same. >> Correct. >> No matter which program we used. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, and the last question is does the third party management of this cost more than our typical traditional bonds? >> We are going to have some upfront cost just to set up the program this fiscal year that we wouldn't have if we didn't have the program. So if you just said in one year, this first year as we set the program up, there will be maybe a couple hundred thousand dollars of additional cost that we wouldn't have if we didn't have it at all. But over the long term, the annual costs are minimal for what we would need. It's just that those initial costs to set up the program, and then we would have rating agency rating reviews just like we do anytime we issue debt. >> I thought that was the last one. >> No, I just want to request that- >> It's so exciting. >> That information of what it costs when it comes back to us be included in the backup, please. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, sure. >> Thank you. >> Question, do you have, I don't know if we've talked about it, but I think we need to either talk about it or have staff come back with some recommendations. Because you really don't want to issue this for 30 days or 60, I want to make sure that I heard you correctly. 2.75% on GOs or COs. >> Correct. >> And what term is that? >> 20 years. >> 20 years. We better be financing everything we can get our hands on. Because then they just lowered, the feds just lowered the fed funds to 50 basis points. So I think for me, I would like to see that there's some type of parameter to where, because if you're going to issue some type of more permanent financing within 30 to 60 days. I mean, if you're doing a project that quick, whether it's purchase of vehicles or something, your interest rate savings. I don't know if it's worth necessarily using up that capacity of that commercial paper for those projects. To me, the real benefit of this is your long term projects where you don't have to issue that debt all up front. And it's going to take six months, a year, or two years to construct the project. But the risk is, you can have something to where if you go up a 100 basis points or 125 basis points in permanent financing, that because at 2.75% good. You're almost down to almost free money, I mean quite honestly. What do we typically get on our demand deposit rates? Like if you do commercial paper and it's $30 million, you're not going to write a $30 million check to a contractor. You're going to put that somewhere, and you're going to draw upon that as it gets paid. What typically are those rates that we're getting for that? >> If it's in the polls, so if we have money and we throw them in the Texas poll or one of the government Texas polls, it's around 2% right now. It's fluctuating, it's going down slightly. >> So this is my only question, and so this might be one for bond council as well. >> So let's just take for instance, the police substation. I forgot, $60 million over, what is it, two years? >> Two and a half, yeah. >> Two and a half years. So we issue under one scenario, we issue all the paper at $61 million at 2.75%, correct? >> Yes. >> We put that somewhere, we have to park that somewhere because we're not going to use it all. And did you have this slide to us, or is this a different slide? >> No, this went out to you. >> Yeah, but it wasn't in the presentation. >> This was on a backup for our previous meeting. >> So if you park it at 2%, your effective rate is three quarter percent. You're paying two and three quarters, and you're receiving 2%. It doesn't quite work out that way as far as, but you've got a delta there. I know there's an arbitrage provision, but I think that's where you can't make more than what your interest rate is. So I mean, if we're getting that kind, because now you're talking about, if we're paying one and a half, or one and a quarter, or whatever you said for commercial paper, that's more than what we're netting out if we took it all up front. I mean, I didn't think about this before, that's why I wanted to ask you what our rates were. So I might be missing something, but I want to make sure that I'm not, because that, I mean, go ahead. >> I think you're still running the issue of the debt service tax rate, because we're talking about such large amounts in the next fiscal year when we're talking about, obviously, body braid, street reconstruction. So even though the interest rate is so low, if we're issuing that amount, say we went full on and we issued all that this fiscal year, we would just, even without considering the interest, just to pay off, we're going to have that big increase. >> Where's the cash to pay the actual debt service? That's what you're saying is the more important interest, not interest on the more important issue, is the cash flow of the organization. >> Right, right. >> I mean, if we didn't have to worry about that, then it would sort of be silly to not pay for a three quarter percent loan on 61 million bucks. >> Right. >> And it's the way our debt service, our debt service tax rate is simply a calculation of what we need to pay the debt for each year. So it just- >> So you have to issue those bonds all at once, like on the police station, if you issue, you couldn't issue half and then issue half? >> We can't with a commercial paper. >> No, but in- >> Traditionally, no, because our plan right now is to enter into that contract in September. So we would have to have that entire amount, or just about that entire amount could be slightly different in going into that contract. And so then the commercial paper's different in that if we enter into that contract, we're going to award ABC $61 million contract. We have not issued the permanent bonds yet, the permanent GOs or COs. >> Right. >> We issue the commercial paper at what amount? >> Well, we don't, so for just the appropriation authority, we don't even have to issue it. It's just because we have the ability by entering into the program to issue it essentially on demand that- >> That's what satisfies that statute, state statute for letting the contract out or executing. You just have to have- >> Entering into this $100 million program does that. >> You just have to have a way to get the money. >> Correct, yeah. >> And the commercial paper provides an additional alternative than issuing all the debt at once. That's what you'd have to do if you didn't have it. >> Correct, yeah. >> Well, I sure like a 3/4 inch, 3/4 percent interest rate thing, you know, I mean, jeez. >> I know. >> Yeah, so you're talking about debt service for a year, but yeah. Even 3/4 is pretty good. Is that what it's been historically, just in the last three or four months, or has it continued to drop? >> It's continued to drop. Even last year, as we issue in debt, we were talking about how low it was, and it's just continued to go down. >> Yeah, okay, all right, wow. That's unbelievable. That's unbelievable. So I guess you are looking at, are there any refunding opportunities? >> We are, so we'll be bringing that to you in the summer. Obviously, we can't do any advanced refundings anymore, but for everything that is callable, we'll be bringing that for most of it's on the utilities this time. >> Wow, okay, all right, thank you. Okay, so option one, I think, is what it was, is that it? >> Yes. >> Yes, all right. Thank you very much, appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we'll move on to 3F. Receive a port and hold discussion to give staff direction on pending city council requests for joining a lawsuit regarding franchise fees and small sales. Hello, Mayor and Council, Rachel Walthert-Mendosa, Assistant to the City Manager. I'm here to present to you the pending work session request. Just as a reminder for everyone, up to seven requests will be reviewed per meeting. And let me get the slide show actually going. I'll introduce each one, and the elected official that made the request will have to come, excuse me, will have up to one minute to describe and justify it. And then, the remaining elected officials will have up to one minute to provide feedback. We'll respond to all requests where consensus is reached. Today, we just have one from Council Member Briggs joining a lawsuit regarding franchise fees and small sales. In your backup, you'll find an ISR from the summer of 2019 that we did a little bit of outlining about that. And then also, a city attorney provided us with a couple of articles from the monitor, which is the paper down in the McAllen area, just as a little bit of reference for you guys. So Council Member Briggs, when the timer. >> Okay. >> And they're off. >> Okay. So yeah, this is just a request to, and I actually, I don't even know if it's too late to join. But so this could just be an actual question on work session on these bills. SB 1004 set an annual max rate for $250 for right away in SB 1152, eliminate existing revenue stream, which is the amount of 670,000 just for the city of Denton. And I asked for this back in July, and nothing came. And I also asked about it periodically through our attorney's office. So there's 40 cities, TML, and then 40 other cities, including McKinney, Dallas, Plano, Roanoke, Highland Village, and Coppell, that are all joined in on it. And so I would like council to either agree to a work session or a closed session to find out more. >> And I think you had asked a question. We typically don't do this, but since it's a legal question, I'm going to let the city attorney respond just very succinctly, and then we'll move on to our one minute. >> It's not too late to join this lawsuit. I've reached out to the head attorney representing all these cities, and he indicated we could still join if we wanted to. >> Okay. >> Great. We'll switch over here since I'm left eye dominating. >> Council member Meltzer. >> Yeah, I don't see any reason for doing it in a closed session, so I'd be interested in hearing more about it in a work session. >> Council member Armature. >> Same. Although actually I'll say I don't mind having the option to go into closed session, but have that anyway, it can't hurt. >> Go ahead Mayor Pro Tem. >> Yeah, I'll just say I'm not interested in, we have other legal issues. We have plenty of legal issues to digest before we take on new legal issues that aren't mandatory. >> Okay. Council member Ryan. >> I will say I actually am interested in at least hearing about this as far as joining it. I would need to hear more in a work session in order to be able to formulate where I stood on that. >> Well I'll throw my two cents out there because we've already got a consensus, but I get my full minute. The only reason I'm opposed to it is not necessarily because of the substantive aspect of the request. But when I read the article, which was dated February 19th of 2020, it said that McAllen was expecting, and the judge didn't issue a ruling on that Wednesday, but they expected one in the next few weeks for the injunction. So I would just say if we're going to have a work session, let's try to wait until we have a court ruling to see exactly what is going to happen on it. And then we have a little bit more direction to go. So the work session, we've got enough support for it, but let's just make the timing more efficient. Okay, all right, fantastic. >> Okay, I think that was the only one we had. >> Yes, sir. >> And I think we're going to reverse the closed sessions here. And so when we take up the second one, I'll take a break and just come get you. >> Okay. >> All right. We're going to go into, we'll convene the closed session at 1.53 PM. That's when we'll convene the closed work session. And that will be consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code Section 551.071, which we'll do second. The first one we'll take up is deliberation regarding personnel matters under Texas Government Code Section 551.074. So on the first one, we'll just need only the council members in the room and then appropriate staff as we identify them as we move forward. Council on March the 3rd, the year 2020. We do have a quorum, so I will call this meeting to order. The first item on our agenda is the pledge to the US and the Texas flag, and please stand if you're able. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Honor the Texas flag, pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. >> Our next agenda item is presentation from members of the public. And before that, we'll have a review of procedures for addressing the City Council. >> The Denton City Council has adopted rules of procedure including a code of conduct that applies to citizens as well as council members. These rules were enacted to promote an orderly process and to preserve decorum. Here is a brief review of the rules that apply to citizen reports. Citizens will have four minutes to give a scheduled citizen report and four minutes to give an open mic report. There will be an electronic bell when time has expired. If the remarks are not concluded by that time, the citizen will be asked to stop speaking. If the citizen does not cease and a second request is made, the mayor will request to have the citizen removed from the council chamber. Citizens are asked not to approach the dais. If a citizen has papers or other materials to hand out to the council, please let the city secretary know in advance. For scheduled citizen reports, the council may initiate discussion or questions following each citizen report. For non-scheduled open mic citizen reports, the council may listen to citizens speak. However, because no notice of the subject of the open mic report has been provided to the public in advance, the Texas Open Meetings Act limits any deliberation or decision by the council too. A proposal to place the item on a future agenda, a statement of factual policy, or a recitation of existing policy. Citizens are asked to direct all remarks and questions to the council as a whole and not to any individual member. Please refrain from making abusive, personal, impertinent, profane, or slanderous remarks. Anyone who violates this council rule of procedure may be immediately removed from the council chamber. Thank you in advance. Copies of the rules of procedure are available from the city secretary. >> Just to give sort of a brief review, we've changed our procedures within the last couple weeks or month about registered citizen reports and also open mics. So we've changed it to where there can be a total of seven people speak made up of a combination of either open mic or those that have pre-registered. We have one pre-registered speaker, which leaves six open mic speakers. However, because of some confusion with that, we're going to go ahead and allow seven tonight. So we'll have a total of eight. So the first, the pre-registered speaker is Mr. Lee Merritt regarding a request for a referendum, exploring the policies and procedures concerning law enforcement interaction with people in crisis, particularly the police department's protocol for mental health issues. If Mr. Merritt would come down and state your name and address, your time will begin, and each speaker has four minutes. >> Good afternoon. Lee Merritt, if the council doesn't mind, I'm going to refrain from giving my address, but I'll say the city of McKinney, Texas. Thank you. On May 5th of 2019, Isaac Warner killed his mother, Sarah Warner, by decapitating her. Law enforcement have received several disturbing messages ahead of this tragedy, but failed to take the proper precautions. Chief Frank Dixon showed leadership in admitting the faults of the department, in committing to extra training for his officers in recognizing signs of mental health crisis. On July 3rd of 2019, two-year-old Sarbesh Gurung was found in the back of a car. The Denton community worked closely with law enforcement for over 15 hours, attempting to locate this missing child. The tragedy of his death rocked Denton and led Chief Dixon to implement new policies to ensure coordination between the community and law enforcement. Later that same month, a group of Nazis assaulted a Jewish Denton resident, punching him in the face after displaying swastika tattoos. A crowd extended the assault with chants of, something about taking America back. Chief Dixon again committed to taking steps to ensure that such incidents are properly treated as hate crimes, but no arrests were made on such charges. This is Denton, Texas today, small town America, not an easy place to police. And Chief Dixon has faced these challenges and risen to the occasion as he always has. And well over two decades of service, first as a Marine in the US Armed Forces and then as a police officer in Austin for almost two decades, for over two decades, before joining the city of Denton just two years ago. And Chief, we thank you for your service. And I mean that, I know we don't expect to hear civil rights attorneys praising the police chief, but I know this community is extremely thankful for his sacrifices. I'm here because a family called me after their son was shot to death by a member of the Denton PD. He was 26 year old, criminal justice major, just a few credits away from graduating UNT Denton. In fact, he had already obtained enough credits to graduate. He was hoping to become a law enforcement officer. Like his dad, he loved people, he loved policing, and he wanted to serve. Less than a week before he was killed, he was involved in a near fatal collision where he suffered severe head trauma. When he was released from the hospital, he was still suffering from the effects of that trauma to his head, which included sensitivity to light, sound, and difficulty with impulse control. His roommates called the police and told them that DJ needed help. He wasn't himself. Other residents of his apartment complex reported a man with a frying pan beating on the doors and knocking out light bulbs. No one to my knowledge reported a threat, a weapon, or violent behavior. A student was acting bizarre and he needed some help. You all know why I'm here. I'm supposed to make statements demanding the immediate release of the body cam footage, which captures the death of Darius Tarver. I am calling for the release of that video. Because I believe that it will serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Those of you who are familiar with the Texas Occupation Code, I'm just familiarizing myself with 1701.660 subsection B, which allows for the release of body worn camera video if a law enforcement agency, not a random civil rights lawyer, determines that these release furthers a law enforcement purpose. And currently, there are three law enforcement agencies at play here. There's Denton PD. There is the, thank you so much, there is the Texas Rangers office. And then there's the Denton County DA's office. Texas Rangers have determined that they do not need to release the video to further their investigation. The Denton County DA is now reviewing the file in preparation for its presentation to a grand jury. Darius's family and I spoke with the DA about two weeks ago, and he assured us that he would not simply accept the findings of the Rangers, but as the region's top law enforcement official, he would uphold his duty to conduct his own thorough investigation. So he could release the video if he wanted to. Spoiler alert, he's not going to release the video. The reason is, if he decides to release the video today, there would be potential defense attorneys for anybody implicated in the crime would jump all over it and say that he had violated their rights to a fair trial, to an untainted jury pool, and they would ask for a change of venue. If the video's going to be released, it's going to have to be released by the Denton PD and this council. As such, I'm asking the chief to reconsider. Chief Frank has promised to release the video after the grand jury has reviewed the evidence. The chief deserves our respect and our support, but not our deference. Chief Dixon and his officers certainly understand the roles as public servants. At times, they have to work with the community to do justice, like in the case of Sarbesh. In the past two years, for the chief, it's been a clinic in that regard. The chief has grown, the city of Denton has benefited from its growth, and we all acknowledge there's much work to be done. There are specific purposes for the release of this video that serve this community, namely three. A potential grand jury that's been in panel or may already be in panel is already tainted by a narrative that exists that Kevin Torver believes is inaccurate after reviewing the video. Secondly, the DA needs to consider additional criminal charges when conducting his investigation independently. If Mr. Tarver is correct, and there are substantive differences between what was reported and what's actually captured on video, there's another crime at play, which is perjury or falsification of records by those officers. Lastly, the suspect needs to be identified. Releasing and identifying information of a suspect to the community allows members of the community the opportunity to come forward if they have experience, relevant encounters with the suspect. For example, when 15-year-old Jordan Edwards was killed in Baltimore Springs, Texas, Roy Oliver was the suspect. When his image was released to the public, other members of that community recognized Roy Oliver as someone they had encounters with. In fact, two weeks before Roy Oliver shot 15-year-old Jordan Edwards to death, a crime that he was convicted for with the charge of murder, he had pulled a gun out on another pedestrian during a bumper, a fender bender. That person reported that crime and it led to additional charges against Roy Oliver, which enhanced his citizen. Identifying the public, identifying the suspect to the public is simply good policing. I almost missed this meeting today because my kids had open school night, and I'll get out of your way in a second. My kids are all under 10 years old and they're particularly vulnerable right now because their fish died. Their uncle mixed a bait of fish with a fish that's not supposed to be in the tank with them. And the new fish killed, slam is what we call them. Now I'll met out justice when I go home, my job is a lot easier than yours. The Tarver family, they didn't lose a pet fish. They lost a son, a brother, and Denton has lost a promising member of this community that may have one day replaced Chief Dixon. Releasing the video will help us all get justice, it will help us evaluate the officer's actions for negligence and criminality, experts will be able to compare what they did with what they knew at the time they did it. And somehow we can all learn from it and be better for it. I believe Darius Tarver deserves that. Thank you. >> Mr. Merritt, I believe we have a question. But before we take the question, I want to make an announcement. There is an overflow room, if we get people that, if we don't have space here downstairs, that has the live feed as well. So I just wanted to make that announcement. Council member Armitter. >> Thank you, Mr. Merritt. It's no secret that I agree with you, and I thank you for coming here to Denton. It's true that you represented the family of Botham Jean, right? >> That's correct. >> In Dallas, and thank you. Thank you for that. Are you aware, so we're allowed to ask questions of you, not allowed to make statements, though I might slip in that a little bit. Are you aware that I have asked for public release of the footage, as well as asked recently to have the same video that Mr. Tarver saw, shown to me, and I was told that I cannot watch that video unless a majority of council agrees that I can watch it? Are you aware of that, and can you comment on that? >> Sure, briefly, if I can. First, the release of that video to the public, I want this council to understand, is a discretionary decision. It's a decision that you all have deeded over to the police chief. You all can take that authority back and release the video at any time, because he works for you. The department is under your authority, and so you all get to direct the law enforcement body to make decisions. The statutes that exist, and again, I am literally just familiarizing myself with them, but I haven't ran into them. Unfortunately, with several officer-involved shootings throughout the North Texas area and the Houston, Harris County area as well, the same laws apply. We've seen those videos released countless times. When they serve a police function, I've outlined for this council a police function or an investigatory purpose that will serve this community. That aside, as council members, you all should certainly, I encourage each of you to review the video. That's why you were elected to your position, so that you can make discretionary decisions like this. I'm not saying release it to the public per se, but if, as Mr. Tarver has said, the prevailing narrative is inaccurate after seeing the video, then you all have a responsibility to release it immediately to quash that narrative. Now, the idea is not to try the case in the public, because that's the concerns that put all the evidence out and people make up their minds before it gets into a courtroom. Well, the concern here now is that they're already doing that. There was a pan, meat cleaver-wielding 26-year-old madman who attacked a cop and stabbed him. If that's in fact the case, that's the prevailing narrative, then we were all wasting our breath, and the room wouldn't be filled up. We don't accept that narrative. We believe it's an inaccurate narrative, it's currently taining the grand jury pool that exists in preventing justice in this case. We believe that the case will go on to the grand jury under that narrative with the police agency who more or less released that narrative, and will be no-billed. And this family will be denied justice. No-billed, of course, is a term that means the case will not move forward for a trial. And when someone dies, like Darius Tarver, really when anyone dies, but when someone whose family has made the kind of sacrifices that Mr. Tarver's family has made, they deserve their day in court. Okay, any other comments or questions? Yeah, I'm going to ask a follow-up question. We can, but we also have several speakers waiting, and I want to make sure that we have time for them. And I'll try to be more curt to your other point quickly. Oh, I'm sorry, I actually did, please. Yeah, no, I was just going to ask if you could comment on, so we've been told in a public statement from Chief Dixon that the process as it stands is transparent. The Rangers investigation, which has concluded the internal investigation of use of force and the grand jury trial. I was wondering, do you think that this process is transparent, and can you speak briefly to why or why not? Very briefly, the law enforcement agencies throughout North Texas and really throughout the country have seen the benefit of releasing these videos to gain the trust of the public. And that's why you have seen more and more of these videos being displayed in recent times. And I can tell you from a civil rights perspective, when these videos are released to the public, and they do demonstrate police officer misconduct, it's more likely than not that they will result in a charging decision. When they are suppressed, like in the case of Laquan McDonald, those charges don't move forward. And so it's doing this community a disservice. