Aug 25, 2020 City Council on 2020-08-25 1:00 PM

August 25, 2020 City Council
Full Transcript

28247 words Download SRT Download VTT
             Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, August 25, 2020.
 It is 1.04 p.m. We do have a quorum, so I'll call this meeting to order. Our first item
 on the agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items, and I do not believe we have
 any callers for citizen comments on consent agenda items. Second, we have requests for
 clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda. Councilmember Meltzer.
 I would just like to pull out item A for a separate vote.
 Okay. All right. Councilmember Armitage, did you have your hand raised?
 I know I'm trying to find the item. Okay. Councilmember Briggs.
 I'm curious if anybody has any data on the item C for increasing the speed limit back
 up? Like during the process when it was lower, were there less accidents or more tickets,
 anything like that?
 Do we have Brian John and Todd Estes on the line?
 There's Brian. Just one moment. Brian's walking in.
 Good afternoon, Ron John, city traffic engineer. Could I get a repeat of the question?
 Hi, Brian. Yeah, I'm curious for the speed limit on the interstate. I know TxDOT requested
 to increase it back, but I was just curious why it was lower if there were less accidents,
 if we have any data like that, or more tickets written by the PD. Do we have any data?
 We do not have data. We did not keep a summary during the construction. I know we had a request
 from TxDOT to revert it. They did a speed study and showed that 65 was well below what
 the vehicles are traveling. So I think it's a TxDOT policy to use the 85th percentile
 approach.
 Okay. All right. Thank you.
 All right. Anyone else? Yes. Councilmember Armitage.
 So a question about that. So do municipalities get any say in that issue if we would rather
 not take a 85% approach?
 I think we can have a conversation, but my experience is at the end of the day, TxDOT
 and the transportation commission establishes the speed limits on the access control facilities
 and on system facilities. I mean, we can have the discussion. I don't know that we've had
 one. That's an option. My experience is typically on the controlled access to freeways, transportation
 commission and TxDOT establishes those speeds.
 Okay. Thank you. And our rather the possibility of our having that conversation is not precluded
 by a yes vote.
 If a majority of council wants us to have that conversation, we'll reach out. But as
 Brian's stating, it's typically going to be their final call. We're happy to do it though
 if Forbes would like us to.
 Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else?
 All right. Oh, yes. Councilmember Armitage.
 Yes. So a couple consent agenda item issues.
 Okay.
 So I'm scrolling here. So first, A, I would like to pull that for an individual vote.
 Yeah, I think councilmember Meltzer pulled that if I was correct.
 Okay, good. Okay. Thank you. And then on item, let's see, item F, I was wondering if staff
 could, this is about the contract with Catalyst PR incorporated for reusable cloth face masks
 and surgical face masks. I was wondering if staff could speak to whether or not there
 were any local bids for the cloth face masks and if it would be possible to redo that RFP
 to prioritize our local cloth face mask makers. Apologies, by the way, if we got an email
 this morning about it, I've been busy this morning and was only just able to sit down.
 I think we have Christine Taylor and Lori Huell on the line.
 Yes. Good afternoon, council, councilmembers, and mayors. This is Christine Taylor from
 procurement. We did have several local vendors throughout the county and throughout the state
 submit bids. The vendor that won is local to Texas, but not within the county. They're
 from Conroe. So we did put it out there to local respondents, and we did have several
 apply that were in the area. The local winning bidder, some of the requirements for the solicitation,
 a minimum requirement to have the product purchased from the city of Denton is three
 years of experience. And that's so that we can have reference checks with municipalities
 of our size. We want them to be able to provide the product for a long term. So several of
 those companies that you did list that were listed in the article have been making them
 in the short term, but would not have met the minimum qualifications to submit for the
 solicitation. And thank you. So may I ask, so that means that the winning bidder has
 been making cloth face masks for the past three years, as well as the disposable surgical
 ones. I thought that the cloth face masks were something that is relatively new in this
 country, if you could elaborate on that. Sure. So the minimum qualifications are that they
 have three years experience providing a similar product or services. Okay. So thank you. So
 I would like to pull that for an individual vote. So I could request to split that up
 between the disposable and the reusable, so that we can have local bidders apply for or
 be in a more competitive position for the reusable. Can you speak to just briefly what
 the timeline is on that? How soon we need those surgical ones?
 Yes. Okay. The awarded vendor is, was selected for three sections of it. So there's a portion
 of it for the disposable and 95 masks that are for public safety. And they do need those
 immediately. The surgical mask, we do need them soon, but could wait on that one. And
 the cloth mask, we do have several that were donated from the beginning. So that item could
 go out, but since they're packaged together, the timeline would look like you'd have to,
 people would have to reject bid on the cloth mask. We'd redo the contract to only award
 disposable and surgical, and we could resubmit it, but it would be lowering the minimum specifications
 to open up that pool to the group that you're inquiring about.
 Excellent. Thank you so much. So that's, that's what I will be doing just to give you a heads
 up. That's what I'll be proposing. I'd like that pulled for individual vote. Thanks.
 Okay. Well, and thank you, Christine. And to understand that that gets pulled for an
 individual vote. If a majority of the council members agree with your approach, then we'll
 do that. If not, then we'll move forward from there. All right. Any more clarifications
 on consent agenda items or clarifications on the agenda? Excuse me. So I only show two
 being pulled off the consent agenda, agenda item A and agenda item F. Agenda item A is
 not, nobody's requesting a presentation on that. And on agenda item F, it doesn't sound
 like that we're necessarily requesting a presentation. There may just be an alternative proposal.
 Okay. We'll move on then to our regular work session reports. And it's my understanding,
 just for my clarity on agenda item F of the work session under council pending council
 request number four has been asked to be removed from that list. Is that correct? I'm seeing
 heads shaking, but that's okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify that
 before we got there. All right. Our first work session report is receive report hold
 discussion. You have staff direction regarding an update on the council directed milestones
 at the green tree subdivision. Good afternoon. Council Ryan Adams, customer service and public
 affairs. Let me pull the presentation up real quick. And this is just a brief update on
 the green tree state's neighborhood and declaration of disaster since council last discussed this
 item on July 28th. There it goes. So on July 28th, the city council extended the active
 declaration disaster for green tree estates to August 31st. And that's this coming Monday.
 And as a result of that coming exploration of the declaration disaster, temporary water
 service that the city currently provides to the residents of green tree estates would
 end beginning September 1, 2020. As of this time, seven properties have paid their fees
 to connect. One has actually facilitated that connection. And it's staff's understanding
 that residents continue to work to try to establish private easements. And they're working
 through that process prior to actually putting in their own private lines along the roads
 of green tree estates. Staff at this point in time does not anticipate any additional
 properties paying their fees in the near future. However, properties can pay their fees and
 connect at any time provided they meet any of our requirements or all of our requirements.
 We also want to update the council on the expenditures resulting from the declaration
 of disaster. Council allocated a total of $100,000 to be spent. And of that number,
 staff has spent an estimated $69,194 as of August 19th.
 So as the declaration of disaster comes to a close, staff will provide ongoing services
 to those properties that have connected to the city water system. Again, the exploration
 of the declaration of disaster does not preclude any residents from connecting to the city
 water system. They can still continue to do so if they pay the requisite fees and meet
 the code requirements. The city will provide water service to those connected residents.
 They will have standard water accounts like any other connected residents or property.
 The residents will also be billed monthly or they may utilize a pay-as-you-go option
 through utility billing. We will also provide solid waste and recycling services. Connected
 residents will be provided a solid waste and recycling cart. And they will place carts
 on the right of way that's adjacent to Swisher and Edwards on their collection day, on their
 designated collection day. For any occupied properties that do not have
 a connection, to be considered or to be legally occupied, structures must have a connection
 to an approved water source. Those structures without a connection may be deemed substandard.
 As the city addresses substandard properties, and this is a very brief overview of the process,
 but those properties would first be issued a notification of their non-compliance with
 city code and they would be issued a timeline to correct that non-compliance. And if that
 non-compliance continues, the city would initiate the Health and Building Standards Commission,
 the HABSCO process. The full process, if it goes from all the way to, from the beginning
 all the way to completion that ends with rehabilitation or some other conclusion, could last anywhere
 from six to nine months. So going forward, the temporary water provision
 will end after this coming Monday, August 31, 2020. Residents may continue to keep the
 water containers that the city provided. We will not ask for those back. And unconnected
 properties can connect at any time. The city will provide water and solid waste services
 to those connected properties. And we will address through the appropriate process, substandard
 structures, whether that's unoccupied structures that pose a risk to the public or occupied
 structures that do not have a connection to an approved water source.
 That is the end of my presentation. I did not mention ahead of time, but we do have
 an interpreter who is interpreting this entire conversation for any Spanish speaking residents.
 So I will attempt to do it myself. I know it's difficult to do, but if you can speak
 slowly with any questions and insert some pauses, that will help him greatly.
 Okay. If we can pull this, there we go. All right. Questions? Yes. Council Member Briggs.
 Is there a way to allow the customers who have signed up for water accounts who are
 getting water deliveries to continue that, but at the full cost of service without this
 order, is that a possibility if they pay the, I mean, has anyone asked about that who is
 receiving water? We've not had any inquiries to the city.
 I believe this was discussed at previous council meetings where council did ask the full cost
 of service, what that would be on a monthly basis to individual properties. I believe
 and I'll defer to our attorney, but I believe that would require a continuation of the declaration
 of disaster because it's the declaration that allows us to access the property for the purpose
 of delivering water. Yes. Council Member Briggs.
 So even if the, could the order expire if there was an agreement between those who own
 the access to the roads to continue deliver water or not? There could be. It's our understanding
 that an agreement has attempted to be worked out, but nothing has been worked out yet.
 Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. All right. Does that conclude the presentation? That
 is our presentation. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. We'll
 move on then to work session report 3B, receive report, hold a discussion and give staff direction
 regarding an update to the city of Denton's COVID-19 response.
 Thank you, City Council, Sara Kuechler, Chief of Staff. One second while I pull up the presentation.
 So this is our standing work session item to provide an update on the city's response
 to COVID-19. We do have one brief update for you today, and that's in regards to the city
 of Denton's local disaster declaration and order. And this will actually lead into the
 individual consideration item that is on your agenda later today in terms of extending the
 declaration and the order. So by way of reminder, we do have a current declaration and an order.
 Those are both in effect through Monday, August 31st, and are set to expire on Monday evening.
 Right now, currently this shows a summary of the main items that are part of the order
 of council. So just quickly, it does provide reference to some of the governor's orders
 that he has released that are still in effect. And that includes the face covering requirement
 for individuals as well as outdoor gathering limitations. It also includes a health and
 safety policy requirement for our businesses in the city of Denton, requiring businesses
 to post signage to require employees and customers to wear face covering as well as other items.
 The order also provides authority to the city manager for a number of items that might be
 necessary in order to respond to COVID-19, such as applying for state or federal assistance,
 accepting grants, or adopting procedures and directives related to personnel or altering
 the operations or hours of some of our facilities or services of the city. It also provides
 authority to the city manager to expend funds from the general fund reserve balance, provides
 flexibility in terms of scheduling city committee and commission board meetings since we are
 doing all virtual meetings at this time. And then it also postpones all non-essential in-person
 court proceedings. So those are the main items that are in the order currently. There still
 is some other items that are part of the order that are more historical in nature in terms
 of previous authority that was granted, such as providing assistance to the United Way
 for housing and so forth. So on the agenda, under individual consideration, staff has
 drafted an ordinance to extend the declaration through September 30th by an additional month
 and also to replace the current order of council with a ninth order of council with two changes.
 One to extend the timeframe just to make it consecutive to also be through September 30th
 and then to also increase the total spending authority for the city manager to include
 some of the identified facility improvements we're making in response to COVID-19. I believe
 these are covered by the CRF funds. Our finance director, Cassie Ogden, will give you an overview
 in regards to the expenditures on the next few slides. Staff at this time, after Cassie
 is done presenting her slides, would be seeking any direction from council. If there's any
 additional changes that you would like to see in terms of an order and declaration for
 consideration. But I'll turn it over to Cassie and then we'll complete the presentation.
 Good afternoon, Cassie Ogden, director of finance. Just to give you an update of our
 COVID emergency expenses to date. So we have expense 994,000. You can see on the right
 hand side, some of the major expense categories. The medical protective services includes things
 like thermometers, gloves, face masks, and all of our PPE. And then we have disinfection
 and then the homelessness care, United Way utility assistance program. And we're asking
 for the expenditure authority for the facility improvements. These are the estimated expenses
 that we are planning on making to the facilities at this time. You'll notice some of the buildings
 are not listed. We don't have estimates for those yet, but we will come back when we have
 those. We do not anticipate that these improvements will be complete by the end of September,
 but we wanted to ensure that we have the expenditure authority. Our anticipated total cost is $900,000
 and you can see the breakout by building. So in conclusion, we're asking for an additional
 $900,000 to bring the total authority up to just over 2 million. And these expenses will
 be reimbursed by the CRF funds. With that, if you have any questions about the funding,
 I will answer it before turning back to Sarah. Council Member Briggs and then Council Member
 Meltzer. The all 2 million of the expenses will be reimbursed? Not the homelessness
 care. Can y'all hear me? Something's happened. I see you and I hear you. Okay, there we go.
 They're checking her microphone right now. Okay. All right. Thank you. So yeah, we've
 got a little technical issue. So we'll give you just a moment. You're good. Okay. So the
 majority of the expenses will be reimbursed. However, I believe the homelessness, the hotels
 will not be reimbursed. Okay. May I? Yes, yes, yes. So would this be the question where
 or the time where I ask you about the hotels and extension in Monsignor King or is that
 something for Sarah? Yeah, Sarah can if you want to answer it. Okay. Well, I think Paul
 may have questions for you. So I can wait for Sarah to come back. I had the same question
 you asked. So keep going. Okay. I just want to point out the United Way expense will not
 be reimbursable either. So it'll be those two expenses. Okay. And I'll turn it over
 to Sarah. Hey, Sarah. David Gaines, Assistant City Manager. Just a point of clarification.
