[A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding a citywide Fair Chance Hiring ordinance. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

ITEM ID 222410.

RECEIVE REPORT WHOLE DISCUSSION GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING A CITY WIDE FAIR CHANCE HIRING ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. LET ME PULL MY PRESENTATION UP.

EXCELLENT. RYAN ADAMS, CHIEF OF STAFF.

TO GIVE A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS ITEM.

THIS IS A FOLLOW UP FROM TWO PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONVERSATIONS.

THE FIRST OCCURRED ON AUGUST 2ND AND IT WAS A TWO MINUTE POLICY PITCH REGARDING A FAIR CHANCE HIRING OR AT THE TIME TERMED BAN THE BOX ORDINANCE.

COUNCIL HELD A DISCUSSION ON NOVEMBER 1ST AND WORK SESSION AND STAFF PRESENTED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, GENERAL INFORMATION ON ORDINANCES AND PRACTICES, AND THE DIRECTION WAS TO RETURN WITH MORE INFORMATION AND TO KEEP THAT CONVERSATION GOING OR RECEIVE FURTHER DIRECTION SO STAFF WOULD LIKE TO.

BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY ORDINANCE, GET COUNCIL'S DIRECTION OR CONCURRENCE WITH HOW THAT ORDINANCE WOULD BE WOULD BE STRUCTURED AND AS A REMINDER FOR COUNCIL, A FAIR CHANCE HIRING ORDINANCE IS AN ORDINANCE WHEREBY.

CRIMINAL HISTORY.

ANY INQUIRIES OR BACKGROUND CHECKS REGARDING CRIMINAL HISTORY CANNOT BE MADE UNTIL A CERTAIN POINT IN THE HIRING PROCESS.

THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME WE GOT TOGETHER ON NOVEMBER 1ST WAS THAT THAT WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL.

A CONDITIONAL OFFER IS MADE.

SO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO HAVE A CITYWIDE FAIR CHANCE HIRING ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO NOT ASK ABOUT CRIMINAL HISTORY UNTIL A CERTAIN POINT IN THE HIRING PROCESS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING AND PROPOSING THAT IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SUCH AN ORDINANCE, SO WE ACTUALLY INCORPORATE THESE PROVISIONS UNDER THE EXISTING NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE.

THE NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE WAS PASSED LAST SPRING AND WHAT WOULD OCCUR TO INCORPORATE FAIR CHANCE HIRING PROVISIONS INTO THE NDO.

WE WOULD AMEND THE NDO TO INCLUDE PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT.

ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS FOR THIS TYPE OF PROTECTION AND THEN SPECIFYING THOSE REGULATIONS THAT EMPLOYERS MUST COMPLY WITH.

A BENEFIT TO DOING THIS IS THAT THE FAIR CHANCE HIRING PROTECTIONS, ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS THAT ARE WITHIN THE

[00:05:07]

NDO WOULD ALSO APPLY TO ANY FAIR CHANCE HIRING PROCESS.

SO WE'LL WALK THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF OF WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A FAIR CHANCE HIRING ORDINANCE AND WHAT THAT MAY LOOK LIKE.

SO ANOTHER POINT OF DIRECTION THAT WE WOULD ASK FOR AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION FROM COUNCIL IS WHEN WE MAKE THE REGULATIONS APPLY.

WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT OUR LAST MEETING WAS THAT NO EMPLOYER UNDER A PROPOSED FAIR CHANCE HIRING ORDINANCE WOULD BE ABLE TO SOLICIT, INQUIRE ABOUT OR CONSIDER CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION EITHER ON A JOB APPLICATION OR PRIOR TO A CONDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT OFFER, AND THEN EMPLOYERS WOULD NOT THEREBY BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL DUE TO THAT CRIMINAL HISTORY.

UNTIL THAT POINT IN TIME, THE CONDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT OFFER.

AND THEY COULD NOT DO IT UNTIL AN INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT IS PERFORMED BASED ON THAT CRIMINAL HISTORY.

AND THE EMPLOYERS MUST THEN NOTIFY THE INDIVIDUAL IF THE ANY ADVERSE ACTION THEY TOOK WAS BECAUSE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY.

SO SIMILARLY TO THE ENDO.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE WE ARE PROPOSING HAVING THE FAIR CHANCE HIRING PROVISIONS WITHIN THE INDO.

THEY WOULD HAVE SIMILAR APPLICATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN TERMS OF WHO THE FAIR CHANCE HIRING PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY TO UNDER THE INDO.

THEY WOULD APPLY TO EMPLOYERS WITH 15 OR MORE EMPLOYEES.

SO THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE FOR FAIR CHANCE HIRING IN TERMS OF WHO WOULD BE EXCLUDED.

IT WOULD BE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES, THE STATE OF TEXAS, ITS DEPARTMENTS, ITS AGENCIES AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

AND THE CITY OF DENTON IS ONE OF THOSE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

BUT I DID WANT TO NOTE TO THE COUNCIL THAT WE ALREADY FOLLOW FAIR CHANCE HIRING PRACTICES, AND WE'RE WORKING TO FORMALIZE THOSE THROUGH A CITYWIDE OR THROUGH A CITY OF DENTON EMPLOYMENT POLICY.

SOME FURTHER EXCLUSIONS.

AND THIS IS IN LINE WITH BEST PRACTICES FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION EMPLOYMENT LAW ASSOCIATION WAS THAT WE WOULD NOT APPLY THIS TO ANY POSITION FOR WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL MAY BE DISQUALIFIED BASED ON CRIMINAL HISTORY UNDER A FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW.

AS AN EXAMPLE, IF ANY TYPE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY WOULD DISQUALIFY SOMEONE FROM A CERTAIN CHILD CARE POSITION, THAT POSITION WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THIS ORDINANCE.

IT WOULD BE EXCLUDED.

IMPORTANTLY, THESE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT LIMIT A EMPLOYER FROM NOT HIRING A PERSON.

THEY STILL COULD.

THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A HIRING DECISION FOR ANY LAWFUL REASON.

SO BASED ON THAT INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT, IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO HIRE SOMEONE DUE TO THAT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, THEY CAN STILL DO THAT, PROVIDED IT IS STILL LAWFUL UNDER UNDER OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROVISIONS.

SO WE ALSO WANT COUNCIL'S CONCURRENCE OR DIRECTION ON THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

SO AGAIN, WITH THIS BEING INCLUDED UNDER THE ENDO, THESE FAIR CHANCE HIRING PROVISIONS, THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE IDENTICAL AND THE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE IDENTICAL TO THE NDO.

AND WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT FORMAL COMPLAINTS MUST BE FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE OFFENSE.

SO YOU COULDN'T GO BACK TWO YEARS AGO OR A YEAR AGO AND TRY TO MAKE A COMPLAINT ON THAT.

IT HAS TO BE FOR A RECENT VIOLATION.

THERE WOULD BE THE USE OF A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR AND CONCILIATOR, ONE TO INVESTIGATE THE THE APARTMENT, THE SUSPECTED VIOLATION, ANOTHER ONE TO TRY TO FIND AN AREA OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES.

ANY INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE MUNICIPAL PROSECUTOR, AND THAT COULD RESULT IN A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR WITH A FINE OF UP TO $500 PER VIOLATION.

IMPORTANTLY, IF A COMPLAINT INDICATES THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL OR STATE LAW BASED ON A PROTECTED STATUS, SO SOMEONE COMPLAINS THAT THEY WERE DENIED BECAUSE OF THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORY AND THEY WERE OF A CERTAIN RACE OR NATIONAL ORIGIN THAT WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE ENTITY WE REFER TO THERE FIRST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY COULD ADDRESS THAT PROTECTED CLASS ISSUE.

AND THEN MUCH LIKE THE INDIO, WE WOULD NOT HAVE AN EFFECTIVE HAVE THIS ORDINANCE BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL 120 DAYS.

SO WE COULD HAVE TIME FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION.

SO SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE DO WANT TO SHARE WITH THE COUNCIL AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

THE COSTS ARE UNCERTAIN AND THEY ARE UNBUDGETED AND STAFF RESOURCES ARE LIMITED BECAUSE THE MUCH LIKE THE INDIO, THIS IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, WE CAN'T REALLY GIVE A GOOD ESTIMATE TO THE COUNCIL OF WHAT THIS COULD COST OVER A YEAR'S TIME.

THERE WOULD BE IMPACTS OF BUSINESSES BEYOND THE OBVIOUS REGULATION OF THEIR HIRING PRACTICE.

THEY MAY INCUR LEGAL COSTS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.

THAT MAY BE LEGAL ADVICE AND THEN THEIR DEFENSE AGAINST ANY COMPLAINTS.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE WE CAN EXPECT LIKELY SOME CONFUSION OR POTENTIALLY CONFLICT WHERE WHEN THERE ARE PARDON ME, WHEN THERE HIRING

[00:10:07]

PROCESS IS MANAGED OUTSIDE CITY OF DENTON JURISDICTION.

SO YOU TAKE A REGIONAL, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL FIRM.

IF THE HOME OFFICE IN INDIANA MANAGES THAT PROCESS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAY ALLOW THEM TO TO TO LOOK AT CRIMINAL HISTORY OUTSIDE OF THIS ORDINANCE.

AND THIS ORDINANCE MAY NOT APPLY.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FORESEE COMING DOWN THE ROAD THAT THERE COULD BE CONFUSION OR CONFLICT WITH.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE ENFORCEMENT PENALTY IS A CRIMINAL CHARGE THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO A PERSON OR AN ENTITY.

AND WE DO WANT TO MAKE THE COUNCIL AWARE THAT WE DO RECOMMEND THAT THIS FOLLOW THE SAME PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT TRACK AS THE INDIO, WHICH INCLUDES A DISCUSS DIDN'T PAGE WHERE WE CAN GET PUBLIC FEEDBACK.

WE LET THAT OPEN FOR THE INDIO FOR ONE MONTH.

WE RECOMMEND THE SAME FOR FAIR CHANCE HIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

PUBLIC MEETINGS, INFORMATION MEETINGS ARE ALSO SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND SO THAT THE PUBLIC IS FULLY AWARE AND FULLY ABLE TO VOICE THEIR THOUGHTS ON THIS ORDINANCE.

SO THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE SEEKING TODAY IS FOR COUNSEL TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH FINALIZING A FAIR CHANCE, HIRING DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, AND TO GIVE A SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON OUR ALIGNMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT WITH THE NDO, THE CONDITIONAL OFFER BEING THE THRESHOLD OF THE VIOLATION.

SO THAT IS THE POINT AFTER WHICH YOU MAY ASK FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION AND THEN 120 DAY DELAY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

OF COURSE, THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION IN YOUR EYES THAT HAD THE BULK OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS ISSUE THERE.

SO STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AND HAPPY TO RECEIVE COUNSEL'S DIRECTION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IF WE CAN PULL THAT DOWN SO I CAN SEE COUNCILMAN WATCH WHEN WE GET THERE.

AND THEN. SO IF WE COULD FOCUS YOUR COMMENTS ON WHETHER THE PROCEED OR NOT, OBVIOUSLY, THAT STEP ONE BEFORE WE GET INTO OTHER DIRECTION, I.E., DETAILS.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'VE BEEN PRETTY CLEAR FROM THE START THAT I THINK THIS IS OUTSIDE OUR LANE.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE CITY'S ROLE.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE EMPLOYERS DOING WHAT THEY OUGHT TO THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND TO SAY OTHERWISE IS TO TO SPEAK WITHOUT HAVING DATA TO TO BACK IT UP, THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN SOME KIND OF EPIDEMIC OF THIS IN DENTON.

AND TO THE CONTRARY, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY'RE MEMBERS OF THE CHAMBER OR NOT.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF EMPLOYERS IN THE CITY WHO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO FIND FOLKS WHO HAVE EARNED A SECOND CHANCE TO GIVE THEM THE SECOND CHANCE.

SO I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE STAFF TIME DEDICATED TO DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE.

AND APOLOGIES.

MAYOR, IT'S ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DETAIL, BUT I THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT STAFF TO BE MISQUOTED OR SOMEONE TO MISCONSTRUE CONSTRUE LATER ON.

I THINK THE IDEA OF PUTTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE IN THE MNDO AT FIRST GLANCE LOOKS LIKE THE PLACE TO PUT IT.

BUT THERE'S TWO REALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES.

THE REALLY IMPORTANT ONE IS THAT IN THE INDIA WE DEAL WITH AN INDIAN, EVEN THE INDIO THAT I SUPPORTED TO BEGIN WITH.

WE DEAL WITH CLASSES OF PEOPLE BASED ON RACE, BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, THINGS THAT THEY DO NOT CHOOSE THE WAY THAT THEY ARE BORN.

THAT'S WHAT THE INDIA DEALS WITH AND DISCRIMINATION THAT PEOPLE FACE BECAUSE OF WHO THEY ARE AND THE WAY THEY'RE BORN.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CRIMINAL HISTORY, THAT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE.

THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT LEAD TO SOMEONE BEING MORE APT TO HAVE A CRIMINAL HISTORY, BUT IT IS AT THE HEART OF IT A CHOICE TO COMMIT A CRIMINAL ACT THAT IS A DIFFERENT THING THAN WHO YOU ARE AND HOW YOU WERE BORN.

SO IF SOME VERSION OF THIS WERE EVER TO GO FORWARD, I COULD DON'T SUPPORT IT GOING FORWARD AS A CITY INITIATIVE, BUT I CERTAINLY COULDN'T SUPPORT IT AS PART OF, I CAN'T SAY, CRIMINAL HISTORY IN THE SAME BREATH AS I CAN SAY RACE, GENDER IDENTITY AND THOSE OTHER THINGS.

THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

ANYONE ELSE. CONTROVERT.

I AM GOING TO ASK THAT THE CITY PROCEED WITH THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, AND HERE ARE THE REASONS WHY.

YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY, AS ONE OF THE OTHER COUNCILORS NOTED A FEW WEEKS AGO, THAT THERE IS JUST A HISTORICAL NATURE ABOUT. HIRING PROCESSES.

AND THE THIS COUNTRY HAS HAD TO GO THROUGH SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE CREATED AND TREATED EQUALLY.

AND SO BUT THERE'S STILL SOME OF THAT OUT THERE.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, STATES ARE PUTTING IN AMENDMENTS TO NOT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON HOW YOU WEAR YOUR HAIR.

SOMETHING CALLED THE CROWN ACT.

SO THE THE THE HISTORY BEHIND ALL OF THIS CREATES A BIT OF A IT CREATES TENSION WHEN IT'S TIME TO HIRE.

[00:15:01]

AND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CITY OF DENTON AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE PICTURES AND ALL THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE ACTIVITIES AND ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON, YOU MAY FIND JUST ONE OR TWO OR THREE PEOPLE OF A DIFFERENT RACE OR NATIONAL NATIONALITY OR HISTORICAL NATIONALITY.

SO IT JUST GOES JUST A BIT FURTHER.

IT JUST GOES A BIT BEYOND THE THINGS THAT WE CAN JUST SEE, THE THINGS THAT'S JUST IN FRONT OF US.

THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW THAT IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE WHOLE SCOPE OF WHAT AMERICA IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE AND FEEL LIKE AND AND DO.

SO IF WE CAN KEEP THINGS AS EQUAL, EQUALLY MEASURED AS POSSIBLE, WE CAN PUT THIS ORDINANCE TOGETHER THAT'S GOING TO BE FAIR.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO DO.

SO I'LL DEFINITELY LIKE FOR US TO PROCEED WITH THAT.

ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE HEARING A LOT OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED HERE.

COUNCILOR DAVIS SORT OF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS IS IS A POTENTIAL PLACE WHERE WE'VE ALIGNED OUR PRINCIPLES AS A CITY AND HAVE A MECHANISM FOR ADDRESSING IT. AND I THINK THE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB INCORPORATING THESE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS INTO AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE THAT.

FOR THE REASONS THAT COUNCILOR BYRD HIGHLIGHTS, I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO.

TO NOT CREATE ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF INFRASTRUCTURE BUT BE ABLE TO REUSE THAT RECLAIM THAT FOR THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN IN OUR CITY THAT WE FOLLOW AS A COMMUNITY.

AND SOME OF THOSE SAME THINGS ARE ABUNDANT HERE IN TERMS OF FOLKS THAT HAVE BOTH SUPPORTIVE AND RESISTIVE OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

THE SAME SORTS OF COMMENTS WERE MADE FOR PROTECTED CLASSES VERSUS THESE THESE HIRING CLASSES.

AND I AND I THINK STAFF DOES A GOOD JOB OF SEPARATING THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROTECTION CLASS, NOT THE SAME.

AND YOU HIGHLIGHTED IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT FOR FOR DENOTED PROTECTED CLASSES, WE'RE GOING TO GO A DIFFERENT PATH, BUT IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO REUSE STAFF TIME AND ENERGY AND FRAMEWORK IN THE SAME WAYS TO HAVE THE SAME RESULTS.

SO I, I LIKE THIS A LOT.

I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD.

ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE.

COUNCILMAN. MCGEE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AS YOU ALL KNOW THAT I PITCHED THIS.

I FIRST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE WORK OF STAFF.

I THINK Y'ALL DID A GREAT JOB.

THANK YOU ALL FOR THE DILIGENCE IN WHAT YOU PUT INTO THIS.

ALSO, THANK YOU FOR CONNECTING IT TO THE NDO.

REALLY APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL.

FOR ME, THIS IS THIS IS HONESTLY LOW HANGING FRUIT.

IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT MY FRIEND FROM DISTRICT THREE SAID.

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID, THAT WITH RESPECT TO PROTECTED CLASS, RACE, THINGS LIKE THAT, THOSE ARE NOT CHOICES.

BUT THE ACTIONS THAT A PERSON DOES IS A CHOICE.

I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

WHERE WE DIVERGE IS THAT I DON'T WANT THE ACTIONS THAT A PERSON DOES CONTINUE TO ALLOW THEM TO NOT BE FULL CONTRIBUTORS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

IF SOMEONE HAS DONE SOMETHING A LONG TIME AGO, HOW LONG DO WE HOLD THE WRONGDOINGS OF PEOPLE OVER THEIR HEAD? WE HAVE A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR.

ATONEMENT. AND SOME IN SOME MEASURE, WHEN YOU USE THAT WORD, THIS IS IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

WHEN I TALK TO BUSINESS OWNERS AROUND TOWN, THEY SAY THAT THEY CAN'T FIND ENOUGH GOOD EMPLOYEES.

I SAW A STAT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I BELIEVE IT WAS ONE IN TEXAS, 1.4 JOBS FOR EVERY ONE PERSON.

THEN I TALKED TO PEOPLE AROUND TOWN WHO EXPRESSED THE DESIRE TO PERHAPS GET A BETTER JOB.

THIS MEASURE HOPEFULLY WILL MARRY EMPLOYEE WITH EMPLOYER.

THERE ARE A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE LOOKING FOR BETTER WORK.

IF WE HELP PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY, THEY WILL BE BETTER, BETTER CONTRIBUTORS TO OUR LOCAL SOCIETY.

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER WHAT ANYONE ELSE HAS SAID OR WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS WORK SESSION OTHER THAN TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS IS A COMMON PRACTICE DONE AROUND THIS COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I BELIEVE WHEN YOU BROUGHT THIS BACK A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I WANT TO SAY THE SLIDE SAID 150 CITIES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, 150 CITIES, BUT NOT ALL OF THOSE DID IT FOR

[00:20:10]

OUTSIDE THEIR OWN JURISDICTION.

I THINK IT WAS 22.

BUT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY STATES CITY.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE BEST THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS ISN'T GOING TO HURT ONE JOB IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND I WILL ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AMAZING BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS OWNERS IN THIS COMMUNITY, MANY OF WHOM ALREADY DO STUFF LIKE THIS.

SO THIS IS NOT AT ALL TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORK OF ANY OF THOSE FOLKS.

THIS IS SIMPLY TO ADD TO IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND AS WE OBVIOUSLY.

GIVE MY DIRECTION TO PLEASE, LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT THAT.

SO WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.

ANYONE ELSE? CUSTOMER.

WHAT'S. THANK YOU.

CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER? IT'S A LITTLE FAINT, BUT I CAN HEAR YOU.

AND I TELL YOU, THAT'S ONE COMPLAINT I'VE NOT HAD.

QUIET. THAT'S BETTER.

ALL RIGHT. MAYBE IT WAS THE.

THE MICROPHONE. YEAH.

I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT EVERYBODY SAID.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE SAID.

UNFORTUNATELY, AS I LISTENED TO YOU, THIS ORDINANCE WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH THOSE GOALS.

TO ME, THIS IS AN OVERREACH BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

WHAT? WHAT CONCERNS ME IS WE WE LOOK AT THESE ORDINANCES AS THE FIRST LINE OF SOLUTION WHEN NOBODY HAS BROUGHT UP.

EITHER IN THE LAST WORK SESSION OR THIS WORK SESSION THAT THE STATE OFFERS A TAX CREDIT.

FOR EMPLOYERS WHO OFFER JOBS TO FELONS.

THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF WAYS THAT WE CAN HELP IN THIS INSTANCE.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETIMES THE ATTITUDE IS IT'S GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO FIND SOLUTION, WHEN QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK AS WE ALL KNOW.

GOVERNMENT FINDING SOLUTION IS VERY DIFFICULT.

JUST LOOK AROUND.

SO I DON'T SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE.

I DON'T SUPPORT PUTTING IT IN THE NDO.

I THINK THE NDO IS FOR PROTECTED CLASS OF PEOPLE AS CLEARLY DEFINED MOST OFTEN IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND OUR STATE CONSTITUTION.

I THINK THAT THE EMPLOYERS AND DENTON KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES AND HOW TO ATTRACT GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYEES.

I THINK MANY PROVIDE THOSE SECOND CHANCE OPPORTUNITIES AND INSTEAD OF US TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO, INSTEAD OF US MAKING IT A CRIMINAL PENALTY, IF THEY DO NOT, WHY DON'T WE FIND A WAY TO CREATE A TASK FORCE WHERE WE CREATE A NETWORK OF EMPLOYERS WHO CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE, FULL ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO HELP EX-FELONS GET A JOB? AN ORDINANCE IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S BASED UPON A CRIMINAL PENALTY.

SO I THINK THAT THE IDEAL IS IS IS WARRANTED.

I THINK THE NOTION THAT HOW CAN WE HELP PEOPLE REENTER SOCIETY AND PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND TO GIVE THEMSELVES A SECOND CHANCE. VERY ADMIRABLE.

AND I WHOLLY 100% SUPPORT THAT.

THIS IS NOT THE AVENUE TO DO IT.

I THINK THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES, AND I CERTAINLY WOULD WELCOME DISCUSSIONS ON THOSE OTHER AVENUES, AND I CERTAINLY WOULD BE WILLING TO BE INVOLVED IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE OUR CITY AND OUR BUSINESSES ARE VERY COMPASSIONATE AND I THINK THEY'LL DO THE RIGHT THING.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO THREATEN THEM WITH CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN ORDER TO DO THAT.

SO, NO, I DON'T SUPPORT THIS.

AS I SAID LAST TIME AND AS I DID MORE RESEARCH AND RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN HELP TRULY, TRULY HELP THAN JUST PUT A PIECE OF PAPER AND THE MINUTE CODE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

SO I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ORDINANCE MOVING FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT CONCLUDES ITEM THAT IT FAILS TAKES US TO ITEM B, SO NO, NO ADDITIONAL DIRECTION NEEDED FOR YOU, RON.

TEXT ITEM B ID 222411 RECEIVED REPORT.

[B. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding options for a 2023 charter amendment election. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

WHOLE DISCUSSION GIVES STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING OPTIONS FOR A 2020 2020 2023 CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS PRESENTATION.

THERE IT GOES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR COUNCIL RYAN ADAMS, CHIEF OF STAFF.

THIS IS A BRIEF ITEM FOR COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE A CHARTER REVIEW AND AMENDMENT PROCESS IN 2023 AND TO GIVE US SOME HIGH LEVEL DIRECTION ALONGSIDE THAT.

FOR A BIT OF BACKGROUND, OUR CITY'S LAST CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION OCCURRED IN 2017.

STAFF RECENTLY RECEIVED SOME INQUIRIES FROM MAYOR PRO TEM BECK REGARDING POSSIBLE CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND TIMELINES.

[00:25:06]

THIS WAS FURTHER DISCUSSED AT THE NOVEMBER 3RD AGENDA COMMITTEE AND THERE WAS DIRECTION TO BRING THIS DISCUSSION TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DIRECTION.

SO WE DID RECEIVE SEVERAL AREAS OF POTENTIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT ISSUES AND WE ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO THE COUNCIL A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THIS MEETING TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY AREAS OF THE CHARTER THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE REVIEWED IN ANY POTENTIAL 2023 CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS.

I'VE LISTED THE AREAS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE LEFT.

THEY INCLUDE UPDATING ANY LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER THAT'S PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW.

THE DIRECTION THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO ELECTIONS.

DEFINITION OF A CONSTITUENCY.

AGAIN SPECIFIC TO ELECTIONS.

COUNCIL TERMS. SEVERAL ITEMS RELATED TO RECALL PETITIONS SUCH AS JUSTIFICATION, THE THRESHOLD FOR RECALL, AND THEN THE CONCURRENT REPLACEMENT.

SO IF SOMEONE IS RECALLED, THERE WOULD BE A REPLACEMENT OF THAT PERSON.

SO THE COUNCIL IS NOT DOWN ONE PERSON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

THE COUNCIL STIPEND, THE USE OF NON GENDERED LANGUAGE AND THEN A CHANGE IN THE UNIFORM ELECTION DATE.

AND THAT WOULD I THINK MAYBE THE BEST WORD TO SAY IS THAT COULD BE A TRIGGER IN THE FUTURE.

IF THERE'S A CHANGE OF STATE LAW THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO CHANGE ITS UNIFORM ELECTION DATE AND THAT IS CURRENTLY PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW.

STAFF ALSO REVIEWED THE CHARTER AND SHOULD COUNCIL WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH AN AMENDMENT PROCESS IN 2023.

STAFF HAS SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS THAT MAY BE INCLUDED IN ALL THE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED.

AGAIN, VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO REFLECT REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW.

CLARITY ON THE QUORUM AND MAJORITY VOTE REQUIREMENTS.

THOSE RIGHT NOW ARE SOMEWHAT VAGUE IN THE CHARTER AND CLARIFIED BY ORDINANCE.

THEY COULD BE MADE CLEAR IN THE CHARTER ITSELF.

ANOTHER THOUGHT STAFF HAD WOULD BE TO EXTEND AND ALIGN THE PETITION CERTIFICATION TIMELINES RIGHT NOW.

WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER.

THOSE TIMELINES ARE RATHER SHORT GIVEN OUR GROWTH AND THE SIZE OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THEY COULD BE EXTENDED TO ALLOW MORE TIME TO CERTIFY PETITIONS, INCLUDING FORFEITURES IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES FOR BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.

THOSE ARE CERTAIN OCCASIONS WHERE THE COUNCIL WOULD NOT HAVE TO APPROVE A MEMBER BEING REMOVED.

THEY COULD BE DEFINED BY ORDINANCE AND THE COUNCIL WOULD SIMPLY SAY IN THESE SPECIFIC CASES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER.

THAT CAN BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY.

AND THEN WE ALSO INCLUDED NON GENDERED LANGUAGE.

THAT IS A TREND THAT YOU SEE A LOT OF CITIES TAKING ON WHEN THEY UPDATE THEIR CHARTERS.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING DENTON COULD ALSO REVIEW AND PURSUE.

SO THERE ARE REALLY TWO TIMELINE OPTIONS IN ORDER TO HAVE A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION IN 2023.

WE HAVE TWO ELECTION DATE OPTIONS.

ONE OF THEM IS IN MAY 2023 AND ONE IS IN NOVEMBER 2023 WITH THE MAY ONE.

AND I'LL STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT.

TYPICALLY, WHEN WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE CITY, OUR PAST HISTORY IS THAT WE'VE USED A CHARTER AMENDMENT COMMITTEE, AND THAT'S A COMMITTEE OF CITIZENS WHO REVIEW THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, PROVIDE FEEDBACK, AND ULTIMATELY A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL IF WE TARGETED THE MAY 2023 ELECTION DATE FOR AN AMENDMENT, A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION.

WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE A CHARTER COMMITTEE.

THERE'S JUST SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TIME BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO CALL THAT ELECTION ON FEBRUARY 7TH AND THE COUNCIL WOULD SPEND THE PREVIOUS MONTH, JANUARY, DISCUSSING WHAT TO INCLUDE IN THAT ELECTION.

AND THAT ELECTION WOULD BE HELD ON MAY 6TH.

IF THE COUNCIL STILL WANTED TO DO A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION IN 2023, THE OTHER OPTION IS NOVEMBER.

ON NOVEMBER 7TH IS ANOTHER UNIFORM ELECTION DATE.

WITH THAT TIMELINE, WE WOULD STILL SPEND JANUARY DISCUSSING THOSE AREAS THAT NEED TO BE REVIEWED.

IN FEBRUARY, WE WOULD FORM A CHARTER COMMITTEE, APPOINT MEMBERS TO IT, AND ISSUE THEM A CHARGE THAT COMMITTEE COULD MEET ALL THE WAY THROUGH JUNE TO REVIEW THESE AREAS AND THEN ISSUE A RECOMMENDATION IN THE JULY, AUGUST TIMEFRAME IN TIME FOR THE COUNCIL TO CALL AN ELECTION ON OCTOBER 15TH FOR THE NOVEMBER 7TH ELECTION DATE.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TODAY IS SIMPLY HIGH LEVEL DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL.

IF THEY WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE 2023 CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION TO GIVE US DIRECTION ON WHICH DATE TO TARGET EITHER MAY OR NOVEMBER OF 2023, AND WE WOULD COME BACK AND WORK PROBABLY SEVERAL WORK SESSIONS TO PROVIDE MORE ISSUE PROCESS AND TIMELINE INFORMATION.

COUNCIL CAN REQUEST ANOTHER WORK SESSION TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN, OR SIMPLY GIVE STAFF OTHER DIRECTION.

I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT COUNCIL WILL ALSO SOON BE DISCUSSING A POSSIBILITY OF A BOND ELECTION.

SO BASED ON HOW THAT DISCUSSIONS GO, THERE COULD BE TWO CONCURRENT ELECTION EFFORTS, ONE BEING A BOND AND ONE BEING CHARTER AMENDMENT.

AND WITH THAT, THAT'S OUR PRESENTATION.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

GREAT. COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. COULD YOU THAT LAST POINT THAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THOSE THINGS INTERACT, HOW ONE MAY LIMIT THE

[00:30:09]

OTHER IF IT'S TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO COORDINATE THOSE THINGS CLOSELY OR TO JUST LOOK AT THEM IN A VACUUM? I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD NECESSARILY CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE TO GO FORWARD AND COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO GO FORWARD KNOWING THAT IN TERMS OF RESOURCES, IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION, IT WOULD BE JUST MORE THAN ONE THING THAT WE WOULD HAVE OUR ATTENTION TO THROUGH THAT SAME TIME FRAME.

SO SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, IF BOTH WERE TARGETED FOR A NOVEMBER ELECTION DATE, YOU WOULD HAVE CHARTER AND BOND COMMITTEES MEETING AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. YOU WOULD HAVE COMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS GOING AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT CAN'T BE DONE OR NECESSARILY IT'S INADVISABLE TO BE DONE.

I THINK THAT WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE RECOGNIZED, THAT IT WOULD TAKE MORE STAFF TIME, DOUBLE THE STAFF TIME TO DO IT AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME.

SO WE WE REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAGGER THEM GIVEN WHEN WE WOULD HAVE TO CALL THOSE ELECTIONS.

OKAY. AND IS THERE A IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF OR A REQUEST OR NOT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'VE NOT HAD THE BOND DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL YET? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE YET.

AND OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T SAID WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A BOND ELECTION ON ONE OF THESE DATES.

SO I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE NOT READY TO ANSWER YET.

IF THE IF THE ANSWER REALLY IS WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT CONVERSATION, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ALL WANT.

THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION TO HAVE.

IF THE ANSWER IS THERE'S A DATE WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WE'D REALLY LIKE TO HAVE A BOND ELECTION ON A CERTAIN DATE.

I THINK THAT'D BE IF IT'S OKAY TO SAY THAT, I THINK IT'D BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW.

SO. DAVID GAINES, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS AND THE CIP, WE HAVE TARGETED 2023 IN NOVEMBER TO HAVE A BOND ELECTION.

SO AS WE BRING THAT WORK SESSION HERE IN JANUARY, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE'RE GOING IN, IS, HEY, HERE'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO HAVE A BOND ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 2023.

SO I THINK AS WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, TO KEEP THAT IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND IS CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE.

AND THAT'S BEEN OUR BASIC ASSUMPTION AS WE GO FORWARD.

OKAY. AND COULD WE HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FROM IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE SOMEBODY UP ON THE DIAS THAT HAS A BETTER RECOLLECTION THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM? BUT HOW HAVE WE CONSTITUTED THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEES IN THE PAST? HOW IS THAT HOW IS THAT LOOKED? HOW MANY FOLKS HAVE BEEN ON THOSE COMMITTEES, THAT KIND OF STUFF? HOW WERE THEY APPOINTED? ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

YEAH. I THINK OUR MAYOR EMERITUS THERE IS A IS A FINGER UP.

YOU MIGHT KNOW COUNCILMAN WATTS.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

TYPICALLY, ALMOST EVERY TIME THE COUNCIL HAS APPOINTED AN X NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER MEMBER TO BE A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE, I THINK THE LAST TIME, FOR SOME REASON, SEVEN STICKS IN MY HEAD.

BUT I DON'T KNOW. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO MANY.

AND THAT WAS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AND ALL THE LITTLE OTHER VARIOUS SUNDRY CHANGES AT THAT MOMENT.

SO THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST.

ELICIT AS MUCH COMMUNITY INPUT AS POSSIBLE.

I'LL JUST SAY THE NOTION OF US UNILATERALLY CALLING AN ELECTION WITHOUT COMMUNITY INPUT, I JUST I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE SOMEONE THAT EVEN PUT THAT FORWARD, BECAUSE THAT'S ESPECIALLY ON A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CHANGING WHAT HAS BEEN FUNDAMENTALLY THE FOUNDATION OF OUR CITY LEGALLY. AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S WELL VETTED.

SO THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, IS THERE'S BEEN AN APPOINTMENT BY EACH COUNCIL MEMBER OF A CERTAIN FINITE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER COUNCIL MEMBER, AND THAT'S CONSTITUTED THE COMMITTEE.

AND THEN WE JUST SORT OF LET THEM DO THEIR THING.

THEY ELECT THEIR OWN CHAIR, THEY SET THEIR OWN MEETINGS, THEY FORM THEIR OWN SUBCOMMITTEES, AND THEN AFTER SOME TIME OF WHATEVER THEY NEED, THEY COME BACK AND GIVE US RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHAT WHAT THEY FOUND.

THANK YOU. COUNCILOR DAVIS, THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE ALL THAT.

MY DIRECTION IS THIS.

I, I COULD BE KIND OF BROUGHT AROUND THE IDEA THAT WHEN YOU READ THE CHARTER, THERE ARE THINGS THAT CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.

IT'S JUST IT'S THERE.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR PETITION DEADLINES AND THINGS LIKE ORDER CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, THEY JUST CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.

I COULD BE KIND OF BROUGHT AROUND THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE SOME THERE'S SOME HOUSEKEEPING TO BE DONE THAT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO IN SOME OF OUR PAST CHARTER REVISIONS.

BUT THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE SUGGESTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS, THAT IS MOSTLY SCAR TISSUE.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY ABOUT GOOD OR BETTER GOVERNANCE.

AND I SEE ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT IS JUST FLAT OUT OUTSIDE OUR LANE FROM A STATE LAW PERSPECTIVE, WE JUST CAN'T DO IT.

SO INSTEAD OF WRITING IN CHANGES THAT CLARIFY HOW WE FALL IN LINE WITH STATE LAW, IT'D BE ADDING A NEW CONFLICT TO STATE LAW.

FOR WHAT REASON? I DON'T KNOW.

[00:35:01]

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE COUNCIL MEMBER SUGGESTED THAT.

SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE NOT TO MESS WITH THE CHARTER AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW TO MAYBE KEEP SOME OF THOSE STAFF SUGGESTIONS, MAYBE EVEN DRAFT SOME THINGS UP SO WE HAVE THEM READY TO GO FOR NEXT TIME, BUT THAT WE FOCUS ON THE BOND, THAT WE PUT OUR EFFORTS INTO THAT, INTO PAYING FOR THE THINGS WE NEED TO PAY FOR IF WE DO GO FORWARD. IF THE CONSENSUS IS THAT WE NEED A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS, I WOULD PREFER THE THE COMMITTEE DOESN'T MEAN THE COUNCIL HAS TO PUT EXACTLY WHAT THE COMMITTEE COMES FORWARD WITH ON THE BALLOT, BUT I THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE THE INPUT THAN NOT.

THAT'S MY DIRECTION. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN MCGEE, THEN MAYOR PRO TEM.

MR. MAYOR MIGHT.

IF I ASKED. COUNCILMEMBER, WHAT'S A QUICK QUESTION BASED OFF WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER? CERTAINLY. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

WERE YOU SAYING SEVEN PER COUNCIL MEMBER, WAS THAT WHAT YOU'RE INDICATING, HOW IT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST? I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. AND THAT NUMBER STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT NUMBER ON THE ETHICS CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WITH OTHER VARIANCES UNDER REQUESTS.

BUT YEAH, EACH COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD HAVE A FINITE SET OF PEOPLE THAT THEY COULD APPOINT TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE THE COMMITTEE.

SO IN MY EXAMPLE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SEVEN AND IF YOU GOT SEVEN MEMBERS, IT'S 49 MEMBERS.

IF YOU GOT FIVE MEMBERS, FIVE, FIVE PEOPLE, IT'S 35.

SO YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. IF I MAY ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION, THE STAFF SO LOGISTICALLY RUNNING TWO SEPARATE CITIZEN LED COMMITTEES AT THE SAME TIME, HOW BIG A LIFT FOR THAT IS STAFF? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THAT CAN BE DONE FEASIBLY OR IS THAT IS THAT A HECK OF A LIFT? I'LL SAY. I'LL SAY IT CAN BE DONE.

IT WOULD BE A HECK OF A LIFT.

OKAY. SO GIVEN THAT I'M GOING TO, IF I MAY CONTINUE ON MY DIRECTION.

RIGHT. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER WATTS.

THIS IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT IT MUST INCLUDE AS MUCH CITIZEN INPUT AS POSSIBLE.

I'M GOING TO GIVE MY DIRECTION TO TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE THINGS SUGGESTED BY INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL AS THOSE THINGS SUGGESTED BY STAFF. I LIKE THE IDEA OF ALWAYS CONTINUING TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE PROCESS.

AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING IF THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ITEM THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT IS OUTSIDE OUR LANE, OR THE PEOPLE DON'T FEEL THAT THAT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A CHARTER REVIEW PERHAPS CHANGED.

I TRUST THIS COMMUNITY AND THOSE MEMBERS THAT ARE APPOINTED BY THIS COUNCIL TO TO CLEAN THOSE THINGS UP.

I WANT TO SEE MORE GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION BY THE CITIZENS.

THIS IS A WAY THAT MUST ACCOMPLISH THIS.

IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THAT STAFF CAN FEASIBLY RUN PERHAPS A BOND COMMITTEE AS WELL AS A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, MY DIRECTION IS LET'S MOVE FORWARD.

SO YOU'LL BACK.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH, THE A LOT OF THE SUGGESTIONS WE HAVE ARE THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD TO THIS MEETING ARE ONES FROM THE PUBLIC THAT ARE FLOATED INTO COUNCIL THAT WERE THEN SUBMITTED TO STAFF OR A NUMBER OF TIMES.

SO THERE'S ALREADY COMMUNITY INTEREST IN SOME OF THESE THINGS.

AND I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO TO FOLLOW THE THE SORT OF CONCEPTS THAT WE'RE HEARING ABOUT THE CITIZEN STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION AND WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

GETTING GETTING A GOOD TEMPERATURE READ ON THOSE THINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD AND WANTS TO NOT EXCUSE ME, A LOT OF THESE IDEAS WERE ONES THAT THE COMMUNITY FLOATED TO COUNCIL AND BEING THE BULLY PULPIT, YOU BRING THOSE FORWARD AND YOU SAY, HEY, THESE ARE THESE ARE IDEAS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT.

IT'S REALLY CLEAR THAT WE CAN'T DO THE THE CHANGE OF UNIFORM ELECTION DATE FROM FROM MAY TO NOVEMBER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYONE SAYS HERE.

BUT THAT WAS THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL IMPETUS FOR STARTING THE WHOLE CHARTER DISCUSSION.

SO I'M I'M THANKFUL THAT RYAN HAD INCLUDED THAT IN BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PROGENITOR OF A LOT OF THESE ISSUES.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, MAKING SURE THAT WE COULD DOVETAIL AND STACK DIFFERENT CHARTER AMENDMENTS AS THE COMMUNITY SAW FIT.

I THINK THE ONLY REAL REASON TO HAVE IT IN MAY WOULD BE IF YOU WERE REVISING THE MAY UNIFORM ELECTION DATE.

IF IF THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE BECAUSE OF STATE LAW, THERE'S NOT REALLY A PUSH TO TO STRETCH.

I WOULD GIVE DIRECTION TO GO AHEAD AND SEE WHAT THE WILL OF THE COMMUNITY IS, WHAT THEIR FEELINGS ARE ABOUT ANY OF THESE POTENTIAL ITEMS THAT THEY THINK WE SHOULD BRING FORWARD. AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AFTER THAT RESULT IF IF THAT'S WHERE COUNCIL GOES.

SO I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A COMMITTEE AND THEN HAVE A HAVE I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SYNERGIES AS MUCH AS WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT

[00:40:05]

HOW HEAVY ARE THE LIFTS BETWEEN THE BUDGETING AND THE CHANGING OF THE CHARTER, YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT ONE ELECTION EVENT AND IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE SYNERGIES IN TERMS OF EXPENSES TO NOT HAVE THE EXTRA ADDITIONAL EXPENSES THAT MIGHT COME FROM DIFFERENT ELECTIONS AT DIFFERENT TIME TO TO PUT THOSE THOSE THOSE AT THE SAME TIME.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CITYWIDE IMPACT.

SO HOW MUCH HOW MUCH DOES THE THE BUDGET IMPACT THE COMMUNITY AND HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT THAT AND BUDGET BEING THE BOND ISSUES THAT WOULD PAY FOR FUTURE ITEMS? AND THEN WHAT ARE THE FUTURE WAYS THAT WE WANT TO REGULATE? I THINK IT'S PERFECT SYNERGY TO PUT THAT ALL TOGETHER ON ONE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

SO MY DIRECTION WOULD BE TO MOVE TOGETHER WITH SOME SORT OF STRUCTURE THE COUNCILOR WATTS WAS DESCRIBING AND HAVE THAT READY FOR NOVEMBER.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN BIRD I'M ALSO IN AGREEMENT THAT WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD AND LOOKING AT THAT NOVEMBER TIME FRAME.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO THAT.

A LOT HAS BEEN SAID IN THAT REGARD, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CHARTER AND SEE IF IT'S STILL APPROPRIATE FOR US TODAY.

THANK YOU. CUSTOMER, WHAT'S BACK TO YOU? SURE. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, YOUR DIRECTION WAS TO FOREGO ANY PARTICULAR TYPE OF CHARTER AMENDMENT AT THIS REVIEW AT THIS TIME AND FOCUS ON THE BONDS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

YEAH, I'M GOING TO CONCUR WITH THAT DIRECTION.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHY.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S DOCUMENTATION OUT THERE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE CHARTER PROVISIONS.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK IN AND I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THRUST OF THIS, IT'S ALL SCAR TISSUE FROM THE RECALL ELECTION.

IT'S ALL SCAR TISSUE FROM REDISTRICTING, WHICH WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH FOR A YEAR.

WE'VE JUST HAD A MEMBER RECALL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE CITY OF DENTON.

NOW, MOST OF YOU PROBABLY WERE NOT HERE AT THE TIME WHEN THERE WAS ANOTHER RECALL PETITION MANY YEARS AGO BY A DISTRICT FOUR REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL.

AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE PEOPLE COMING FORWARD TO PUT IN THE CHARTER, HEY, WE SHOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO GET A PETITION AT, MAKE IT FROM 25% TO 30%.

AND THE SAME PEOPLE NOW WHO ARE CALLING FOR THESE CHARTER AMENDMENTS WERE THE SAME PEOPLE AT THE TIME THAT SAID, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT HARDER.

WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR THE CITIZENS TO SAY, WE ELECTED YOU.

AND IF YOU DON'T REPRESENT US AND WE FOLLOW THE PROCESS, THEN WE CAN UNSELECT YOU.

SO THAT'S WHAT. AND THEN I WANT TO KNOW WHO BROUGHT FORTH THE COUNCIL STIPEND OF $27,000 A YEAR.

I MEAN. TYPE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

WE JUST DID IT SIX YEARS AGO AND I HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT IT FORWARD.

I MEAN, ANYWAY, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT A TRIPLING OR QUADRUPLING OF OUR CURRENT STIPEND THAT WE GET.

THAT'S NOT A STIPEND.

THAT'S A SALARY.

SO THESE THINGS, I THINK THESE THINGS ARE REACTIONARY.

THEY'RE NOT COMING FROM AN OVERALL CONSENSUS IN THE COMMUNITY.

THEY'RE REACTIVE TO THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE TO THE THINGS THAT WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH THAT HAVE, QUITE FRANKLY, DIVIDED THIS CITY TREMENDOUSLY.

SO I WOULD LIKE FOR AND SECOND OF ALL, WE'RE GOING TO BE APPOINTING PEOPLE TO A COMMITTEE, MINUS ONE COUNCIL MEMBER.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO GET BACK TO A FULL COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN HAVE EVERYBODY'S VOICE HEARD.

AND IF WE WANT TO AFTER MAY CONSIDER, HEY, LET'S LOOK AT A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE NEXT MAY.

