Jan 24, 2023 City Council on 2023-01-24 2:00 PM (Special Called Meeting)

[00:00:01]

GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THIS MEETING THAT DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

[WORK SESSION]

IT IS TUESDAY, JANUARY 24TH.

AND SO WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CITIZENS COMMENTS, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT OF MY OWN TO START AND SAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MISS ALMA CLARK.

SHE TURNED 95 TODAY, SO I JUST LEFT THAT CELEBRATION.

SO THAT WAS GREAT TO KIND OF FELLOWSHIP WITH HER AND THEN ALSO IN HER FAMILY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT WAS REALLY GREAT. AND SO THEN I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANKS TO STAFF YESTERDAY, SPENT A LOT OF TIME YESTERDAY.

I MAY HAVE BEEN YESTERDAY AND I'LL RUN TOGETHER, BUT JUST WANT TO THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER AND STAFF FOR TAKING THE TIME TO KIND OF ALLOW ME TO TO PROCESS THROUGH SOME STUFF ON THE AGENDA AND THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PORTION REALLY, REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME TO BE PREPARED FOR TODAY.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO EXTEND MY GRATITUDE FOR FOR YOUR TIME.

I KNOW ALL HAVE BUSY DAYS AND SO I'M GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

AND PIVOT BACK TO SISTER CLARK.

ONE OF THE AMAZING THINGS IS HER HER HUSBAND, WHO'S DECEASED BUT LIVED IN QUAKERTOWN.

SO TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE.

SO JUST AN AMAZING PIECE OF HISTORY AND JUST A WEALTH OF INFORMATION AND CIVIC SERVICE.

SO TO TO HER AND HER FAMILY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY TO FELLOWSHIP WITH YOU ALL THAT TAKES US TO OUR FIRST WORK SESSION.

[1. Citizen Comments on Consent Agenda Items]

FIRST QUESTIONS AND CONSENT.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU.

THAT'S WEIRD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST HAVE TO OWN S.

OH, IS THE AIR MONITORING AND S IS THE BONNIE BRAE ONE LIGHTNING? WE HAVE CATHERINE BARNETT HERE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, AND THAT'S FOR OH, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE.

PROBABLY TREVOR FOR SE.

AWESOME. THANK YOU.

SO MY QUESTION IS THE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF ON THIS ITEM WAS TO REJECT IT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO MEET OUR SCOPE.

BUT I GUESS I DIDN'T SEE DOCUMENTATION FOR KIND OF WHAT THE FAILURES WERE AND WHAT WE CAN EXPECT GOING FORWARD.

SO NOT NOT HEARTBURN WITH THE REJECTION, BUT LIKE A LITTLE EXTRA LEVEL OF DETAIL OF WHAT HAPPENED, WHERE DID WE WHERE DID THEY OR WE MISSED THE BOAT ON SETTING THE SCOPE.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE SUBMISSIONS THAT WE RECEIVED DID NOT MEET A LOT OF THE INSTALLATION PARAMETERS THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN COST ON ONE OF THEM WAS EXTREMELY OUTSIDE OF OUR RANGE.

SO. THOSE WERE THE PRIMARY REASONS, JUST WASN'T WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING TO RECEIVE FOR THAT.

AND THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS ASSUMING THAT THAT GOES FORWARD LIKE ONE WOULD EXPECT, THE REJECTION GOES FORWARD, THEN YOU KNOW HOW WE YOU KNOW, I'M JUST LOOKING TO TO AVOID AND DRILL DOWN INTO, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP TO WHERE WE CAN GET TO TO THAT ITEM SUCCEEDING KIND OF THING. SO DO WE HAVE ENOUGH I GUESS LESSONS LEARNED THAT WE CAN CREATE A NEW SCOPE AND THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD? OR IS IT JUST GOING TO HANG THERE? NO LESSONS LEARNED? DEFINITELY LESSONS LEARNED ON THE SCOPE AND TAKING THAT PROJECT FORWARD.

PROBABLY IN SOME PHASES WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE COST DIFFERENTIAL BEING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ON THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I GUESS THAT WORKS FOR THAT ONE.

THANK YOU, CATHERINE. I APPRECIATE IT.