 Through the CRF funds, the United Way contributions that we made aren't going to be reimbursed
 because there's that separate program through the county, but the homelessness initiatives
 will be part of our CRF fund reimbursement. Okay. To clarify that piece. Yep. Good. I'm
 going to get over to Sarah. Yes, Councilmember Briggs, I believe had a question. Yeah. On
 the on the hotel, because I know that Monsignor King has opened up for a certain few days,
 but they are also at capacity already. Do we still have the hotel in place? I had someone
 who was seeking shelter reach out to me and say they had nowhere to go. So do we have
 anything to fill in the gaps for for shelter at the moment? Yes, we currently have extended
 the hotels through the end of October. So we're still providing that assistance. And
 if someone needs help getting connected, they should reach out to one of the social service
 agencies and we'll help to connect them to whatever resources may be best fit. Okay.
 Thank you. Anyone else? I thought I saw Councilmember Meltzer might have had a question, but all
 right, anyone else? Question for Sarah. Councilmember Ryan. Well, this isn't really for Sarah. This
 is more for my fellow council members. And that is since the governor mask order went
 in after ours and as an individual, the only option we had at the time was to place the
 order on the businesses in the burden on the businesses. I would like to see that that
 portion of it is removed and allow just the individual mandate put in place by the governor
 and I'd like to see fellow council members feel about that. Anybody? I mean, I've got
 a comment, but Councilmember Armitage. I think Councilmember Armitage froze up. Okay, there
 we go. Got it. So I would like to keep the order regarding businesses, but I do have
 some questions about how that's being enforced. But I'll wait to hear others, you know, answer
 that question, Councilmember Ryan's question, but I do think that it's important, especially
 now. And I know that a number of business owners, not all, but some really appreciate
 having it. But people do have questions, including myself, about how and whether it's being enforced.
 Anyone else? Councilmember Briggs? Yeah, I am okay lining up with the governor's order
 as long as the governor's order allows mass to be to be enforced. And I also, I know we're
 still on this request, but I have a another request for this order after this one is,
 uh, finished. Okay. All right. Anyone else? I've got anybody else having comments? Yeah,
 Councilmember Ryan, I would concur with you. I was thinking about that a couple weeks ago.
 And I think that we've got an order that supersedes our order. And our order does place, I think,
 additional burdens on businesses. And if I recall correctly, so somebody can correct
 me if I'm if I'm wrong. It wasn't too long after our order where the governor's order
 was put in place in our order. I believe the discussion was also about education and encouragement.
 We talked extensively, I believe, about enforcement or lack thereof that it wasn't we weren't
 passing it to be a tool of enforcement, but one that would really encourage people to
 wear face covering. So I'm okay with that. I think that that I don't think it takes anything
 away from the business's ability to enforce their own regulations that they choose based
 upon each individual business needs. So I'm I'm okay with that. Absolutely. Anyone else?
 Councilmember Davis? Yeah, I'm not quite ready to take that out of our order yet. For a couple
 of reasons. One, kids are not in school yet. It will be tomorrow. And then the eighth.
 We don't know what the fact that's going to have on our working population. Folks are
 in the schools with the kids. We don't know what effect that's going to have on our numbers
 generally in the community. So I'm not ready to take that that jump just yet. Secondly,
 I think our order in the governor's is a belt and suspenders kind of a situation we have
 in our order. We don't just require a mask. We're asking our business owners to have in
 place a health and safety plan. And I think that that plan is kind of integral to our
 approach to educating to keeping folks safe in the community. So taking that requirement
 out at this point, I'd rather stay the course with our current order. You know what happens
 if the numbers go up, we've taken our mask order out and then the governor rescinds his
 mask order. Here we are having the same conversation we had however many weeks ago that was. So
 I prefer to keep our order just as it is. I prefer to stay the course of what we're
 doing now. I think it's working. I think we're doing the best we can from a city perspective
 and we need to keep it up for the time being. Okay. All right. Anybody else? Okay. All right.
 I believe Councilmember Meltzer, I think you went offline for a moment and I just wanted
 to circle back around to see if you had any questions. I thought you'd had a question.
 Did you change everything while I was gone? Yes, we did. Oh, yeah. Yeah. No. So I think
 you'd had a question about the hotels. No, I was I had wanted to ask whether the entire
 amount was going to be reimbursed and Councilmember Briggs asked the same question. So I'm fine.
 I think I got the gist of the conversation. Okay, great. Councilmember Briggs. Thank you,
 Mayor. As we are going to be revoting for the order later, I would like for the council
 to consider adding back in non shutoffs for utilities just at least until the first nine
 weeks of school. I saw a few posts online where individuals were getting their utilities
 cut off and school starts tomorrow. And I would hate to think that we are interfering
 with disrupting a child's education by disrupting and cutting off utility services while the
 child is in connected learning. So I just wanted to ask council to consider extending
 it even if it's for a week while there's a while no one has a choice or the nine weeks
 where parents can choose to connect to learning so that we're not negatively affecting a child's
 education. Councilmember Amater. Yes, so I absolutely concur with Councilmember Briggs
 suggestion. I would prefer the for the prohibition on utility shutoff for that full nine week
 period. But like Councilmember Briggs said, as long as as we can get that, that would
 be great, especially for kids starting out at school. I want to also just second on all
 of the reasons that Councilmember Davis gave so articulately to to keep this belt belt
 and suspenders municipal ordinance in place. I think it works well in spite of my questions
 about enforced about both are being enforced. You know, those questions can even could even
 wait to be answered till another time. I'm just glad that we have it. And finally, I
 wanted to make sure that I don't know when Councilmember Meltzer checked out. But but
 I he hasn't yet weighed in on on this question regarding Councilmember Ryan's question for
 Council. So I don't know how much of it he heard or didn't hear. Well, sorry, I'll speak
 if you recognize me there. I'm sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. Oh, yeah, I'll speak if you're okay.
 So I gathered that there was a discussion about whether to remove our mask ordinance
 was that what Councilmember Ryan had suggested? Yes, I believe so. I'm not sure I would I
 would label it that way. But I believe so. I was just interpreting from sort of the comments
 I heard after. So, yeah, I'm in the same boat as Councilmember Davis on it. You know, if
 you take it away, there's really no sign that there's anything in force. You know, I think
 the the really the real value of it is just that there are signs up everywhere, telling
 people to wear the mask when they go in, which which is consistent with the governor's order.
 Our cases, our new cases are symptomatic cases are declining, the new cases just coming on
 are kind of declining, slowly declining. But you know, nowhere's near where we were before
 they started to spike after Memorial Day. So I think we're moving in the right direction.
 I don't think it's going to help anybody to, you know, remove something that's working.
 And now we'll circle back around to Councilmember Briggs proposal. So we've had one comment
 by Councilmember Armitter. Any other comments, questions, Councilmember Meltzer? Yeah, well,
 first, I think it'd be very helpful if in public and, you know, and in private, when
 the subject comes up, if we reinforce that the intent is simply to get people to call
 when I haven't been in communication, so that they can be connected to benefits that haven't
 been said, I just experienced a moment ago, you know, service interruption, you know,
 while during this council meeting, and I take the point about even for the duration of someone
 to say, What the heck? Oh, it's the power. Oh, I got a call. They're in school. So, you
 know, I wouldn't have any problem at all about supporting a pause in that program for a couple
 of weeks when they're going to be at home doing, you know, doing solely distance learning,
 but I wouldn't extend it way longer because of the sort of misimpression that this is helping
 people when to not do that, when in fact, you're putting them in a situation to build
 up big bills to add potentially to a point where we don't have the funding available
 to help them that we do have now. So, bottom line, two week pause, I could support that.
 Anyone else? Councilmember Davis. I've got to say, nobody, nobody wants to
 cut anybody's power off at any point, whether it's being in the school year or middle of
 the summer, August heat, whatever it is. I saw some of the same social media posts, and
 my first thought was this person's bill is so manageable. Why haven't they called somebody?
 Why haven't they talked with all of these resources that we have? There's more money
 available to folks today than there's probably ever been in Denton's history for assistance
 with utilities between what we re-up with Interfaith, the COVID stuff with United Way.
 So I think we've got to move forward with the plan we've got and connect people's resources.
 The very next comments I saw as soon as I had that thought on these social media posts
 were, bro, give me a call. I will pay your power bill. Here's who to contact. Here's
 the contact information for United Way. Here's the contact information for the Texoma Council
 of Governments. There are resources available. So I think we've got to keep the city moving
 forward and when people need help, help connect them with it.
 Councilmember Briggs. Thank you. And I appreciate that, but the help
 and the resources do not come immediately, which means that individuals are without power
 for a while, which means that kids suffers. So I'm just putting that out there as a suggestion.
 I know that when anybody calls and they're referred to an organization that can help,
 it takes a little while. They have to verify. It just, it's not immediate. So thank you.
 Councilmember Meltzer. Yeah, I'd be interested in knowing what the
 actual typical, you know, duration is from shut off to reconnect, you know, in these
 situations. I don't know if that's available from someone on staff that's on the call.
 I do not have a question sort of to tag along with that as far as in the same general subject
 area. Sarah, you handle that question. Yeah, I will leave Chris Foster.
 Yeah, I am. Okay, so Chris Foster, customer service manager.
 Yes. And go ahead.
 No, no, go ahead. I'm sorry. I was going to say to the first concern, I am
 aware of the account situation that was going on this morning. And that was a representative
 error. We have corrected that. We have retrained that rep and we've reached out to the customer.
 Right now, again, any of these customers that are getting interrupted, when they call us,
 we are going to get them turned back on with or without payment with a referral to a health
 agency. We are automatically putting a stay of time on their account for two weeks and
 sending them a personal email along with or sending them a copy of the email that's going
 to that referral agency, letting that customer know this is the timeline that we've set up.
 If you are refused funding, you do need to contact us back so that we can put you on
 a longer term arrangement if necessary. And hey, agency, if things are taking a little
 longer than expected, please contact us back so we can add additional time to this account
 because we do not want someone to be interrupted. So that's what's going on right now. If they're
 not able to make a payment, we will absolutely still work with getting them an arrangement
 and getting them back on. They are not being charged any fees whatsoever. But we've already
 seen, just from interface, close to 100 pledges for this month, when normally even in the
 highest months of the year, we see 40 to 50. And that's just interface. That's not even
 counting the stuff that we're seeing from TCOG and the things that we're seeing from
 United Way. You know, right now those funds are readily available for people and we're
 doing everything that we can to get them to those resources before funds are gone.
 Okay. Councilmember Meltzer, was that, I don't know if that necessarily addressed your question.
 It was great bit of information. I still didn't hear what is the duration from you're turned
 off to you're restored, typically. If you're calling us and getting something
 taken care of and we're putting out that restore order, it's happening within, depending on
 how quickly you call, but within like an hour or two, if we're having to physically go out
 there. It's definitely happening same day. You know, if the person calls overnight, I've
 already communicated with DME dispatch that they'll let the customer know that they need
 to contact us the next morning so we can work out some form of arrangement. But they just
 have an open blanket policy right now that if the person has no power and they've been
 shut for non-payment, that they will turn them on overnight and just make sure that
 we have the information to speak with them the following day.
 So from an hour or two to overnight would be sort of the range, right?
 Well yeah, it would not be overnight, but yeah. I mean, it's as quickly as the meter
 shop can get out there and turn it on. We report it just as soon as we get the contact
 and are able to work with them.
 Thank you.
 So help me understand, Krista. By the time someone gets their utilities disconnected,
 there's been an order issue to disconnect the utilities. If we work backwards, all right?
 So I thought I heard what Council Member Meltzer was sort of asking is from the time that they're
 delinquent to the time that they actually get shut off. Isn't that about 30 to 45 days?
 Am I off on that?
 Not the full delinquency. It's going to be, and I'll have to pull up the specific timeline,
 but it is something to the effect of about the 45-day mark from when they got their bill
 originally.
 Okay. All right. So if someone is getting their utilities shut off today in this environment,
 is it safe to say that within that 45 days from the time they received their original
 bill and the time that someone either goes out there and disconnects the utilities or
 turns it off at the shop via smart meter, is it safe to assume that they've either not
 called and talked with anyone to try to get things worked out? Or help me understand that.
 I mean, if we're referring people and if we're giving people some accommodation to get to
 a shutoff right now in this climate, even with our current process, what is it that
 really either has to happen or doesn't happen in order for that to occur?
 Truly, reaching out and speaking to us. The customers that are being interrupted right
 now are customers that have not spoken with us so that we can work with them or make arrangements.
 You know, it could potentially be a customer that we referred to an agency and they don't
 qualify for whatever reason and then they failed to call us back again so that we could
 work something out with them. But really it all right now is coming down to communication
 and that this is our means of kind of forcing their hand that you've got to speak to us
 so that we can try to get you where you need to go. My biggest concern would be that once
 they start contacting us, funds are being depleted and now they've lost the one line
 of assistance that they would have had readily if they had just gotten in sooner.
 So what I'm hearing is that if they would call ahead of time, is there a process before
 the actual interruption where customer service reaches out? I believe accounts if they have
 phone numbers where customer service proactively reaches out or is this pretty much because
 everybody's busy, everybody's busy but is there a time when customer service will reach
 out proactively sometime near the point where that interruption would be?
 We actually make two phone calls. One, it's about the day after the second bill produces
 to let them know, hey, you know, you're late, you're about to get a late fee and you need
 to get your payment in or you're going to be interrupted and then the day before we
 do interruption, we make an automated phone call out again to remind them, hey, you're
 about to be interrupted. We don't make physical calls, personal calls because we have always
 maintained communication that guys, if you're getting a call and they're saying their city
 of Denton and that you're behind on your bill and they want payment right then, that's not
 us and so we don't make those calls because we don't want to muddy the waters. There are
 too many opportunities for people to be taken advantage of. But we absolutely have been
 making the two calls for each one of these accounts and we made, we started those calls
 in June to let them know that they were behind. So I know that there's some policies that
 of course with certain heat or cold weather that those interruptions do not occur and
 then I believe if someone has a medical condition or a medical issue that requires power or
 utilities that, am I correct on that, that there's some accommodation for that depending
 on the circumstances? It depends on what the circumstance is. At the very least, if it
 is life-dependent, then yes, we have a whole set of different processes. If it's something
 where it's more of a hindrance or a slight risk, then we will be calling them personally
 before we do any action toward interruption on those accounts.
 On the ones that are, I say life-threatening or life-dependent, I believe was your term,
 which that's a good term. Are those calls typically made from the customer to customer
 service or also is there a physical call with a, you know, not an automated call that reaches
 out? No, we make physical calls to customers who are on medical exemptions. Okay, so that's
 something that's flagged on the exam. We tell them yes, absolutely it is and we search those
 accounts every day to make sure. Okay. Okay, great. I guess Council Member Briggs,
 go ahead. I've got a couple more comments, but I want you to, since you brought this
 up, go ahead. Thank you. Hi Krista. If we have any new data
 on numbers, as far as I know that the last time you were here, it was, you know, like
 200 people had contacted you, but there were, you know, over 2000 individuals. I'm wondering
 since we've begun the process and we've had a little bit of time now, how many of those
 are still at risk of disconnection and how many disconnections we've made recently?