MAN, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

BUT THESE FOR ME, ARE NONSTARTERS FOR RIGHT NOW SIMPLY BECAUSE, AS I'M CONCERNED, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THE REACTIONARY.

SO MY DIRECTION IS WE FOCUS ON THE THINGS THAT WE DO THE BEST, AND THAT IS PROVIDE FOR OUR CORE SERVICES.

AND ONE OF THOSE CORE SERVICES ARE ROADS.

AND WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT TOGETHER A GOOD BOND COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY THRIVE IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION.

SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME.

CERTAINLY, I'M OPEN TO IT SOMETIME AFTER MAY OF NEXT YEAR WHEN EVERYBODY IS AVAILABLE.

BUT WE'VE GOT SOME BIGGER THINGS I THINK THAT WE CAN PUT OUR ENERGY TOWARDS TO SOLVE SOME SOME ISSUES HERE IN THE CITY.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THAT FAILS DUE TO NOT A CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD.

TAKES THE SITE OF C ID 221900.

[C. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the updates to the Roadway Impact Fees. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

RECEIVE REPORT HOLD DISCUSSION, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE UPDATES TO THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

[00:45:30]

SORRY. THERE'S SO MANY OPEN AND I JUST DON'T.

HERE WE GO. BEFORE YOU DO THAT AND YOU HAVE A NEW POSITION, RIGHT? IS THAT RIGHT? GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT'S DUE? YES, SIR. SO WHAT IS THAT NEW POSITION? CITY ENGINEER, GENERAL MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS.

OUTSTANDING. CONGRATULATIONS.

THANK YOU, SIR. YES. ALL RIGHTY.

WELL, THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE THAT.

MAYOR, COUNCIL.

GLAD TO BE HERE TODAY TO BRING BACK THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CONVERSATION.

I HAVE WITH ME TODAY, PETE KELLY WITH KIMLEY-HORN.

YOU MET HIM LAST TIME ALONG WITH MATTHEW GARRETT FROM NEW STRATEGIES.

AND SO WE ARE GOING TO WALK THROUGH HOPEFULLY WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING FORWARD ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD.

THERE'S A FEW ITEMS THAT ARE THINGS THAT WE WILL BRING BACK AT A LATER DATE AND A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FORMAT WITH OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE GOING TO BE INVOLVED.

SO WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO PETE AND LET HIM GET STARTED ON KIND OF AN OVERVIEW.

YOU KNOW, OUR OUR REALLY OUR GOAL TODAY IS TO MAKE SURE AS WE WALK THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, THAT WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN ALL BE COMFORTABLE WITH A POSSIBLE IMPACT FEE PERCENTAGE.

THAT I THINK IS DEFINITELY SOME OPTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING ON THE TABLE TODAY.

SO FOR SURE, SIR.

THANK YOU, BECKY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

JUST TO OVERVIEW, OUR PRESENTATION TODAY WILL BE SHOWING THE FINAL MAXIMUM FEE RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS.

AS YOU REMEMBER, THE LAST TIME WE HAD, WE HAD DRAFT NUMBERS.

WE'LL SHOW YOU THE FINALS TODAY.

ALSO, GO OVER THE COLLECTION OPTIONS SLIDE WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY.

BUT WITH THOSE THOSE FINAL NUMBERS AND BRING BACK SOME OF THE COMPARISON CITY DATA.

WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE COMPETITOR CITIES C C WHERE IMPACT FEES ARE CURRENTLY IN STATE OF TEXAS AND ALSO PUTTING INTO CONTEXT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FEES THAT YOU HAVE.

AND IN ADDITION TO OPENING OR STARTING THE DISCUSSION ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN DENTON, AND THEN WE'LL CLOSE WITH THE THE SCHEDULE, THE IMPACT FEE ADOPTION. SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE UPDATED AND COMPLETE COST PER THE MAXIMUM FEE ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT IN EACH OF THE FIVE SERVICE AREAS IN THE CITY.

DETAILED CALCULATIONS FOR HOW THESE WERE CALCULATED ARE IN THE IN THE STUDY IN YOUR PACKET.

THOSE ARE ON IN TABLE NINE WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE SO THAT THAT TABLE HAS HAS 19 ROWS THAT THAT LAY OUT THE EXACT CALCULATIONS THAT WERE DONE TO TO REACH THESE NUMBERS.

AND AGAIN, THE THE NUMBER THAT WOULD BE ADOPTED AS THE SCHEDULE ONE OR AS THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE IS YOUR FOURTH ROW ON THE TABLE HERE IN BOLDED IN BLACK.

AND JUST TO PROVIDE CONTEXT.

AGAIN, THE RED ROW, THE FIFTH ROW THERE IS WHAT A THE COST WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE IF YOU WOULD BE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO EACH EACH USE WOULD BE MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE MILES OF THAT USE.

SO EACH USE WOULD BE WOULD BE DIFFERENT THERE.

AND AGAIN, YOU'RE CURRENTLY COLLECTING 2000 A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 20% OF THE 2016 MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE.

HERE'S THE UPDATED COLLECTION RATE SLIDE JUST TO REVIEW THIS AGAIN, THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE COST PER VEHICLE MILE IS $4,400 AND $455 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THAT WOULD BE $20,538.

THE THREE OPTIONS BEING PRESENTED AND I'LL REITERATE AGAIN THAT THESE AREN'T THE THREE ONLY THREE OPTIONS THAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO.

THESE ARE JUST A PLACE TO BEGIN DISCUSSION AND GET YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEEDBACK.

BUT WE PRESENTED THESE THREE OPTIONS AS 20%, 50% AND 100% OF THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE.

AT 20%, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD BE $4,100, JUST OVER 4100 AT 50%.

THE SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY COLLECTION RATE WOULD BE JUST OVER $10,200 AND AT 100% WOULD BE AGAIN, THE

[00:50:10]

$20,500 JUST OVER THAT AMOUNT.

AND JUST TO REMIND AGAIN THAT CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE THERE'S A 15% DISCOUNT ON RESIDENTIAL USES OR EXCUSE ME, NON RESIDENTIAL USES.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED MOVING FORWARD AS WELL.

SO TO HELP PUT SOME OF THIS INTO CONTEXT, THE QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT SIMILAR OR COMPETITOR CITIES.

SO WE WORKED WITH STAFF TO IDENTIFY A LIST OF CITIES THAT HAD EITHER SOME SIMILAR, SIMILAR QUALITIES TO THE CITY OF DENTON OR WERE NEARBY COULD BE CONSIDERED NEARBY NEIGHBORING A COMPETITOR CITIES THAT DEVELOPMENT MAY LOOK TO TO DEVELOP INSTEAD OF DENTON.

AND THAT BROUGHT US TO THIS LIST HERE.

AND JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS TO POINT OUT, AS WELL AS IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE A TRUE APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER CITIES COLLECT.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF FACTORS TO THAT.

ONE IS THAT ALL OF THEM HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF SERVICE AREAS.

AND DIDN'T WE HAVE FIVE? THE COMPARISON CITIES THAT WE'VE PROVIDED RANGE FROM 2 TO 13, AND SOME OF THOSE CITIES MAY NOT COLLECT IN SOME OF THEIR SERVICE AREAS AND OTHERS MAY NOT CHARGE THE SAME AMOUNT IN EVERY SERVICE AREA.

SO AS YOU GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT THESE COLLECTION RATE PERCENTAGES, SOME OF THEM ARE SMOOTH AND ROUNDED AND THOSE REPRESENT TYPICALLY CITIES THAT HAVE CHOSEN TO COLLECT A PERCENT. AND SO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT VARIES FROM SERVICE AREA TO SERVICE AREA AND OTHERS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT ODD AND UNUSUAL. AND THOSE ARE USUALLY CITIES WHERE A SET DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS SET ACROSS A SERVICE AREA.

AND JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT TO SOME OF THESE, THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AS YOU SEE, IS ONE OF THE LOWER ONES.

THEY'VE ONLY HAD IMPACT FEES FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW.

AND THEY THEY SCALED BACK THEIR THEIR CIP A LITTLE BIT TO NOT INCLUDE AS MANY ROADWAY PROJECTS AS THEY COULD ON IT AND ALSO SET A LOW FEE TO START OUT WHEN THEY ADOPTED THEIR IMPACT FEES.

AND YOU'LL YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE THAT FRISCO IS ON HERE TWICE AND THAT'S JUST TO SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF THE VARIATION BETWEEN SERVICE AREAS THAT YOU CAN SEE.

WE HAVE A SERVICE AREA A IN FRISCO IS GROWING QUITE RAPIDLY AND THEREFORE THE FEE IS QUITE HIGH. THE FEE IS $4,257 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR SERVICE AREA DX, WHICH IS BUILT OUT JUST A COUPLE OF ROWS ABOVE THAT, IT'S A LOT LOWER BECAUSE YOU HAVE LESS INFRASTRUCTURE TO BUILD AND LESS GROWTH BEING PROJECTED THERE.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THE VARIATION ACROSS THESE THESE DIFFERENT CITIES.

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, JUST TO PUT INTO CONTEXT, THE OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT WERE GIVEN THE THE 20% TO 50% RANGE PUTS YOU NEAR THE MIDDLE TO THE TOP OF THESE COMPARISON CITIES.

AND THE 100% WOULD PUT YOU AT THE TOP OF THESE CITIES.

AND AGAIN, THIS SLIDE WAS BROUGHT LAST TIME.

BUT JUST TO KEEP IN CONTEXT OF THE SUITE OF FEES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING ASSESSED TO DEVELOPMENT, IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES AREN'T THE THE ONLY FEE, BUT SO WE JUST WANTED TO BRING BRING THIS FORWARD TO KEEP THAT IN CONTEXT.

AND AS BECKY MENTIONED, STAFF WILL BE COMING BACK IN JANUARY TO TALK ABOUT A AN OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING APPROACH.

SO ONE THING THAT WE WANT TO STRESS IS THAT IMPACT FEES ARE JUST ONE PIECE OF THAT.

THEY'RE JUST ONE OF MANY OPTIONS THE CITY HAS TO FUND ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE'VE SHOWN THIS TABLE HERE IN GREEN ARE MECHANISMS THAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY USING OR ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED WITHIN THE CITY AND IN BLACK ARE FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY BEING USED.

BUT BUT MAYBE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

AND AGAIN, IMPACT FEES COUPLED WITH ROUGH PERSONALITY ARE GROWTH DRIVEN.

IMPACT FEES ARE THERE TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH OF THE FAIR SHARE DO DEVELOPERS PAY WHEN THEY COME, WHEN THEY COME INTO THE CITY.

SO IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T ADDRESS EXISTING EXISTING NEEDS OR UPGRADING FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, THEY'LL DISCUSS THE ROLE OF INCENTIVES IN THE IMPACT FEE PROGRAM.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE FOCUS OF OUR PRESENTATION TODAY.

AND AS A REMINDER AS WELL, THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE CAN BE UPDATED PERIODICALLY AS NEEDED.

THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROCESS WE NEED TO GO THROUGH TO ADOPT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE CIP FOR A NEW STUDY, AND THAT

[00:55:04]

IS PART OF THE CHAPTER THREE AND 95 REQUIREMENTS.

MOVING FORWARD BETWEEN UPDATES, YOU CAN COME BACK AND UPDATE SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND YOU CAN UPDATE THE COLLECTION RATES AS WELL.

AND THIS IS JUST TO HELP ANSWER ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS BROUGHT FORTH IN OUR LAST MEETING IN TERMS OF WHAT WHAT CAN IMPACT FEES ACTUALLY PAY FOR.

THIS IS FROM STRAIGHT FROM CHAPTER 395.

YOU HAVE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SLIDE ITEMS THAT IMPACT FEES CAN PAY FOR.

SO THAT'S CONSTRUCTION OF OF NEW ROADS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH AND THE SURVEY AND ENGINEERING FEES, THE COST TO ACQUIRE THE LAND AND ALSO TO FOR DEBT SERVICE TO TO PAY FOR THOSE ROADS AND TO PAY FOR THE STUDY ITSELF.

AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT PROJECTS NOT INCLUDED ON THE CIP CANNOT BE PAID FOR WITH IMPACT FEE FUNDS, NOR CAN REPAIR OR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING FACILITIES OR UPGRADES TO SERVE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF OPERATING THE PROGRAM.

SO AS FAR AS OUR NEXT STEPS IN THIS PROCESS, WE'LL BE COMING BACK TO THE CIC NEXT WEEK TO PRESENT THE FINAL NUMBERS TO GET THEIR THEIR COMMENTS FOR YOU AS WELL.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET NEXT WEEK AND ADVERTISED ON DECEMBER 17TH, AND THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BEGIN JANUARY 24TH TO ADOPT THE TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE STUDY AND IF NEEDED, TO COME BACK ON FEBRUARY 7TH TO FINALIZE THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE.

IS THERE ANY ANY QUESTIONS ON TODAY'S PRESENTATION? HOPE. HAVE YOU STOPPED CHEERING? OK GREAT QUESTIONS FOR MAYOR PRO TEM AND THEN COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO I SORT OF ASKED THIS LAST TIME, BUT DID WE GET SOME FOLLOW UP ON THE TREND LINES THAT WERE IN COMPARABLES? SO WE HAD A LIST OF COMPARABLES.

I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S HELPFUL TO MY DECISION PROCESS.

AND AND IT'S AND IT'S CLEAR THAT WE'RE STARTING OFF AT THE BOTTOM OF OUR COMPARABLES.

AND THE QUESTION IS HOW FAR UP THE CHAIN DO WE WANT TO GO ON OUR COMPARABLES AND WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR THAT? SO TRYING TO GET TO THAT RATIONALE, I WAS ASKING FOR THOSE SORT OF TREND LINES AS TO THE THE RATIOS OF OF IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT AND HOW MUCH THE EXISTING COMMUNITY BUYS IN VERSUS 100% GROWTH PACE FOR GROWTH.

AND SO DO WE EVER GET ANY INFORMATION LIKE THAT THAT CAN BE INCLUDED IN IN THIS OR FUTURE MEETINGS? WHAT I CAN WHAT I CAN ADD TO THAT IS WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHART WITH TREND LINE SHOWING THIS IS WHERE THESE CITIES START AND THIS IS WHERE THEY ARE NOW.

IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING? RIGHT. TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IMPACTFUL ANY CHANGES HAVE BEEN? SURE. OF THE CITIES ON THE LIST THAT WE SHOWED YOU, I KNOW THAT NEW BRAUNFELS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE ADOPTING THEY'RE COLLECTING 100% RIGHT NOW.

THEY WERE COLLECTING 50% JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.

AND THAT WAS PART OF A STRATEGIC PLAN TO BEGIN AT 50 AND THEN ESCALATE UP TO 100%.

THE CITY OF FORT WORTH JUST ADOPTED MOVING UP TO 50%, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ESCALATING UP TO 65% IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

THE FLOWER MOUND, WHICH WAS ADOPTED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO IN 2020, JUMPED UP TO 100%.

SO THE TREND THAT WE'RE SEEING, ALTHOUGH A CHART ISN'T HERE TO PRESENT THAT, THE TREND THAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THE CITY CITIES ARE COLLECTING MORE AND SEEING THE NEED TO SHIFT SOME OF THAT BURDEN FROM THE EXISTING CITIZENS A LITTLE BIT MORE TO TO THE GROWTH AS IT COMES IN.

THAT'S EXTREMELY HELPFUL.

I'M GLAD YOU HAD THAT THAT THOSE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR POCKET TO DESCRIBE TO COUNCIL.

IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE IS A GENERAL OVERALL TREND TO DOING COST RECOVERY AND TOWARDS THE DIRECTION OF GROWTH.

PAYING FOR GROWTH, WHICH IS ALWAYS THE STORY THAT WE HEAR, IS THAT WE WANT GROWTH TO TO TO ENABLE IT TO ACTUALLY BE A TIDE THAT RAISES ALL BOATS.

IT HAS TO PAY FOR ITSELF.

OTHERWISE YOU'RE USING THE EXISTING TAXPAYERS AND THERE COULD BE A RATIONALE FOR THAT TO TO NOT HAVE 100%.

BUT YOU WOULD, I GUESS AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS IS ACTUALLY A QUESTION, IS IT THAT THE RATIONALE IS THAT ADDITIONAL SALES TAX AND ECONOMIC REVENUE WOULD COMPENSATE FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN 100%? IS THAT GENERALLY THE RATIONALE FOR NOT DOING 100% COST RECOVERY? YES, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HEAR COMMONLY, IS THAT THE RAISE FEES MAY INCREASE HOME VALUES AND PROPERTY TAXES, AND THEREFORE SOME OF THAT COST WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO BE PASSED ON TO RESIDENTS.

AND SO AND THEN THE OTHER ARGUMENT, OF COURSE, IS THE BALANCE STRIKING, A BALANCE BETWEEN PAYING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALSO ENCOURAGING THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WANT AND

[01:00:06]

NOT WANTING TO DRIVE AWAY A GOOD DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.

AND SO THE LAST QUESTION I'LL HAVE I'M GLAD YOU WENT TO THAT LAST POINT.

IT'S A GOOD SEGUE TO THE NEXT QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK WAS, IT SEEMS LIKE IN A PREVIOUS SLIDE BEFORE THE SIP WHERE YOU HAD THE DIFFERENT FUNDING OPTIONS WE HAVE, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR WHERE WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE CERTAIN TYPES OF GROWTH FOR CERTAIN REASONS.

THOSE THOSE THOSE VEHICLES ARE, NO PUN INTENDED, ARE AVAILABLE TO US TO HIGHEST COST AND THEN REDUCE THAT TO INCENTIVIZE PARTICULAR NOT HIGH, BUT A HIGHER BASE COST, AND THEN INCENTIVIZE THAT TO TO TO GET THE KINDS OF GROWTH THAT THAT WE WANT TO TARGET AS OPPOSED TO JUST GENERAL GROWTH. AND SO IT FEELS LIKE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OF OPPORTUNITIES TO TO CONTROL THE FIDELITY OF THIS. AND AND I'D LIKE TO SEE MAYBE IN FUTURE DISCUSSIONS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU'RE REALLY ASKING FOR DIRECTION NOW BECAUSE WE'RE GOING THROUGH TO FEBRUARY AND STUFF.

BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ALONG THE LINES OF THESE TREND LINES AND THE IMPACTS OF, WELL, WHEN WE DON'T SET IT TO 100% AND WE DO PUT SOME OF THE COSTS ONTO EXISTING TAXPAYERS, WE DO SEE THE KINDS OF TRENDS THAT SAY, OH, WELL, WE GET THAT OR MORE WE GET A MULTIPLIER IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, IN SALES TAX OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT THAT PAYS FOR IT.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME NUMBERS THAT SORT OF MATCH UP.

GOOD REASONS FOR NOT GOING TO 100%.

IF YOU COULD DO THAT AND IN FUTURE MEETINGS, I'D APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. SURE. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MAPS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CHART.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SERVICE AREAS, WE GO EVERYTHING FROM TWO IN KELLER, FOUR IN MOST OF THESE, INCLUDING US, AND THEN ALL ARE WE AT FIVE I'M SORRY, FIVE, WE'RE AT FIVE. WE GO TO E AND THEN MCKINNEY'S GOT 13.

AND THEN IN FRISCO, IT'S ON THERE TWICE.

BUT I WASN'T CLEAR IN FRISCO.

IF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE BUILT OUT IN THE GROWING AREA, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY HAVE SERVICE AREAS THAT ARE THE GROWING AREA, THE SERVICE AREA AND THE BUILT OUT SERVICE AREA WHERE THEY HAVE THEM SEPARATE? SURE. THE FOUR SERVICE AREAS IN FRISCO, WHAT WE GAVE YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY THEIR MINIMUM AND THEIR MAXIMUM.

AND THOSE ARE THE LABELS THAT THEY THAT THEY USE.

WE JUST USE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION.

BUT THEY THEY DIVIDED THOSE FOR THOSE FOUR SERVICE AREAS, MOSTLY GEOGRAPHICALLY.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY FOUR QUADRANTS OF THE CITY AND JUST HAPPENS TO BE THAT.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKED OUT.

IS THERE A PARTICULAR ADVANTAGE TO DOING WHAT WE'VE DONE, WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MORE OF LIKE A LIKE A PIE, RIGHT? THAT WE WE LIKE THE HANDS OF A CLOCK IS HOW WE SPLIT OUT THE CITY.

SO DOWN IN THE SOUTHWEST, YOU'VE GOT A BIG GROWING AREA, BUT IT'S BALANCED OUT WITH SOME BUILT OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN.

OUT IN THE NORTHEAST, YOU'VE GOT A BIG GROWING AREA, BUT IT'S BALANCED OUT WITH SOME BUILT OUT.

IS THERE A REASON WE DO THAT AND KIND OF SPREAD KIND OF EQUALIZE THE THE BUILT OUT VERSUS THE GROWING OR GREENFIELD INSTEAD OF HAVING A BIG DONUT? THAT'S A SERVICE AREA THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S YOUR BIG HIGH FEE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT'S ALL GREENFIELD.

AND THEN DOWNTOWN, YOU'VE GOT A SMALLER SERVICE AREA THAT IS THE BUILT OUT RATE.

LIKE, IS THERE A REASON WE DON'T DO WHY WE DO ONE OF THOSE VERSUS THE OTHER? WHILE WE DON'T CONFORM OUR SERVICE AREAS TO WHERE WE EXPECT THE HIGH AND LOW FEES TO BE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I THINK IN LARGE PART IT'S IT'S REALLY A POLICY DECISION ON HOW HOW DO YOU WANT TO DIVIDE THOSE UP AND WHAT ARE YOUR PRIORITIES ESSENTIALLY IN IN THE ORIGINAL 2016 STUDY, PART OF THE ANALYSIS WAS WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE FUNDS TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND IF WE WERE TO CRAFT A SERVICE AREA SUCH THAT ONE SERVICE AREA SAW ALL THE GROWTH AND ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE, WELL, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN ONE SERVICE AREA. BUT IF YOU CREATED IT TO PUT ALL THE GROWTH ONE SERVICE AREA, THEN YOU WOULDN'T IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FUND THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE OTHER SERVICE AREAS.

SO IT WOULD BE HAMSTRINGING THOSE OTHER SERVICE AREAS A LITTLE BIT IF IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF.

UNEQUAL OR UNBALANCING THE SERVICE AREAS.

WOULD IT BE FAIR TO.

AND TELL ME WHERE I'M WRONG ON THIS, BUT WOULD IT BE FAIR TO CHARACTERIZE THAT AS WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE THE HIGH GROWTH AREAS, MONEY TO FUND PROJECTS IN AN AREA THAT MIGHT NOT BE AS HIGH GROWTH, THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SPEND THIS MONEY FROM OVER HERE IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN, TOO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SPEND THE MONEY IN THE SERVICE

[01:05:01]

AREA. TO AN EXTENT, YES, I THINK THAT'D BE FAIR TO SAY.

OF COURSE, WE'RE LIMITED TO THE SIX MILE LIMIT OF STATE LAW.

THAT'S FAIR TO SAY. UM.

KIND OF ALONG THOSE LINES.

I'M WONDERING HOW IT IS.

AND I ADMIT THAT WE I'VE NOT GONE THROUGH THE ZIP LINE BY LINE.

WE'VE HAD SOME REALLY GOOD STAFF PRESENTATIONS ON WHAT THE SIP INCLUDES, AND IT'S ALL BEEN REALLY GOOD PROJECTS, THINGS I THINK WE ALL WANT TO SEE.

BUT I ALSO SEE THAT THAT OUR AVERAGE MAX FEE, UNLESS UNLESS I'M MISREADING THE CHART.

FLOWER MOUND IS AT 12,000, WHICH IS PRETTY HIGH COMPARED TO THE OTHERS, AND WE'RE AT 20,000.

SO IS IT SOMETHING ON OUR CALCULATIONS? IS IT THAT WE'RE PUTTING A LOT INTO THE CIP AND WE'RE ACQUIRING IT? THERE'S BEEN A SUGGESTION BY SOME DEVELOPERS AND THEIR ENGINEERS THAT SOME OF OUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE PRETTY HIGH.

I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO SAY WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR NOT.

I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW HOW MUCH DIRT WORK COSTS ON LIKE EXACTLY ONE PROJECT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS MARKET WIDE.

BUT HOW IS IT THAT OUR MAX AVERAGE FEE IS $20,000 AND SOME OTHER LIKE MCKINNEY SEVEN? THAT'S PRETTY COMPARABLE.

THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF GROWTH.

THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF BUILT OUT AREA.

BUT WHAT'S THE SITUATION THERE? SO THE SITUATION IN FLOWER MOUND, THERE'S THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THERE.

THEIR SERVICE AREA A ON THE EAST SIDE OF THEIR CITY IS MOSTLY BUILT OUT AND SO MOSTLY THERE'S THERE'S LOW INFRASTRUCTURE NEED AND LOW GROWTH THERE PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE SERVICE AREA.

SO THERE'S THERE'S A PRETTY LOW FEE THERE.

BUT IF YOU GO OUT TO THE WEST WHERE IT'S IT'S GROWING AGAIN, WE DID THIS WITH FRISCO, BUT WE DIDN'T DO A FLOWER MOUND.

THERE'S A LOT MORE GROWTH OUT IN THE WEST AND THE SERVICE AREA.

C SO THE FEE IS QUITE A BIT HIGHER THERE.

SO WE JUST HAVE WE HAVE A PRETTY WIDE VARIATION IN FLOWER AMOUNT, WHEREAS I THINK IN DENTON THE SERVICE AREA AMOUNTS ARE A LITTLE MORE BALANCED.

AND THEN THE SECOND COMPONENT AS WELL IS EVEN OVER THE SPAN OF TWO YEARS, WE'VE SEEN A BIG SPIKE IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND WE INCORPORATE THAT INTO OUR STUDY. WE UPDATED IT FROM 2020 TO THE 20 $22 IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

AND ONE OF THE ONE OF THE POINTS OF FEEDBACK WE GET FROM A LOT OF CITIES IS WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO UNDERESTIMATE THE COST OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE FIND THAT HAPPEN A LOT WHERE WE ESTIMATE $1 AMOUNT IN 2016 AND THEN IN TWO OR THREE YEARS THE THE STUDY IS OBSOLETE ALREADY BECAUSE THE COSTS HAVE GONE UP SO HIGH. SO WE WE AIRED ON THE ON THE SIDE OF LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE PAYING IN 2022 AND NEAR THE TOP OF WHAT WE'RE PAYING IN 2022.

AND THAT COULD STILL END UP BEING SOMEWHAT LOW IN A FEW YEARS.

UM, I'M LOOKING AT NEW BRAUNFELS, AND THEY JUST SET THEIRS.

AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT. WE'D HAVE TO ASK THEM.

WE'D HAVE TO TALK. DID YOU ALL DID YOU ALL CONSULT ON NEW BRAUNFELS? DID YOU? WE DID.

THAT WAS ANOTHER TEAM IN KIMLEY-HORN.

SO, I MEAN, IS.

AND THEY'RE COLLECTING 100%.

THEIR MAX IS.

$5,676. THAT'S ANOTHER HIGH GROWTH AREA.

THAT'S ANOTHER HIGH COST OF LIVING, HIGHER THAN SOME COST OF LIVING.

CONSTRUCTION'S EXPENSIVE THERE, TOO.

IN FACT, MIGHT BE MORE EXPENSIVE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE MARKET IS DOWN THERE, AVAILABLE CONTRACTORS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

AND THEY'RE ONLY AT 5000.

I MEAN, I REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO TELL OUR DEVELOPERS, NO, THIS IS THIS IS THE COST.

WE'VE GOT TO THIS IS A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST.

WE'VE GOT TO CHARGE YOU WHAT WE'VE GOT TO CHARGE YOU.

BUT IT'S GETTING JUST LOOKING AT THE SIDE BY SIDES.

IT'S GETTING DIFFICULT.

CAN YOU TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT NEW BRAUNFELS AND WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT OR HOW THEY ENDED UP WITH SUCH A LOW FEE? WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THEIR CURRENT FEES, NOT THE STUDY WASN'T RECENTLY UPDATED.

THE COLLECTED FEE WAS UPDATED.

SO THAT IS BASED ON AN OLDER MAX FEE THAT THEY'RE USING AS FAR AS THEIR GROWTH COMPARED TO THEIR COSTS.

I WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THOSE THOSE NUMBERS SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATED RESPONSE.

YEAH. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION ON THE CHART IS ABOUT AVERAGES.

IS THAT AN AVERAGE? THE MAX COLLECTIBLE AND THE COLLECTED ARE THOSE BOTH AVERAGES ACROSS ALL SERVICE AREAS OR.

YES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FRISCO.

THOSE ARE SERVICE SPECIFIC.

YEAH. OK.

I THINK NOT TO CORRECT YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR OUR NEXT HOUR.

RIGHT. WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR THERE? SO WE NEED SOME DIRECTION ON PERCENTAGE TONIGHT.

SO I'M LOOKING AT THE SLIDE NUMBER FOR THE COLLECTION RATE SLIDE.

[01:10:02]

AND OPTION TWO IS TITLED EQUAL PARTNERSHIP.

FROM A DEVELOPER STANDPOINT, I'M SURE THAT'S 100% HOW THAT HOW THAT WOULD BE REPRESENTED THAT THE CITY IS AN EQUAL PARTNER BECAUSE THEY'RE USING INVESTOR MONEY.

FOR ME, I DON'T SEE 5050 AS A PARTNERSHIP.

I THINK THAT'S 50% SUBSIDIZED IS HOW I LOOK AT IT.

AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO GET OUT OF THAT MINDSET.

I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE TELLING ME ALL THE TIME HOW MANY DEVELOPER FRIENDS I HAVE, RIGHT? SO I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT IN THAT MARKET, IN THAT COMMUNITY.

I'M REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT THEY BRING TO OUR CITY, BUT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY THAT'S 5050 IS EQUAL PARTNERSHIP.

5050 IS EQUAL SUBSIDY OF THE ADDED IMPACT.

SOME OF THOSE ARE PROJECTS DOWNTOWN AND SOME OF THOSE ARE PROJECTS FURTHER AFIELD.

BUT IT'S ALL CARS, IT'S ALL USE, IT'S ALL IMPACT ON OUR SYSTEM.

AND LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT WITH WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE MUDS AND STUFF.

YOU DON'T WE DON'T CHECK ID AT THE DOOR.

THEY'RE GOING TO DRIVE ACROSS THE ROADS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY BUILT THE HOUSE OVER ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN OR DOWNTOWN.

SO I WOULD FAVOR SOMETHING MORE LIKE AN 80%.

I THINK IF FLOWER MOUND CAN KEEP BUILDING NICE HOUSES AT 75%, THEN WE CAN DO WE COULD DO THE SAME AT 80%.

I'D BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT A GRADUATED PROCESS IF WE NEEDED TO STAIR STEP INTO THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT LAW ALLOWS US TO.

I CAN'T GET 100%.

THAT'S THAT'S A SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM, BUT I'M THINKING 80%.

ANYONE ELSE. MAYOR PRO TEM AND THEN COUNCILMAN WATTS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO CAN I JUST GET SOME CLARITY ON WHETHER YOU ARE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR DIRECTION? BECAUSE I'LL PROVIDE IT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE WANTING.

ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION.

AND JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE SCHEDULE.

OUR NEXT MEETING IS TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPACT FEE STUDY, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING MEETING WILL BE ON THE ORDINANCE AND THE RATES IN FEBRUARY.

ALL RIGHT. SO SIMILAR TO COUNCILOR DAVIS.

THE REASON I ASK A BUNCH OF THOSE QUESTIONS WAS WHAT LEVEL OF SUBSIDY IS IS PROVIDES FOR THE GROWTH THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AT THE LEVELS WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE. IT DOESN'T SCARE AWAY PEOPLE, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE SWEET SPOT IS AT LEAST THE 75%.

I'D LIKE TO SEE US GET AS CLOSE TO COST RECOVERY AS WE CAN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC AND WE DON'T WANT TO HURT OUR ECONOMY, BUT SOMEWHERE NORTH OF 75% UP TO AT SOME POINT.

AND I'M WILLING TO EXPLORE A GRADUAL EXPANSION TO THAT.

BUT I THINK THERE'S MERITS.

UNLESS WE CAN COME BACK WITH ARGUMENTS THAT, OH YEAH, AT 100%, WE'RE GOING TO CRUSH THE ECONOMY.

OKAY, FINE. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE FROM THE COMPARABLES YOU GAVE US, I'D BE LOOKING AT AT NORTH OF SO COUNCILOR DAVIS IS 80% FEELS GOOD TO ME.

I'LL I'LL HOOK MY TRAIN TO THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN.

WHAT'S. I HAVE TO ADMIT, I'M A LITTLE SHOCKED AT WHAT I'M HEARING.

FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THESE CHARTS.

I MEAN, THESE CHARTS ARE GIVEN TO US TO HELP US WITH DATA AND WITH DECISION MAKING.

AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE CHART ON THE DIFFERENT CITIES NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT APPARENTLY, FROM WHAT I JUST HEARD, THESE MAY NOT BE UPDATED COSTS.

BUT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT FRISCO, EITHER BUILT OUT OR GROWING AND THEIR FEES MAXIMUM FEE IS 20, BECAUSE MY MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE WAY THAT THIS WAS CALCULATED WAS BASED UPON VEHICLE.

MILES HER SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ATTRIBUTING SOME TYPE OF COST TO WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE VEHICULAR MILES.

I MEAN, I KNOW THAT'S VERY BASIC AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT MORE IN THE FORMULA THAN THAT, BUT IS THAT IS THAT THE BASIC KIND OF ALGORITHM OR APPROACH? YES. YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT.

AND IT'S THE VEHICLE, MILES, IS IS A FUNCTION OF TRIP RATE.

SO THE NUMBER OF TRIPS PER UNIT OF USE AND ALSO TRIP LENGTH, WHICH CAN ALSO, JUST TO POINT OUT, CAN ALSO VARY.

AMONG SOME OF THESE COMPARISON CITIES MAY USE A DIFFERENT TRIP LENGTH.

SO THEIR VEHICLE MILES MAY BE ALSO DIFFERENT.

OKAY. SO IN.

IN SOME WAYS, THIS DATA IS NOT VERY HELPFUL.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES.

IT'S SAYING BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT MCKINNEY'S TRIP DISTANCE THEIR COST PER CONSTRUCTION LANE MILE AND ALL THOSE THINGS IS.

WHAT IS THAT? A THIRD, ALMOST A THIRD OF WHAT OURS IS.

[01:15:07]

AND THIS NOTION.

COME ON, FOLKS.

LET'S GET REAL.

THE NOTION THAT WE WILL NOT BE SUBSIDIZING GROWTH IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I DON'T CARE IF YOU MAKE IT $50,000 FOR ROAD IMPACT FEES.

THAT'S JUST THAT'S THAT'S MISGUIDED.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE GROWTH, WHAT YOU HAVE IS AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES.

THE ONLY WAY CITIZENS SUBSIDIZE THINGS IS THEY PAY PROPERTY TAXES.

NOW, IF WE'RE PAYING FOR ROADS AND WATER AND SEWER, WHICH THESE IMPACT FEES ARE SUPPOSED TO COMPENSATE FOR, FOR QUOTE UNQUOTE, FUTURE GROWTH AND THE CAPACITY THAT WE'RE USING.

BUT IF WE THINK THAT THAT GROWTH IS NOT GOING TO THEREFORE ALSO INCREASE THE ASSESSED VALUES OF PROPERTIES, WHICH THEREFORE ALSO INCREASES THE TAX PROPERTY TAX AMOUNTS FOR THESE PROPERTIES.

AND SO HERE WE ARE, WE'RE TALKING OUT OF ONE SIDE OF OUR MOUTH, WHICH IS ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT, UNDERSTANDING THAT, OH, WE CAN GIVE SOME WAIVERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND ON ANOTHER, WE'RE SAYING WE'RE OKAY WITH ADDING $16,000.

HER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

TO THE COST. BEFORE ANYTHING SAID AND DONE SO THAT THAT AMOUNT THAT WE ARE CHARGING AS A CITY OF DENTON, WHICH IS OPTION TWO, IS ONLY 50%.

WHICH WE WOULD ADD ANOTHER 6000 TO THAT 33,000 BEFORE ONE PIECE OF DIRT IS MOVED IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG FOR APARTMENTS, WHAT IS THAT PER UNIT COST? IS THAT THE SAME OR IS THERE A DISCOUNT ON THAT? THE APARTMENT COSTS TO BE A LITTLE LOWER.

ROUGHLY ROUGHLY HALF OF WHAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS.

SO IF IT'S A 10,000 MAX, IF WE WERE DOING, AS SOME HAVE PROPOSED, 75%, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $7,500 APPROXIMATELY.

YES. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

OKAY. SO IT'S I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THIS IS SUCH A SIMPLE SOLUTION AS EVERYBODY BELIEVES.

NOW, IF YOU WANT TO STOP GROWTH, THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK, SINGLE FAMILY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK IN THIS CITY, THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT.

IF YOU WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE REALLY ANY MULTIFAMILY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENTAL STOCK, WHEN YOU'RE PAYING $7,500 A UNIT, YOU GOT 300 UNITS.

WHAT IS THAT, 210,000? THERE'S GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE DATA SUFFICIENT TO SAY HOW MUCH ARE WE REALLY? I MEAN, WE'RE SAYING WE'RE DOING QUOTE UNQUOTE, COST RECOVERY.

THIS ISN'T LIKE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT IS OUR BUDGET, HOW MANY PROJECTS DO WE HAVE, AND WE SPREAD OUT THOSE FEES AMONG THE BUDGET OF THAT OK THAT'S PRETTY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THIS ISN'T IT? THIS ISN'T THAT SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THIS HAS ALL KINDS OF TENTACLES AND IN SOME WAY TO PRESENT IT AS THIS SIMPLISTIC, I THINK DOES THE COMMUNITY A DISSERVICE.

AND THAT'S NOT A THAT'S NOT A SLAM ON ANYBODY.

I'M JUST SAYING WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO, FIRST OF ALL, MY DIRECTION IS, NO, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF $16,000 PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME GOING UP IN COSTS.

I'D HAVE TO REALLY BE CONVINCED OF THESE CONSTRUCTION COST NUMBERS.

I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO STOP GROWTH, FOLKS, WE JUST QUIT ZONING THINGS.

WE WE QUIT PROVIDING REZONING APPLICATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THAT'S HOW YOU WANT TO STOP GROWTH INSTEAD OF MAKING IT TO WHERE NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.

THAT'S GOING TO MAKE UNDER $50,000 A YEAR FOR SURE.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU ADD $30,000 TO THE PRICE OF A HOME.

YOU MULTIPLY THAT TIMES SIX OR 8%, YOU'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY TWO OR 300 AND $400 MORE A MONTH ON YOUR ON YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENT.

SO I'M ALL FOR A DISCUSSION, BUT I AM SHOCKED, QUITE HONESTLY.

AND IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF STEP UP BASIS WHERE WE WE SORT OF WE ALREADY DID THIS WITH THE PARK FEES, THEN WE WENT UP TO THE FULL AMOUNT.

DID, DID THEY NOT, THAT THE PARKING FEES, WE HAD SOME INCREASE IN THOSE FEES.

SO THIS ALL LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER AND IT SOUNDS REAL GOOD TO DO COST RECOVERY AND ALL THAT.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING ON THE GROUND TO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, INDIVIDUAL FAMILIES AND THIS COMMUNITY, BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING IS NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, WE'RE BASICALLY SHUTTING PEOPLE OUT.

WE'RE EITHER SUBSIDIZING IT, WHICH MAKES IT UNAFFORDABLE OR WE'RE CHARGING $30,000 FOR ROAD IMPACT FEES OR 16,000, AND IT MAKES IT UNAFFORDABLE.

SO I'M NOT FOR THAT.

[01:20:01]

I MEAN, I'M I COULD DO THE OPTION ONE, MAYBE GO TO 30%.

AND IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT THAT IN TWO YEARS TO GO UP.

BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT FORT WORTH GOING UP TO 100%, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE OTHER CITIES.

FORT WORTH IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING CITIES IN THE COUNTRY.

LET'S LOOK AT THEIR AREA, MEDIAN INCOME.

ARE WE LOOKING AT THAT? I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME FOR THESE CITIES THAT WE'RE USING ON THIS CHART.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THEORY AND WE START TALKING ABOUT IMPACT FEES AND STATUTES AND FORMULAS AND UNDERSTAND HOW IS THIS GOING TO IMPACT THE PERSON.

WHO'S LIVING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND TO GO UP $16,000 FOR EVERY SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE.

IT'S JUST UNCONSCIONABLE.

AND I'M I'M NOT A FRIEND OF THE DEVELOPERS, IN A SENSE.

OH, BECAUSE WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? THEY'RE GOING TO PASS IT ALONG.

YEAH. THEY'RE GOING TO PASS IT ALONG, FOLKS.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T.

WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE DOING IT.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT CHARGING MORE.

I'M SORRY, MR. MAYOR. I JUST I'M JUST UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE RAMBLED ON BECAUSE I'M STILL SORT OF IN SHOCK OF OF WHAT I'M HEARING.

SO I'M OKAY.

AND IF COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM BECK THINK THAT 20% OR 30% STARTING OUT AND REVISIT IT IN TWO OR THREE YEARS IS REASONABLE, MAN, I'M ALL FOR THAT.

BUT TO GO UP TO TO GO FROM OK FOLKS, TO GO FROM $2,000.

TO 16,000.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT. OK ANYONE ELSE HERE? CALCIUM. BURT. I AM GOING TO.

I KNOW WE'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT I'M REALLY THINKING THAT OUR OPTION TO THE 50% IS A GOOD CHOICE FOR US. I BELIEVE THAT THIS CITY SHOULD BE PARTNERS.

IT'S SOME OF US IS THERE NOT PARTNERING.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT GOING BELOW 50% OR GOING ABOVE 50% IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE SHOULD CHOOSE.

I CHOOSE 50%.

LET ME LET ME STOP THERE BEFORE I STARTED START RAMBLING ON.

YOU KNOW, AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING COSTS TO THESE HOMES THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, WHICH NEED ROADS AND UTILITIES TO GO TO THOSE THOSE AREAS, THOSE PEOPLE.

THAT THOSE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE SOLD TO CAN AFFORD THOSE HOMES.

THERE IS A SHORTAGE, AS WE KNOW, OF LUXURY HOMES, NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS COMMUNITY ANYWAY. AND WE ARE PUSHING THOSE FOLKS THAT COME IN TO THE CITY DAILY THROUGH THE AIRPORT WHO WANT TO BRING THEIR THEIR BUSINESSES HERE.

BUT THERE ARE NOT ANY HOMES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO LIVE IN.

SO I REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT PARTICULAR COST.

NOW, WHOEVER CAN AFFORD A HOME THAT'S ALREADY BUILT IN THE CITY, THEY'RE GOING TO BUY, YOU'RE GOING TO PURCHASE WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD.

YOU'RE GOING TO LIVE WHERE YOU CAN AFFORD.

AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING ANOTHER $30,000 TO A HOME, THERE'S SOMEBODY OUT THERE THAT CAN PAY THAT AND THEY'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO LIVE IN DENTON. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T HAVE TOO MANY WORDS AS USUAL WITH THAT.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I.

I WANT US TO BE PREPARED.

IT SEEMS LIKE IN SOME INSTANCES WE WE WANT TO GO ON THE LOW END AND THEN WE'VE GOT TO COME BACK AND PUT THE FUNDING IN THERE LIKE WE DID THE FIREFIGHTERS THE LAST TIME. AND AND SO BUT I WOULD PREFER FOR US TO STAY ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS.

I WANT US TO BE BEHIND AND PUSH THIS FORWARD OUR GROWTH.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT 50% WILL MEAN IN TERMS OF HOW FAST WE'RE GOING TO GROW.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT 30% IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE OR EVEN 80% IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE NEED TO STAY IN FRONT OF THIS.

AND I THINK STARTING AT 50% AND SELLING TO THE PEOPLE, THAT'S GOING TO BE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE SOLD TO IN THE VILLAGES ARE GOING TO BE HAPPY.

THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR LITTLE COMMISSION TO GO ALONG WITH THAT.

YOU KNOW, NOT KNOCKING REALTORS IS A PRETTY GOOD, PRETTY GOOD JOB.

BUT I JUST THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO BE MINDFUL THAT WE CAN DO THIS.

WE CAN PARTNER WITH THESE FOLKS AND AND GROW AT A MODERATE PACE INSTEAD OF SLOWING DOWN TOO FAST OR PUSHING IT TOO FAST WITH THESE

[01:25:04]

PERCENTAGES HERE.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. OK.

COUNCILMAN. MCGEE. MR. MAYOR, BASED OFF THE NUMBERS, DO YOU ALREADY HAVE DIRECTION? DO I EVEN NEED TO KNOW? I DON'T THINK THERE'S. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY KEY.

THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY DIRECTION PER SE.

IT'S GIVING PEOPLE SOMETHING TO REACT TO.

OKAY. WELL, THEN I GUESS MY PERSPECTIVE, I WANT TO APPRECIATE I APPRECIATE THIS PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING FRISCO.

JUST JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION.

HOW COMMON IS IT? HOW COMMON IS IT IN THIS AREA, MAYBE THE METROPLEX FOR CITIES TO HAVE DIFFERENT COLLECTION RATES BASED OFF OF DIFFERENT SERVICE AREAS? IT'S, YOU KNOW, YEAH, SURE.

I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY HALF AND HALF, ABOUT HALF THE CITIES DO SMOOTHING OR SMOOTH COLLECTION RATES LIKE DENTON CURRENTLY HAS, AND THE OTHER HALF DO A DIFFERENT RATE IN DIFFERENT SERVICE AREAS.

NOT NOT TO KEEP GOING BACK TO FORT WORTH BECAUSE THERE'S GOOD REASONS TO COMPARE AND NOT TO COMPARE TO FORT WORTH.

BUT THEY JUST THEY WERE A SMOOTH COLLECTION RATE CITY AND NOW THEY ADOPT DIFFERENT RATES IN IN EACH SERVICE AREA.

BUT IT'S IT'S PRETTY MIXED.

IT'S PRETTY EVENLY MIXED.

THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

I WOULD JUST STATE TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT MIGHT BE A DISCUSSION THAT I'M OPEN TO IN THE FUTURE, WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF THIS.