AND THEN ON ON SE, IT'S SIMILAR, NOT NOT A HEARTBURN PER SE WITH THE ITEM, BUT IF AGAIN, IT'S A SCOPE QUESTION.

IF OUR SCOPE WAS THIS WAS THE WIDENING OF BONNIE BRAE, IF OUR SCOPE WAS SO OFF THAT THE LOWEST NEXT BID WAS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ABOVE WHAT WE SCOPED FOR AND KNOW THERE WAS CONFUSION AND UNDERBIDDING, I GUESS AGAIN, ARE THERE ENOUGH LESSONS LEARNED THAT WE COULD RE SCOPE THIS TO WHERE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL BID? BECAUSE AGAIN, THE PROBLEM WITH SORT OF MISSING THE MARK ON THESE IS IT KICKS IT DOWN THE ROAD UNINTENTIONALLY.

SO THAT'S SORT OF MY GENERAL QUESTION.

SURE. SO THE SCOPE REMAINS THE SAME.

WE'RE GOING TO REPACKAGE THE PROJECT AND WE'D LIKE TO RE ADVERTISE IT AS A CSP.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS, WE HAD A COUPLE OF ADDENDUMS. THERE WERE SOME PLAN CHANGES RIGHT BEFORE BIDDING DUE TO THE I 35 AND THE F 1515 STATE PROJECTS.

SO WE HAD TO AMEND OUR PLANS LATE IN THE GAME AND SOME OF THE SHEETS WERE MISSING FROM THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SUB OF OUR ENGINEERING FIRM AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT

[00:05:09]

SO JUST AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY SOME OF THEIR LINE ITEMS WE FELT OR WHERE THEY BUILD RISK IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE EXTREMELY HIGH.

SO WE FELT LIKE THEY FELT LIKE THE THE SCHEDULE WAS SHORT.

WE'D HEARD THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES.

WE HAVE ABOUT ONE THIRD OF THE PROJECT THAT'S UNIMPEDED.

IT'S BRAND NEW RIGHT AWAY THAT WE'VE PURCHASED, SO THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT.

WE FELT LIKE AN 18 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE WAS REASONABLE BASED ON THAT OPEN AREA THAT THEY COULD WORK IN, BUT THEY FELT LIKE IT WAS STILL TOO SHORT, SO THEY BUILT RISK IN FOR THE POSSIBLE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES THAT THEY COULD BE BUILT IF THEY WERE OVERSCHEDULE SO OR OVER THE PROJECT SCHEDULE.

SO IN THIS FORM, IF WE REPACKAGE IT, RE ADVERTISE IT AS A CSP.

WE'RE ASKING THE CONTRACTORS TO PROPOSE THEIR PHASING PROCESS INSTEAD OF US DEPICTING IT IN THE PLANS.

SO THAT WAY THEY CAN THEY CAN BUILD IT THE WAY THEY WANT IN THE DIRECTION THEY WANT, WHICHEVER WAY THAT MIGHT BE, INSTEAD OF US DEPICTING IT, WHICH ALSO COULD COULD HAVE SOME UNKNOWN RISK FACTORS IN IT AS WELL.

OKAY. SO, ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THAT HELPS CLARIFY, ESPECIALLY WITH IN COMBINATION.

TOGETHER IN THE NEW BID PROCESS WILL ACCEPT THOSE CSPS AND GO FROM THERE.

BUT WE REALLY THINK AND WE'LL EXTEND THE SCHEDULE OF 24 MONTHS TO EIGHT FROM 18.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND THAT WAS ROBIN. NOT.

NOT TREVOR. THAT'S NOT TREVOR.

THAT IS WHY I DIDN'T EVEN HEAR THAT PART.

YEAH, BUT IT IS.

IT'S ROBIN, AND SHE DOES A GREAT JOB.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. AND FOR THOSE TRACKING ALONG, IF YOU ARE CITIZEN WISE, IF YOU GO TO THE AGENDA AND GO TO TODAY'S AGENDA AND GO TO THE INFORMATION BACKGROUND, SO I'S AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET ON THERE.

SO YOU GO TO THE ITEM, YOU GO TO A PARTICULAR ITEM, AND THEN YOU GO DOWN TO THE INFORMATION BACKGROUND.

YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THE ANSWERS THAT ARE PROVIDED BY STAFF TODAY SO THAT THOSE ARE DOCUMENTED.