 I don't have today's numbers because recently I had been running them daily, but since now
 I was actually planning to put them out each week in a Friday report. I hadn't run them
 today. I can tell you what it looked like on Friday. Give me one moment. As of Friday,
 we had a total of 2020 accounts that were past due and remember that some of these numbers
 are going to change a bit because each day a different cycle becomes past due again.
 So that doesn't necessarily, obviously it won't mean that this is the same exact ones
 that would have been months and months behind. And it looks like at this time we have done
 or Friday we had done approximately 340 interruptions, but in August we've already received a total
 of 493 pledges and that has become $82,000 that has been given to help these customers
 when they're contacting us. So we've definitely seen results on that, but I will absolutely
 make sure that each Friday there will be an update that shows you week over week how many
 accounts there are and what interruptions have been done.
 Okay, Councilmember Briggs. And is there a way, I appreciate this and all the data that
 you've been keeping up with. Is there any way though, I think going back to Councilmember
 Metzler's question, not necessarily the mayor's as far as the first time you find out, but
 from when the connection is actually out, I think you said maybe it's an hour or two.
 Is there a way you can get a more of an estimate on the ones that the 300 that have been disconnected
 and I'm just, I'm concerned about, you know, children at home learning, losing those hours.
 Sure. It's a little harder to get to. I can certainly research and see if there's a way
 that I can get data on that, but I can't necessarily promise that, but I can try and if I can get
 something I can do, it's part of my Friday report.
 Thank you. Councilmember Armitage. Would Council agree to get consensus to have a press release
 that's seeking input on that, seeking people to contact customer service if they're concerned
 that they've got a connected learner at home and might have an issue.
 I'm not, I'm not really, I'm not understanding what you're saying. Are you saying to create
 a separate policy whereby somehow, so, all right, what are you suggesting?
 Just a press release, just sending out a press release, you know, that the media creator
 can pick up just to let people know to contact customer service if they've got a connected
 learner at home and are concerned about possibly not being able to pay their bill, just no
 change in policy, just letting them know to contact customer service and to let them know
 so they can make arrangements with customer service, just sticking to our current policy,
 because I think that a lot of people just still don't know, you know, and I'm trying
 to spread the word.
 I can't see the harmony. Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry to interrupt you. Council Member Meltzer?
 Yeah, a few points. In the spirit of, you know, I really want to get this, this help
 on the street as effectively as possible. I think we could address the issue of the students
 actively, you know, being involved in connected learning and not being able to bear an hour
 or two of, you know, kind of getting thrown off by just avoiding those hours. I'm interested
 in hearing from staff whether that's in any way practical, just avoiding the hours when
 school's open, because I think they're done by three. And then, but I would, I think the
 suggestion of adding a little weight to our voice with a press release, not specifically
 about connected learners, my point of view, but just about this fact that we want you
 to call. I don't think people get it. They just get, they got turned off somehow. They're
 not getting the message. Or, you know, I think when people are in tough, you know, money
 situations, they get a little paralyzed about it. And just anything we can do to break through
 and say, just communicate. So the idea of a press release to say, this is what's happening,
 this is why, here's what to do, I think is a great suggestion.
 Okay. Anybody else? All right. So let me see where we are. The first proposal that was
 mentioned was an extension of the shutoffs, either for a week or nine weeks of anyone
 that's getting, that may experience an interruption. So we'll take these one issue at a time. What's
 the consensus of the council, Council Member Meltzer?
 Could we get a staff response on whether it'd be practical to do the alternative of not
 doing the shutoffs during the time that school's actually in session? Just time of day? Because
 that would affect, you know, my thoughts on the first proposal.
 Okay, I want to make sure I understand your question. Go ahead, Kristin. I apologize.
 I was gonna say, honestly, I don't know that that would be a realistic expectation, because
 it would then put us into a situation where people would be getting their services cut
 so late in the day, that they would run much greater risk of not having enough staffing
 to be able to easily get them all back on, you know, in that two hour window that we
 would have. I think that you would find that people would be out of service much longer
 that way, and very quickly they would be outside of service hours. I don't know if someone
 from DME is on here that could speak better to that, but that would be my thought on it.
 There's a reason that we put them out earlier in the day.
 Is that word done in the evenings, and is customer service operating in evening hours as well?
 Customer service is operating at our regular standard hours of 8 to 5. We also have agents
 who are doing outbound calls from 5 to 6, because our call volumes have been so high.
 We've implemented some strategies to make sure that we can screen those calls, things
 that aren't emergent, we're calling back between 5 and 6, emergent things like people who have
 no service, people who need to make a payment arrangement or get a referral to an agency,
 we're getting those people worked throughout the day.
 Well, then, having heard that answer, then, I could support a two week pause in the shutoffs.
 Councilmember Armitage? Yeah, I just want to share a personal perspective
 as a mom. I'll try to just keep it brief as a parent, I should say. Gender doesn't matter.
 You know, I've got two kids who are connected learners at home. I'm very fortunate to be
 able to pay my bill, and that's not a problem. But, you know, we've had two situations where
 our kids who are 15 and 12 will well behave, so they're safe to, they can be at home while
 we're at work, and we know they're going to do their connected learning. But there have
 been two occasions so far where there have had, where there have been no adult in the
 house, and they had difficulty, you know, connecting to Wi-Fi, and that's just a pretty
 ordinary problem. It turned out being fine. My son had to retake his AP geography exam,
 but it was frightening for them to be without an adult and unable to do their school work.
 Really horrific. You know, they survived, they were fine, but this is without an outage.
 You know, so I would multiply that however many more times. You know, the idea of just
 imagine kids having an outage, and there's no adult at home to call the, I guess the
 kids could be told to call, you know, but so anyway, to me that's just an unthinkable
 situation. I don't want any kid or family to go through that.
 Okay, anybody else? All right, so it seems like we have Councilmember Briggs, Meltzer,
 and Armentor supporting an extension of some length of time. I think Councilmember Meltzer
 had said two weeks. I'm not quite sure exactly how long have we been operating under normal
 procedures. Was it since the 1st of August? Approximately two weeks.
 Okay. Do we have any data? I guess before I make that decision, I'd like to at least
 see the data on is this, how many people have had an interruption, how long did it take
 to get them back on? How is it, what's the deviation between this time of the year under
 these circumstances and last year under the same circumstances?
 And then if there is a way to, if there's a process that can be implemented to where
 people can call it, the press release, I mean, I don't necessarily have any heartburn against
 a press release, but we've had press releases, we talk about it almost on a weekly basis
 when we meet. It's on our Facebook page, it's on our website. I presume some of this information
 has been placed in our utility bills that go out every month to people. So I mean, if
 the Council wants to do that, okay, I just, people, if they're not calling, they're not
 calling. So, but, so is there any other question or discussion on the service interruption
 policy that's been put forth? Because if not, then we don't have the consensus to sort of
 do that temporarily. Yes, Council Member Briggs.
 So school starts tomorrow and the data you're asking for may not be here for a week. So
 my question is, can we pause for a week until we get that data? And if not, I'm just curious
 if Ms. Foster knows how many interruptions are scheduled for tomorrow or through this
 week? Like if there is a number, I'm curious if that information is available.
 That should be. It may take me just a moment to be able to get to the list, but I believe
 we may have some, at least estimates on what would be happening this week.
 Okay.
 So give me just a moment. And one of the things, too, that you need to remember is, especially
 right now, because it happens every single month, is a lot of the accounts that is, when
 I go to do the research, are actually off and they've been off for a day or more since
 the interruption. Generally, it means someone has moved and they failed to tell us that
 they've moved, but we can't go and check apartment complexes, like go in the building and see
 if someone has actually vacated the building. And so that happens a lot, too, especially
 as students are moving in and out. Sometimes they just don't call and they don't tell you
 that even left.
 Okay.
 I'm looking for a pair. I'm looking for a pair.
 I am going to guess that we're looking at maybe in the 500 to 600 range as possibilities.
 And again, that's assuming that the day that we send them the reminder call, that no one
 takes care of their outstanding balance that day before or calls us the day before, which
 many, many times that's what we actually see. We send out that call that says, "Hey, tomorrow
 you're going to be interrupted." And so they call us today. But it looks like it could
 be as many as 500 to 600.
 Okay. All right.
 Okay. Anyone else? Okay. So what I understand is right now, it seems like the direction
 of the council is to do... Krista, on these interruptions, there's really no way to know
 if they have remote learners there. Is that correct? There's no way to know that. I mean,
 that's when somebody talks to them.
 Yeah, they would need to talk to us.
 Okay. All right. And I could get more comfortable with... Because what I'm hearing is a specific
 need, a specific problem. And what's being proposed is that we sort of suspend shutoffs
 for interruptions for everyone that is experiencing this. But what has been brought up is the
 specific need and interest of people who have remote learners at home. How can we do that?
 And if we can find a way to tailor a program to that temporarily in the beginning of sort
 of the school start tomorrow, I'm okay with that because I really want to make sure that
 we tailor it to the need that's been presented instead of just saying, "Okay, we're going
 to go back to what we had two weeks ago and we made that decision then." And of course,
 we knew that these circumstances were going to present themselves because the school districts
 did give options for different methods of instruction. So if we can come up with a way
 to think how to do that, I might can support that. I just don't know if we're able to do
 that like we do with medical circumstances and things such as that.
 In the end, people need to understand, and I understand that the times are difficult,
 but if you're getting letters and phone calls about your utilities being interrupted, what
 I'm hearing is if you will just call that they are finding a way to not have an interruption.
 So at some point, we have to say, where does government end and personal responsibility
 begin? I know this council and I know certainly customer service is doing all that they can
 to maintain service. So I just don't know how far we take this. We've given a tremendous
 amount of accommodation. So if the press release will do it, if sending something out in the
 next utility bill cycle is something, we can do another big push of communications across
 all of our channels to remind our residents to call customer service and the assistance
 that's available. And then we'll also reach out to DISD and see if there's any opportunities
 information through their channels as well. I'm not sure that that would be possible,
 but we will reach out. Well, that's a great suggestion. Councilmember
 Davis. I was just going to add to that. I know we
 have some technological limitations with our different apps and websites that we use to
 pay your bills, but literally every time I log in to pay a bill at some place, it says,
 are you experiencing trouble because of the COVID pandemic? There's a banner that says,
 here's how to contact us if you're having trouble paying your student loan or your mortgage
 or whatever the bill is. So maybe something like that on the page as well. But if they're
 landing on the, if they're trying to pay the bill, but they're really having trouble and
 having to choose between what they're paying that month, we're offering assistance at that
 stage too. Okay. All right. Okay. So I'm hearing that
 what we want to do is try another push on our social media and our other communication
 platforms and reach out to DISD. Maybe they have some platforms that, I mean, they're
 specifically probably have platforms where they're targeting email addresses and things
 such that with people who have children enrolled in school. And so I think that's a great idea
 to get the word out to them specifically. All right. So then it seems like as far as
 the order changing, at least from this work session, that doesn't seem to be the case
 as it was presented. I haven't heard that we're changing the business policy and or
 we're not adding any new requested orders or direction to the current order. All right.
 Was that the end of the presentation on that one?
 Yes, that was. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Sarah. All right. Then we will,
 let's take a quick five minute break and we'll come back about 2.05. Welcome everybody to
 this meeting of the Dent City Council on August 25th, 2020. It is 2.25 PM. We're moving through
 our work session items. Our next work session item is receive report and hold a discussion
 that's actually three CID 20-1585. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff
 direction regarding the energy management organizational financial review conducted
 by Deloitte. Good afternoon Mayor Watts, members of council,
 Mary Nolte, Assistant General Manager at DME. Let me pull up the presentation. We have been
 engaged with Deloitte for several years on the evaluation of the energy management office,
 energy management organization at DME. They did an initial review of the cost effectiveness
 of the EMO shortly after DME exited a full requirements contract. And this presentation
 looks at the continued evaluation of the EMO in 2017-18 calendar years or fiscal years.
 And joining me is Stephen Engler with Deloitte, who is going to run through most of the slides.
 Thanks, Jerry. Good afternoon, everybody, Mayor, members of council and staff. This
 is Stephen Engler. As Terry mentioned, I'm a managing director in Deloitte's energy risk
 advisory practice. And yes, I am the same guy that presented to you several years ago.
 I would say this is what happens to a consultant when I'm locked in my home office for five
 months. So it's nice to see you all again. I thank you for your time. We have some prepared
 remarks and I'm happy to take questions throughout the presentation or at the conclusion. So
 as Terry mentioned, Deloitte was engaged to complete two work items. And Terry, if you
 don't mind forwarding, advancing the slides just to the summary of what we were asked
 to do. Number one, as Terry mentioned, we were asked to update an assessment that we
 initially performed, I believe, in fiscal '15 to compare the financial performance of
 the EMO against a benchmark. And then the second piece of work was to take a refreshed
 look and update the progress that DME has made against several recommendations that
 we provided at that time as it relates to commodity risk management and risk oversight.
 So moving to the assessment, the first part of the assessment, I want to point out a couple
 of things that have changed at DME, specifically with the scope or with the EMO, is focused
 on that drove us to consider and then ultimately implement a couple of changes to the methodology
 and the model. First is that at the time of the first assessment or evaluation was completed,
 we had effectively in hand a recently quoted full requirements price to serve as a proxy
 that we could compare the EMO performance to. Given that several years has passed, we
 did not have that same proxy. We didn't have a market provided a full requirements price
 quote. So we needed to rethink the proxy or the benchmark that we would compare against.
