Oct 06, 2020 City Council on 2020-10-06 3:00 PM

October 06, 2020 City Council
Full Transcript

28496 words Download SRT Download VTT
             Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of this Denton City Council and so after we
 do have a quorum and so we'll convene in work session on today Tuesday October 6th 3 p.m.
 in the virtual City Council work session room City Hall 215 East McKinney, Denton, Texas
 and the following items will be considered and then we do that'll take us to callers
 from the calls from the public on this work session agenda and we have one so finally
 we have one who is requested to speak over the phone on this item staff currently loading up
 phone lines which is already there will allow them to speak for four minutes and first up is
 Jacob Moses and we'll let him get on the line
 Jacob are you there
 Jacob are you there
 Jacob
 okay it's like we like we lost him let me see if we can get him back okay
 and for the record he's calling to speak on item number 4E20-1454
 okay
 should we move on with council questions and then come back to that thank you so that'll we'll
 save a placeholder for item one if Jacob comes back on the line and move to item two request
 clarification on the agenda items listed on this agenda any questions for staff
 Jacob are you on the line
 oh okay yes uh council member Briggs I am going to need to pull beat
 D and M for uh just a separate vote and uh recuse and then I do have a question about the uh tennis
 court um it's item aj on consent it's 62,500 and I'm just asking is that just for the design
 and do we know how much the the total cost for the um tennis courts will be and is that is that a
 typical amount and is that not something we could do in house just for the design part of it
 if Scott Gray and I think Gary may also be on the line
 uh good afternoon council Scott Gray director of facilities um this item is for um the design
 work for the tennis courts and the lighting including um subsurface work survey um as well
 as um some material testing um this is uh basically architectural services
 and we do not have that uh the um expertise to do that in house
 the other question was regarding the total cost the uh the design team will actually come up with
 the engineer's estimate um as we put this out to bid I believe right now it's it's um budgeted for
 about 350,000 okay thank you I just I knew that we have a tennis center coming up and I wasn't
 sure if we were gonna have to do another design for every tennis court so but thank you yes this
 would be the one over at the south lakes facility the north lakes facilities already um under design
 thank you okay thank you and okay and then councilman Ryan did you have
 got to unmute there sorry thought I thank you thought I'd hit it uh I need to pull
 item i for individual vote uh and I'll be recusing on that item thank you sir
 okay any other questions on the agenda
 councilman barmiter
 uh yes I had a question about uh G about the united way the barriers fund and then a question
 about a I wrote down a D but I think it might be a C about uh the audit yeah it's a D
 so should I do G first whoever's ready to take that question yeah Danny's just sitting down
 okay so I was just wondering um if you could just update uh just us on the public on you know has
 has uh anything changed regarding the definition of the the barriers fund it's it's uh limitations
 no the guidelines have not been altered on the barriers fund they still exist as they are
 and they're working in conjunction with the CRF funding through the united way as well
 okay thank you uh and then for for AD
 my question was just uh if if you could just kind of summarize in a nutshell what you see
 as the changes to the auditing policy you know just in a sentence or two not so much auditing
 plan but auditing policy is included in this the council member request um policy that's what you
 mean yes yeah I just um some of the questions that y'all brought up during our work session
 I just wanted to clarify them so um a little the clarify that um not uh an audit idea that
 didn't get consensus that doesn't mean it can't come back on the audit plan we clarified that in
 a footnote um and also just clarifying the steps and that if it did not get consensus there would
 be no further steps that was one thing um I believe that was basically it um so okay thank you and if
 if council want and this might be a question more for the city manager than for you I'm not sure
 but um if if council you know in the future decided to tweak that uh the the that policy
 that's something that could happen at any time during the year right just with the
 consents of council to change the consensus of council um to change the policy this is not a once
 a year that's correct for all of your council appointees you can change the policy or work
 plans anytime you like as a group okay so thank you very much thank you okay any other questions
 okay I don't see any so that'll take us to the work session reports section three so I'll call
 the first item item a id 21531 receive report hold discussion and give staff direction regarding
 options related to the management of landfill gas generated landfill gas generated at the city of
 dentin landfill good afternoon mr mayor pro tem members of council brian burner director of solid
 waste for the city of dentin I do appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about landfill
 gas and our options to manage that material as we move forward let me show my screen please
 all right my objective today is talk a little bit about landfill gas
 discuss the regulatory environment that we operate within describe what we're currently
 doing with our landfill gas at the at the city of dentin landfill and then look at our operation
 or evaluate the options as we go forward based on cost and the revenue emissions and then the
 timing to implement a solution before we get started uh do need uh feel the need to do a little
 language opportunity to talk a little bit about what some of the the technical pieces we're going
 to talk about first of all we talk about landfill gas we're talking about that byproduct of
 decomposition of the organic material in the landfill so anything that that comes into the
 landfill whether it be garbage whether it be wood waste whether it be paper anything that comes goes
 into your trash can and ends up in the landfill it can decompose that ultimately becomes landfill
 gas at some point in the process renewable renewable natural gas again is that natural
 gas that's derived from that organic waste material so within landfill gas you have renewable
 natural gas and you'll have other gases what we call balanced gases or natural gases
 that make up part of that renewable natural gas or make up the landfill gas now by epa standards
 renewable natural gas or that biogen gas is as it's sometimes called it's not a fossil fuel it does
 not come from a a drilling site it does not come from a fracking operation it is due to the
 decomposition of organic material we talk about non-methane volatile organic chemicals again it's
 that variety of chemicals different organic chemicals other than methane which may be within
 the landfill gas the next two are related what we call rins and wrecks dealing with the with dme i
 think you're you're familiar with what a wreck is it's a renewable energy credit and basically it's a
 it's a it's it's a trading option that allows you some benefit as a result of the energy generated
 as a result of using a clean energy source rins are almost identical except it's related to fuel
 not energy within landfill gas you have the opportunity to also when you go out on the open
 market is to get rins and wrecks to help subsidize the operations that you have so when we talk about
 what landfill gas is it's again subject to the decomposition of the organic material in the
 landfill so we have a landfill that has a series of wells that's drilled into the waste mass that
 under vacuum actually pulls up the natural gas in the system at that point we go into processing
 which again you've got your vacuum unit you may burn it off as a flare or like we have been doing
 over the past few few years actually running it through a genset and then throwing that energy
 out onto the open market where it's used by city of dentin residents other options which may exist
 for use of our landfill gas is actually treating it to a very high quality or high btu
 develop option and actually putting it into a local pipeline where it's turned into pipeline
 grade quality gas that can be used in your home to heat to cook to do whatever you would use natural
 gas for to use it for vehicle fuel or we can use do what's called medium btu build a separate pipeline
 to a local industrial source and they can use the heat off burning it to help fund or fuel their
 industrial source we look at the composition of landfill gas approximately 50 is actually methane
 about 40 has is co or excuse me co2 carbon dioxide we have a little bit of oxygen and the remainder
 in the form of carbon monoxide nitrogen and other organic gases is what we call the balance gas so
 again that makes up the the remainder of the composition of the landfill gas as i stated
 earlier landfill gas is a very highly regulated entity and component of the landfill operation
 not only is it managed by state law but and and under our landfill permit but the epa was called
 the new source performance standard or the nsps actually requires us to sample and test methane
 and report these emissions every five years if we are successful in getting our expand landfill
 expansion permit then we'll be actually kicked up into a higher level of compliance as a result of
 the nsp standard so again should that happen there will be additional sampling and testing that that
 occurs our processing facility the landfill gas to energy facility currently operates under a
 registration through the tceq as well as our flare has a also has a permit by rule or operates under
 a permit by rule at the landfill so how is our landfill gas currently managed currently we have
 about 110 wells installed at the city of denton landfill about a month ago dme bought the assets
 of dte and currently owns and operates a landfill gas to energy facility at the site it consists
 of a 1.6 megawatt generator which again is ending the near of its it's it's it's it's approaching
 its end of life from the the engine and the generator standpoint we also have a candlestick
 flare on site to manage the excess gas and to back up the engine when it is down about this flare it
 is currently sized to manage to be large enough to manage all of the gas that would be generated at
 the facility at the time that the landfill closes down when it's completely full so again we have
 adequate capacity in the existing flare to continue to operate that without any upgrades
 currently solid waste recycling receives annual rent revenue share of about 145 000 dollars
 again the power that's generated at this facility is used by dentin residents in their homes
 currently the city of dentin landfill generates approximately 359 000 thousand cubic feet of
 landfill gas per year so 39 or 360 million cubic feet of landfill gas per year the thousand thousand
 is an engineering term we keep that in here because when you're doing emissions calculations
 as well as greenhouse gas that's the the units that they try to put things into so when we talk
 about thousand thousand we're actually talking about millions so 360 million cubic feet of
 landfill gas is generated per year in the 218 landfill gas excuse me 2018 landfill gas emission
 report we noted that the generation of landfill gas in the landfill in the waste mast itself
 actually increased approximately seven percent we anticipate this is due to increased waste acceptance
 prior to that 208 2018 year due to city and regional growth regional waste transport dynamics
 with the closure or the imminent closure of dfw landfill in louisville we're seeing a lot of
 deferring waste haulers and again these are the mom and pops the landscapers small business owners
 actually coming to city of dentin as opposed to using that the louisville landfill again this gas
 stays in place until it's extracted from the facility so again by putting those wells in we
 actually increase our capture rate and that's the next bullet here so because of the the additional
 wells that we've put in in early 2020 our emission rate has actually increased by 31 so again we're
 able to capture what we're being generated we're capturing more and as a result these emissions
 are being destroyed via the flare and the beneficial reuse i would like to note that again the city of
 dentin is compliant with its landfill permit uh landfill gas management requirements under its
 permit about four months ago we were looking at at a timeline recognizing that about three years
 with our contract with dte we knew that we would be up for an opportunity to either re-bid that
 contract or go a different way with our our landfill gas and as a result we actually hired
 scs engineers to evaluate options recognizing that it'll take approximately three years
 if we decide to go with a different option other than flaring our landfill gas to energy to
 go through construction and permitting so we wanted uh we hired scs to actually come in and
 do a beneficial landfill gas use assessment on our facility they were scoped with reviewing the
 project and estimating what the landfill generation would be gas generation will be for the next 20
 years and actually look at the economic and technical screening of the alternatives you know
 could we use electric generation medium btu high btu what would be the best solution for the city
 of dentin based on their their review of the information that was available they concluded
 that there was significant or sufficient landfill gas to support a beneficial reuse option and right
 now really only flaring and high btu are financially viable so net positive as as part of the of the
 capital plan the we heard the return on investment for high btu really is driven by the sale of
 landfill gas at natural gas prices and the viability of the ability to uh uh sell rins and
 green energy rins and wrecks on the open market when we do talk about the different options again
 flaring uh is again the the where we collect the the landfill gas and destroy it via burning
 at our candlestick flare it is the lowest cost lowest risk option that we have and under this
 we will always have the need to maintain and operate a flare if other uh maintenance options
 are are down then we've got to manage the gas somehow so the flare manages that excess gas
 or the gas that uh uh that we are not using uh currently we have that landfill gas to energy
 facility that's up and running uh we talked about medium btu but again because there is no local
 industry that would use this gas and we would have to build a pipeline uh it really is an option at
 this point for us to consider any further again from a high btu standpoint we're scrubbing that
 gas to an 99.94 methane or better consistency in the gas injecting it into a local natural gas
 transportation and distribution where it's uh beneficially reused in homes and industry for
 cooking heating purposes vehicle fuel and again the the flare will be needed from from a bypass
 standpoint uh this is a really good graph which sort of puts cost and environmental or cost control
 and environmental impact on the on the same uh axes uh when we look at cost control uh so the
 net cost uh to residents and rate payers in the city of denton uh the y-axis uh towards the bottom
 is the lowest cost towards uh the the highest is would be the highest cost looking along the x-axis
 from an environmental impact the environment the the the opportunity with the highest potential
 environmental impact is closest to the is to the left those with the lowest environmental impacts
 are identified to the right we can see that right now even with energy generation it's costing
 rate payers the most and as a result of the emissions calculations has has is the highest
 emitter uh from an operation standpoint we look at our flare and our high btu it actually uh goes
 to a lower net cost of control and really better environmental impact as we're looking here and
 again the high btu facility while it has a high upfront cost about 23 24 million dollars
 over the life and and the payback selling the gas on the open market we recover all that plus
 gain additional revenues for the rate payers as we go as we move forward we talk about relative
 emissions of our uh benefit of the beneficial reuse options again our flare and and uh flare
 emissions and again this is based on the 360 million cubic feet of landfill gas that we actually
 generated in 2018 we were able to the emissions from the flare were 45 tons with nitrogen
 dioxide at eight and then the non-methane volatile organic chemicals at a tenth of a ton
 when you compare those with what the what was running the engine again it was 69 tons 14 tons
 and 0.85 tons so again the running the engine uh off of this uh during this time period was
 actually more polluting than running would have been running the flare alone if we were to convert
 this to high btu landfill gas and put that into a pipeline the emissions significantly are reduced
 within the city of denton now again this is just the processing emissions this does not account for
 the emissions of the of the end use so if you're going to be burning this in a vehicle it's fuel
 again using it to cook or heat water at your house those emissions are not calculated or
 understood in this this estimation again talking about flare operations again federal and state
 law requires to maintain a flare to manage that excess gas that's not utilized by the
 control technology in that as we move forward in the uh in the the cost calculations we did not
 put in the flare operation and maintenance cost because again it is a required cost
 regardless of which opportunity we decided to go forward with and as a reminder the current flare
 is sufficient to manage the landfill gas that we currently have under our current permit but should
 we be successful in obtaining our expansion a second or a larger flare will be required to be
 installed here at this facility when we look at the relative economics of beneficial reuse again
 we're only evaluating uh we're evaluating the high btu uh versus the electric generator we have two
 options related to high btu management of this the city could actually build and maintain and operate
 a facility we'd estimate that the the 10-year net present value return on this would be about 18
 million dollars however us the landfill we're in the trash business we're not in the methane
 marketing or management business there are third parties out there that would be we would be able
 to partner with to do this under contract and we would potentially realize about a one and a half
 million dollar rate of return in that 10 year same 10-year net present value if you look at the city
 owned electric generator doing the same thing we're doing now we would anticipate actually