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay, I'm going to call the names of the next speakers, and the time is four minutes. Obviously, we wanted to give Mr. Merritt the discretion and time that he needed to share his words with us. So the first speaker, and please forgive me if I pronounce your name incorrectly on any of them. Sam Alphonse, Alphonse, I'm sorry. If you'll come up and state your name and address, your time will begin. And just as a reminder, an open mic, because of the way that it's posted, the council is unable to have direct dialogue or question with the speaker. >> Good evening, everybody. >> Good evening. >> My name is Sam Alphonse. I live in Denton, Texas, and I'm here today to address this matter in this community. And not just Denton, Texas. This is a national matter with the police department and the public distrust of them as a whole, members of city council. Every last one of you guys that have got sworn in has public servants to help the community. And I have two boys, one just turned 21, that's here, and the other one's 12 years old, and a daughter. And I can't fathom burying one of them. But the disheartening thing of this whole is the Tarver family needs closure. And not just the Tarver family, but the families that have young children and adolescents have been murdered. And it's no amount of monetary compensation would ever bring those people back. But it would help as a moral, as a morality thing, to let people know that we're competent enough, please force, so much that we release the tape to the members so they can discern for themselves and get justice where justice needs to be served. And it needs to be done. Sons, fathers are supposed to not bury sons or daughters. This man was a college student in this town, and this is a three-college town, that's down my check. It's hard for me to sleep last few days when I heard about this, and you guys need to do the right thing. I'm pleading out to you all to do the right thing for this man and his family. And dental need to employ a police committee that's not of policemen, an outside committee of experts that could objectively discern and go after officers that do this type of misconduct of the citizens. This needs to be done, and that could be one of those communities to be at the forefront, to be a pioneer of this, this is not right. And this sends a message if this man doesn't get justice, it lets people know how things are really done and how we really feel that a young life doesn't mean nothing. And we would prosecute somebody mercilessly for killing animals, they'd be subhuman. But for a young man that's just starting out his life, he will never know what it feels like to be, to drive his first car and his prom house. This is wrong. That's all I gotta say. It needs to be done. That's it. The next speaker is Amelia. Is it Cappuccino? I apologize. Okay. Just state your name and address and your time will begin. Thank you. I apologize. My name is Amelia Cappuccino and I live in Denton, Texas. Good evening. Again, my name is Amelia Cappuccino. I am the vice president of Webe, a political, educational, cultural organization at UNT. I'm here tonight to not ask but to demand transparency for Deris Tarver and his family. Deris Tarver was a young man with a bright future ahead of him and that was a life then PD cut short. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding his death, he did not deserve to die. Do right by his family and release the body cam footage. By withholding the footage, you deny the Tarver family justice and you deny them peace to grieve. Those who are responsible for Deris' death must be held accountable. Too many young black men and women have died in this state, in this country, at the hands of police officers already. Many just for being black in America. Many without the justice that they deserve. If there was truly no wrongdoing on the behalf of police officers responding to the scene, then release the footage. I echo the demands of the Black Student Union. Release the body cam footage and the names of the officers who are on the scene. This family needs answers. This community needs answers. We will not let up. We will not stop until Deris Tarver's family finds the peace and justice they deserve. Say his name. Thank you for your time. The next speaker is Brooke Roberson. State your name and address please. Your time will begin. Thank you. Hello. My name is Brooke Roberson. I am a student here at the University of North Texas and I also serve on the president's cabinet for the Black Student Union. On January 21st, 2020, Deris Tarver, a fellow student, was tragically killed by an unidentified DIN police officer. Deris had previously been involved in a car accident two weekends before. He was in the ICU days after he was in the ICU for a few days after being released shortly. After the accident, Deris suffered a possible head trauma and was sensitive to light and sound. He needed help. Rather than getting the true care and attention he needed, he was brutally attacked by police officers outside of his second floor apartment. The Black Student Union is demanding for the release of the body cam footage that night and the identity of the police officer that shot and killed Deris Tarver. This information is crucial and it needs to be released as it can be able to give Deris and his family the justice they deserve. Deris was on track to graduate in May and he was also being recruited by the McKinney Police Department. This young man's life was taken by the very people that he aspired to be. Not only did the DIN Police Department unnecessarily take a life, but they also instilled fear in other innocent people and students. Being a black student, this situation makes me fear for my life and fear for the life of my brothers and sisters. I should not have to wake up every single day wondering if this will be my last or my friend's last. Deris deserved assistance, not death. His family deserves justice. The public deserves and has the right to see the footage, release the footage, and release the identity of the officer. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] The next speaker is, is it Yohan Ogbu? I'm sorry, not even close. I apologize. State your name and address and your time. I apologize. Yeah, my name is Yolian. Yeah, sorry, you're good. And I'm a resident of Frisco, but I go to UNT. So, my name is Yolian Ogbu, and I'm a political science communications major, but I also currently serve as UNT student body president. And the thing is, I'm really like tired, and a lot of students are really tired, because it's easy to talk about Black Lives Matter and that entire movement when someone's like murdered like 300 miles away, right? But this one is really, really close, like streets away from us. I'm only 20, and I've been in and seen egregious situations involving a gross misuse of power by the police force. Deris Tarver, a beloved human being. I don't even need to say student. I don't need to say black person, but he was a human being. He didn't deserve to die that night. He needed help, and he needed to be protected. But what's interesting is that the NPD's motto, and I guess police forces across the country, is this motto that they're here to protect and serve, but I'm just going to ask who are they protecting? Who are they serving? Now, I really, I don't want to take up all of this time trying to explain to y'all about police brutality, because Google is a thing, and y'all can see a lot of videos and what that is like to people. But the very purpose from what I've seen and what I know, what I've listened to and grown up learning about in my civics class is that a city council is supposed to serve their community. But what does community mean to you all if your black residents aren't a part of that community that you're so-called serving? So I definitely unequivocally support the family of Darius Tarver and our black student union demanding the release of the body cam footage. And if you all are not on the side of justice in this idea that you guys have the power to actually tell people, like I don't know our PD, that like they need to release this footage, these seats that you all are sitting on are definitely not permanent. We elect y'all. So please do something right. Darius' family and the public deserve transparency. And if there is no justice, there will never be peace. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The next speaker is Daniel. Is it Ojo? Ojo, I'm sorry. Daniel, if you'll -- I apologize for that, Daniel. >> My name is Daniel Ojo. I'm a black man studying political science with a minor in criminal justice. I plan to get a master's degree in public admin and run for public office one day. If my life isn't taken by senseless acts of violence and murder perpetrated by police brutality. This is something I'm cognizant of every single day. That my fate can easily be the same as Darius and thousands of people who have lost their lives, who have been shot and killed by police in the last year. I'm here today not as a student leader or family member or even a friend, but as a human being, a person. A person who deserves to be protected by our institutions and navigate fully in my community. I ask for transparency. We demand the release of the body cam footage from that day that Darius's life was taken from us. We demand that information about the officer be released to the public. Not because we want it, but because we need to hold this individual accountable. Because we need a safer community. Because we need to protect our young black lives. Because you get to decide whether I live long enough to fulfill my dreams. And most importantly, because black lives matter. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Billy Brasfield. State your name and address. Your time will begin. Mayor and city council, my name is Billy Brasfield. I live in Den, Texas. If you could step a little closer to the mic, because this is being televised, so I just want to make sure they can hear you. What I am here is to tell y'all something that you already know. That there's been cover ups in this city for the last 10 or 15 years. Mr. Toffer didn't deserve to die. But in this city, they do stuff and then they cover it up. They were talking about the chief. I know about that. Because he, well I won't say that, but I know about it. Mr. Toffer deserved justice. He was murdered. That's why the video needs to come out. Because if you don't let that video out, they're going to taint that jury and do the same thing they've been doing out in Dallas before, letting them get off. And then they're going to turn around and kill somebody else. Y'all got children. I know some of you do. How would you feel if your child got gunned down? How would you feel? It's a disgrace if y'all sit up there and not have that chief to release that body camera. He said after they impound on the jury, then he'll release it. That's tainting the jury. Release that body camera so they'll know what they're doing when they go back there. Let me share something with you about the DA. He's the only one who can go back in that grand jury and talk. He can prosecute a ham sandwich if he wanted to. There's a right and a wrong here. And if y'all sit on that council, you ought to be standing for justice for what is right. I know all y'all up there. Listen, the chief may make mistakes, but the chief also, my grandmother would say, tell Phillips because she done did it too many times to me. I'm telling you what I know. You know it because I met with you in that former city attorney. Legal systems run to that state attorney and have stuff sealed because they know they done lied. And then you can't get it. That's ridiculous. Chief Dixon said to us, 18 December, we met in his office. He said he would have his staff review that information. When he get back on the 17th, he'll get in touch with us. This 2020, I ain't heard nothing from him. He knew that that case had been nobile in November before he met with us. And he told that. So you just think what it is. There's a right and a wrong, sir. And y'all supposed to stand for what is right. Not just for a few people in the city, but the entire city. Not for color, but for everybody. And if you don't do that, let me share something with you that I know God will get you. Okay, and our last speaker is Mr. Kevin Tarver. My name is Kevin Tarver and I'll admit the address, but I'll say by way of McKinney, Texas. And I stand as a voice of my son. And I will say there's a motto that we have in the city of McKinney. Do the right thing, do the best you can, and treat people the way you want to be treated. And as you see the shirt I wear, I'm not just a chaplain. I'm not just a person off the street. One of my duties is with the chief of police of McKinney as an advisory council. We do research, we do look at videos, we do look at policing, we do look at the problems. We do look at implicit bias, we do look at mental illness, we do look at all the things that happen. We look at procedures and policies to make sure that we can do better and try to be the best. McKinney is, out of all cities above 