 The second item that I would point out that's evolved or changed in the time since our first
 assessment is that really the composition of the portfolio that EMO is managing has
 changed in the sense that a number of PPA agreements have come online providing renewable
 power sources to DME. Those are contractual obligations. They are not within the scope
 of what I would say would be manageable by EMO in terms of making real time or day ahead
 or even longer term power procurement decisions. So we needed to rethink kind of what the components
 of the model were and what we compared the performance of EMO to. Essentially, Lloyd
 was asked to work with staff to agree on a methodology and the model that we would use
 for the benchmark comparison. We would obtain the data and then we would
 re-perform the assessment. And in those discussions of agreeing on what the approach would be
 and the methodology would be, we further agreed that there were a couple of items that predated
 the decision to establish the EMO. And so those cost components were not included in
 the benchmark comparison. And then further to the point that I mentioned
 around the renewable PPAs that have been in place and that power is now online, it was
 further agreed that removing those contractual decisions or the components of the power that's
 provided by those contractual decisions, we would calculate but then ultimately remove
 from the comparison. Consistent in '17 and also the '18 benchmark,
 it was decided that the appropriate proxy for the comparison would be the observable
 day ahead ERCOT electricity prices. So effectively comparing the EMO's performance over that
 period of time against the day ahead price. So the components of the model, the first
 step was to establish what I would describe as the all-in costs. And this is the all load
 served by DME valued at the day ahead market prices, including adders for relevant and
 related ancillary services. This was effectively the benchmark in the analysis. And then we
 calculated the actual costs for that time period, for that total load, accepting the
 debt portion of the TMPA, as I mentioned before. And that served as the all of the all-in comparison
 of the actual versus benchmark. The second component of the analysis was to
 do a deeper dive into the PPA portion. As I mentioned, those contractual elements determine
 that the cost impact associated with those PPAs and remove those from the all-in cost.
 And what we're left with in that phase three component is what I would describe as the
 manageable portion. So this is the portion of the load that the EMO manages actively
 on a real-time day ahead and go forward basis. And that's the component that we felt was
 appropriate to compare against that proxy price component.
 So our approach was we requested and received all of the actual cost detail from DME. We
 prepared a summary of the actual costs and also the benchmark costs and reviewed that
 with DME staff. As I mentioned, we discussed with DME staff and EMO staff the methodology
 and the components of the methodology that I just described and agreed on what would
 be in versus out and what would be appropriate to use as a comparison, including breaking
 out those PPA costs. At that point, DME prepared a model and did the overall calculation to
 do the benchmark comparison. Part of the reason for that is to develop in staff a repeatable
 methodology that can be revisited going forward. All of the data then was taken by Deloitte
 as well as the model and we independently re-performed and re-calculated the benchmark
 assessment as described. So in the next slide, Terry, if you wouldn't
 mind walking through those kind of three components and the results resulting from them.
 Sure, Stephen. So in the top table, you see the portfolio performance. That is taking
 our total load and filling or meeting the load obligation in the day ahead market. And
 that became the benchmark. And as you can see, actual costs were considerably under
 by 6.2 million. That would be the benefit that the EMO provided. The second table delineates
 the renewable energy power purchase agreements. And there you can see the metric against day
 ahead is 18.8 million. Actual cost for that portion of the portfolio was 24.3. And that
 was a cost of 5.5 million. Again, I have to remember that that component of our portfolio
 is really not really managed actively because it is a take, we must take the energy when
 it's delivered and we must liquidate it into the market at the then market price. So that's
 why you can see it's $5.5 million against us. The last section is all the other portions
 of the portfolio that we use to supply the load. And there you can see that the metric
 was 45 million. We actually were able to supply that at 33.8 for a savings of 11.7 million
 to the good. So in general, you can see the range at the top, somewhere between 2.4 and
 $10 million. Interestingly, we've rerun this analysis for the next fiscal year and the
 numbers were just a little bit lower than the numbers that are reported here. So if
 we said 13 million, if you had these numbers together and they total a $13 million net
 positive for the benefit of ratepayers, for fiscal year '19, it was 11 million. Okay,
 Stephen, back to you. >> Thanks, Terry. So the next part of the
 assessment that Doyle was engaged to -- >> I tell you, Steve, before you go, if we
 could pull the slide, I just want to see if we have any -- since this is sort of a stopping
 point here, let me see if we've got any questions that the council has on any of those slides.
 Any questions from council on the slides that were presented? Just for my own clarity, so
 the metric was just using the formula that you described and then the actual cost was
 the actual cost. And so that's how you were using those comparisons, is that correct?
 >> That's correct. For, you know, based on the load as it was served, given the time
 of day or time of day of the week, throughout the course of that evaluation period.
 >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to check to make sure we didn't have any questions.
 It seemed like we had sort of a break in the presentation. So, yeah, feel free to resume.
 >> Thank you, Mayor. >> You bet.
 >> Okay. Just a couple more slides. So as I said, you may recall that Doyle was engaged
 a few years back to do an assessment of the -- what I would describe as risk management
 and risk oversight capabilities of DME as compared to or as we see in the industry as
 relates to leading practices for those activities. So we prepared a report during our first engagement
 that included, I believe, 60 recommendations for DME to consider to -- for implementation.
 And as part of the advancement or progression of the risk oversight capabilities of DME,
 given the expanded role of the EMO and the active management of the load and the risk
 associated with that load. So management asked us to basically come back and do an evaluation
 of how they're doing against those recommendations. Excuse me. So we made a number of additional
 data requests, asked for updated documentation, had a number of interviews and discussions
 with staff. And through that activity, you can see on the next slide we've kind of got
 a pictorial depiction of where staff is against the recommendations. The recommendations initially
 were grouped into four categories, governance, process, people, and technology. You can see
 that we evaluated the current state as well as the recommended future state. And associated
 recommendations that were designed to close the gap between the current and the future
 state points on this chart. Those recommendations were further stratified into high, medium,
 and low priority. And with apologies for the small font on the screen, we've noted how
 many of those recommendations are complete under the SC column, how many are in progress
 under the IP column, and one after discussion with management, they decided or determined
 that that was no longer relevant to DME. So there was one recommendation that was set
 aside. I'll pause there, but the next slide also basically summarizes the same chart.
 So out of 60 total recommendations, 27 we deemed are complete at the time of the evaluation.
 32 were in progress. I would say the majority of those relate to the implementation of a
 commodity or an energy trading and risk management system, that ETRM acronym there. So many of
 the recommendations of both process and technology specific recommendations relate to the selection
 and implementation of that system or would be enabled by the implementation of that system.
 Currently DME is leveraging a cloud hosted trade capture and risk reporting solution
 with Deloitte and a decision has been made recently to select and implement a vendor
 for a new ETRM system, which will take place over the coming months. So the majority of
 the remaining open items will be, I believe, addressed by the implementation and the go
 live with that system. So that's the conclusion of our remarks. Any questions? All right.
 Okay. I believe that go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Appreciate it. All right.
 Moving on to agenda item 3D ID 20-1667. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff
 direction regarding a request by historic Denton to be delegated as a third party administrator
 on behalf of the city didn't apply to the historic commission for a certified local
 government grant. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Richard Canoni,
 service department. I'm going to pull the presentation up. The request that we have
 to present you today for the work session is from historic Denton Inc. We received an
 email approximately two weeks ago where they were interested in applying to the Texas historic
 commission for a certified local government grant to conduct a neighborhood survey, historical
 survey of the neighborhood, North Texas state normal neighborhood, which is outlined there
 on your right. See Calhoun middle, sort of the prominent in the middle to the right.
 And then to use that survey as a basis for a nomination for a national district. Just
 to give a quick reminder of the difference between a what the national district is in
 a local district, probably the easiest way to remember national district identifies local
 district protects. So there aren't any specific regulations that they must follow if they
 are a national district. That really comes from the local district when those zoning
 regulations or zoning overlay is put in place. I also did want to remind everyone that last
 legislative session, there was an amendment to the to sub chapter 1211 of the local government
 code that establishes when a owner's consent is required to designate it as a historic
 landmark, including a overlay district, and that it just gives them the ability to withdraw
 at any time. Now this this particular grant, if it was authorized, again, would not designated
 as a local district. This is just for that local designation. The Texas Historic Commission
 does allow for for third parties to apply on behalf. It just requires delegation from
 from the city, and then as well as they can apply directly and then it requires either
 the historic preservation officer or the city representative and chief elected official
 must sign must sign the application for that potential benefits. Again, it does allow for
 the national being in a national registered district does does allow for certain tax tax
 benefit tax benefits for renovations of income producing properties. This isn't for single
 family homeowners, and there is no city obligation. In this instance, it's a 50 50 match, but
 it is a reimbursement grant. So once those funds are expended, the third party would
 apply then for that reimbursement through the Texas Historic Commission. It would not
 it would not come as a pass through through the city would be directly with them. And
 with that, be happy to answer any questions, but staff was seeking just some direction
 from Council on whether or not it would be beneficial to have historic Denton Inc be
 authorized as a third party grant administrator. Okay. Councilmember Mouser and Councilmember
 Amater. Richard, to be perfectly honest, I didn't really understand the last point. Well,
 what is the expenditure that would be reimbursed? You know, that that if you wouldn't mind going
 over that bit again, that that that was 5050. I mean, this is the part I do understand.
 Historic Denton does this work. If we give approval for the application to be signed,
 it designates the area potentially as a national historic district that provides tax benefits
 for those who renovate who have who are using the properties for commercial use basically
 like those who rent the properties out, so they would preserve them. So that part of
 that part I'm very clear on. And I understand there's no cost to the city, but I didn't
 really understand the last point. The 5050 reimbursement would be staff time, I guess,
 for Historic Denton Inc to conduct those studies and submit submitted on behalf or any materials
 that they may. So Historic Denton could be reimbursed. Correct. With their time. It says
 about the city at all. Correct. And then that 50% would come from them, whether it be in
 kind or their their staff time. I got you. Thank you. Councilmember Armitage. Yes, I
 just wanted to say I'm strongly in favor of this. And I wanted to add that, you know,
 it has it has the benefit of incentivizing owners of commercial properties of which in
 that neighborhood, as I understand it, there are about 50% of those of those own properties
 are by renters, you know, it incentivizes people who are already renting properties
 to keep them historic. And therefore, you know, preventing gentrification and preventing
 the kind of SROs or, you know, giant developments, giant rentals that would change the character
 of the neighborhood. So it would keep it keep the neighborhood looking like a bunch of single
 family homes, whether or not the people who are living in there are family or, or renters
 who aren't related. It's really great incentive to keep it historic, so strongly in support
 of it and at no expense to the no cost to the city. Councilmember Riggs and then Councilmember
 Davis. Can you, Richard, talk about our lack of having a preservation officer and how if
 that matters here in this in this discussion, like if we had one, would we be exploring
 the third party? Would this be something that preservation officer did or or not?
 The preservation officer at least in the time that I have been here hasn't really hasn't
 been in the work plan to to go out and nominate some of these areas as as national National
 Register districts. I think once we get someone on board and that you know the position is
 being advertised, that's something that we will look at and pull the recently adopted
 plan pull those implementation strategies and then start moving forward with that.
 I have a question. Yes, of course. And does this designation does it does it change the
 zoning at all or any kind of use of the building? No ma'am it does not. It would not. No. Okay.
 So if somebody wanted to change it from a single family home to a multi family or a
 or a hotel or bed and breakfast or any would that require a zoning change? I'd have to
 look at because I know the zoning depending where you are within that area there's there's
 different designations. I know there are some that have a residential I just don't have
 the map in front of me. Okay, there would be some uses that they could do some of the
 if it's MN which I believe you might have some it does allow for multi family I believe
 with a with a SUP with a specific use permit. Okay, can I can I do a hypothetical? Sure.
 So on those so there is a it's an MN there's a few or three older houses and so if MN allowed
 that would provide that would allow the an individual or developer to buy those homes
 and then with an SUP create a a larger multifamily even if this district is in place or if this
 district is in place that would prevent that. It looks like the only most of that area I
 believe is R3 east of the area just west of Ponder and I know it kind of zigzags I don't
 think it gets to Ponder where it's MN on the map but most of the area would be would be
 R3 so it'd be strictly limited to single family residential. There's the ability to do accessory
 dwelling but that really would be it. I think it goes down maybe close to oak so you do
 have that oak that oak hickory the overlay district already in place. I think the only
 might be one or two parcels along Carroll otherwise it looks like most of that area
 is R3 maybe even some R7. Thank you. Councilmember Davis. Thank you for remembering me Mayor.
 So I support the National Register District I grew up in this neighborhood and I think
 it's a it's really key to keep promoting preservation just not in our big recognizable historic
 homes but our kind of single family smaller homes. Some of these were built as multi-family
 you know decades ago some of them were built with accessory dwelling units many many years
 ago and those are historical in nature so I think it's important to recognize that in
 this conversation. I think I also want to be really clear that this doesn't come with
 any preservation protections. The district itself doesn't impose anything on the property
 owners it doesn't mean they can't change their property that's all zoning stuff so I've heard
 the argument that this will encourage more multi-family or it will encourage more rental
 properties fewer owner-occupied. I think the market pressures in that area are going to
 do what they're going to do that this isn't really going to move the needle for most owners
 on incentives to turn these into money-making properties or be owner-occupied. I would like
 to hear though my only real real concern here is this is an arrangement we haven't done
 before CLG is somewhat new for the city to begin with using a third party. I don't think
 there's anything necessarily wrong with that arrangement but I'd like to know about how
 the counting is handled how that that third party reports back to the city. If they're
 essentially acting as our agent for the purposes of this grant how are we keeping tabs on how
 the work is progressing how the money is spent all those kind of things that ultimately we're
 going to be accountable for. It was it was my understanding when we when we heard from
 when I had staff reach out to the Texas Historic Commission that once that third party once
 once if that third party is authorized then it is it is really there's not much oversight
 to the city other than what we would want but all of that is done through because it
 is a reimbursement all of that all of that essential oversight or reporting is done directly
 to the Texas Historic Commission. Yes Councilmember Davis. Thank you. Can we can we attach conditions
 or can we require an additional accounting? Yeah I don't want to suggest anything on toward
 but I think it's really important that if we're going to kind of deputize a third party
 to act on our behalf that we need to have a full accounting even if it's not necessarily
 required by the grant terms. I think it's important to know what's being done on our
 behalf. Certainly. Anyone else? Mayor Pro Tem. Yeah Jesse raises a good point and I'd
 like to hear him on this so my question for my colleague is when you when you're talking
 about single family not being targeted tell me what I'm missing because if I'm an investor
 and there's a family in this car in this area or this zoning if you would I know that's
 not the proper term but if it's in this area and I can receive tax credits it then maybe
 motivates me to pay a little more understanding I'm going to be benefited on the back end
 if I turn it into an income producing property. So it's a single family now I'm willing to
 pay more for that single family home because I can get tax credits to turn it into a income
 producing property. So help me understand what I'm missing or just kind of your look
 at that that challenge. Sure well you know obviously not my field I think my only point
 there was those things are happening regardless you know there are some properties are going
 to go from being single family excuse me we're saying single family I really what I want
 to say is owner occupied you know income producing single family home versus owner occupied single
 family home. What we're seeing over here in the neighborhood is some folks are buying
 rental homes and living in them as owner occupies but many others have been doing it for years
 investors are buying up the single family homes and putting college students in there
 putting you know families in there whatever it is I think those market pressures are going
 to happen regardless I think this isn't necessarily going to move the needle for your average
 person who can afford to buy up a rental house. Okay Council Member Briggs. And somebody just
 go over really quick so having this designation I know it's not a local designation so there's
 not a lot that restrictions that we put on but what is the benefit that if somebody does
 buy it whether to live in it or to rent it to qualify for the tax credit they have to
 renovate it and keep it historically accurate instead of tearing it down and rebuilding
 or completely changing the look of it so is that is that the benefit here that we're that
 we're trying to to do is just so that that home stays historically accurate. That would
 be the that the ability to get that grant would be the I'm sorry that the tax credit
 would be an option for them if they wanted to pursue that. Okay but so if they did not
 want to I'm sorry may or may I continue? Of course yes. So if they if they did not want
 to pursue that grant would they still have the ability with this designation in place
 to do whatever they wanted to the home and not keep it historical and tear it down? Yeah
 until there were those local local standards or a local district put in place with those
 zoning regulations then they could do anything that would be permitted within that R3 R3
 district with the with the exception of those areas I think there's a little bit of the
 area that's in the Oak Hickory historic overlay. Okay and is that grant is that grant can can
 a homeowner or owner occupied apply for that grant? For the for the tax credit uh-huh yeah
 for the tax credit yes if it's in that local if it's I'm sorry if it's in the in the national
 district. Okay okay thank you. Okay a couple of questions just want to make sure I understand.