SO. I'M NOT IN REAL ESTATE.

I'M NOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

I WORK FOR A LIVING.

I DRIVE A TRUCK FOR A LIVING AND.

I HAVE A LOT OF WORKING CLASS FRIENDS AND I AM NOT GOING TO RESTATE ALL THE THINGS THAT COUNTS.

REMEMBER WHAT'S ALREADY SAID, BUT I'M GOING TO KEY IN ON ONE POINT, HE SAID.

THIS COST IS GOING TO BE PASSED ON TO WORKING PEOPLE.

AND MY CONCERN IS THAT WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY CAN'T AFFORD A HOUSE AS IS IF THERE WAS A HOUSE FOR THEM TO PURCHASE.

BUT TO ALSO HIGHLIGHT WHAT MS..

BYRD SAID, THERE IS GOING TO BE SOMEONE TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE.

MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A DEN NIGHT.

IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEONE COMING FROM A STATE, PERHAPS CALIFORNIA, WHERE THEY GOT A BOATLOAD OF MONEY WHEN THEY SOLD THEIR HOUSE AND THEY CAN COME HERE AND EASILY PURCHASE A HOME. HAVING SAID THAT, MY CONCERN IS DEAD NIGHTS.

MY CONCERN IS.

ALL OF THIS, IF NOT A LARGE PORTION OF THIS COST BEING PASSED ON TO WORKING PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK.

I FAVOR SOMETHING BETWEEN OPTION ONE AND TWO, I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER WALLACE SAID 30.

I AM MY MIND AND MY MIND ALL ALONG.

WHEN I WAS DOING MY WORK ON THIS, I WAS THINKING SOMETHING UNDER 50 AND GRADUATED.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING MORE THAN OPTION TWO, BUT I FAVOR SOMETHING BETWEEN OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO.

YEAH, THIS IS THIS IS LESS THAN IDEAL, I BELIEVE, FOR WORKING PEOPLE.

I ALSO AGREE THAT I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS MIGHT STIFLE GROWTH A LITTLE BIT.

THERE IS UNPRECEDENTED PRESSURE ON THE MARKET.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO TO HURT TOO MUCH.

BUT AS I SAID, THIS IS GOING TO BE PASSED ON TO WORKING PEOPLE.

WORKING PEOPLE CAN BARELY AFFORD TO LIVE AS IS.

SO I YIELD BACK.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER WELL, THE CITY MANAGER AND THEN COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO COME BACK AGAIN.

BUT THE ONE THING I DO WANT TO CLARIFY IS.

WELL, WHAT RIGHT YOU PICK IS NOT FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE.

THAT'S THE DECISION COUNCIL MAKES.

BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS COIN IS THE MONEY IS STILL GOING TO BE PASSED ON TO OUR RESIDENTS ANYWAY.

I NEED TO MAKE THAT POINT.

YOU PAY IT NOW AND WHATEVER THE FEE IS.

BUT HOW DO HOW ELSE DO WE BUILD OUR ROADS? HOW DO WE PAY FOR OUR ROADS? SO THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO OUR RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT ANYWAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NO MAGIC MONEY OUT THERE THAT'S GOING TO PAY FOR THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE EITHER THROUGH THIS METHOD, WHICH IS TO PAY FOR THE WORK.

AND WHEN YOU'RE AT A CITY THAT'S GROWING EXPONENTIALLY LIKE THE CITY OF DENTON, AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO GROW BECAUSE WE HAVE AREAS FOR GROWTH, THE FEE IS HIGHER.

WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE REASONING FOR GROWTH AND YOU ALREADY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE BECAUSE YOUR CITY IS GROWN OUT.

THE FEE IS LOWER. SO IT'S A BALANCING ACT HERE.

AND I JUST NEED TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THE MONEY, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IS GOING TO COME FROM THE RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

A FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE OF MINE WAS SHOCKED, I THINK, EARLIER AT SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD.

SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY JUST A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF THE FOUNDATION THAT I'M BUILDING ON OVER HERE.

[01:30:03]

WE HAVE FOR A VERY LONG TIME IN THIS CITY, HAD A POLICY OF NOT INCENTIVIZING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT INCENTIVIZING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT CHANNELS.

ONE OF THOSE IS THE CAP WE'VE GOT BUILT INTO OUR 2016.

I THINK IT WAS 25% OF WHAT WAS ON THE SLIDE.

I THINK I THINK YOU SAID 15%.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS.

IT'S 25. YES. SO, SO IT'S 25% DISCOUNT FOR NON COMMERCIAL AND THEN SOME OTHER USES ARE CAPPED AT A CERTAIN RATE.

THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

LESS THAN FULL FREIGHT IS AN INCENTIVE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

IT IS LESS THAN FULL FREIGHT AND THIS IS A NEWER THING FOR US.

WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T USED THIS.

THE 2016 WAS OUR FIRST ROADWAY IMPACT ORDINANCE EXCUSE ME, ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE.

IT'S A NEW MECHANISM FOR RECOVERING COST OF SERVICE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS. IT'S COST OF SERVICE AND SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME NOW SINCE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WILLING TO STOP AND LISTEN TO ME TALK IS BANKING OUR GROWTH THAT WE COLLECT, THAT WE THAT WE SPEND TODAY'S DOLLARS TO BUILD ROADS WHEREVER WE CAN, THAT WE USE OUR GOOD OUR GOOD BORROWING CAPACITY TO BORROW WHERE WE CAN, AND THAT WHERE WE CAN WE COLLECT OUR COST OF SERVICE.

I DON'T THINK 100% IS WHERE WE NEED TO GO, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM.

BUT I THINK ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% IS AN INCENTIVE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

I'M NOT SITTING HERE SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD THE HOUSES NO MATTER HOW MUCH, HOW EXPENSIVE WE MAKE IT TO BUILD AND DENTON I AM SAYING THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE BUILDING HOUSES AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE BY CHARGING SOMETHING CLOSER TO FULL FREIGHT, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE PUTTING A WET BLANKET ON THE MARKET.

I THINK WE'RE DOING WHAT'S FAIR TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE NOW, FAIR TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO PAY PROPERTY TAX ON A BUILT OUT PART OF TOWN.

SOMEBODY WHO COMES IN TOMORROW BUYS A HOUSE ON OAK STREET OR BOLIVAR STREET OR IN THE NOTTINGHAM WOODS AREA, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY A PROPERTY TAX.

AND SOME MEASURE THAT PROPERTY TAX IS GOING TO GO TO SERVICE A BOND.

IT'S GOING TO GO TO PAY FOR ROADS THAT WE HAVE TO THAT WE HAVE TO FIX.

AND WHAT PORTION OF THEIR TAXES, WHAT PORTION OF THEIR TAXES IS GOING TO SUBSIDIZE A NEW GROWTH AREA? I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE MINIMIZED.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO SUBSIDIZE AS LITTLE AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, RECOGNIZING THAT 100% IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR.

SO IF I NEED TO COME DOWN TO 50% TO BUILD CONSENSUS, I'M WILLING TO DO THAT.

IF I NEED TO TALK ABOUT A STAIR STEP, I'M WILLING TO DO THAT.

I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND GIVE THE MARKET SOME PREDICTABILITY WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT EVERY TIME WE TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURE.

DAVID'S VERY CAREFUL TO REMIND US, DON'T FORGET, YOU'VE GOT A ROADWAY IMPACT FEES COMING UP.

WE NEED TO FINISH THIS OUT.

WE NEED TO GET THIS SET AND GIVE OUR MARKET SOME PREDICTABILITY.

SO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET TO CONSENSUS, I'M WILLING TO DO THAT.

IT SOUNDED LIKE THAT LOOKS LIKE 50%.

I DON'T KNOW. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, COUNCILMAN MCGEE? COUNCILMAN, WHAT'S JUST.

JUST QUICK, MR. MAYOR, WHEN IS THE TIME TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT DIFFERENT FEES AND DIFFERENT SERVICE AREAS? WOULD THAT BE AT A DIFFERENT UPCOMING MEETING? WOULD THAT BE NOW? IS ANYBODY ELSE OPEN TO THAT DISCUSSION? IT'S NOT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE OUT OF TIME, BUT IT'S IN.

I THINK IT'S ALSO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HAS BEEN ABLE TO HEAR IT, THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN THE REAL NUMBERS.

AND SO I EXPECT FEEDBACK TO GROW YOUR WAY.

AND SO THEN YOU CAN PROCESS THROUGH THOSE QUESTIONS IN WHATEVER WAY YOU DO.

THAT'S MY ANALYSIS, BUT THAT IF I MISSED ANYTHING, GREAT, WE CAN COME BACK.

I THINK. I THINK THE POINTS ARE I THINK WE NEED TO COME BACK WITH A LOWER REC, A FEE OF WHAT MAY BE MORE REASONABLE AND AND LOOK AT AND SHOW YOU WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND THEN ALSO, WE DON'T WANT TO RUN THE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES OFF AT SUCH A HIGH RATE.

IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY CAUSE PEOPLE TO WANT TO BUILD MORE MUDS.

SO THERE'S GOT TO BE A SWEET SPOT HERE.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A COUPLE OF MORE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SAY, HERE'S WHAT IT WOULD BE AT 30%, HERE'S WHAT IT WOULD BE AT 40%, 50%, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS IT AND TALK ABOUT OTHER FEES, SERVICE AREAS, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.

BUT AS YOU HEARD, SERVICE AREAS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM ONE CITY TO THE NEXT.

THAT'S THE THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

SO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. IS THAT EVERYTHING FOR YOU? COUNCILOR WATSON? MAYOR PRO TEM.

YOU KNOW WHAT? I'LL YIELD BACK.

I'M. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

I'LL WAIT TILL THE NEXT MEETING. I'LL SEND MY QUESTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'LL BE BRIEF. SO I LOVE THE POINT THAT CITY MANAGER MADE.

[01:35:01]

SO IF WE COULD, IN FUTURE REPORTS, TALK ABOUT WHAT DIFFERENT RATIOS MEAN TO THE TAX BASIS.

THAT IS OUR SEPTEMBER ARGUMENT EVERY YEAR.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE OK.

IF YOU MAKE THIS DECISION, IT'S LIKELY WITH THESE BUDGETS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE THIS TAX RATE.

AND IF YOU MAKE THAT DECISION, IT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE THIS TAX RATE.

SOME GOOD BALLPARK NUMBERS WOULD ALLOW US TO DECIDE WHICH LEVER WE WANT TO PULL TO TO BEST HELP MANAGE GROWTH IN THE CITY OF DENTON.

THANK YOU. OK.

ANYONE ELSE? SO COMING BACK FIRST, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE MATH AND KIND OF SOME OF THAT, THOSE AMENDMENTS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT AND THE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED.

APPRECIATE THAT A LOT.

THE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN IT.

THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION SENT AN EMAIL, HAD SOME QUESTIONS.

I THINK REALLY THAT THAT SPURRED A THOUGHT TO ME WHO WHO DO THEY CONTACT? WHO WHO'S THE PERSON FOR THEM WATCHING THIS PRESENTATION IF THOSE THAT ARE GOING TO BE THAT ARE BUILDING HOMES THAT HAVE LAND, THAT WHATEVER AND WHEREVER THEY ARE IN THAT PROCESS, WHO DO THEY CONTACT AT THE CITY TO SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS? BECAUSE REALLY WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE COME FROM THAT IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, JUST A MATRIX TO SAY, HERE'S THE QUESTIONS, HERE'S THE ANSWERS, RIGHT? I'M NOT A DEVELOPER AND DON'T FUNCTION IN THAT WORLD.

DON'T DON'T OPERATE IN THAT WORLD REGULARLY.

SO I JUST NEED TO, YOU KNOW, NEED TO BUT I RECOGNIZE THE QUESTIONS AND I THINK THEY DESERVE AN ANSWER.

SURE. TODAY, ON FRIDAY, I ACTUALLY SHARED THE EXACT SAME INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT SCOTT MCDONALD MANAGES THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT EMAIL LIST TO.

I'VE RECEIVED TWO QUESTIONS.

ONE PERSON ON AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ASKING ME WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE IMPACT FEES.

OF COURSE, THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED AND THE OTHER ONE ASKING ME FOR A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I SENT ALL OF THAT OVER TO THEM.

SO AT THIS POINT, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S LISTED ON THERE HAPPENS TO BE MY MANAGEMENT ANALYST THAT WORKS A PART OF OUR TEAM.

SHE'LL RECEIVE ALL THE QUESTIONS AND WE'LL WORK THROUGH THOSE.

BUT TO DATE I'VE ONLY RECEIVED ONE SPECIFIC AFTER THE EMAIL WAS SENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO SOMEONE WITH THE DALLAS BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND ME SENDING THIS INFORMATION IN ADVANCE.

AND I DID. SO. OKAY, GREAT.

WELL, SO IF WE CAN TRACK THOSE Q AND A'S, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN COME OUT FRIDAY.

THAT'D BE GREAT AS THEY REACT.

AND THAT GIVES ME SOME THOUGHTS.

BUT THEN ALSO ONE OF THE THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION QUESTIONS THAT I'D LIKE NOT TODAY, BUT A FOLLOW UP TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A BASIS FOR KNOWLEDGE.

THAT'S THE WHAT WHAT'S AVAILABLE FOR CREDITS.

THAT'S REALLY WHERE I WANT TO GO.

I WANT TO GO WHERE WHO'S EVER DEVELOPING BUILDS AND WE GIVE THEM CREDIT AND THEY CAN MAYBE WE PARTNER WITH THEM ON A I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT FINANCING LOOKS LIKE, AGAIN, FLYING BLIND, BUT THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO GO, WHERE THEY BUILD, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S CREDITS, THERE'S STUFF TO BE SETTLED.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I THINK ECONOMIES OF SCALE, THAT SORT OF THING, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN BID DIFFERENT.

WE HAVE RESTRICTIONS.

I JUST WOULD I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT CAN BE CREDITED, WHAT CAN'T BE CREDITED.

AND IF THERE'S A WAY TO MOVE CLOSER TO WHERE THEY BUILD IT AND IF THEY FIND A DEAL, AS LONG AS IT'S BUILT TO OUR STANDARDS, GREAT.

SO I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW ABOUT THAT.

I'D ALSO BE CURIOUS ON THE THE I DON'T LIKE COMPARISONS.

I DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPARISONS OFFERED VERSUS I DON'T FIND ANY OF THOSE TO BE UNIVERSITY TOWNS WE HAVE.

AND SO WE HAVE ROADS THAT WE MAINTAIN AT UNT.

UNT DOES NOT PAY TAX, TWU DOES NOT PAY TAX.

WE MAINTAIN THOSE ROADS.

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? IT MAY HAVE NO EFFECT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY BUILT.

I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE WHEN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A FRISCO, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT CHALLENGE.

MCKINNEY DOESN'T HAVE THAT CHALLENGE.

MAYBE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT, BUT THEY DON'T.

NONE OF THESE CITIES HAVE THE CHALLENGE.

WE DO CALL IT A CHALLENGE, CALL IT A BLESSING.

WHATEVER. IT'S GREAT.

GO YOU AND T GO T.W.

AND KTRK LOVE MALL.

BUT WE HAVE TO PROCESS THROUGH THAT.

IT'S IT'S FACTS ON THE GROUND.

RIGHT? SO JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU'RE DRAWING THOSE COMPARISONS, IS THERE A CHANGE THAT THE ANSWER COULD BE NO ANSWER? YES. I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK AND I WOULD MENTION THAT WE DID TRY TO INCLUDE COLLEGE TOWNS.

WE DO HAVE LUBBOCK COLLEGE STATION, NEW BRAUNFELS, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT IS TO TRY TO DO THAT COMPARISON.

I THINK THE HARDEST THING ABOUT THE WORD COMPARISON AND MAYBE I USED A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS IS THERE TRULY IS NO COMPARISON.

WHAT WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS SHOW YOU WHAT OTHER FOLKS ARE COLLECTING WITHIN THE METROPLEX, BECAUSE IN ALL OF THE SITUATION, THERE'S NOT A SERVICE AREA THAT'S THE SAME.

THERE'S NOT A COLLECTION. RATE.

THAT'S THE SAME.

THERE'S NOT AN ENTIRE SITUATION THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT THE CITY DID AND DOES BUSINESS.

[01:40:01]

SO IT'S A REALLY HARD CONVERSATION.

IT'S MORE AROUND WHAT IS THE FEE THAT THE COUNCIL IS COMFORTABLE WITH ADOPTING FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE? WELL, AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK IN WHERE I COULD BE EDUCATED IS ON THE MATERIALS AND THAT SORT OF.

BECAUSE THAT IS STATIC, RIGHT? RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. THE CEMENT, THE REBAR, THE WHATEVER THOSE COSTS ARE ARE STATIC, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHERE THAT'S HAPPENING NOW, I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE YOU HAVE TO DRIVE FURTHER AND LOVE IT TO GET CEMENT.

WHERE YOU GOING? BUT BUT EITHER WAY.

SO JUST KIND OF SOME OF THOSE STATIC THINGS BECAUSE IF WE CAN AGREE ON WHAT THE COST OF MATERIALS IS, I THINK WE CAN BACK INTO THE OTHER NUMBER. BUT AND ADJUST FOR DENTON VERSUS NEW BRONZE FOR THOSE SORT OF THINGS.

BUT I JUST NEED HELP DIALING INTO THAT COMPONENT.

MAYBE THAT'LL HELP ME PROCESS THROUGH SOME OF THE INFORMATION.

AND THEN I'LL JUST SAY THIS.

FOR ME, I TAKE THE POINT ABOUT THE SIP AND WHAT IT'S LIMITED TO BE SPENT ON.

BUT HERE'S WHERE I HAVE A LITTLE HEARTBURN IS.

AS A DECISION MAKING BODY, AS A BUDGETING PROCESS.

IF WE MAKE BAD DECISIONS THAT BECAUSE GENERAL FUNDS CAN BE SPENT ON ROADS AS WELL, RIGHT? CORRECT. BUT IF GENERAL FUNDS AND THIS IS A FACT ON THE GROUND, IF GENERAL FUNDS ARE SPENT ON $1.3 MILLION IN LITIGATION, THAT'S $1.3 MILLION OF ROAD WE COULD HAVE HAD. BUT BUT FOR THE LITIGATION COSTS BUT FOR OTHER COSTS THAT AREN'T THE TAXPAYERS FAULT.

AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE I HAVE A DIFFICULTY IN SAYING, HEY, THEY'LL BE OKAY.

IT'S RIGHT. THERE'S NO WAY TO REGULATE HOW THIS BODY SPENDS TAXPAYER MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IF WE'RE IF WE'RE EXTRA CONSERVATIVE, THEN THAT MEANS EXTRA GOING TO THE BOTTOM LINE THAT WE COULD FIX EXTRA ROADS WITH THOSE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS.

AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE I HAVE TO BE JUST FOR ME TO PROCESS THE INFORMATION, HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THAT.

I MEAN, JUST THAT IS A FACT THAT WE COULD LOWER THE TAXPAYER RATE BY $0.01, BUT THAT WENT TO LEGAL FEES.

AND SO THAT'S ALL 150,000 PEOPLE BENEFITED.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE I TRY TO FOCUS.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AND SEE WHAT QUESTIONS COME IN AND AND HAVING A GREAT CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER, FOR BEING OPEN TO THAT.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. GOOD STUFF.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM D ID

[D. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on potential amendments to City of Denton Code of Ordinances Chapter 2 Article XI. Ethics. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 45 minutes]]

222209. RECEIVE REPORT WHOLE DISCUSSION AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CITY OF DENTON CODE OF ORDINANCE ORDINANCES.

CHAPTER TWO, ARTICLE NINE ETHICS.

ALL RIGHT. LO MAYOR COUNCIL 11 MY ROMAN NUMERALS.

GOT A BED. ALL RIGHT, LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN.

LET'S DO THIS.

AWESOME. ALL RIGHT, SO I'M MADISON RORSCHACH DENTON, CITY AUDITOR.

I'M ALSO THE STAFF LIAISON TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS.

I'M GOING TO PRESENT SOME INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ETHICS ORDINANCE REGARDING PAYMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ENGAGEMENT.

SO JUST FOR SOME QUICK BACKGROUND, THIS DISCUSSION BEGAN IN APRIL EARLIER THIS YEAR, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO DISCUSS AMENDING THE ETHICS ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OR RECUSAL TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY AROUND CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERS INVOLVED IN A COUNCIL ELECTION.

SPECIFICALLY, IF THERE WAS A FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A COUNCIL MEMBER AND A POTENTIAL BOARD MEMBER, THE BOARD OF ETHICS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN AUGUST AND DID NOT HAVE CONSENSUS TO GIVE DIRECTION AT THAT TIME IN SEPTEMBER, THE COUNCIL THEN GAVE DIRECTION TO HOLD A FUTURE WORK SESSION ON CREATING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ENGAGEMENT PAYMENTS BASED ON A TWO MINUTE PITCH, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.

SO NOW THAT WE'VE COVERED THAT, THIS SLIDE SHOWS SOME POTENTIAL LANGUAGE THAT IS INTENDED TO MANDATE CITY OFFICIALS TO DISCLOSE PAYMENTS GIVEN OR RECEIVED FROM A PERSON OR BUSINESS ENTITY WITH A RELEVANT PENDING MATTER.

WHEN A RELEVANT PENDING MATTER IS BEFORE THEM, THIS LANGUAGE WOULD REQUIRE DISCLOSURE REPORTS TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY AUDITOR AS WELL AS THE CITY SECRETARY, BUT WOULD NOT PROHIBIT THE CITY OFFICIAL FROM PARTICIPATING IN DELIBERATIONS UNLESS ANOTHER CONFLICTING INTEREST WAS PRESENT.

THE DRAFT LANGUAGE WAS INTENDED TO BE REFLECTIVE OF THE BUSINESS DISCLOSURE MANDATE THAT IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE SLIDE.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CITY'S CURRENT DISCLOSURE PROCEDURES ONLY REQUIRE THAT A WRITTEN REPORT BE SUBMITTED WITH NO CLEARLY REQUIRED TIME FRAME AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE A CITY OFFICIAL TO VERBALLY DISCLOSE THAT THEY HAD GIVEN OR RECEIVED PAYMENTS DURING A MEETING, MEANING THAT IT'S POSSIBLE NOT ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD BE

[01:45:08]

AWARE OF ANY DISCLOSED PAYMENTS PRIOR TO OFFICIAL ACTION ON A PENDING MATTER OCCURRING.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE SOME POINTS FOR DIRECTION REGARDING REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION, IMPLEMENTING THIS MANDATE IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO JUST POINT OUT ONE MORE THING THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS IS DOING BEFORE WE GO THERE.

SO IN MARCH OF 22, THE BOARD OF ETHICS BEGAN HAVING A SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS TO COMPREHENSIVELY REVIEW THE DEFINITION OF CONFLICTING INTEREST THAT'S IN THE ETHICS ORDINANCE.

AS PART OF THIS REVIEW, THEY GAVE STAFF DIRECTION RECENTLY TO ADD A DEFINITION TO THE PROVISION THAT WOULD MAKE HAVING A CLIENT RELATIONSHIP A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, WHICH WOULD THEN REQUIRE RECUSAL IF THERE WAS A RELEVANT PENDING MATTER.

AND I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE THE ADDITION OF THIS PROVISION TO THE DEFINITION, CONFLICTING INTEREST DEFINITION, WOULD POTENTIALLY REQUIRE CITY OFFICIALS TO RECUSE FROM DELIBERATIONS IF THEY HAD A CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PERSON OR BUSINESS ENTITY.

HOWEVER, THE BOARD OF ETHICS DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT A CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS AT THIS POINT.

SO THESE ARE KIND OF DEFINITIONS THAT THEY WILL BE USING AS A AS A JUMPING POINT.

AND SO IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FINANCIAL PAYMENT DISCLOSURE MANDATE, IT SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THIS UPCOMING PROPOSED AMENDMENT MIGHT IMPACT HOW THAT'S APPLICABLE, BASICALLY.

SO QUICK SUMMARY.

WE HAVE DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR THE FINANCIAL PAYMENT MANDATES THAT IF ADOPTED.

WOULD REQUIRE CITY OFFICIALS TO DISCLOSE PAYMENTS THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN OR RECEIVED FROM A PERSON OR BUSINESS ENTITY.

IF THERE WAS A PENDING MATTER THAT INVOLVED THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

BUT THERE'S SOME DIRECTION NEEDED ON SPECIFICS.

AND IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, WE HAVE A PROCESS LAID OUT ON THE SLIDE.

IN ADDITION, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION OR INPUT ON THE DEFINITION OF CLIENT THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS MIGHT BE WILL BE CONSIDERING IN THE UPCOMING MONTHS IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

SO. QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL THAT IN THOSE QUICK AND IT'S KIND OF TWO SEPARATE PIECES GREAT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND IF WE CAN PULL THAT DOWN SO I CAN SEE COUNCILMEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS. OH, THERE WE GO.

THANK YOU, MARY. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION, I THINK.

SO I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THIS.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS TOP OF MIND IN BASICALLY ALL THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE ETHICS CODE THAT THE COUNCIL COUNCIL OF OUR CONVERSATIONS THE LAST LITTLE WHILE.

LAST YEAR AT LEAST, I WOULD PREFER TO SEE A DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

AND WHEN I SAY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE SPOUSE AND OTHER RELATIVES BECAUSE THEY'RE INCLUDED IN EVERY OTHER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

WE HAVE THE THIRD DEGREE OF CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY, MARRIAGE OR BLOOD.

SO I MIGHT SAY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BY DEFAULT INCLUDE THAT.

SO I THINK THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED.

THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE SLIDE.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GET AS GRANULAR AS THE CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY SUBJECTIVE.

EVEN IF YOU ASK ASK TEN DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS, GIVEN THE SAME FACT SCENARIO, YOU MIGHT GET TEN DIFFERENT ANSWERS ON WHETHER YOU FORMED AN ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP THERE.

I JUST THINK IT'S A LITTLE TOO SUBJECTIVE THERE.

I THINK IT'S ANY ANY FINANCIAL PAYMENT ANYWHERE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S REPRESENTS MUCH OF A BURDEN.

THE PENDING MATTERS THAT WE HAVE ARE VERY THEY'RE NOT USUALLY THE GUY THAT CHANGES YOUR OIL OR THE PLACE WHERE YOU GET YOUR YOUR DRY CLEANING DONE AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. THEY'RE TYPICALLY HIGHER LEVEL.

IT'S PRETTY EASY TO KNOW, HAVE I GIVEN MONEY TO THAT PERSON OR HAVE THEY GIVEN ME MONEY BEFORE? HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY MONEY EXCHANGED BETWEEN ME AND THAT PROJECT RIGHT THERE, OR THAT APPOINTEE TO A CITY COUNCIL OR EXCUSE ME, A CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION? SO FOR ME IT'D BE ANY DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THEN AN ITEMIZATION REQUIREMENT OVER $1,000.

SO IF IT'S A PAYMENT OVER $1,000, THEN YOU NEED TO SAY WHAT IT IS AND HOW MANY TIMES IT WAS AND WHEN IT WAS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

SIMPLE DISCLOSURE, I THINK IS REALLY EASY, BUT IF YOU HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEEN CHANGING HAND, THAT HAS CHANGED HANDS, I THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT TO YOU'VE GOT TO ITEMIZE.

THE TIME LIMIT IS THE THING.

I PROBABLY WANT TO HEAR SOME MORE DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE THINK IS THE REASONABLE TIME LIMIT.

IF I BOUGHT A CAR FROM SOMEBODY 20 YEARS AGO, DOES THAT STILL BEAR ON MY DECISIONS TODAY? IF I SOLD SOMEBODY A CAR 20 YEARS AGO, DOES THAT STILL BEAR ON MY DECISIONS TODAY? THAT'S A CONVERSATION I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE OF.

BUT SO, SO FAR THAT'S MY DIRECTION.

IS ANY FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A COUNCIL MEMBER AND A PARTY ANY VALUE WHATSOEVER BUT ITEMIZING OVER 1000 AND THAT THIRD DEGREE OF CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THERE.

[01:50:10]

ANYONE ELSE, MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH, I THINK DISCLOSURE IS IS LOW HANGING FRUIT.

IT'S IT'S IT'S EASY TO AND PROPER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIZENRY UNDERSTANDS DISCLOSURE.

I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS, SO I GUESS MY HALF HALF DIRECTION WOULD BE.

YEAH, WE WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME SORT OF DISCLOSURE AND BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO TIGHTEN WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COUNCILOR DAVIS BROUGHT UP SOME SOME CASES THAT THAT I THINK WE NEED TO RESOLVE POTENTIALLY.

I WILL SAY SOME OF THOSE DON'T BOTHER ME, BUT SOME OF THEM SIMILAR TO WHAT COUNCILOR DAVIS SAID, THINGS LIKE IF I IF I BUY 1000 MORE THAN $1,000 IN GROCERIES FROM KROGER AND THEY'RE WANTING TO EXPAND THEIR BACK OVER BY THE RODEO OR SOMETHING LIKE OK NOW, I MEAN, DO I GO AND ITEMIZE 1000 IN GROCERIES OVER THE LAST X PERIOD OF TIME? SO I THINK I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AND THAT'S GENERALLY COVERED IN OTHER MODEL CODES THAT I'VE SEEN WHERE WE DISCUSS ORDINARY BUSINESS.

SO I THINK GOING THIS HARKENS BACK TO WHAT IS A CLIENT AND I THINK ALL THE BOARD OF ETHICS WERE COMING IN FROM WHAT IS THE CLIENT SIDE.

I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO EXAMINE FROM THE BACK END WHAT IS ORDINARY BUSINESS SIDE.

SO I DO THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.

I THINK DISCLOSURE IS EASY TO GLOM ONTO AND SAY, YEAH, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY I THINK THE CITIZENRY WANTS TRANSPARENCY.

I DO THINK WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF WHAT IS ORDINARY BUSINESS.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE CLARITY FROM THE BOARD OF ETHICS ON ON THAT.

AND I THINK COUNCILOR DAVIS IS CORRECT.

I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU BUY A CAR TEN YEARS AGO OR A BOAT OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, IS IS THAT STILL COUNTED? I'M HAPPY TO DISCLOSE THAT.

IT JUST GETS YOU KNOW, IT GETS YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LONG ITEMIZED LIST IF YOU'VE LIVED IN THIS TOWN FOR FOR MORE THAN A FEW YEARS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND THAT'S FINE IF THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS WANT US TO DO, IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS THINKS GOOD BEST PRACTICES, MORAL CODE NEEDS TO BE, I'M I'M ALL FOR THAT.

I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND THAT WAS IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WAS ALL ABOUT DISCLOSURE.

DID THEY HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON THE RECUSAL ANGLE ON THAT? THIS IS THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS MANDATE TO DISCLOSE IS ALL BASED ON COUNCIL'S DECISION.

THEY HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THIS.

SO DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, I THINK SO.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THEIR MATRIX.

YOU KNOW, WHAT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DISCLOSURE VERSUS APPROPRIATE LEVELS FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THAT SORT OF THING? I DON'T THINK YOU CAN NECESSARILY SEPARATE THOSE.

YEAH. SO THERE'S THIS THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT ADDING THE FINANCIAL PAYMENT DISCLOSURES.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE BOARD OF ETHICS IS HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT INCLUDING CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS IN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST DEFINITION, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE RECUSAL.

SO THEY'RE KIND OF TWO SEPARATE PROVISIONS OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED.

THIS ONE WAS DRIVEN BY COUNCIL REQUEST, BASICALLY.

SO THE BOARD OF ETHICS HASN'T DISCUSSED THE DETAILS.

I GUESS YOU COULD SEND IT BACK TO THEM TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS PROVIDED DIRECTION ON SOME OF THEM.

YEAH. I DON'T THINK I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DISCLOSURE, PERIOD.

I MEAN, EVEN IF WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS, IS, IS DO THE PROBLEMATIC KROGER LIST OF EVERY, EVERY BIT OF GROCERIES I'VE SPENT.

OKAY. IF THAT'S WHAT THE BEST PRACTICE IS, IS OUR.

WHEREVER THE CORRECT GRAMMAR IS IN THAT CASE, THEN SURE LET'S I MEAN DISCLOSURE IS EASY TO TO TO AGREE TO.

I MEAN IT'S JUST HOW MUCH EFFORT DO YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR POLITICAL OFFICIALS TO FOR THINGS NO ONE CARES ABOUT? I'M OKAY WITH PERSONALLY WITH GIVING DIRECTION TO.

TO MOVE AHEAD WITH INCREASED DISCLOSURE.

I DO THINK WE NEED TO DEFINE ORDINARY BUSINESS OR IF WE ALREADY HAVE A DEFINITION.

JUST MAKE MAKE THAT REALLY, REALLY CLEAR.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? KATHERINE, WHAT'S.

YEAH. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

SO FOR CLARIFICATION, MADISON, ARE THEY ARE THEY ARE THEY WANTING TO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THIS, SO THIS IS STILL IN OUR LAP, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

I MEAN, THIS IS STILL SORT OF COUNCIL DRIVEN, CORRECT? THIS HAS ALL BEEN COUNCIL DRIVEN.

THEY HAVEN'T THIS HASN'T BEEN BEFORE THEM.

THE DRAFT LANGUAGE WAS DRAFTED FOR YOU, FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, I'M CERTAINLY ALL FOR DISCLOSURE AS FAR AS DISCLOSING AN ITEMIZED OVER $1,000.

[01:55:03]

I THINK THAT JUST GETS A LITTLE ONEROUS.

I MEAN, IF IT'S OVER $1,000, IT'S OVER $1,000 TO THE SAME BUSINESS.

IF WHETHER, YOU KNOW, IF IT SPENT ON A PLUMBING RECEIPT OR A CAN OF PORK AND BEANS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY SEE THE VALUE IN THAT.

THE REAL QUESTION HERE AND THE REAL CONCERN IS JUST TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S A DISCLOSURE OF SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY IF THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE VOTING ON A PENDING MATTER OR AND OR A PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BE PUT FORTH FOR BOARD AND COMMISSION.

NOW, OUR CURRENT CODE AND I THINK IS SECTION 275, MACK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WHICH I'VE USED A COUPLE OF TIMES, REQUIRES THAT IF THERE'S A PENDING MATTER BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND ONE OF THE CITY OFFICIALS KNOWS THAT THEY HAVE A PARTNERSHIP WITH A PERSON THAT IS PART OF THAT PENDING MATTER.

BUT THE PARTNERSHIP IS NOT THE PENDING MATTER, THEN, YOU KNOW, DISCLOSURE IS I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S REQUIRED, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO FILL SOMETHING OUT.

I JUST CHOOSE TO RECUSE BECAUSE I THINK RECUSAL BECOMES ANOTHER IMPORTANT QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD ON HOW DO WE PROVIDE FOR SOME LEVEL OF DISCLOSURE, NOT JUST TO THE CITY SECRETARY OF THE CITY AUDITOR, BUT ALSO SOME TYPE OF DISCLOSURE THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO A PENDING ITEM? AS FAR AS ITEMIZING, AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT, I'M NOT SO SURE WHAT THAT GETS YOU OTHER THAN IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME AGGREGATE AMOUNT THAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE.

EXACT DETAIL, I WOULD SAY FORGET THE DETAIL.

JUST IF YOU REACH THAT AMOUNT, YOU RECUSE YOURSELF.

I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION HERE.

I MEAN, THE QUESTION BECOMES, YEAH, DISCLOSURE IS GREAT.

BUT AS WE'VE ALL WRESTLED WITH THIS ISSUE OVER THE LAST YEAR AT WHAT VALUE REPRESENTS INFLUENCE AND OF COURSE WE'RE ALL OVER THE BOARD ON THAT.

BUT BUT NO, IF YOU HAVE A AND MAYOR PRO TEM TO YOUR POINT OF WHAT IS AN ORDINARY BUSINESS RELATION TO ORDINARY BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, ARE WE, ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD TREAT THAT DIFFERENTLY OR THAT'S JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT.

WHAT, WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT, MR. MAYOR? YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.

NO, I THINK THE KROGER VERSUS CAR PAYMENT IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S INCONCEIVABLE THAT YOU HAVE $1,000 IN GROCERIES IN A YEAR AND THEN MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE KROGER I SHOULDN'T PICK ON I SHOULD JUST SAY GROCERY STORE.

SO LET ME JUST SAY GROCERY STORE.

BUT OR LIKEWISE, I THINK COUNCILOR DAVIS GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, I BOUGHT A CAR TEN YEARS AGO FROM FROM TOYOTA OF DENTON, YOU KNOW, AND THEY WANT TO EXPAND.

AND I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THAT, THAT THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THOSE ARE GENERALLY MOST PEOPLE DON'T CONSIDER THOSE INFLUENTIAL BUSINESS FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS, BUT THEY CAN EASILY GO, YOU KNOW CARS WHAT, 35,000 THESE DAYS FOR CHEAP ONE.

SO YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S CLEARLY OVER 1000 LIMIT AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS US TO DO AND SAY OH, YOU BOUGHT A CAR FROM TOYOTA OF DENTON.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM PERSONALLY WITH THAT.

I AS YOU SAID, I THINK THERE'S A CERTAIN LEVEL OF REGULAR, ORDINARY BUSINESS THAT IS ONEROUS.

AND SO I THINK THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS NEEDS TO PROVIDE US SOME CLARITY ON WHEN IS IT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP OR FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP OR OR POTENTIAL FOR THAT VERSUS ORDINARY? I USE THE PHRASE ORDINARY BUSINESS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN IN REVIEWING THESE MATERIALS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH.

I MEAN, I'M MORE THAN OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD.

I THINK THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.

I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE, AT LEAST FROM THOSE THAT HAVE SPOKEN, DISCLOSURE CERTAINLY IS THE THE IS THE REQUIREMENT.

THEN WE HAVE TO DISCUSS RECUSAL AS FAR AS IF THERE'S AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT THAT THEN REQUIRES AN ITEMIZATION TO.

WHAT IS THAT? TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT, AS COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS SAID, WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME? YOU KNOW, IS THERE SOME KIND OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? I MEAN, IF YOU HADN'T DONE BUSINESS WITH SOMEBODY IN FIVE YEARS AND THEY COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON SOME OTHER MATTER THAN THE BUSINESS THAT YOU HAD ENGAGED THEM IN.

IS THAT. AND I THINK OUR THERE'S 275 ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE.

MR. CITY ATTORNEY OR THERE IS A CLAUSE THAT REQUIRES I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE BUSINESS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

YES. AND THAT'S ALSO IT'S ON I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT IT'S ALSO IN THE SLIDE, WE'RE BASICALLY MODELING THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES ON THAT SAME SECTION.

IS THERE A TIME FRAME? IS THERE A TIME FRAME IN ARREARS OR IN THE PAST THAT THAT'S THAT'S STATED IN THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE?

[02:00:01]

I'VE REVIEWED IT SEVERAL TIMES, BUT I DON'T RECALL.

I MEAN, THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR BACK IN TIME.

IF NOT, THERE'S NOT A CLEAR.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CLEAR.

BASICALLY, YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF BEING A PARTNER, SO I WOULD ASSUME CURRENT IS THE IMPLIED TIME PERIOD.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S A PARTNER THAT'S NOT I MEAN, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN A ORDINARY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP IS IF YOU'RE CONTRACTING WITH AN ELECTRICIAN, SOMEBODY THAT YOU'RE DOING BUSINESS WITH INSTEAD OF SOMEONE THAT YOU'RE.

QUOTE UNQUOTE, AND PARTNERS WITH IN A BUSINESS.

SO I THINK THOSE ARE CLARIFICATIONS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS WELL.

BUT I'M I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE WE MOVE FORWARD.

YEAH, WE CAN'T. YES.

SO THAT'S MY DIRECTION, ALBEIT AS VAGUE AS IT IS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN BERT? YES.

I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT IN MOVING FORWARD.

AND JUST TO ANSWER THESE FOUR QUESTIONS HERE, THE FIRST ONE TALKS ABOUT DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING THE SPOUSE AND OTHER RELATIVES. I WOULD SAY YES TO THAT SHOULD THERE BE A MINIMUM VALUE.

I KEEP HEARING 1000.

I'M NOT FOR THAT EITHER WAY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT ME PERSONALLY, BUT THAT WOULD BE A DEFINITELY A YES TO TO A MINIMUM VALUE FOR WHATEVER THAT IS WHAT WE AGREE ON.

THERE SHOULD BE A TIME PERIOD.

I'M THINKING ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD.

I'M THINKING ABOUT JUST EVEN WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN IN, YOU KNOW, FOLKS HAVING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN IN DECISIONS THAT THEY MADE 20 YEARS AGO.

AND IT'S STILL FOLLOWING THEM.

YOU KNOW, IN CONNECTING YOUR PAST TO YOUR PRESENT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO TOO FAR BACK IF WE ARE GOING TO PUT A TIME PERIOD ON IT.

SO I WOULD JUST THROW OUT A YEAR BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO THAT.

AND ALSO, OF COURSE, THE PAYMENTS SHOULD BE DISCLOSED.

I WOULD LIKE AT LEAST A LISTING OF WHAT OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONATED OR GIVEN TO EACH PERSON.

SO JUST ANSWER THOSE FOUR QUESTIONS.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILOR MCGEE? MR. MAYOR, I'LL BE A QUICK YES AS WELL, ALTHOUGH I WILL REFERENCE SOMETHING THAT I SAID THE LAST TIME WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION EARLIER THIS YEAR. I'M A LITTLE UNEASY ON THE VALUE OF $1,000.

I AM.

I AM CERTAIN THAT MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUES CAN BE PURCHASED FOR 1000.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT DO WITH WHAT YOU WILL.

I'M ALSO I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING A SUGGESTION OUT FOR A YEAR.

I'M FINE WITH THAT.

IF THAT'S IF THAT'S THE CONSENSUS AS WELL.

ARE YOU GOOD? AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE LOST COUNCILMAN WHAT'S WE'LL SEE.

OK ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN DAVIS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYBE GETTING US CLOSER AROUND CONSENSUS.

WE USE THE NUMBER 600 A LOT IN OUR IN OUR CODE FOR OUR OTHER CONFLICTING INTERESTS.

THERE ARE REASONS. IF YOU GO BACK AND WATCH THE MEETINGS AFTER MEETINGS, AFTER MEETINGS WITH MR. BAUCUS AND THE THE WAY THE CODE CAME FORWARD TO COUNCIL, THERE ARE REASONS I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO IT NOW, BUT THAT COULD BE A HELPFUL NUMBER.

JUST FOR CONSISTENCY SAKE.

IT'S ALWAYS CONSISTENCY IS GOOD WHEN YOU'RE REQUIRING OFFICIALS TO MAKE DISCLOSURES BECAUSE IT'S IT'S DIFFERENT IN ONE PLACE.

THEY GET CONFUSED AND THEY THEY FAIL TO MAKE A DISCLOSURE THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE.

I'M LESS WORRIED ABOUT THE KROGER EXAMPLE AND NOT TO PICK ON KROGER, BUT FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE IS INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS ENTITIES ARE NOT OFTEN THE ONES THAT ARE BRINGING THE PENDING MATTERS TO US.

IT'S KROGER'S LANDLORD IS GOING TO BRING US THE EXPANSION, THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BRING US THE EXPANSION.

IT'S FROM TIME TO TIME. IT'S THE BUSINESS ENTITY.

MORE OFTEN THE BUSINESS ENTITIES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CITY CONTRACT OR A PROCUREMENT PROCESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE KIND OF ORDINARY BUSINESS THINGS.

IF THERE'S NOT CONSENSUS FOR AN ITEMIZED LIST, I'M FINE WITH NOT ITEMIZING, JUST DISCLOSING THE RELATIONSHIP OVER 600, $600, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE MISSING PIECE.

WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS UP, THAT WAS THE MISSING PIECE.

IT WASN'T NECESSARILY WHAT DID YOU DO TO EARN THE MONEY? IT WAS MORE THAT THE MONEY CHANGED HANDS.

AND SO I'M FINE WITH WITH NOT ITEMIZING.

AND REALLY, FRANKLY, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE BOARD TO LOOK AT, FOR US TO LOOK AT, I'M REALLY OKAY WITH MAKING IT A RECUSAL AT $600.

AND HERE'S THE REASON.

ONE, THERE'S A PROVISION THAT SAYS IF A MAJORITY IF A QUORUM CAN'T BE REACHED BECAUSE OF RECUSALS, THEN THE RECUSALS DON'T DON'T COUNT ANYMORE.

[02:05:02]

THAT. SO IF WE WERE ALL MARRIED TO PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD LIKE I AM, THEN THAT RECUSAL WOULDN'T WOULDN'T BE IN EFFECT ANYMORE BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GET BUSINESS DONE THAT WAY.

SO I BET THAT THREE OR FOUR OF US IN THE ROOM HAVE SPENT $600 AT KROGER OVER THE LAST YEAR BECAUSE WE LIVE IN DENTON AND THERE'S A FEW OF THEM TO CHOOSE FROM TO GO THERE.

CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBER IS SAYING HE DOESN'T SHOP AT KROGER.

THAT'S FINE, THAT'S FINE.

BUT ANYWAY, THERE ARE PROVISIONS TO DEAL WITH THE KIND OF THE THINGS WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT, THE ORDER OF BUSINESS, THINGS THAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT.

SO I'D KIND OF LIKE TO SEE NOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT SOME $600 THRESHOLD AND HAVE IT BE A RECUSAL BECAUSE MONEY HAS CHANGED HANDS IN SOME OF THESE OTHER EXAMPLES THAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT MY OWN RECUSAL FORM FOR TODAY AND SOME OF THESE OTHER EXAMPLES WE HAVE, IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT MONEY CHANGING HANDS.

SO $600 MONEY CHANGING HANDS.

THERE WAS ALSO THE QUESTION ABOUT TIME FRAME.

WE USE A YEAR THAT'S IN OUR CURRENT CODE NOW, IT'S A ROLLING YEAR.

IT'S THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

SO FROM THIS MOMENT, BACKWARDS A YEAR, DID YOU EARN $600 FROM SOMEBODY OR DID YOU PAY $600 TO SOMEBODY? I THINK THAT'S THERE'S A SYMMETRY TO THAT.