 having to subsidize the operation by about 4.3 million dollars over that 10-year period as a
 result of the the cost of operation and maintaining the the facility again from a from a average net
 annual income return with the city of denton operating the facility we would estimate about
 two and a half million dollars a year going back to a third party owned but uh uh partnership with
 the city we could we would lower that to about uh 194 000 but again we would uh pretend we would
 expect to eliminate most of the risk to the city through this contractual arrangement as we move
 forward and again a lot of the variables related to the high the the high btu uh first of all is
 the price of methane in in the system it ranges depending on which hedge or which market you're
 working in again the rent and rec cost that are available and again the capital cost up front to
 build this is about 26.1 million dollars so again there's a lot of capital that's tied up on the
 front end but your returns again are are significant on the back end as we as we move forward
 as we move forward staff would recommend uh based on the uh emissions that we're seeing
 as well as the econ economics of the the opera of the of the facility to develop a high btu
 landfill gas facility we would again since we are not in the the landfill gas processing business
 we would suggest that we develop prepare and develop an rfp for third-party ownership and
 operation again we would support we would focus on supporting the long-term operation of our solid
 waste management program but again minimize environmental impact and have a high probability
 of a rate of return on our on our investment as part of this because of the high operation cost
 and the end of life of the current electric generation facility we were proposed to immediately
 shut down this facility and uh flare the current gas until we can get the uh high btu facility up
 and running uh based on the technology that would be used whether it would be a package plant or a
 greenfield dirt uh flat dirt build uh we would estimate between one and a half to three years to
 have a high btu facility uh engineered and online and again we would go through the the engineering
 prepare the rfp go through permitting construction and then facility startup so with that i appreciate
 your uh attention this afternoon and would like to answer any questions you might have
 thank you if you could uh pull down thank you appreciate it uh council member melcher and then
 council member davis and then briggs wow first what a well-done analysis and presentation
 thank you so much for that i have to admit i was skeptical you know in earlier sessions we were
 talking about mothballing the current operation with you know maybe beneficial use and uh i think
 we should come back with this is super interesting um i'm particularly uh compelled by the two by two
 matrix you know where you showed it the high btu uh reclamation is kind of the green choice both
 dollars green and environmentally green um i have uh a couple questions one is uh do you think that
 you know with there's that that the opportunity is rich enough that with competing entities we
 might be able to cut a better deal than it looks like we're kind of giving it all you know giving
 it all to the other partner uh you know is that sort of a conservative case or or kind of not a
 lot of wiggle room that's what it's bound to be this this is an extremely conservative estimate
 on what the the return would be and again because it is a 26 million dollar upfront cost a lot of
 that risk you know relies with that third party i think the real benefit is that 10 to 20 year which
 we didn't represent here because again the the unknown of the rent in the rec market but again
 being conservative there the estimates could be anywhere from 20 to 25 million dollars back to the
 city in that in your period so again once we get past that debt service there's a high rate of return
 i wonder if there's just you know a different way to different ways to structure the deal so that
 we participate more on the upside uh but cart before the horse a little bit here but really
 compelling um there's a lot of interest i know you know your uh jury's still out as you develop
 the sustainability plan and the or rather the you know solid waste strategic plan on uh curbside
 comp coasting or anything like that and i've i've heard different reactions that uh both that that
 would generate less methane and that it would potentially generate more i don't know which one
 of those is right but uh but my question to you is if we were to ultimately decide that something
 like that made sense for the city could it be a complementary operation to this in other words
 just the fact that you're segregating all that organic material doesn't necessarily mean you're
 not generating and capturing methane off it true false i think there are opportunities and a lot
 of it depends on how we approach it you talked about our comprehensive solid waste management
 strategy and and to that end uh we are anticipating bringing that to council next week for consideration
 so again we're right there but you know we could either do traditional composting which i think we
 would lose any sort of potential uh uh access to methane which may or may not be available as a
 result of that organic loading uh but again we talk about anaerobic digestion so we could digest the
 material harvest the landfill gas off the top of it create a biosolid compost that and at the end
 of the day we we sort of have a win-win so i think part of what we're going to be asking our
 consultant to do as part of this strategy is evaluate the two or three different options
 and abilities that currently exist you know in the management of food waste and and such in our
 community and then identify just like we did here which would be the best from a cost and benefit
 standpoint emissions dollars and then from a socially environmentally sustainable standpoint
 wow uh i can't wait to hear uh you know the details on that thank you i'll let others
 take it from here okay council member davis and then briggs sir i have two questions uh the first
 one is can you give us a broad outline of how how this third party deal would be structured is it
 similar to our uh our previous arrangement with the energy energy generation where there's a
 there's a land lease there's a rough a i guess a raw product that is purchased or supplied
 by the city and then everything else is borne by the third party uh you know the the risk and the
 benefit kind of to paul's question a while ago um can you can you flesh that out just a little bit
 more for me and then as part of that can you give us a picture of the the buyer's market can you
 tell us who's out there what is that market like that's just not something i think most of us are
 familiar with who's purchasing this kind of this kind of gas in the open market okay uh you are
 correct and you know that the the contract would be set up similar to what our dte contract was we
 we would provide a land lease uh the contractor would be required for all the engineering the
 permitting the building the construction the operation all the upfront cost and really all
 the the the risk would be borne by the third party there would be a floor for the city's
 revenue standpoint so there would be a minimum take that we would always get however should the
 market improve should they get a better cost on rents and wrecks then again we get to appreciate
 the upside on that as i stated earlier in this first 10 years there's a lot of capital costs so
 a lot of those risks are paid back to the third party but should this go longer than 10 years
 into that 10 and 20 year market again the upside is significantly beneficial for the the both the
 operator as well as the city of denton up up to about 25 possibly even 30 million dollars depending
 on natural gas prices and again rents and wrecks but again the doing just some initial research
 out there there's about 10 or 12 companies that could potentially bid on this so again it's not
 it's not a very it's a it's a it's a somewhat large pool of of because again this is very technical
 type of of operation but again there are folks out there that are interested as i stated this
 would go into our local transportation pipeline which again is owned by atmas it goes on the
 north side of the facility it's there again that's extremely beneficial there would be
 little to no pipeline construction to get it to that point and then whomever currently sells gas
 out of that transportation pipeline whether i know there's four or five i can't recall them off the
 top of my head but different companies working in the city of denton that sell gas out of that
 pipeline so whether to industrial or to to residential sources while we are displacing
 molecules in the pipeline right now what that does though is it it creates opportunities
 further upstream for capacity for additional uses in areas outside of the city of denton so really
 we're displacing a fossil fuel in the city of denton with a renewable or a natural type of methane
 okay any other questions counselor davis i'll just say uh at the outset that's all very interesting
 i mean that sounds very beneficial to the city so far i think i'd like to see us go forward with that
 that rfp if you as you've laid out okay thank you okay counselor briggs and then council member
 ometer thank you for the presentation it was very interesting and you know as you know we had our
 coe committee on the environment meeting yesterday or and we learned or we were updated on our
 greenhouse gas inventory and in that process learned that the landfill gas has increased
 every year and in 2019 it was 97 000 metric tons and so whatever we can do as i'm looking at this
 and the emissions from this proposal they're significantly reduced and so that is a plus for
 me i will also just say that i hope that when this comes back the contract is structured in a way that
 it doesn't bite us again like dte did where we were our hands were tied and we couldn't make any
 changes and we were just stuck with the high prices and we couldn't add any additional
 generation if we needed it so that would just be my only input that there be you know we don't make
 the same mistake twice i understand and appreciate that statement so thank you just may approach him
 just one more thing so sure as we go and we eliminate the use of what we currently have and
 we start flaring does that mean that in 2020 when we look back at our inventory our our metric tons
 of co2 should be lower than 97 if layering causes less emissions
 going back to the the the picture i showed one of my first slides remember we have a collection
 and then we have capture and you know regardless of how much of which control measure we have we are
 going to continue we may even increase the collection so we may may produce more methane
 which would require us to process more methane but on equivalency standpoint if we burn that
 methane in a in a engine it would be more polluting than if we burned it in a flare so
 to long long story short we should see less emissions as a result of flaring versus
 the combination of engine running and flaring all right thank you i look forward to seeing those
 decrease thank you councilor Armitage yeah so i i strongly support you know flaring as opposed
 to the alternative so i'm pleased with that but i'm concerned with a couple of things i was
 wondering if you could elaborate on you know you mentioned she may have frozen councilor
 Armitage does anyone else have any other questions and we'll come back
 um okay we're working now working now yes it's it's in and out yes okay i'll try to not move
 sorry about my home internet um sorry i don't know how much you caught i i could hear everybody
 you just fine um so i was just saying that uh from the beginning i strongly support flaring as
 opposed to the alternative so i'm very pleased with that um but i would i am troubled by some
 things that i've heard and read so i just want to ask for for qualification on that it sounded like
 you were saying that uh you don't support uh or that the department isn't supporting traditional
 composting like the kind that they do in austin just collection of food waste food waste diversion
 in the traditional sense um because uh that would not produce as much methane is that am i
 understanding that correctly or can you qualify there's some there's some studies that are coming
 out of the state of california uh and they're really very young only because um the state neither
 the state nor the the federal government were actually looking for them uh nasa has run some
 satellites over the area and found that uh some of these large scale composting operations if
 they're not managed correctly they're not turned piles aren't turned appropriately that they have
 the potential of significant methane emissions so as part of the operation uh as we would move
 forward if we had a curbside collection program that would have to be in the in the consideration
 and you know as part of our you know one of the considerations in establishing a curbside would
 actually be the proper permitting which is you know the permit is included as part of the the
 proposal in our landfill expansion permit right now so we're looking forward you know operating
 you know not only expanding the landfill but the permit to help us uh expand what we're currently
 doing with the dino dirt operation to include this uh food waste would would be in there if we're not
 successful with that then we would move forward uh depending on how our solid waste management
 strategy uh direction we would get from that would lead us and thank you so just to so uh i'm i'm
 myself and i think you do too would make a distinction between um the this traditional
 kind of food waste composting that that i was referencing and that you were referencing earlier
 like what they do in austin you know versus uh conversion to biosolids the dino dirt which is
 another and i understand that that's that um y'all classify that as composting um but it's certainly
 at the very least a different kind of composting a different way of dealing with the the food waste
 and i've been i won't go into it here but i've been pretty clear about my my concerns about
 um biosolids and um and and dino dino dirt and the the safety of that um but i'm wondering
 uh you know is there you know any kind of built into this landfill perm permitting for composting
 uh these these changes that you're talking about will there are there any planned changes for the
 more traditional kind of composting or is that an entirely separate matter well you know if we're
 doing something at our facility the permit that we have proposed in our expansion permit would
 cover it uh if we're talking about uh promoting education doing outreach to uh establish you know
 backyard compost programs community neighborhood compost programs those are things that can
 currently be undertaken uh you know by the the homeowner by homeowners associations by small
 groups uh without the the obligation of a permit or registration and we would support them you know
 maybe working with natural uh master naturalist program or something else through the county
 extension service or or within our own organization to start something up
 okay so so sure so but i'm asking about um just for a curbside for a curbside composting collection
 program uh residential at including at apartments and for businesses especially you know restaurants
 the service industry uh is there any planned change for uh the permitting process for that
 coming along within the the landfill expansion which again full disclaimer you're not going to
 post to the landfill expansion but i want to know how moving forward you know we can do the best for
 for zero waste um and yeah from from from a you know commercial standpoint your collection is a
 separate entity from the processing you know currently we can go out there we can buy trucks
 we can hire people we can pick up stuff off the curb but in order to manage it into compost and
 make a marketable product uh that we're not having to landfill that's what we have to have the permit
 to do and to manage at the facility so you know it's it's it they're not mutually exclusive but
 they are separate considerations so uh really we have to have can't put the the cart before the
 horse we have to have the permit really in place to do it before we consider anything else
 and thank you and yeah that's my understanding too so you know i i support obviously uh curbside
 composting program um and you know i do not just for the record you know i i i don't think it's uh
 i don't consider it a good idea to consider methane production expanded methane production
 a benefit uh but um i was wondering just quickly uh currently and i know we're shutting down i'm
 thrilled that we're shutting down the current um you know generation facility uh can can you just
 kind of speak briefly are are they have those cells the generation cells been permanently covered
 and how is that going to be handled when it there this is um uh you know kind of taken fully out of
 commission and taken down well the the the landfill is still in operation and you know as part of the
 degradation of the waste uh the landfill actually sinks in height so while we have intermediate
 cover 18 inches or more over the entire facility that's that's not currently being used we do go
 back in and currently take advantage of that height that to our permitted level so we continue
 to fill throughout the landfill we still have approximately uh close to 20 acres excuse me not
 20 acres uh close to to about uh 35 acres that we still have to develop into waste disposal area so
 over the next 15 years that's what we'll be using to to dispose of waste and then once that is full
 we'll go into potentially our next cell if our next uh permitted area if we're successful by
 shutting down the existing engine we'll continue to monitor or operate the monitor wells the header
 in the collection system and and ship all that gas to the flare where it's uh destructive and
 thank you one more quick question um can you just explain briefly just how we what is our process of
 separating organic materials from the waste stream going into the landfill
 uh currently it is separated by the customer curbside uh well there's actually uh two different
 things uh if if you are a yard waste customer you're putting things in a bag or in a cart you have
 the opportunity to put in pre-consumer vegetative food waste so again you're you're peeling your
 onion your dip you know taking the end off your celery stalk whatever you can throw that into
 either your bag your cart and that will be taken to the downo dirt area we currently have contracts
 with three uh grocers in the area and on a weekly basis we accept old spoiled and excess food
 green waste from them and that material is also included into our dino dirt process so and that
 and that all goes into dino dirt that is correct okay thank you uh thank you okay well uh if there