 When you talk about the tax credit for basically non-owner occupied properties so what I'm
 hearing is that if it's designated a national register historic district then those may
 be some of the tax credit opportunities afforded to non-owner occupied properties within that
 designated district is that correct? Correct. But that district does not bring with it I
 mean we're looking at a slide here number three national restore registry districts
 identifies local district protects so if it's a national register district historical district
 that doesn't have the protections that we have implemented in our local district protection
 ordinances if you have a local historic designation then you are under certain obligations to
 go through the historic landmark commission to get a certificate of what is that not convenience
 that's a CCN appropriateness appropriateness okay. So really this doesn't really provide
 any protection from a historical perspective if it's a national register historic district
 because I know we've got the square is that correct? Correct but then the square has certain
 I think there's certain prop but then we have the local you know local regulations not necessarily
 the district but we did the the downtown overlay. Right so my not my concern my observation
 here is that I really don't know enough about I'm going to be hesitant to designate a third
 party there's no there's no sort of budget here there's no sense of what is going to
 be spent what's going to be asked for reimbursement unless I missed it is there is there something
 in the backup that that has that? No that that we did not have that. Okay because if
 we're if if they're asking for us to give them that authority then I would like to know
 exactly what exactly is going to be charged what the estimate is as we would any other
 particular kind of entity that we're either hiring or that we're engaging we want to know
 exactly what are you going to be doing what's it going to cost just because it costs the
 city nothing doesn't mean that it's necessarily something we want to do I think to be prudent
 we need to make sure that we have a full understanding of what the project really is what does it
 entail what are the costs how much is the estimated reimbursement costs because it says
 this is a matching grant so help me walk through this specifically let's say for instance oh
 the grant is just to do the survey correct? Survey and then ultimately submit submit the
 the documentation right right which if we had a certified officer the city can do that
 as well is that correct? Correct. All right so in this case someone's asking we want to
 be your sort of agent slash representative in filing for these these grants with the
 Texas Historic Commission we believe that this grant process by doing this survey we
 believe this project will cost seventy five thousand dollars let's make it fifty thousand
 let's just say fifty thousand to do the survey to get everything ready to make the application
 do the survey and then to submit it to whatever department they do to get the National Register
 Historic District classification. Then what I'm hearing is that if the so tell me if it's
 a total cost of fifty thousand you're saying that the the grant only covers twenty five?
 Correct and the the max under the program is thirty thousand. Okay is that the Texas
 Historic Commission's portion or is that total both fifty that's the total of the 50-50 match?
 My understanding is that it it's typically the the 50-50 match that they'll that they'll
 reimburse up to. Is a total of thirty thousand? Yeah between two thousand and thirty thousand.
 So help me I need to understand this so again let's let's use the fifty thousand dollar
 project cost. So Historic Denton funds that correct out of their out of their funds and
 they are only expecting to get twenty five thousand back. Correct. So that means they've
 got twenty five thousand in it themselves. Correct. So that makes me even more it makes
 it more important to get some more information about the organization because if they're
 going to be funding we I want to make sure that number one they have the funding. Number
 two what's the structure of the organization? What's the budget on the project? What's some
 of the oversight that they have implemented within their own organization on this because
 yeah that's that's what I would need to see to be able to to agree to this. Councilmember
 Meltzer. When we're saying it's x dollars aren't we really talking about hours for this
 sort of work? In other words somebody from Historic Denton would put hours in at some
 kind of a you know established fair market rate and then they would look to be reimbursed
 for their hours but I don't think it necessarily means they're writing a check for something.
 Is that correct? It's my understanding most of the work would involve would be would be
 their their staff time if you will. But that's even I think that's even as important because
 we would need to see what what is the projected staff time of this what is the amount that
 they're allocating for the different levels of staff interaction, surveying, research.
 I mean I don't think this is necessarily a bad concept I just don't think we have enough
 I don't have enough information to be able to make this decision based upon it's just
 hey sign this and we'll do the rest and we have no idea what the rest entails. So I would
 like to go ahead go ahead Paul. I think you know the point it's related to the point that
 Councillor Davis raised I personally would be comfortable going forward with the requirement
 that we get a statement in advance about what the projected work would be and then and then
 a update of what hours are actually submitted or you know costs and then what the reimbursement
 was so those three points but I'd be supportive of doing this. I think it's sort of all plus
 there's no no cost the city no burden on the property owners and there's potential I and
 as far as what's incented this is a judgment call and while y'all get to weigh in my opinion
 is that it's unlikely to change somebody's decision on whether to occupy a place or rent
 it out but if they are going to get out it might we hope motivate them to stay within
 historic guidelines rather than you know destroy the appearance. So I think it's a win and
 I'm happy to sort of suggest that we include those those checks. Now just to verify when
 you said it encourages them to stay within historic guidelines is that a requirement
 under this under the National Historic District? To get the to get the tax credits it is yeah
 yeah okay in other words they don't have to do anything that they can do whatever they
 or would anybody else in any other part of that with the same zoning and you know other
 conditions would be able to do but they would have the opportunity if they chose to stay
 within guidelines to get this tax incentive so I think it's just you know some some things
 you do with a requirement like you know a local landmark district some things you do
 with an incentive and you know I don't see any downside. Okay all right any other discussion
 is this is this an act I believe is this an action item tonight no all right this is more
 direction seeking direction okay Councilmember Davis. Yeah I just kind of want to piggyback
 off what you said Mayor I wasn't aware that this would necessarily be historic Denton
 as a grant recipient not only administering the grant you know and you're paying somebody
 to go out and do it but also members or employees or whatever historic Denton doing the doing
 the work to receive grant funding as compensation now that's not necessarily a problem that's
 not you know necessarily a bad arrangement but I think like the Mayor said that underscores
 the need to know precisely what they're like can we get a scope of work can we get something
 more like a like a RFP or RFQ like we would normally do if we were going out to the world
 to ask for they're bringing this project to us so I understand that it's something that
 wouldn't happen without their involvement which is why they're asking for this this
 kind of blessing to go after the grant but if they're doing it in our name I think we
 need to know a lot more about the whole process if we're going to give them our blessing.
 Okay anybody and Councilmember Meltzer I know your thoughts on that you're okay with moving
 forward with some conditions placed on it based upon Councilmember Davis we'll just
 go with Councilmember Meltzer's who's in favor of moving forward or giving staff direction
 based upon go aheading and go ahead and executing this letter of intent with some conditions
 on some of the things that Councilmember Meltzer had mentioned anybody Councilmember Meltzer
 okay yeah he is anybody else Councilmember Armitage so all right are we raising hands
 for consensus are we raising hands for questions Councilmember Davis I'm gonna go to you because
 I saw your hand about I'm not sure you're agreeing with but I'm just trying to understand
 right I wasn't sure which I'm trying to get to consensus I want to move forward with the
 things that you and I have talked about the the needing to know but I think because it's
 not an action item because we're just giving direction I think it can be a both and I think
 we can move forward in the process and gather more information and give direction that we
 want we want more information so my my direction is that I'd like to see it happen I just like
 to see that scope defined in that both conditions all right well so I guess the difficulty is
 the city manager and or the mayor I believe have to sign the letter of intent in order
 to move this forward I personally am not willing to sign the letter of intent until I get this
 information that you're requesting so if receiving the information is still moving that process
 forward defined as that I'm okay because I just want to see the information if I can
 get comfortable with it I have no issue but I can't say that I'm okay with signing the
 letter of intent at this moment without having that additional information Councilmember
 breaks so what would be what would be the process so that we go back and ask for that
 information and it come back to a work session again to keep it moving forward is that what
 is that what we would do I believe so is that correct mr. city manager yes I've been taking
 notes and all the questions and requirements that you'd like to see more or less after
 reach out get that prepared and get on the next meeting that when the information is
 ready to go okay all right fantastic okay all right any other questions on that agenda
 item all right then we'll move on to the next one which is agenda item 3e receiver I thought
 oh I thought I heard somebody receive a report hold discussion to give staff direction regarding
 whether Denton City Street should be allowed as a medium for messages to be placed by citizens
 upon request via the city's special events ordinance or other city ordinance and whether
 any ordinance revision should be made to regulate this activity I'm sorry mayor did we decide
 to go forward and ask the information yes I think I think we did yes yes yes yep we'll
 gather it and be back to you the next meeting when we have everything ready to go so what
 no they don't have the full screen you don't need to do we need to take it we're good technical
 break okay mayor and council this Sarah Hensley deputy city manager here there we go to share
 with you some information and get some guidance in regards to street messaging just a little
 bit of background during the August 18th meeting council meeting an individual presented an
 item about her desire to paint a message on the streets on downtown square oak street
 hickory locust and elm streets currently there are no policies or ordinances that apply to
 the similar request and none none that specifically address placing messaging on a city street
 today staff is seeking direction on whether the city streets should be allowed to have
 messaging placed by citizens or individuals and whether any ordinance revisions should
 be made to regulate this activity staff in looking and trying to respond to the request
 looked at it as a first amendment activity which requires an event that be pre-planned
 scheduled and promoted for a future date and that you must file an application seven days
 prior to the intended due event date because there's no current policy which addresses
 street messaging staff identified the most closely associated process which was under
 special events which is as you are aware in the parks recreation department and we requested
 that that individual to fill out the specific section of that application we attached that
 information along with other information on how to fill it out and how to go to actually
 the website for any further questions that they might have the sections allow staff to
 complete her request and identify any concerns in regards to traffic traffic participant
 safety any type of restrictions what we did do though however was include two stipulations
 to this individual one was that the messaging could stay on the street for 24 hours and
 two was that that person use a chalk based product or a similar product so that it could
 be removed easily or wash away after 24 hour period any messaging that needed to be applied
 on Elm and Locust Street had to requires a special use permit application with text dot
 and text dot doesn't really have a precedent for approving any product in their right of
 way except for transportation related paint so that was new for them they would have to
 approve the permit and that's through the Dallas district office as to the post as opposed
 to a local area office today and the policy discussion centers around basically whether
 or not the ordinance does that it doesn't specifically address messaging on city streets
 and we're asking that we get some type of direction in in regards to policy one should
 the use of messaging on city streets whether or not it is related to the special events
 ordinance be amended or two what restrictions or other considerations should be included
 in this update if directed by city council staff would amend the current ordinance to
 include the policy decisions that were made and will include the updated ordinance on
 an upcoming city council agenda for consideration if you do not recommend any amendments to
 the current ordinance we will inform the individual that messaging on city streets is not permitted
 in the city of Denton that concludes the presentation and um i have several staff are here including
 uh city attorney's office to answer questions okay all right questions uh and also mr city
 attorney just to verify that if something if a council member has a question that's
 more appropriate for a closed session then we do have the opportunity to call a closed
 session for this agenda item is that correct that is correct okay thank you council member
 davis then council member armature then council member melser thank you mayor i think this
 is really simple i just don't think political slogans commercial messages anything like
 that that belong on the city streets i don't think it's worth like waiting into the legal
 morass of first amendment issues you know let the kids draw on sidewalk with sidewalk
 chalk let people use sidewalk chalk in their own neighborhoods or in front of their businesses
 or whatever they want to do but using the city streets for messaging i just don't think
 there's a place for that at all whether the message is one thing or the other so um i'd
 rather just not get into it at all okay council member uh melser i think you called council
 armature oh i'm sorry council member armature yeah so i i just i wanted to confirm so uh
 there's there's nothing no special ordinance prohibiting uh chalk on public sidewalks right
 that that's something that is is just tolerated and and people get to do that is that correct
 whether it's in front of your residence on the square not that not this time not that
 we know of that there's any any ordinance that prohibits individuals from having uh doing
 chalk drawings on a sidewalk thank you and so for me you know i see this i see street
 uh sidewalk i'm sorry street chalk um uh drawing you know messaging as a kind of similar first
 amendment uh form of public art but with one uh you know difference uh meaning that there
 are kind of additional safety issues that would come up when the just when it's actually
 being done um because cars drive drive on uh so that really the the kind of the safety
 issue um it really while the chalk drawing is happening is my my only concern otherwise
 i i approve of it uh and and i'm not sure and i'll be curious to hear what others think
 you know what others who are fine with it think um you know whether or not it should
 be you know there should be a special rule about chalk drawing on streets or whether
 it should be as staff has kind of interpreted it just just a part of just one of the many
 possible ways of doing a first amendment activity because we can't we can't predict this is
 my adding to it you know we can't predict what what forms these first amendment activities
 are going to take uh nor nor should we um but as long as there's a there's a process
 and we can make sure that people are safe so anyway that's that is really my only concern
 uh but otherwise i approve okay councilmember melzer um i think if there's you know sometimes
 we have events where streets are closed off like festivals and things like that uh and
 you know i i can't imagine that that would be an issue during the period of time that
 there's an event so i think you know staff's impulse to say this is something that would
 have the duration of an event and would be you know sort of removable right after uh
 is is probably a good guess and if i can think out loud a little bit uh i see three different
 categories uh that would be outlets for somebody who wanted to do such a thing uh there's there's
 civil disobedience and when you do that there are consequences you know uh people go to
 jail for civil disobedience and and where that probably if you do something that breaks
 the law you you you're broken a lot john lewis was i think jailed something like 45 times
 in his life five or six times as a congressman so i don't think you say if something is first
 amendment therefore it's legal it may not be uh so civil disobedience civil disobedience
 you do that you accept the consequences a second kind of thing is an event request we're
 calling it a first amendment activity but uh within i think staff is very reasonable
 and what they've suggested that and and you have to understand if we're talking first
 amendment you know you're gonna have a lot of disagreeable speech uh you know it may
 be you know one thing one day and another thing another day another day but to the extent
 that people are qualified for them to have their event and they want to have chalk or
 whatever i don't see a big deal and then there's public art and that's where you would use
 durable materials like paint and public art is different than individual expression that's