SO IF YOU NEED TO READ THOSE OR IF STAFF ANSWERED FAST AND YOU'RE CURIOUS ABOUT THOSE ANSWERS ABOUT ANYTHING, EITHER QUESTIONS ASK OR NOT.

GO TO THE AGENDA, GO TO THAT ICE, GO TO BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ARTICULATES THOSE DETAILS AS TO WHY THINGS WERE DECISIONS WERE MADE OR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SO JUST SO THOSE PEOPLE HAVE THAT INFORMATION THAT TAKES US TO OUR WORK SESSION.

FIRST ITEM A IS A.

I'D TOO. TOO.

YEAH, BUT DID WE WAS THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM ALSO THE CLARIFICATION FOR AGENDA ITEMS BECAUSE IF SO, I MISSED IT BECAUSE I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ON AN AGENDA ITEM OTHER THAN THE CONSENT.

YES, IT WAS. SO GO RIGHT AHEAD.

WELL, MY QUESTION AND PROBABLY IS NOT GOING TO BE ANSWERED, BUT ON AGENDA INDIVIDUAL ITEM OF CONSIDERATION, AGENDA ITEM FIVE B, WHICH IS THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THAT PRESENTATION AND ESPECIALLY SEEING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHY DID WE NOT HAVE WORK SESSION ON THIS FIRST TO REALLY INSTEAD OF IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING INTO THE ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, THE FULL STAFF PRESENTATION.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN TOO MUCH INFORMATION ON THIS BEFORE, A PRESENTATION AND A VOTE.

SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO THE ORDER OF THAT.

I THINK WE TALKED, LINDA, WAS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. WE HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION IN HERE ABOUT THIS.

WELL, ACTUALLY, IT WASN'T BRIEF.

IT WAS IT WAS QUITE A AND I DON'T KNOW, COUNCILMEMBER WATTS, IF YOU WERE ON THAT FOR THAT DISCUSSION.

BUT TWO THINGS. WE HAD A DISCUSSION IN HERE, BUT THE OTHER FOLLOWING AFTER THAT, I HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND THE AGENDA COMMITTEE MEETING TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

FAIR ENOUGH. NO, THAT'S FINE.

THAT THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS DISCUSSED AND AND I WASN'T I JUST WAS WASN'T PARTICIPATING, APPARENTLY.

SO I HAVE INFORMATION I WILL SEND YOU AND SHARE WITH YOU THAT WOULD PROBABLY HELP EVEN IN MORE, DEEPER INFORMATION THAT I'LL GET TO YOU.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I APOLOGIZE. MAYOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

SURE. TAKES US TO OUR WORK SESSION.

FIRST ITEM, A ID, TWO, TWO, TWO, FOUR, FOUR TO REVIEW A REPORT, HOLD DISCUSSION, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING AUDIT PROJECTS 030 SOLID

[A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Audit Project 030 - Solid Waste Operations: Safety, Training, & Reporting Compliance. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MADISON RORSCHACH DENTON CITY AUDITOR.

I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN.

GET US STARTED HERE.

AND YET I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE FINDINGS FROM PHASE TWO OF OUR AUDIT OF THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS, WHICH FOCUSED ON SAFETY TRAINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING COMPLIANCE

[00:10:01]

SO THIS AUDIT GENERALLY EVALUATED THE CONTROLS AND PROCESSES IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY TO MINIMIZE SOLID WASTE, WORK RELATED ACCIDENTS AND INJURIES, AS WELL AS ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WERE MET.

BASED ON DATA RELEASED BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, WASTE COLLECTION IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS INDUSTRIES.

IN ADDITION, THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT REPORTED THE SECOND MOST SAFETY RELATED INCIDENTS IN THE CITY OVER THE LAST FOUR FISCAL YEARS, INDICATING THAT SAFETY IS CRITICAL TO AN EFFECTIVE, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATION.

SPECIFICALLY, THIS AUDIT EVALUATED SAFETY AND EQUIPMENT TRAINING REQUIREMENT, COMPLIANCE, SAFETY, INCIDENT REPORTING PROCEDURES, TRUCK SAFETY CONDITION, SAFETY EQUIPMENT, CONDITION MONITORING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORTING, ACCURACY AND COMPLIANCE.