 are there any other questions okay so i i show that we have a consensus to move forward in um
 councilmember melter davis briggs and then uh yeah councilmember roberter
 oh i i i hadn't really realized that we all had given people had given consent uh direction yet
 um but maybe they have i certainly haven't given my direction so even if i'm in the minority
 i would still like to state it if that's okay certainly well i'm let me summarize because
 that gives them an opportunity to correct me if that's okay so uh my understanding is that
 councilmember melter davis and briggs were in in the support of staff's recommendation to move
 forward i would join that to make four uh so there's the direction and then uh and councilmember
 ryan is giving the same indication so now uh councilmember roberter briefly if you could state
 because we do have a caller back on the line so uh okay okay good i'm glad the caller's back on
 the line uh okay yeah no i'll just say so i strongly support you know that that this facility is going
 down i strongly support the flaring um however you know i'm i'm really wary about uh the kind
 of conversion of uh so much of the organic materials in of all the organic materials uh into biosolids
 um i would would love to see a curbside collection program explored as in conjunction with this i
 realize it's a separate permitting process but as part of a larger zero waste plan which we still
 don't have um and but as far as this plan goes what i would like is for us to get a volunteer as in
 not spending a dime um to try to get some you know volunteer input uh from respected environmental
 groups you know i know sierra club for instance they're a pretty mainstream neutral group that has
 you know pretty strong opinions uh about uh you know this kind of process so just okay to see
 justice just as far as getting kind of free input but specifically solicited from the city that could
 come back to us because i understand this is just the beginning stage of this process uh but anyway
 i just wanted to be clear about what i like and what i don't like moving forward and what i'm
 concerned about and hopeful for okay any other comments great thank you very much uh brian great
 presentation thank you uh so if staff can help me with and i'll just read this again we're going
 to go back to work session one citizens comments on consent agenda items we have one caller for
 item 4e 2014 uh 54 and uh yeah it so we'll let the staff get jacob uh on the line they'll have
 four minutes jacob are you there yes sir hello thank you for bearing with us my name is gerard
 hutz with mayor pro tem and you're on with the denton city council mayor watts is absent today
 just uh just so that you're aware but you will have four minutes after you state your name
 and address uh for your statement fantastic my name is jacob moses i am representing denton
 affordable housing corporation excuse me at 1104 davis drive suite number 229 denton texas 76205
 thank you good to go from there yes sir thank you fantastic i am just calling to thank the council
 for considering this agenda item to provide deck home funds to rehab as they're in the agenda for
 rental accessible units in denton texas the units that include components such as appliances and
 fixtures designed specifically for people who use wheelchairs of the 91 units the deck has in denton
 we've had these four units since 1999 believe it or not two of those four tenants since day one
 and i know i speak on behalf of my colleagues the tenants over at these four units when i say we
 are just getting at the prospect of using these funds and not only continue to provide affordable
 units for these tenants but also making sure that from the appliances the code that the city has to
 make sure it's a functional unit for their needs as well excellent well thank you very much you're
 more than welcome and um is this mr city attorney help me out questions available here or statements
 of fact what what are we uh allowed to do so this is a posted item and there is a public speaker
 you're allowed to ask questions of the speaker thank you for that uh council member armature
 yes i was just going to say thank you for your work for um not just affordable housing but also
 for ada uh compliance i was just wondering since we got you on the phone if you could just speak
 to uh you know i know that you're that this is just for those four rental accessible units
 if you could just speak if you would feel comfortable speaking off the cuff on your sense
 of the need uh for you know more ada compliance uh in affordable housing and just you know rentals
 in general in denton or is that something you don't and i totally understand if you don't feel
 comfortable comfortable speaking to that but just kind of as somebody who's in the affordable
 housing you know working with an affordable housing non-profit i was would love to hear
 you know your input on that while we've got you talking on that topic yes ma'am overjoyed to speak
 to it you know top of mind for many folk especially in dense and you think about that
 citizen survey the city came out 2018 saying all right then that's like what is top of mind for
 you all when it comes to concerns in the city you see year after year affordable housing is number
 one so of course it's something that we all have top of mind as detonates but there's a subset of
 folk the people who maybe live with disabilities who just like folk who may not be making the
 aramid income just as much need an affordable place to call home and when you get in the weeds
 of it it gets tricky you know of course whenever you want to build an affordable unit often it does
 cost extra to make sure it is avia compliant but that does not mean that we should outright
 disregard that population so that's where i know i speak on behalf of my colleagues as well
 we're very happy to play just a small role in ensuring that we're not only providing an
 affordable unit for in this instance people who use wheelchairs but also just make it an
 enjoyable place for them as i said before two of the four tenants and this was 1999
 really enjoying their time there you take that one of their family members out to coffee they'll
 speak to how much they enjoy and appreciate that their their brother their son their husband can
 live independently despite being in a position in which it may be more challenging to provide
 affordable housing so we are overjoyed to do our part and look forward using these funds to
 so a little bit okay thank you very much i appreciate that yep okay any other questions
 for mr moses okay great thank you jacob thanks yes sir okay then that i will call the next item
 which is 3b dca 20-0001 receive a report hold discussion and give staff give staff direction
 regarding amendments to the denton development code related to tattoo and piercing parlors
 planning and zoning commission optional procedures subdivision procedures and
 development contracts and just for the record we have no other callers so for that citizens
 comments on the consent agenda and ron before you start just mr city manager to confirm earlier
 we pulled items d i and m just for recusals no presentations correct okay thank you thank you
 ron thank you mayor pro temp members of council uh let me pull my presentation up and we'll get
 started great um as presented in the introduction this is a first series of work sessions that we
 will have regarding the denton development code amendments the ddc amendments today we'll be
 discussing four specific code amendments but before we get started on those four i just wanted to
 briefly discuss why we're considering the amendments now obviously when we adopted the
 2019 development code as a result there were some non-conformities that were created
 so we continue to address those through these code amendments we also are trying to align our
 provisions with the state laws that were passed last summer not this summer but the summer prior
 and specifically as it relates to house bill 3167 we continue to provide process improvements so
 through the development code amendments we hope to codify some of those improvements into the
 development code and lastly we continue to consider input and feedback from the general public
 from the development community planning zoning commission and other boards and commission as
 well as city council so all of this is part of our efforts in order to again amend our ddc
 so the first code amendment development code amendment is related to tattoo and piercing
 parlors and just for way of presentation each code amendment will have a slide an introduction
 slide such as what you see here where it will lay out the requirement what the issues are what's
 existing in the code what options we have and what staff's recommendation moving forward
 so just for your information so again tattoo and piercing parlor currently tattoo and piercing
 parlors do not are not allowed in the mn the mixed use neighborhood zoning district
 as a result of that back in 2002 there were zoning districts that allowed them
 by right that were nrmu 12 and nrmu and again as part of the 2019 development code update
 those zoning districts that used to permit them now that transition to mn no longer allow for
 tattoo and piercing parlors through research we have found that there are seven existing businesses
 that meet that definition that are considered legal i'm sorry non-conforming because of the
 zoning change which went again to mn existing tattoo and piercing parlors again are not permitted
 in the mn what we have as options are we leave them non-conforming or we add a permitted p plus
 under mn which would allow them and which makes them legal per the zoning district so what staff
 has proposed and this is a slide quickly to illustrate what tattoo and piercing parlors
 we have currently in the city again there's a total of six and seven sorry 16 and seven of those
 are currently in the mn zoning district which again makes them non-conforming what we're trying
 to do is change that and make them conforming or make them legal by adding a p plus to the list of
 allowed uses and you can see where that p plus is added in to the table with the green p and the
 green plus the plus stands for use specific standard and what we're saying with the use
 specific standard is what you see here and that is 535 p that all tattoo and body piercing parlor
 parlors shall comply with licensing and certification requirements of the texas department
 of state health and services so as they get considered for a co this is one of the things
 that they will have to provide in order to get that co this particular code amendment
 is scheduled for city council on october 20th so coming up soon that's it for this particular
 code amendment i'll i would i would what i would like to do is see if you all have any questions
 for this particular code amendment and then we can move on to the next one so that we can get
 staff direction on this item okay thank you ron councilmember armature and then councilmember
 melzer and then councilmember briggs so first of all i will say um i'm hoping councilmember
 davis will show us his tattoo as part of this discussion uh also i wanted to say uh that i'm
 really thrilled uh that this has come before us i i didn't like um i i don't like that we currently
 have a special uh tattoo uh requirements that is treated differently than anyone else i um i was
 concerned at first to see uh when when we've been preparing for today to see the little plus attached
 to it but then i was pleased to see that all the plus means is that tattoo parlors have to comply
 with the with with uh safety standards which are very closely monitored important and serious um
 so that says that and you know to anyone who's concerned about safety issues have being near a
 tattoo parlor there are already regulations on that that are in place um that people who are
 responsible uh tattoo parlor owners are really uh proud of and vigilant about because you know they
 want to make sure um that that that their industry has a good reputation so anyway i just wanted to
 say i'm really pleased that we're doing this and thank you and that we're not doing it on a kind
 of pocket you know case by case basis but across the board i do think there are a number of other
 uh you know kinds of businesses that are in a
 okay uh she's sort of councillor melzer like this um but we will get later
 okay councillor melzer yeah to me this has nothing to do whatsoever with how we feel for or against
 any particular type of business the intention of council was not to create non-conformities
 this is a fix and uh my direction already is to go ahead and not uncreate these non-conformities
 that we never intended to create councilmember breaks
 thank you um ron so on this with this approves our passes the the businesses that are non-conforming
 do they have to do anything or will it just automatically um fix that and they don't have
 to worry about it anymore those existing businesses uh councilman breaks will not have to do anything
 um you know if if there were a reapplication of a co or a loan documentation that's when this would
 come up but other than that anything that's existing would just remain existing and as is
 okay thank you
 okay any other questions for this section any other input for staff
 okay very good so uh we'll go to the next section okay
 so the next two code amendments that we will be discussing has direct relationship to house bill
 31 67 therefore i just wanted to share and provide you all a refresher on what house bill 31 67 is
 also referred to as the shock clock bill it was passed in 2019 what it does it affects the timeline
 in which plats subdivision applications specifically as well as civil civil engineering plans when they
 need to be approved the bill basically said that in no if no final action for for these types of
 applications taken within 30 days of the application being filed such applications will be automatically
 approved so basically this puts us on a approval consideration within 30 days now there are built
 in provisions where recommendations of denial can be introduced however in the end most and all of
 this will have to be considered within 30 days also if there is a conditional approval or a
 disapproval which is a denial the applicant must be provided with a written statement that again
 is included in the house bill and that statement specifically has to be directly related to
 the requirement that is being asked of the applicant it must be cited per our development
 code or any other municipal ordinances or or criteria manual and lastly it may not be
 arbitrary as far as the reason for denial or motion for denial so just a quick refresher on
 house bill 3167 so the next code amendment that we will be talking about is tie vote specifically
 as it relates to the planning and zoning commission currently in the code of ordinances
 there is a section 2.29 g5a where it states that with the exception of the planning and zoning
 commission matters voted which in an entire vote regardless of the cause shall be considered a
 denial what it doesn't say is what happens with the planning zoning commission it says everything
 else outside of the planning zoning commission it then further uh states under that same section
 that the dentin development code outlines the process for which council review and decision
 of any recommendation made by the planning zoning commission is is under is going to be considered
 under that section however the dentin development code does not have any of that language provided
 in the ddc or in the ddc currently so what it is it's saying that the development code will have
 that explanation but it currently does not so what we are proposing and the option here is to have
 no change or to add that provision into the ddc that addresses the planning and zoning
 tie vote situations and we are we are proposing that we split that discussion or that consideration
 for subdivision applications because as it relates to house bill 3167 these will require
 a 30-day consideration within 30 days and also non-subdivision application now these are ones
 that are specifically approved by by planning zoning commission or recommendations that are
 brought forward to city council obviously staff is recommending that we add that those provisions
 into the development code that explains what happens in a tie vote for again both a subdivision
 applications as well as non-subdivision applications and so with that staff is
 proposing to add this particular section now there's two section when it comes to tie votes
 this again is for the subdivision application tie vote that when the planning zoning commission
 reaches a tie vote the application is deemed approval approved as an approval with staff
 condition of that subdivision application so essentially a tie vote for subdivision application
 is an approval automatic approval however staff will have the opportunity to provide
 staff conditions related to that approval
 does anybody have any questions regarding this section of the code i do have the other
 section of the code where it talks about the non-subdivision application now this is for again
 the ones that are either approved by council that i'm sorry by planning zoning commission that are
 not a plat or a civil engineering plan as well as any tie vote related to any recommendations
 that are being forwarded to the city council so just way of describing it the planning and
 zoning commission if they reach a tie vote the city will be directed to place that same tie vote
 or that item on the next planning zoning commission agenda if there is a second tie vote
 from that same item that the that the sorry that it shall be deemed either a denial
 on those non-subdivision application and recommended for denial on those non-subdivision
 application that will be that will be forwarded to city council now if the denial recommendation
 of denial to city council is forwarded the requirement that a three-fourth vote on these
 types of examples where there's a tie vote will not require a super majority from city council
 and i apologize that that may have been a lot there let me go back to the first one
 this is again for the subdivision applications if there is a tie vote it would be deemed approved
 with approved with staff conditions so the planning zoning commission again reaches a tie vote
 those plats and those other subdivision variances i'm sorry subdivision applications will be
 considered an approved application if it is a recommendation to city council they too
 this particular ones will be a recommendation of denial and again if council were to consider
 that item it will not require a three-fourth or super majority vote at council
 okay if you can pull down the slide we'll see if we have any feedback for you okay council member
 briggs yeah so if you could just help me understand i am really confused while we're seeing this again
 i thought this has already come through a work session and it's already been voted on
 um i understand that the subdivision part of it is different um is that why it's coming back to