 a municipal collective expression so if you know if somebody wants to go to the public
 art committee as i have done and then they do a great job of weighing in on whether this
 what's proposed is civic and uniting and enduring there's a process may involve public input
 and that's a community expression so i think those all those three avenues uh could exist
 okay councilmember briggs yeah councilmember metzer just kind of um mentioned or i you
 know uh stated my question it's more about when i saw this if you're talking about words
 and pictures is that a public art process um is that is that a way where we have a community
 board a public art board where if they wanted to hire an artist to do certain things or
 if an artist wanted to express something is that is that where that would go through that
 board and is an ordinance like this does that need to be in place for them to hear something
 like that or would it be you know a separate type of policy in relation to public art instead
 of first amendment right my other question would be because i do know that we have talked
 about painting crosswalks on the street like 3d crosswalks a design you know different
 colors as a as a an attention getter to make sure that you know people see the sidewalks
 or just as public art design um how does that fit into the conversation or is that something
 different i mean are we specifically talking about first amendment right here and if we
 or if we do not allow this policy are we prohibiting like painting crosswalks with a design and
 such and such of that i don't i don't know um specifically i know that if you're doing
 art projects uh that there is a process through the arts committee the and so there if to
 place art and to put art in different locations there's a process for that in this particular
 situation we looked at it as because there was there's not any kind of um document or
 any kind of ordinance here that has anything to do with uh someone uh putting messages
 on or putting information on a street we looked at it as first amendment which is different
 from public art okay um anybody else council member ryan mayor this this may probably our
 city attorney weigh in as to whether he feels that this is an open session question or if
 we need to go into close but um if we were to allow any of this you know the chalk type
 and someone were injured because we said they were allowed to go do this if they were hit
 by a car they didn't do proper track is does the city have any liability on those situations
 it's a question that i would prefer to answer in closed session council member ryan okay
 but i'll say once the other any other questions are answered i'd prefer to go in a closed
 session on this okay all right all right any other questions comments i uh my comments
 are i i agree with uh council member davis and and the sentiments that he's expressed
 i think the streets are for traffic markings and as far as crosswalks that are painted
 with design there's still traffic markings there's still uh things on the street that
 provide and communicate traffic type related activity so uh i certainly share those same
 sentiments uh with with council member davis so if there's not any other questions or comments
 we will uh any other questions or comments before we go into closed session all right
 and refresh my memory on the uh local government is it uh 551.0 yes it's low it's uh item d
 of the closed session we oh okay for closed session gotcha all right i forgot about that
 you bet all right okay then what we will do is we will go into closed session uh pursuant
 to texas local government code section 551.071 consultation discussion deliberations and receipt
 of information from city attorneys involving legal matters related to the use of denton
 city streets as a medium for messages we will be convening in closed session at 323 let's
 take a five minute break to allow uh the technology to catch up with uh our meeting and we'll
 we'll meet back here in five minutes welcome everybody back to this meeting of the denton
 city council on august the 25th 2020 it is 357 p.m we are on our work session item
 we're reconvening on our work session item 3e uh we had took a break to convene in closed
 session regarding agenda item 3e id 20-1680 so we will resume the deliberation on that
 item at this time colleagues questions comments
 all right uh well i think the question for staff uh staff could you repeat this here
 could you repeat those uh the options were to craft a policy to allow yes
 the if directed by city council staff will amend the current ordinance to include the
 policy decisions that were made and will include the updated ordinance for a future council
 um agenda for consideration or if you do not recommend any amendments to the current ordinance
 staff will inform the citizen that messaging excuse me on city streets is not permitted
 in the city of denton okay so i'm going to label those as option one and option two so
 um i would just ask to see who wants to give direction to pursue option one council member
 melzer well i don't know if i can you know since one or two okay uh just i'll give my
 direction to the extent that uh any group with any point of view objectionable non-objectionable
 can uh request a street closure for an event uh during the duration of a street closure
 if they want to use uh materials that uh would only last for the duration of the street closure
 and have responsibility to remove uh you know any alterations by the end of that street
 closure you know i i see no problem with uh you know something being on the street under
 those parameters uh outside of that you don't do permanent materials on our streets if you
 do on your own that's civil disobedience and there's penalties and consequences if it's
 a collective expression that goes through public art and that's not a matter of an individual
 it's a matter of community saying yes we think this is a civic united enduring message that's
 an option that's a possibility that's open that's entirely different okay all right uh
 mayor pro tem so two things mayor process question do you want to take those this kind
 of feedback individually i could see it getting very confusing for staff i mean paul's laid
 out an option there if there's any traction for it let's vet it and if not let's move
 on so that we can then uh get traction under one kind of uh approach versus uh that's that's
 my thought but i'll tell you i'm firmly in two that it's just not permitted because that's
 the control we have all right all right uh who else mayor council member armator yeah
 i think uh council member mouser's uh option is is really reasonable okay so you're uh
 supporting that okay all right council members council member davis just to reiterate what
 i said earlier i guess we're calling option two um that i just don't see city streets
 as a medium but there's that kind of messaging council member ryan i'm on option two as well
 right mayor uh i support option two as well i've expressed those sentiments before we
 broke for closed session and and we'll republish those right now so it seems like we have a
 consensus for option two which is we keep the status quo with no uh uh no markings on
 the streets save for the traffic the transportation related markings that i believe that we we've
 been talking about is that correct okay all right fantastic thank you thank you uh-huh
 all right we'll go to agenda item f which is receive report whole discussion gives id
 20-0151 receive report hold a discussion and give staff direction on pending city council
 requests for and then well i think staff is going to go over these uh three items now
 instead of four yes hello mayor and city council stuart birdseye assistant to the city manager
 i'm trying to share the correct screen maybe curtis can help me out there it goes all right
 i am here for our pending council request work session uh by way of reminder uh we will
 review up to seven requests per meeting today we have three requests that we're going to
 be reviewing uh there are four posted the incorrect uh caption for item number four
 uh was posted so we are going to fix that caption and repost it uh for council member
 armator to uh present next week um so the elected official that made the request will
 have up to one minute to describe and justify their request the remaining elected officials
 will then have up to one minute to provide feedback and indicate their support for the
 use of staff time to respond to this request uh item number one today comes from council
 member melzer it's discussing the possibility of closing the square to vehicular traffic
 on friday evenings through sunday evenings for the duration of the emergency order i
 will point out that in the friday report uh staff had an item that said that we would
 distribute a brief informal survey requesting feedback from the downtown denton community
 we did uh send out that that uh survey and we do have uh preliminary uh responses if
 uh council is interested in that so okay all right i'm interested okay uh is it if that's
 okay with you uh yeah yeah if you've got that data uh if you want to just either read it
 or pop it up on the screen and and then we'll move forward because we don't we don't want
 to turn this into a a discussion about it but just yeah if you'll just pop the data
 up absolutely um i i don't have it on the screen but i will read it we had 47 total
 responses um about the question about uh considering temporary street closures around downtown
 uh we asked the respondents would temporary street closures be beneficial to your business
 uh 27 percent said yes 46 percent said no and 12 percent uh said na so okay results
 i will take down all right we'll screen oh and i'm oh can someone uh is someone there
 able to keep time my my time uh keeper my phone is is is dead so that's what i kept
 time with so is there somebody in staff that can keep time on that i can uh do a countdown
 here on my phone and so i will turn the floor over to council member melzer my my sole interest
 in even discussing this is to see if there's uh something that we can do uh as the city
 government to help uh businesses be able to do more trade uh you know especially during
 these challenging times that's why i was attached to the order and uh if if the businesses on
 the square as a whole don't see this as an opportunity for them then you know it's nothing
 to me unless it helps them so what i would suggest is that you know as a modification
 to what i'm putting forward here uh is is to have staffed um yes can i can i deviate
 mayor well i'm i'm not i i well keep going because now i'm using your time so i don't
 think so but go i i don't think we can make amendments to your request so well just keep
 going all right let's see how it goes you know just to ask staff to explore whether
 there are successful ways that parking and sidewalk areas have been used in other cities
 uh and and to share those with that same you know dent main street association business
 community to see if there are ideas that they would like us to pursue for them uh that's
 that's all right okay um i'll let the time keeper get ready to reset and when you're
 ready just let us know we are ready uh councilmember davis thank you mayor so i'm supportive of
 a work session on this going forward i got about 100 emails i think we all did on this
 subject um a lot of folks responding to a little bit of misinformation out there about
 what our agenda item actually was today um but when i responded to people and they responded
 back to me everyone i heard back from on that second round was in favor of further conversation
 about how can we address the issue in the way that's best for all the businesses so
 what i'd like to see is a posting in the future remember this work session kind of came request
 came up after some something was outside of posting on a particular issue i'd like to
 see it posted in a way that lets us talk about safe speeds streeteries and parklets uh closures
 all of those things as a solution in total um otherwise we're just going to keep doing
 this back and forth back and forth on what exactly the solution looks like and what's
 best for everybody downtown so i'm supportive of the of the request but i'd like to see
 a broader posting so we can actually talk about all the different moving pieces okay
 all right councilmember briggs and then councilmembrometer yes thanks uh councilmember davis i i agree
 we need a full discussion about parking parking solutions um the uh where where uh disabled
 parking would be how individuals will be able to use the square and streeteries um maybe
 allowing one parking i think we just need a full discussion and not not a discussion
 of closing down the square all weekend every weekend but just uh just an open discussion
 on creative ways that we can um we can look at this councilmember oh let's let it get
 set for the timekeeper all right councilmembrometer yes uh so i i was initially open to just having
 a discussion about the uh uh closing the streets on on the closing the downtown on the weekend
 um but uh based on their responses that i've heard from people with disabilities uh people
 who use uh curbside who want to drop right uh stop right there and get something under
 covid have something brought out to their car and local business owners who aren't interested
 in it i don't want to have a conversation just on this one issue okay all right uh mayor
 pro tem yeah i just want to understand better why i think we're doing this in reverse and
 i think a conversation at this level is not what we need i think we need a some sort of
 joint meeting with main street or interest interested parties not outside parties but
 parties affected and the key point is this uh we're saying we want to help them we're
 saying we want to help the businesses downtown but actually you're using them as a test we're
 testing something with their business model with razor thin margins and so all of a sudden
 you're going to say hey let's try this out see if it works and oh by the way if you lose
 more money on that saturday we'll know it didn't work or it'll be either you'll be more
 successful but we're not hedging that test to say if your business drops off significantly
 then we'll make you whole somehow and so that's the problem is your people don't have the
 money to be a test for some project we want to explore we you have to make the people
 whole if you're going to uh try to take away or potentially take away their business okay
 all right anyone else okay so it looks like the specific request that is posted on the
 agenda um even though it was expanded during our presentation i don't think we've really
 allowed that in the past to be part of that discussion but what i think i am hearing and
 i will uh concur that i think that um we're wanting a mulligan on the discussion we had
 before because it seemed like the posting was was narrowly tailored that might have
 excluded some additional options and discussions that we can find and one being such as what
 the mayor pro tem brought up and that is you know to consider all of those so i would say
 uh what i'm hearing is a consensus not on this particular thing but um to bring back
 the the work session that we looked at before but bring it back with a broader posting so
 we can get more into the detail and the policy making discussion of uh you know all different
 types of alternatives those being some that were expressed here and then it allows us
 to talk about those that may be developed during the course of that conversation is
 that is that clear enough uh mr city attorney mr city manager okay all right okay all right
 then we will go to request number two steward you're gonna yes and again uh request number
 two is from council member davis it is using the tree fund to plant 100 or more oak trees
 in the i double o f cemetery um in the backup is information about recent plannings challenges
 opportunities and recommendations so i will take this down and turn it over to council
 member davis thank you steward i don't have much more to add to the request only that
 uh kind of on further reflection i had oakwood in there as a kind of an afterthought after
 maybe a pilot program at i double o f i think it's better to kind of proceed on both fronts
 what i'd like to do is is make a major planting in some prime city real estate and i'll point
 out that you know years and years ago uh before cities started building big central parks
 and big uh big properties cemeteries were public land you know where you'd go and you
 might have a picnic or you might uh enjoy a little bit of natural beauty as you visited
 your loved one so i think they're a good opportunity to enhance our urban forest with resources
 we already have all right okay council member melzer uh i made a similar request a couple
 of years ago uh talking about using the cemeteries for tree banking uh and i recall at that time
 that parks didn't view it as feasible uh to do with just existing graves uh but if they
 look at it again and decide it is feasible i'd certainly be interested in having a discussion
 about it all right yes council member breaks i would be interested in hearing a little
 bit more about it i would be concerned about um the tree roots um affecting the graves
 and the the tombstones and the um i i would just i would like to have more information
 about how that would be affected with all the trees and see what it would look like
 with those trees implemented on the property okay council member ameter same i feel the
 same way i support it and interested in knowing you know the pros and cons but i like the
 idea all right i believe we've got uh i believe that's for uh customer melzer were you were
 you supportive of just the discussion about it with parks coming back with uh same issue
 really i mean okay all right so i think we have four there to to bring that forward on
 a work session item uh the next one is number three let me bring that up
 and item number three today comes from council member briggs it is naming the new senior
 center in southeast denton the betty kimball senior center
 miss kimball fits into all the criteria for naming a city building after an individual
 under naming policy guidelines this request came from and has been supported by many in
 the community she's a lifelong resident community activist graduated from north texas state
 and was a member of the denton women's interracial fellowship she facilitated necessary improvements
 for southeast denton miss kimball has been committed to helping others known for volunteer
 work and was the driving force behind the establishment of the past american legion
 senior center i'm asking that we have a work session to discuss this naming and in that
 process we can gather more community input okay uh mayor pro tem let's do uh whenever
 steward just go ahead and give us the green light okay yeah so uh i i respect miss miss
 kimball uh a lot she's done great things but she doesn't stand alone in that and she'd
 be the first to tell you that i mean i live around the corner from her have a great relationship