AND THEN THE THE ONE THING WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT, MADISON, YOU ASKED IF WE HAD ANY INPUT SINCE THEY'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS AS A AS A CREDENTIALED PROFESSIONAL, SOMEBODY WHO HAS TO WORRY ABOUT THAT KIND OF THING.

DO I ACCIDENTALLY GAIN A CLIENT BY TALKING TO SOMEBODY AT A AT A COCKTAIL PARTY OR SOMETHING? I THINK THE SAN ANTONIO DEFINITION IS VERY GOOD.

IT TALKS ABOUT, I WON'T READ IT BECAUSE IT'S THERE, BUT I PREFER THE SAN ANTONIO DEFINITION.

I THINK IT ENCAPSULATES WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE A CLIENT.

AND IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS, I HOPE THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING AT IS THE PERSON IN THE PENDING MATTER MY CLIENT? AM I A CLIENT OF THE PERSON WITH THE PENDING MATTER? BECAUSE THAT'S A THAT'S A TWO WAY STREET.

THAT'S OUR RELATIONSHIP.

IT'S NOT JUST A ONE WAY THING.

THANKS, GREG.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'LL TRY TO BRING US ALSO TOWARDS CONSENSUS.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT JUST STANDARD? I MEAN, WE SHOULD JUST INCLUDE THAT.

BUT I APPRECIATE THAT THAT THAT QUESTION.

AND THEN I'M ALSO IT SOUNDS LIKE FOLKS DON'T REALLY NECESSARILY NEED A LISTING THE ITEMIZED LIST.

I THINK THAT I WOULD LET THE BOARD OF ETHICS ARGUE US INTO THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT COMPLETELY OFF THE TABLE, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT WE NEED FOR CONSENSUS, YOU KNOW, JUST TO GET TO A VALUE.

AT THE SAME TOKEN, I TAKE COUNCILOR DAVIS'S POINT ABOUT WE CAN LOWER THE VALUE.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS AND I'LL PICK UP KIND OF LIKE WHAT HE DID, I THINK THERE ARE I.

I DIDN'T QUITE REALIZE THE BOARD HADN'T FULLY DISCUSSED THIS ITEM.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK IT WILL BE REALLY IMPORTANT IS AND IT'S THEIR PURVIEW, THEIR JOB AS OUR AS OUR AGENTS TO DO THIS IS TO LOOK AT THE MODEL CODES YOU LISTED, WESTLAW MODEL CODE.

THERE'S OTHER MODEL CODES, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO USE THESE MODEL CODES AND BIAS TOWARDS THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN VETTED VERY, VERY STRONGLY IN MULTIPLE MUNICIPALITIES OVER THE YEARS, INCLUDING MODEL CODES THAT WORK WELL IN TEXAS AND FOLLOW OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

SO ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE TO SAY THE IN TERMS OF THE THE CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, THAT IT DOES SEEM LIKE IF THERE'S NOT A CLEAR STATEMENT ABOUT CLIENT PRIVILEGES OR CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IN IN VARIOUS MODEL CODES THAT WE COULD BIAS TOWARDS AND NOT REINVENT THE WHEEL BY USING MODEL CODES, THEN SOMETHING LIKE THE SAN ANTONIO CODE WOULD BE A GOOD GAAP MEASURE.

BUT IN GENERAL, I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE TOWARDS GENERAL MODEL CODES BECAUSE THEY'VE THEY'VE BEEN VETTED BY EXPERTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE ELSE SEEING NONE.

I THINK FOR ME, IT'S IN SUMMARY, IT'S.

THERE'S. AGREEMENT AROUND DISCLOSURE GENERALLY, I THINK THERE'S BEEN REFERENCE TO THE SAN ANTONIO DEFINITION I ALIGNED WITH THAT.

I THINK I THINK IF YOU GET TO.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN DALLAS, IT SAYS ORDINARY BUSINESS OR NOT A REGULAR OR ORDINARY BUSINESS OF A VENDOR RELATIONSHIP THAT GETS COMPLICATED, THAT TAKES US RIGHT BACK WHERE WE WERE.

RIGHT. SO IT'S. EVENT.

SO MY CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT IS A VENDOR TO ME ERGO WOULD BE EXCLUDED.

BUT ERGO SHOULD BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE IF I'M GOING TO ACT ON THAT BEFORE THIS BODY AT LEAST.

SO WE HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION.

THAT REALLY IS THE KEY FOR ME.

AND IT'S I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONSENSUS IS THAT WE SHOULD ALL HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION WHEN WE VOTE NO DIFFERENT.

[02:10:04]

THAT'S WHY THE CITY MANAGER SENDS EMAILS TO EVERYONE.

THAT'S WHY OUR LEGAL SENDS E MAILS TO EVERYONE.

SO WE ALL HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION.

AND THAT REALLY IS KEY TO ME.

HE'S JUST LIKE THAT. ONE PERSON DOESN'T HAVE INFORMATION THAT THE OTHER HAS AND WE CAN MAKE A DECISION THERE FROM THERE.

THE THE RECUSAL THING, I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S TOUGH FOR ME.

IT IS, BECAUSE JUST EARLIER IN THE YEAR, WE HAD IT WAS AROUND YOU AND T WE HAD ONE PERSON RECUSED, ONE PERSON NOT BOTH CONNECTED TO YOU.

AND T, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER DECISION.

AND THAT, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T REALLY I DON'T SEE A REAL GOOD WAY TO HOLD AN ELECTED OFFICIAL ACCOUNTABLE IN THAT WAY.

SO I DON'T REALLY I DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE IN THAT WHEREVER THIS COUNCIL LANDS IS WHERE THEY LAND, YOU CAN'T REALLY, I CAN'T FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, HEY, TURN OVER YOUR RECORDS.

NO. OCH RIGHT.

AND SO SO THERE'S JUST IT'S CHALLENGING, RIGHT? AND SO WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ALL THE LEGAL PROCEDURES AND IF THEY DO THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAY, RIGHT.

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT OUR ORDINANCE IS.

SO THAT BEING SAID, JUST THE DISCLOSURE.

I JUST WANT THE INFORMATION AND I CAN MAKE OUR OWN DECISION.

JUST TO CLARIFY, AS COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS SAID, HE HAS A DISCLOSURE FORM RIGHT NOW.

HE DOESN'T TURN THAT IN UNTIL AFTER THE MEETING.

SO HE MIGHT HE WAS GOING TO RECUSE.

SO THAT'S A PUBLIC RECORD.

BUT JUST HAVING THE DISCLOSURE FORM DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL KNOWS THAT IT HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAPPEN AFTER THE MEETING.

YEAH. NO, NO, NO. I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT IT GOING TO THE CITY SECRETARY, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S IMPORTANT AND THAT'S WHY IT'S A PUBLIC RECORD.

IT'S JUST NOT NOT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THAT PAYMENT HAS OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE VOTE IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE CLEAR.

WELL, NO, I THINK.

COUNCILMAN, WHAT AM I MISSING SOMETHING? YOU'RE MUTED. NO. WHAT I'M HEARING IS A PROCEDURAL, A PROCEDURAL FLAW, AND EVERYTHING'S SCAR TISSUE.

SO WHAT WHAT SHE'S DESCRIBING TO US IS HOW IT WORKS NOW.

AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, I FILLED OUT A RECUSAL FORM AND THAT GOES AFTER THE MEETING.

BUT AS IT STANDS, I'M NOT GOING TO BE PRESENT.

BUT THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY KNOWS.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING PEOPLE KNOW.

WHEREAS WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE, IF IT'S JUST DISCLOSURE, THEN IF THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT TO SAY, OKAY, THIS IF IT'S A IF IT'S SOMETHING COUNCIL IS VOTING ON, EVERY VOTING MEMBER NEEDS TO HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION AT THE REAL TIME OF THE VOTE.

AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE'S A THERE'S A FLAW IN THE PROCESS THAT NOT AS INTENTIONAL BUT SORT OF ACCIDENTAL, THAT WE NEED TO CORRECT, THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PROCESS TO SAY, HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT IF THIS HAPPENS? BECAUSE IF WE'RE IF YOU DON'T RECUSE, NOBODY'S GOING TO KNOW.

I MEAN, IF IF COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS OR I DIDN'T HAVE TO FILL OUT THE RECUSAL FORM AND PULL THE CONSENT ITEMS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SIT OUT THE VOTE.

IF IT WAS JUST DISCLOSURE, NOBODY WOULD KNOW BECAUSE WE JUST HAND IT IN AFTERWARDS.

EVERYTHING'S COPACETIC.

AND AND THAT'S JUST A PROCEDURAL FLAW.

I THINK THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF FIXING THAT, WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE.

SO. YEAH, BUT YEAH, YEAH.

NO. DO YOU HAVE DIRECTION AROUND THAT MADISON OR.

I'VE HEARD TWO PEOPLE SAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT REQUIREMENTS IN TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURES BEING SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL ACTION TAKING PLACE.

YES. YES.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S GOOD BECAUSE YEAH, WE HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION.

RIGHT. AND THEN YOU VOTE.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS, I'D LIKE TO BE AWARE OF DISCLOSURES AS WELL WITHOUT HAVING TO DO A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST.

RIGHT. I'D STILL LIKE TO SEE RECUSAL.

MAYOR, TO YOUR POINT, I GET IT.

THERE'S THERE'S THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO TO YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMEBODY RECUSE.

YOU CAN TRY TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE AFTER THE FACT OF THE PUBLIC CAN IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO RECUSE AND THE ETHICS CODE SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE.

BUT I THINK I'M STILL ON RECUSAL.

IN ADDITION TO DISCLOSURE, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED THAT DON'T TRIGGER RECUSAL, AND THEY EXIST ALREADY IN OUR CODE.

I'D LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THOSE.

BUT I'M STILL ON RECUSAL BECAUSE I THINK I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND I THINK YOU'RE IN THE MAJORITY THERE.

DO YOU HAVE I THINK I THINK I'VE GOT CONSENSUS ON FIXING THE DISCLOSURE TO REQUIRE EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO KNOW ABOUT IT BEFOREHAND.

ON THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE HERE, WE WANT TO FINANCIAL PAYMENTS TO INCLUDE THE CITY OFFICIAL, THAT CITY OFFICIALS GIVEN PAYMENTS, THEIR SPOUSES GIVEN PAYMENTS, AND THEN UP TO THE THIRD LEVEL OF CONSANGUINITY.

THAT MIGHT BE HARD FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW ABOUT.

AND THEN WE GOT MINIMUM VALUE.

I HEARD 601,000.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S CONSENSUS.

THERE SEEMS LIKE THERE'S CONSENSUS AROUND A YEAR BEING THE KIND OF ROLLING TIMELINE FOR THAT.

[02:15:02]

AND THEN IT SEEMS LIKE LIKE JUST HAVING JUST IT BEING DISCLOSED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN PAYMENTS IS KIND OF WHERE WE LANDED.

GOT IT. SO SO THE QUESTIONS BEFORE IS JUST TO KIND OF PUT A FINER POINT ON IT OR THE NUMBERS NEED 1000 OR 600 AND THEN RECUSAL TO GET A CLARITY THERE, BECAUSE I HEARD THAT A LOT. MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CAN I CAN I ASK SOME OF THIS HASN'T BEEN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THIS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW HAS NOT BEEN BACK TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO DO THE DEEP DIVE.

ALL RIGHT. SO COULD I ASK THAT WE TREAT THIS AS RECOMMENDED TOPICS FOR THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO REVIEW AND THEN GET BACK TO US AFTER THEY'VE DONE THEIR DEEP DIVE? I THINK THEY ALREADY LOOKED AT IT AND PASSED WELL, SO THEY LOOK THEY DISCUSSED A VERSION OF THIS AND THEN AND DID NOT REACH A CONSENSUS.

THEY DIDN'T THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THIS EXACT LANGUAGE.

I WILL SAY BASED ON MY RESEARCH, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CITIES THAT NECESSARILY HAVE SIMILAR.

PROVISIONS. SO THEY WOULD JUST BE HAVING THEY JUST COME TO YOU AND THEN HAVE MADE DECISIONS ON THESE POINTS INSTEAD OF DOING THAT SINCE THIS WAS COUNCIL ORIGINATED.

WE CAME HERE FIRST.

YEAH. YEAH. AND LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD, LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE CONSENSUS TODAY.

I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. MAYOR. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON A LOT OF THINGS.

AND I THINK YOU WERE SAYING THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT NUMBERS AND TIME FRAMES.

AND SO IT MAY BE THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND REVIEWING VERY SMALL CODES AND LANGUAGES AND AND RELATIONSHIPS MAY FIND THAT ZERO IS THE RIGHT NUMBER FOR CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS SETTING A AND THEN THAT TAKES ALL THE BURDEN OFF OF US OR SETTING RELATIONSHIPS.

SO I THINK TO SOME DEGREE, UNLESS WE WANT TO HAVE THE BIG DECISION PROCESS NOW, WHICH WE WE CAN DO, THIS IS THAT'S, I GUESS, OUR PREROGATIVE.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE REALLY SCOPED FOR TODAY.

I THINK SO REGARDLESS, IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO US OR IT'S GOING TO GO TO THEM.

I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE LET THEM COMMENT ON THOSE ITEMS BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY'RE MIXED.

THEY'RE THEY'RE CONFLATED AS TO WHAT RELATIONSHIPS AND VALUES AND TIMEFRAMES SHOULD BE.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO TO KIND OF TABLE IT SLIGHTLY.

OK COUNCILMAN, WHAT'S.

I AM THROWING MY APPROVAL BEHIND RECUSAL AND THE $600.

THE BOARD OF ETHICS DID HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS.

THEY DID NOT REACH A CONSENSUS.

THAT'S WHY IT CAME BACK TO US.

IT'S TIME FOR US TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS.

DOESN'T PRECLUDE THEM FROM LOOKING AT IT AS IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THEM FROM BRINGING SOMETHING BACK.

BUT YET WE'VE BEEN SORT OF DINKING AROUND WITH THIS THING FOR A WHILE, AND I THINK WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING THAT'S FAIRLY STRONG ON THE BOOKS SO THAT WE ALL HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS PREDICTABILITY.

SO I THINK YOU SAID, MAYOR, THOSE ARE TWO OUTSTANDING THINGS.

SO I'M FOR RECUSAL AND $600 LIMIT AS COUNCIL MEMBER, DAVIS EXPLAINED.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN MCGEE. THINK, MR. MAYOR. MADISON CAN YOU JUST KIND OF UPDATE US ON WHY THERE IS NO CONSENSUS? WHAT ARE WE TALKING TIVOED? ARE WE TALKING WHY? IT WAS A TIE.

WE ONLY HAD FOUR MEMBERS.

WE HAVE WE HAD A COUPLE OF VACANCIES AT THE TIME, SO WE WERE ONLY FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT.

IT WAS NOT PRESENTED EXACTLY THIS WAY.

IT WAS MORE OF A DISCUSSION POINT AT THAT AT THAT TIME.

JUST THE CONVERSATION HAS EVOLVED SINCE THEN.

THAT HELPS. IT DOES.

I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE BACKGROUND IN WAS INTO THEIR DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY THEY GOT NO CONSENSUS.

THANK YOU. OK ANYONE HAVE DIRECTION ON 600 OR.

OTHER THAN I'VE HEARD FROM MAYOR PRO TEM, I'VE HEARD FROM COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS AND COUNCILMAN WATTS ON 600 OR 1000 PREFERENCE AND THEN ON RECUSAL.

ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, 1000 OK.

SAME WITH MR. OK. 1000.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SO, NO, THAT THAT PUTS US THERE'S WE'RE SHORT.

WE'RE EITHER AT. THERE'S NO CONSENSUS AROUND 600 OR 1000, AND THERE'S NO CONSENSUS AROUND RECUSAL.

SO DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE ON RECUSAL? DON'T WANT TO POISON A POOL. I'M JUST ASKING.

I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT I DON'T.

I'M GOING TO OK.

I DON'T. COUNCILMAN BURT.

WELL, NO, NO, OK.

NO FOR THAT. YES. GOT IT.

GOT IT. GOT IT.

SO WE'LL SETTLE WITH THE 600.

YES. AND RECUSAL OF.

NO, I'M NEITHER HERE NOR THERE ON THAT.

SO. YEAH, WE'LL SAY YES ON OK.

[02:20:02]

SO THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU.

SO 600 AND RECUSAL IN ADDITION TO YOUR OTHER NOTES.

WOULDN'T THAT CHANGE NEW CHANGE BECAUSE I CHANGED 600.

SOURCE 600 RECUSAL.

DISCLOSURE. SAN ANTONIO, ONE YEAR ROLLING.

AND I FORGET WHAT ELSE YOU SAID.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

OKAY, SO NEXT STEP IS JUST FOR A QUICK RECAP, I'LL TRY TO BRING BACK LANGUAGE THAT INCORPORATES THAT DIRECTION FOR YOU TO REVIEW BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE ORDINANCE FOR.

YES, PLEASE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

GREAT. DINNER IS HERE.

WE HAVE TWO ITEMS LEFT.

LET'S LET STAFF GET IN AND SET UP FOR ITEM E WILL TAKE A QUICK BREAK TO GRAB FOOD.

EAT IN HERE. SO IT IS 420.

LET'S BE BACK IN HERE AT 440.

IT'S 20 MINUTES. POWER THROUGH THE LINE EATING HERE AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION LAST TWO PRESENTATIONS.

AND WHILE WE'RE WHILE WE'RE PLANNING WHILE I HAVE YOU BEFORE WE GO TO BREAK, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, DO YOU WANT TO TOUCH ON THE CLOSE JUST SO WE CAN ACCOUNT FOR THAT? YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. THAT WAS ONLY PUT ON THERE AS A PLACEHOLDER.

WE GAVE COUNSEL IN OUR LEGAL STATUS REPORT AN UPDATE ON THIS MATTER.

SO THIS WAS ONLY HERE IF THERE WAS QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT REPORT THAT WAS GIVEN TO COUNCIL.

IF THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NO NEED FOR A CLOSED SESSION.

SO DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGAL STATUS REPORT ON THAT? THAT MATTER LISTED THE.

HOW DO YOU SAY IT? DELILAH.

PROJECT. SEEING NONE GREAT.

OK SO DO YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER THERE? SO IT'S IT'S 421.

WE'LL BE IN RECESS TILL 440 AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK STARTED.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

AND WELCOME BACK TO THIS MEETING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

IT IS 440, AND WE'RE WORKING THROUGH OUR WORK SESSION ITEMS. WE'RE TO ITEM E ID 221714, RECEIVE REPORT WHOLE DISCUSSION, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING UPDATES TO THE CITY COUNCIL

[E. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding updates to the City Criteria Manuals. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

DEPARTMENT TO THE CITY CRITERIA MANUALS.

ALL RIGHT. AND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEERING DIVISION.

AND I'M HERE TO DISCUSS OUR CRITERIA MANUALS.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF AN AGENDA.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN THAT WE DID FOR THESE CRITERIA MANUALS.

GO OVER SOME BACKGROUND OF IT, TALK ABOUT SOME HIGH LEVEL UPDATES AND KEY POINTS THAT WE HAVE DONE TO EACH MANUAL AND THEN TALK ABOUT OUR NEXT STEPS GOING FORWARD IN IN IN THE WORK SESSION HERE, WE HAVE EXPERTS FROM EVERY DEPARTMENT THAT WE USE AND THEY ARE REPRESENTING THOSE DEPARTMENTS.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER, THEY ARE HERE TO HELP GIVE YOU AN ANSWERS.

SO OUR PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN, WE DID A PRETTY EXTENSIVE OUTREACH ON THIS.

WE STARTED THESE UPDATES IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR.

WORK THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.

ONCE WE HAVE DRAFT DOCUMENTS, WE WENT AND DID A WHOLE LITANY OF OUTREACH.

WE WENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRESENTED TO THEM.

WE PRESENTED TO THE TOWN HALL MEETING THE DAY AFTER WE PUBLISHED THE CRITERIA MANUALS ONLINE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT AND FEEDBACK.

WE ISSUED A FRIDAY REPORT TO COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL THOSE STEPS AND WE'RE DOING THE OUTREACH.

WE MET WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD.

WE MET WITH THE TEXAS SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS.

WE ISSUE ANOTHER REPORT THAT WE ARE RECEIVING A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND WE'RE MAKING UPDATES.

WE PUBLISHED AN ADVERTISED IN THE RECORD CHRONICLE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'RE HERE TODAY GIVING A WORK SESSION.

AND THEN NEXT STEPS WILL BE NEXT WEEK.

WE'LL BE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSING FOR ADOPTION.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, THE CRITERIA MANUALS.

LIKE I SAID, WE STARTED THIS PROCESS IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR.

WE MET WEEKLY BETWEEN APRIL AND JUNE WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY.

WE WENT THROUGH EVERY CRITERIA, MANUAL.

WE TALKED ABOUT EVERY TOPIC, EVERY POINT.

WHAT WAS WORKING WAS NOT WORKING.

GOT EVERYTHING FROM DESIGN CONSULTANTS, DESIGN FEEDBACK TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND HOW YOU'RE ACTUALLY OWNING THE FACILITIES AND HOW THEY'RE FUNCTIONING THAT WAY.

ONCE WE DID THAT, WE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AS WELL.

WE HAD A SHEET ONLINE WHERE PEOPLE COULD SUBMIT COMMENTS AND WE ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS AS WELL.

AND THEN WE DID THE PUBLIC OUTREACH PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE NEWSPAPER, AND WE'RE HERE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAME UP WITH AND WE NOTICED FROM GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS IS THAT EVERY CRITERIA MANUAL HISTORICALLY WAS WRITTEN ESSENTIALLY BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THAT IT REPRESENTED.

AND SO THERE WAS DIFFERENT FORMATS, DIFFERENT STYLES, DIFFERENT INFORMATION, EACH CRITERIA MANUAL.

AND IT CREATED AN ISSUE OF HAVING CONFLICTING INFORMATION OR NOT, NOT ALL THE INFORMATION IS BEING COVERED THE SAME.

AND SO WE WENT THROUGH AND OUR GOAL FOR NEXT YEAR IS TO HAVE ONE DOCUMENT, ONE FORMAT, ONE SOURCE OF INFORMATION SIMILAR TO HOW WE HAVE THE DEBT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

[02:25:05]

IT'S ONE DOCUMENT WITH DIFFERENT CHAPTERS.

WE WANT TO DO THAT. THE CRITERIA MANUALS HAVE ONE CRITERIA MANUAL DOCUMENT HAVE CONSISTENT INFORMATION ACROSS THE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT TOUCH ALL OF THEM, AND ONE SECTION HAVE SUB CHAPTERS FOR EVERY OTHER DETAILED SECTION.

AND THAT WAY REDUCING CONFLICT AND INFORMATION, REDUCING DUPLICATED INFORMATION AND MAKING IT EASIER FOR US TO DO UPDATES EVERY YEAR.

A LITTLE BIT OF A HIERARCHY OF OUR GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THEM ACROSS THE CITY OF DENTON, WHERE THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS A POLICY AND PROCEDURAL DOCUMENT, IT KIND OF SETS THE GUIDING DIRECTION, THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND THE PROCESSES TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE CITY.

THE CRITERIA MANUALS LAY OUT THE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS, FOR THE PROJECTS, FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY.

WE HAVE THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS WHICH TELL YOU HOW IT NEEDS TO BE BUILT, THE RECIPE, IF YOU WILL.

AND THEN THE DESIGN STANDARD DRAWINGS SHOW YOU HOW ACTUALLY TO CONSTRUCT IT, HOW THOSE ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK IN THE FIELD.

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER VIEW OF IT AND PART OF THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE, THE DOCUMENTS, THE TOP OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WORKED ITS WAY DOWN TO THE STANDARD DETAILS IN THE FIELD.

SO SOME HIGHLIGHTS.

THE DOCUMENTS, THE SOLID WASTE CRITERIA MANUAL ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH A COMPLETE REWRITE OF LAST YEAR.

THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THAT WAS IN 2008.

SO THEY DID A COMPLETE SCRAP THEY HAD AND REWROTE THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.

SO THIS YEAR WE HAD VERY MINOR UPDATES.

A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT CAME OUT WAS WHEN THEY SCRAPPED THE ORIGINAL.

THEY HAD AN OPENING PARAGRAPH IN THE PREAMBLE THAT BASICALLY SAID THAT THE CITY OF DENTON, BECAUSE THEY OWN THE LANDFILL, IS THE SOLE PROVIDER OF WASTE AND RECYCLING WITHIN THE CITY. THEY TOOK THAT OUT AND THEY WANTED TO ADD THAT BACK IN THIS YEAR, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY ALSO ADDED WAS IN THE LARGER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, THEY WANT TO INCLUDE A1A ROLLOUT.

IF YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF A ONE ROLL OFF COMPACTOR, IF YOU CHOOSE THAT OPTION, THEY WANT TO INCLUDE A SINGLE ENCLOSURE FOR RECYCLING PURPOSES IN THE FUTURE.

AND THEN WE ALSO REVISE THE ALLEYWAY MINIMUM WIDTH.

SO CURRENTLY IT'S AT 20 FEET.

WE REDUCE IT DOWN TO 15 FEET.

WE'RE STILL MAINTAINING THE 20 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE ALLEYWAYS.

BUT YOU CAN'T BUILD A 20 FOOT ROADWAY WITHIN 20 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU CAN YOU HAVE TO HAVE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.

SO WE WANTED TO HAVE IT BACK DOWN TO 15 FEET, GIVE US SOME ROOM TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT IT.

AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR MOBILITY PLAN AND OUR TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL.

FOR THE STORMWATER TRICARE MANUAL.

WE WENT THROUGH THE DOCUMENT.

THIS ONE HAS A LOT OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS IN IT, AND AS WE WENT THROUGH THE DOCUMENT, THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER TERMS WITHIN IT THAT WERE NOT DEFINED THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THIS DOCUMENT. SO WE ACTUALLY HAD TO GO THROUGH AND ADD SEVERAL NEW DEFINITIONS AND SEVERAL NEW TERMS THAT WERE NOT CLARIFIED.

ALL OF OUR OUR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE STORMWATER REQUIRES US TO BUILD FOR THE FLOOD MITIGATION EVENT, WHICH IS THE 100 YEAR FLOOD STORM.

WELL, THAT'S GREAT IN THEORY AND IT'S GREAT FOR FOR GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, BUT FOR INFILL PROJECTS OR PROJECTS WHERE YOU'RE DOING SMALLER IMPROVEMENTS, THE COST IS SO COST PROHIBITIVE THAT YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY BUILD ANYTHING.

IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A DOWNTOWN, YOU HAVE TO UPGRADE ALL THE DRAINAGE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LAKE LEWISVILLE IN ORDER NOT TO HAVE A TO NOT CAUSE ADVERSE FLOODING SOMEWHERE ELSE PER OUR CRITERIA MANUAL.

SO WE REALIZED THAT WAS A GAP WITHIN OUR DOCUMENT.

SO WE WANT TO PUT IN HERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEPEND ON THE PROJECT, SUBMIT TO THE CITY ENGINEER AND GO THROUGH REVIEW OF SAYING, HEY, CAN WE DESIGN A SMALLER STORM EVENT OR AN INCREMENTAL UPGRADE? IMPROVEMENT IS BETTER THAN NO IMPROVEMENT.

SO WE CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SMALLER IMPROVEMENTS OR A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM THAT ARE NOT COST PROHIBITIVE AND IT'S BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING AND CONTINUING TO HAVE FLOODING ISSUES. AND THEN ONE THING ALSO IS THAT OUR OUR STANDARD DETAILS OUTLOUD, THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL PIPE.

IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD PIPE FOR ANYTHING.

AND WE OUR CRITERIA MAY NOT ALLOW IT TO BE USED IN COLD, DRY CULVERTS, BUT OUR STANDARD DETAILS DID NOT.

SO WE CORRECTED THAT CONFLICT ACROSS THE TWO DOCUMENTS.

FOR THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA.

AS WE UPDATED THE MOBILITY PLAN IN MARCH, WE WENT THROUGH AND UPDATED THE GEOMETRIC STANDARDS WITHIN OUR DOCUMENT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MOBILITY PLAN.

WE ADDED DEFINITIONS AND SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO DEFINE THE TURN LANE WARRANTS TO BETTER DEFINE THE REASONS AND NECESSITY OF HAVING TURN LANES ON ROADWAYS.

OUR ADA PARKING REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE ON STREET PARKING DEFINED WITHIN THE CRITERIA MANUAL.

THE DESIGNS WERE ALREADY DESIGNED TO ADA AND PRO ADD REQUIREMENTS.

HOWEVER, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT.

SO WE BASICALLY HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT THESE PARKING THESE ON STREET PARKING STALLS NEED TO MEET ADA AND PROACTIVE STANDARDS.

AND SO WE WANT TO CODIFY THAT.

WE IMPROVED OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INFORMATION TO INCLUDE NOT JUST TECHNICAL INFORMATION, BUT ALSO SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.

SO IS THE ROADWAY SHOWING THE HISTORIC ISSUE OF ACCIDENTS OR CRASHES?

[02:30:05]

IS IT HAVING LINE OF SIGHT ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IS OUTSIDE OF WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE IN JUST THE NUMBERS? AND THEN WE ALSO INCLUDED DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS.

SO IS IT JUST NOT PROVIDING CONNECTIVITY, BUT ALSO PROVIDING CONNECTIVITY TO POINTS OF INTEREST, WHETHER IT'S PARKS, LIBRARIES, SCHOOLS, HAVING THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION, NOT JUST SIDEWALKS TO NOWHERE.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE ALL CONNECTED AND GO INTO POINTS OF INTEREST.

FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CRITERIA MANUAL PER TEXAS LAW.

MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS NEED TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL NEED TO HAVE A MASTER METER ON THEM, AND THAT WASN'T CLARIFIED WITHIN THE CRITERIA MANUAL.

SO WE WE UPDATED THAT AND CORRECTED THAT LOOPHOLE.

WE ADDED A DISCUSSION ON BACKFLOW PREVENTION.

THAT'S ALSO A TEXAS REQUIREMENT.

TEXAS LAW REQUIREMENT.

IT WASN'T WE DIDN'T HAVE A DOCUMENT ANYWHERE.

PEOPLE WERE FOLLOWING IT, BUT WE NEEDED TO HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN TO BE LIKE, HEY, NOT ONLY YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW TEXAS, YOU GOT TO FOLLOW IT HERE AS WELL.

WE HAD A TABLE WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT THAT WAS A UTILITY CROSSING TABLE FOR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND FRANCHISE UTILITIES.

THAT WAS PRETTY CONFUSING AND DIFFICULT FOR CONTRACTORS TO FOLLOW.

AND SO WE UPDATED THAT TABLE TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR IN TERMS OF THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

AND ONE THING THAT WE ADDED WAS A DISCUSSION ON GREASE TRAPS AND TRAPS.

AND WHEN WE SAW THAT I SAW A DISCUSSION COME IN, I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT WHY ARE WE HAVING IT IN THE WHY WASTE WATER AND WASTE WATER CRITERIA MANUAL? AND IN DISCUSSING IT, IT NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT SOMEWHERE.

I THOUGHT MAYBE THE FOOD RELATED INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT IF THERE'S ANY OVERFLOW OF THOSE THAT GOES INTO OUR WASTEWATER SYSTEM, THAT GOES DOWN TO OUR WASTEWATER SYSTEM, SO IT ACTUALLY FALLS UNDER THE WASTEWATER CRITERIA, THAT'S WHERE THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE.

AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

WE INCLUDE IT IN HERE. SO THAT WAY WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRIT TRAPS, GREASE TRAPS, THE CONTAINERS, ENCLOSURES AND THE DRAINAGE FOR THOSE.

AND SO, AS I SAID, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL AND WE'RE HERE TO RECEIVE COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK.

WE HAVE RECEIVED COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC.

WE'VE HAD THAT POSTED ONLINE SINCE OCTOBER.

I HAVE ABOUT FOUR COMMENTS ONLY, SO IT'S BEEN PRETTY LIGHT, THANKFULLY.

WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK AND WE'LL BE PROPOSING THESE FOR ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS ON JANUARY 1ST.

AND HERE'S AGAIN, AS ARE OUR CALENDAR OF WHAT WE'VE DONE AND WHERE WE'RE GOING.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM.

GREAT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMES FROM DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. CAN YOU GIVE US JUST KIND OF A YOU SAID YOU'VE HAD FOUR COMMENTS ALREADY FOR SOME OF OUR PROJECTS.

THAT'S NOT VERY MANY FOR CRITERIA MANUALS THAT MIGHT BE.

IT'S FANTASTIC. CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE COMMENTARY HAS BEEN SO FAR, WHAT SOME OF THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK HAS BEEN? ACTUALLY, I HAVE ONE COMMENT ON COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND THREE FROM INTERNAL STAFF THAT WERE UPDATES THAT WE DIDN'T GET DOCUMENTED IN TIME FOR THEM TO GO TO DRAFT.

SO THE ONE COMMENT IS ON THE SOLID WASTE ON THE THE SOLE PROVIDER AND I THINK IT'S DISCUSSING ABOUT HAVING RECYCLING AS AN OPTION AS WELL BESIDES THE CITY OF DENTON.

SURE. HAVING OTHER OTHER VENDORS.

YEAH I'VE HEARD THAT ONE.

I APPRECIATE THIS VERY MUCH.

EVEN THOUGH EVEN THE SMALL KIND OF.

BECAUSE WE HAD THE BIG REWRITE.

EVEN THE SMALL CHANGES, THOUGH, ARE VERY HELPFUL, ESPECIALLY THE ONES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THERE'S CONFLICTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A PERSISTENT COMPLAINT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S FOUNDED OR NOT, WE HAVE A PERSISTENT COMPLAINT THAT WHEN YOU GO FOR COMMENT ON A PROJECT ONE WEEK, ONE DEPARTMENT SAYS YOU'RE IN THE CLEAR ON SOMETHING AND THEN IT GOES TO AIR GREEN AND YOU GET BACK A COMMENT THAT SAYS EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT A CITY STAFFER TOLD YOU.

AND THEN THE NEXT ROUND OF COMMENTS, A DIFFERENT CITY STAFFER IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT LOOKS AT IT.

AND NOW YOU'RE BACK. SO I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE ONE DOCUMENT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN REDUCE AND ELIMINATE THOSE CONFLICTS, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE INTERPRETATION IN SOME OF THESE THINGS.

BUT TO THE EXTENT WHERE WE CAN SAY NOW THERE'S THE BOOK AND THE BOOK SAYS AND IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH ITSELF, IT'S RIGHT THERE THAT WAY.

ONE, WE'RE NOT GETTING FOLKS BEATING UP ON OUR STAFF SAYING THE COMMENTS ARE CHANGING TO THE FOLKS AT AIR GREEN HAVE EXACTLY ONE CRITERIA MANUAL TO LOOK AT IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD DETAILS, THAT KIND OF STUFF.

AND REALLY, ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO SMOOTH THAT PROCESS, CLEAR EXPECTATIONS, CLEAR DELINEATED THINGS WE WANT YOU TO DO AS A AS A IN YOUR PROJECT AND YOUR PERMITTING PROCESS.

THE MORE WE CAN DO THAT, THE BETTER.

SO I'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT THOSE NEXT WEEK.

IF YOU ALL WANTED TO GET ONE BIG DOCUMENT TOGETHER.

I KNOW IT'S AN ANNUAL PROCESS, BUT IT IS.

YEAH. AND WE'RE ACTUALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT.

WE ARE WORKING.

THAT'S OUR GOAL FOR NEXT YEAR IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO KICK IT OFF EARLIER THIS YEAR INSTEAD OF APRIL AND KICK IT OFF PROBABLY SOONER.

AND I'VE ALREADY HAVE STAFF IDENTIFIED TO PROVIDE THE REWRITING OF THE SECTIONS INTO ONE STANDARD FORMAT.

[02:35:05]

SO WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS THAT.

WELL, JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, ANYTHING YOU'LL NEED IN THAT REGARD, I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE I WANT TO MAKE CRITERIA MANUALS COUNCIL PRIORITY, BUT I'M ALMOST THERE. I MEAN, THEY'RE REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT.

THEY ARE. AND THEY THEY THEY DO SET THE STANDARD FOR THE CITY.

AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO MAINTAINING THEM AND KEEPING THEM UP TO DATE.

THANKS, COUNCILOR BURT.

I JUST HAD A FEW QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT SOME OF THESE TERMS ARE, AND I'M LOOKING WELL, THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, I'M LOOKING AT THE STORMWATER DESIGN IN THE CRITERIA.

IT SAYS REMOVE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE, DRIVEWAY CULVERTS.

IT'S THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE DOING OR HAVE BEEN DOING IT JUST NEED TO CLEAN UP THE THE WORDING.

SO YEAH, SO SO CORRUGATED METAL PIPE IS A MATERIAL USED FOR STORM DRAIN CONVEYANCE AND HISTORICALLY IT HASN'T BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE. IT DEGRADES PRETTY RAPIDLY OVER TIME PREVIOUSLY, AND DENTON COUNTY ALLOWS IT TO BE USED ON CULVERTS FOR DRIVEWAYS.

WE DID AS WELL.

WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH IN OUR CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS UPDATES LAST YEAR, REMOVE THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL PIPE WITHIN THE CITY BECAUSE OF THE POOR PERFORMANCE OF IT.

IT WAS STILL LISTED AS AN OPTION IN OUR CRITERIA MANUAL, EVEN THOUGH OUR SPECIFICATIONS SAY YOU CAN'T USE IT.

SO WE DID HAVE A CONFLICT THERE.

THANKFULLY, MOST PEOPLE DON'T USE THAT OPTION ANYWAYS, AND SO WE REMOVE THE REFERENCE OF IT FROM OUR CRITERIA MANUAL TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.

AND THAT BROUGHT ME TO A STREET CALLED SWISHER ROAD THAT'S IN MY DISTRICT WAY DOWN ON THE SOUTH SIDE. AND THEY WERE HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH THAT CORRUGATED DRIVEWAY SITUATION AND COLLAPSE COLLAPSING.

YEAH, SO THAT PIQUED MY INTEREST.

ALSO, WHAT IS GEOMETRIC STANDARDS? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT'S JUST THE GEOMETRY OF THE ROAD.

SO HOW HOW WIDE THE ROADWAYS ARE THE LANE WITH THE SHOULDERS, THE CURBS, THE SIDEWALKS, THE BIKE, THE ON STREET TRAILS, THE SIDE PATH.

SO WHEN WE UPDATED THE THE MOBILITY PLAN, WE SET NEW GEOMETRIC STANDARDS FOR THE DIFFERENT ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR OR SECONDARY MATERIAL. SO WE UPDATED OUR OUR TABLE WITHIN OUR DOCUMENT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE MOBILITY PLAN.

SO YOU SAID YOU ADDED A SAFETY ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THE AND THEN YOU ADDED A PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

IS THAT GOING IS THAT IS THAT IS THIS JUST DEFINITIONS OR IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE EVERY YEAR OR TWO YEARS OR SO? THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS USUALLY BASED ON TRIP COUNTS AND NUMBER OF CARS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE GENERATING, HOW MANY ARE GOING THROUGH THE INTERSECTIONS IMPACTING THE ROADWAYS. SO WE'VE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME ROADWAYS WHERE WE HAVE BAD SIGHTLINES AND BASED ON THE NUMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, DOESN'T TRIGGER THEM TO DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THOSE ROADWAYS.

AND SO WHEN WE TALK TO THE DEVELOPERS, WE'RE LIKE, HEY, HAVE YOU DRIVEN THE ROAD? DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BAD SIGHTLINES, THAT IT'S NOT A SAFE CONDITION AS IS AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE MAKING IT MORE UNSAFE? SO THIS GIVES US SOME TEETH TO SAY, HEY, FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, YOU NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE HERE, EVEN THOUGH YOUR NUMBERS DON'T NECESSARILY TRIGGER THAT.

BUT FOR. THE SAFETY ASPECT THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE DO SOME SORT OF IMPROVEMENT BY PROVIDING A TURN LANE OR IMPROVING THE VISIBILITY OF THE ROADWAY.

OKAY. I APPRECIATE THE DEFINITION, BUT MY QUESTION WAS THAT THE CLARIFICATION TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION IS THAT ARE WE SEEING THESE IN THE CRITERIA MANUAL? AND DOES IT CHANGE EVERY YEAR? OR IS THIS JUST THE DEFINITION OF WHAT THIS IS? IT'S JUST A DEFINITION OF WHAT WE'VE ADDED.

SO IT'S ACTUALLY SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS WE ADDED AND IT'S YEAH, WE ADDED THAT SAFETY CRITERIA STANDARD TO OUR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS SECTION.

AND THE DISCUSSION ON THE GREASE TRAP TRAPS FOR WASTEWATER IS THAT SHOWING UP IN THE FOOD? SECTION AS WELL? NO, IT ONLY SHOWS UP IN THE WATER IN THE WEST WATER SECTION.

AND YEAH, I.

I KNOW WE'RE NOT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GIVING ANY KIND OF DIRECTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S JUST GREAT TO KNOW THAT WE'RE STAYING UP ON TOP OF THOSE THINGS.

I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO I LOVE THAT WE'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE ORGANIZED, MORE HIERARCHICAL.

WE HAVE AN UPDATE PROCEDURE THAT IS MORE AND MORE SYSTEMATIC.

THERE'S JUST NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT THAT.

THOSE ARE ALL REALLY GREAT THINGS AND HELPS OUR CITY RUN THE BUSINESS.

SO SO QUESTION I HAVE IS AS WE GET FEEDBACK FROM THE DEVELOPER COMMUNITY, FROM DEVELOPMENT STAFF, FROM CITIZENS,

[02:40:02]

OR DO WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR COLLECTING THAT FEEDBACK FOR NEXT YEAR'S OR TWO YEARS FROM NOW AS CRITERIA MANUALS? DO WE HAVE A SYSTEMATIC FEEDBACK COLLECTION MECHANISM OR IS IT JUST SORT OF FILTERED IN AND YOU SORT OF SAVE IT AS YOU AS YOU NOTE IT? SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE ON THE WEBSITE WHERE WE HAVE THESE DRAFT DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED, WE HAVE A FEEDBACK FORM LINK THERE, SO ANYBODY CAN CLICK ON THEM, CLICK ON THE LINK, PUT IN THE SECTION THAT THEY'RE DISCUSSING, PUT IN THEIR COMMENTS AND IT GETS SENT TO US IN A SMART SHEET OR A SPREADSHEET FORMAT, AND IT'S DOCUMENTED WITHIN THE CITY'S SYSTEMS AND THAT'S ALL OPTION. DO WE HAVE IS, IS OUR STAFF REGULARLY SUBMITTING THOSE CORRECTIONS AS THEY ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS THROUGHOUT THEIR DEVELOPMENT CYCLE? MOST OF THE COMMENTS WE HAVE RECEIVED HAVE BEEN FROM STAFF.

THEY USE THE SAME PUBLIC FACING LINK THAT ANYBODY CAN USE AND ALL GOES TO THE SAME LOCATION.

THAT'S REALLY GREAT. I APPRECIATE HEARING THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, IT'S TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A SYSTEMATIC INPUT AND OUTPUT MECHANISM.

SO I REALLY I APPRECIATE THAT A LOT.

THANK YOU. AND COUNCILOR MCGEE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO APPLAUD YOU ALL AND EVERY DEPARTMENT.

THIS HAS BEEN AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS, BUT IT LOOKS VERY THOROUGH.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT SOLID WASTE.

SO WE'VE ADDED THE SINGLE ENCLOSURE FOR LARGER MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS.

WHAT EXACTLY CONSTITUTE A LARGER MULTIFAMILY DWELLING LIKE? HOW BIG ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? MR. ADRIAN HILL CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF HE WANTS, BUT IT'S IN THE TABLE.

WHAT WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS IDENTIFIED BY SIZE AND SO THE SIZE UNITS OF 65 TO 200 UNITS IS WHAT I DEFINED AS THE LARGER MULTIFAMILY, AND THAT'S THE ONE WE'VE ADDED. THE SINGLE ENCLOSURE FOR THE UNITS OF 49 TO 64 HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF CRITERIA FOR THE AMOUNT OF TRASH ENCLOSURES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE.

SO THIS WAS THE REASON FOR THIS.

I'M JUST CURIOUS. YEAH.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.

COUNCIL. ADRIAN HILL, SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS MANAGER.

THE REASON TO ADD THIS ENCLOSURE.

SORRY. THE REASON IT'S SHORT.

THE REASON I ADD, IS THE ENCLOSURE WAS TO GIVE THE ABILITY TO RECYCLE.

IF YOU SEE ALL THE WAY ACROSS DENTON, YOU CAN SEE THAT RECYCLE BANDS ARE ALL OUTSIDE THE ENCLOSURES AND IT'S REALLY UGLY.

SO JUST TO BEAUTIFY THE CITY AND GIVE THEM THAT OPTION IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY DO WANT TO RECYCLE THAT, THEY HAVE THAT OPTION.

THANK YOU, ROGER. APPRECIATE IT.

ANYONE ELSE? CATHERINE, WHAT'S.

YOU'RE. YOU'RE MUTED.

CAN YOU NOT HEAR ME? GOT IT.

GOT YOU NOW. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

YEAH. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THE.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I APPLAUD YOU FOR THIS BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE FOR BOTH STAFF AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IN THE PAST.

I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE PEOPLE COME TO ME AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT THE CITY IS REQUIRING.

I'D SAY, OKAY, WE'LL JUST ASK THEM.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A CODE OR NOT.

JUST ASK THEM, WHERE IS IT IN THE CODE? SHOW ME AND I'LL BE GLAD TO DO IT.

SOMETIMES IN THE PAST, MORE DISTANT PAST, NOT SO MUCH RECENT PAST.

THERE WERE INCONSISTENCIES.

THERE WERE PREFERENCES, I THINK IS WHAT THEY WERE CALLED.

THEY WEREN'T NECESSARILY CODE REQUIREMENT, BUT PREFERENCES.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING THAT THIS PROCESS AND THIS CONSOLIDATION AND COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THESE CRITERIA MANUALS WILL HELP TO OVERCOME.

AND THAT IS IT'S PREDICTABLE.