 us for the whole process no it's well it's partly that councilman briggs but also what was brought
 to you um earlier regarding the same tie vote item um it was actually included into the zoning
 process what we're trying to do is bring it out um to where it would be considered for all
 recommendations that are being brought to city council so not just zoning but also specific use
 permits alternative esas any other recommendations the particular item that you all considered in the
 past was only for zoning related rezoning related applications right for for planning and zoning
 or yeah for plans if remind me if i'm part of it had to do with um if somebody had a long absence
 or there wasn't someone there and it just continued to be so what that process would be right um and
 so this is we're we're going to add this um to the ddc correct but the new part of it is the sub
 subdivision section so we're adding a the the the the result of a tie vote for a subdivision
 application um is that's described it would be a approval um but for the other applications that are
 ones that are rezoning the sups the alt esas those that are forwarded to y'all from the planning
 zoning commission um those would be a denial again similar to what was approved prior that
 you all considered but because it was just specifically to rezoning what we're trying to
 do is expand that to include all the other applications as well may approach him may i
 follow up yes um can this makes me a little bit uncomfortable because it's um one's approval and
 one's deny but under the same circumstance um i understand that the subdivision has to do with the
 the shot clock but um other other parts of application are are also um under a certain
 time limit i think as well so um i just wanted to check in with our city attorney i mean i'm sure
 this has all been run by the office but um is that is that an issue the issue is not what you
 suggested the issue is that the city has actually the pnz has actually 30 days in which to approve
 these applications from whence they're filed and these applications never come to council
 the danger in not meeting that requirement because there's a lot of staff review that has to be done
 in advance before it gets to the pnz agenda and the danger is that if we do get to a meeting of
 pnz where there's only six and it's a three to three vote you know they don't have a process
 right now to determine what is the result is this the denial and if so they have one process to go
 or is it an approval with conditions that's the dilemma that pnz is facing right now that staff
 wishes to correct okay and so then that would just stay within the planning and zoning and would not
 have to follow us uh to council for those items that is correct under the ddc and state law pnz
 has the authorization to approve these these types of applications and it stops there all right thank
 you okay any other council member malter is there anything else the city does where uh with a voting
 body where a tie would be considered approval is that question for the for myself or for ron
 uh i i assume ron but but uh if you got the answer i'll take it from you and no there's not but again
 no other city border commission faces this the particular law and a very short time frame in
 which to review and approve yeah i think it's you know but the law doesn't say you have to approve
 things lunch it says if you're gonna prove you have to do it within this time frame uh i
 i'm very uncomfortable with the idea of uh you know very special carve outs on something as
 fundamental as what counts as a approval counts as an aisle uh i'll i'll i'll listen but i haven't
 heard anything that i've found convincing yet and and and and not confusing never mind to us but how
 about to applicants okay um well ron do you want to speak to that so the statement is uh you have
 30 day can you just reframe what what's what the law says hb3 31 67 please right um so when applicants
 submit an application and filed with the city the city has or the proving body which in this case is
 the planning zoning commission has has to consider and approve approve with condition or deny the
 application within 30 days and if there is a tight vote it's not clear is it an approval or is it a
 denial so what we're proposing recommendation is that if there is a tie vote that that is a denial
 i'm sorry an approval for the uh subdivision application uh with staff condition got it okay
 thank you thanks for uh councilmemorometer yeah so you know i appreciate um councilmember briggs and
 uh councilmember melter's questions and objections um i am just unambiguously
 against the idea that a tie would result in an automatic approval uh to me and i'm not saying
 this is the case because i have no idea honestly how this came forward but i think it'll give the
 impression to the public that this was requested by uh by developers it certainly feels like it's
 written by developers again i'm not saying that it was uh but it certainly sounds like you know
 a kind of developer pipe dream um and i think it's highly unusual and wrong uh so i think that
 would just tie a tie in all circumstances should be an automatic denial across the board and you
 know sorry about the the shot clock we definitely need to improve our procedures in a number of ways
 we need to do away with paperwork uh but we do not need to do away with the democratic process
 this is extremely important part of the net part of the democratic process and we can cut down on
 all kinds of bureaucracy and paperwork i'm all for that um but not so thanks all right and ron
 could you reframe that for me uh just to make sure i understand correctly so the one that the
 non-subdivision denial is not subject to the shot clock am i am i tracking with you correct
 so then that doesn't apply it would come to council am i understanding that those come to
 council maybe i'm wrong correct the non-subdivision applications the plats uh do not come to council
 those need to be considered by the planning zoning commission within 30 days and and just uh just to
 add uh or hopefully clarify within 30 days if the planning zoning commission reaches a tie vote
 without any reason um they they they can't be denied unless there's a reason for their um their
 denial a denial therefore that's why it's approval because we need to provide the applicant with a
 reason um if it were to be denied got it so and so that's a key point so the state law requires
 if it's an automatic denial as requested then that has to come with a reason and obviously if
 it's a tie tie if it's a three three tie there's no reason and so we're so we're we're um uh we're
 out of uh well yeah we're not in line with the state law state requirements okay got it any
 other questions councilmember melzer i think the reason would be because it failed to achieve a
 majority vote that would be the reason and you could ask members to you know state their reason
 for their vote but i mean otherwise why not just skip the vote just say any application is approved
 that would be much quicker right but there is it isn't that way it's put to a vote for a reason
 so so the reason for denial would be it didn't achieve a majority well i'll take that let me see
 councilman no pardon me mr city manager do you know or ron do you know i think we've had one
 tie vote uh in recent memory the only one i could think of um what had to do with uh one subdivision
 that couldn't get out of uh the planning commission because we had one of our members conflicted so
 that's why the tie vote came to council in the recommendation on this particular instance the
 way the state laws read that the argument proper by councilmember melzer does not hold water i mean
 that would that is not a reason that we can vote no or vote something down so in in this particular
 shot clock all the really all the authority has been given development community we have very
 specific reasons to deny according to standards something like that or it's approved and within
 that 30-day process so essentially what he's telling you is it's part of a reason to to ensure
 that politics aren't being entered into this particular rationale it's got to be hard facts
 could be planning conditions engineering conditions that sort of thing if that's achieved it must be
 approved and so you're in a really weird spot because i can't really think of another law where
 you're you've had your authority scaled back like this um is it subject to a vote or not i mean is
 it either subject to standards or to a vote it's subject to subject to a vote based upon standards
 as long as the standards are addressed in the staff recommendation it must be approved within
 that shot clock timeline so it's sort of it's an odd situation here and i think the question i have
 for for ron just to just to make sure that we can explain it is if the plant commission denies this
 however they the applicants um go addresses all the staff comments immediately is it automatically
 approved or do we have to re-notice it i know you've got that 15-day provision in there for them
 to address it so i think that's important in this conversation as well this is a very strange law
 that was passed so yes so ron do you want to speak to that the 15-day provision right so as todd
 mentioned that if there is a vote for denial again not a tie vote but for vote for denial
 with reasons the applicant has the opportunity to address those reasons and some resubmit it back to
 the planning zoning commission and planning to process within 15 days and bring it back to the
 planning zoning commission so that that's not a that's not a um a tie vote per se it's it's
 it's a denial with reasons so okay um if i can just you know press a little just for
 to get an understanding uh yes we're you know really being presented if there are specific
 uh areas that are uh the only ones that can be legitimately cited it
 is reasons for denial i assume those are presented to to the commission when the case is brought
 forward uh would it be you know possible that that any no votes would have to cite
 which of those conditions are the reasons
 let me i don't know that i don't know that i'm i don't know that you can weigh one pnz commissioner's
 objections above another even if they cite those i don't know i don't know i don't know if i
 understand because if you're looking for a majority vote as a body and you don't have that i don't know
 that the individual objections can be carried can carry weight let me explain where i'm going uh
 remember tim that uh if you have a tie vote situation or any or or a four three vote situation
 but against any decision against what i'm hearing is it's got to be for these specific reasons
 you know something on that list any any outcome that results in a no is uh it can't just be
 because i feel like voting no it's got to be because it violates a b or c so you know in any
 no situation you've got to communicate to the applicant which of those reasons a b or c or
 or you know two or three of those are the reasons so i'm i'm simply saying that uh in a situation
 where no carries whether it's due to a tie or a majority no that council members have uh excuse
 me commission members would have to register which of those conditions they're citing mayor pro temp
 could we get a five minute recess real quick yes we can convert the city attorney on something
 yes sir okay so it is now 4 25 we will take a five minute break come back at 4 30 pm
 okay and welcome back to this city council meeting today is tuesday october
 uh sixth it is 4 35 we're returning from a quick break and uh mr city manager you have the floor
 if you would please thank you mayor pro tem i i just wanted to call everybody together real
 quickly given the the box the council's in on this and i think that if the council is uncomfortable
 from what we're hearing that on the tie vote being an approval i think we can draft language
 for the ddc because this is the this is the main issue when a developer is in front of the planning
 and zoning they ask show me in the manual where it says that okay so if we're going to consider a
 tie vote being in denial that's okay uh we can put additional language in there stating that it's got
 to refer to a technical requirement it can't be that a council member or a pnz member doesn't like
 it that's not acceptable under the state statute any longer so as long as we will go ahead and
 devise the process that it's got it must meet a technical requirement the deal is this and we'll
 further vet out the the process that once the even if it's denial once the pro project or the
 resubmittal happens the city has 15 days to act on it not 30 the second time around 15 or it's
 automatically approved so as long as we put that small process and and rationale in the ddc i think
 we've addressed the development community's concern we've also dealt with your concern about
 the perceived three three tie not being something that a majority of you can get behind but
 where staff has been put in the box is show me in the ddc where it says that
 so i think we can address the process and kind of deal with this got it okay uh and so councilman
 melts you have the floor then councilman briggs and then armature yeah i can appreciate you know
 the need for an explicit rule it's uh it is just kind of a loose end that we didn't say what it was
 but i i uh support the direction just articulated uh because if you think about it if you get it
 not saying this could ever happen but if you had a very heavily conflicted uh member just because
 they're knowledgeable in the industry because they participate in the industry so they've got a lot of
 reasons to recuse you could effectively turn every recusal into a yes vote i think that's really
 dangerous so uh i support the path forward that the city manager just described customer breaks
 thank you yeah before break the concern that i had and i was going to bring it up because
 um if staff did come to the commission and conditions weren't met but it ended up being
 a tie and passed just because some um commissioners thought sure you know it's good enough with me i
 don't agree with staff's conditions anyway then that item would have passed going forward without
 those conditions being in place and so that that was part of my concern on this anyway um so i
 appreciate you bringing that up and i wanted to make sure that you know if that were to happen and
 if this were to go forward there were some there was some way to to call that back to make sure
 that those conditions um were put in place okay customer order okay so several things so number
 one um i like the solution much better obviously than um what was being talked about earlier but i
 i have some remaining concerns on you know number one i would want to see and of course when this
 came before us for a vote we would have something in writing i definitely hope it's not on the consent
 agenda you know because i would need to see how exactly how it's written but right now p and z
 can cite the 2030 plan uh and i believe and correct me if i'm wrong i might be wrong on this
 the mobility plan too is that correct or is it just the 2030 plan as as a reason for uh denial
 uh councilor approval the subdivision applications are very technical they are plat specifically
 so the reasons or the requirements that need to be written in in part of their uh their vote or
 their motion has to come from the gen development code as it relates to any subdivision requirements
 specifically okay so the so okay so for that so for that so the 2030 plan does not apply to such
 decisions the 2030 plan is very um it's a guiding document there's there's no standards per se
 technical standards as relates to subdivision and that's what needs to be stated when there is a
 motion of either denial or um opposition and do you know off the cuff and sorry this is just
 occurring to me now but do any other cities um you know include their uh you know 10 year 10 year
 20 year 15 year whatever plans in the the code or or is that a separate or in in plat decisions i
 should say in plotting decisions um or is that is it pretty standard to have a comprehensive plan
 that's right from across the development code okay okay and that and that it's not and that can oh
 sorry i have a couple more things and that cannot be cited on in uh decisions on flats right correct
 but it can be decided say for zoning changes and things of that nature especially right again just
 because the the zoning changes or sps often refer back to the comprehensive plan as an approval
 criteria so that's where you can add that uh discussion okay thank you um i wanted to ask
 you for the public just give me one second please can i but city attorney has a statement i just i
 know there's some confusion as to what's actually in a subdivision uh plan and i just all it is is
 it shows a what the development is going to look like so it's going to include the lots the streets
 where the easements are the size of the roads um you know some other technical information drainage
 and that's all it's showing it's not showing whether or not you know they comply with zoning
 provisions or whether they comply with other plans it's just basically the layout of what this
 development is going to look like and and it's it's very technical and and and so those types of
 regulations are different than your zoning type of regulations they're very precise okay thank you
 okay councillor armater and so yeah thanks and so yeah i'll be as long as you know since it's
 coming for us as an individual item um you know there will be time for us to you know read over
 all of that and you know do additional homework um on this new uh solution which again i definitely
 like better than um the tie vote solution a question just for the matter of public record
 so when that that five minute break was tape was taken um can someone can someone from staff let
 me know who all was in the room uh we can take the you can follow up with the city manager on
 that if you would please no no no no no that was i'm strictly asking for the for the public record
 was there was there all staff was there anyone from council or was it just staff
 okay thanks good good good so just check any other questions um and then third and yes and then
 finally i just wanted to point out you know ironically right now there are we want uh six
 of us right now uh so if we were split on direction you know that would be a debacle um and i don't
 think any of us would i would hope not want it to be automatically approved um so that is all
 councilmember davis thank you mayor pro tem um so i like this new direction i think it's in line with
 uh parliamentary procedure the way we do just about everything else in the city that you've
 got to have affirmative affirmative approval to call it approval um my question is on the
 uh the new plan are we going to uh have the requirement that a tie vote that first tie vote
 if it's because of an absence instead of a recusal that first tie vote kicks you to a second vote
 at some future meeting a week later or uh just that a tie vote is a is a denial for purposes of