 from her with her and i think it puts a lot of pressure on her and my sister clark who
 works with her there at the american legion and uh miss cole who who lives there i mean
 there's there's a myriad of people uh council member melzer has worked on a ton of people
 along the rail trail so my suggestion is that uh if the work session could include applying
 gary packins digital aspect uh to this property not remove an american legion hall hall name
 because that's a staple in our community but more saying hey we're gonna we're gonna list
 a myriad of people in southeast denton that have contributed and not put pressure on one
 person or create angst that sort of thing but really highlight the entire community
 and the hard work that we put forward with a new technology that allows people that are
 renting the facility to learn about our community okay all right council member armature yes
 so i love the idea of naming it after miss kimball and i too you know think that it's
 important to reach out to the community and to see i would love to know uh do people who
 especially people who use the american legion center in the community uh is this a name
 change that people who use this center support uh do they want the it to stay the same what
 do they want somebody else to be named after somebody else because whatever that you know
 people who use the center want is is what i want and i don't want to you know do anything
 that people who use it don't want so uh right now i don't know because i haven't gotten
 emails on the subject or at least haven't seen any um but i'm definitely open to it
 so if if it could be expanded a little more to a larger discussion uh i would be definitely
 all for it uh i see uh council member melser
 i certainly support uh work session on naming the new the new senior center in some form
 of fashion uh and mostly to generate options and then i very much like uh council member
 armature suggested to then take those to that uh area right there to get community input
 on it one very important point there are two betty kimbles i think there's a betty l and
 a betty r you got to make sure you get the right one
 oh okay uh council member davis so i think the sentiment is really good my only concern
 is we have a naming policy uh we we just put it into place i feel like what we ought to
 do is invite someone to fill out an application and then we would take it uh take up the issue
 as a council through the application process um you know we wouldn't necessarily have to
 decide in a work session you know or or go through voluminous emails and all that kind
 of thing and do it on the fly we have an application process and sort it out that way
 okay uh it seems like um because we need to continue to maintain the integrity of this
 process and that is what's really what we're talking about is do we want to work session
 on what's the specific request that's posted in the agenda so in applying that process
 this particular one uh didn't garner the the necessary um consensus to move forward in
 that strict narrow sense so i think council member davis had a had a good observation
 is that we that we do have a process already in place and i think it's important we continue
 to stick to those processes and it's very clear that there is an openness to the council
 for the naming of that particular facility and people can nominate individuals and and
 run through that process so we'll i think we will continue with keeping the integrity
 of this process uh it's not saying that the request is is insufficient or anything like
 that it's just we didn't get enough consensus to say specifically we're going to have a
 request or work session on that particular request but i think there was certainly enough
 discussion and interest to consider the general topic and the general question of you know
 is that we can present that with the people who follow through with the normal process
 of naming all right we'll move through okay that now i just want to confirm number four
 has been pulled that is correct we'll repost that and uh present that next week okay
 all right so that concludes our work session items in open session we will now convene
 in closed session at 421 uh our first uh well we'll convene in closed session at 421 let's
 take a about a five minute break and we'll come back and oh pursuant to excuse me texas
 government code section 551.071 we're convening in closed section pursuant to texas government
 code section 551.072 and i believe those two sections cover item 1c as well and we will
 take i believe it's item 1b first is that correct and then 1a is that is that correct
 mr is that correct yes okay all right okay all right let's reconvene in closed session
 in five minutes oh i can't do the countdown anymore welcome everybody to this meeting
 of the denton city council it is august the 25th 2020 it is 644 pm we have concluded our
 work session and closed session and so i will now convene the city council in a special
 called meeting to consider the following items we do have a quorum so i'll call this meeting
 to order our first item on the agenda is action on the consent agenda
 any actually council member ryan approval of the consent agenda except for items a and
 f all right and and we are pulling those is that correct council member ryan correct
 following her individual consideration i saw council member melser did you have your hand
 up yes i'll second okay so we have a motion and a second for the consent agenda items
 except for agenda items a which is id 20-1441 and agenda items f and uh i think i doodled
 on this work id 21572 i believe if that's correct uh so agenda item 1f so we have a
 motion and second for the consent agenda save those two items how say you council member
 ryan aye council member melzer aye council member armature yes council member riggs
 yes mayor protem all right council member davis mayor watts is an i uh the consent agenda
 items pass unanimously we will now consider agenda item uh 1a which is now an item for
 individual consideration consider id 20-1441 consider adoption of an ordinance of the city
 of denton texas approving a second amendment to an economic development agreement with
 buckies limited to clarify the term of the agreement and providing an effective date
 this was pulled but there was no staff presentation requested on this uh so we will move forward
 with the with the item do chair would entertain any mayor protem move approval all right we
 have a motion do council member ryan a second we have a motion and a second a mayor protem
 how say you all right council member ryan aye council member briggs no council member
 armature no council member melzer hey council member davis i'm sorry what was that i was
 an i with a quick mute afterward because there's a family in the background okay all right
 we got an i from council member davis uh mayor watts is an i so the motion carries four to
 three we'll move on to agenda item f id 20-1572 consider adoption of an ordinance of the city
 of denton a texas home real municipal corporation authorizing the city manager to execute a
 contract with aileron international ink for section a n95 masks for various city departments
 etc did we have a president i don't think we had a presentation on this council member
 armature i think you had a couple of comments is that correct yes yes so so i want and i
 had mentioned this at the work session um this involves uh a request for surgical masks
 and a request for a non-disposable cloth masks so i wanted uh to remove the i wanted to move
 to uh remove the cloth mask component from this item uh and uh to have a separate rfp
 for that okay okay mr city attorney are we able to do that with this posting or would
 that the whole thing have to be brought back with that division made at that time because
 i understand this was a a bid a corporate bid or the amounts i don't know if in the
 staff if we've separated them out in this 125 is just an aggregate amount of three distinct
 prices and i don't mr city manager do you know how that or i'm sorry mr city attorney
 go ahead i was gonna say if it was brought as one or made one bid for all three items
 and one one vendor one to be to take this out from the other two when every other vendor
 including this one voted or bid on all three items you're going to get a bid protest so
 if you're going to exclude one you might as well throw out all bids and start over again
 okay all right if it came that way okay is that how it came to council mr city manager
 uh this is christine taylor from procurement appliance so the item for mask was actually
 two items and sections were awarded so one of the items that just passed on consent was
 a section that had gone in the original bid this item bringing forward is to for different
 sections that went out in the bid so the cloth mask the disposable surgical mask and the
 disposable in 95s all being awarded to one vendor okay so this is coming as one award
 so if that's the case then mr city attorney what i heard you understood you to say is
 if that's the case if we wanted to split them out then we would have to somehow i don't
 know if the procedure is just to vote no on this and then you'd come back with a rebid
 is that is that correct that would be it it would be known into directing that the entire
 process be rebid and separated according to what you um you all want to see okay all right
 councilmember armature yeah and so um so i'll explain why i would i would like to go ahead
 and do that um we have uh some local cloth mask uh makers businesses who are struggling
 now um and even though the bidding was open to local makers as i understand it because
 there was a requirement which is fairly standard that uh wouldn't be in the business of having
 done uh something like this for the past three years uh local bidders were were ended up
 being excluded so you know for that reason i would like to i'm going to be voting no
 to this and i hope that my my colleagues will consider voting no so that uh there could
 be a new bid done uh that would remove that that three-year requirement um and and that
 that only that only apply and be removed for the cloth uh reusable mask not for the surgical
 one the surgical one i would like to go forward and separate i'm just explaining why even
 though we're not voting on that that is that is my reason for voting i understand uh councilmember
 briggs so is there a um if it were to fail and then go back out for bid um how long would
 that take and would that leave um individuals without ppe and protection uh which is a concern
 of mine and also the bid is for 500 mask would it be possible just to do um if 500 isn't
 enough just do another rfp for more um individual cloth mask by themselves the the bid actually
 went out we opened up this bid in june and it ran so it ran for a couple weeks and closed
 at the end of june so it will probably take us about another uh two to three months to
 put it back out and perform the evaluation so doing that does prevent the two other awards
 the public safety mask from getting um from us being able to proceed with ordering those
 for public safety okay well councilmember breaks yeah so i'm i'm not comfortable leaving
 them without protection um but i would like to see if the city does need more mask um
 if they could do the cloth one separately to allow a local vendor to to do that with
 with another order okay all right uh do we have a action on this councilmember melzer
 it wasn't a pretty big motion yet just a question uh i forgot what the question was what was
 the purpose of the requirement that they be that they have have to have been doing this
 for three years and is that typical in our contracts that's standard for any procurement
 that we put out that's the minimum specifications the three years um so that we can check references
 of cities aside to ensure when we're entering into long-term contracts that they can continue
 to provide the product yeah well i i will move i understand uh uh the points that councilmember
 armaturas raised and i think they're well considered but on balance i still want to
 move forward and okay and i take councilmember breaks suggestion that maybe there's something
 different we can do in the future maybe not but i'll move approval of this as it's stated
 okay councilmember davis i'm going to second the motion and just point out that we have
 a procurement process because we don't get to pick and choose i know everyone's intentions
 here are the best but we we pick firms based on uh level playing field criteria not because
 they're folks that we want to help out around town okay all right councilmember ryan yeah
 i did have a question on the the total numbers because it's when you look at the bid sheet
 uh the the winning bid is a total of seven thousand three thirty-five and this is a five-year
 contract and says it's four hundred and twenty-five thousand so is this like a anticipated quarterly
 amount or you know how often are do we think we're going to be going out for these mass
 on the bid the bid estimates were indicated quantities based on an annual amount so those
 are just estimates we don't have to order all of that it's on an ad need basis so when
 we spoke with departments we don't know how many we would need so those are just estimates
 based on an annual with a projected dollar amount tied to them okay thank you all right
 just member riggs did you have your hand up i did i just wanted to confirm that since
 that there was a three year that the this company that we're um approving has been making
 the cloth mask for three years or just has been in business for three years or is it
 every single product for three years is that the requirement they have to demonstrate i'm
 sorry i'm going up to my nose um so for the three years respondents must meet the minimum
 specification that they have experience providing the product or a similar product or service
 okay okay okay councilmember armater yes uh so anyway thank you to staff for clarifying
 on the time i had not uh realized when i had asked about this um in advance of the email
 and also at the work session i didn't realize that it would be another two to three months
 to put out the whole uh bid again so of course so i would not want anyone uh you know to
 be without the surgical uh masks during that time so apologies for the misunderstanding
 but i'm glad we're having this conversation so i will be voting yes then to this um but
 i i will say that as far as you know in the future if we need to do a future bid um i
 would encourage us to do away with with that three-year requirement for cloth masks and
 i wanted to mention that i'm not uh thinking that we award it to any one particular business
 i have in mind it's just i happen to know you know that there is at least one but i
 want it to be just a fair and open process open to all bidders but just not excluding
 uh local local bidders who we know are struggling i want to make sure that they can be at the
 table so thank you so much all right thank you uh council member melzer has say you on
 this ordinance to approve agenda item f aye council member davis aye council member ryan
 aye council member briggs yes mayor protem aye council member armater yes uh mayor watts
 is an i the motion carries seven zero we will now move to items for individual consideration
 and i believe we have uh one speaker on this particular one that we will take after a staff
 presentation agenda item 2a is uh yeah i'm sorry we don't have a speaker on this one
 it's the next one my mistake i apologize uh 2a is considered the second of two readings
 and consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of denton texas annexing approximately
 140.607 acres of land generally located on both sides of vintage boulevard
 and mr city attorney there's no formal action on this or is there on the second reading
 yes you're after the second reading there will be an adoption yes all right thank you
 good evening mayor council richard canoni development services department
 um the item in front of you tonight is the second of two readings of an ordinance annexing
 approximately 141 acres of land this property is located on the west side of fort worth drive
 and is on either side of vintage
 just the to go back over the land use and zoning on the sorry the the land use on the property
 the current property has a land use designation on the north on the north parcel is low residential
 and on the southern half it is rural areas there is not zoning assigned because this is currently
 in the etj but but a zoning case will come back in front of in front of you in the near future
 assuming the annexation is approved just a little bit of background on this property it was part of
 donut hole four there was a non-annexation agreement for this property but that has since
 been terminated if you will once the voluntary annexation was applied for the applicant intends
 to develop the property with 110 residential lots the gas well will be will be capped and plugged
 and the remaining track the eastern track the 97 acres will remain open space most of that
 is within the floodplain and just kind of a recap of the schedule on july 21st we approved the
 ordinance for the municipal services agreement held the public hearing and first reading of the
 annexation ordinance and then tonight is the second second reading and adoption of the of that
 ordinance and i'll just go ahead and read the read the title and the record in ordinance of the city
 of denton texas annexing approximately 140.607 acres of land generally located on both sides of
 vintage boulevard and west of fort worth drive to the city of denton denton county texas providing
 for a correction to the city map to include the annex land and providing for a savings clause and
 an effective and an effective date with that i'll be happy to answer any questions if you could pull
 the slide down that'd be thank you quick question i have on the plat figure richard the graphic it
 shows homes platted it looks like on the gas well current gas well pad site that's what was
 being anticipated but the the actual wellhead the would not be within a residential lot or a or a
 city right of ways kind of where where we are hiding that towards it would be in an hoa lot okay
 so that well is scheduled to be plugged and then that plugged well would be in some type of open
 space that the hoa would own correct okay all right any other questions all right this is an
 action item chair would consider action on this item councilmember armater sorry this is a question
 so just to confirm that this is a voluntary annexation correct that is correct
 okay councilmember ryan with approval all right do we have a second councilmember davis second
 all right we have a motion and a second for agenda item 2a which is a 20-002c
 councilmember ryan house au aye councilmember davis aye councilmember melzer aye councilmember
 riggs yes councilmember armater yes mayor protem aye mayor watts is an i so the motion carries
 seven to zero we'll move to agenda item 2b which is aes a 20-000 consider motion to reconsider the