YOU COULD FOR ANY REQUEST BY CITY STAFF ON WHAT THERE'S WHAT A A DEVELOPER OR BUILDER IS REQUIRED TO DO OR A HOMEOWNER REGARDING A PERMIT. THEY CAN BE POINTED DIRECTLY TO A CODE THAT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THE FOUNDATION FOR THAT REQUEST.

IS THAT I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO.

YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S THE GOAL THAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS.

WE WANT TO REMOVE ALL PREFERENCES FROM THE DOCUMENTS.

IT NEEDS TO BE STANDARDIZED MATERIALS.

WE WE SPECIFY MATERIALS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFICS OF THEM, IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS.

WE DON'T CALL OUT SPECIFIC MANUFACTURERS OR BRANDS OR TYPES.

EVERYTHING WE DO IS BY THE STANDARDS OF WHAT WE NEED FOR THE CITY.

AND JUST SORT OF A QUESTION, BECAUSE I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE OR WHAT THE THE INFORMATION IS ON, ON SLIDE TEN UNDER WATER AND WASTEWATER CRITERIA MANUAL THAT YOU SAID, ONE OF THE BULLET POINTS, THE FIRST ONE WAS CLARIFIED THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF WATER METERS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS.

I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT IT SAYS, BUT WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF THAT? YEAH. SO FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, IT'S A TEXAS STATE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE A SINGLE MASTER METER TO THE PROPERTY AND THEN THEY'RE SUBMITTED OFF TO INDIVIDUAL UNITS. OUR CODE DID NOT EXPLICITLY SAY THAT.

[02:45:04]

AND SO WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE PUT INDIVIDUAL UNIT METERS ON INDIVIDUAL UNITS INSTEAD OF A MASTER METER TO THE PROPERTY AND SOME READING FROM THERE.

SO THEY WAS IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW AND THEY LOOKED TO OUR CODE AND SAID, OUR CODE DO NOT REQUIRE US TO DO THAT.

AND SO WE ADDED THAT IN TO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

OKAY. AND IS THAT FOR WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE NUMBER CUTOFF FOR THAT? IS THAT ANYTHING OVER A DUPLEX FOURPLEX TRIPLEX LIKE A PENTA PLEX FIVE AND ABOVE FIVE AND ABOVE THEY REQUIRE A MASTER METER FOR OR BELOW.

IF YOU WANTED TO DO INDIVIDUAL METERS THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THE CITY, THAT ARE READ INDIVIDUALLY BY THE CITY UTILITY DEPARTMENT, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

IS THAT CORRECT? I'M GETTING DIRECTION FROM STAFF THAT.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. OH, ONE OTHER QUESTION.

I'M SORRY. THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE EFFECT, I THINK, IN THE TIMELINE.

EFFECTIVE DATE, JANUARY ONE.

IS THERE SOME KIND OF NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHEN PEOPLE TURN TO THESE CRITERIA MANUALS IN THE PROCESS? IF SOMEONE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING SOMETHING.

AND IT CHANGES.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT.

YES. SO THE SITUATION.

YEAH, OF COURSE. SO DEVELOPMENTS ARE VESTED INTO THE PROCESS AT THE SEPS WHERE THEY SUBMIT THEIR CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS INTO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.

AT THAT POINT, THEY ARE FROZEN IN TIME TO WHATEVER THE CRITERIA WAS AT THE TIME WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR ENGINEERING PLANS.

SO IF THEY'RE IF THEY ARE ALREADY WORKING ON A PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY BEING DESIGNED, THEY FOLLOW THE EXISTING CRITERIA MANUALS.

WE HAVE ALL THE HISTORIC ONES AS WELL ON FILE.

AND SO IF THERE'S ANY NEW PROJECTS COME IN AFTER THESE BECOME EFFECTIVE, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE NEW CRITERIA MANUALS.

SO ANYTHING IN THE SYSTEM PRIOR TO JANUARY ONE, THEY'RE VESTED IN THE CODE IN WHICH THEY CAME IN UNDER.

CORRECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CNN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. OKAY, THAT TAKES US TO OUR LAST WORK SESSION ITEM.

[F. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on pending City Council requests for: (1) Work session on Community Benefit Agreements. (2) Ordinance stipulating that if sales tax exceeds the anticipated amount, 15% of the overage will be spent on one-time expenditures for Denton Police Officers. (3) Vote on adopting an ordinance identical to Prop. B at the next meeting after consensus direction is given. (4) Work session to prohibit public input at city-sponsored meetings including but not limited to city council meetings, from individuals participating via video feed if said individual is operating a motor vehicle. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

IS ITEM F ID 221678 RECEIVED REPORT HOLD DISCUSSION GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON PENDING COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS.

I'M SHARING MY SCREEN.

MEANWHILE, SHE'S GETTING READY AND I SHARE SOME INFORMATION WITH THE COUNCIL.

YES. JUST SO YOU KNOW, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SEND YOU SOMETHING TONIGHT.

WE'VE HAD SOME ILLNESS DUE TO COVID AT NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY.

SO WE'RE WE'RE DOWN A LOT OF STAFF THERE.

AND SO WE'LL HAVE SOME THE FORGE MARKER SPACE BEING CLOSED ON SATURDAY, TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY THROUGH THE 17TH.

WE MAY HAVE TO REDUCE THE HOURS BECAUSE WE'RE DOWN FOR FOUR FULL TIME, ONE PART TIME, AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN SHIFTING STAFF.

SO THAT HELPS US. BUT JUST WE'LL KEEP YOU POSTED.

BUT I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE OUTBREAK THERE AT THE LIBRARY.

AND SO WHAT ARE THOSE DATES? SO TOMORROW IS UP TOMORROW FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, CLOSE THE FORGE MARKS MAKER SPACE 1210, WHICH IS SATURDAY, TUESDAY, 12, 13, 12, 15 ON THURSDAY AND 1217 ON SATURDAY.

THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE FACILITY OPEN.

BUT IF WE LOSE ONE MORE ADDITIONAL STAFF, WE MAY HAVE TO DO SOME REDUCED HOURS, BUT WE'LL KEEP YOU POSTED.

OKAY. GREAT.

THANK YOU. HI.

GOOD EVENING. HOW WAS DINNER? IT'S DELICIOUS.

THIS LOOKS LIKE A LIP GLOSS, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY THAT BUTTER SAUCE FROM THE PASTA.

IT WAS REALLY GOOD.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MONICA BENAVIDES, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

TONIGHT, I'LL BE INTRODUCING THE CITY COUNCIL PENDING REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, ALSO KNOWN AS A TWO MINUTE PITCHES.

AS A REMINDER OF THE PROCESS, UP TO SEVEN REQUESTS WILL BE HEARD PER MEETING.

ONE PER COUNCIL MEMBER STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THEIR REQUEST AND THE ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT MADE THE REQUEST WILL HAVE UP TO 2 MINUTES TO DESCRIBE AND JUSTIFY.

THE REMAINING ELECTED OFFICIALS WILL THEN HAVE UP TO ONE MINUTE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND INDICATE THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF STAFF.

TIME STAFF WILL RESPOND TO ALL REQUESTS TO WHERE A CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL IS ESTABLISHED.

AND THIS EVENING WE'LL HEAR FROM FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I WON'T READ THROUGH THE SLIDE VERBATIM.

HOWEVER, THEY ARE A REMINDER OF THE PRIORITIES THAT WILL BE SET.

THE FIRST REQUEST COMES FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE, WHO'S REQUESTING A WORK SESSION ON COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENTS.

COUNCIL MEMBER PLEASE PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK IN ADVANCE AND YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENTS.

WHAT I SEE IS THIS IS A WAY TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOODS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ALL SAT THROUGH FOUR OR FIVE HOUR COUNCIL MEETINGS WHERE RESIDENTS COME AND THEY COMPLAIN TO US ABOUT

[02:50:10]

THE RELATIONSHIP WITH A DEVELOPER NOT BEING IN A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN FIND SOME AGREEMENT AND CONSENSUS ON WHATEVER SET DEVELOPMENT WANTS TO BUILD.

I SEE COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENTS AS A WAY TO GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE SAY ON THE FRONT SIDE BEFORE THEY EVEN GET TO US.

IDEALLY, I WOULD LOVE FOR DEVELOPERS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO COME TOGETHER AND WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT BEFORE THEY EVER EVEN COME TO US.

AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO REFERENCE SOMETHING THAT I REFERENCED EARLIER IN MY TIME ON COUNCIL.

THE RANCH ESTATES DEAL WITH WITH BRANDON MARTINO AND LEE RAMSEY AS BEING THE GOLD STANDARD.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WAY THOSE PARTICULAR DEVELOPERS WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO MUCH SO THAT WHEN THE NEIGHBORS CAME TO US, THEY WERE ALSO THEY WERE PUSHING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT I BELIEVE IS THE GOLD STANDARD, AND I SEE COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENTS AS A WAY TO PERHAPS GET TO THAT IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS NO.

IDEALLY, I WOULD LIKE FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH DEVELOPERS IN AREAS WHERE WE COULD DO THIS, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT FOLLOW THE SMALL AREA PLANS.

THIS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR SOUTHEASTERN AS WELL AS NORTHEAST DENTON.

IF PARTICULARLY IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT CLASS DENSITY AND ALSO CHANGING THE LAND USE.

SO IF THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BODY FOR TO TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL LIKE THIS, ONE CAN SIMPLY BE CREATED.

SO WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS A WORK SESSION FOR STAFF TO EXPLORE WHERE THIS IS WORKING RIGHT AND PERHAPS BRING SOMETHING BACK TO US FOR US TO CONSIDER.

AND WITH THAT, I YIELD.

THANK YOU. MR. OK, ANY ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN DAVIS? COUNCILMAN BURT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK THAT CBAS HAVE BEEN PUT TO GOOD USE IN SOME PLACES.

THERE ARE SOME SOME PROJECTS I CAN THINK OF HERE IN DENTON, WHERE THEY WOULD BE HELPFUL TO CERTAINLY OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

HELPFUL. HELPFUL FOR US TO KNOW WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAD THE INPUT AND HAS, TO BE FRANK, GOTTEN CONCESSIONS FROM DEVELOPER THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S NEEDS.

I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR AN ORDINANCE.

I COULD SEE SOME KIND OF FRAMEWORK WHERE WE ENCOURAGE, I CAN SEE SOME KIND OF FRAMEWORK WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST LIKE WE LET NEIGHBOR DEVELOPERS KNOW, HEY, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO TALK TO.

YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM THAT WE ENCOURAGE THESE TOOLS WHERE THEY'RE APPROPRIATE.

I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE A ROLE FOR THE THE CITY IN THAT.

AND THEN THERE'S KIND OF THE AGE OLD QUESTION WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO DOES THAT MEAN? I CAN TELL YOU MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRETTY WELL ORGANIZED.

IT DOESN'T HAVE A FORMAL ASSOCIATION, BUT BUT PRETTY VOCAL HAS BEEN PRETTY VOCAL ON ZONING CASES IN THE PAST.

BUT IF YOU SAY WHO SPEAKS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WELL, THAT'S A THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER.

WHO HAS TO SIGN OFF ON THIS AGREEMENT? IS IT THE ASSOCIATION? IS THAT THE ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN BURT, I AM GOING TO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

EXCUSE ME. PRIMARILY, AS I RECOGNIZED THAT ON THOSE LONG EVENINGS THAT WE SPEND IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, THOSE ARE THE EVENINGS WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWS UP TO SAY, NO, WE DON'T LIKE THIS.

AND WHAT WE DO IS A COUNCIL PRETTY MUCH 100% OF THE TIME WE SEND IT BACK.

AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I REMEMBER EVEN SAYING TO A DEVELOPER, YOU'VE GOT TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE.

SO WHEN THEY BRING THE THE PLAN TO CITY COUNCIL, EVERYONE'S ALL ON BOARD.

IT'S I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DOABLE.

I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE AN ORDINANCE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOING TO HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD COME TOGETHER AS ONE AS ONE VOICE LIKE THEY DO AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

SO WHENEVER I SEE ANYTHING THE DEVELOPERS COME THROUGH, IT'S MORE THAN LIKELY NOT GOING TO GO PAST CITY COUNCIL.

IT MAY HAVE PASSED PLANNING AND ZONING, BUT IF THOSE FOLKS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT IN AGREEMENT, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.

MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH, I SEE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE EXCUSE ME, THREE SEPARATE SMALL AREA PLANS COMING IN TO PROTECT, CODIFY, DELINEATE THE THE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS GAPS AND ASSESSMENT FOR DIFFERENT AREAS, AS IS CLEAR INDICATION THAT THAT THAT KIND OF FOCUS WOULD BE REALLY GOOD.

IT SOUNDS LIKE CBO'S AND THE RESULT CBAS THAT WOULD COME FROM A CBO WOULD WOULD BE REALLY GOOD TO HELP SET THAT FRAMEWORK.

CONSISTENTLY ACROSS THE CITY.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF HAVING A WORK SESSION TO CLARIFY BOTH A CBO ORDINANCE AS WELL AS POTENTIAL CBAS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? SEE NONE. OKAY.

I THINK FOR ME, IT'S JUST I DON'T THINK I THINK THIS IF WE BRING AN ORDINANCE THAT COMPLICATES THINGS, IT IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND

[02:55:04]

THAT ORGANIZATION AND THAT IT HAS NO LIMITS VERSUS IF YOU BRING THE CITY INTO IT BY STATE ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW, WE'RE PROHIBITED FROM ENFORCING INSERTING CERTAIN THINGS.

IT'S ALMOST BRINGING A SECOND DEFENDER.

WHEN YOU'RE PLAYING BASKETBALL, YOU BRING SOMEONE TO THE PERSON WITH THE BALL.

THAT'S NOT GOOD. AND SO I THINK WE'VE SEEN IT IN THE EXAMPLE, GIVEN THAT IT WORKED OUT GREAT WITH RANCH ESTATES.

WE'VE SEEN I WAS AT THE MEETING FOR SOUTHEAST DENTON, AND THEY'RE NEGOTIATING DOLLARS FOR HOME REPAIR AND TAX RELIEF AND REALLY IMPACTFUL THINGS THAT THE CITY COULD NEVER DO.

SO I DON'T WANT TO LIMIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I DO SUPPORT US HAVING A CONVERSATION TO HAVE NOT A WORK SESSION, BUT CREATING A DOCUMENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO WORK FROM. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO PROVIDE THAT RESOURCE.

ANYONE ELSE. OKAY, NEXT.

THAT ONE DOESN'T KNOW.

JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. YEAH, THE SECOND ONE.

AND THEN ITEM NUMBER TWO IS AN ORDINANCE STIPULATING THAT IF SALES TAX EXCEEDS THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT, 15% OF THE OVERAGE WILL BE SPENT ON ONE TIME EXPENDITURES FOR DENTON POLICE OFFICERS.

MAYOR HUDSPETH, WHEN YOU'RE READY.

GREAT. YEAH. SO JUST SIMPLY SAID, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

THE SALES TAX HAS EXCEEDED OUR BUDGET REGULARLY, AND SO IF STAFF BUDGETS $1 MILLION IN SALES TAX AND WE HIT $2 MILLION IN SALES TAX, I'D LIKE TO HAVE 15% OF THAT OVERAGE.

15% OF 1 MILLION GO TO ONE TIME EXPENSES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BE IT MATERIALS, UNIFORMS, GUNS, FIREARMS, HANDCUFFS, WHATEVER THEY NEED.

AND I THINK IT SERVES ONE.

IT SUPPORTS THEM AND HELPS US CATCH UP WITH MITIGATE OFF OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS.

I ALSO THINK IT SERVES AS A FANTASTIC MARKETING OPPORTUNITY AND TO SUPPORT TO DRAW PEOPLE TO DENTON, TO SPEND THEIR DOLLARS KNOWING THAT THOSE OVERAGES, POTENTIAL OVERAGES, WOULD GO TO SUPPORT OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND THOSE ONE TIME EXPENDITURES AND EQUIPMENT.

SO IT'S JUST TO CODIFY IT BE 15% OF THOSE OVERAGES, THE SORT OF UNBUDGETED DOLLARS THAT WOULD GO TO THE CARVE OUT 15% TO GO TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR DAVIS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'M NAILED DOWN ON NUMBERS YET.

I KIND OF LIKE TO SEE SOME REAL NUMBERS, KIND OF SOME.

SOME TRAILING DATA ON THE LAST FEW YEARS, WHAT OVERAGES HAVE LOOKED LIKE.

HOW MUCH MONEY WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT SOME THINGS, SOME POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND THINGS THAT THEY COULD SPEND THE MONEY ON AND WHAT KIND OF STUFF WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD CONVERSATION TO HAVE.

IT MAY BRANCH OUT A LITTLE BIT IF WE HAVE THAT WORK SESSION, THAT IS IT JUST POLICE OR IS IT SOMETHING ELSE TOO? WHO'S TO SAY WHERE THE CONVERSATION WILL GO? BUT I'M ON BOARD WITH HAVING THAT CONVERSATION.

I PROBABLY PUT IT A MEDIUM PRIORITY BECAUSE WE WERE NOT FULLY RAMPED UP ON THE BUDGET CYCLE YET, BUT THE STAFF STARTS GETTING GOING ON THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET PRETTY SOON AFTER WE PASSED THE LAST ONE.

SO PROBABLY ABOUT A MEDIUM FOR ME.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN BURTON.

YEAH. I'M INTERESTED IN HAVING A DISCUSSION.

EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE POLICE.

I CERTAINLY WANT THEM TO BE PROTECTED AS AS WELL AS ANYONE.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKING CARE OF ME, I FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE WHAT THEY NEED TO DO THAT.

BUT AGAIN, LIKE COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS STATED, HOW FAR HOW WIDE IS THIS CONVERSATION GOING TO GO? LAW ON FIRE.

YOU KNOW, AND THOSE KINDS OF JOBS THERE.

ARE WE GOING TO ALSO INCLUDE THOSE? SO THAT'LL BE INTERESTING TO HEAR WHAT WE'RE HOW WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE THAT.

ANYONE ELSE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGEE. THEN COUNCILMAN.

WHAT'S. MR. MAYOR, I, TOO, AM IN AGREEMENT OF THIS.

I'M INTERESTED IN HAVING THE CONVERSATION.

WHEN WE DO HAVE THE CONVERSATION, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT EQUIPMENT THIS IS.

THIS IS GOING TO BE. BUT YEAH, CONCEPTUALLY SPEAKING, I'M ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THIS.

AND I'M ALSO GOING TO AGREE. I'M ALSO LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING THE DISCUSSION AT WHAT PERCENTAGE THIS WOULD KICK IN.

SO THANK, MR. MAYOR.

THANK YOU. CAPTAIN, WHAT'S.

MAY I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS UP.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THE CONVERSATION CONCEPTUALLY.

I THINK AS WE GET INTO IT, SOME OF THE DETAILS MAY CHANGE, BUT BECAUSE I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT, BOTH POLICE AND MAYBE NON POLICE.

BUT NO, I THINK IT'S A GOOD A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING THIS ISSUE ANYWAY.

[03:00:06]

MAYOR PRO TEM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S THERE'S CONSENSUS MORE FOR THE CONVERSATION THAN FOR THE REQUEST.

I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THAT IT STOPS US FROM DOING EXACTLY OUR JOB, WHICH IS TO COME HERE AND MAKE POLICY DECISIONS ABOUT WHEN TO SPEND AND WHEN NOT TO SPEND.

I DON'T WANT 15% TO LIMIT THE POLICE IF WE NEED TO GO OVER 15%.

I DON'T WANT IT TO BE SEEN AS A NOR DO I WANT TO CUT THAT OFF.

SO I THINK TYING IT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT, BUT I THINK I'M ALREADY HEARING CONVERSATIONS SO WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION.

I THINK NOT GOING TO AN ORDINANCE IMMEDIATELY, BUT SURE, I GUESS IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT TAKES US TO OUR THIRD ITEM.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WHILE I NAVIGATE SHARING MY SCREEN.

I'M TERRIBLE AT IT.

IT'S TRUE. THERE.

ITEM THREE A VOTE ON ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE IDENTICAL TO PROPOSITION B AT THE NEXT MEETING AFTER CONSENSUS DIRECTION IS GIVEN.

THAT WAS REQUESTED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BAEK.

AND WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

SURE. ON THE ON THE NOVEMBER 8TH, I WON'T READ EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE SLIDE.

YOU ALL HAVE READ THAT WE PASSED PROP B AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS FROM VARIOUS BODIES WAS WHETHER OR NOT A A INITIATIVE HAD THE THE POWER TO TO MAKE A BUDGET DECISION AND WHETHER THAT WAS THE PURVIEW OF COUNCIL.

AND THERE ARE SOME, I THINK, DISAGREEMENT ACROSS LEADERSHIP ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS ACTUALLY A BUDGETARY DECISION.

BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY AN EASY, EASY THING TO DO.

YOU JUST ELIMINATE THAT AS A AS AN ITEM OF CONSIDERATION.

YOU HAVE COUNCIL ADOPT IT EXACTLY WHAT THE VOTERS VOTED FOR, EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAW AND WHAT THEY VOTED ON.

AND THAT WAY THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE POWER OF INITIATIVE AND THE POWER OF COUNCIL.

AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER IT'S EVEN VALID OR NOT.

SO I'M SAYING I THINK WE SHOULD PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT EXACTLY DUPLICATES THE PROP B THAT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED BY 72% OF THE THE VOTERS.

OKAY. ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILWOMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO ADOPT SOMETHING JUST LIKE THE PROP B ORDINANCE, WHICH IS ALREADY AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY.

THIS WHOLE BUDGET QUESTION OF WHETHER THE VOTERS CAN, BY INITIATIVE UNDER OUR CHARTER, MAKE A BUDGETARY DECISION WHICH THEY CAN'T.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING OUT OF A VERY PROBLEMATIC ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE CORRECTED.

IT DOESN'T FIX THE THINGS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.

IT DOESN'T GIVE OUR CITY MANAGER ANY MORE AUTHORITY OR ANY LESS AUTHORITY THAN SHE HAD AFTER NOVEMBER 8TH, AFTER EXCUSE ME, AFTER WE CAN CANVASS THE ELECTION RESULTS.

AND IT WENT INTO EFFECT.

ALL IT DOES IS FURTHER CONFUSE THE ISSUE.

WE ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE TALKING ABOUT HOW OUR CITY REFUSES TO ENACT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

NO, WE JUST HAVE TO DO WHAT WE CAN WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

IF YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON A RESOLUTION THAT SAYS THE CITY OF DENTON, THE PEOPLE WANT IT TO BE A LOW BUDGET PRIORITY, THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN ON, HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT IN THE HIERARCHY OF THINGS WE PAY FOR.

ANYONE ELSE? AND CAN YOU SAY, COUNCILMAN BURT? YES. I'M GOING TO ASK THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST AS.

OUR MAYOR PRO TEM, STATED OK.

ANYONE ELSE. COUNCILOR MCGEE.

MR. MAYOR, COUNT ME AS A THREE.

AS WAS MENTIONED, THIS PASSED BY 70%.

70% OF THE CITY.

THE VOTING ELECTORATE BELIEVES THIS.

AS SOMEONE WHO WAS ELECTED A LARGE, THE LAST THING I'M GOING TO DO IS NOT SIDE WITH 70% OF THE PEOPLE.

I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF US IN OUR RECENT ELECTIONS GOT 70% OF THE VOTES.

HOW OFTEN DOES 70% OF ANYONE AGREE ON ANYTHING? SO I'M ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF THIS.

YEAH. DONE.

THANKS FOR. COUNCILMAN.

WHAT'S. YEAH, WE ALREADY HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS THAT'S REPRESENTED BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

THAT ORDINANCE WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

WE DENIED IT, SEND IT TO THE BALLOT.

THE PEOPLE VOTED.

IT IS NOW AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON.

I SEE NO REASON TO DUPLICATE EFFORTS.

SO IT'S NOT ABOUT NOT BEING FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

IT'S ABOUT ACCEPTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

AND WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT STATES EXACTLY THAT.

SO I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.

OKAY. I HAVE A POINT OF INQUIRY, MR. CITY ATTORNEY.

SO THAT I CAN SORT OF EDUCATE MY WHETHER I SPEAK OR NOT.

[03:05:05]

IT IS THE.

ORDINANCE THAT WAS PROPOSED AND VOTED ON ARE THE WHAT WAS IT? IT'S THE PETITION THAT WAS.

CREATED, VOTED ON, RATIFIED.

IS THAT AN OFFICIAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY? YES. AS WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE THAT CREATED IT AS.

ISN'T CODIFIED ORDINANCE IN THE CITY NOW.

IT'S ACTUALLY IN OUR MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES.

GOT IT. AND ANY CHANGES IN THAT DOCUMENT FROM THE TIME IT WAS CREATED TO WHEN IT WAS RATIFIED, ANY ANY CHANGES, ANY MANIPULATION OF IT, ANY.

SO IT'S AS THEY CREATED.

THEN I'LL JUST SPEAK.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THOSE THAT DRAFTED IT.

THEY PUT A LOT OF TIME, A LOT OF YEARS.

THEY SAID THEY'RE WORKING ON IT FOR YEARS AND I'M NOT GOING TO DISENFRANCHIZE THOSE THAT VOTED FOR IT AND SUPPORTED IT.

I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.

70% OF PEOPLE LOOKED AT THAT, UNDERSTOOD.

IT WAS EXPLAINED TO BY THE BY THE ORIGINATORS, AND IT IS CODIFIED IN AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY.

INTACT, UNCHANGED AS THEY DRAFTED IT.

AND I THINK THERE'S NOTHING MORE PRISTINE THAN THAT.

I THINK THAT'S EVERYONE.

NEXT. NEXT ITEM.

THE LAST ITEM.

ITEM FOUR IS A WORK SESSION TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC INPUT AT CITY SPONSORED MEETINGS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FROM INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING VIA VIDEO FEED.

IF SAID INDIVIDUAL IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS.

COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

HERE. HOW DO I SEE MY TIME? YOU DON'T. OKAY.

YOU CAN EITHER SET IT ON YOUR END OR I CAN YELL AT YOU AT 159, AND YOU CAN HAVE A SECOND TO WRAP UP.

NO, NO, NO. I THINK.

I MEAN, THE CAPTION IS A LITTLE A LITTLE ROUGH, BUT I THINK THE THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR.

I JUST THINK WE NEED TO WE NEED TO HAVE A POLICY THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE INPUT OR IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING WITH THE CITY, THAT IF YOU'RE DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE AND YOU'RE PARTICIPATING VIA VIDEO ZOOM, WE JUST SIMPLY ASK THAT YOU PULL OVER, GET IN THE PASSENGER SEAT OR STOP IT.

I MEAN, IT'S PRETTY SELF EXPLANATORY.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A WORK SESSION ON IT.

I MEAN, THAT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR.

BUT IF WE DO, SO BE IT.

I THINK IT COULD BE MOVED PRETTY QUICKLY TO AN ORDINANCE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL.

SO I'LL YIELD BACK MY TIME, MR. CHAIR. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN DAVIS. YEAH.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE USED THE PHRASE SCAR TISSUE A COUPLE OF TIMES ALREADY TONIGHT.

I THINK IT'S FAIR TO PUT THIS IN THAT CATEGORY AS WELL.

BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO OUT OF ONE SIDE OF OUR MOUTH TALK ABOUT.

TRAFFIC SAFETY AND ONE SIDE OF OUR MOUTH HAVE PATROL VEHICLES THAT ON THE BACK OF EVERY SINGLE COP CAR IN THE CITY.

IT SAYS HANG UP AND DRIVE.

THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD OURSELVES TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD OR HOLD THE PEOPLE THAT CALL IN TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD.

IF SOMEBODY CALLS IN AND THERE'S ROAD NOISE IN THE BACKGROUND, I THINK WE OUGHT TO STOP AND SAY, HEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE PULL OVER BEFORE YOU FINISH YOUR COMMENT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL? I THINK IT'S FAIR.

I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY SINGLES ANYBODY OUT TO DO THAT.

I'M OPEN TO HAVING THAT CONVERSATION.

AND AGAIN, I'D PROBABLY GIVE IT ABOUT A MEDIUM PRIORITY.

ANYONE ELSE, COUNCILMAN BURT? I DO NOT AGREE WITH WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE HERE.

SOMETIMES WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION TO BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION OR NOT KNOW CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

THIS DOES SINGLE OUT SOMEONE THAT WAS DRIVING DURING A CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

CLEARLY EVIDENT, BUT THE PERSON PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETING.

PEOPLE USE CAMERAS AND DRIVE AND TALK.

I TALK ON MY PHONE IN MY CAR.

YOU KNOW, IT COMES THROUGH MY CAR SO THAT I ANSWER AND I HAVE CONVERSATIONS.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO LOOK INTO.

EVERYBODY IS ARE ADULTS HERE AND WE PASS THE DRIVER'S TEST AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO TAKE CARE OF THE BUSINESS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF.

ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM.

I THINK THERE ARE ALREADY RULES GOVERNING MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATIONS.

I THINK WE JUST BE REDUNDANT.

I DON'T SEE A REASON TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? I'LL JUST SAY, AS WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE INVESTED.

[03:10:02]

I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT WHAT COUNCILMAN DAVIS MENTIONED.

I JUST THINK I THOUGHT ABOUT THE VISION ZERO PLAN AND THE WHAT WE'VE INVESTED AS A COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ZERO DEATHS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

PEDESTRIAN DEATHS.

WE HAD A DEATH ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE, AND WE'VE SEEN JUST THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING SURE YOU'RE NOT DISTRACTED.

AND MY MY DAD'S CALLED IN TO A TO A TO A BOARD MEETING AND THEY ASK HIM TO TO DO EXACTLY THAT.

TO. TO HANG UP AND JUST SPEAK IN WHEN HE'S ABLE TO.

SO I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH MOVING THIS FORWARD STRAIGHT TO AN ORDINANCE.

I THINK IT'S AGAIN, IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT WE ASK PEOPLE TO DO AND IT'S JUST CRITICAL.

AND I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

THE DIFFERENCE. VIDEO VERSUS AUDIO.

AND WE HAVE A NO TEXTING ORDINANCE ALREADY.

SO IT JUST COMPLEMENTS WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? OK THAT FAILS TAKES.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR WORK SESSION.

WE'RE NOT HAVING A CLOSED SESSION.

WE WILL RECONVENE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 630.

IT IS 530.

NOW WE'LL CONCLUDE THIS SEGMENT OF OUR MEETING AND GO GET SOME LEFTOVERS.

AND WELCOME TO THIS EVENING'S MEETING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

[AFTER DETERMINING THAT A QUORUM IS PRESENT, THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL WILL CONVENE AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 215 E. MCKINNEY STREET, DENTON, TEXAS AT WHICH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED:]

PLEASE EXCUSE ME.

SO IT'S 633.

WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, AND SO I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

THE FIRST THING TO DO ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS PLEDGES TO THE UNITED STATES.

IN TEXAS. FLAGS. PLEASE STAND WITH ME 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.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

OKAY. AND THEN WE HAVE ONE PROCLAMATION.

[A. Proclamation: Texas Arbor Day]

SO I'LL COME DOWN AND READ THAT.

ALL RIGHT. IF YOU ARE HERE FOR TEXAS, ARBOR DAY, IF YOU CAN, COME ON DOWN.

HEY. FEW, BUT MIGHTY.

OKAY, IF YOU CAN TELL US WHAT WE'RE RECOGNIZING.

GARY PACKAN, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION.

WE'RE RECOGNIZING TEXAS ARBOR DAY.

OH, THAT'S FINE. AND WE'D LIKE TO THANK WELLS FARGO FOR THEIR GRANT.

THEY GAVE US SOME FUNDING TO PURCHASE TREES THAT WE PUT AROUND NORTH LAKES DOG PARK, AND WE PLANTED THOSE WITH THEM LAST WEEK, AND WE'RE STILL PLANNING SOME ADDITIONAL ONES.

SO WE'RE EXCITED TO CONTINUE OUR TREE PLANTING EFFORTS.

WHAT TYPE OF TREES THEY GO WITH? LITTLE MIX OF EVERYTHING.

YEP, JUST TEXAS TREES THAT ARE KIND OF ON OUR PREFERRED LIST THAT WE KNOW ARE SUCCESSFUL IN THIS AREA AND WE'LL THRIVE WITH THE 30 DEGREES ONE DAY IN 72. NEXT.

OKAY. SO THIS PROCLAMATION BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME GREETINGS.

WHEREAS ALL ACROSS TEXAS, FROM TOWERING PINES TO MAJESTIC OAKS, THE SCRUBBY MESQUITE, THAT MANY TREE, THAT MANY TREES OF TEXAS ARE BEAUTIFUL AND PROMINENT FEATURES OF OUR UNIQUE AND BREATHTAKING LANDSCAPE.

AND. WHEREAS, AS TEXANS, WE VALUE TREES AND BENEFITS THEY PROVIDE, INCLUDING CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER AND PROVEN OUR HEALTH AND EVEN LOWERING ENERGY BILLS. AND.

WHEREAS, WE ENCOURAGE OUR COMMUNITY TO PLANT AND CELEBRATE TREES ON THIS FIRST FRIDAY OF EACH NOVEMBER HONORING TEXAS ARBOR DAY.

AND. WHEREAS, TEXAS FIRST OBSERVED ARBOR DAY IN 1889 UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF TEXAS FORESTRY ASSOCIATION.

AND. WHEREAS, TOGETHER WE CAN CREATE A BRIGHTER AND MORE BEAUTIFUL FUTURE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION WHILE PROTECTING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES AS RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF THEIR GRAND LANDSCAPE.

NOW, THEREFORE, TOGETHER WE CAN CREATE A BRIGHTER AND OH, SORRY, FORGIVE ME NOW, THEREFORE, I GERARD HUDSPETH, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, DO HEREBY DECLARE AND PROCLAIM THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 AS TEXAS ARBOR DAY IN THE CITY OF DENTON, AND ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN WHAT EACH OF US CAN DO TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY TREES HEALTHY AND VIBRANT.

IF WE CAN GIVE THEM A HAND.

YES. BIG SMILES, GARY.

[03:15:35]

I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE.

[3. PRESENTATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC]

YES, WE HAVE TO OK FIRST, AND THEN WE HAVE THE NEXT PART OF OUR.

SO WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THE COUNCIL PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL.

WE CAN PLAY THOSE.

THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE, INCLUDING A CODE OF CONDUCT THAT APPLIES TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THESE RULES WERE ENACTED TO PROMOTE AN ORDERLY PROCESS AND TO PRESERVE DECORUM.

SPEAKERS WILL HAVE 4 MINUTES TO GIVE A SCHEDULED REPORT AND 4 MINUTES TO GIVE AN OPEN MIC REPORT.

A BELL WILL RING WHEN TIME HAS EXPIRED.

IF THE REMARKS ARE NOT CONCLUDED BY THAT TIME, THE SPEAKER WILL BE ASKED TO STOP SPEAKING.

IF THE SPEAKER DOES NOT CEASE AND A SECOND REQUEST IS MADE, THE MAYOR MAY REQUEST TO HAVE THE SPEAKER REMOVED FROM THE CHAMBER.

SPEAKERS SHOULD NOT APPROACH THE DAIS.

IF A SPEAKER HAS MATERIALS FOR THE COUNCIL, PLEASE NOTIFY THE CITY SECRETARY IN ADVANCE FOR SCHEDULED REPORTS.

THE COUNCIL MAY INITIATE DISCUSSION OR ASK QUESTIONS FOR NON SCHEDULED OPEN MIC REPORTS.

THE COUNCIL MAY LISTEN, HOWEVER, BECAUSE NO NOTICE OF THE SUBJECT OF THE OPEN MIC REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE.

THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT PROHIBITS DISCUSSION OR DECISION BY THE COUNCIL ON NON SCHEDULED ITEMS. AS A RESULT, THE COUNCIL MAY ONLY PROCEED AS FOLLOWS ON NON SCHEDULED ITEMS PROPOSED TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

MAKE A STATEMENT OF FACTUAL POLICY OR A RECITATION OF EXISTING POLICY.

SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO DIRECT ALL REMARKS AND QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE AND NOT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER.

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING ABUSIVE, PERSONAL, IMPERTINENT, PROFANE OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS.

ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THE COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE CHAMBER.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.

COPIES OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY SECRETARY.

OKAY. AND OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS VIA PHONE.

IF IF STAFF CAN PULL UP THE CALLER AND LET ME KNOW WHEN THEY'RE AVAILABLE.

I THINK I'M HERE. IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU'LL HAVE 4 MINUTES.

YEAH. MY NAME'S STEPHEN DILLON AT 1004 ABBOTTS LANE.

NO SMALL SECRET THAT I'VE BEEN KIND OF UNHAPPY WITH YOU GUYS THROUGHOUT THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF OR SO, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU ALL DO FOR US AND ALL YOU ALL WILL DO FOR US AND MAY DO FOR US.

I'M KIND KINDA LOOKING FORWARD INSTEAD OF LOOKING DOWN AND THEN AND I KNOW YOUR JOB AND THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE AND SO I'LL KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET TONIGHT.

I KNOW YOU ALL ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE HOLIDAYS AND EVERYBODY, SO I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A HAPPY HOLIDAYS WITH YOUR FAMILY AND AND AND WE'LL SEE YOU ALL WHEN THE YEAR COMES BACK.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL TAKE CARE NOW.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DONNA ZOLLNER.

GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU'LL HAVE 4 MINUTES.

DANA ZOELLNER SIX 1016 M.

EMORY. GOOD EVENING.

MY SECOND TIME AT THIS PODIUM WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO REMEMBER THAT THEY REPRESENT THE CITIZENS OF DENTON.

I TOOK THE TIME TO WATCH THE VIDEO OF THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CLOSING OF BELL.

I WAS OPTIMISTIC WHEN MR. MCGEE SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE MORE PUBLIC INPUT IN THE STAFF EXPLANATION OF NOTIFICATIONS.

IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE APPROXIMATELY 300 RESIDENTS NEAR TWU WERE THE ONLY ONES FORMALLY CONTACTED.

IN THE ENSUING WEEKS, IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT MANY CITIZENS, OTHER THAN JUST THE FEW SURROUNDING T.W.

ROUTINELY USE BAIL AND ARE MOSTLY UNAWARE OF YOUR PLANS.

[03:20:05]

THE EASY ALTERNATIVE ROUTES OF LOCUST MINGO AND RUDEL, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION AT THAT MEETING, CONFIRMED THAT CURRENTLY THESE WERE LESS THAN IDEAL ROUTES.

AT THIS TIME, MR. BECK INDICATED THAT CLOSING BELL SHOULD BE THE LAST STEP AFTER IMPROVING THESE ROADS.

BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY FINAL STEPS TO CLOSE A PUBLIC STREET AT THE EXPENSE OF A MINIMUM OF $600,000 TO THE TAXPAYERS WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE IT.

I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU SEND LETTERS TO ALL THE CITIZENS NOTIFYING THEM OF YOUR INTENT, THE COST AND THE STEPS THAT ARE IN PLACE TO IMPROVE MINGO, RUDEL AND LOCUS BEFORE BELLE CLOSES.

IF YOU HAVE NO PLANS TO IMPROVE THESE ROADS BEFORE THE CLOSURE, THAT'S ALL THE MORE REASON THAT THE TAXPAYERS DESERVE THIS INFORMATION BEFORE THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR LOSING PUBLIC ACCESS TO ACCOMMODATE A NON TAXPAYING INSTITUTION.

YOU MIGHT ALSO WANT TO REVIEW SECTION 249 OF YOUR CODE OF ETHICS BECAUSE THE MAJOR RATIONALE OF YOUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION SEEMS TO BE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF DENTON.

AND I STILL HAVE TIME.

SO I'M GOING TO READ ONE OF THE RESPONSES ON A PETITION THAT WE'VE HAD SIGNED AS A STUDENT OF TWU COMMUTES TO SCHOOL PERMANENTLY.

CLOSING BELL WILL CAUSE A LOT OF ISSUES FOR BOTH COMMUTERS LIKE ME AND OTHER DRIVERS WHO ARE TRAVELING ACROSS DENTON.

WE ALREADY SAW THE ISSUES WE HAD WHEN THEY CLOSED BELL FOR CONSTRUCTION A FEW YEARS AGO, SO WE CAN ALREADY TELL THAT CLOSING IT PERMANENTLY WILL RESULT IN UNIMAGINABLE TRAFFIC JAMS. IT WILL ALSO CALL PEOPLE TO DRIVE THROUGH NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS TO CONNECT, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE DANGER OF ACCIDENTS INVOLVING CHILDREN IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. I THINK THAT'S WHY BELL SHOULD STAY OPEN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND MS..

HOPE SMITH. HENCE.

HELLO. IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU'LL HAVE 4 MINUTES.

YES. HOPE SMITH ADDRESS IS 160 EAST VISTA RIDGE MALL DRIVE IN LEWISVILLE, TEXAS.

I AM HERE THIS EVENING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MY CHURCH, MOUNT PILGRIM SEEING ME CHURCH IN SOUTHEAST DENTON.

REGARDING THE CURRENT ROAD.

CURRENT ROAD WORK THAT HAS DIRECTLY IMPACTED OUR MEMBERS, SEVERAL OF WHOM ARE IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT FROM JUNE 2020 TO THE PRESENT.

WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SEVERAL INTERRUPTIONS THAT HAS AFFECTED OUR WORSHIP SERVICES ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, FROM WARM WEEKS TO INTERNET OUTAGES AND GAS LEAKS. BY THE GRACE OF GOD.

NOTHING DEADLY HAPPENED.

ALL OF THESE SITUATIONS HAVE RESULTED IN OUR SERVICES BEING CANCELED, BOTH IN-PERSON AND OR ONLINE.

THESE INCONVENIENCES HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING AND OVERALL UNACCEPTABLE.

WHILE ROAD WORK IS NEEDED, IT SHOULD BE DONE WITH AS MINIMAL INTERRUPTIONS AS POSSIBLE.

YES, WE ARE A CHURCH, BUT WE'RE ALSO A PLACE OF BUSINESS WHEN WE ARE FORCED TO LEAVE OUR SERVICES DUE TO CARELESS WORK.

IT IMPACTS US FINANCIALLY AND PUTS A BURDEN ON US TO HANDLE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.

MANY OF OUR MEMBERS, INCLUDING MYSELF, DO NOT LIVE IN THE CITY OF DENTON.

SO IMAGINE IF YOU WERE EITHER ATTENDING CHURCH OR A BUSINESS AND YOU HAVE TO DRIVE NEARLY AN HOUR ROUNDTRIP JUST TO FIND OUT THAT THE SERVICES WERE CANCELED DUE TO THE NUMBER OF ISSUES FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.

I KNOW YOU WILL NOT BE HAPPY AND YOU TOO WOULD BE IN THE SAME SITUATION TALKING TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

IN ADDITION TO THE WORSHIP SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, THE APPEARANCE OF THE CHURCH FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKS LIKE A CONSTRUCTION SITE WITH THE FRONT YARD TORN UP, LANDSCAPE DESTROYED, AND CURRENTLY A PORTION OF OUR PARKING LOT CANNOT BE USED DUE TO ADDITIONAL WORK THAT WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO OUR CHURCH.

ALSO, THE STREET IS AWFUL AND YOU FEAR OF TEARING UP YOUR CAR.

OVERALL, IT'S BEEN A COMPLETE MESS.

LET'S BE COMPLETELY REAL FOR A SECOND.

PROMINENT CHURCHES AND OTHER COMMUNITIES IN DENTON WOULD NOT HAVE THEIR CHURCH LOOKING THE WAY OURS DOES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

THE HOPE IS THAT YOU CAN TRULY UNDERSTAND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE AND EXPERIENCE HOW WE FEEL.

[03:25:01]

WE HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY PATIENT AND OTHER MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS TO CITY STAFF AND TO THE MAYOR VIA EMAIL.

PLEASE LET THIS BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT TO DO BETTER GOING FORWARD WHEN WE'RE ROAD WORK AND NEIGHBORHOODS IS BEING DONE.

THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE MY CONCERNS.

GOT IT. YEAH. NO.

AND JUST ANY QUESTIONS.

SO AND THEN I'M TOLD STAFF REACHED OUT TO YOU AS WELL.

AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONTACT FOR HER AND THE PASTOR TO CONTACT.

THERE'S FUTURE ISSUES IS THAT HE DID YESTERDAY AND HE'S HERE IN THE CITY ENGINEER GENERAL MANAGER OF ALL THIS.

SHE'S GOING TO LOOK INTO IT AND SEE SOME I KNOW SOME OF IT'S ATMOS AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE YOUR LAWN AREA AND EVERYTHING GETS PUT BACK THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

AND WE'LL CERTAINLY, IF I NEED TO, I CAN CALL JOHN MEGAN ELLIOTT AT AMAZON AND SEE WHAT I NEED.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH.

AND WE HAVE QUESTIONS.

MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NO, I JUST WANTED TO DO WHAT YOU AND THE CITY MANAGER JUST DID.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THAT MISS SMITH GOT PUT IN CONTACT WITH THE RIGHT DEPARTMENT HEADS, JUST LIKE YOU ASK.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. MAYOR AND MISS CITY MANAGER. MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE DIALOG AND CONVERSATION GOING.

SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. GOT IT.

YEAH. AND MY ONE TAKEAWAY IS I THINK IF WE CAN MAKE SURE ON FRIDAYS THAT WE HAVE A REGULAR CHECK IN WALKING STRICT BECAUSE YOUR POINT IS VALID, I MEAN, SUNDAY, NO ONE'S WORKING. IT'S HARD TO GET IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE, THAT SORT OF THING.

SO IF WE CAN HAVE A CHECK IN ON FRIDAYS AT SOME KIND OF REGULAR INCREMENT THAT THEN SAY, HEY, ALL'S WELL IS WELL AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING WE'RE NOT WORKING ON SATURDAY OR SUNDAY, SO NOTHING SHOULD BE DISTURBED.

BUT IF WE CAN JUST HAVE THAT CHECK IN ON FRIDAYS TO MAKE SURE AND THAT'S JUST I'M BIASED.

I USED TO DRIVE TO DALLAS FOR CHURCH AND I COULDN'T IMAGINE RIGHT GETTING THERE AND BE LIKE, HEY, WE'RE CLOSED.