 the shot clock um and and that's codified in the ddc right councilman davis um it is a a
 right again denial as we're changing that recommendation um at that meeting because
 it is part of the 30-day shot clock time period okay thanks got it okay ron so you have another
 section and so for that there's there's there's a i kind of consensus uh so uh just i want to repeat
 what um todd mentioned but that is what we will be bringing forward in a future uh consideration
 item where you all can discuss it further and you'll see the new drafted language as it relates to
 that subdivision application tie vote um result and it will be a recommend it would be a denial
 with again reasons or recommendations or requirements um for um the plat um technical requirements
 okay all right so do you have more slides that yeah
 okay let me pull this up thank you
 so this is um i'm going to skip through and get to this particular code amendment because it's
 important that we discuss this as we just finished that discussion with regard to tie vote
 this particular requirement here again house bill 3167 specifically states that all of the
 requirements i apologize let me
 let me go back up once um
 that any any submittal uh or recommendation or a motion to deny or vote of denial must be provided
 in a written statement again that's per house bill 3167 as it is today we do not have that
 in our development code it is again in the texas local government code but not in the ddc
 what we are recommending is to add a reference in the ddc that speaks to that requirement that
 any approval with conditions or denial with reasons or lack of requirements meeting the
 then development code must be provided to the applicant in a written format what we are proposing
 is this section of the development code section 261 which is under the subdivision procedures
 and what it in what it includes is the timing again we already discussed this it includes the
 timing of the final action must be within 30 days that any decision of approval or approval
 with condition or deny must be accompanied with a written statement or written explanation for that
 recommendation or for that motion for denial it also explains that if a application is denied
 with reasons or lack of technical requirements meeting the development code that that application
 or that applicant can resubmit to the planning zoning commission and must be considered in within
 15 days so this is again inconsistent with house bill 3167 or the new texas local government code
 that speaks to this 30-day shot clock and again there is an option for them to extend a application
 above the 30 days for an additional 30 days but it's only for one time only so this section of
 the code that we're talking about is being introduced into the ddc to help applicants
 understand what the house bill 3167 I guess passed in relationship to
 plats and civil engineering plans so I just wanted to make sure that what we're introducing here
 is making is just references as it is currently in the texas local government code
 and this is what this is what we were talking about earlier council members where
 any any reasons or any denial with with recommendations must be accompanied with a
 written explanation and cited per this for this texas local government code requirement
 okay thank you council member davis and then council member armatuer and then braves thank
 you mayor pro tem so this one to me is a is a natural it's in the state code it needs to be in
 our local code as well so our commissioners are well aware of it also so that they are aware that
 their reasons for denial have to be specific I think that may have been an issue that city manager
 alluded to when we were talking about tie votes you don't get to vote against a subdivision
 because you don't think that land should develop you get to vote against it because there's a
 technical defect in the application or in in that plat so I think that's a good thing my concern
 would be what will the procedure be for drafting that statement will staff kind of get a consensus
 of those who voted in the negative or in favor of denial or however it shakes out
 or however it shakes out will will the commissioners be responsible for making
 some kind of statement how's that going to work so councilman davis staff in in our presentation
 of each item to the planning zoning commission includes a reason our technical requirement section
 reference now the planning zoning commission commissioners ultimately will have to make that
 part of their motion they can certainly use staff's reasons or lack of requirements met
 or they can come up with their own citing again the dental development code
 yes sir council member davis so if that needs to be in their motion that we need to have a
 requirement in our code that a motion to deny has to include the reasons why it was denied
 or that because the other option there is a motion to approve that fails
 so um I understand what you're saying that the technical in the presentation they're going to be
 made aware by staff of what's wrong with the application and that's normally how it ought to
 be denied a motion to deny based on this problem we point out but there could also be a motion to
 approve that's a little premature maybe in the meeting and uh it doesn't get the votes and the
 reason it doesn't get the votes is not one of the reasons you've outlined succinctly in the
 presentation i'm trying to head off headaches for staff later on down the road with trying to comply
 with a difficult code okay um any response ron or no understand you got it understood the comment
 yes okay thank you i think we can probably put some language in the assessment there of this that
 this plat must be approved or this this particular case must be approved um you know as it has met
 these items and be a little bit more prescriptive i think it's something that we're not being given
 much of a choice by the state the state on this so we may just need to have stronger wording in
 there when we know that they've met all the the technical requirements okay thank you and then
 so councilmember armature and then breaks yeah um so a couple questions um when it says the denial
 has to be in writing does an email count no um it has to be put in some sort of um response letter
 or a letter um that we will have to draft in in and then send to the applicant okay so we get paper
 letter with letterhead does have to be notarized or anything like that or no man just just make
 sure it's as cited in reference per the development code okay and then two more questions um and what
 is the timeline on getting that letter or i guess what time i would have when would have to be
 postmarked by then how many days or business days after the decision how does that work or is that
 open because i'm sure there are a number of open areas in that lot the law yeah there there's no
 specific requirement as far as when um that needs to be sent to the applicant however practice has
 been uh either the next day or the day after you mean for to send it out not to see the applicant
 correct okay yeah as long as i would just encourage us not to put that in writing so as not to box
 ourselves in any further than you know the law estate law is already boxing us in i'm not saying
 drag it out intentionally but you know just in case it happens there's a holiday you know during
 the christmas season or whatever um and then finally my final question is do you know and
 this is another thing that you know that should have occurred to me before but i was just thinking
 about now and i'll definitely research it myself but do you know if texas municipal league um
 or i was about to say or anybody like that but really i'm primarily thinking of them um since
 they're kind of a pretty non-partisan group do you know if they've kind of come up with
 you know a kind of a like a white sheet on this or their take on this law i'm just curious and
 i can find out for myself if you don't know i know there has has been in the very early stages when
 the bill was passed um but we can certainly see if there has been in recent recently but i i don't
 know of any um that i can contribute at this moment okay thank you okay thank you okay uh
 councilmember briggs and councilmember mouncer i'm just curious ron if you know are any other texas
 cities um integrating this into their actual code um the house bill i know that it was thought that
 maybe it wouldn't uh stay and could be reversed and if that's the case um do we go back in and just
 get rid of it or do you know how other cities are handling this issue i know i haven't researched it
 completely but i knew i do know from speaking to some of my colleagues they're all doing it
 differently uh but obviously the overarching requirement is under the text of local government
 code 212 which again um binds them as it does us uh now how they they present it to the applicants
 are just different uh we we just want to make sure it's clear and it's uh insights and and the
 applicants are understand what the process is okay thanks councilmember melzer
 yeah just a suggestion to facilitate you know the process when you're actually up there i think
 y'all do a great job on presentations for like sups where you lay out on a slide here here the
 criteria you can consider so you know rather than saying if you're going to vote no you've got to
 dig through the the big old ddc and you know find it and cite it i mean it's going to take hours
 but if you you know if you can kind of give them the menu of here are the relevant it's probably
 pretty boilerplate because it's probably the same on every similar uh issue but these are the
 categories uh so that that's you know part of the presentation and there for commissioners to uh
 reference that would be my suggestion okay okay and thank you councilmember davis just real quickly
 on those lines you know the real estate department's very helpful when we have to make our
 very specific motions that have to conform with a certain caption under the law you know we get a
 piece of paper in a folder it's at everybody's spot if anybody feels so moved to make the motion
 they've got the piece of paper in front of them with how to make that motion and and fit the legal
 requirements so that may be a way to go as well or the slide like councilmember melzer's talking
 about understood okay ron yeah no those are great um suggestions and comments we'll certainly make
 sure that those are uh are incorporated in the practice and we'll share that with the planning
 zoning commission as we continue to hold trainings and other such um activities with with them okay
 anything else on this item okay you all you have everything ron you need
 i i need yes for for this one yes and okay got two more so got it go through with that hopefully
 quickly yep so i'm going to go back up to another situation so another situation that we have
 again because of what we have currently in our code as as well as um the state bill requirement
 of um 30 days there was one instance where there was a three two vote um for denial in the code of
 ordinances specifically states that an affirmative vote of four is necessary to take action
 so what happens when there's a three two vote and we need to act on this within 30 days
 and um there's nothing in the development code that speaks to this particular situation so
 what staff is proposing or recommend recommending is that if there is a
 um a three two vote that option two is what we would recommend and that is a majority vote
 of either three one or three two is a vote for denial and that is what we are recommend
 recommending for this particular situation and it will be part of the code therefore it'll be clear
 to not just the planning zoning commissioners staff and also the applicants as we move forward
 again if this is something that becomes codified
 so just to illustrate this is the section again it applies to only the subdivision applications
 these are plats specifically the subdivision plots that we just we've been discussing again it's a
 three one or three two vote um again it doesn't meet the four affirmative that's per our code of
 ordinances therefore uh we are trying to make sure that those that are in this situation understand
 that if there's a three one or three two vote it is um uh going to be whatever that motion is
 if it's a motion for denial then it gets denied again hopefully there is and there should be a
 reason or requirements uh cited under that section where it is again a recommendation of denial
 if it's a if it's an affirmative vote of three one or three two for approved then it's approved
 in that situation but again we want to make this clear and put this in the development code so that
 again they're planning zoning commissioners our applicants and others are clear that a majority
 vote either three one and three two in these situations is an approval if that's the the
 motion or denial if that's the motion you know answer any question you all may have
 thank you uh council member melts within council member amateur
 ron any idea what the history on that is because ordinarily anytime you've got a voting body
 and you have a quorum that quorum is empowered to act and a majority of the members present
 carries uh so was this uh an omission that somebody just made an assumption that it would
 always be seven or uh was there a conscious you know action on the part of council to to make it
 as it is today this this was a situation there was a three three two vote uh on a subdivision
 plat and one of the um applicants or the applicant of that situation um asked the question well that's
 not an affirmative vote so it puts us in a situation of having to act within 30 days
 and answer that question um it is something that we we don't deal a lot with often but when this
 particular vote came in um there was some uncertainty and so we wanted to make sure that
 we provided a clear understanding of how a less than four vote happens yeah i i appreciate that
 but uh my question really went to what is the history behind the four affirmative votes
 requirement was that just you know an oversight not you know or was that a conscious action on the
 part of council say before you i can answer that ron i know the history of uh the the charter
 requires any action any official action by council to be to have four affirmative votes when the
 council years ago drafted the rules procedure when it came to the votes it incorporate that
 rules procedure for yourselves but also applied it to all the boards and commissions as well
 under the thinking that if that's what we're requiring under the charter for ourselves as
 council you boards and commissions will also follow that rule the again the dilemma with
 hb 31 67 is that a 32 which is they're trying to go back to the general roberts rules of order
 which is what you describe that's the general rule to be able to um to the public when they see a
 three two vote they're like what do you mean it's not approved you it was three to two so they're
 trying to go to that rule to the roberts rules of order general rule which would be an exception to
 the general rule that you've imposed on all the boards and commissions but but that was the
 rationale what the council did years ago in mandating boards and commissions to follow the
 same standard they're actually i actually didn't know that we were under that requirement for
 affirmative votes it's 2.06 at the city charter okay thank you councilmember armature
 yeah so a couple questions so number one um like i guess first of all i'll kind of reverse them um
 can you explain kind of how the quorum rule factors into this because on a committee of
 seven which p and z is just like council you know four is a quorum um and then i'm also curious to
 know and and this is relevant because you know because you yourself just cited cited council
 as an example you know hasn't had council had some examples where we've had uh or i i should
 just ask the question has council had instances where we have had uh things get passed or denied
 based on a three two vote or a three one vote when we when there was just a quorum of four present
 but the the first question is more important the second one is just about i'm trying to compare
 this to council history and see how that that fact is and there has years ago where that scenario
 came up a three one ended up in a denial on a council action i think what has happened more
 often in which you we experience as it was the council has experienced is the super majority
 requirement requiring six votes where you've had only five and of course it the item would fail
 but it has happened in the past so and so why not have just p and z just follow council
 that would be the question that that is the issue that p and c means the planning department is
 bringing forward to you to try to uh relax that requirement for them in in relation to the
 requirement from 3167 it if i understood the way ron explained this
 if you had five and three voted in favor then the item is denied they would have to come up with
 the conditions for the denial even though they were recommending approval with no conditions
 or approval with one condition and it would automatically become a denial even though under
 robert's rules of orders it would have passed and i think that's the outcome they were trying to
 avoid um for p and z and the development community who then have to guess exactly
 what were the conditions for denial it relates back to the previous discussion that they've had
 and so i i think that's that's the the reasoning that the development services department has
 brought forward to you to try to relax a requirement to address that situation
 okay and so oh wait can i ask just one follow-up question and if i don't understand the answer to
 this next one then i'll i'll leave it for other others to kind of pick up on it um so would how
 how could it be that can you explain to me how it could be that a three to two vote um which is a
 simple majority so you you've got a quorum present because you've got four i'm sorry you've got five
 you've got more than four um how would a three to two vote or a three to one vote say say you know
 three voting against it's three voting against and two in favor how could that come out as an
 approval or did i misunderstand that i heard i thought i heard you say that if that came out
 as an approval no no what i think what they're saying is that if if there's five pnc commissioners
 present and if the planning department comes forward with the with the subdivision plan
 and they're recommending approval they would require four under the current rules four of
 those five commissioners have to vote in favor right if the staff is recommending approval
 okay great thanks i'll let others pick up because i've got some other questions but i bet others have
 those same questions too so thanks any any other questions great so just a time stamp it's five
 o'clock we have a 6 30 start we have uh only one more thing but i know ron has a section or two
 then we have one more item but councilman marmiter if you can go ahead and exhaust your questions we