100,000, is one of the safest places to live. And it's not because it just happened. When I was told what my son had done, I was willing to accept that if that was the truth because I knew the accident he had. But I did know that Sunday right before it happened, he had given his life to Christ completely. Also, I said, okay, I'll accept it. And if it is what it is, I leave it alone. And that's what I meant to do. However, when we walked in, and there's another pastor sitting right here that watched the video with me. So I don't stand alone with what I see. I don't make anything up. And as leaders of this city, I expect you guys to represent the city wisely. And one scripture says, in Psalms 1, 18 and 80, it's better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. Right now, it seems that you put confidence in man because you take the word of what's been put out, which is not truth. But what I saw, I saw my son walk down. I seen him calling out to God. And I am trained and certified in mental health. And I do know procedures. I do know policies. And I did see what happened. I did see my son sit there. I did not see my son come forward, as was stated with the meat cleaver trying to attack the office. But I did see my son standing there talking to God at the same time that he was tased and he was attacked. And while he stood there, none threatening to any officer, with five officers on the scene. I know protocol. I know procedure. And I know my son had an injustice. And today, I'm standing here because this was a great kid. This was a kid never been in trouble. This was a kid that wanted to be a police. And the very thing that took him out is the very thing he wanted to be, to make a difference. And that's what I stand for, is to make a difference. And the only way -- we read the Pledge of Allegiance. And one of the things it said, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. But today, I'm not feeling the justice. It's not for all. It hasn't shown for my family. It's not shown for my son. So I stand today because I don't know if you do have children, but I said it could never happen to me until it happened to me. It's the most horrible travesty that you could ever experience, to know you had a good son, to know that there's things to be done. After I seen the video, that's why I came out. That's why I voiced my opinion, because we went in for closure. But we came out with God saying you got to fight. And that's what we're doing today. We're standing. We're fighting for justice and transparency for them to tell the truth. That's why the video needs to be released. Okay, that concludes our public portion presentation from the members of the public. Our next agenda item is the consent agenda item. And I wanted to take just a five minute break and then we'll come back and we'll start with the other portion of the council agenda. We'll come back at seven fifteen. Welcome back to this meeting of the Dent City Council. It is seven twenty one p.m. on March the third year. Twenty twenty. We do have a quorum call this meeting to order. Councilmember Armitter has has left for has left the meeting and Councilmember Davis may arrive around eight p.m. from a previous engagement. All right, we'll move on to the consent agenda. I move approval. Councilmember Ryan, we have a motion to second. Let's vote on the board, please. Who hasn't voted? Oh, OK. The screens aren't working. All right. OK, we'll just we'll have to take a hand vote. Councilmember Briggs, you know, try it one more time. Jane, if Councilmember Briggs, if you could motion to the screen again. Yeah, I motion to approve and Councilmember Ryan. So now let's vote on the board. Mine's already showing. Oh, there we go. Are the screens working? OK, well, we're going to do this the old fashioned way. Everybody in favor of the consent agenda, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries unanimously. We'll move on to items for individual consideration. I believe items for individual consideration for a or for B and for C will be considered at a later meeting council meeting. So we will not be taking up action on agenda items for B or for C. Agenda item for a is consider approval of a resolution of the city didn't establishing. I ripped off my agenda to give somebody a note. I don't have it. I'm sorry. Oh, it's on the caption. Establish a subsidy and resource allocation policy for the Parks and Recreation Department and declaring an effective date. Mayor City Council Gary Pack and Director Parks and Recreation. Today we are requesting support and approval of a subsidy and resource allocation policy. This policy is a combination of eight months of work conducted by our staff over the course of the last almost last year. The process is the creation of really a foundation for categorizing our programs and levels of benefit to the community. The policy and study that we did to get to this point provide steps in which we can cast our subsidy across all of our programs based on the tiered or categorization of those programs based on those who benefiting, whether it's a community benefit where everyone benefits from it. Or it's a limited benefit where one person is benefiting from a program such as a one on one private lesson where they would have little or no subsidy fees and charges can supplement those programs where it's more individual based, where it's more of a hundred percent cost recovery as compared to those community benefits where they may be fully subsidized. A recent adopted policy for our sponsorship and donations is one policy that we use to really work hand in hand with this as we identify alternative revenue sources to offset where fees and charges can't provide enough resources to help those programs. This will be a major budgeting tool for us. We're already using it as we prepare for this year's budget where we've sat down with over 200 programs and staffs evaluating each program in regards to its direct and indirect costs and what our revenues are. And then those are being evaluated based on the pyramid itself. Heather Gray is going to come up and go through a few slides for us. Okay, yeah, I was thinking. Are we going through the slides? Okay, a little more detail and then we'll be available for questions. Good evening, Mayor, council members, Heather Gray, Parks and Recreation. So I'll go through a few slides here just as a refresher since it's been a while since we presented this to you. So just a recap of the subsidy and resource allocation timeline back in May of 2019 is when we contracted with Green Play and over that summer of 2019 is when we worked with Green Play. We had several workshops in which staff learned about the methodology and began analyzing their program data. And then in October, we presented the model and findings to our park board. We are given direction to move forward with the study. In November, we presented to council during a work session, the same presentation we gave to park board, presented the model and findings, and we were given direction to continue moving forward with the study. Then in December and January, we finalized the policy language and the study with our consultant Green Play. In February, February 3rd, actually, just recently a month ago, we presented the updated policy language and the final study to the parks, the park board. And that policy was approved unanimously by the park board. And then most recently, in February 6th, we did hold a public meeting seeking any feedback from the public. We received positive feedback at that meeting. Just as a recap, refresher of the purpose of the study, Gary touched on a few of these, but the main purpose was to develop a framework for future planning, budgeting, and pricing, as well as resource allocation. Just of note, we do not currently have a policy in place, so this is something that is much needed for our department. We don't have anything formal in place right now. Additionally, the purpose is to educate and orient the staff about the philosophy of the subsidy and resource allocation model. And also to provide, we want to be conscientious of taxpayer dollars, and so we want to provide a foundation for decision making that is fair and equitable. And additionally, we want it to be an effective and efficient business tool for our staff to help give them vision and guide them in future planning. This is our subsidy and resource allocation pyramid. It has not changed since we presented to you in November. And as Gary touched on, the model is based on tier one at the bottom, which is in purple, mostly community benefit. Those are the programs and services that are their highest subsidy level. Those are going to be just parks, open space, and trails. And then at the top of the pyramid, you have mostly individual benefit. Those are going to be things like concessions or private lessons, which our target is a zero subsidy level for those type programs. So this model is to be used by staff as a tool to guide them to analyze their financial the financial data for their programs. Council member breaks on the chart. Can you go back? I remember when we we first had this presentation and work session. One of the issues that that I had was the preschool, but I can't see it on the tiers. Which tier does that fall in? Because for me, that is tier one, which would be a high subsidy level for extreme community benefit. And I think it was in a higher tier at the time. That is correct. The staff place that at a tier three, which is in with our after school and out of school time. OK, so does that currently get a is it thirty three percent currently? That's overall for the entire grouping. So after school and out of school time includes after school programs. I believe summer camps are in there. So it's a combination of everything. This pyramid isn't broken down by specific program. We have over two hundred programs. Mine was the preschool specifically, North Lakes and Denia. And there was some some other ones that were very helpful for me and for my kids to go to. Sure. So currently, when we did the study over the last summer based on our seventeen eighteen financials for the Dina preschool, it was at fifty seven percent. Cost recovery MLK all day preschools at sixty four percent. And those are the two preschools that we have. And so by this approval, are we moving those from sixty eight percent up to tier three, which would be thirty to I mean, are we changing the subsidy levels to make it more expensive? Because if that's that's not what I'm in favor of. So this tier three is is the target thirty to sixty percent. So we have outliers and every in every tier we already have outliers that we will work slowly to try to get in range. But any fee changes. So if preschool fees were going to change, that would come to you during the budget process. So the approval, what we're asking for your approval tonight is not specifically of this pyramid. It's of the methodology, which is the policy language, which kind of guides our decision making and planning. The pyramid could change over time if economic factors change or we don't get the resources that we're used to getting something like that. It could those programs could shift clarifying question. OK, so of course. So this pyramid, although it has these tiers and the things that are in them, if this item is approved, we're not saying that it's automatically going to increase fees for the ones that we see here. I mean, we're not. Is that what you're telling me? That's correct. The fees would still come to you through the budget process individually. And then at that point, will we have time or would would we be able to discuss the subsidy and allocation of of individual things you would be able to? I don't we could bring the pyramid to you again, but you would be able to at that time determine if you want to approve the fees and the fee schedule or not approve them. OK, does that answer? Yes. Yeah, I'll just I'll just keep an eye on it. Budget. OK, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I think at budget time, I mean, you know, obviously staff brings in all the departments are recommended budget, but this council's prerogative to make any adjustments as this council would give direction. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't automatically saying yes, increase the preschool fees with the approval of this item. No, that's that's not what we're doing. It's not a budgetary item. It's just more of a policy statement and sort of a formula on how to approach it. That's correct. Yes, it's a methodology framework. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. OK, so currently we're in the established model phase. The subsidy and resource allocation is a kind of an ongoing lifecycle. It's intended to be evaluated over time. So we're hoping to move into implementation phase soon and then we will continue to evaluate and analyze as well as refine and adjust over time. Each year we'll evaluate the program financials. So some of our upcoming action items were here seeking approval tonight to finalize the policy. We've already started our preparations for the upcoming budget year, the twenty twenty one budget year. So staff are reanalyzing their program financials based on the eighteen nineteen actuals, because when we originally went through the study, we had the seventeen eighteen actuals. So we'll be looking at those to help us prepare our fee schedule, which we're working with finance to get the fee schedule all laid out so we can bring that to you and you can see any fee changes that are proposed for any of our programs at that time through the budget process. Just as I mentioned, it's a lifecycle, so we'll continue to analyze the program financials as an ongoing basis. We'll also continue to engage the public and seek their feedback as well as our program users. And then we may refine the methodology over time based on any lessons learned or if there's public feedback that necessitates a change or something economic related and economic factor that we need to change. Yes. First of all, let me comment. I think it's a very rational structure and it gets past the simplistic idea that, you know, that everything ought to pay for itself. I mean, the way it separates out, you know, clearly some things not everything government pays for itself. Some things are provided for the community benefit. And, you know, the gradations are a great framework for for us to clarify even our own thoughts to each other about why something deserves a greater or lesser subsidy. Is there a target overall subsidy that you're trying to solve to? And is it assumed that there necessarily, you know, is an overall subsidy level of approximate or is it possible, for instance, that there might be a program that over recovers and itself subsidizes other activities? So, yes, to the last point you made, there are some programs that do over recover that we can justify and say these over recover because they help subsidize programs that aren't recovering and we feel that it's a needed program for the public. There is not an overall subsidy target for the department. It's more individualized by program. We do have we have 17 different business units in our department. So we do have we're working on creating targets for the individual business units. But again, it really comes down more to the the programs itself themselves. Well, I'd say, you know, Mr. City Manager, I suppose in the end, it does all have to tick and tie. So maybe it's an iterative process. We go from the bottom level to the top level and back. We're not drawing any conclusions tonight on any final fees. The strategy is something that I think, as you're pointing out, Councilmember Meltzer makes a lot of sense. You can talk to each other, but we're just now starting the budget process, trying to figure out exactly what impacts the legislation's had on our ability to balance our budget moving forward. So we could have a different conversation in a few months. And I think what's important is at least providing you the framework to have that conversation. Any other questions, comments? Chair would entertain. Yes. Do it the old fashioned way. Yeah. Is the screen still not working, Jay? Like John Ryan made a motion. You know, I'm not I'm not seeing anything relevant. Oh, you're not. There's nothing on your screen. Well, nothing. Just the agenda. Billy, if we could come out maybe as we're working through this, you reset the screens or something so we can all. Okay, so Councilman, go ahead. Yeah, so I was, I wasn't aware of other members' actions. I was prepared to move approval. Go ahead. I haven't recognized him yet. Yeah, I didn't realize that. Yeah, so I'll wait. No, go ahead. Okay, I'll move approval of this item. Councilmember Ryan. I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second for agenda item 4A. Let's vote by signify, all those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries 5 to 0. We are, we pulled agenda items 4A and B. We'll go to 4D. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, a home, a real estate corporation, authorizing the city manager to execute a design-build agreement with Thomas S. Byrne, Inc. Who's Thomas S. Byrne, Inc. Agenda item 4D. Hi. Can you hear me? Okay. My name is Larry Chan, mayor, council members. I'm from the facilities department here in Denton, and I'm here to represent the development services building. We're going to be asking for a funding request here. The building itself is basically a 27,200 square foot interior renovation. Let's see, we anticipate going rather fast. We want to try and get under construction by spring of 2020. And we want to complete by the, probably closer to the end of the year, late fall, end of the year or so. Anyways, I only have two slides. How do I get those up? Is it this one? Right here. Oh, that one. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's just the first slide there. The building will accommodate the development services, the engineering, fire inspectors, community development, and community improvement departments. The request is actually for funding approval for $2,000 and $6,150. This is based on our initial construction budget that we put out in our RFP, which was about $3 million. This is just a request to fund the engineering, the design, and other pre-construction services at this time. We'll come back later, at a later date, for the actual construction amount once we vet out the number itself. We still have to do the actual construction documents to get to that point. I want to make it clear that this request for the 2006, again, it's based on the $3 million, but it may vary depending on the actual project budget, which is up to $5 million. So we may come back later and adjust that. Okay. Any questions? Any questions for Larry? Council Member Briggs. I have two questions. Would this, does this also include the design of the parking lot? Is that included in this project? No, the parking lot is a separate project that will be rolled into the overall project. Those documents are already done, and we'll probably turn them over to the design builder. So that'll be built into the $3 million cost or cost separate? No, it'll be cost separate. The $3 million was only for the building renovation itself. Okay. And if you could just help me understand why we did design build this time for this project. The last time, I think, when we did a design build for an actual street, it didn't work and we had to remove it or it ended up costing us more time. Is it different for road than it is for a building? Yes. Typically design build is a faster, actually more efficient way of approaching kind of a fast track project. And our project here, we have to get it done by the end of the year, no matter what, to accommodate other changes inside the city, mainly the police department. We're moving one department out of one building into this, or actually several departments into this building to free up space for the police department to move into their space. It's kind of like a trickle down effect, a domino more or less. So the same problems that we had with a building or road necessarily don't apply when you're talking about a building structure? I'm sorry. The design build? Yes. Okay. Yeah. The point in the design build versus the street is simply to have a little bit more control over the subs. So there'll be a preset dollar amount that will pay the actual contractor for their services, but it gives us a lot more flexibility in terms of dealing with the subs and the timeline. That was why we introduced these and the construction manager at risk. Okay, because we did a design build for McKinney Road and it didn't work out the way that we wanted it to and we had to change the process. Which road are you talking about? McKinney, originally. It was a design build. And so I just want to make sure that because this is needed that we're not going to see any of the same issues that we had in the past when we tried to do a design build project before. I'm not sure that we can speak to the design build on McKinney, but in terms of the building, we actually recommended this amount for more budgetary control and more control over the subs. So some of that volatility that you were saying with other projects such as Vela Park and the rest of that sort of thing, that's exactly why we introduced the construction manager at risk and design build is to try to give ourselves some different procurement methods, which would result in less change orders and more cost certainty. Okay. So we feel very comfortable with this project. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Any other parts of the presentation? No. Councilmember Meltzer. Will we see, will council see, you know, sort of requirements document before the design actually begins and have the opportunity to, you know, comment or provide input? We will be bringing to you, you know, the elevations of the building. We'll probably present to you also. We'll go through the progress of the building itself and present to you. Yes. Well, that's just, that's really different than what I'm asking though. Or have we already sort of done it? From interior, exterior, everything? Yeah, everything, you know. Currently where we're at is laying out the interior of the building, the open space concept. So that's going through the design. Exterior, we're going to have some options for the council to consider. I've also asked them to look into some energy efficiency ideas too that we can bring back to you. So this is really to get the ball rolling on that initial design. I think you've addressed the things I was curious about. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Anybody else? Anybody else? Larry, is this your first presentation? Yes, it is. What? Congratulations. Thank you. Great job. You bet. Trying to make it short. We like that Larry. Good example for others. I'm just messing with you Larry. Okay. Any other questions? All right. So I don't know if our screens are still working. So we're, councilmember Ryan. Move approval of item 4(a). 4(d) you mean? Yeah, 4(d). 4(d). Second? Mayor Pro Tem? Second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 4(d). All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed? It carries unanimously. All right. Thank you very much. You bet. Thank you. Agenda item 4(e). Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, a home real estate corporation to execute a contract with Altech Industries through Silwell Cooperative Purchasing Network contract. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Terry Cater, Fleet Services Superintendent. This item is the request for a two-year, $3 million contract with Altech Industries, Inc. They are supplier of aerial bucket trucks for the city fleet. A little background. The city currently operates about 32 aerial trucks and most of those are with the various departments of Dent Municipal Electric. Parks and traffic also operates some equipment. Altech Industries provides a various series of trucks for those two departments and we've pretty much standardized to the Altech for the last 10 years. The departments are very comfortable with the equipment, very confident in it, as well as Fleet Services is confident in the ability to provide these trucks and also to provide the maintenance and repair services for these trucks. So we utilize Altech's factory trained technicians to come on site, perform service and repair for these vehicles. Fleet technicians do not work on the aerial part of these trucks. We do maintain the bodies and the chassis. For liability reasons, we don't work on the aerial part of the equipment. Part of the contract is for the purchase of six trucks that are currently needed right now. These are actually approved replacements for this current budget year. The value of that is about $1.1 million for those six trucks combined. Welcome back to this meeting of the Dent City Council on March the 3rd, 2020. It is 7.52 and we're resuming with our presentation on agenda item 4E. I apologize for the interruption. Thank you, Mayor. As part of the proposed contract, the replacement of six trucks is an immediate need. These are planned replacements for the fleet. And the other part of the contract is a proposal to replace up to seven trucks. Five of these would be fleet replacements and possibility of adding trucks for fiscal year 2021. Benefits of the contract, it is source well property purchasing network contract, so it's been vetted. ALTEC provides chassis, either Freightline or a Dodge, which the city uses both. They do accept letters of intent so that they're working with us to reduce the long lead times on delivery of these trucks, which is currently over 360 days. They have factory-trained technicians that come on site and perform maintenance for us. And the best thing is the department has confidence in these aerial trucks as well as fleet. So our recommendation is to order a two-year contract to ALTEC not to exceed $3 million. Okay. Councilmember Briggs. And what budget does this come out of? Is this going to be COs or cash-funded or utility? It comes out of the department budgets. Sometimes they're CO-funded and sometimes they're cash-funded by the departments. It depends on the department. Okay. So it'll just, we don't know yet for this contract. I'll have to defer to Tony Puente from the exact answer. I'll have to defer to the Council, Tony Puente, Chief Financial Officer. Most of these trucks are being purchased for DME and they're cash-funded. Okay. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Council will consider, mayor will consider action on it. Councilmember Ryan. Move approval. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second for agenda item four. What is that? E. Four E. All who in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries five zero. Agenda item four F. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, amending ordinance number 212.366 as amended by ordinance 214.039. Actually, I have the next two items, so I'm going to. Let me go ahead and call them both. We'll vote separately, but let me go ahead and call them both. And that was for F and G. I've called F. Agenda item G is considered adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, approving the tax increment reinvestment zone number two. So the objective tonight is to look at proposed changes to the ordinance and bylaws for the West Park tours. Number two, the proposed changes are to change the term of the developer representative as well as bring the ordinance and bylaws in line with the statute, which is Texas tax code 311.009. Just a quick reminder, this is the West Park tour, so this is the tours that's out in the industrial area. The map is up there for your reference. The board structure is 14 members, 12 members serve concurrently with their terms on the Economic Development Partnership Board. Denton County participates in this tour, so they appoint a representative and the developer also appoints a representative. So at this time, the developer representative has reached her term limit and the developer requested consideration of an amendment to the ordinance and the bylaws to allow that representative to continue to serve. This is a similar situation to what we have on the EDP, where we have the president of UNT and the president and chancellor of TWU serving terms in excess of the three two year term limit. We're also proposing a change, like I said, to bring the ordinance and the bylaws in line with chapter 311 that the city council appoints the chair of the tourist board. So the proposed changes to the ordinance are in section one, subsection A and B of section four. And I've put the proposed changes up there in red so that you can see it easily that the developer can serve unlimited terms, and that city council will designate the chair of the board. And the tourist board voted to recommend changes to the ordinance by a vote of 12 to 0. And so if you do that, and then I can, that's the ordinance and the next one is the bylaws and it's very short as well. This is same situation, I'm not going back through everything, but change to the bylaws. The language in the bylaws is very similar. The developer appointee can serve in limited terms but must be reappointed at the conclusion of each term, and that city council will appoint the chair. The tourist board also considered this change and approved it 12 to 0. And that is those two items. All right, any questions, and this is for both F and G but we need to go separately. F is the ordinance and G is the bylaws. Okay. Council will consider direction, chair will consider direction on F. Oh, I don't see, I'm sorry, I don't have my screen up. I didn't know this thing is working now. Is it working? Is yours working, Paul? Okay, I'll just look at, okay, Councilmember Briggs. I move approval. Councilmember Ryan. Second. All right, we have motion and second. I'll signify for approval by raising your right hand. 4F passes unanimously, and now 4G. Mayor Pro Tem. Move approval. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and second for agenda item 4G. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries 6-0. So we'll go to, is this public hearings? I believe so. Yep, public hearings. Go back to the agenda that I didn't rip up. 5A, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, approving a change in the zoning district and use classification from residential R4 zoning district and use classification to mixed-use neighborhood zoning district. Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department for the record. I have before you tonight a request to rezone 0.154 acres of land from the R4 residential district to the mixed-use neighborhood district to bring an existing commercial parking lot into compliance with the 2019 Denton Development Code. This site is located at 311 Janney Street. You can see it located right here. It's approximately 172 feet north of East McKinney Street. Here you can see a comparison of the current zoning map and the proposed zoning map should this site be approved. Here you can see the site as R4. And here, if this is approved, it will be an extension of the MN zoning district that is located to the south of the site. Section 245E of the Denton Development Code contains general approval criteria for approval of all applications. I went through that in my staff report. I'm not going to repeat that now. Instead, I'm going to focus on the zoning criteria for approval in Section 272D. There are seven of them. The first one is regarding the Denton Plan 2030 and the compatibility of the request with the Denton Plan. This area really has three designations. It's got a lot of overlapping. The one that this one is compatible with is a downtown compatibility area. This designation applies to residential and commercial areas adjacent to the downtown core, and it serves as a transition between the downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. This requested zoning district complies with this. Criteria two is that it is consistent with relevant small area plans, and there are no small area plans in this area. Criteria three is that it is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district. The MN district in this location is consistent with the MN purpose statement in that it provides compatibility between high intensity mixed use areas and adjacent residential and commercial areas. Criteria four is that there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change. In the past few years, the site to the east of the subject site has been rezoned from neighborhood four residential to NRMU along McKinney Street frontage, with the remainder rezoned to neighborhood residential six with an overlay. This was again rezoned in 2017, and the portion that was zoned NR6 is rezoned to NRMU 12 with an overlay. These two rezoning applications did change the nature of the area in the vicinity of the subject site from single family to residential to mixed use commercial. Criteria five, the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts on the area. The parking lot's been there for a few years now. We don't expect it to further impact the streets or traffic in the area. Because it's a parking lot, it does not require water and wastewater services, nor does it require access to parks. The same with schools. The parking lot's not habitable, therefore it will not affect the student population. The subject property is 1.2 miles from fire station number two on McKinney Street within the eight minutes or less response time boundary. Staff sent notifications out within 200 and 500 feet of the site. We received seven responses in approval of this request. However, one of the responses is located outside the 200 foot buffer. The six that are within the 200 foot buffer comprise 43% of the land area within the 200 foot buffer. And the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 21st. There was one attendee that came before the meeting started and then left, and no other people showed up. And the attendee did express support for the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this request with a vote of six to zero. That does conclude my presentation, and the applicant is present if you have any questions. >> Are there any questions for staff? Councilmember Briggs. >> Yeah, I just want to confirm. This is a parking lot, and it's going to stay a parking lot. >> That's correct. >> Correct, yes. If this is approved, the applicant will have to move forward and with replatting the site, since it has a parking lot, commercial parking lot, as a principal use is not a permitted use in the MN district. So he's going to replat the site with the Yale Law Building, so there will all be one lot, and then he'll have to do a few other things, too. >> Okay, and just to follow up on that, because I remember seeing in the comments that there were some nice large trees there on the parking lot or in the parking lot. And just that they weren't going to be taken down or destroyed or anything, that this is one of the reasons why you want to not disturb them. >> Well, is this a question for staff or the applicant? >> I don't know if staff can answer it. >> Because I haven't opened the public hearing yet, so I'd like to go ahead. >> Maybe she can answer it. >> Okay, yeah, do we have, okay, if you can answer it, fine, if not, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. >> Sure, well, the applicant is going to have to complete a zoning compliance plan, and we will look at the tree canopy coverage. We don't have any plans at this moment to remove any trees from the site. >> Yeah, okay, thank you. >> Yes. >> I move approval. >> Oh, we got to have the public hearing. >> Oh, okay. >> All right, so now we'll open the public hearing. We have at least one card, which is Jerry Silo JB Partners. Oh, is that the next one? Oh, I'm sorry. All right. Anybody wishing to speak? Yes, go ahead, come on. >> Good evening. My name is Roger Yale. I'm the applicant. We're seeking to have this be a parking lot. There are two trees, one being a red oak and another oak, I believe, is a live oak. We intend for them to stay. We intend to add nothing more than to comply with requirements. And if that requires additional parking, there's green space there, so I think we can comply with that. Any other questions? >> Any other questions? My name is Councilman Lashady on Shimwada McKinney, Texas, and I don't think that we should be approving this item or any other item until we take up the Darius Tarver matter. I think that his life matters more than zoning or rezoning an item and especially a parking lot or the removal of trees or anything else. I think that it is indicative of the state of emergency of this city, of this state that you all here have not taken into consideration the life of Darius and these students here. The mere appearance of impropriety is detrimental to building the type of trust and coalitions we need between the communities and the law enforcement. We're not against police. We're just against police brutality. And it's easy for you to sit here and not look at me and take these students serious. But I can promise you that the 38,000 students at UNT, we will organize. And the small group that you see today will be bigger the next council meeting and the next council meeting. And as a local elected official who understands the importance of each vote and each voice, we will be taking note of your inaction or action in organizing to remove those who our voices are falling on deaf ears. Not only do I understand the importance of voting, I understand the importance of following through with real action. Like the Texas. >> Sir, before, and I'm going to let you finish, but we've got the wrong timer up. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It was given you ten minutes as the applicant, and I don't think you're the applicant. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, sir, all right. >> I want to be- >> And also, if you could try to somehow also tie your comments to the agenda. I didn't post it, and you did in the beginning. >> Yes, sir. >> If you could continue to do that, I would appreciate that. >> Yes, sir. >> So if we could set it, you probably got about three minutes left. I'm going to give you three minutes, and then thank you so much for your cooperation. >> I appreciate it. I want to be respectful of your time, and I don't mean to be disrespectful. But when we bring students here, and they have one set of rules, and the state of Texas allows them to get one set of rules. And they get here, and they fill out their blue cards, and then half of them are not given the opportunity to speak. I think that's an injustice, a grave injustice. They should have every opportunity to speak as they did what they were supposed to do. And you guys are supposed to give them the opportunity to speak. If Darius Tarver was alive, he'd speak for himself, because he is not alive, then we are here to speak on his behalf. We will be filing complaints with the Texas Ethics Commission. We will take it a step further and file complaints with the Texas Bar Association. As your city attorney here has violated the rights of Councilwoman or mentor. She has the legal right granted to her by the voters of this city to the special right of access to any video, any documentation that is under the purview of the city of Denton, because she is elected to this body. >> If you could tie it to the agenda posting, I'd appreciate it. >> Sir, I did, I did, and I got two more minutes, and I'll be out of your hairs. But I want you to know we mean business. We mean business. I have my own city council meeting, but I rush right after my city council meeting to come here and let you know that we are organizing. Because if this was your child, you wouldn't let any agenda item or any meeting, any regularities or anything stand in your way of justice. As we talk about things that are bigger in Texas, justice should be bigger in Texas, and we won't stop until we have it. Thank you. >> We are here to tell you that, you know, this, let me tell you about a story that happened in McKinney. McKinney, Texas in 2014 was the number one place to live. And then you fast forward to 2015, we had a McKinney pool party incident. And thank God it did not end in death. But that was enough to knock us off the top of the list. And you guys think that this is a small deal, that it's going to go away. Do you know how many students go to UNT that are not even from this country? All eyes are on the city of Denton across the country. This is a global matter. And how you handle justice today is going to say a lot about how your city moves forward. It's simple. The truth is the truth. Show some transparency. Have a heart. There are parents that are grieving right now. And I don't know about you, but, you know, coming and interrupting a meeting is a small step in what we will do for the lives of our children. And you may not know it, but every child that walks, we are a community, we are a family, so his child is my child. Her child is my child. And interrupting a meeting is a small thing to do when you want justice for your child. And so if you don't want us coming back week in and week out, please do the right thing and release the tape. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right. This is a public hearing on agenda item 5A. Any other comments? All right. I will close the public hearing. Councilmember Briggs. I move approval. Councilmember Ryan. Second. We have a motion to second for agenda item 5A. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries 6-0. Agenda item 5B. Hold a public hearing. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Dent, Texas, approving a change in the Zoning District and use classifications from Plan Development District R6 to approximately 59.24 acres of land located west of South Bonnie Bray Street. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Just a moment. Just a moment. Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner with Development Services. And I'm here before you tonight to present Z1913, the Cambridge Brook rezoning. This case is a request to rezone approximately 59.24 acres from Plan Development to an R6 district. As you can see, the property in question is located between a natural area to the north and the future southwestern park to the south. Large lot single-family neighborhoods to the east and vacant land to the west that's currently designated for future development through the coal hunter branch MPC. So we have a cluster of trees on the east ESA and flood plain along that north boundary. Per the applicant, the purpose of this rezoning is to enable the development of a 203 single-family residential dwelling subdivision. The applicant has provided this concept plan for the proposed subdivision. One of the most important things to consider with this case is the history of the zoning on the site. In 1991, City Council approved the zoning of this as a plan development as part of PD 139. With that, there was a PD concept plan which authorized a mix of uses on the subject site, including commercial, industrial, residential with a maximum density residential of 20 dwelling units per acre. In 1999, City Council approved a plan development amendment for PD 139. As part of that, there was a new concept plan which, for the subject property, changed the authorized use solely to attached single-family residential, which is townhomes, at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. And that's where we stand today. The applicant's request is to rezone to residential R6, which would permit a lower maximum density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre. And of course, the applicant's proposal is actually 203 homes. That would be a maximum density of only 3.4 dwelling units per acre. So currently, as of today, the applicant could develop townhomes at 12 dwelling units per acre, requesting a lower amount through this rezoning to R6. As you can see here, the current zoning PD in that PD 139 proposes to go to R6. So we have both general approval criteria for all development applications, and we'll touch on a few of those specifically. But the primary focus is on criteria for zoning approval, and we'll go through those specifically here. As you know, one of the most important things is our Denton Plan 2030, and as part of that, we have the future land use map. This site is designated low-density residential, so it's generally intended for single-family neighborhoods for up to four dwelling units per acre. The R6 proposed zoning allows a higher density than that. However, what we're looking at in this case is that it's already authorized for a much higher density. So this proposed request rezoning would bring the site closer to the future land use designation for the site. Moreover, Denton Plan 2030 is not just the future land use map. There are other goals. For instance, this rezoning would bring the site into requirement for compliance with the entire 2019 DDC rather than the mix of standards found within the PD, some of which go back to roughly 1988. This would instead require them to meet all of our current standards, which of course aligns with Denton Plan 2030. It also brings low to moderate density housing near to a park, which meets 2030 plan goal LU5. It's also important to consider that when this was approved in 1991, City Council determined that it met the comprehensive plan at that time. And the same thing in 1999 when it met the comprehensive plan. It was only with Denton Plan 2030, the most recent, where this was designated as low density residential out of line with what was already approved on the site. So this has been in line overall with City Council approvals and with comprehensive plan over time. General Criterion 7, another important one in this case, is minimizing adverse environmental impacts. As I was just covering, rezoning out of the PD to R6 ensures that our current standards are enforced on the site, which includes our current much stronger ESA and tree code protections versus what would be enforced under the PD. So this would allow us to better protect the significant trees and ESA that are present on the site. General Criterion 8, again, thinking through minimizing adverse impacts on the surrounding property, this requested rezoning would lower the permitted density on this site. Therefore, all those impacts we're concerned about would be reducible because the maximum density you could achieve would be lower. And again, you'd be held to those standards in the 2019 DDC, which are compatible with what the neighborhoods around have been held to as they've developed. Finally, zoning and criterion E and F, so the intensity of development, not expected to create significant adverse impacts. And there was a TIA conducted on the intersection between the proposed access road and South Bonnie Bray. And it was determined that would function at a level of service A, highest possible level of service. Public water and wastewater are either already available to the site or close enough would be extended at the cost of the developer. And same way, site access streets, perimeter street improvements as required would be carried out by the applicant. I used the Denton ISD's calculator and contacted them for the current number of students in the openings available for the schools in the area and their significant capacity to take in more than is expected to be generated by this site. And of course, Southwest Park is right across the street, which means that you have close park access for these future residents when that's developed. Public outreach was conducted at the, we did not receive any letters of support or opposition. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting, which was attended by two representatives from the Meadows at Hickory Creek neighborhood. They had a number of questions. When they left, they appeared satisfied to not express opposition. So with that, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval six to zero and staff, having determined that this met the criteria in the Denton Development Code, recommends approval as well. With that, I will stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Council Member Briggs. So the approval of this, when they do the planning, it will all have to go by the 2019 Development Code, is that correct? Tree code and or the tree ordinance and everything 2019? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right, we'll now open the public hearing. Now you're up. Sorry about that. Jerry, is it Silo? Yes. And you're the applicant, so I believe you have ten minutes. I will hopefully keep it much shorter than that. Good evening. My name is Jerry Silo. I'm with the JBI Partners, 2121 Midway Road in Carrollton, Texas. Our firm does represent the applicant on this request, who is D.R. Horton-Holmes. Really, the main reason I'm here this evening is because since the property is zoned for town homes, attached single family homes, the way the ordinance is written, we cannot do, we be my client, cannot do detached single family homes. So my client wants to build approximately 203, 205 plus or minus single family homes, detached homes on this property. We have been working with the staff for the last five or six months. We are not requesting any special provisions from the city. We're asking for a straight zone into the R6 zoning district. We are decreasing the intensity of the development on this property by approximately 71%. So as such, the impact on traffic, impact on schools, impact on everything associated with the city will be decreased proportionally. We have met with the environmental department in last spring, in fact, regarding the ESAs on this property. We are completely staying out of any designated ESA on this property, which is primarily at the north edge along the creek. Our development proposal does not encroach into any of that. As Sean indicated, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval 6-0. I would respectfully request that the council also approve our request this evening. Any questions for the applicant? Mayor Pro Tem? No, I'm waiting for the -- Okay, this is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak on this item? Come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak? I close the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem? Move approval. Council Member Briggs? Second. We have a motion to second for agenda item 5B. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 5C. I close the public hearing. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending the Denton Development Code Subchapter 2 Administration Procedures Relating to Alternative Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton, and I am presenting DCA 1924B, Eases and Platting. The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider approval of a proposed revision to the Denton Development Code, specifically Subchapter 2 Related to Alternative Environmentally Sensitive Area Plans and Platting. This is a staff-initiated code amendment to remedy some conflicting regulations within the 2019 Denton Development Code. Just some background on some EASAs. I know you're going to be talking about one on the next item, but there are areas of certain ecological value within the city. They are mapped so they can create physical constraints for the development of a site, and they are subject to additional regulations that limit land disturbing activities. We also have in the Denton Development Code alternative EASA plans. They do provide relief from the EASA regulations. Sometimes they are necessary to consider on complex sites, and if approved by City Council, it does change the map. Sometimes it expands an EASA or contracts an EASA, depending on the specific site. They do typically involve mitigation, and they do require approval from City Council through the dual public hearing process. The 2019 Denton Development Code memorialized the procedures for alternative EASA plans, and part of that was introducing concurrent review of a plat with consideration of an alternative EASA plan. When the 2019 code was implemented, it brought to light some issues with this concurrent review of plat with alternative EASA plans. Related to plat, they have to follow the general criteria for approval, and they must comply with the Denton Development Code, and that includes the EASA regulations. Plats which propose encroachment to EASAs cannot satisfy that criterion without an approved alternative EASA plan. Alternative EASA plans, as I stated before, require that dual public hearing process, so they can take two to three months. They have a pretty long time that they have to go through. But there was a newly enacted legislation last year after the adoption of the 2019 code. It's affectionately called the Shot Clock, but it essentially requires that all plat either be approved or denied within 30 days. Therefore, that concurrent submittal of alternative EASA plans and plat ensure that a plat must be denied because it can't meet the criteria for approval. Furthermore, in the 2019 code, we have a new tool in the toolbox, and that is plan developments. And these PDs will often have a unique lot layout, you know, something like cluster developing or other unique considerations. And a plat which conforms to that unique lot layout, maybe the lots are a little smaller, cannot be approved until the zoning is approved, until the PD is approved. Alternative EASA plans for the code cannot be approved as part of the PD approval. They have to run as a separate application. They can run parallel, which creates a catch 22. The plat can't be approved until the PD is approved. If they want to pursue an alternative EASA plan with the PD submittal, they can't do so because they would have to submit a plat with it. So it really kind of creates this circular logic. So staff is recommending that we really just remove that requirement for that concurrent submittal with the plat and the alternative EASA. Our findings reveal that it wouldn't limit the city's ability to restrict development within EASA areas, and it wouldn't limit the ability for the city to approve or the council to approve or deny alternative EASA plans. But what it would allow is more flexibility and more logical submittal timing with projects. The shot clock kind of changed things after the Denton Development Code was approved. Applicants are now required to submit an application that we cannot approve, that would have to go for denial because it would not meet the criteria for approval. So it results in that plat denial, which requires additional submittals and meetings and fees for applicants, really creating some confusion within the development process. And this is just a further refinement of that 2019 Denton Development Code. As we're implementing it, we're finding things that we just want to shore up and make sure that we have appropriate procedures. So this item was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. They did recommend approval of the request, and staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for any questions. Questions for staff? Yes. So to clarify, because the EASAs are very important, and we want to make sure that we protect them. Absolutely. And then we've done, we updated the code, and then we've updated our ESA handouts, or I forget what exactly they're called. So this change that we're making will not do anything to harm all the processes and plans and protections we have in place, right? Correct. It would not preempt any of those requirements. All developers would still have all of those requirements, but maybe just the timing is just a little different, depending on the complexity or the uniqueness of the project. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Questions for staff? Thank you very much. All right. We'll open the public hearing. This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on Agenda Item 5C? Anybody wishing to speak? Close the public hearing. Any questions, any further questions or deliberations? Chair would entertain action on this item. Council Member Ryan? Move approval. Mayor Pro Tem? Second. We have a motion and a second for Agenda Item 5C. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Paul, is your hand? No, okay. All opposed? I like sign. All right, so the motion carries five to one. All right. We'll go on to Agenda Item 5D. Hold a public hearing. Consider an ordinance of the City of Texas approving a request to amend an alternative, environmentally sensitive area plan for approximately 49.9 acres of land, generally located on the north side of West University Drive and west of North Mosh Branch Road. Thank you, Council and Mayor. Cindy Jackson again with the Development Services Department. I'm here, I'm part of the presentation tonight. This is going to be a dual presentation. When I'm finished with the planning portion, I will hand it over to Deborah Vieira. This is a request to approve a alternate ESA, to revise an alternate ESA plan that was approved in October of last year. The site is approximately 49.9 acres, and it is located, as you can see, on the north side of West University and west of Mosh Branch. However, a portion of it just touches Mosh Branch right here. At issue, the reason for the alt ESA is to provide the second access that you can see right here. Lot 1, which is located here, has been developed with a warehouse distribution center. It has a temporary CO right now, pending the construction of the secondary access. The secondary access, which is required by the fire code, must traverse through ESA property. So this was the reason for the alt ESA that was approved in October. When the site, the applicant submitted a final plot for review recently, it was discovered that there was an error in the mitigation for the alt ESA. And as such, we are here before you tonight. The site is zoned white industrial. Public notification was sent out as required within 200 and 500 feet of the subject site. So you said there was an error in mitigation. Was it an error on the applicant or on the city? I think Deborah Vera is going to go into that more. Okay. That's in our presentation. All right. Thank you. Public notification was sent out within 200 and 500 feet of the site as required. The site was, signs were posted on the site as well. We have not received any responses to any of the notification. I will now turn this over to Deborah Vera. Good evening. Deborah Vera with Environmental Services. Just to give you a little bit of history. In 2019, we did the last assessment of the property and we determined that the condition of the flood plain were still undeveloped plain and we maintained that ESA designation from the property. Because of that and because the proposed crossing that they were requesting approval for, it required the alternative ESA be approved. And that's what the city council approved back in 2019. At that point, the applicant was requesting to disturb 5.51 acres of undeveloped flood plain. And in exchange, they were providing six acres of mitigation total where that area would be seeded with a native sit max. They also provide 0.28 acres as bioretentions that they will actually address the water quality that could have been lost through the disturbance of the flood plain. After the approval of the alternative ESA plan, we find out during the review of the final plan that the exhibit that were attached to the ordinance did not correspond with the meets and bounds that were attached. So there was a discrepancy between the two documents. And that's why we have it to straight the record, make the date correct, and that's why we're here. It is not about the mitigation, it's just about the correspondence between the meets and bounds and the exhibit that is attached to the ordinance. I just wanted to point out what is important and to see the difference between what was approved and what is before you tonight, is this orange area right here. This area, based on the 2019 alternative ESA plan, were to be stabilized for slow purposes. However, no native planting were proposed in that area. The applicant, instead, they choose to put some of the mitigation, which is shown in green here, in an area that they don't currently own. It is on the adjacent parcel. And that's where the problem is, is the exhibit shown areas that were not owned by the applicant, but the meets and bounds show all the mitigation to be within the lot that the applicant owns. So there was a discrepancy right there. If the city were to try to do any enforcement in the future for this, because of the discrepancy, it will create some issues, and that's why we are bringing this to correct the record for any potential enforcement. The amended ESA plan before you, what it's proposing is the same mitigation, the same amount, the same species. The only thing that changes is just the location of where all that mitigation is going to be provided. And this is the green area now shown on the amended plan. That area now, not only is it going to be stabilized, but it's going to actually be seeded with native seeds. So that's the big difference. We maintain the same amount of mitigation. We maintain the same type of mitigation. The only thing that we are changing here is the location of where that mitigation is going to be provided. >> Okay, Council Member, I didn't know if this was an old one or not. >> Yeah, can you go back to, okay, so since that road is going through another parcel, correct, is that, so the road is still continuing on through another parcel, but the mitigation, since it's not owned by the person asking for it, has to be on the property that they own? >> Okay, if I may, I would like to bring one of the original maps right here. The applicant owns all the way to match branch. You see the yellow side? That includes the road. So they own it. The road is going to be through property that they currently own. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is the mitigation that they were proposing that were partially outside the area that they currently own? >> Okay. So I have a question about the property that they currently own and is, okay, go to the new map on the purple. Okay, is that ESA as well? Because it looks like it's floodplain and ESA on that property. >> It is going to be disturbed when they do the reclamation work. And again, for the construction of this driving aisle, they will have to put culverts to be able to cross it over. And they will have to go through a floodplain reclamation process. Which means that to maintain the value storage of the floodplain, the water that they hold during rain events, they will have to put some field to be able to build up the road, but they will have to excavate in other areas to balance out the process. That's what they are doing. So that area will be excavated and will be impacted. However, all the mitigation that is going to be provided will be provided on the site that the applicant currently owns. >> Okay. >> So that area, the purple area, will be stabilized, will be provided with vegetation slopes, will be designed so in that way there will not be erosion and all that. All that will be taken care of. >> So it will be improved back to its? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> But is not part of the mitigation. >> Not part of the mitigation. >> Counted. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. All right. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Oh, a little bit more. Oh, sorry. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, sorry. >> The 2019 alternative ESA plan got approved with seven conditions. Two of them were related to providing some flexibility to the applicant to address some drainage concern that TEXDOT had at the time. Since then, TEXDOT have approved their plans. No on-site mitigation is required. So you will see that two of the conditions that were originally part of the 2019 alternative ESA plan, we are requesting for those two conditions to be removed because they are no longer applicable or needed. So the only few amendments that we have made to the original conditions is just to reflect the updated alternative ESA plan as it was drafted in February 12, 2020. And again, on condition three, we made that reference and we are recommending the removal of conditions four and five because they are no longer necessary for the applicant. So from the seven original conditions, we will end up having five. Staff is available to answer any questions that you may have. >> Any questions for staff? We open the public hearing. Seeing none. Thank you very much. Sorry to interrupt you. Thank you. All right. This is -- I will open the public. This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. I feel like I'm in a movie where you ask people to come down and speak and nobody is moving. Anyway, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to add a little levity to the evening. Anybody else -- anybody wanting to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, we will now close the public hearing. Chair would entertain action. Councilmember Ryan? >> Move approval. >> Mayor Pro Tem? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second for approval of agenda item 5D. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign. Motion carries 6 to 1. We are now on the -- 5 to 1. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. City Attorney. 5 to 1 is the motion carried 5 to 1. Concluding items. Councilmember Briggs? >> So I would like to request or just as a courtesy to council, let you know that I'm going to be requesting that this council view the video in closed session. I don't know how that works. I'm going to talk to the city manager on process, but I think the least we could do as a body is to see it ourselves. >> Anybody else? Mayor Pro Tem? >> Yes. I want to touch on upcoming the black chambers having a jobs event this Friday and their banquet is Saturday so I would encourage people to attend that event and it's a unique jobs event that maybe we can look at going forward where they actually pay people to sit in and apply and participate in the event. So they get paid hourly to apply for jobs and learn about the different skill sets that are needed. So I think that's a fantastic event put together by the black chamber and I encourage those to look up that event. That's Friday and then they have their banquet Saturday so please attend that. I want to say thank you to and encourage people to support DMACC so that's an organization that helps musical artists have insurance and they are -- they took on more artists this year and so funds are needed to help them so please look up DMACC and see how you can support them. And lastly, Chris Ice, I went out and visited him for his Copa Familia, I failed to mention that last week but went out Saturday, great event that he does for the community and the kids there at Calhoun and so his goal program is doing great things for our community and I just wanted to let him know or say thank you to him for what he does for the youth in our city. And I'm going to ask also if we have that closed meeting, if it's necessary for the viewing of the body cam that we are -- that staff also prepare, legal staff prepare, discussion about whether all council members should be viewing that or whether any of them have acted against the interest of the city of Denton, not just the administration but the others as well. So I certainly want to have that discussion as well. Councilmember Davis, were you looking? Okay. Well, I thought it would be about 9.30. Anybody else? We will now adjourn our meeting.