I'M LIKE, WHAT? SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

AND WE'LL WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO INTERNALLY AND TO OUR CONTRACTORS, MAKE SURE WE GET THAT CORRECTED.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. AND THEN THE NEXT SPEAKER IS PAM BOEHNER, IS THAT RIGHT? YES. MARY, THAT'S PAM SPOONER.

YES. 513 CHATEAU COURT.

THAT'S IN DISTRICT TWO.

MY COMMENTS TONIGHT ARE ABOUT SAFETY, WHICH IS AS STATED BY BOTH COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF IN SEVERAL RECENT DISCUSSIONS AS BEING THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY.

THE NUMBER ONE GOAL OF THE MOBILITY PLAN IS, QUOTE, PRIORITIZE SAFE TRAVEL.

THAT IS A NOBLE GOAL AND IS ACCOMPLISHED AND SUPPORTED IN MANY WAYS.

BUT ACTIONS ALWAYS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

AND THE DIRECTION FIVE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY WITH TWO OPPOSED GAVE ON 18TH OF OCTOBER TO CITY STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT TO CLOSE BELL TO THROUGH TRAFFIC DOES NOT PRIORITIZE PUBLIC SAFETY.

IN FACT, IT ACHIEVES THE VERY OPPOSITE.

THIS DOES NOT SHOW CONCERN, REGARD OR INTEREST IN THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, WHO, WITH THE CLOSING OF BELL, WOULD NOW BE FORCED TO DRIVE ON ROADS THAT ARE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THIS BODY TO BE DANGEROUS.

MINGO UNIVERSITY, ELM AND LOCUST.

TODAY, BELL HAS THE SAME TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES THAT ARE IN PLACE ON THE STREETS BORDERING EVERY DENTON ISD CAMPUS, MARKED CROSSWALKS, SIGNAGE, FLASHING LIGHTS, TRAFFIC LIGHTS IN APPROPRIATE PLACES, AND 20 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMITS.

YOU HAVE DEEMED THESE MECHANISMS AS APPROPRIATE FOR ALL SCHOOLCHILDREN FOR THEIR SAFETY.

BUT BY CLOSING BELL TO TAXPAYERS IN VEHICLES AND SCHOOL BUSSES AND CITY BUSSES, YOU'RE DECIDING THAT TWU STUDENTS AND STAFF WHO ARE ALL ADULTS SOMEHOW NEED EXCEPTIONAL PROTECTIONS IN EXCESS OF THOSE GIVEN TO CHILDREN, ACCORDING TO ACCIDENT REPORTS SUPPLIED TO YOU BY THE CITY ENGINEER IN THE 18TH OF OCTOBER MEETING, THERE HAD BEEN NO VEHICLE, PEDESTRIAN NOR VEHICLE BICYCLE INCIDENTS IN THE PAST TEN YEARS IN THE AREA THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY TO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS, AS STATED BY THE TWU STAFF IN THE OCTOBER SIX ZOOM SESSION.

THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO INCIDENTS IS A RESULT OF THE PROCEDURE WORKING.

BUT THE INCIDENT REPORTS INVOLVING VEHICLES THE PAST TEN YEARS ARE IN THE HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS, FOR THE SUGGESTED DETOUR ROUTES OF MINGO UNIVERSITY, ELM, LOCUST AND FROM SHERMAN ALONG GREENWOOD TO UNIVERSITY.

THE COUNCIL MUST BE COGNIZANT AS YOUR PROGRAMATIC APPROACH DEMANDS.

IN OTHER WORDS, ONE ACTION LEADS TO ANOTHER THAT SENDING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AWAY FROM A SAFE STREET TO A PERILOUS ONE IS NOT PUTTING SAFETY FIRST FOR ALL WHO DRIVE NORTH OR SOUTH IN DENTON.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS KRISTEN BRAY.

[03:30:12]

HELLO? MIKE. WORKING GOOD? YES. ALL RIGHT.

CHRISTINE GRAY, 1204 CORDELL, I WANTED TO VOICE SOME THANKS AND FRUSTRATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO.

FOR THOSE WHO WERE NOT THERE AT THAT MEETING, A EXTREMIST PROVOCATEUR, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE HIS WORDS.

THOSE ARE NOT MY WORDS. THAT'S HOW HE DESCRIBES HIMSELF, WHO HAS USED OUR COUNCIL MEETINGS IN OUR TOWN AS A PLACE TO FILM CONTENT THAT DIRECTS HATRED AT LGBT PEOPLE, OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR SMALL BUSINESSES.

GAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS GIVEN DURING A PUBLIC HEARING AND IT DID NOT RELATE TO THE ITEM IN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ANY OTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA, BUT WAS INSTEAD ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO USE THIS PODIUM HERE TO DIRECT HATRED TOWARDS OUR COMMUNITY.

MAYOR PRO TEM BECK, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT HIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF COUNCIL RULES AND REQUESTING THAT HE NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE OUR COUNCIL MEETINGS AS A DUMPING GROUND FOR HIS AGENDA.

I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

MAYOR HUDSPETH, I WANTED TO EXPRESS DISAPPOINTMENT IN YOUR DECISION TO ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW OTHER SPEAKERS TO SPEAK ON ITEM ITEM B DURING PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM A, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF COUNCIL PROTOCOL.

I DO APPRECIATE YOUR CONSTANT ATTENTION TO DETAIL ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

I THINK 90% OF THE TIMES THAT PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE IS VIOLATED IN THIS MEETING.

YOU'RE THE ONE TO POINT IT OUT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO DETAIL ON THAT.

HOWEVER, THE PROVOCATEUR WAS NOT SPEAKING ON ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA AT ALL, AND HIS SPEECH WAS CIRCULATED ONLINE, LEADING TO TARGETED BIGOTRY AGAINST MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THEIR SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS DENTON IN DENTON'S BEST INTEREST TO USE A MINOR PROTOCOL VIOLATION FROM SOME OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO ALLOW A MAN WHO DOES NOT LIVE HERE, WHO HAS REPEATEDLY USED THIS DAIS TO PROVOKE HATRED IN THIS COMMUNITY AND ALLOW HIS HATEFUL SPEECH TO CONTINUE.

THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO I WANT TO SAY I TAKE YOUR POINT.

AND IF THAT'S YOUR TAKEAWAY, AS MY APOLOGIES TO YOU, I TRY TO DO THE BEST I CAN WHEN I CAN, BUT NO DIFFERENT THAN JUST NOW.

IT'S THERE'S A MOVE, A LOT OF MOVING PARTS THE RULES SAY YOU CAN'T ADDRESS INDIVIDUALLY AND BUT I JUST TRY TO KEEP IT FLOWING.

RIGHT AND SO AND BUT BUT BUT BUT ABSOLUTELY NOTED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

YEP COUNCILMAN COUNCIL MEMBER THAT'S I'M MR. JOHN BANKS IF YOU CAN COMING UP I'M SPEAKING THAT ON YOU.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM IS.

JOHN BARNES 424.

NORTH RIDGE DENTON 76201.

YES. HONORABLE MAYOR HUDSPETH DISTINGUISHED COUNCIL MEMBERS.

OUR CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY.

I FEEL PRIVILEGED TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT ON THE CLOSING OF BELL AVENUE.

MY OFFICE MANAGER FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS, GLORIA HOUSE.

SHE ENCOURAGED ME TO COME AND SPEAK AGAINST THE CLOSING.

I TOLD HER I SHOULDN'T SAY TOLD.

I MENTIONED TO HER THAT I KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND THEREFORE I CAN NEITHER SAY THAT I'M FOR IT OR AGAINST IT.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY REQUEST.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO FEEL REASONABLY INFORMED, I FEEL EMBARRASSED THAT I'M UNINFORMED ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

AND I WOULD MAKE A REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INPUT, THAT YOU PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE CITIZENRY ABOUT THIS ISSUE SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT.

I HAD THE DISTINCT PRIVILEGE OF CHAIRING THE COMMITTEE FOR KEEPING OR REMOVING THE CONFEDERATE MONUMENT.

I CHAIRED THAT COMMITTEE FOR TWO YEARS AND WE HAD A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZENS TO COME FORTH AND PROVIDE INPUT.

AND EVEN THOUGH SOME DID NOT FEEL WE CAME TO A GOOD DECISION, I FELT THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE A WONDERFUL DECISION.

AND SO I ASK THE SAME OF MY COUNCIL.

AS A CITIZEN OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR 40 YEARS.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHERS HERE AS WELL WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME INPUT THAT YOU WOULD USE AND MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PROVIDE THIS INPUT.

I THINK WE HAVE A WELL, IT'S NOT POSTED.

SO COUNCILMEMBER MCGEE, IS IT A POINT JUST A QUESTION FOR YOU, OK CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

[03:35:02]

THIS WILL AGAIN COME BACK TO COUNCIL AT A PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT? I'LL ASK.

OR MADAM CITY MANAGER.

IT WILL COME. IT'S AN ORDINANCE.

IT'LL COME BACK AS AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE.

AND AT THAT TIME, THERE WILL BE OPTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC TO GIVE THEIR INPUT AS WELL.

SO I'M HIGHLIGHTING THAT IF YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION OR IS THAT RIGHT? OR PUBLIC HEARING? IT'LL BE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION UNLESS THE PUBLIC UNLESS THE COUNCIL DIRECTS TO HAVE A HEARING I GUESS.

YEAH. SO IT'LL.

WHAT THEY, WHAT HE ASKED AND WHAT THEY SAID IS WILL BE, IT'LL COME BACK AS AN ACTION TO BE, TO TAKE ACTION BUT THERE WILL BE A COMMENT PERIOD LIKE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION MEANS YOU'VE GOT TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK BEFORE VERSUS PUBLIC HEARING WHERE YOU CAN JUST SPEAK WHETHER YOU SIGNED UP OR NOT.

EITHER WAY, IT'LL IT'LL COME BACK BEFORE THERE'S AN ACTION TAKEN BECAUSE THE PLAN IS NOT FULLY BAKED, IF YOU WILL.

SO IT'LL COME BACK SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT IT IS THAT'S PROPOSED AND THAT.

AND THEY'LL HAVE VISUALS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, I ASSUME, THAT SORT OF THING.

SO YES, IT'LL COME BACK AND I TAKE.

AND I THINK WE ALL TAKE YOUR POINT THAT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE WE HAVE AN ANSWER FOR WHAT WHAT PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HAD THUS FAR, THUS FAR, AND WHAT'S COMING FORWARD.

SO I THINK THAT'S FAIR.

THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IN THE LAST OPEN MIC IS DONNA SMITH.

YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

YOU HAVE 4 MINUTES.

I'M DONNA SMITH AND MY ADDRESS IS 3920 FOR YELLOWSTONE.

AND I DO APPRECIATE EVERYONE BEING HERE TONIGHT.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS.

AND I'M A GRANDMA.

I HAVE FOUR BEAUTIFUL LITTLE GIRLS AND I LOVE THE CITY AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SOME WHAT I'M GOING TO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF LAWLESSNESS AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

SO SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED TO, QUOTE, CALL OUR CITY A SANCTUARY FOR ABORTION.

IT'S VIRTUE SIGNALING.

I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.

BUT IT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE FACT THAT IT IS IT IS A NATIONAL ISSUE AND A STATE ISSUE.

BUT YET WE WANT TO DO THAT.

SO RECENTLY, WE ALSO, THE VOTERS DID WE PASSED AN ORDINANCE TO DECRIMINALIZE SOME MARIJUANA ISSUES.

AND SEVERAL ON THE COUNCIL ARE FOR IT.

YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? THAT'S A FORM OF LAWLESSNESS.

NOW, CHILDREN HAVE NOT JUST OUR CITY, BUT ALL OVER STRUGGLE WITH PEER PRESSURE AND THOSE THINGS.

SO BY ALL THE ADULTS SAYING, HEY, IT'S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.

HOW MANY MORE CHILDREN ARE GOING TO GET INVOLVED WITH MARIJUANA THAT COULD LEAD TO OTHER THINGS.

AGAIN, ADULTS SAYING, LET'S JUST DECRIMINALIZE THAT.

NOT A BIG DEAL.

SO WE HAD THAT.

THEN WE HAD JUST RECENTLY SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT WAS ALSO CONCERNING.

WE HAD A GROUP OF ADULT MEN.

DRESSED IN LINGERIE.

READING BOOKS TO CHILDREN THAT WERE AH, THAT WERE GUARDED.

BY ARMED GUARDS.

REALLY? REALLY. IT HAPPENED IN OUR CITY.

IT WAS ON NOVEMBER 19TH.

ADULT MEN, ADULTS WEARING LINGERIE.

WE'RE READING BOOKS TO CHILDREN AND WE'RE GUARDED.

BY PEOPLE WEARING MASKS WITH WEAPONS.

NOW, I DID LOOK IT UP AND APPARENTLY IT'S ACTUALLY OKAY TO HAVE YOUR FACE COVERED WITH A MASK AND CARRY A WEAPON.

I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE IT, BUT APPARENTLY IF YOU'RE A GROWN MAN AND YOU WANT TO WEAR LINGERIE AND YOU WANT TO READ BOOKS TO CHILDREN, YOU NEED TO TAKE WITH YOU ARMED GUARDS TO BE SURE YOU GET IT DONE.

IS NOBODY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CHILDREN IN THIS CITY? WE WANT TO MAKE IT DECRIMINALIZED SO YOU CAN KILL A BABY.

WE WANT OUR CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF MARIJUANA.

[03:40:02]

AND I DON'T KNOW. ARE WE GOING TO GIVE THEM A TICKET? ADDICTIONS ARE SERIOUS AND VERY REAL.

PEOPLE LOSE THEIR WHOLE LIVES ON DRUGS.

I HAVE DEAR FRIENDS WHO'VE WATCHED THEIR CHILDREN BECOME ABSOLUTELY HOMELESS, HOPELESS, HELPLESS.

AND AND WE AS ADULTS, WE'RE LIKE, IT'S JUST A LITTLE MARIJUANA.

THEY WON'T GET INTO HEROIN OR FENTANYL OR ANY OF THOSE OTHER THINGS.

I SURELY HOPE WE DON'T START WANTING TO DECRIMINALIZE THOSE TWO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC OPEN MICS.

WELL, I THINK THAT WAS SEVEN.

YEAH. LET'S SEE. YEAH, THERE'S FOUR HERE AND THEN THREE.

DYLAN BERG AND.

DO WE HAVE ONE? YEAH, BUT IT MAY BE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OPEN, MIKE.

LET'S SEE. BEAR WITH ME ONE SECOND.

YEAH. YEAH, BUT IT'S.

YEAH. ON INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. GOTCHA. MISS KIMBLE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

THAT TAKES US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

AND JUST PLEASE NOTE THAT.

ITEM GET IN QUEUE HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTES G, T, AND Q.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

YEAH. YEAH.

T WAS PULLED, RIGHT. I THOUGHT I HAD TO TAG.

WERE DAVIS BEING RECUSED AND Q WAS WATTS.

THAT'S MY FAULT. I TURNED IN A RECUSAL FOR FORM FOR T, BUT I DID NOT MENTION T DURING THE DURING THE WORK SESSION I JUST MENTIONED.

G OR.

YEAH. Q SO IS THAT WE FORGET OC OK COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, ACCEPTING ITEMS GQ AND T K.

MAYOR PRO TEM I'LL SECOND THAT COUNTS SO MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

AND THEN I HAVE TO DO A VOICE VOTE.

GET THERE. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

HOW SAY YOU? HI.

MAYOR PRO TEM. HI.

COUNCILMAN BYRD I COUNCILMAN MCGEE I COUNCILMAN WHAT I MAY HUDSPETH AS I AS WELL THAT PASSES SIX ZERO TAKES US TO THE FIRST ITEM G.

[G. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement between the City of Denton and the University of North Texas for the expenditure of sixty-one thousand nine hundred and ninety dollars ($61,990) for the purchase and commissioning of sculptures of Abner Haynes and Dr. Leon King and corresponding steel name arches; and providing an effective date. The Parks, Recreation, and Beautification Board recommends approval (4-0). The Public Art Committee recommends approval (4-0).]

LET ME CALL THAT. AND THAT'S AD 221819.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS TO.

FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF $61,990 FOR THE PURCHASE AND COMMISSIONING OF SCULPTURES OF ALBERT HAYNES AND DR.

LEON KING AND CORRESPONDING STEEL NAMES.

ARCHES. MAYOR PRO TEM.

I MOVE APPROVAL HAPPILY TO HONOR THESE MEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE SECOND THET APPROVAL OK.

WE HAVE MOTION BY OUR MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION SEEING NONE.

MAYOR PRO TEM. HOW SAY YOU? COUNCILMAN MCGEE I COUNCILMAN BYRD I.

COUNCILMAN, WHAT'S.

MAYOR HUDSPETH IS AN I AS WELL THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS RECUSED HIMSELF.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM Q, WHICH IS ID 222423.

[Q. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the approval of a first amendment to a contract between the City of Denton and CBS Mechanical Services, Inc., dba CMS Mechanical Services, Inc., amending the contract approved by the City Council on January 14, 2020, in the not-to-exceed amount of $765,000.00; said first amendment to continue to provide plumbing repairs, installations and preventive maintenance in City of Denton buildings for the Facilities Management Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (IFB 7229 - providing for an additional first amendment expenditure amount not-to-exceed $191,250.00, with the total contract amount not-to-exceed $956,250.00).]

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HOMEROOM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND KBS MECHANICAL SERVICES INC, DBA, CMS, MECHANICAL SERVICES INC.

NO PRESENTATION AGAIN.

MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE SECOND APPROVAL OK MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCIL.

MCGEE ANY DISCUSSION?

[03:45:01]

SEEING NONE. MAYOR PRO TEM, I SAY YOU, COUNCILMAN MCGEE I.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS, I COUNCILMAN I AND MAYOR HUDSPETH IS I AS WELL.

THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNCILMEMBER WATTS RECUSED HIMSELF.

THAT TAKES US TO THE LAST ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WAS PULLED.

[T. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Denton County, under the Government Code, Chapter 791.001, to authorize the use of consolidated communication systems for public safety and governmental services for the City of Denton; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and declaring an effective date (File 8083 - award an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Denton County, in the five (5) year not-to-exceed amount of $991,536.00).]

ITEM T IS IN, TOM AND THAT'S ID 222457.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, A TEXAS HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE, EXECUTE AND INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH DENTON COUNTY UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

CHAPTER 791.001.

AND MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE SECOND APPROVAL.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BECK, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. MAYOR PRO TEM, I SAY YOU.

HI, COUNCILMAN MCGEE I COUNCILMAN BYRD.

COUNCILMAN WATTS.

HI, MAYOR HUDSPETH IS I AS WELL? LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS RECUSED ON THAT ITEM.

AND THAT TAKES US TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 18 "Motor Vehicles and Traffic", Article III "Speed of Vehicles", Section 18-73 "Speed Limits on Certain Roads and Highways", “City Streets”, “University Campus Streets”, "School Zones", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, to change the locations, extent, and speed limits of certain city streets and speed zones in the vicnity of a school; providing a repealer clause; providing a savings clause; providing a severability clause; providing a penalty clause; providing for publication; providing codification; and providing an effective date.]

THE FIRST OF WHICH IS ITEM A.

ID 221901.

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ARTICLE THREE SPEED OF VEHICLES SECTION 18 DASH SEVEN THREE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN ROAD ROADS AND HIGHWAYS.

MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ON BREAK.

MEANWHILE, THE DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND WE'RE HERE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UPDATE ON THE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN ROADS AND HIGHWAYS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

SOME BACKGROUND IS ON OCTOBER OR SEPTEMBER 27TH, WE HAD A WORK SESSION ITEM PRESENTING THE RESULTS OF OUR 2022 CITY WIDE SPEED STUDY, AND WE PROVIDED RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT CHANGES ON CERTAIN ROADWAYS BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY.

ONE HIGHLIGHT THAT SOME OF THESE ROADWAYS THAT WE STUDIED MORE TEXT THAT ROADWAYS AND WE NEED TEXT APPROVAL ON THOSE.

THOSE ARE CURRENTLY IN REVIEW.

SO THIS ORDINANCE UPDATE DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE ROADWAYS.

THOSE WILL COME BACK AS A SEPARATE ITEM IN THE FUTURE.

ON OCTOBER 18TH, WE HAD A FOLLOW UP WORK SESSION DISCUSSION ON ADJUSTING SPEED LIMITS ON RESIDENTIAL ROADWAYS AND THE ITEM WE LEFT AT THE WORK SESSION.

SO THE OVERVIEW OF THE CHANGES IS THAT WE ARE UPDATING THE ROADWAYS STUDY ON THE 2022 CITYWIDE SPEED STUDY.

WE'VE SEPARATED UNIVERSITY CAMPUS STREETS OUT OF THE CITY ORDINANCE AND PUT INTO A SEPARATE A SEPARATE TABLE FOR CAMPUS STREETS.

AND WE'VE ALSO REDONE THE SCHOOL ZONE TABLE TO UPDATE THE NEW SCHOOL ZONES AND BREAK IT DOWN TO A MORE UPDATABLE FASHION FOR THE FUTURE.

HERE IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE SPEED LIMIT CHANGES FOR THE GENERAL ROADWAYS.

HERE IS AN UPDATE.

THE TABLE FOR THE CAMPUS STREETS ON THE UNIVERSITIES.

AND HERE IS THE NEW TABLES FOR THE SCHOOL ZONES AND THE ASSOCIATED SPEED LIMITS FOR THEIR EXTENTS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.

GREAT QUESTIONS FOR FOR STAFF.

AND IF WE CAN PULL DOWN THE PRESENTATION THAT WAY, I CAN SEE.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF C.

C NONE. SO I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE HAD FILLED OUT A BLUE CARD, IF YOU CARE TO SPEAK, YOU CAN DO THAT AND THEN WE'LL FILL OUT THE CARD AFTERWARDS.

ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK? SEEING NO MOVEMENT.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ITEM TO GO AHEAD AS INDICATED BY STAFF COUNCILMAN BURT.

SECOND MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD.

ANY DISCUSSION, COUNCILMEMBER MCGEE.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

I REALIZE THE TEXTILE ROADS ARE STILL UNDER REVIEW.

ANY GUESS AT A TIME FRAME TO WHEN WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CORRESPONDENCE BACK WITH THEM? TEXTILES? YES. LAST TIME WE SPOKE WITH TEXTILE, THEY SAID ANYWHERE FROM 6 TO 9 MONTHS FROM WHEN WE SUBMITTED TO THEM.

SO WE SUBMITTED TO THEM IN SEPTEMBER.

SO HOPEFULLY SPRING TIME, WE'LL HAVE SOME ANSWERS BACK.

SPRING. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN BURKE, I JUST HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL QUESTION.

CAN YOU TELL US HOW WE SEE THE NUMBERS HERE AS TO WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING AND SUGGESTING THAT THE SPEEDS BE ON THESE ROADS? HOW DOES THAT COME TO FRUITION?

[03:50:02]

I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD THE STUDY, BUT HOW TELL US HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE MADE.

WHY IS THIS ROAD 20 MILES PER HOUR? WHY IS THAT ROAD 35 MILES PER HOUR? THAT WAS ALL PART OF THE WORK SESSION THAT WE DID IN SEPTEMBER 27.

WE STUDY THE ROADS.

WE MAKE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE 85TH PERCENTILE TRAVEL SPEEDS, THE SAFETY OF THE ROAD AND THE CRASH DATA ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROADWAYS, THE UNIVERSITY STREETS. WE SEPARATED THAT BECAUSE THAT IS A POLICY DECISION BY THE COUNCIL TO LIMIT SPEED LIMITS WITHIN THE UNIVERSITIES TO 20 MILES PER HOUR.

SO WE SEPARATED THAT AS A SEPARATE TABLE BECAUSE THAT'S A POLICY DECISION, NOT AN ENGINEERING DECISION AT THAT POINT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND SO MAKE SURE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM I SAY YOU.

COUNCILMAN BYRD. I COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE I.

COUNCILMAN, WHAT'S I? MAYOR HUDSPETH IS AS WELL.

THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND TO FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW, WE WE DO TRANSLATE THESE MEETINGS INTO SPANISH LIVE.

AND SO SOMETIMES I GET AHEAD OF MYSELF, AND I WAS GOING SUPER FAST EARLY SO I TRY TO SLOW DOWN ON PURPOSE IF YOU NOTICE, JUST SO THEY CAN I CAN MAKE THEIR JOB EASIER.

SO THAT'S IF YOU CATCH ME TALKING TOO FAST, SAY SOMETHING.

SO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS ITEM B, WHICH IS DC A220007 HOLD A PUBLIC

[B. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending the Denton Development Code, specifically amendments related to Sections 8.3.2C.1 Access, 7.8.10 Cross Access between Abutting Development, 8.3.2A.4 Double Frontage Lots and Driveways, Sections 5.2 and 8.3.2A.11 Access to a Site Across a Property, and Section 8.3.2A.6 Driveway Spacing; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof; providing a severability clause and an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted [7-0] to recommend approval of the amendments. Motion for approval by Vice-Chair Smith and second by Commissioner Villarreal. (DCA22-0007a, Access Requirements and Cross-Access, Ron Menguita)]

HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SECTION 8.3.2 C DOT ONE ACCESS 7.8.10 CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN ABUTTING DEVELOPMENTS AND NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO DON'T FORGET. THANK YOU AGAIN.

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RON MCGILL, PRINCIPAL PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS IS A CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, AND THE REASONS FOR THE REASON FOR THE CODE AMENDMENT IS TO REQUIRE TWO FULL ACCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT, CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS THAT MEET A THRESHOLD.

THE IDEA HERE IS TO IMPROVE SITE CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY AS WELL AS PUBLIC SAFETY.

I WANT TO NOTE THAT THE DCA DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE MET ON FOUR SEPARATE DATES, SPECIFICALLY TO TALK ABOUT THE SECTIONS THAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE RIGHT. I'LL GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE SECTIONS.

THE FIRST ONE IS RELATED TO SECTION EIGHT, THREE TO C ONE, IN WHICH AT LEAST TWO FULL POINTS OF VEHICLE ACCESS IS REQUIRED PROPOSED INTO A DEVELOPMENT.

WE'VE BROKEN THIS DOWN INTO TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OR TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES RESIDENTIAL USES AND NON RESIDENTIAL USES WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USES.

IF THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MEET THAT TWO POINT OF ACCESS, THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

WITH NON RESIDENTIAL, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A WAIVER REQUEST TO THE CITY ENGINEER AND AGAIN FOR CLARIFICATION TO FULL I'M SORRY FULL ACCESS IS INGRESS AND EGRESS INTO THE PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO THE ACCESS REQUIREMENT AND STAFF ALSO INCLUDED A NUMBER OF ACCESS RELATED CODE AMENDMENTS.

WE WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION AND MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WE PROPOSED EARLIER IN THE ORIGINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

SO THAT'S WHAT'S SHOWN HERE ON THIS SLIDE.

IN ADDITION, WE ALSO ARE AMENDING OR PROPOSING TO AMEND DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS WHERE WE'RE ALLOWING.

TO ACCESS, NOTING THAT ANY OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS SHALL STILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE FIRE CODE, AS WELL AS THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL.

IT'S BEEN YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD AN CODIFIED POLICY.

WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD THAT POLICY INTO THE CODE IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS WHEREBY FULL ACCESS TO A SITE ACROSS THE PROPERTY MUST OCCUR THROUGH A ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS THAT PROPOSED USE.

SO AGAIN, THE TWO SECTIONS ARE 5.2 AS WELL AS EIGHT 3 TO 8.11.

THIS IS THE THE LAST SECTION OF THE CODE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, A CODE AMENDMENT.

WE ARE ADDING CLARIFICATION.

THAT DRIVEWAY SPACING SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED WHEN DESIGNING A SUBDIVISION SPECIFICALLY FOR CORNER LOTS.

[03:55:03]

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE CORNER LOTS HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS BY MEETING THE SETBACK IN SPACE AND REQUIREMENTS PER THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL, THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED SEVEN ZERO TO THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS AS WELL AS STAFF AS IT MEETS THE SECTION TWO 740 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IN REGARDS TO CODE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED.

WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT CARES TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE OF ME, YOU CAN COME DOWN.

I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS.

YOU CAN SPEAK AND THEN FILL OUT A CARD AFTER THE FACT.

IF THERE'S ANYONE SEEING NO MOVEMENT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND QUESTIONS.

COUNCILOR, WHAT'S. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

RON RECEIVED AN EMAIL THAT WAS ADDRESSING THIS SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM, AND IN MORE PARTICULARITY, THE 30 UNIT, I GUESS, LEVEL AS FAR AS REQUIRING TWO ENTRANCES.

AND THE EMAIL AT LEAST REPORTED THAT THEY WERE IN TOWN HALL MEETINGS AND DEVELOPER MEETINGS WHERE IT WAS SPECIFIED AT 200.

BUT THEN I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE IT DROPPED TO 30.

SO IT WAS 30 PART OF THE PRESENTATION TO THE DEVELOPERS AND THINGS SUCH AS THAT.

SO WE DID MAKE A PRESENTATION TO.

DURING THE TOWN DEVELOPMENT TOWN HALL.

I DON'T THINK WE GOT TO THE SPECIFICS.

30 COMES FROM THE FIRE CODE SO THAT 30 THRESHOLD, WE BASICALLY FOLLOWED WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE FIRE CODE IN TERMS OF THAT THRESHOLD.

OKAY, SO THE 30 COMES FROM THE FIRE CODE, CORRECT? AND I NOTICED ON THE LET ME PULL THE PRESENTATION UP HERE ON THE ON MY COMPUTER.

I NOTICED THAT ON LOTS THAT WERE 20,000 OR LESS, I BELIEVE IT WAS THAT YOU THAT THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, AS FAR AS THE TWO INGRESS IS INGRESS, DID NOT APPLY.

AND LET ME PULL THAT UP.

IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THOSE LOTS, THE SIZE TOO SMALL.

AND WE FELT THAT 20,000 WAS AN ACCURATE OR APPROPRIATE AMOUNT IN WHICH ANYTHING ABOVE THAT 20,000 WOULD REQUIRE THAT TWO FULL POINTS OF ACCESS, ANYTHING LESS WOULD NOT HAVE TO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

SO I GUESS THEN MY QUESTION BACK ON THE THE LIMITATIONS.

SO IT DOES COME FROM THE FIRE CODE, BUT WAS THAT PRESENTED AT THE MEETINGS THAT THAT WAS THAT WAS THE THRESHOLD THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED? OR WAS THERE SOME OTHER THRESHOLD PRESENTED OR WAS THERE NO THRESHOLD PRESENTED? MY MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THERE WAS SOME GENERAL DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T THINK WE GOT INTO THE THRESHOLDS, PARTICULARLY, HOWEVER, AGAIN, BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD WITH THE CCRC, THE THRESHOLD WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE AT 30 DWELLING UNITS.

OKAY. AND SO THOSE DECISIONS WERE MADE AFTER.

WERE ALL YOUR MEETINGS COMPLETE AFTER THOSE DECISIONS WERE MADE, OR WERE THEY STILL AND IN PROCESS THEY WERE COMPLETED.

THEY WERE COMPLETED. OKAY.

SO JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

OKAY. SO WE WE HAD MEETINGS WITH DEVELOPERS AND TOWN HALL MEETINGS TO GO OVER THESE PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS.

IN GENERAL, IT SOUNDS LIKE.

CORRECT. ONCE THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE D, R, T, C, OR D, R DCR SHE HAD NEVER GET THAT RIGHT.

THOSE WERE NEVER COMMUNICATED BACK THROUGH THAT SAME PROTOCOL OR THAT SAME PROCESS.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

I RECALL THAT WE DID TALK ABOUT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, BUT VERY GENERAL.

THE MEETINGS HELD WITH THE DCA IS WHERE WE SPENT MOST OF WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING IN REGARDS TO THE CODE AMENDMENTS.

SO ANY INPUT WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED DURING THOSE MEETINGS AND OR SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE MEETINGS.

OKAY. SO THEN JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

SO WHEN WE HAVE THESE TOWN HALL MEETINGS IN GENERAL WITH DEVELOPERS, WE SAY, HEY, LET'S GET TOGETHER, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS AND WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.

IS THAT IS THAT AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PROCESS? HEY, COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS, TINA FERGUSON'S DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

SO TO RON'S DEFENSE, HE WAS NOT AT THE DEVELOPER TOWN HALL.

I WAS SO I WAS THE ONE WHO GAVE THE OVERVIEW AT THAT TIME, GIVEN ALL THE WORK WE HAD GIVEN THE DEVELOPERS AND OVERVIEW OF THE VARIOUS CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE BEING PROPOSED, WE DID NOT GO INTO ALL OF THE DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

I RECALL WE DID HAVE ONE MEMBER ASK A QUESTION FOR SOME CLARITY RELATED TO THIS TOPIC OF WHICH WE ADDRESSED.

SO WITH WITH RESPECT TO THE EMAIL THAT YOU RECEIVED, BECAUSE I WAS COPIED ON IT AS WELL, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS STRUCTURED IS THAT THE APPLICANT STILL HAS THE ABILITY TO PURSUE A VARIANCE IN THE DDC FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IF THEY FEEL THAT THEIR PROJECT CANNOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN IT.

AND THERE WAS EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE ABOUT WHERE THE APPROPRIATE ENTITIES WOULD BE TO GRANT RELIEF.

[04:00:07]

AND SO BEING THAT WE AMENDED THE DDC EARLIER THIS YEAR AND ESTABLISHED THAT VARIANCE PROCESS, THAT VARIANCE PROCESS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO SOMEONE IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY COULD NOT SATISFY THE TWO FULL POINTS OF ACCESS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

NO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I THINK THAT THAT ANSWERS THAT COMPONENT OF THE QUESTION.

I GUESS IN THE DISCUSSION, IT SORT OF RAISED AN ISSUE, NOT AN ISSUE, BUT AN OBSERVATION AND SORT OF I WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION ON IT, BECAUSE WHAT I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD EVERYBODY TO SAY WAS HAD THESE MEETINGS PRESENTED SORT OF THESE GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET FEEDBACK OR JUST LET THE COMMUNITY KNOW, LET THE DEVELOPERS KNOW, HERE'S SORT OF WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE ROAD.

AND CERTAINLY IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK, LET US KNOW.

AND THEY WERE GENERAL IN NATURE EXCEPT FOR THIS SPECIFIC ONE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF A SPECIFIC QUESTION.

BUT THEN ONCE THE CRC MAKES SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THESE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED, GENERALLY WE DON'T GO BACK OUT AND THEN SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DECIDED ON.

WHAT IS YOUR INPUT BASED UPON THIS? WHICH REALLY IS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE IMPORTANT PART BECAUSE THE GENERAL CONCEPT IS A GENERAL CONCEPT.

AND THEN SO HOW DO THEY GET FEEDBACK BACK TO YOU ALL? OR HOW DO YOU GET OUT THE MESSAGE THAT THE MEETING WE HAD HERE ARE THE GENERAL CONCEPTS.

NOW WE'VE DECIDED SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE AND HERE'S WHAT THEY ARE AND HERE'S HOW YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR FEEDBACK.

I MEAN, WHAT'S IN PLACE FOR THAT PROCESS? WELL, SO ANY TIME WE DO ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SO SOMEONE WHO'S INTERESTED IN ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON HAS THE ABILITY TO REACH OUT TO US ANY TIME, AS WELL AS ALSO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.

IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS, GIVEN THE TIMING OF THE AMENDMENTS AND COMING OUT OF THE CRC, WE DID SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC OR WITH THE DEVELOPERS AT OUR TOWN HALL THAT THE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRING TWO POINTS OF FULL ACCESS IN AND OUT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD SEVERAL MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS HERE LATELY THAT HAVE COME THROUGH P AND Z AND COUNCIL WHERE WE'VE BEEN QUESTIONED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ADEQUATE ACCESS HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

SO THAT WAS SHARED AT THE DEVELOPER TOWN HALL.

I CAN'T TELL YOU IF THIS PERSON WAS IN ATTENDANCE OR NOT.

I KNOW WE ALSO RECORDED THE MEETINGS AND MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE AS WELL.

SHOULD THEY WANT TO LISTEN TO IT? NO, NO, BUT WE DID WE DID GIVE THAT INFORMATION.

SO THERE'S YOU KNOW, IT'S AN EXCHANGE.

WE TRY TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHEN WE'RE WORKING ON THESE AMENDMENTS.

WE WE SHARE THIS INFORMATION.

WE MAKE IT AVAILABLE WITH ALL OF OUR AGENDAS THAT ARE POSTED ON ONLINE.

IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, WE GIVE THEM EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO.

TO US AS WELL. SO WE TRY TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE, KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND AGAIN, THE SPECIFIC ISSUE I'VE I'VE I'M REALLY OKAY WITH THAT.

THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

AND NOTHING IS AN ISSUE. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND FROM WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY, IS THAT YOU DID HAVE A TOWN HALL MEETING AND YOU DID GO OVER THE SPECIFICS OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE, OF COURSE, IT'S ALL A PUBLIC HEARING.

PEOPLE CAN COME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I THINK IF WE GO SPECIFICALLY OUT OF OUR WAY TO MEET WITH PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THAT PROCESS TO GET THEIR INPUT AND TO GET SOMETHING FROM THEM OR TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH THEM.

AND IT'S NOT COMPLETE.

AND THEN WE COMPLETE IT.

IF WE STARTED TO DOWN THAT ROAD TO GIVE THEM THAT INFORMATION, I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT LIKE YOU SAID YOU DID IN A TOWN HALL MEETING.

SO MY MY QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED.

I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE PROCESS AS FAR AS THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT WAS ANSWERED EARLY IN THE PRESENTATION.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR FOR YOUR INFORMATION.

YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN BECK AND MAYOR PRO TEM BETTE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO I'LL POINT OUT THAT I THINK THE THE CRC, IT WAS FOUR MEETINGS WE HAD, RON, ON THIS TOPIC OR THREE OR FOUR MEETINGS OR MEETINGS.

AND SO WE WENT THROUGH THAT.

AND THEN AS AGAIN, AS I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, OUR OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'D DONE THAT DEEP DIVE WHERE COUNCILOR DAVIS CHAIRS THAT COMMITTEE AND WE, WE REALLY GOT INTO THE WEEDS ON ALL THESE ISSUES AND WORKED OUT THROUGH THROUGH THAT COMMITTEE.

THEN THEY TOOK THAT BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THAT PUBLIC THAT WAS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

SO, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS COULD BE MADE TO YOU, TO THE DCA C, TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

SO THERE WAS ONE THE TOWN HALL.

SO ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX MEETING, FIVE OR SIX MEETINGS.

SO I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE WAS OBFUSCATING OR, OR TRYING TO BE UNCLEAR IF THAT'S IF THAT'S A PROBLEM, WE CAN WE CAN WORK ON THAT

[04:05:10]

FURTHER. BUT I THINK THERE WAS AN HONEST AND FAIR FAITH ATTEMPT BY ALL THE COMMITTEES TO TO TO MAKE THAT REALLY, REALLY CLEAR.

OKAY. MAYOR, CAN I RESPOND? LOOK, IN JUST JUST ONE MOMENT.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS HAS BEEN WAITING IN QUEUE.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS, THANK YOU.

I'LL BE PRETTY BRIEF JUST ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH THE POINTS OF ACCESS.

I'LL ECHO WHAT TINA SAID, AND THAT IS THAT THAT MORE THAN ONE POINT OF ACCESS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND FOR PEOPLE COMING TO VISIT, PEOPLE GETTING IN AND OUT IN THE MORNING AND IN THE EVENINGS.

THAT HAS BEEN A BONE OF CONTENTION ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ZONING CASES, SOME OF THEM MULTIFAMILY AND SOME OF THEM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BIG SUBDIVISIONS, SMALL SUBDIVISIONS.

IT'S SOMETHING WE TALK ABOUT AS A COUNCIL, WHICH IS WHY WE TOOK IT UP AND THEN SPECIFICALLY KIND OF IN THE WITH THE EMAILS COMING FROM ON THE MULTIFAMILY CONTEXT.

THE ONLY CHANGE IS THAT IT'S FULL ACCESS.

SO THE FIRE CODE OVER 30 HAS ALWAYS REQUIRED I CAN'T SAY ALWAYS, BUT THE FIRE CODE REQUIRES SOME LEVEL OF SECONDARY ACCESS, EVEN IF IT'S JUST A CLICK OR GATE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR THE POLICE CAN GET THROUGH.

THE ONLY CHANGE HERE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO POUR ANY NEW CONCRETE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY NEW ACCESS.

THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CONCERNS.

YOU MIGHT HAVE TO NOW BE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT SOME TURN LANES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY CHANGE ON THAT POINT OF ACCESS THAT I THINK AFFECTS THE THE PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT SOMEBODY'S EMAILED ON.

IT'S NOT THAT BIG A CHANGE.

IT'S WE THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE SEEN COMING THROUGH AND THE PROJECTS WE ANTICIPATE COMING THROUGH.

AND AGAIN, FOR THE KIND OF PROJECTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE PERSON WHO EMAILED.

IT'S NOT NEW CONCRETE, IT'S ONE LESS CLICK OR GATE OR WHATEVER THEY HAD INTENDED THERE.

IT'S IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE PLANNING WITH THE STREET WITH HOW THAT TIES INTO THE CITY STREETS.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S NOT NOT THAT ONEROUS A CHANGE.

I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE MR. SCOTT MCDONALD THEN COUNCILMAN WATTS AGAIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THESE POINTS AND VERY MUCH SO, WE TRY TO COMMUNICATE VERY EFFECTIVELY WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING.

I THINK A MORE EFFECTIVE TOOL IN THIS IS THAT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE HAVING A PUBLIC MEETING HERE TONIGHT, WE HAD ONE AT P AND Z IS THAT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE DCA PROCESS AFTER WE RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND INPUT, DCA MAKES ANY CHANGES, WE CAN SEND THAT BLAST OUT.

SO WE'LL NOTIFY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY OF WHAT IT IS THAT'S PROPOSED FOR DCA AND WHAT WILL BE GOING BEFORE P AND C HAVE PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL AS COMING BEFORE THIS BODY AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'LL COMMUNICATE MORE EFFECTIVELY IN THE FUTURE.

AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WATTS WAS LOOKING FOR.

COUNCILMAN WHAT? YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S AMAZING WHEN PEOPLE HEAR ONE THING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S BEING SAID.

IN NO WAY AM I ACCUSING ANYBODY OF OBFUSCATING ANY ISSUE.

I SIMPLY ASKED A SIMPLE QUESTION OF WHEN THE CRC MAKES A RECOMMENDATION, IF THEY'VE GONE OUT TO PEOPLE AHEAD OF TIME TO GET GENERAL INFORMATION, DO THEY GO BACK AND PROVIDE THEM WITH THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION PRIOR TO ANY PUBLIC HEARING? WE UNDERSTAND WE ALL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

I UNDERSTAND P AND Z, BUT IF THAT'S ALL WE STOOD FOR, I JUST HEARD FOUR PEOPLE TALK TODAY THAT THEY NEEDED MORE PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR CERTAIN ISSUE, AND I DON'T THINK THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SO I'M JUST SIMPLY SAYING I GOT MY ANSWER.

IN NO WAY WAS I IMPUGNING ANYONE.

IN NO WAY WAS I SAYING SOMETHING WAS DONE WRONG.

I APPRECIATE SCOT YOUR YOUR INFORMATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO IT ANY BETTER.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DID WHAT YOU NORMALLY DO, AND THAT IS LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE CHANGES WERE MADE.

SO THAT WAS THE THRUST OF MY QUESTION.

IT WASN'T ANY KIND OF ACCUSATORY OR ANY KIND OF CRITICISM.

SO I JUST I HOPE PEOPLE CAN JUST LISTEN A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

TO WHAT'S BEING SAID, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT STAFF, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK SITTING ON A CLOSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING JUST IN CASE, HASN'T DONE THAT ALREADY.

AND. MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT. AND COUNCILWOMAN DAVIS, SECOND.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS AND THE OTHER DISCUSSION SEEING NONE.

MAYOR PRO TEM HOW SAY YOU, COUNCILMAN DAVIS? COUNCILMAN BYRD I COUNCILWOMAN MCGEE I COUNCILMAN WATTS.

HI. MAYOR HUDSPETH IS I AS WELL THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

AND JUST SO THAT EVERYONE'S TRACKING ALONG, LET ME SEE.

OH, NO. GOT IT.

[04:10:01]

SO WE HAVE WE'RE OPEN.

WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THOSE YOU CAN SPEAK ON AT ANY POINT, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION.

THAT'S THAT SECTION SIX OF THE AGENDA.

ANYTHING FROM A TO H.

IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT, YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT THE BLUE CARD BEFORE I CALL OUT THAT ITEM.

AFTER I'VE CALLED THAT ITEM, YOU'RE NOT.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND I'M GOING TO STAND FIRM ON THAT FAIR WARNING.

SO ANYTHING FROM A TO H IN SECTION SIX, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT, YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT THE BLUE CARD BEFORE I GET TO THAT SECTION.

CALL THAT NUMBER ONCE WE CALL THAT NUMBER.

THAT WOULD CONCLUDE THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE.

TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM C, WHICH IS Z22016B, HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER

[C. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification from Planned Development Residential 7 (PD-R7) to Residential 6 (R6) District on approximately 21.013 acres of land generally located west of Lane Street and Mockingbird Lane and north of the terminus of Trailhead Lane, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; adopting an amendment to the City’s official zoning map; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof; providing a severability clause and an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted [6-0] to recommend approval of the request. Motion for approval by Commissioner McDade and second by Commissioner Pruett. (Z22-0016b, Oak Vista, Julie Wyatt)]

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT AND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SEVEN TO RESIDENTIAL SIX DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 21.013 ACRES OF LAND.

GOOD EVENING. WE SHARE THE SCREEN.

HI, I'M JULIE WYATT, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF DENTON, AND I AM PRESENTING Z 2216 B OAK VISTA TO YOU TONIGHT.

SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS A REZONING OF 21 ACRES.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN BLACK ON YOUR SCREEN.

IT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF MCKINNEY, WEST OF LOOP 288 AND JUST NORTH OF DUTCHESS.

IF YOU CAN SEE DUTCHESS DRIVE RIGHT HERE.

THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM PDR 7 TO 1 OF OUR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH IS OUR SIX TO REMOVE OVERLAY RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF A REZONING REQUEST IN 29 2018.