 will um go from there yeah so you're um you're frozen you may have to reset your uh your computer
 um okay ron
 what's the name so the law the 30 count councilman marmiter you were frozen there
 for a bit so we didn't hear anything you said okay sorry yeah but you can hear me see me now
 yes yep okay so apologies for my wi-fi so the the law of 3167 or whatever it is um it doesn't
 require three to two does it does it specify three two or does it just say a plurality
 or a simple majority it just says uh must be take it must take action within 30 days it doesn't go
 into the voting discussion so yeah and so why are we getting into that i guess is what i'm wondering
 because of the situation again fellow council members can jump in if you all have wondering the
 same thing yeah sure is it just again to clarify the situation that occurred back um where there
 was a three uh three two vote and um because of the affirmative requirement that it before
 we are just trying to make sure that it's clear to again all members of planning zoning commission
 the applicants and and others that in those situations a affirmative vote either three one
 three two vote would pass any motion that's been presented it's just to be to to provide clarification
 okay okay um i'm i'm okay waiting to um you know kind of do more research on this and
 when this comes back to us for a vote great i'm not quite happy with that but but i but thank you
 for your explanation this will give me time okay council member orion yeah this question mainly i
 guess for the city attorney is if we have it in our rules and procedures for the other boards that
 they have to have for affirmative votes uh is there already an exception in there that says unless
 otherwise spelled out in the code or do we actually need to go back and amend our rules and procedures
 for for the boards to add that language in there i i think what ron said earlier in his presentation
 is that there is a provision right now that talks about tie votes into the um would refer to what's
 in the ddc and so i think there's the link already created so it's just a ddc amendment but but we'll
 double check on the language in the rules procedure if something needs to be tweaked then that has to
 come back forward separately as well thank you okay thank you uh ron you may can continue okay
 this is the it's the last one so um we'll get to it real quickly excuse me ma'am pretend i i wanted
 to weigh in on the last one i'm happy to do it at the end if you want to do that uh no let's go ahead
 um yeah i think the the core issue is presented was being able to give a clear explanation
 to the applicant and i think the clear explanation is our rules require for affirmative votes i mean
 i'm willing to listen to i'm not sure where i stand on that but i i mean it's not obvious to me that
 we need less support for things uh but if it's clear explanation you'd say well our rules require
 for affirmative votes and then also i think what we said about the earlier item if there's got to
 be very specific categories uh for denial then i think that's got to be framed for the commissioners
 that way just as we discussed before and i think that would you know that would address that issue
 so i'm ready for the next issue okay okay ron thank you
 okay so the the last item for for discussion is related to development contracts required
 also known as uh three-way contracts or three-way agreements per our development code section eight
 four six and again here on the left this is all that's what's covered in the ddc just two general
 statements it doesn't really give any specifics or details so the issue here is that it's too general
 and staff often has meetings with applicants and we want to be as clear and we want to make sure
 that they understand the process and therefore what we are trying to do is add more of a descriptive
 list of requirements and or lay out the process a little bit more clearly so that those folks that
 are obtaining those these types of agreements are in understanding of what was required of them
 and also to address some legal matters in the sense that what we're asking for is codified in
 the development code so again staff is recommending option two and that is to add more than what is
 currently in the ddc under 846 846 as it is today as shown earlier or shown here is just again these
 two paragraphs or these two sentences what staff is proposing is to elaborate on that and provide
 a little bit more explanation and amend that particular section calling it a three-way agreement
 required section and under that particular section have all of these subsections provided
 i don't have the full language it is it was included in your backup but again as you can see
 that the the existing requirement is again very general what we're trying to do is provide again
 our applicants and others a little bit more of a descriptive list of requirements as well as the
 process so again this is something that we would like to include and amend as part of these code
 amendments is to provide additional information for for those that are looking at applying or
 required to get a three-way agreement this here just illustrates where that is in the process
 under our application process as you can tell it's further towards the end of the development
 review process as it gets through a series of development reviews civil engineering plans
 specifically once they complete that civil engineering plan review and get recommendation
 for approval the next step is to start the the final plat and as well as the three-way agreements
 in their particular development so that's that concludes my presentation on this item again is
 just again add more language add more descriptive list of things that is required under a three-way
 agreement okay questions council member davis council member briggs
 and no questions just to say i'm generally in favor of anything it gives more specificity
 and if this is something that staff's going to tell them at some date is required i think it's
 fair to put it in the code so that before they you'll get ready to bring something to uh to the
 application process they know what's going to be asked of them so i think this is a fair notice
 kind of provision i like it okay customer breaks my comments may be a little bit opposite uh i'm
 just i'm curious if the agreements listed are all the possible agreements i mean is there
 is there something um a reason that it was general is because there could be some kind of creative
 agreement that may not be listed um i just and if somebody comes up with something and it's not
 individually listed in the code does that create an issue or problem councilman breaks i think when
 we started the development code update in 2019 the idea there was to have more of this in a like a
 criteria manual or a development handbook that being said again with house bill 3167 a lot of
 things that we often again need to refer to is the development code and it's a little bit more
 stronger language and again so it's part of the development the development idea of having it
 available since we need to provide reasons or technical requirements i think this was one of
 the that results uh to put in the code more in the code than than in that handbook okay okay so i'm
 just clarifying we're not we're not leaving anything out i mean earlier we were generalizing we're not
 now being too specific correct it's this this is it's outlining the process um and it's not
 necessarily um going to add more to uh what's required it's just this is what we need in order
 to um process that three-way agreement okay thanks okay any other any other questions comments
 okay thank you ron so just just to real quickly to sum up them we have uh scheduled these items
 that we just talked about they are going to be presented to the planning zoning commission
 similar to what was presented to you all and we'll obviously have to make some um adjustment or
 explain to them how council um what was discussed at council and after that we plan on taking this
 forward as a public hearing item uh and considered as an ordinance which will be brought to you as
 well uh later in november uh as as again an item for consideration uh as part of the code amendments
 that we'll bring forward okay and and ron i'll it's not to be uh i'm not going to take it up now but
 i do want to circle back with you uh i'll work through the city manager to get some time uh i've
 heard i've had some conversations around this three-way agreement and it kind of being unique
 to denton etc etc so i just want to explore that further and kind of talk to you about what i've
 heard and get a better understanding so when it comes back around better prepared and save time
 so i'll work that out but thank you very much great presentation good feedback uh okay if that's
 everything great so that will take us to uh item three c and that is id 2014 90 receive report
 hold discussion give staff direction on pending city council requests uh there we go
 good afternoon allowing to jeremiah screen
 which is
 okay stop sharing
 how's that okay thank you great okay good afternoon mayor pro tem and council this
 is rachel ball through mendoza i'll present to you today's city council pending requests for
 information um just as a little bit of background
 get that over there um up to seven requests will be reviewed per meeting and we have one for this
 afternoon i'll introduce the one for today and the elected official that made the request will
 have up to one minute to describe and justify it and then the remaining officials will then have
 up to one minute each to provide feedback and indicate their support for the use of staff time
 to respond to the request and then we'll respond to all the requests where a consensus of council
 is established so today like i mentioned we have the one from council member briggs where she's
 requesting the drafting and passing of a resolution asking the governor to open bars and allow them
 to operate as other businesses and um just uh there's the wording itself and then we also have
 uh the background information i did also want to add um that yesterday we learned that uh the
 governor he did come out and say that there will be um another announcement as of what what may be
 opening up soon he did not uh say exactly when that announcement will happen but he did hint
 at further openings in that announcement so i'm going to bring this down
 and then mayor protem i have a timer
 okay very good let me get uh got it
 okay and then so council member briggs whenever you're ready
 a recent article in the denton record chronicle shows the importance of our bars as live music
 venues we consider ourselves a music friendly uh community but almost all live live music venues
 are closed our bars and venues cannot survive the rest of 2020 without opening or funding relief
 i am asking this council to be an advocate for our local establishments and asking the governor
 to allow them to open under cdc guidelines with special rules or sending a request for funding
 relief for these establishments because our artists and our funding for our artists and
 establishments is needed desperately we cannot stand to lose any more of our music venues
 okay and council member davis and say i support um sending something to the governor asking him
 to reopen the bars for the reasons that councilman briggs just said and also because they're
 big employers in this college town there are a lot of people um out of work or having to get
 creative about where to find work and i'm glad that rachel mentioned the governor's tweet it's got a
 a gift of a couple beer glasses clinking together so i think it's pretty clear what he intends to
 announce at some point but he's very cryptic about when that's going to be okay thank you
 councilman melzer councilmember armature
 yeah fundamentally i i think he didn't ask my opinion but the governor shouldn't have been
 picking types of businesses that the virus doesn't care whether you're praying or drinking i mean it
 should be just based on public health guidelines indoors outdoors so many people distance mask
 etc so i think i'm so i'm supportive of this uh especially if it includes language like
 you have to operate in other businesses with appropriate uh measures against coronavirus
 transmission councilmember armature subtract my arms and i'm sure it was on time uh yeah so i
 obviously support it too i've been outspoken on this issue i thought i think um councilmember
 briggs and melzer put it really well i was not aware of the tweet with the little clinking glasses
 so i would just ask you know if governor abbott if you're watching this if you could please just
 be more direct um and not be such a tease as much as i love emojis and things like that it is now
 it's the time we should really be direct but i look forward to hearing what that message is and
 i hope it's not in the form of a riddle okay all right so that's that's four but councilman ryan
 yeah i'll just chime in real quick and say that i'm in support of it as well
 and uh i know our chamber of commerce as well as the frisco chamber of commerce have already sent
 letters in that same regard so i think it's a good gesture on our part to continue that
 that type of conversation to the governor great and i'm going to echo what councilman ryan just
 said for to to keep it brief and so we we have consensus to move that forward so thank you very
 much rachel sure thank you um and you said that was the only one correct correct yes sir perfect
 thank you so then that would take us to that concludes our work session items the question
 becomes is there does any of the does anyone on council need to go in a closed session
 that's just a placeholder so if there's any closed session discussion needed we'll go in we'll do
 that now otherwise we will break until uh our regularly scheduled meeting at uh 6 30
 councilman bricks yes i i have one question that i probably need to ask in the closed session
 regarding the item okay so let me call it and then we'll take a five minute break so we're going to
 convene in closed session at uh 5 26 we will consider the following items consult consultation
 with attorneys under texas government code 551.071 and with that we will take a uh let's call it a
 eight minute break to clear the room get ready so that'll put us back at uh let's see three is 30
 so 5 35 thank you
 good evening uh welcome to this regular session of the denton city council meeting it is now
 6 35 and we do have a quorum so we will start with the section 1a the pledge to the united
 states and then b to the texas flags you stand if you're able
 i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which
 it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all now pleasure texas
 flag i pledge allegiance to the texas flag honor the texas one state under god one and indivisible
 and then that takes us to uh we do have one proclamation so i'll get ready for that
 all right and it is power week and so we have uh terry nolte here and i'm gonna so i'm going
 to read the proclamation and then you have some some comments so that's great so i'll read this
 to you now uh to all who come to all who come to these proceedings uh greetings we the citizens
 whereas we the citizens of the city of denton texas place high value and local control over
 community services therefore we have we have chosen to operate a community-owned not-for-profit
 electric utility and customers and own owners of electric utility have a direct say in utility
 operations and policies and whereas denton municipal electric provides our homes businesses
 and local government agencies with reliable efficient and cost effective electric electricity
 employing sound business practices designed to ensure the best possible service at for
 not-for-profit rates and whereas denton municipal electric is a valuable community asset that
 contributes to well-being of local citizens through energy efficiency customer service
 environmental protections economic development and safety and awareness and whereas denton
 municipal electric is is dependable and trustworthy institution whose local operation
 provides many consumer protections and continues to make our community a better place to live work
 and contribute and contributes to protecting the global environment and whereas denton municipal
 electric will continue to work to bring low-cost safe reliable electricity to community homes and
 businesses just as it has since 1905 the year when the utility was created to serve all the citizens
 of the city of denton and now therefore i gerard hutzpah the mayor pro tem of the city of denton
 texas do hereby declare and proclaim the week of october 4 2020 through october 10 2020 as public
 power week and recognize denton municipal electric for its contributions to the community
 and to educating customer owners policymakers and employees of the benefit of public power
 so i'll move that to you there thank you thank you yes sir uh just want to say on behalf of
 the 150 plus employees at that municipal electric and more importantly on behalf of the citizens of
 denton who are our owners and our sole stockholders we thank you very much for all the support you give
 to us as staff and enable us to do the job and keep the lights on and then yes thank you very
 much thank you thank you and so we will take a short break i'll transition uh to the other room
 and we'll pick up uh uh with our consent agenda thank you okay we are back and that takes us to
 item 3a review procedures don't need that and do we have any
 so no callers that'll take us to four the consent agenda and so i we uh just to recap items d
 and m and i were pulled i will take a um a motion
 council member ryan we've approved of the consent agenda with the exceptions of items d i and m
 council member briggs i will second okay got a motion and a second any comments
 okay uh council member ryan hasayu aye council member briggs yes okay uh council member davis
 aye and council member armator yes okay council member melter aye and mayor for tim hudspeth
 is a i that passes six zero and just as a uh procedural thing before we take item d
 up individually please those watching note that item of on the uh individual consideration item a
 through k have been postponed to the october 20th meeting i do believe so uh individual
 considerations a through items k have been postponed so uh mayor pro tem yes sir on those
 items um they were put on this agenda tonight because of the motion to postpone that was made
 previously so they're coming back on this item and so a new motion to postpone would be required
 for each one yes sir or you can do them in a single group um motion to postpone i don't mean
 i see items a through whatever the letter is to a date certain okay and the only reason is because
 they were postponed at a previous meeting to tonight's meeting so we'd have to
 redo the a motion to postpone got it and just a word to the wise what is the postponed to what
 date what where is it when is it reset so that we can i'm looking at the city manager october 20th