 18 august 18 2020 postponement of regular agenda item 6c regarding the alternate environmental
 sensitive area we do have a speaker and are we going to have a presentation on this
 no sir we're here to answer any questions okay what i would like to do is take the speaker first
 before we move into the discussion of the motion to reconsider if that's uh if that's if if that's
 appropriate uh mr city attorney is that we can do that yes sir all right then we will go ahead and
 get the caller on the line
 and if staff uh could if somebody's got a timer because mine if we could have somebody keep time
 that'd be great i think we've got someone in here that'll keep time okay yeah
 all right so we're uh we're just waiting on the caller
 if if the caller isn't he's coming okay
 okay yeah this is randy sorrels am i in the yes yes you are uh mr sorrels welcome to this meeting
 of the denton city council uh you are in the public comment point the comment portion of
 agenda item 2b which is a reconsideration of an alternative environmental sensitive area
 uh vote that we took i think is last week so you once you state your name and address you will have
 four minutes uh to speak okay my name is randy sorrels and i live at 3501 rose lawn drive here
 in denton and i have some concerns with the development that's going over on razor property
 across from me uh south of willow wood and then north of rose lawn several of the items of course
 you know the oak trees that they're going to just push down they're supposed to be protected
 it's one of the issues but the biggest issue that i have is all the water that runs from that area
 over there not all of it but most of it comes across rose lawn and right onto my property
 and on hard rains we have a little bit of flooding goes on down here it's washed a lot of the there's
 a little creek it that runs through here and it's just eroded some of it that years ago we could walk
 across there now it's just dangerous it's eroded so much ground and i'm afraid when they build and
 put all this concrete and do all this stuff all that water runs over here it's just going to flood
 us over here and just make it you know dangerous the other issue or situation that i am concerned
 with is that rose lawn drive years ago the city came to me i haven't my old office was at 2408
 which was right next to fort worth drive gng tractor was there and then me they came to me
 and wanted them to me to give them a piece of land to put a they were going to put a cul-de-sac
 out there and close off rose lawn drive and pave me a private drive up to my office
 because rose lawn at that time and i don't know how it could have changed wasn't a legal wasn't
 wide enough to be a legal street according to the state of texas so if nothing's changed
 and then they build this giant housing development let people drive all over here i don't understand
 how we can let people come drive down the street that's not really wide enough to be a legal street
 and just put a bunch of more people on it but that's just a concern i need to find out who i
 need to talk to at the city i'd love to visit with the engineer or whoever is over this project
 to see about the water flow traffic flow and i'm curious to see if they're going to let footwork
 drive and rose line meet if the state wasn't going to do it 12 or 14 years ago how they're
 going to let them do it today so anyway that's a couple of my concerns the water being number one
 it's just a little scary on a real hard rain i can't imagine
 if all of the trees and shrubs and dirt's gone over there and it's all concrete it's
 just going to run over here like crazy okay mr sorrels i have a question for you this is mayor
 watts do you do you mind if we pass your contact information on i think we had to call you back to
 get in do you mind if we pass that on to the appropriate staff that maybe could answer some
 of your questions now or as this property develops because i know there there'll still be some
 engineering plans and things such as that is that okay for us to do that that would be super i would
 really be happy with that i'm mayor watts thank you appreciate it uh and if we staff can make a
 note of that and we do we have any more questions for the uh for the caller
 okay mr sorrels thank you so much for calling in i appreciate it all right good luck on your
 meeting tonight thank you all right we don't have a uh a presentation but i do have one question
 for staff as we oh go ahead councilmember davis you can go ahead and ask your question i didn't
 want to cut you off okay sure uh and this is to maybe give us some information on the motion to
 reconsider if we're going to you know how we want to decide on that this is uh we are at the
 preliminary stage of this development so there's still engineering plans there's still platting
 plans there's still engineering studies that will have to be done to conform with the city of denton's
 development process regarding water flow things such as that is that correct that that is correct
 this is a a four foot the platter plat was approved with four phases and so the first phase is they're
 starting to the north north and west um the large piece on on rose lawn where the um upland habitat
 area is that is phase four that is the the last phase of the proposed development but the water
 from the from the previous phases one two and three is that not being directly i think that's
 part of what we're reconsidering here is is the isa which provides uh the water moving through
 that channel either through a couple of various options that we had looked at last time uh but
 so there still will be water uh moving in that channel was was has the engineering and water
 study engineering study been done that determines you know the downstream impact of the water flow on
 from the development i believe they have done a downstream assessment i would need to confirm
 that but i know they are in the um they're in the in that stage now between preliminary and final
 okay complete those construction engineering plans sure well then in in that case if i think
 it's even more imperative that we pass uh mr sorrell's number along so that you know he can
 begin to have those conversations with your staff and maybe with engineering to help him understand
 uh maybe there's going to be less of an impact because of some improvements they might have to do
 upstream thank you so thank you councilmember davis for your patience go ahead thank you sir at
 this time i move to reconsider our august 18th 2020 postponement of regular agenda item uh 6c
 just as it's captioned here on our agenda okay we have a motion uh now mr city attorney refresh my
 memory the only one that can make the motion to reconsider is one who was part of the prevailing
 vote but as anyone can second that is that correct that is correct all right do we have a second on
 that on the motion for reconsideration councilmember ryan i'll second all right so we have a motion to
 reconsider agenda item to be uh councilmember davis how say you on that motion aye councilmember
 ryan how say you aye mayor protem aye councilmember melzer aye councilmember briggs yes councilmember
 armater yes mayor watts is a i so the motion to reconsider passes seven to zero we'll move on to
 agenda item 2c which is id 20-1918 or is that right i've doodled here is that right okay consider
 adoption of an ordinance of the city of denton texas a home rural municipal corporation approving
 a bill of sale uh an assumption agreement with denton power llc yes and that is id 20 159 oh no
 this is c id 20 where are we have i got the wrong agenda oh this one right here okay id 20-1418
 okay
 good evening council mayor council terry nalty assistant general manager dme i come to you this
 this evening to discuss the ordinance to purchase the denton landfill generation facility
 currently gas landfill gas is collected off the landfill and combusted in a facility
 at the landfill that facility is a 1.6 megawatt facility it's owned by denton power llc a
 texas subsidiary of dte biomass energy the facility began operation in 2009 we have been
 there is a 15-year contract uh that contract is terminating uh in march of 2024 and uh
 under the terms of the contract uh the solid waste department receives a 12.5 percent uh
 revenue royalty payment from sales of power from the facility those sales of power are under a
 power purchase agreement with dme uh the price of the energy is an escalating fixed price beginning
 in the first year of the contract and ending at 112 dollars and 84 cents per megawatt hour in the
 last year of the contract and uh while this is renewable energy it represents less than
 one percent of our renewable energy supply the economics of the landfill purchase the landfill
 generation are not favorable to rate payers as you can see the contract is way above market
 and is the highest cost of any of our resources in the supply portfolio at between 96 and 112
 dollars for the remaining term of the contract
 we are proposing to purchase the facility for 2.75 million uh that purchase price
 would offset a future value i'm sorry a present value cumulative payments of staying in a contract
 of 5.35 million and represents about a 2.5 million dollar savings for customers
 the only way to achieve the savings is to purchase the assets and take assignment of the
 agreements that the assets have
 so when we purchase uh if you approve the purchase of this facility we will um achieve a 2.6 million
 dollar npv savings for rate payers that does assume the shutdown of the equipment
 and the flaring of the landfill gas um as i mentioned the future payments are 5.35 million
 on a net present value basis and uh we could purchase the same energy for 1.53 million if
 we bought it in the market our 100 renewable goal has been achieved uh we're anticipating in
 in the next fiscal year we'll be at 100 renewable uh the elimination of this facility would not
 affect our ability to meet that metric and to the extent that we decided to continue to operate the
 facility um we would have to invest some some capital dollars as as the facility is and nearing
 end of life and we would reduce our savings to customers by about half and reduce to about the
 1.3 million so the the beneficial use reuse of landfill gas is is um limited to the hours
 of operation of the facility and as i mentioned the facility is nearing its end of life and the
 availability is is is decreasing each year uh any any waste gas that is not combusted
 in the in the uh engines is flared at times during the year the landfill produces more
 gas than can be processed by the facility and that excess gas is combusted in the flare
 solid waste department is and has an in hand a engineering study of alternative beneficial
 use options which will be brought to the council in the next month uh including the business
 cases for each of the options that are under consideration
 from an environmental perspective uh the bypassing of the generation facility will result
 in lower emissions uh it's actually better for the environment to flare the gas and to
 run it through the machine and i do have some uh slides i can show you the data on that
 with that we seek your approval and i would be glad to answer any questions
 if we could pull the screen down that'd be great
 any questions
 council council member briggs
 can you um can you let us know uh the amount of flaring that happens now versus the amount
 of flaring that will happen when it shuts down i don't have the exact numbers but my understanding
 is about between 20 and 35 percent of the gas is flared that's produced today um obviously
 if we shut the facility down it would be 100 well do you know i guess what i'm asking is
 would it be flaring all day all long all day long through the the business hours
 i do not know the answer to that question okay miss briggs this is brian burner uh director
 of solid waste currently the flare because we do have excess gas does operate on a 24/7
 basis uh so the the flare will continue to operate uh at that time
 just just for longer periods of time no same same amount of time uh but it will have more
 throughput uh uh going through the flare so as mr nolte said currently we're we're flaring about
 30 percent of the gas that we produce uh we would have the additional 70 percent that is currently
 going to the uh engine will then be flared and this is not uncommon because when we have to take
 down the the engine uh for maintenance repair uh upkeep things of that nature that gas is currently
 flared through the through the flare uh at this time also so it will just be 100 percent of the
 time as opposed to just during maintenance procedures okay council member riggs mr nolte did
 you did you say that uh solid waste would be coming back with some ideas uh so that maybe this
 resource will not be completely wasted yes ma'am uh we have the engineering study
 we are working on the business case to bring to council with recommendations on alternate
 beneficial reuse options okay thank you all right any other questions
 chair would entertain a motion on this item mayor pro tem move approval
 do i have a second council member ryan a second all right we have a motion and a second for agenda
 item 2c how say you mayor pro tem all right all right how say you council member ryan aye
 council member davis aye council member melser
 aye council member briggs yes council member ometer yes
 mayor watts is an aye so the motion carries seven zero takes us to our next item on the
 agenda 2d id 20-1597 consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of denton a texas home
 rule municipal corporation extending the effective period of the declared state of local disaster
 to september the 30th 2020 mayor city council sara keichler chief of staff i've presented
 this afternoon at the work session in regards to this item that would propose to extend the
 disaster declaration and the current order of council through september 30th for additional
 month the other change to the order would be increasing the expenditure authority and so those
 are the two changes as proposed by staff i'm happy to do any further presentation if you wish
 or if you have any questions for staff to address okay any questions for staff
 okay chair would entertain a motion on this item council member davis
 move approval council member melzer i want to point out that what you heard in work session that
 the lion's share of the additional expenditures are reimbursable to the city and i second all right
 council member davis i'll say you on oh council member briggs yeah i just wanted to say that i'm
 not going to be voting for this order um because of the utility shutoffs that weren't included
 i just can't find myself to vote yes when i know that there's individuals starting tomorrow that
 may be uh needing help so okay council member melzer
 yeah i'd like to take this opportunity to say to anybody who themselves uh feels that they may be
 in arrears on utilities or if you know someone who is the the only thing you need to do is to call
 there there are resources available right now it'll connect you directly uh with
 through interfaith ministries or through united way with federal money that's available uh and
 and the whole point if you are shut off is only to get you to call so call right away you'll be
 reconnected as quickly as possible and arrangements will be made and uh yeah that's it thank you uh
 councilmember armater yeah i just want to add that i too can in good conscience vote uh yes to this
 although i'm glad we're extending the emergency declaration um i i i am just i'm just disappointed
 that we're not going to be extending it until the beginning of at least the first week of the
 connected learning period for our local schools so that's why i'll be voting no as well okay
 all right so we have a a motion a second now just to clarify with mr city attorney if this
 uh action item fails then basically we're still under the current order which will expire
 at the end of this month and then that we won't be under any orders except the governor's orders is
 that correct that is correct and the the only difference in this order is an is an increase
 in the city manager's spending approval which was how much um i'm going to rely on sarah for that
 it is increasing the total expenditure authority to two million uh and fifty thousand dollars and
 that's an increase of nine hundred thousand is that right that's correct and if this and if
 this motion fails that can still be brought back under another uh either budget amendment or
 something to that effect is that correct uh mr city attorney or mr uh city manager
 okay all right yes okay all right thank you all right so uh we'll go ahead and pull the council
 uh council member davis i'm sorry council member melzer you who made the motion
 council member davis okay uh council member davis i'll say you on this
 council member melzer aye council member hudspeth aye council member ryan
 nay council member briggs no council member armatyr
 um i'm i'm going to turn back on and vote yes because um i'm i'm afraid uh that this might get
 an another uh no vote and not not pass so i i will vote yes but i'm still really disappointed
 about the uh utilities shutoffs okay um uh mayor watts is a is a no and so i believe the motion
 carries four to three if my math is correct is that right i believe so okay all right we'll move
 on to agenda item 2e consider nominations appointments to the city boards commissions
 and committees committees on persons with disabilities
 um mayor yes yeah i believe we're waiting on a staff presentation i was just going to motion to
 approve okay all right uh we've all read our backup so that's that's great we have a motion
 to approve do i have a second council member armature second all right we'll uh pull the
 council council member briggs i'll say you for this agenda item yes council member armatyr
 yes council member melzer
 aye council member davis
 council member ryan aye mayor protem aye mayor watts is an aye motion carries seven to zero
 we'll now move on to our last item on the agenda concluding items i'm going to go ahead and start
 out with this one because we've got a a certificate that was delivered to us that i want to read
 uh and i'll just sort of show it up here on the camera right quick
 this is a certificate of appreciation presented to the denton city council
 in gratitude and appreciation for your leadership dedication and service to the citizens of the city
 of denton and thank you for your service and this is uh awarded to us by the denton odd fellow lodge
 number 82 and i want to thank them so much for that and all that they do for our community so
 thank you any other concluding items council member briggs i just want to wish everyone who
 has to do the connected learning tomorrow good luck i know we've already started off with a few
 issues today in in our home so um just uh good luck and have a great school year okay thank you
 anyone else concluding items seeing none we will then now adjourn this meeting of
 the denton city council at 7 28

        
Back to Meeting