SORRY, THOSE OVERLAY CONDITIONS WERE BASED UPON A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN, IF YOU WILL, THAT ULTIMATELY DID NOT DEVELOP AND SO THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH DUPLEXES.

AND THOSE THOSE OVERLAY CONDITIONS ARE AFFECTING THAT POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.

THOSE CONDITIONS WERE PRIMARILY PRIMARILY RELATED TO USE DENSITY AND ACCESS.

SO USE IT RESTRICTED THAT USE TO MULTIFAMILY TOWNHOUSES.

NOW OUR CURRENT DEBT DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITION FOR THAT USE, SO IT'S CREATING A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION AS FAR AS APPLYING THAT A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF SIX DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN ABOUT 126 UNITS.

AND THEN THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ACCESS IN 2018 WHEN THE ZONING CASE WENT FORWARD.

AND SO THERE WAS A CONDITION THAT A PROPOSED NORTHERN ACCESS DRIVE TO MCKINNEY STREET WOULD WOULD BE EMERGENCY ONLY.

THAT CONCEPT PLAN JUST HAD ONE VEHICULAR ACCESS POINT TO TRAILHEAD TO THE SOUTH, AND THEY NEEDED TO MEET THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE.

AND SO THAT THAT WAS THE RESULT OF THAT.

AND AS I MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH DUPLEX USES CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST TONIGHT.

THE APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR REZONING REQUEST IS IN SUBCHAPTER TWO OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE.

STAFF HAS ANALYZED THE REQUEST AND IS HAS DEEMED THAT IT MEETS THAT CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND THAT INCLUDES CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DENTON 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT'S A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, AS YOU HAVE OUR SIX JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS OUR SEVEN TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND THEN ANY USES WITHIN OUR SIX IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

WOULDN'T INTRODUCE ANY INCOMPATIBILITIES AND REZONING WOULD JUST ALLOW IT TO DEVELOP IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DENTON 2040 PLAN DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY IS MODERATE RESIDENTIAL THAT IS INTENDED FOR FOR ABOUT 5 TO 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND APPLIES TO CENTRAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBJECT SITE.

THE PERMITTED USES DEVELOPMENT SCALE AND DENSITY WITHIN OUR SIX IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE PROPOSAL IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OUR HOUSING GOALS TO PROVIDE THAT VARIETY OF HOUSING WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON.

AND THIS THIS REQUEST WOULD REALLY JUST REMOVE THOSE THOSE OVERLAY CONDITIONS AND ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP WITH THOSE PERMITTED USES IN R SIX AT THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT SCALE, THAT R SIX ALLOWS AND R SIX ALLOWS.

SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TOWNHOME DUPLEX TRIPLEX AND FOURPLEX DWELLINGS.

[04:15:06]

PUBLIC OUTREACH WAS SENT OUT.

WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS IN.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION OR NO? JUST TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO. SO, JULIE, THIS IS ONE OF THESE UNUSUAL CASES WHERE WE'RE ON ZONING, ESSENTIALLY, AS IT WERE.

WELL, THIS THE CURRENT ZONING WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER OUR 2002 DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND IF YOU RECALL, THAT HAD THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROTECTION OVERLAY THAT YOU COULD PUT OVERLAY CONDITIONS ON A ZONING CASE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2019 DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT TRANSITIONED TO THAT.

PD AND SO YES, IT'S SORT OF UNDOING THOSE THOSE OVERLAY CONDITIONS TO ALLOW IT JUST TO DEVELOP UNDER CURRENT STANDARDS.

AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT EXACT POINT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED AS AS THE COMMON TERM IS UNDER THE OLD CODE, AND THAT BECAUSE OF THIS ZONING REVERSION REQUEST OR CHANGE TO THE NEWEST VERSION OF R SIX, THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO FOLLOW THE NEW STANDARDS IN OUR CODE AS IT IS NOW.

IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, IT IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED AND THAT YOU DO HAVE THIS USE THAT'S KIND OF UNDEFINED.

AND SO APPLYING THOSE REGULATIONS WOULD BE CHALLENGING.

BUT THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE 2019 CODE DOES SPEAK TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE NEEDS AND IT REALLY DOES WANT ALL OF THOSE OVERLAY NEEDS TO DEVELOP UNDER CURRENT STANDARDS IF POSSIBLE, GIVEN THAT THOSE OVERLAY CONDITIONS MIGHT RESTRICT THAT DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT IS IT IS A LITTLE CHALLENGING TO TO APPLY IN THIS INSTANCE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF ACCESS AND THAT USE, IT'S JUST IT MAKES IT A LITTLE FUZZIER.

SO THEY BUT THEY WOULD BE FOLLOWING OUR CURRENT INGRESS EGRESS RULES AND ON OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL AND TREE CODE AND CURRENT VERSIONS OF EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

AND WE'VE TALKED WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT ACCESS.

WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO SEE IS IS A PUNCH OUT TO THE TO THE EAST SO THAT THEY CAN ULTIMATELY CONNECT TO MOCKINGBIRD.

MOCKINGBIRD IS AN ARTERIAL THAT'S GOING TO EVENTUALLY CONNECT TO MCKINNEY.

AND SO WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS TO ESTABLISH THAT GOOD THAT GOOD CIRCULATION WITHIN THIS GENERAL AREA.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU BET. COUNCILMAN BURT, I WASN'T CLEAR ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE SOLD OR IS THIS A LEASING PROCESS? THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT OWNERSHIP.

THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT INCLUDES LOTS OWNED FEE, SIMPLE AND DEDICATED STREETS. NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'LL BE OWNED EVENTUALLY THOSE LOTS, BUT IT WILL HAVE DEDICATED STREETS NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS TO THE CITY.

AND. AND.

INDIVIDUAL LOTS FOR THOSE DUPLEXES.

TELL ME WHAT. WHAT DOES EMERGENCY ACCESS.

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE IF IT'S GOING TO GO NORTH TO MCKINNEY, OF COURSE, MY CONCERN IS SO MANY APARTMENT COMPLEXES ON MCKINNEY STREET WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MCKINNEY STREET.

SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT AND OUR TRANSPORTATION GROUP REGARDING THAT, BECAUSE PUNCHING THROUGH TO TO MCKINNEY, THROUGH THAT CHURCH PROPERTY WASN'T IDEAL BECAUSE OF THAT.

BECAUSE OF THAT, ALL OF THE THE TRAFFIC ON MCKINNEY AS WELL AS JUST IF THERE WERE IF CHURCH WAS GETTING OUT OF SERVICE.

AND SO WHAT WE REALLY ARE WANTING TO SEE IS THAT CONNECTION TO MOCKINGBIRD TO ALLOW A FULL VEHICULAR ACCESS, NOT JUST EMERGENCY ONLY, BUT TO ALLOW RESIDENTS AS WELL AS EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO TO ACCESS THE SITE.

IT'LL ALSO SET IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL CONNECTIVITY IN THE FUTURE.

AND OF COURSE, WITH THAT PARTICULAR ACCESS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WANTING TO PUNCH THROUGH TO MOCKINGBIRD, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST ANOTHER APARTMENT.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ON MCKINNEY STREET.

SO I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY ABOUT SEVEN OF THEM RIGHT ABOUT NOW BETWEEN WOODROW AND 288.

THERE'S A LOT OF A LOT OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES COMING UP OVER IN THAT AREA.

BUT SO, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF IF IF IT'S OKAY, CAN WE BRING THE GENTLEMAN UP NOW OR, YOU KNOW, FOR A QUESTION OR TWO OR DO WE NEED TO WAIT MAYOR ON SOMETHING OR.

[04:20:07]

NO, I JUST, I JUST I'M GOING TO TAKE SOME LIBERTY AND WARN HIM ANYTHING HE SAYS CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST HIM.

RIGHT. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION FOR FOR ZONING.

IF HE CHOOSES TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD AND IT COMES BACK TO GET HIM, THAT'S HIS CHOICE.

IF HE CHOOSES NOT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD, THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE.

AND IT'S A STRAIGHT ZONING CASE.

AND WE HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE BASED ON ZONING ONLY.

BUT IF HE WANTS TO OPEN THE DOOR, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP HIM.

WELL, I'M CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO PRESSURE, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING FOR HIM TO SAY ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING THAT HE WANTS.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

SO I'M SORRY.

MY NAME IS ROBERT ZOELLICK WITH ENGINEERS AT 1111 SOUTH MAIN STREET IN GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, AND I'M THE APPLICANT ON THE PROJECT.

MAYOR HUDSPETH, I APPRECIATE THE WARNING.

YES, SIR. AND UNFORTUNATELY, I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

I'M TRYING TO COOPERATE, BUT YOU MAY BE AHEAD OF OUR SCHEDULE.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ASK A QUESTION.

NO, NO, SIR, I DON'T.

I DO NOT WANT TO GET AHEAD OF ANYTHING.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS JUST A BIT CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT'S COMING AHEAD.

BUT THAT'S OKAY.

WE CAN CERTAINLY WAIT UNTIL THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

I'M OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK? YOU COULD DO SO.

FILL OUT A BLUE CARD AFTER THE FACT.

ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY. SEE? NONE.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'LL TAKE A MOTION OR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

LIKE COUNCILMAN BURT OK MOTION APPROVED BY COUNCILMAN BYRD.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS. SECOND MOST OF MY COUNCILMAN BYRD SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE COUNCILMAN BYRD YOU.

I COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

I COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

I MAYOR PRO TEM I.

COUNCILMAN WHAT'S RIGHT.

AND MAYOR HUDSPETH IS AS WELL.

THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM D, WHICH IS

[D. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, approving a Specific Use Permit to allow for a new monopole tower no more than 150 feet in height on approximately 4.37 acres of land, located south of Barcelona Street, approximately 300 feet west of the intersection of Barcelona Street and Mesa Drive, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; adopting an amendment to the City’s Official Zoning Map; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof; providing a severability clause and an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted [7-0] to recommend approval. Motion for approval by Vice-Chair Smith and second by Commissioner Cole. (S22-0003b, Speed of Light, Sean Jacobson)]

S22003B, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR NEW MONOPOLE TOWER NO MORE THAN 150 FEET IN HEIGHT ON APPROXIMATELY 4.37 ACRES OF LAND.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL SEAN JACOBSON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER HERE TO PRESENT SE 20 2-003B SPEED OF LIGHT.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A BROADBAND TOWER NOT TO EXCEED 150 FEET ABOVE GROUND OR 871 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.

AND THIS IS ON BARCELONA STREET.

THE TOWER PROS WOULD BE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AN EXISTING BUILDING WITHIN THE MA ZONING DISTRICT.

A TOWER EXCEEDING 85 FEET IS PERMITTED WITHIN SUP.

HOWEVER, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS WITHIN THE AIRPORT HEIGHT HAZARD DISTRICT, WHICH LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES TO 810 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.

SO SHOULD COUNCIL APPROVE THIS WITH CONDITIONS, THE CASE WOULD THEN NEED TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THEIR REVIEW WOULD BE BASED ON THE APPLICANT HAVING RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE FAA DETERMINING THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT AIRPORT OPERATIONS.

AND THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE SUCH A LETTER.

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THE PROPOSED TOWER SOUTHWEST CORNER.

IT WILL HAVE A WOOD FENCE AROUND IT.

IT DOES MEET ALL OF OUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM RESIDENTIAL USES.

AND AT THE TOP THERE, OMNIDIRECTIONAL LIGHT WHITE STROBE DURING THE DAY, RED BLINKING LIGHT AT NIGHT AS REQUIRED BY THE FAA.

OF COURSE, WE ALWAYS NEED TO CONSIDER OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THIS AREA IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION CALLS FOR IS HAVING ADEQUATE ACCESS TO INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THIS WOULD IN FACT HELP TO PROVIDE BETTER COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND IN ADDITION, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR US TO WORK WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS TO ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP THERE, THE INCREASE IN THE ASKED FOR WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE BROADBAND COVERAGE FOR DENTON AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.

SO THIS DOES ALIGN WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

IN TERMS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THERE IS A MIX OF USES SURROUNDING THIS, BUT THE NEAREST SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS ABOUT 0.2 MILES AWAY, 0.3 MILES TO THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THE TOPOGRAPHY IN BETWEEN DOES LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF POWER THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE VISIBLE.

THE ONLY LIGHTING IS AS REQUIRED BY THE FAA.

IT IS MONOPOLE RATHER THAN A LATTICE TOWER, WHICH LIMITS THE VISUAL IMPACT AS WELL AS THE WIDTH GOING FROM THREE FOOT WIDE TO ONE FOOT ONE.

[04:25:03]

AND FINALLY, THE TOWER DOES COMPLY WITH MANY OF THE VOLUNTEER GUIDELINES FROM US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR MINIMIZING NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WILDLIFE.

SO OVERALL, THIS DOES MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

WE DID SEND OUT OUR NOTICES AND RECEIVED NO RESPONSE AN OBJECTION.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID VOTE 7 TO 0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH STAFF CONDITIONS.

THOSE CONDITIONS PRIMARILY RELATE TO THE NEED TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOLLOWING APPROVAL IN ORDER TO GET THEIR APPROVAL FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER TO EXCEED OUR AIRPORT HEIGHT HAZARD DISTRICT LIMITATIONS BASED ON A PROVISION OF THE FAA LETTER DETERMINING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE AIRPORT.

SO WITH THAT, THAT IS MY PRESENTATION.

HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MARY. AND THIS MAY BE SOMETHING TO ANSWER OFFLINE LATER ON, BECAUSE MY MAIN CONCERN IS JUST WHETHER WE HAVE A LEGAL QUIRK THAT APPLIES JUST TO THIS CASE OR IF IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT OVERALL.

IT'S KIND OF UNUSUAL, ISN'T IT, THAT WE HAVE A CONDITION THAT THEY SEEK APPROVAL FROM ANOTHER ONE OF OUR QUASI JUDICIAL BOARDS AT A LATER TIME? I DON'T HONESTLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE ZBA HAS THEIR ROLE AND WE'VE GOT OUR ROLE.

WE'VE GOT THE ZONING ROLE.

AND THEN THEY'VE GOT ALONG WITH P AND Z AND THEN THEY'VE GOT THE VARIANCE ROLE.

BUT CAN YOU THINK OF AND I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT CAN YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO SEND SOMETHING TO ZBA FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVAL AFTER AN SUP IS GRANTED? IS THAT IS THAT UNUSUAL? DOES IT MIGHT TAKEN CRAZY PILLS.

THAT JUST SEEMS UNUSUAL.

AND IF THERE'S A FLAW IN OUR PROCESS OR SOMETHING WE NEED TO FIX IN OUR CODE.

THAT'S MY MAIN QUESTION.

NOT NOT AS IT IMPACTS THIS THE VOTE TONIGHT, BUT JUST MAKING SURE WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT AT A LATER TIME.

TINA FERGUS IS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

SO GREAT QUESTION.

AND I KNOW THIS ISSUE CAME UP WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS WELL.

IT DOES SEEM KIND OF LIKE A QUIRK AND SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK INTO FURTHER.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN MY EXTENSIVE CAREER WHERE I'VE HAD THIS TYPE OF SITUATION THAT COMES TO MIND.

I BELIEVE IF I HAD TO HAZARD A GUESS ON WHY THE ORDINANCE WAS STRUCTURED THE WAY IT IS, IS THAT NORMALLY IF SOMEONE WAS NEEDING A RELIEF TO A PROVISION WITHIN THE CODE, THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE MEANS TO GRANT THIS.

BUT HERE ALSO WE HAVE THIS SITUATION WHERE THE COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO PRESUMABLY MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION ON FROM A LAND USE STANDPOINT RELATED TO A TOWER HEIGHT.

SO I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IN THE CODE AT A LATER DATE.

BUT AS IT RELATES TO THIS REQUEST, IF COUNCIL DOES FIND THAT THE TOWER HEIGHT IS APPROPRIATE, THEN TO ME IT SEEMS TO BE MORE OF A ALMOST LIKE A MINISTERIAL FUNCTION, IF YOU WILL, WITH THE ZBA.

WE DO HAVE THE LETTER OF DETERMINATION FROM THE FAA THAT IT IS ALLOWED TO BE AT THIS HEIGHT.

SO IT WOULD BE MORE OR LESS CHECKING THE BOX ON THAT WITH THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

BUT YOU DO RAISE AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION AS WELL.

SO I'M NOT CRAZY. YOU'RE NOT CRAZY.

AND WE HAD TO WORK THROUGH IT MULTIPLE TIMES OURSELVES AND CONSULT WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THAT ONE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. AND JUST IF STAFF FEELS IT'S NECESSARY TO WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO BRING UP AND TALK ABOUT AT A FUTURE TIME IF WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING COMING UP AS DEVELOPMENT INCREASES IN THE AIRPORT AREA, THEN MAYBE JUST LET US KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD TAKE UP.

THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAD WAS A COMMENT THAT FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAY BE FOLLOWING ALONG.

ANOTHER THING, I THOUGHT I WAS CRAZY.

I THOUGHT WE HAD VOTED ON THIS ALREADY.

WE DIDN'T. WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND WE ENDED UP NOT.

THEY ASKED FOR A SHORTER POLL AT A DIFFERENT TIME, DID NOT GET FINAL APPROVAL ON THAT.

AND THEN HERE THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE THE FAA GAVE THEM A TALLER POLE THAN THEY EXPECTED THEY'D BE ABLE TO GET.

SO HERE WE ARE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THAT.

SO HAVE I GOT THAT BASICALLY CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THANKS.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? FOR THOSE TRACKING ALONG.

I JUST ALWAYS HAVE TO DO THE CONVERSION.

SO 150 FEET IS 50 YARDS, SO HALF A FOOTBALL FIELD UP.

JUST FOR VISUAL PURPOSES, I JUST I ALWAYS HAVE TO CONVERT EVERYTHING IN THE YARDS.

SO IT'S ON A WAY THAT DOESN'T GO IN OTHERWISE.

OK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION OR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL.

COUNCILMAN BURT. SECOND MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD.

ANY DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM, I'LL SAY.

YOU ALL RIGHT? COUNCILMAN BYRD I COUNCILWOMAN MCGEE I COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, I.

COUNCILMAN WATTS.

AND MAYOR HUDSPETH IS AS WELL.

THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

TAKES US TO OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

[E. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification from a Rural Residential (RR) Zoning District to a Light Industrial (LI) Zoning District on approximately 29.9354 acres of land, generally located east of Lovers Lane, approximately 1,808 feet south of the intersection of FM 1173 and Lovers Lane, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; adopting an amendment to the City’s Official Zoning Map; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof; providing a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted [7-0] to recommend approval of the request. Motion for approval by Vice-Chair Smith and second by Commissioner McDade. (Z22-0017b, Johnsrud Ranch Industrial, Sean Jacobson)]

[04:30:03]

E, WHICH IS Z220017B, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT AND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL OUR ZONING DISTRICT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 29.934 ACRES.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

AGAIN, SHAWN JACOBSON HERE PRESENT Z 20 2-017B JOHNS RIDGE RANCH.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM A RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT ON TWO TRACKS, ABOUT 29 ACRES, MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED, SOME AGRICULTURAL USES, AND A GAS WELL ON THE SOUTH TRACT.

SO AGAIN, WE LOOK AT OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

HERE IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHICH IS INTENDED FOR THOSE MANUFACTURING ASSEMBLY AND WAREHOUSE USES AND THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE LAND FOR MANUFACTURING, ASSEMBLY AND WAREHOUSE USES.

SO THERE'S AN ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

IN ADDITION, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR US TO ENSURE ADEQUATE LAND FOR FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY NONRESIDENTIAL LAND.

AND THIS ZONING WOULD HELP TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL BY PROVIDING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND.

ALSO NOTE THAT WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO WARRANT REZONING SINCE THIS WAS ANNEXED AND GIVEN A AN INITIAL ZONING 35 X AT THE TIME ARE NOW THERE'S SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN INDUSTRIAL USES AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN THE AREA.

IN ADDITION, OUR TEXT PLANS, MOBILITY PLANS SHOW THAT LOOP TO 88 EXTENSION WILL BE GOING THROUGH THIS AREA, WHICH WILL SUPPORT THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT OF USES THAT RELY ON A STRONG TRANSPORTATION NETWORK WITHIN THIS AREA.

SO THE CHANGES DO ALSO WARRANT THE PROPOSED REZONING.

SO OVERALL, THIS DOES MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

WE DID SEND OUT NOTICES AND RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION AND TWO IN FAVOR.

THE APPLICANT DID HOLD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND NOTES ON THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN YOUR BACKUP.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED SEVEN ZERO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS THIS MEETS OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT THIS CONCLUDES MINE AND I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

GREAT. THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND NOW LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE.

GO FORWARD. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS THOMAS FLETCHER.

I'M THE CONSULTANT FOR THE APPLICANT.

MY ADDRESS IS 6160 WARREN PARKWAY, FRISCO, TEXAS.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, APPRECIATE STAFF AND ALL THEIR ASSISTANCE ON THE PROJECT.

TO THIS POINT, SEAN WENT THROUGH VERY THOROUGHLY THE THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT I'VE GOT A QUICK PRESENTATION THAT I WILL GO THROUGH.

HERE IS THE OVERALL SITE.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF 380 WEST OF 35.

THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE TRACT IS ARE RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

BUT AS SEAN MENTIONED, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES SHOW THIS AREA IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN THE FUTURE.

THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THIS TRACK TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

THIS JUST SHOWS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND, USES THEIR CURRENT ZONING WITH THE CHANGE, AND THEN BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHAT IS SHOWN WOULD BE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR THIS AREA.

THE TRACKS THAT DO NOT HAVE ANY COLOR SHADING OR CURRENTLY IN THE DIVISION ONE EGG.

THIS PLAN SHOWS THE MOBILITY PLAN.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE EXTENSION OF LOOP TO 88 DOES GO THROUGH THIS TRACK.

WHEN WE LOOKED AT AND PUT THE REQUEST BEFORE WE DID PUT TOGETHER A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN, THIS IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE, BUT WE WANTED TO LOOK AT AND SEE HOW COULD THIS TRACK POTENTIALLY DEVELOP WITH THE IMPACTS OF LOOP 288.

THE TEXTILE IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THIS EXTENSION AND HAS BEEN IN NEGOTIATION IN CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE ACQUISITION AFFECTS PROBABLY A LITTLE OVER 25 BETWEEN 25 AND 30% OF THE OVERALL TRACK.

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE STILL IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN THIS CONCEPT PLAN.

WE SHOW THE GAS WELL IS CURRENTLY STAYING.

WE DO HAVE DETENTION DEVELOPMENT DOES GENERALLY CAUSE AN INCREASE IN RUNOFF AND THAT NEEDS TO BE MITIGATED.

SO WE WOULD DO THAT THROUGH ON SITE DETENTION AND THEN THERE WOULD BE WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SERVE THE PROPERTY.

AGAIN, THIS IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.

[04:35:03]

WE DID HAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

AS SEAN MENTIONED, THERE WERE FIVE RESIDENTS THAT ATTENDED.

TWO OF THE RESIDENTS WERE CURRENTLY LIVE JUST TO OUR WEST.

THE OTHER THREE ARE JUST TO THE SOUTH.

AND WITH THAT, I WOULD STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OK THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO. SO THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THOMAS FOR YOU OR FOR.

OR FOR SHAWN.

AND YOU ANTICIPATED MY QUESTION, AND THAT WAS THE 288 BYPASS ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AND SORT OF NOT JUST THAT, BUT THE COMBINATION OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY, COUPLED WITH THE THE SETBACKS FROM THE GAS.

WELL, HOW DO YOU I MEAN, I SAW YOUR CONCEPT PLAN, SO THAT PROBABLY ANSWERS A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS.

BUT I GUESS JUST JUST SORT OF MILD, NOT MILD CONCERN, NOT FOR THE REZONING, BUT FOR THE CONCEPT AS IT'S GOING FORWARD IN RESPECT TO THE 288 AND THE GAS WELL AND HOW THOSE INTERPLAY WITH YOUR DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

CAN YOU CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT? YEAH, I MEAN, THE WE REALLY WANTED TO AS WE LOOKED AT IT, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT AND SEE HOW WOULD LOOP 288 IMPACT THE TRACT.

IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STILL PUT TOGETHER A VIABLE LAND USE PLAN WITH THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING? AND WHAT WE DID FIND IS WITH THE GAS WELL, IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY, THE SETBACKS FROM A GAS WELL FOR A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE VARY FROM A RESIDENTIAL USE.

A LOT OF THE TRACKS OUT IN THIS AREA ARE EITHER UNDEVELOPED OR THEY'RE LARGER ESTATE LOT RESIDENTIAL.

WITH THE COMP PLAN AND THE CHANGE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THAT WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE USE ADJACENT TO A GAS.

WELL, NOW IN A LOT OF OUR PROJECTS, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS APPROACH THE GAS WELL OPERATOR AND SEE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE IN THE WELL, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD PROVIDE MORE DEVELOPABLE AREA AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT IMMINENT.

UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE EXTENDED.

WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

SO THAT'S KIND OF OUR THOUGHT PROCESS AS WE DEVELOP THE PROJECT AND DECIDED TO BRING THE ZONING FORWARD TO YOU TONIGHT FOR CONSIDERATION.

ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANKS. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

AND JUST IN CASE I HAVEN'T, I THOUGHT I DID, BUT JUST IN CASE I HAD NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

COMMENTS. SEE NONE.

ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YOU COULD DO SO WITHOUT FEELING THE CARD.

SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION OR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS SECOND.

MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

SEE YOU, COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE I COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD.

HI, COUNCILMAN.

WHAT'S. HI MAYOR HUDSPETH IS A I AS WELL THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[A. Conduct the second of two readings of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas annexing approximately 82.96 acres of land, generally located on the north side of Barthold Road approximately 1,300 feet west of Interstate 35 (I-35) into the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; providing for a correction to the city map to include the annexed land; and provide for a savings clause and an effective date. (A22-0002c, Barthold Road Voluntary Annexation, Ron Menguita)]

TAKES US TO OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

FIRST IS ITEM A AND THIS IS A220002C CONDUCT THE SECOND OF TWO READINGS OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 82.96 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BARTOW ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET WEST OF I-35 INTO THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, PROVIDING A CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY MAP, INCLUDING THE ANNEXED LAND.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

GIVE ME A SECOND TO PULL UP THE PRESENTATION.

THERE IT IS.

GREAT. AS I MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION, THIS IS THE SECOND READING FOR THE SUBJECT ANNEXATION, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT 82.96 ACRES OF LAND. THIS IS A ITEM THAT YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN PROBABLY APPROXIMATELY A MONTH OR SO AGO.

THIS IS THE FINAL ITEM FOR THE ANNEXATION PROCESS.

AGAIN, SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE IS WORTH THAT LOCATION OF THAT PROPERTY.

SO FOR THE RECORD, I WILL READ THE CAPTION OF THE ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 82.96 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BARTLE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET WEST OF INTERSTATE 35 TO THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, PROVIDING

[04:40:09]

FOR A CORRECTION TO THE CITY MAP TO INCLUDE THE ANNEXED LAND AND PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTION.

AND MAYOR. THIS ITEM DOES REQUIRE ACTION.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I HAVE NO SPEAKERS. I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

CATHERINE DAVIS MOVE APPROVAL.

OK AND MCGEE.

SECOND APPROVAL. MOST FROM ACCOUNTS FROM DAVIS.

SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN MCGEE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE COUNCILMAN DAVIS, ICU.

I SUPPORT MCGEE HI MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD I.

COUNCILOR WATTS.

MAYOR HUDSPETH AS I AS WELL THAT PASSES SIX ZERO AND THAT TAKES US TO ITEM B, WHICH IS

[B. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for acceptance of a restated Non-Annexation Agreement for an agricultural, wildlife management or timberland use property within an area of land adjacent to and abutting the existing city limits of the City of Denton, Texas, generally identified as a portion of PAA3, an area of approximately 1,075 acres located on the south side of Ganzer Road, north and south of Barthold Road, north of FM 1173, west of I-35; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.]

ID 222243.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR AN ACCEPTANCE OF A RESTATED NORTH ANNEXED NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR AND AGRICULTURAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OF TIMBERLAND USE PROPERTY WITHIN AN AREA OF LAND ADJACENT TO ABUTTING THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, GENERALLY IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF PA3M RAMS COUNCIL MCGEE PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH THE SERVICES.

THIS IS A ITEM RELATED TO THE ITEM I JUST PRESENTED.

THE AREA THAT YOU SEE HERE IN RED IS THE REMAINING AREA MINUS THE ANNEXATION THAT WAS RECENTLY CONSIDERED.

WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING HERE AND REQUEST IS TO APPROVE THE NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITHOUT THE AREA THAT IS THAT WAS ANNEXED. GENERALLY, THE NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT JUST CHANGES THE BOUNDARY.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE TERMS WITHIN THE NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SAY.

OKAY. QUESTIONS? JUST.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE? NONE. I WILL TAKE A MOTION.

CUSTOMER MCGEE. MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND COUNCILMAN BIRD? OK MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD DISCUSSION.

QUESTIONS OK COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

HOW SAY YOU? I COUNCILMAN BYRD I COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

HI, MAYOR.

PRO TEM. HI, COUNCILOR WATTS.

HI. MAYOR HUDSPETH.

IT'S AN I AS WELL THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

OKAY, MOVING ON TO ITEM C AGAIN, THIS IS THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION SEGMENT OF OUR AGENDA.

[C. Consider an appointment to City Council Committee: Community Partnership Committee.]

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CARD TO SUBMIT IT IF YOU CARE TO SPEAK ON THESE REMAINING REMAINING ITEMS BEFORE I CALL IT.

THIS IS THAT'S HOW IT'S DIFFERENT THAN A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE YOU CAN JUST SPEAK AT ANY MOMENT.

SO WE'RE TO ITEM C, WHICH IS ID 222435.

CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I'M PULLING MY PRESENTATION NOW.

I HAVE ONE PRESENTATION FOR THE REMAINING ITEMS. IF IT'S GOOD, IF IT'S OKAY IF I DELIVER THAT FOR ALL OF THEM, YES, I'M GOING TO LET YOU I'M GOING TO CALL THEM BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.

I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THEM ALL NOW JUST IN CASE SOMEONE'S HOLDING OUT.

I WANT TO GIVE THEM THAT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO FILL OUT THE CARD.

SO I PROMISE I WON'T CUT YOU OFF.

YOU CAN VACILLATE BETWEEN, BUT WE'LL.

WOULD DO IT THAT WAY FOR.

JUST IN CASE. ME.

THERE IT IS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL RYAN ADAMS, CHIEF OF STAFF ROSA.

YOUR CITY SECRETARY IS UNAVAILABLE TONIGHT.

SO THIS IS JUST A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THE NEXT SIX ITEMS THAT COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING RELATING TO APPOINTMENTS TO INTERNAL COMMITTEES AND EXTERNAL BOARDS.

FOR A BIT OF BACKGROUND.

THE CITY DID HOLD A RECALL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8TH AND THOSE RESULTS WERE CANVASED ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

THAT RESULTED IN THE REMOVAL OF FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER ALISON MCGUIRE.

THIS REMOVAL CREATED SEVERAL VACANCIES AUTOMATICALLY AS CERTAIN POSITIONS ON INTERNAL COMMITTEES AND EXTERNAL BOARDS MUST BE FILLED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER.

[04:45:09]

AND THE BOARDS THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE THOSE THAT WERE FILLED BY FORMER COUNCILMEMBER MAGUIRE.

OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE MOBILITY COMMITTEE DISCOVERED DENTON ADVISORY BOARD AND THE RTC, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL.

SO THE NEXT FOUR ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR AGENDA CONSIDER WILL BE TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS TO THESE VACANCIES.

THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL BOARDS THAT FORMER COUNCILMAN MCGUIRE DOES SIT ON, AND THOSE ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE RECALL AS IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY TO SIT ON THOSE SEATS.

AND THAT IS THE DENTON COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LEADERSHIP TEAM AND THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.

AND IT WAS A REQUEST ABOUT MAYOR HUDSPETH TO HAVE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSS AND CONSIDER REPLACING FORMER COUNCILMAN MCGUIRE'S ROLE ON THESE COMMITTEES AS WELL. AND THOSE ARE THE FINAL TWO ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE TONIGHT.

SO AND I WILL BRING THIS BACK UP AS NEEDED, MAYOR, BUT THIS JUST WALKS THROUGH THE CURRENT VACANCIES ON EACH OF THESE FOUR COMMITTEES THAT ARE CURRENTLY VACANT DUE TO THE RECALL ELECTION.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE, WE CURRENTLY HAVE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THAT COMMITTEE.

THE VACANCY, IF IT'S FILLED, WOULD ALSO NECESSITATE A DUAL APPOINTMENT TO THE DISCOVER DENTON ADVISORY BOARD.

TWO OF OUR PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE POSITIONS MUST ALSO BE ON THE DENTON THE DISCOVER DENTON ADVISORY BOARD.

WE DID ASK COUNCIL MEMBERS IF THEY HAD ANY INTEREST IN FILLING THESE VACANCIES.

AS YOU SEE ON THE LAST COLUMN TO YOUR RIGHT THAT LISTS ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO DID EXPRESS INTEREST.

SO FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HAVE CALLED MAYOR THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE, COUNCILMEMBER MCGEE HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THIS POSITION AND ALSO EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE DISCOVER DENTON ADVISORY BOARD, WHICH YOU'LL BE CONSIDERING A COUPLE OF ITEMS LATER.

AND I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS HAS ALSO WHO CURRENTLY SITS ON THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE, HAS ALSO EXPRESSED INTEREST ON SERVING ON THE DISCOVER DENTON ADVISORY BOARD. SO, MAYOR, I CAN CONTINUE WALKING THROUGH EACH OF THESE OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

I'M HAPPY TO BRING THE SLIDE BACK UP FOR EACH ITEM.

LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

AND CAN YOU HELP ME? I KNOW THERE ARE SOME.

YOU JUST TOUCHED ON IT, BUT I WANT TO KIND OF SPOTLIGHT WITH THESE.

THERE'S SOME COMBINATION THEREOF, RIGHT, WHERE YOU HAVE TO BE.

AND IT MAY BE THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE.

YOU HAVE TO BE ON THE DISCOVER DENTON OR THERE'S VICE MAYOR.

HOW DOES THAT WORK? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO WE HAVE THREE POSITIONS, THREE THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE.

TWO OF THOSE MUST ALSO SERVE ON THE DISCOVER DENTON ADVISORY BOARD.

NOW, CURRENTLY, COUNCILMEMBER BYRD SERVES ON BOTH OF THOSE.

SO IN APPOINTING THIS VACANT POSITION, COUNCIL COULD ALSO APPOINT THAT SAME PERSON TAKING THIS VACANT POSITION TO THE DISCOVER DENTON ADVISORY BOARD TO FILL THE POSITION THAT WAS ONCE HELD BY FORMER COUNCILMEMBER MAGUIRE.

OR THEY COULD APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, WHO HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE DISCOVER AND ADVISORY BOARD TO THAT BODY BECAUSE HE ALREADY DOES SIT ON THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE. GOT IT.

THEN THE LATTER WOULD JUST.

THEY HELPED ME UNDERSTAND.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. SO THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE HAS THREE SEATS? THAT'S CORRECT. THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

GOT IT? OK GOT IT THEN.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

SO I WOULD I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE TO JOIN THAT COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE. AND WHEN WE GET THERE, I'LL JUST ADD, I'LL MOVE THAT.

WE MOVE, WE ADD COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS TO THE DISCOVERY ADVISORY BOARD.

THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A BUNCH OF SHIFTING.

SO WHERE WE ARE FOR C, MY MOTION IS TO APPOINT COUNCILMAN MCGEE TO FILL THE SEAT VACATED BY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER MAGUIRE.

AND COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AS CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE, I'D BE HAPPY TO SECOND THAT NOMINATION.

GOT IT. SO MOTION BY MAYOR HUDSPETH.

SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

DISCUSSION. MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. WEIR. CAN I. CAN I GET YOU TO CLARIFY WHAT WHAT? THE MOTION. SO YOU'RE WERE WE'RE SAYING BRANDON, FOR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP OR COUNCILOR MCGEE, I SHOULD SAY APOLOGIZE FOR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AND.

BUT WE CAN. I DON'T WE CAN'T OPEN WE HAVE NOT OPENED THAT ITEM YET.

SO WE'RE REALLY JUST VOTING ON THE ONE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP.

AND THEN ESSENTIALLY HERE IN A MOMENT OR TWO, WE WILL BE MAKING A DECISION OF WHATEVER HAPPENS ON THAT OTHER ITEM.

[04:50:04]

AND ESSENTIALLY IT WILL BE COUNCILOR DAVIS OR COUNCILOR MCGEE.

BY NECESSITY, IN THAT SECOND ITEM IS THAT.

IF I SUMMARIZE THAT CORRECTLY, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE. SO JUST A QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND, BASED OFF OF WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT.

BOTH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE TO BOTH SERVE ON COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AND DIDN'T DISCOVER DISCOVERY.

CAN WE SPLIT IT UP LIKE THAT? IF I SERVED ON COMMUNITY AND THEN MR. DAVIS SERVES ON.

YES, I THINK SO.

AS LONG AS THERE'S OK OK.

THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR HUDSPETH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DAVIS, TO APPOINT COUNCILMAN MCGEE TO THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAYOR HUDSPETH IS AN I.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

I. MAYOR PRO TEM I.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE. I CAN'T SWIM, BERT.

I CAN'T SWIM.

WHAT'S RIGHT, OK? THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

THAT TAKES US TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM D ID 222436.

[D. Consider an appointment to City Council Committee: Mobility Committee.]

CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MOBILITY COMMITTEE.

AND IS THERE THE SAME PRESENTATION? THERE'S NO PRESENTATION.

JUST BRINGS BACK UP FOR COUNCIL.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND SO THERE'S ONLY SO I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER MCGEE TO THE MOBILITY COMMITTEE AND COUNCILOR MCGEE.

MR. MAYOR, IF I MAY, I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR FAITH IN ME ON THE AND APPOINTED ME TO THIS COMMITTEE.

HOWEVER, I MUST REJECT THIS THIS APPOINTMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

THEN IF THERE'S ANY OTHER NOMINEES, I'LL HEAR THOSE.

OTHERWISE WE'LL LEAVE IT VACANT FOR.

COUNCILOR. PARDON ME.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE MYSELF.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE THE MAYOR PRO TEM THAT WOULD SEEK TO FILL THAT THAT SPACE.

SO THERE'S THAT'S THE HE'S THE NOMINEE.

HE MAKES THE NOMINATION.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE. SECOND, THE NOMINATION OF MAYOR PRO TEM OK.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM TO NOMINATE HIMSELF.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

DISCUSSION. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

SO JUST YOUR BRAIN NOT LET ME DO IT.

SO THE NOMINATION.

SO IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT'S A MAYOR MAYORAL APPOINTMENT AND A COUNCIL CONFIRMATION.

SO IF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTING, I THINK THE MOTION, THE PROPER MOTION WOULD BE TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT RATHER THAN TO NOMINATE AND THEN, SECOND, THE NOMINATION. SO I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE IN OUR CODE, I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE WE'VE HAD A VOLUNTEER.

I THINK THE MAYOR WOULD HAVE TO THEN APPOINT THAT PERSON OR NOT A POINT THAT PERSON.

AND THEN THE MOTION WOULD BE TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF RULES ABOUT HOW AND WHEN AND WHY YOU APPOINT.

I THINK YOU JUST HAVE TO APPOINT AND THEN THERE'S A EITHER A CONFIRMATION OR NOT A CONFIRMATION.

GOT IT. ALL RIGHT.

FAIR. I JUST HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO TO PROCESS.

THAT'S THAT'S FAIR POINT.

I JUST DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY.

SO CAN WE WILL TABLE THAT IS THAT YOUR READ OF IT ARE LEGAL.

SOMEBODY HELPED ME UNDERSTAND SO SO I'LL DEFER TO CITY ATTORNEY BUT THIS IS A POSITION WHERE THE MAYOR DOES APPOINT IN THE COUNCIL CONFIRMS. RIGHT. OKAY.

WE'LL TABLE THAT. LET'S COME BACK WE'LL TAKE ITEM E.

[E. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton appointing a member to the Discover Denton Advisory Board; and declaring an effective date.]

ADD. 222437.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE DISCOVER DEBT ADVISORY BOARD AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I AND THIS.

AND SO WHILE I HAVE THE FLOOR, I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS TO THIS TO ALIGN WITH HIS SERVICE ON COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP.

IF, AS AM I, AM I READING THAT RIGHT, THAT THAT'S THAT'S AN ALLOWABLE.

OKAY. GOT IT.

SO THAT'S MY MOTION.

[04:55:03]

COUNCILMAN MCGEE, I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION TO MR. DAVIS. OK SO MAYOR HUDSPETH IS THE MOVEMENT COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE IS THE SECOND DISCUSSION.

MAY HUDSPETH I.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE I.

MAYOR PRO TEM. HI.

COUNCILMAN BYRD. HI, COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

HI. AND THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN WATTS. HI.

THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

MAYOR, IF I COULD.

[F. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton appointing a Primary Member as the official voting representative to the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ Regional Transportation Council; and providing an effective date.]

YES, SIR. ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM I HAD, I GUESS I MISSED THE EMAIL ABOUT THE INTEREST.

BUT ON THE RTC, I WOULD ALSO ENJOY AN INTEREST AND HAVE AN INTEREST IN SERVING ON THAT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.

GOT IT. OKAY.

FOR THOSE CONSIDERING.

SO LET ME CALL THAT.

THAT'S ITEM F ID 222439.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON APPOINTING A PRIMARY MEMBER AS THE OFFICIATING VOTING REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE NORTH TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL.

PROVIDING AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

I WILL THEN WITH THAT NEW INFORMATION, I WILL NOMINATE COUNCILMAN WATTS TO TO THAT COMMITTEE UNDERSTANDING AS A FORMER MAYOR.

HE SERVED ON THERE BEFORE AND HAS A LOT OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS ALREADY.

AND PLAINLY I THINK WE PROBLEM SOLVE THE SAME AND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME AS WELL.

SO THAT BEING SAID, THAT'S MY THAT'S MY MOTION.

A SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S. SO THERE'S A MOTION BY MAYOR HUDSPETH SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WATTS.

DISCUSSION. SEE NONE.

MAYOR HUDSPETH. COUNCILMAN WHAT? NO, I COUNCILMAN BYRD I COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

I COUNCILMAN MCGEE NAME.

COUNCILMEMBER AND PARDON ME.

MAYOR PRO TEM NAY, THAT PASSES FOR TWO THAT TAKES US TO BACK TO.

ITEM. D HOW LONG OR HOW LONG ARE THESE APPOINTMENTS? THIS IS IS THIS THIS TERM IS SO WE THERE'S NOT AN EXPLICIT END DATE, BUT WE DO REAPPOINT AFTER EACH ELECTION CYCLE.

SO TYPICALLY IT'S RECONSIDERED BY COUNCIL ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IN THE SUMMER.

YEAH. GOT IT. MAY OR JUNE.

YEAH. OK COUNCIL.

MCGEE. JUST TO BE CLEAR, MR. MAYOR, ON THIS, I FEAR I CANNOT ACCEPT DUE TO MY MY WORK COMMITMENTS.

SURE. SO OBVIOUSLY I APPRECIATE YOUR FAITH.

I JUST I CAN'T COMMIT AT THIS DAY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SPRING IS GOING TO HOLD.

SO JUST BE CLEAR.

YES. NO, THAT'S THAT'S MORE THAN FAIR.

AND I RESPECT THAT.

THANK YOU, SIR. AGAIN, I JUST CAN I TABLE THIS TILL THE 13TH? IS THAT DOABLE? IF THAT'S THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, IT WOULD JUST RESULT IN THAT SEAT BEING VACANT.

BUT WE DO HAVE TWO MEMBERS ON THAT COMMITTEE, SO THAT WOULD STILL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM.

YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S MY DESIRE.

AND WE CAN JUST VOTE IT UP OR DOWN.

RIGHT. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT.

YES. TO TABLE.

YES. SO MY, MY MOTION IS TO TABLE ITEM D UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE DECEMBER 13TH.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. YES.

IS THERE A SECOND? BUT NO SECOND.

SO ONE MORE TIME, MAYOR.

WHAT ARE WE TABLING TO THE WHAT'S COMMITTEE TABLING? SO. MOBILITY COMMITTEE.

I'M TASKED WITH WITH MAKING THAT APPOINTMENT.

AND I JUST HAVE NOT I WHEN I, WHEN I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND PROCESS FORWARD I THOUGHT COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE FITS WELL. I RESPECT HIS HIS DECISION, BUT I'M JUST NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT IT AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I PROCESS THROUGH THE NOMINATION.

WELL, I TAKE THAT SERIOUS.

AND SO I JUST HADN'T HAD TIME TO PROCESS AND I DON'T WANT TO.

I'LL SECOND THAT MAYOR.

I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT.

MAYOR HUDSPETH MOTION THE TABLE SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WATTS AND I AND AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES.

[05:00:03]

I JUST HAVE NOT TAKEN TIME TO TO PROCESS.

AND I UNDERSTAND IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES DIFFERENT.

COUNCILWOMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MERRITT. I'M AGAIN, PROBABLY OVER OVERTHINKING IT.

SO IT'S A IT'S AN APPOINTMENT.

I THINK THAT I'M GOING TO UNLESS THE CITY ATTORNEY TELLS ME SOMETHING THAT PERSUADES ME DIFFERENTLY, I THINK THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING SIMPLY BECAUSE IF THE MAYOR DOES NOT MAKE AN APPOINTMENT, I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN VOTE TO CONFIRM.

LIKE I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE COULD FILL IT OURSELVES IF THE MAJORITY SITTING UP HERE ON THE DAIS DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE MAYOR'S DECISION TO TAKE SOME TIME AND THINK ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT, THERE'S NOTHING WE COULD WE COULD DO ABOUT IT.

IT WE'VE GOT TO CONFIRM A MAYORAL APPOINTMENT.

SO I THINK I THINK THE BALL IS IN THE MAYOR'S COURT AT THIS POINT.