 okay there we go okay great so that way whoever makes the motion will know thank you erin uh so
 let's we'll take up consent agenda item d which is uh so that's 4d id 2014 53 let the record show
 that council member briggs has recused um and i don't think there there was a presentation
 does anyone need a presentation on this okay great council member ryan i move approval of
 item d and i also recommend that we go ahead and take up m after this since those were the two that
 council member briggs was refusing herself from and i'll be recusing on i thank you i appreciate
 that recommendation um do i have a second council member davis i'll second thank you um any discussion
 okay council member ryan hasayu aye council member davis aye council member armatuer
 yes council member melzer aye and mayor pro tem hudspeth is a i as well so that passes
 five to zero we will fast forward to item m which is 4m id 20 1600 and let the record again show
 council member briggs is recused i'll take a motion council member melzer move approval
 council member ryan a second any discussion okay council member melzer hasayu aye council member
 ryan aye council member davis one more time
 you're doing it backwards okay you got to unmute
 aye there we go thank you and then councilor armatuer yes okay and mayor pro tem is an i as
 well that passes five to zero uh and then so we that will take us to uh what is it item i
 so that's four i id 20 1564 and let the record show that uh council member uh ryan has recused
 himself uh anyone need presentation on this okay uh then i'll take a motion
 okay council member briggs i move to approve okay
 council member davis i'll second thank you um any discussion okay council member briggs
 yes okay uh council member davis aye okay and then council member armatuer
 yes council member melzer aye and mayor pro tem hudspeth is an i that passes five to zero
 and that will take us to
 individual considerations pardon me yes sorry five to zero do we miss in two oh yeah mayors linear
 got it okay thank you i appreciate it i need all the help i can get uh okay and then so that takes
 us to item five for individual consideration i'll take a motion council member davis i move that
 items a through k for individual consideration be postponed to the date certain of october 20th 2020
 thank you council member melzer second thank you um okay we have a motion and a second any discussion
 okay uh council member davis how say you i okay and council member melzer
 aye thank you and council member armatuer
 yes council member briggs yes council member ryan aye and mayor pro tem is i that passes six to zero
 that will take us to item l5l which is id 20-2052 consider adoption of an ordinance approving a
 compromise settlement agreement and release of claims between the city of denton
 and everett newland and jennifer newland regarding issues disputes related to
 alleged impacts denton energy center or the on the newlands property
 uh councilman briggs i i wasn't sure if we were going to have a presentation i was going to move
 to approve okay um mr city manager we have a presentation we do not but we uh can certainly
 go through the deal points if necessary no i think we have a motion we'll we'll take that up so
 council member briggs moves do we have a second
 council member ryan sorry i'll second thank you sir appreciate you uh any discussion we have motion
 and second okay council member briggs yes okay council member ryan aye council member davis
 council member davis aye council member armatuer yes council member melzer aye and uh mayor pro tem
 is an i that passes six to zero takes us to five m id 20-1940 consider adoption of an ordinance of
 the city of denton texas home rule municipal corporation authorizing the approval of a
 second amendment to the professional services agreement between the city of denton and sgs
 engineering llc there we go i guess y'all need to see me and hear me don't you that might be a
 little bit better presentation it enhances it tremendously
 jerry fielder didn't mean this electric um engineering manager i've come before you today
 to talk about the second amendment for a professional service agreement with sgs engineers llc
 kind of give you an idea of what um this firm does for us uh the first professional services
 or they provide us engineered drawings for our substation and transmission line constructions
 projects including the structural steel foundation design electrical design
 and relay and system protection designs they also provide us construction inspection services
 these are needed to ensure that construction meets the design and regulatory requirements
 and maintains the records of the daily of daily weather and construction activities to make sure
 that we're having these guys work efficiently they're building our equipment assisting coordinating
 and monitoring the materials provided to the contractor and report on safety damage and
 construction issues which are appropriate to dme and other contractor points of contact
 this next slide kind of gives you an idea of everything that we've got included
 in this um this amendment there's several substation projects the underwood substation
 which is two three years out is is in this um is in this packet we also have upgrades to several
 substations some relay project and rtu upgrades and transmission line projects include a new
 transmission line from the pockets to brinker transmission line upgrades give you a list there
 in a reconstructed transmission lines staff recommends approval of an amendment to the
 existing agreement with sts llc for professional services in an amount not to exceed 3.5 million
 dollars with the total contract amount not to exceed of 11 million 435 thousand dollars
 and all these contracts are structured hourly so the charges for services or for services
 rendered will be billed and we have no minimum amount guaranteed for this contractor any questions
 all right thank you yeah there we go okay questions for staff councilmember briggs
 i think my question was answered under that last bullet point about funding um uh the the t-coast
 and the the puc is that what you said so that'll be refunded do we how does that can you just tell
 us how that process works um i'm going to do my best on that i may ask mr tolti to tell me because
 it's not the but basically what it is is all this um the money that's associated with these
 substation and transmission projects are collected and they're submitted to the puc um on a regular
 basis and the puc based upon criteria that they've set um agree that they are reimbursable or not
 reimbursable okay so out of the i'm sorry mayor pro tem by all means so out of the 11.4 million
 or do we think that most of that would be reimbursable to the city or is there some of
 that that will not be um terry's kind of making a headline over here he might have a better answer
 good evening council uh councilmember riggs uh 11.4 million i'm sorry terry nalty assistant
 general manager dme the 11.4 million is the total contract value much of that as you can
 tell has already been expended capitalized there are specific rules that we operate under
 pursuant to the public utility commission of texas guidelines and rules dealing with what is eligible
 for transmission cost of service so each each project that we do we have to look at whether or
 not the engineering services that we are are applying to that project are eligible for t-cost
 reimbursement so anything that is eligible we do submit and that money is then recovered
 over a specified period of time on an annual basis from all the other market participants in texas
 does that answer your question it does and what about the where does the money come from that
 we do not submit if all of it's not recoverable that is recovered in our base rates those would be
 distribution level charges not transmission level charges so we build a substation approximately
 60 percent of the capital expense is t-cost eligible 40 is in the distribution side and
 goes into our base rates okay thank you very much okay any other questions
 okay i'll take a motion
 council member ryan i'll move approval okay
 council member briggs i'll second thank you okay council member ryan high say you
 aye council member briggs yes council member davis aye council member melter
 aye council member armature yes and mayor pro tem is is an i that passes six to zero and
 so that'll take us to five n which is id 20 1941 consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of
 denton texas homeroom municipality corporation authorizing the approval of a third amendment
 to the professional services agreement between the city of denton and black and veach corporation
 again jerry filter division engineering manager dme
 and then i again come for you today to ask approval for a third amendment to a black
 and veach contract for professional services some of the information that we are some of the
 services that black and veach provide for us or they provide us a lot of nerd er cot and tre these
 are our regulatory agency compliance support they do relay design and setting consultation for us
 for the transmission system and they also are involved in new and future substation conceptual
 designs and analysis and they also do some additional engineering and technical support
 that we may identify throughout the year
 kind of a different thing with this contract is for the new hickory gis substation
 black and veach will be the hickory substations owner's engineer for dme
 section 2269.305 of the texas governmental code requires the city didn't have an owner engineers
 to serve as dme's representative uh the hickory gis substation will be a design build project um
 it's so it's going to be engineered and constructed under one contract this is something
 that's a little bit different for dme and so this is one of the reason they have experience in this
 type of contract so this is one of the reasons why we believe black and veach will be a good
 contact for this one and then black and veach will during this process prepare and design the
 criteria package assist with the evaluation of all the bids assist with design reviews
 and provide engineering oversight of the project as it's being built
 again this is a list of the projects that we have proposed under this amendment as you can
 tell the largest bulk of this one third of this is the owner engineer services for the hickory
 gis substation and again we've listed out the compliance support relay design conceptual designs
 as well as a future substation project design that's the underwood substation that we mentioned
 previously staff recommends approval of an amendment to the existing agreement with black
 and veach corporation for professional services in an amount not to exceed 2.99
 to 2 million 990 thousand nine hundred dollars for a total contract amount of and not to exceed of
 6 million 556 300 and as the other contract this contract structured hourly so the charges is
 charges for services only will be billed for the services that provide us will be billed
 and we have no minimum amount guaranteed for this consultant do you have any questions
 thank you perfect uh questions for staff councilmember melzer yes thank you um you mentioned
 that uh hickory street would be different uh i i know what i think you're referring to but
 can you say what what you meant in what way it'll be different certainly um the majority of the
 substation well all the substations that didn't have in them now are what we call air insulated
 substations gis is a gas insulated substation and so it has certain advantages as it can have a
 smaller footprint associated with it and take up less land for the substation this was a directive
 that we were given by the council a couple years ago that they wanted hickory substation built as a
 gis substation versus the normal air insulated substation and am i thinking about the right one
 you're talking about hickory at bonnie bray yes sir so it's hickory and oak yeah it's right across
 from the old substation in the vicinity of bonnie bray yes and uh does the plan still
 contain as was directed by the the uh you know committee that was put together a couple of years
 ago an architectural facade because it's adjacent to a historic neighborhood it does in fact we're
 working with architect firm um continually just trying to get that worked out and the pricing
 worked out for the the wall terrific thank you very much thank you councilor armater and you're
 saying the wall to me the wall is what's usually done the architectural facade is what's different
 are you saying the same thing it's an architectural facade yes sir okay so it'll look like kind of like
 a building yeah i believe this yeah i believe yeah it's close okay yeah uh okay thank you very much
 councilor armater so questions so um i'm um have always been uh opposed to the hickory uh substation
 because of how close it is to a residential neighborhood but i know that we're not voting
 on that we're voting on these engineering services that are essential um for any substation to make
 sure if it's going to get built it needs to get be built correctly and i do understand that even i
 regret it that it's being built but uh my question is it's it's a little bit like paul's but a little
 different um will there be you know any opportunity for a community the community to provide in the
 community who's there right now um to to provide input to the engineering firm on the areas where
 there is wiggle room because i know you know and the design specs there on any design um there's
 some sort of uh wiggle room and room for variation um obviously you know the public doesn't know as
 far as engineering goes or the privacy doesn't know but you know they're not uh the public
 i'm not saying leave it up to the public to decide on the engineering details but where there
 are issues where the public could weigh in will there be that there be an opportunity or is that
 not what this kind of engineering firm does would that be something for for staff miss penalty said
 he wants to answer that question well and i have a question well aaron can you help terry give terry
 give me just one second aaron go ahead i think the question is starting to get me on the posting i
 think the answer for this if terry knows that could keep us in posting is whether or not
 at some point in the process in the future where the design comes for council for approval will
 the public have an opportunity to weigh in if the answer is yes then we can proceed going forward
 i don't try the answer that was a little different than my question but well i don't know that he's
 trying to make it fit the contract for black and beach yeah but but my question is about what kind
 of work does it involve does it involve them uh consulting with the community at all or no or is
 that something that staff would do because i know that when anything comes up to council for a vote
 obviously public gets input on it if it's coming to council so i already know the answer to that
 question i was just wondering about you know what the engineering firm would be whether they'd be
 consulting the public or does that something that only staff would do that's all so i can answer
 the question a couple different ways but uh this is on point with council member melcher's question
 as well the there was a extensive public input process around the siting of this project there
 was an architectural committee that was put together i believe council member melzer was
 on the committee the edifice the the the wall was specified by that that committee and that is what
 will be built on the site the engineering contract itself will come before you uh not this one but
 black and beach will be preparing a specification for the design build of the substation uh that
 particular contract will come before this council for approval as we anticipate it will be a 20
 plus million dollar contract okay thank you and thank you and just to follow up i just want to say
 that um that i do understand uh that that there was this committee two years ago i'm really really
 pleased about that i was asking just about the people who are there now because there are also
 tenants uh what's called referred to as cement city it's right there you know and and there are
 renters and that's a pretty that's a group that shifts so the people who were there two years ago
 are not necessarily there now that was the reason for my question but thank you okay councilman
 breaks it's going to be a beautiful facility thank you councilman breaks yeah my comment is similar
 and then i have another comment just about the contract i wonder if anyone has an image prepared
 i know that this was discussed a few years back and it's been a while so it's um it's not fresh on
 anyone's mind and we're just trying to kind of go by memory um that that would have would have been
 helpful here just to see what that design looked like my other question or comment is this is up to
 6.5 million is this just for like the professional services because when he said design build in my
 mind i thought that that included the build part of it but from what i just heard that is going to
 be a whole separate contract coming back to us probably for um quite a bit of money so just if
 you can clarify sure sure the um the they're going to be our owner's engineer which means that
 they're going to manage basically the project from its conception all the way to its closeout
 they'll help us prepare an rfp to actually build the substation and um yes once that rfp is there
 we've you know we're ready to bring it to council to be brought to council so there will be another
 contract that will come to you guys to actually build the substation so the potential of 6.5
 million is for them to kind of act as like contractors on the job site kind of there are
 owners engineers and it's i think it's 990 000 almost a million dollars of it's just to perform
 those services for us okay all right any other questions okay i'll take a motion
 to approve councilor melzer i'm of approval
 councilor ryan i'll second any other discussion okay uh councilor melzer hasayu
 aye councilor ryan aye councilor davis aye councilor briggs yes and council member armature
 yes and mayor protem is yes that is that passes six zero that takes us to
 item o so that's uh five oh and i'll call it but i'll also note for the record that council member
 briggs has recused its item o50 id 20 1951 consider adoption of ordinance of city of denton texas a
 home rule municipality corporation authorizing the city manager execute a professional services
 agreement with james r kerpatrick architect inc dba kerpatrick architecture studio
 is there a presentation for this or does anyone need a presentation better say it
 scott gray is getting prepared real quick okay give him just a minute all right
 good evening mayor protem members of the council scott gray director of facilities
 a brief presentation for you this evening on the architectural design services for the loop 288
 building as council recalls the city just acquired the property back in october excuse me back in
 august 28th this building will be used by the community services department to assist those
 with experiencing homelessness it will have a number of facilities in it to do that but we
 need to have the building remodeled in order to accommodate the various services that will be
 located in the building this procurement actually is a two-phase scope the first phase is conceptual
 design and cost estimation and then the second phase will move into construction documents bidding
 and actual construction and that is if the city requests that service when we finish phase one
 we'll determine if a different construction methodology may be warranted rather than just
 a bid in for construction so that process will likely take about 12 three months for the first
 phase and then another nine months for the second phase to get those complete this rfq was provided
 to 177 firms not sure what that is on the screen hopefully that's not in your way
 the rfq was sent to 177 firms we did have 12 responses to that solicitation there was a
 committee that reviewed all of those 12 submittals and did recommend kurt patrick architectural
 studios that's the schedule you see there on the right hand side in the in the phases that i
 mentioned earlier approximately three months in that first three months phase there will be
 numerous outreaches to the various occupants of that building and that will be headed up by
 community services and danny shaw and she's on the line if you need to ask questions about the
 specifics of the future use but staff's recommendation is to enter into the professional
 service agreement with with kurt patrick to do the design services in the amount not to exceed
 one hundred and sixteen thousand nine hundred and fifty five dollars and i'd be happy to answer
 any questions you may have all right thank you questions for staff council member armature
 yeah so thank you i'm really excited about this facility i think my questions are probably more
 for danny but i don't know so i'll just ask and whoever is feels most qualified to answer can
 answer um so i i uh get been getting a number of messages i've been counting how many uh from a
 number of them from the same few people over and over again people who are uh experiencing
 homelessness or who are being temporarily housed inside the hotels and they're really excited about
 on this facility coming um they these are also people who have to some degree made use of them
 and senior king who are all you know using our daily bread or part of the our daily bread community
 so anyway they're uh they're all wondering you know what is what would be a good estimate for
 when we think this thing might get on the ground uh i know cobit has put a real dent dent in things
 um is there any change on the timeline and also related to that i i know we're not talking about
 the hotels today you know but they're all hearing that the people who are staying in hotels now
 are trying to plan uh no well no this is this is related because they're trying to plan
 where to go next and so they're wondering this is my point they're wondering about
 how does the timeline appears matched up with the timeline of the uh the hotel stay so if you which
 was i think was was uh the last i heard due to end at the end of october but with some possible
 extensions so could you talk about how those two timelines sync up before you do danny erin can you
 that is on posting well let me ask my question please erin could you uh help me or help danny
 on kind of give her some framework we're talking about a architecture contract and obviously she's
 going to need to stay on that to some degree so if you can give some guidance there i'd appreciate it
 personally may i pretend i believe that the question goes beyond the posting it's wanting
 to know as the question has been asked people out there who who are staying at the hotel want to
 make their plans for a facility that's going to open it up i think at that point we're crossing
 that threshold where we're not talking about the contract anymore got it so councilmember
 armater please contact danny uh and she'll be able to answer your question directly that way
 yes sir thank you um any other questions nope okay um any other questions for staff
 got it um so i'll take a motion
 councilman ryan move approval
 do i have a second councilmember melzer a second okay we have a motion a second any other discussion
 okay councilmember ryan how say you all right councilmember melzer hi councilmember davis
 hi councilmember armater yes and mayor pro tem is yes that's uh passes five zero uh that will take
 us to item 5p id 20 1967 consider approval of a resolution city of denton uh city council of city
 of denton texas to uh reestablish the ad hoc development code review committee to consider
 and advise the council whether whether and in what manner to revise the denton development code
 providing a sunset date and providing an effective date
 thank you mayor pro temp uh give me a second to pull up my presentation there should be a
 short presentation um again this item is to reestablish the ddc uh dcrc sorry development
 code review committee the purpose again is to assist in the code amendment process by providing
 guidance specifically prioritizing and reviewing draft amendments with the objective of making a
 recommendation recommendations to the full city council currently the development code review
 committee um prior to today or prior is consistent of three city council members the members at the
 time are john ryan keely briggs and chris watts john ryan served as chair keely briggs served as
 vice chair and then there were also three planning zoning commissioners andrew roselle margie alice
 and we have a vacant planning zoning commissioner who was larry beck who no longer serves on the
 commission the plan is to meet with the planning zoning commission tomorrow wednesday to select
 and have one a member serve on this committee this here is just to illustrate you've seen this
 schedule before when scott mcdonnell presented it we are hoping to get the dcrc established
 sorry
 sorry i i would just hold that i wasn't sharing my screen i apologize
 let me just back up one slide here you were doing great you were painting a picture with
 your words it was outstanding well i really this is the this is the slide i really wanted to share
 again there's three members of council and three members of planning zoning commission
 there are again the three that we've already spoke of on council and then the the two on
 the planning zoning commissioner commission and we hope to add a third member tomorrow wednesday
 when we meet with the planning zoning commission this is the schedule that was shared with you all
 at our last work session we're hoping to establish the reestablish that is the dcrc
 today so that we can start the process of hopefully scheduling our first meetings
 maybe in mid august or mid october that is uh and and start sharing with that committee some
 of the recommendations that we are proposing and hopefully get guidance in clear direction as we
 move forward with these code amendments and that concludes my presentation i'll stand for questions
 okay thank you council member davis only one question for me maybe a little bit uncomfortable
 but the the resolution the draft resolution says that anything not addressed by the ordinance of
 the resolution will be governed by our typical procedures for committees and boards does that
 mean if the vacancy were to occur on the committee that that would come back to council to fill the
 vacancy because we'll have at least one of those at the beginning next month in mayor watts so
 would that come back to the council then for nominations and appointments in a
 the typical fashion yes sir okay any other questions
 okay i'll take a motion council member davis i'll move approval is there a second
 council member ryan i'll second thank you i have a motion to second any discussion
 okay council member davis i'll say you aye council member ryan aye
 council member melzer
 aye okay council member briggs yes council member armature
 yes and mayor pro tem hudspeth is a yes that's six that passes six to zero thank you ron thank you
 uh that will take us to item 6a id 2017 48th it's a public hearing
 so i will open the public hearing uh just so i don't forget
 share
 you know okay good evening mayor pro temp and council members my name is eddie valdez management
 analyst for the parks and recreation department i have a short presentation uh regarding the
 amendments to the naming policy which includes the use of temporary names after this presentation
 we will follow up with questions and public comments got it and eddie real quick uh i don't
 see you on the feed here all right is that just me i can't tell there you are hey okay sorry go
 right ahead all right so staff has revised the naming policy on january 7 of this year
 however the new naming policy did not address when city staff used temporary names
 uh during the acquisition or development phase of a land or building
 also historically there wasn't a procedure on how staff utilized temporary names
 subsequently the chair of the parks recreation and beautification board
 requested a future park board discussion on creating an internal policy on how staff will
 use temporary names on july 13 of this year uh staff drafted the amendments to the naming policy
 which addressed temporary naming which you can see in in exhibit two and park board approved
 these amendments to the naming policy with a five zero vote also you can see in your packet
 exhibit three is the red line version which you can review all the edits of the naming policy
 so there are two major updates in the naming policy one of them is the definition that defines
 temporary name staff believes adding a definition will help define what temporary name is and the
 temporary name is defined only for a limited time until a permanent name has been approved
 through the proper channels for approval and then the second part to this is staff added a section
 for temporary name procedures this section will clarify how staff are to use temporary names and
 there are two steps to this the first step is when staff receives instructions through a developed
 or new land facility and staff will use a geographic location such as street names furniture roads or
 major intersection that is associated with that parcel or building facility and then the second
 step is staff will use an identifier such as property or building at the end of the temporary
 name so for example the associated location is in main street and it is a property it would be
 called main street property and in contrast if it is a building or a facility it will be named street
 building one last thing to add is staff is encouraging citizens groups or organizations
 to submit nominations for naming as soon as the temporary name has been initiated so that the
 temporary name will cease immediately upon a permanent name that went through the naming
 application and approved by city council the naming policy application is on the city website
 for the public's nomination on a permanent name and we've also sent out these updates to one citizen
 that gave us valuable information in the past to update the naming policy
 so next steps based on today's feedback from the public and council staff will update the naming
 policy and we'll proceed with the future city council agenda item for approval of a resolution
 of the amendments to this naming policy thank you again mayor pro temp city council and citizens
 of the city of denton questions or comments are now open for discussion okay thank you and
 and eddie i'm new chair in the meetings how many how many presentations you've done thus far
 is this is this your first my first one yeah very good well done thank you very informed
 okay council member uh armature so question um can you talk about
 you know what is the or is there a you know a statute of limitations or a a a window
 defining what exactly counts as temporary it sounds to me like it's just you know until a
 permanent name is decided on um but i'm always thinking in terms of the what ifs and i could
 imagine um you know a scenario well i could imagine all kinds of scenarios but i but i just
 want i first i want to get your answer to see if i'm reading it correctly and then i'll have
 follow-up questions or not depending on what the answer is oops let me share my screen
 you can do this
 yeah how do i ensure i'm sure yeah you're not sharing oh i'm not sharing okay my apologies
 just want to make sure i'm doing this correctly i know i've been there it's you can't tell what
 other people are seeing so there's not a statute of limitation right now uh what we are doing
 right now is just having an internal policy so um uh so that the idea is that we're not
 steering uh the public uh to use one name or the other and um using uh you we're hoping that
 citizens will utilize the naming application so that you know immediately you know it will be
 seized hopefully that answers your question so that so that immediately it will be what it will be
 it will be replaced for the permanent name okay okay and so so to ask as a hypothetical um
 you know say so the name of a city building um say the name of the new development center right
 the uh the Subaru or the Diet Coke whatever development center company could buy that
 temporarily and it could be um a week later a month later a year later until that that would
 wouldn't be known to the because i'm imagining that the the person who's buying that naming right
 would want it to be uh worth their investment would want to know well i'll be buying it for
 at least this long what will they get told uh Gary uh packing we'll jump in for a second
 Gary packing director of parks and recreation uh council member Armentur that's actually a
 different policy that's our sponsorship and and uh policy this is for just general naming
 so the the the concern with the park board chair was if we start calling it um Gary's Park um just
 as a holding name that it automatically will just kind of stay that way after so many years and
 people will start calling it Gary's Park and they will want to change it so that's why we're going
 to the geographical location so if there's a piece of property on Main Street that we're going to buy
 we would call it Main Street property and then start encouraging the community to submit
 applications for official naming i'm sure we have existing parks that have just been given a place
 holder name uh for staff and they've maintained that for years so the one thing we'd like to do
 is go back and research all of our properties to make sure that they went through a naming process
 and if they haven't make those available for the community if they would like to nominate that
 property for a future name of a community member or an organization thank you so much and i
 understand and now everything's coming together and yeah it hinged on this this this uh confusion
 which was a question before about the difference between the naming and the sponsorship which and
 i think okay you're putting that up quite a bit um so you're is this better now is this okay now
 yes okay good so this would not be a court would not be a commercial no name no correct this is
 okay during during construction a good example is mills property it's on mills it's a park
 property so we call it the mills property uh at some point in time maybe city council and a
 subcommittee decides it wants to be mills park and that's that's fine as well but it's not official
 until we've gone through the process okay excellent so that that part i understood but i just wasn't
 clear on whether kind of it could also be a corporate or commercial name so that's not a
 possibility also that's wonderful because i'm not in favor of the corporate naming but thank you and
 by the way i think of all our parks is gary's park so but that's just me so anyway thank you
 councilman bricks that's too much responsibility well yeah you just um this is a temporary naming
 policy but in your comments just then you said you we would go back to parks that have been in
 the city and named for a while and um look at renaming those is that was that just something
 that use that's not what we're talking about right now no so my comment was i'm pretty sure that we
 have some properties that never went through the naming process that staff may have just given them
 given them a name uh you know sherman property uh just based on general geographic location and it
 just kind of stuck uh so the goal there is to go back and see what we have officially gone through
 the naming process and see what we could actually have available for the community to nominate
 somebody for a park property in the future that would be a list of of available properties that
 could be nominated by by any community member so in a sense has had a temporary name for a really
 long time right and yeah in that we're trying to get to a place where we don't start naming
 something and calling it that and it just sticks forever okay all right thank you you're welcome
 any other questions or i'll take a motion
 councillor melzer
 i said just to make sure i'm clear their name for the nearest fast food restaurant right
 no right okay thank you uh is it councilmember davis i'll second but i want to distance myself
 from that last remark okay and uh so i'll come to you john uh mr city attorney tonight is just a
 public hearing there's no action item associated with this okay well forgive me uh i thought we
 were uh so all right well then no need for that thank you for the clarification councilman ryan
 did you have any comments who yeah that was my comment i appreciate you uh okay and still no
 callers so i will close the uh public uh hearing and then so staff has direction and uh if there's
 is there anything else mr city manager i missed on that one okay thank you we're good okay so
 that concludes item 6a that takes us to our last item concluding items uh councilmember davis
 just want to throw out there that uh denton has been recognized as one of the top 100
 most livable cities uh there's a it's kind of a complicated metric to get us there
 but drc has a great article on their website right now um so we expect about another hundred thousand
 more people to move here next year well thank you um anyone else okay i'll rattle off a couple uh so
 there's the denton county friends of the family their 40th anniversary is virtual that gala is
 on thursday the eighth and thursday there's an action pack pack day so we have twilight tunes
 as well on the eighth i do believe that's in the parking lot of wells fargo you have to
 pre-register and be in your car uh and then also on the eighth is my brother's birthday so happy
 birthday to anthony hudspeth and then two days later on the 10th it's my pops so happy birthday
 pops on the 10th and i think that is everything i have but it's a busy day a busy weekend other
 than that we will see you next week if there's nothing else okay then i'll conclude this meeting
 on the sixth at uh 7 34 p.m thank you everyone have a good evening

        
Back to Meeting