AND IF HE'S NOT READY TO MAKE THE CALL RIGHT NOW, THEN I DON'T THINK WE HAVE MUCH CHOICE OTHER THAN TO POSTPONE TO ANOTHER DATE AND GIVE HIM THE TIME TO MAKE THE CHOICE.

I WOULD RATHER HAVE THESE WRAPPED UP TONIGHT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT MAYOR FINDS HIMSELF IN TONIGHT AND HE'S GOT TO THINK ABOUT IT.

SO I THINK I THINK IF I'M READING THAT CORRECTLY, IF I'M READING THAT PROCEDURE CORRECTLY, THAT'S WHY I'D BE VOTING TO TAKE IT BACK UP AGAIN ON THE 13TH.

MR. CITY ATTORNEY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. UNTIL THE MAYOR MAKES THE APPOINTMENT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYBODY TO CONFIRM.

COUNCILWOMAN MCGEE JUST TO GO A STEP BEYOND.

I TECHNICALLY HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM MY JOB YET, SO IF I WERE TO ACCEPT THIS TONIGHT AND THEN I DON'T HAVE THE TIME OFF, WE GOT TO DO THIS WHOLE THING OVER AGAIN AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO WASTE MY COLLEAGUES OR STAFF TIME LIKE THAT.

GOT IT? NO. AND HERE, UNDERSTAND THIS.

I UNDERSTOOD THE THE CHALLENGES BEFORE ALL OF US.

RIGHT? I MEAN, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS HAS TO CIRCUMVENT TRIALS.

I HAVE TO CIRCUMVENT WORK TRAVEL.

ALL OF US HAVE BETWEEN FAMILY AND ALL THOSE ISSUES.

SO I RESPECT THAT.

I THINK FOR ME IT'S SO AND THERE'S THREE PEOPLE SO.

TO MAKE A QUORUM AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE BUSINESS.

GETS DONE. YOU GET UP TO SPEED YOU CAN ADD INPUT IS HOW I ENVISIONED IT JUST FULL DISCLOSURE NOT NOT SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO AND I ADVOCATE THAT FOR ANYONE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE INPUT.

YOU KNOW, YOU CAN YOU CAN CATCH UP, YOU CAN WATCH, YOU CAN DO ALL THOSE THINGS.

BUT THAT'S HOW I SAW IT.

AND IF THAT'S AN ERROR, THAT'S AN ERROR.

BUT JUST FULL DISCLOSURE.

JUST TRYING TO SHARE MY THOUGHT PROCESS AND HOW I GET HERE.

AND OBVIOUSLY WE'LL YEAH, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT SO THAT THAT'S MY THOUGHT PROCESS TO BE TRANSPARENT.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WELL, I'LL JUST REITERATE MY MY VOLUNTEERING TO SOLVE ALL THOSE PROBLEMS. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I AND I THINK IT'S I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD BEGRUDGE ME FOR FOR BEING PURPOSEFUL AND THOUGHTFUL AND HOW I APPOINT PEOPLE.

BUT IF THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT, THAT THAT COMES WITH THE JOB, I UNDERSTAND.

AND IF WE'RE IN, IT'S IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TIME, THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT, TOO.

BUT IT'S IT'S 3 MINUTES FOR ME TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.

I JUST HAVE TO PROCESS THROUGH THAT.

AND SO HERE WE ARE.

SO THERE'S A MOTION TO TABLE.

I MADE THAT MOTION SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WATTS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THEN. LET'S VOTE.

AND IF IT AND SO, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, IF IT IF IT IF WE IF WE DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WHAT DOES THAT PUT US JUST BEFORE EVERYONE VOTES? YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO PUT POISON IN A POOL.

I WANT TO KNOW GOING IN, WELL, THIS CHAIR, YOU CAN MOVE ON WITH THE MEETING BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY ACTION TO TAKE.

SO. OKAY. GOT IT.

CAN WE? I JUST DIDN'T HEAR.

SIR, CAN WE REPEAT? YEAH, I SAID IF THERE'S NO ACTION, THEN HE CAN MOVE ON WITH THE MEETING AS CHAIR WITHOUT TAKING ANY ACTION.

THANK YOU. MAYOR HUDSPETH IS A COUNCILMAN.

WHAT'S COUNCILMAN DAVIS? HI, COUNCILMAN BURT.

HI. COUNCILOR MCGEE, MAYOR PRO TEM.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM G, WHICH IS ID 222438.

[G. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton replacing Alison Maguire as a member to the Denton County Behavioral Health Leadership Team; and declaring an effective date.]

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON REPLACING ALLISON MAGUIRE AS MEMBER TO THE DENTON COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LEADERSHIP TEAM AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO IS THERE A DIFFERENT ANSWER? I JUST HAVE A SIMILAR SET OF SIMILAR TABLE FOR THESE TWO ITEMS AS WELL.

SO THIS DOES LIST THE TERM DATES AND THE FOR BOTH OF THESE, THE THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS THE COUNCIL.

[05:05:04]

WE DO LIST THE CURRENT MEMBERS AND I WILL LEAVE THIS UP OR I CAN TAKE IT DOWN FOR A COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

OK. AND IT'S SO IT'S IN A BACKUP.

YEAH. SO YOU CAN TAKE IT DOWN.

IT'S JUST TWO AND IT'S.

IT'S SLIDE FIVE ON THE COUNCIL PRESENTATION IF YOU NEED TO SEE IT WHILE DURING THE DISCUSSION AND I THINK WE LOST, MAYBE WE LOST.

COUNCILMAN WATSON, THERE'S ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP FOR THIS ITEM.

THAT'S ALEX MCGUIRE.

IF HE CAN COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES.

AND BILLY WILL NEED THE DOCUMENT CAMERA.

I CAN START WITHOUT THE DOCUMENT CAMERA.

I DON'T NEED IT JUST YET.

SO MY NAME IS ALISON MAGUIRE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. COUNCIL I LIVE AT ON MIRANDA PLACE IN DENTON, TEXAS.

76210. AND UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO, I WAS A MEMBER OF THIS BODY.

AND FOR THE TIME BEING, I STILL REPRESENT THE CITY OF DENTON ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALONGSIDE DENTON'S ALTERNATE PAT SMITH AND I ALSO SERVE ON THE DENTON COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LEADERSHIP TEAM AS ALONGSIDE MAYOR HUDSPETH.

AS OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED, THESE TWO BODIES DO NOT REQUIRE THE APPOINTEES TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ELECTED BODIES THAT APPOINT MEMBERS TO THEM.

SO I'M STILL ELIGIBLE TO SERVE.

I'M A NATURAL FIT FOR THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LEADERSHIP TEAM.

I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN HUMAN SERVICES AND I AM A USER OF DENTON COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES MYSELF.

AT THE MOST RECENT MEETING, UNITED WAY STAFF GAVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT THE BARRIERS THEIR CLIENTS FACE IN ACCESSING CARE.

TRANSPORTATION WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY CONCERNS, AND THEY SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT THE MISSTEPS DOCTORS MADE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS THAT HAVE LED TO REDUCED ACCESS FOR THEIR CLIENTS. WHAT HAPPENS AT DCA IMPACTS UNITED WAY, SO BOTH ENTITIES BENEFIT FROM HAVING THE COORDINATION THAT COMES FROM HAVING SOME MEMBERS IN COMMON.

TO BE HONEST, THOUGH, I DIDN'T COME HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT HOW I PLAN TO COME TO GIVE A WORK SESSION REPORT RECAPPING THE MANY CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED AT CTA OVER THE LAST YEAR AND UPDATE THE COUNCIL ON THE MANY PROJECTS AHEAD FOR 2023.

UNFORTUNATELY, I LEARNED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS RELEASED ON FRIDAY THAT MAYOR HUDSPETH HAD PULLED MY REPORT AND REPLACED IT WITH AN ITEM REGARDING MY REMOVAL.

SO NOW, INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AND KEEPING COUNCIL INFORMED ON THE TRANSIT ISSUES IMPACTING YOUR CONSTITUENTS, I WILL HAVE TO DEFEND MY SERVICE.

SO I WILL. I'VE NEVER MISSED A CTA MEETING AND THIS YEAR'S WORKLOAD HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY HEAVY.

I'VE SOMETIMES HAD TO DRAG MY TODDLERS ALONG TO PUBLIC MEETING INPUT MEETINGS AT THE DTC BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE CHILD CARE.

BUT I DID IT BECAUSE I FELT THOSE MEETINGS WERE IMPORTANT.

SINCE MARCH, WHEN PAUL CHRISTINA STARTED AS INTERIM CEO, HE AND I HAVE MET FOR MONTHLY ONE ON ONES THAT OFTEN STRETCH TO TWO OR 3 HOURS BECAUSE THERE'S JUST SO MUCH TO DISCUSS.

THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AND I SPENT A TOTAL OF 30 HOURS TOGETHER OVER THE SUMMER INTERVIEWING CANDIDATES AND DELIBERATING ON THE HIRING OF A NEW CEO.

WE ALSO SPENT A FULL WORKDAY IN JUNE JUST TO BEGIN NOT TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING, BECAUSE AS FAR AS ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR STAFF COULD TELL, DCA HAD NEVER PREVIOUSLY ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF STRATEGIC PLANNING.

FRANKLY, WHEN I JOINED THE DC BOARD OF DIRECTORS A YEAR AGO, I WALKED INTO A CHAOTIC AND DYSFUNCTIONAL SITUATION.

IT'S TAKEN A LOT OF EXTRA HOURS TO GET DC TO BACK TO A FUNCTIONAL STATE, BUT FORTUNATELY WE ARE GETTING THERE, THANKS IN NO SMALL PART TO THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR NEW CEO, PAUL CHRISTINA. EVEN THOUGH I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO INTO DETAIL, I'D LIKE TO SHARE A DOCUMENT THAT WILL GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TAKING ON TOGETHER IN THE COMING YEAR.

I HAVE DRAFT TWO WRITTEN ACROSS IT IN PENCIL BECAUSE THIS IS NOT FINALIZED.

BUT THESE ARE JUST THIS IS A HIGH LEVEL VIEW OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THE 2023 YEAR.

AND I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE YOU YOU DETAILS ON THEM BECAUSE NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED AT DC TO DC HAS NEVER TRIED TO TAKE ON MORE THAN ONE OR TWO INITIATIVES AT A TIME.

BUT THE SITUATION IS SUCH THAT BASIC FUNCTIONS OF THE AGENCY HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING FOR YEARS, AND SO WE ARE NEEDING TO REBUILD THE AGENCY FROM THE GROUND UP.

I'M DISAPPOINTED, BUT NOT SURPRISED THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ARE WILLING TO PLAY PETTY GAMES WITH ONE OF OUR COMMUNITY'S MOST ESSENTIAL SERVICES.

AS I SAID LAST YEAR WHEN WE HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION, PAT SMITH HAS A RESUME THAT I CAN'T MATCH THE VALUE OF HIS SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO OUR COMMUNITY CAN'T BE OVERSTATED. BUT LET'S CALL A SPADE A SPADE HERE.

PAT SMITH ISN'T BEING NOMINATED BECAUSE OF HIS ADMITTEDLY IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS.

HE'S BEING NOMINATED BECAUSE OF HIS WILLINGNESS TO TAKE DIRECTION FROM CERTAIN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

AND I'M ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK BECAUSE I TAKE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.

REGARDLESS OF HOW TONIGHT'S VOTE GOES, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT I BE SCHEDULED TO PRESENT MY UPDATES ABOUT DC TO AT THE JANUARY 10TH COUNCIL MEETING.

I SUGGEST THAT STAFF SCHEDULE AT LEAST 45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR FOR THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT TO SHARE.

[05:10:05]

OKAY. QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN DAVIS. MY QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER, BUT ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OCH WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DIDN'T CALL THE SECOND ITEM, SO I'M A LITTLE.

I'M A LITTLE CUT OFF TO SPEAK TO THAT.

WE'LL SPEAK TO THAT NEXT.

BUT I CALL THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ITEM.

AND SO I'M GOING TO FOLLOW MY OWN RULES AND NOT SPEAK ON THE LATTER JUST YET.

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHAVIOR, HEALTH? BEHAVIOR? YES, BY ALL MEANS.

SO JUST JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

SO ORIGINALLY THERE WAS ONLY ONE MEMBER ON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.

AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WE HAD BOTH YOU AND MS..

MCGUIRE INDICATED YOU BOTH WANTED TO SERVE.

AND I THINK IT WAS I WHO SAID, CAN WE SEE IF BOTH OF YOU CAN SERVE? AND THAT WAS ALLOWED THAT CORRECT, HOW IT WENT? YES, I CAN PROVIDE CLARITY ON THAT.

THE BYLAWS GIVE THE CITY OF DENTON TWO APPOINTED SEATS PLUS ONE.

I DON'T THINK THEY USE THE TERM EX OFFICIO, BUT A STAFF SEAT AS WELL.

IT'S IT'S NOT UNUSUAL ON THAT BOARD FOR NOT ALL THE SEATS TO GET FILLED.

IT WOULDN'T BE TERRIBLY UNUSUAL FOR FOR MAYOR HUDSPETH TO BE THE ONLY MEMBER.

I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE CASE FOR THE LAST YEAR.

BUT WE DO HAVE TWO SEATS AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILL BOTH OF THEM.

I GUESS THIS NEXT QUESTION IS FOR MR. MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S TRADITIONALLY HAVE BOTH THESE SEATS BEEN OCCUPIED OR HAS IT NORMALLY JUST BEEN THE MAYOR? SO TRADITIONALLY THERE'S BEEN TWO SEATS.

WE HAVE THREE SEATS.

THAT IS NOT TRADITION.

SO, OKAY, SO THAT'S THE CHANGE.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY, WE HAVE A WE HAVE A NON NORMALLY WE HAVE TWO SEATS.

THAT IS TRUE. THE OTHER THAT'S ABSOLUTELY THAT'S BEEN THE CASE SINCE INCEPTION.

THIS ONE TIME WE GO BACK AND WE MOVE STAFF TO A NON VOTING MEMBER TO THEN ADD A SEAT.

OKAY. SO THIS IS THIS IS SINCE THAT CONVERSATION THAT IS BRAND NEW UNCHARTERED.

AND I THIS MOTION IS TO RETURN US BACK TO WHERE WE WERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER STATEMENTS? THEN THIS IS ON THIS ITEM OR NO? COUNCILMAN DAVIS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I PUT MYSELF ON THE LIST TO ASK THAT QUESTION OF STAFF.

AND THEN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE THE INTEREST ITEM FILLED IN ON THE CHART AND THE BACKUP FOR LIKE FOR INSTANCE, FOR THE OTHER COMMITTEES, WE HAD PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED AND PUT THEIR NAMES FORWARD AND THEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND THEY WENT FORWARD AS THEY DID.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO WHOEVER YOURSELF OR STAFF OR WHOEVER CAN ANSWER IT IF THERE HAS BEEN INTEREST, BECAUSE WHAT YOU JUST SAID WAS FROM FROM ANY QUARTER TO TO TO TAKE THAT SPOT, BECAUSE AS YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS A STAFF MEMBER WHO FILLED A VOTING ROLE.

AND WHAT WE DID WAS KIND OF BUMP THEM TO THEIR COMING.

THEY PARTICIPATE, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE A VOTE ON THE ON THE BOARD.

IS THAT. THAT IS CORRECT.

SO IS THERE I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE MAYBE COUNCILMEMBER WATTS HAS SOMETHING TO SAY THAT'S RELEVANT TO WHAT I'M ASKING, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE IS IF THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS TO APPOINT SOMEONE NEW TO THAT SEAT THAT FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER MAGUIRE CURRENTLY OCCUPIES, IF THERE IS SUCH A PERSON WHO THAT IS AND AND IF THAT'S THE MOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR, NO, THE MOTION, THE REASON IT'S PUT FORTH.

AND NOW, COUNCILMAN WATSON, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP.

I'M SORRY. I DID IT BASICALLY FOR CLARIFICATION.

IN THE PAST IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A STAFF MEMBER AND THE MAYOR.

SO, COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, WHEN YOU SAY IS THERE ANYBODY THAT'S EXPRESSED AN INTEREST? I DON'T THINK WE ASK STAFF MEMBERS.

I MEAN, THE CITY MANAGER WOULD APPOINT A STAFF MEMBER WHO'S APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR COMMITTEE BASED UPON THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE CITY.

AND TYPICALLY, I THINK IT WAS SARAH KELLER AT ONE POINT AND THEN DANNY SHAW.

I MEAN, THERE'S JUST THERE'S SEVERAL.

SO I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING THE MAYOR SAY IS THIS ISN'T ABOUT NECESSARILY REMOVING PEOPLE.

IT'S ABOUT RETURNING TO THE STATUS QUO, BECAUSE THERE WAS THE CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO A YEAR OR SO AGO, AND THEN THE STAFF MEMBER GOT MOVED TO A NON VOTING POSITION. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OF NOMINATING NECESSARILY A PERSON, PARTICULARLY TONIGHT.

I THINK IT'S JUST SAYING, HEY, THAT NEEDS TO BE OCCUPIED BY A STAFF PERSON, IF THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE MAYOR'S MOTION TO BE QUOTE UNQUOTE, RETURNING IT BACK TO THE STATUS QUO. THAT IS CORRECT.

[05:15:03]

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO THE DECISION BY BY A DIFFERENT COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL WAS TO TO HAVE THAT THAT LEVEL OF INPUT, THAT, THAT LEVEL OF DIRECT SAY TO KIND OF EXPRESS THE, THE, THE SERIOUSNESS OF OF THAT.

AND THE POSITION IS NOT VACANT.

WE REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATIVE MOTION TO MAKE CHANGES.

I DON'T I CONSIDERING THE SORT OF EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY I WITHOUT A VACANCY AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON AT THIS TIME TO TO BE MOVING TO TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE CURRENT COMPOSITION.

AND SO REALLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN BOTH TERMS, BUT.

THIS ISN'T A QUESTION.

THIS IS A STATEMENT. I MADE AN EXCEPTION.

THIS BODY MADE AN EXCEPTION TO ADD A SEAT WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

AND THAT RESULTS IN.

ASPERSIONS BEING CAST.

THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION MADE.

UNPRECEDENTED AND THE THAT YIELDED.

DISPERSIONS. AND THAT IS THAT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT THAT'S THAT'S OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS.

SO THAT BEING SAID, I MOVE THAT WE RESTORE WE GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE BECAUSE JUST LIKE THE OTHER FOUR VACANCIES I BELIEVE THAT.

ELECTIONS THE VOTERS 64% OF THE VOTERS IN DISTRICT FOUR VOTED TO MAKE A CHANGE. I RESPECT THAT.

AND IT'S MY DUTY.

I DON'T THIS IS A SERVICE JOB.

I DON'T GET TO DO WHAT I WANT TO DO.

I SERVE THE ENTIRE CITY OF DENTON JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.

DON'T LET THE DISTRICTS FOOL YOU.

THERE'S ONE BUDGET FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.

WE ALL REPRESENT THE ENTIRE CITY.

WE REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY.

AND THERE'S A THERE'S 8000 PLUS VOTERS THAT MADE A DECISION THAT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH.

AND BUT I RESPECT THAT I WALK FROM THAT FORWARD, TAKING THAT DIRECTION.

THERE'S PRECIOUS LITTLE THAT I GET TO DO IN THIS SEAT THAT I WANT TO DO.

AGAIN, I SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, I.

I CAN GIVE YOU A LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS THAT I WOULDN'T DO.

I SIGN.

MATTER OF FACT, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.

I SIGNED ALL ORDINANCES.

WHETHER I VOTE FOR THEM OR NOT, I HAVE TO SIGN THEM.

AND I. AND I TAKE THAT DUTY SERIOUSLY.

THAT'S MY JOB. AND SO I DON'T SEPARATE MYSELF TO SAY I DON'T LIKE THAT WHEN I'M NOT GOING TO SIGN IT.

THAT BEING SAID, I TAKE THE CRITICISM AGAIN, MADE AN EXCEPTION, BUT I TAKE THE CRITICISM AND THAT'S MY MOTION THAT WE RESTORE IT BACK TO WHAT IT'S BEEN SINCE ITS INCEPTION.

AND THAT DOES NOT BAR.

IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING. ANYONE CAN GO TO THE MEETING, EVERYONE CAN PARTICIPATE, EVERYONE CAN GIVE INSIGHT.

IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING BUT REFLECT THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ELECTION AND I RESPECT THE WISHES OF DISTRICT FOR VOTERS. THAT SAID, WE WANT A CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP THAT REPRESENTS US.

AND IN MAY, WHEN WE HAVE A FULL CONTINGENT OF COUNCILORS THAT ALLOWS THAT PERSON, THAT FILLS THAT SEAT TO HAVE A SAY SO IN THE DISCUSSION ON HOW THAT'S HOW WE GO FORWARD.

SO THAT'S WHY MOTION IS THERE.

AND IF COUNCILWOMAN DAVIS.

I'LL SECOND AND THEN I'M IN THE QUEUE TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION, IF I COULD.

COUNCILMEMBER. MR. MAYOR, I APPRECIATE YOUR WORDS AND I AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT I'M LOOKING HERE ON MY SCREEN HERE THAT THIS IS A CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY TO REPLACE ALISON MAGUIRE AS A MEMBER OF A DIDN'T COUNTER BEHAVIORAL LEADERSHIP TEAM AND DECLARE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I AM NOT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S CONNECTING TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

I'M NOT PULLING THAT THERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, JUST PUT THAT.

I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE ON THE FLOOR THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S WRITTEN HERE FOR US TO VOTE ON.

AND AGAIN, WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE STATING, WHICH IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT'S NOT CONNECTING TO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE VOTING ON HERE AT THIS TIME.

[05:20:01]

MR. CITY ATTORNEY, DO I NEED TO AMEND MY MOTION OR AM I CAPTURING THE ESSENCE? I JUST NEED SOME DIRECTION.

YEAH, THAT'S A FAIR POINT.

YEAH. THE WAY THE RESOLUTION IS DRAFTED ANTICIPATES A REPLACEMENT BEING PUT IN TONIGHT.

IF. IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU JUST WANT TO VACATE THE POSITION, THAT'S THAT'S SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'RE POSTED FOR TONIGHT.

I THINK YOU COULD TICK IT IN TWO STEPS, WHICH IS YOU'RE PUTTING FORWARD THE CONCEPT OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE PUT ON THE BOARD AND THEN MAYBE AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING YOU COULD FIGURE OUT WHICH MEMBER OF THE STAFF, IF THAT CARRIES, WHICH MEMBER OF THE STAFF, YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK AND HAVE THE COUNCIL VOTE ON AT ANOTHER TIME IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE SELECTED TONIGHT.

BUT IF I WANT TO JUST GO BACK TO JUST THE TWO SEATS.

WHAT IS THAT? THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT CONVERSATION, DIFFERENT POSTING? I THINK SO, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE PUSHING FOR TONIGHT IS REPLACING COUNCILMEMBER FORMER COUNCILMEMBER MAGUIRE, AND THAT'S WITH A NEW PERSON OR A NEW INDIVIDUAL.

THE WAY THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED FOR TONIGHT.

SO UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMEONE IN MIND SPECIFICALLY, I THINK THE DIRECTION, THE BEST YOU COULD DO FOR DIRECTION TONIGHT TO GO DOWN THAT PATH IS TO GIVE DIRECTION AND HAVE A VOTE ON WHETHER SHE WOULD BE REPLACED.

AND THEN AT ANOTHER MEETING, BRING BACK THE NAME OF THAT PERSON IS EITHER GOING TO REPLACE IT OR IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE, I THINK THAT ASSUMES THAT THERE WILL BE SOMEONE FROM THE STAFF THAT WILL BE ON THAT BOARD.

RIGHT. CITY MANAGER, CAN YOU HELP ME? DO YOU KNOW IS IT IS IT DANNY SHAW THAT'S ON THERE? YES, IT IS. DANNY SHORE.

YES. SO THEN I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO TO SAY THAT I WOULD MOVE THAT WE MOVE DANNY SHAH BACK TO BEING A VOTING MEMBER ON THE DENTON COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LEADERSHIP BOARD.

AND I'LL TAKE IT OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS TO SEE IF HE STILL WANTS A SECOND.

WELL, COUNCILMAN BIRD, I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. BUT I DON'T WANT TO MOVE ON FROM THE FLOOR WITHOUT AT LEAST GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY RESPONSE.

I JUST THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO DO IT IN THE PROPER ORDER, CERTAINLY IN THAT WAY FROM WHATEVER WE HAVE NOTED HERE.

CERTAINLY. SO, THANK YOU.

NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO WE WE FIND OURSELVES IN A DIFFICULT POSITION.

AND I'VE SEEN THIS CHARACTERIZED DIFFERENT WAYS TO BEING WHO YOU TALK TO AND WHAT DISTRICT THEY LIVE IN.

AND IF THEY DO LIVE IN DISTRICT FOUR, DEPENDING ON HOW THEY VOTED ON NOVEMBER 8TH, DIFFERENT PEOPLE LOOK AT IT DIFFERENT WAYS.

I. IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE CONVERSATION, BUT FRANKLY, I'M GLAD WE'RE HAVING IT ON THIS ITEM AND NOT HAVING THE WE'RE NOT WAITING UNTIL THE NEXT ITEM TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE THAT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE CHARGED, A CONVERSATION IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I THINK MOST PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY EVEN KNOW WHAT THE COMMITTEE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS OR DOES, UNFORTUNATELY.

BUT THE HARD REALITY IS THIS AND I'VE SEEN THIS REPRESENTED DIFFERENT WAYS FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

AS I SAID, THE HARD REALITY IS THAT THE COUNCIL APPOINTS SOMEONE TO CARRY THE TORCH FROM THIS DAIS TO BOARDS TO SPEAK FOR THE COUNCIL.

WE CAN'T ALL BE ON IT.

SO WHEN WE APPOINT SOMEONE, THEY SPEAK FOR US.

OSTENSIBLY THEY'RE SPEAKING FOR A MAJORITY OF US.

USUALLY IT'S THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN NECESSARILY WEIGHING IN ON.

THAT'S WHY WE DELEGATE TO SOMEBODY VIS A VIS BECAUSE WE SPEAK FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THIS PERSON ON THESE BOARDS SPEAKS FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND THE PERSON CURRENTLY SERVING ON THESE BOARDS TOOK HER SEAT ON THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A VERY RESPECTABLE 1400 VOTES THAT A VERY GOOD TURNOUT FOR DISTRICT FOR A VERY SUCCESSFUL ELECTION.

AND THEN ON NOVEMBER 8TH WAS VOTED OUT BY 64% OF THE PEOPLE IN DISTRICT FOUR.

I'LL WAIT. YOU'LL TELL ME THAT'S NOT THE REAL DISTRICT FOUR.

THAT'S NOT THE DISTRICT FOUR THAT SHE VOTED FOR HER JUST THE OLD DISTRICT FOUR PRECINCTS.

AND I'M NOT DOING THIS TO PILE ON.

I'M DOING THIS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THE REALITY WE ARE FACING, THE ELECTORAL REALITY WE'RE FACING IN JUST THE PRECINCTS THAT USED TO BE IN DISTRICT FOUR AND ARE STILL IN DISTRICT FOUR, 58% OF THE VOTE, 4600 PEOPLE SAID THIS PERSON DOES NOT REPRESENT ME ANY LONGER ON THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

THAT HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING WHEN WE GET BACK TO COUNCIL AND WE ARE ASKING FOR SOMEONE TO CARRY OUR TORCH TO SPEAK FOR THIS BODY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS PARTICULAR VOTE IS GOING TO SHAKE OUT.

YOU CAN PROBABLY COUNT THE NOSES AS WELL AS ANYBODY ELSE, ANYBODY WHO'S FOLLOWING ALONG.

BUT THAT IS WHY A SECONDED THIS MOTION, NOT NOT AS A COMMENTARY ON ANYBODY'S PRIOR SERVICE, BUT ON A COMMENT JUST TO.

MAKE CLEAR THE REALITY THAT FORMER COUNCILMEMBER MAGUIRE NO LONGER SERVES ON THIS BODY, NOT FROM RESIGNATION, NOT FROM TERMING OUT, BUT BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN HER DISTRICT SAID SHE NO LONGER REPRESENTS THEM.

[05:25:03]

AND THAT IS JUST A SIMPLE FACT.

NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT UP THE DISTRICT, THAT'S JUST THE SIMPLE FACT.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER ON THIS BOARD, IF IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE MAYOR AND A STAFF MEMBER, I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO GO FOR THIS BOARD.

AND I BET THERE'S MORE CONVERSATION COMING UP ON THE NEXT ONE.

MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND I REALLY LIKE THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD.

WE HEARD THAT THE MAYOR, YOU KNOW, MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT.

WE REPRESENT THE ENTIRE CITY AND WE USE OUR JUDGMENT.

AND BASED ON HOW WE FEEL HERE ON THE DAIS ABOUT WHAT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE FOR THE ENTIRE COMPLEMENT OF ALL FOUR DISTRICTS, EVERY RESIDENT IN THE CITY.

I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.

AND AND THE THING THAT I NOTE IS IN RESPONSE TO THAT IS THAT THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE CITY HAVE MADE IT KNOWN TO ME VERY CLEARLY THAT THEY THINK THE KINDS OF SERVICE THAT ARE THAT HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL MAGUIRE ARE THE KINDS OF SERVICE THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE REPRESENTING US CITYWIDE.

SO NOT NOT NECESSARILY THE 1400, BUT AND I DON'T HAVE EXACT COUNTS.

BUT IF YOU IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE OTHER FOUR DISTRICTS, IT'S IT'S UP TO THREE TIMES 35,000 POTENTIALLY.

NOW, WE ALL KNOW IT'S NOT THAT HIGH A NUMBER.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS, BUT I AM I AM HEARING FROM THE THE THE BODY AT LARGE IN RESPONSE TO SORT OF THE THE CONCEPT OF WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY OF DENTON.

THE OTHER THING THAT I GUESS THAT ALSO ADDRESSES COUNCILOR DAVIS'S COMMENTS, BUT THEN I WILL NOTE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WE ARE CONTEMPLATING FOR FOR REPLACEMENT ARE ALSO NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF DENTON.

THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF WHOEVER COUNCIL APPOINTS TO REPRESENT US TO THE COUNCIL.

AND SO I THINK THAT WHILE WE HAVE A STAFF MEMBER THAT WILL REPRESENT US, WE HAVE A PERSON THAT'S ENGAGED AND HAS A HISTORY OF REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF, THEN I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY WRIT LARGE, TAKING THE ADVICE OF COUNCILOR DAVIS AND COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR AND VOTE FOR THE STATUS QUO.

OK ANYONE ELSE? IS THAT YOU BACK OR NO? OK COUNCILMAN DAVIS YEAH.

MAYOR OH, COUNCILOR WATTS.

AND THEN. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS. NO, NO, I APPRECIATE IT.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

AND. MAYOR PRO TEM, I JUST FIND IT FASCINATING THAT WHEN IT MEETS YOUR NEEDS TO TALK ABOUT THE ENTIRE CITY AND LISTENING TO THE ENTIRE CITY, YOU'RE ALL FOR IT. WHEN 150 TO 200 PEOPLE CAME DOWN A YEAR OR SO AGO TO EXPRESS THEIR DISCONTENT WITH THE PLAN THAT YOU UNILATERALLY CREATED. AND THAT YOU BASICALLY RAM DOWN THE THROATS OF PEOPLE WITH NO IDEA OF COMPROMISE.

NO IDEA OF COMPROMISE.

NO WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

AND IT WENT THROUGH EVEN TO THE POINT WHERE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING THE FORMER COUNCILMEMBER MAGUIRE, WHO'S BEFORE US TONIGHT, SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT INDICATING THEY DID NOT INTEND TO DO IN THE PASSAGE OF THAT REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE THAT WAS DONE, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PROVIDED IN WRITING, THAT THAT WAS THE EXACT CONTENT OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

SO NOW WHEN IT WHEN IT'S BEHOOVES YOUR OPINION, THAT'S OKAY.

BUT SIR, WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF YOU.

YOUR FRIEND, COUNCIL MEMBER MAGUIRE GOT RECALLED BY 8600 PEOPLE IN THAT DISTRICT, WHICH IS TERRIBLE.

I WOULDN'T WISH THAT ON ANYBODY.

AND CONTRARY TO COUNCIL MEMBER MAGUIRE A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER.

GARY, WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT COUNCIL MEMBERS BEING PETTY COMING AFTER YOU, YOU'VE ANGERED PEOPLE.

YOU KNOW, YOU'VE BEEN MADE A PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT, ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

IT'S ALMOST COMICAL BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, SINCE ALL THAT, I'VE NOT SAID ANYTHING.

IN FACT, I CAME UP TO YOU AFTER I GOT ELECTED AND SAID, WE'RE DOING A DO OVER.

I HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT RECALL.

I'VE NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU DEPICTED ABOUT ME BACK IN JANUARY.

I'VE NOT SAID ANYTHING. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT YOU NOT SERVING.

YOU TALK ABOUT CHAOTIC NESS AT CTA AND THE HISTORY OF CTA.

SO, UNFORTUNATELY, I MEAN, I KNOW HOW THESE VOTES ARE GOING TO GO.

AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WE'RE IN THIS POSITION AND WE ARE IN THIS POSITION BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED A YEAR AGO.

LET'S MAKE NO BONES ABOUT IT.

THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH GASLIGHTING ABOUT THAT.

[05:30:03]

IT'S JUST PATHETIC.

SO HERE WE ARE.

WITH A WOMAN WHO ENJOYS SERVING, WHETHER SHE OR I HAVE THE SAME OPINION OR NOT.

I'VE CERTAINLY NOT BERATED HER THE WAY SHE'S BERATED ME IN SOCIAL MEDIA, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I DO.

AND I'VE NOT BEEN BERATING COUNCIL MEMBER.

MAYOR PRO TEM YOURSELF WHEN YOU SUPPORTED THAT MEME, WHEN YOU SAID I DID THINGS TO DELIBERATELY REDUCE THE RIDERSHIP.

YOU KNOW, DURING THE BOARD, WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD, THE ONLY BUS ROUTES THAT WERE VOTED FOR TO ELIMINATE WE'RE DOING THE PANDEMIC.

ALL THE MAJORITY BUS ROUTES THAT HAVE BEEN VOTED TO BE ELIMINATED HAVE HAPPENED DURING COUNCILMEMBER MCGUIRE'S TENURE.

NOW SHE VOTED AGAINST THEM.

ABSOLUTELY. SO.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM RETURNING THE BOARD BACK TO THE STATUS QUO.

THAT IS NOT A SLAM OR A BESMIRCH OF ANYBODY SERVING CURRENTLY ON THAT BOARD.

THAT'S HOW IT WAS.

I WAS THE INAUGURAL CHAIR OF THAT BOARD.

THAT WAS THE HOMELESS BOARD.

I WAS NOT THE INAUGURAL CHAIR OF THE BOARD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT WAS THE HOMELESSNESS LEADERSHIP TEAM.

BUT I WAS ON THAT BOARD AS MAYOR AND THERE WAS A STAFF MEMBER THERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE CONVERSATION AND EVERYBODY'S GOT AN OPINION.

VERY FEW PEOPLE PRESENT THE FACTS.

IT'S QUITE INTERESTING AND PEOPLE GET PERSONAL AND ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS.

BUT IT'S NOT THAT AT ALL.

IT'S THAT DISTRICT FOUR.

AND ALSO I JUST FIND IT INTERESTING.

MAYOR PRO TEM DURING THE CANVASING ELECTION, YOU SAID THAT IT WAS GAMESMANSHIP AND FAIRY TALES OF VOTERS, 8600 VOTERS.

THAT YOU ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO BECAUSE THEY DON'T VOTE IN DISTRICT TWO.

YOU'RE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THEM.

BUT 8600 PEOPLE SAID I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE SEAT EMPTY THAN HAVE SOMEONE REPRESENT MY DISTRICT.

THAT DOESN'T REPRESENT MY VALUES.

I'M SORRY I HAVE TO LISTEN TO THAT BECAUSE I AM ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL THE VOTERS.

I AM ACCOUNTABLE TO EVERYONE IN THE CITY, JUST LIKE COUNCILMEMBER MCGEE IS, JUST LIKE THE MAYOR IS.

DISTRICT TWO REP.

YOU CAN SAY ALL YOU WANT ABOUT PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR DISTRICT.

AND AND BESMIRCH THEM.

AND GASLIGHT LIED ABOUT HOW THE ELECTION WAS ILLEGAL AND ALL THESE KIND OF THINGS.

BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ACCOUNTABLE.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS BEST FOR THE CITY.

AND THAT IS WHY DON'T WE RETURN THIS BACK TO THE STATUS QUO THAT IT WAS FOR YEARS.

THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION MADE FOR WHATEVER REASON IT WAS MADE.

AND MY HUNCH IS IF COUNCILMEMBER MAGUIRE WERE STILL ON THIS BODY, THESE CONVERSATIONS WOULD NOT BE OCCURRING, PERIOD.

SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION JUST TO GET IT, JUST TO GET IT TO A VOTE, WHETHER IT PASSES OR NOT.

THAT'S THE PROCESS AND I TRUST THE PROCESS.

BUT THIS NOTION AND THIS FALSE NARRATIVE AND THIS GASLIGHTING THAT'S BEEN OCCURRING FOR OVER A YEAR.

THIS IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S WHY I'M ON THE CITY COUNCIL.

BECAUSE I DECIDED TO RUN WHEN I SAW THE RIDICULOUSNESS OF THE PROCESS, THE REDISTRICTING AND THE LACK OF PUBLIC INPUT AND REGARD FOR COMPROMISE.

SO THE PROCESS WILL BE THE PROCESS.

I TRUST IT. IF MAGUIRE STAYS ON BOTH BOARDS, SO BE IT.

SHE'LL SERVE WELL. HOPEFULLY SHE'LL SHE'LL GET DOWN TO BUSINESS AND QUIT THINKING THAT EVERYBODY IS OUT TO GET HER AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

PERIOD. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU. I WANTED TO SPEAK AGAIN TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS AND TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO SOMETHING THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID. WE ALL WE ALL DO IT UP HERE.

WE ALL SAY IT'S A FORM OF TRIANGULATION.

YOU SAY PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME THIS.

I'M GETTING A LOT OF EMAILS THAT I HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY THIS.

BUT EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS WE HAVE ELECTIONS AND THE COMMUNITY TELLS US EXACTLY.

NOT A POLL OF EMAILS, NOT HOW MANY NEIGHBORS DID I TALKED TO, NOT HOW MANY FOLKS CALLED ME UP TO TELL ME HOW THEY FEEL.

WE HAVE ELECTIONS AND THEY ARE SAFE AND SECURE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID THERE.

I'M REALLY FRANKLY, I'M GETTING REALLY TIRED OF THIS FALSE NARRATIVE THAT THERE IS A CONCERTED EFFORT AGAINST ANYBODY.

A GUY INTERRUPTS AND RANTS, CIRCULATED PETITION.

THAT WAS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY CITIZENS WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF ANYBODY UP HERE.

[05:35:02]

THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE WHO PUT OUT YARD SIGNS AND THAT WAS THEIR CONCERTED EFFORT.

AND THEY CALL ME ASKING IF I WANTED TO HELP THEM.

SURE THEY DID WHAT I SAID.

NO, NOBODY UP ON UP HERE ON THIS DAIS WAS PART OF WHAT PEOPLE DID IN DISTRICT FOUR IN NOVEMBER, WHERE I SAID I WAS GLAD WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THIS ITEM AND NOT TO BECAUSE THERE'S THIS WHOLE OTHER METANARRATIVE ABOUT THE BIG MONEYED INTERESTS WANT TO CONTROL CTA AND SHUT DOWN BUS ROUTES BECAUSE IT SOMEHOW BENEFITS SOMEBODY.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT HERE WE ARE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION SEPARATE FROM D.C.

TO WHERE IT'S THE SAME CONCERN THAT I HAVE JUST FROM A GOVERNANCE STANDPOINT.

SOMEONE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO RESIGNED BECAUSE THEY WERE ILL OR MOVED AWAY.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO TURNED OUT THE VOTERS VOTED NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PERSON STANDING IN FRONT OF US.

THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN A COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON COUNCIL OR A COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER WHO NEVER SERVED ON COUNCIL.

THERE'S BEEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY THE VOTERS TELLING US, NO, THANK YOU, AND I CANNOT IGNORE THAT.

I HAVE NO WAY TO IGNORE THAT EXCEPT FOR LIVING IN A MADE UP FAIRY TALE LAND WHERE THIS ISN'T THE RESULT OF REDISTRICTING, WHERE THIS ISN'T THE RESULT OF PEOPLE RISING UP UPSET ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON DOWN AT CITY HALL AND DOING WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO AND REMOVING SOMEBODY FROM REPRESENTING THEM.

HERE WE ARE. I DIDN'T ASK TO BE HERE, BUT HERE WE ARE.

AND THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE TO ME.

COUNCILMAN BURT, MR. PARLIAMENTARIAN AND MAYOR, WHAT MY CONCERN IS RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING HERE THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON.

AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DAYTON REPLACING ALLISON MCGUIRE AS A MEMBER.

I'M READY TO ACT ON THAT.

BUT WHAT I DO WANT TO ALSO REMIND US AND THE PUBLIC IS THAT WHENEVER WE'RE ALL SITTING ON A DAIS OR WE ARE IN A IN A MEETING AND WE HAVE EXECUTIVE BOARD AND WE HAVE A BOARD OF FOLKS THAT ARE HAVING THE DISCUSSION, THE REASON FOR THE MEETING IS FOR TO PROGRESS.

WHENEVER WE HAVE A MEETING, WE SHOULD BE GOING FORWARD AND MAKING THINGS CHANGE IN A POSITIVE, PROGRESSIVE MANNER.

AND AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE CONTENT THAT IS BEING SPOKEN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING TO SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS VERY NEGATIVE.

AND IF WE WOULD DO AS OUR POLICIES OR OUR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES REQUIRES US TO DO, IS THAT WE VOTE ON WHAT IS ON.

WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK TO IT.

SO ALL OF THE TALK THAT WE'RE THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING HERE, ALL OF THE RHETORIC, ALL OF THE NEGATIVITY, ALL OF THE PERSONAL STUFF THAT'S COMING OUT HERE, WE'RE WASTING TIME.

WE'RE WASTING TIME ON THAT.

AND BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS, IT'S OUT THERE IN THE IN THE IN THE SPACE.

BUT I HOPE THAT FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THAT WE SPEND TIME GOING FORWARD.

THAT'S WHAT MY ISSUE IS RIGHT NOW.

I'M READY TO VOTE ON THIS.

AND I THINK THAT IF WE CONTINUE TO SPEAK THE WAY THAT WE DO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO ONE ANOTHER, CALLING EACH OTHER OUT, ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF, THAT'S JUST OTHER STUFF.

BUT THE CITIZENS NEED FOR US TO MOVE ON AND GO FORWARD.

AND I THINK I'M READY TO DO THAT, SIR.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID.

MISS BERG CALLED THE QUESTION.

NO NEED TO VOTE ON THAT.

WE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE, BUT YOU'RE THE LAST SPEAKER, SO WE'LL JUST VOTE.

YEAH. SO THE MOTION IS AS A REMINDER, IT'S BEEN AMENDED SO EVERYONE TAKE NOTICE THAT IT'S BEEN AMENDED.

AND SECOND IN THE MOTION IS TO RESTORE DANNY SHAH TO THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LEADERSHIP BOARD AS A VOTING MEMBER.

THAT'S THE MOTION BEFORE US.

IT'S BEEN MOTION BY MYSELF, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

WE EDIT ON AT THE DAIS EVERY EVERY MEETING REGULARLY.

THAT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A NEW THING.

SO THAT'S PAR FOR THE COURSE.

[05:40:02]

SO THAT'S A MOTION.

VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.

MAYOR HUDSPETH IS A I.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS I COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

NAY. COUNCILMAN BURT.

NAY. COUNCILMEMBER.

MAYOR PRO TEM BACK, NAY.

COUNCILMAN WATTS.

OKAY, SO THAT WE DO NOT THAT MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A CONSENSUS AND FULL DISCLOSURE.

MS.. CITY MANAGER, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU.

I'LL MAKE A NOTE ONE MORE TIMELY, OR YOU CAN GET OUT IN FRONT OF ME AT THE NEXT MEETING IN MAY WHEN WE FILL THE WHEN WE CANVASS THE VOTE FOR DISTRICT FOUR, I'M GOING TO PUT THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA.

SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW.

OKAY, THAT TAKES US TO ITEM H, WHICH IS ID TWO, TWO TWO, FOUR, THREE, THREE.

[H. Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council for the City of Denton appointing a Primary Representative to the Board of Directors of the Denton County Transportation Authority; and providing for an effective date.]

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY OF DENTON APPOINTING A PRIMARY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE DENTON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

AND SO WE HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS.

SAME PRESENTATION.

SO NO PRESENTATION.

ALLISON MAGUIRE YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES AND A PLACE IN DENTON, TEXAS.

76210. I APOLOGIZE FOR MISTAKENLY ASSUMING THAT THESE ITEMS WOULD BE CALLED TOGETHER.

I MORE OR LESS ALREADY GAVE MY REMARKS.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8TH ONLY APPLIED TO DISTRICT FOUR.

BOTH OF THESE BOARDS ARE THE REPRESENTATIVE ON EACH OF THESE BOARDS REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE CITY RESIDENTS OUTSIDE OF DISTRICT FOUR. REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU CHOOSE TO DEFINE THAT, DIDN'T GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON WHETHER THEY WERE HAPPY WITH MY SERVICE OR NOT.

THE ONLY WAY THAT ANYONE HAS TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ABOUT MY SERVICE OR TO ACT ON THAT WOULD BE TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS VERBALLY TO THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

DISTRICT FOUR DOES NOT HAVE A A DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE ANYMORE, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO REACH OUT TO EVERYONE ELSE TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEW AND FOR THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEW ON WHETHER OR NOT I HAVE PROVIDED ADEQUATE SERVICE OR WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY WAY TO INFER HOW THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE FEEL ABOUT MY MY SERVICE BEYOND JUST EMAILS, PHONE CALLS, SPEAKERS.