SO I BEGIN BY DISCUSSING SAFETY AND EQUIPMENT TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

GIVEN THE INHERENT RISKINESS OF SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS, TRAINING ON OCCUPATION, SAFETY AND OPERATING ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT IS VITAL.

SINCE 2018, THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT SEEMS TO HAVE EXPANDED THE AMOUNT OF SAFETY TRAINING OFFERED, AS WELL AS IMPLEMENTED PROCESSES TO IMPROVE DOCUMENTATION OF EQUIPMENT TRAINING. SPECIFICALLY, SPECIFICALLY, THE DEPARTMENT BEGAN REQUIRING LANDFILL DIVISION STAFF TO COMPLETE A COMPREHENSIVE OCCUPATION SAFETY TRAINING UPON HIRE IN 2020 AND RECENTLY IMPLEMENTED A SIMILAR, COMPREHENSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE, SIMILAR REQUIREMENT FOR COLLECTIONS DIVISION STAFF.

FURTHER, THE DEPARTMENT HOLDS MONTHLY SAFETY MEETINGS TO REFRESH EMPLOYEES AND HELP KEEP SAFETY TOP OF MIND.

IN ADDITION, DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE DEFENSIVE DRIVING EVERY TWO YEARS PER CITY POLICY AND HAZARD COMMUNICATION, OR HAS CALM TRAINING BY STATE REGULATION. SOLID WASTE HAS IMPLEMENTED A DEFENSIVE DRIVING PROGRAM SPECIFIC TO MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES AND BEGAN OFFERING ANNUAL HOUSE TRAINING IN 2021.

WHILE THESE SAFETY TRAINING OFFERINGS GENERALLY APPEAR TO BE COMPREHENSIVE, WE FOUND EVIDENCE THAT TRAININGS ARE NOT COMPLETED CONSISTENTLY, ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY WHEN KIND OF DISAGGREGATED INTO THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT.

BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, THIS INCONSISTENCY MAY BE DUE TO SCHEDULING DIFFERENCES AS, FOR EXAMPLE, LANDFILL EMPLOYEES GENERALLY WORK FROM 7 A.M.

TO 4 P.M., WHILE COMMERCIAL COLLECTION EMPLOYEES WORK FROM 4 A.M.

TO NOON. IN ADDITION, THE IMPLEMENTED DEFENSIVE DRIVING PROGRAM CAN ONLY BE TAUGHT BY TWO EMPLOYEES IN THE DEPARTMENT, BOTH OF WHOM HAVE ADDITIONAL DUTIES APART FROM JUST TEACHING THE CLASS. IN ADDITION TO GENERAL OCCUPATION SAFETY TRAINING, IT'S CRITICAL THAT EMPLOYEES BE ADEQUATELY TRAINED ON THE DIFFERENT PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO OPERATE FOR THEIR DUTIES.

BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, THIS TRAINING IS GENERALLY COMPLETED ON THE JOB OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL MONTHS.

AS SUCH, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ESTABLISHED A PROCESS TO DOCUMENT THIS TRAINING, WHICH INCLUDES COMPLETING A TRAINING, INITIATION LETTER, LOGGING, DAILY TRAINING HOURS AND CERTIFYING A PROFICIENCY LETTER ONCE TRAINING IS COMPLETE.

WHILE THIS PROCESS WOULD ENSURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT EMPLOYEES ARE TRAINED ON IS CLEARLY DOCUMENTED, WE FOUND THAT ABOUT 10% OF EMPLOYEES DID NOT HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION OF THEIR EQUIPMENT TRAINING, AND AN ADDITIONAL 50% DID NOT HAVE ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION.

THAT BEING SAID, WE FOUND THAT THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED A PROCESS TO MONITOR THAT ALL DRIVERS OF CITY VEHICLES, INCLUDING SOLID WASTE DRIVERS, ARE APPROPRIATELY LICENSED TO OPERATE THE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT THAT THEY USE.

BASED ON THE DEPARTMENT'S MANAGEMENT RESPONSE, THEY PLAN TO ESTABLISH PROCESSES TO ENSURE THAT REQUIRED TRAININGS ARE COMPLETED AND DOCUMENTED APPROPRIATELY.

NEXT IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY MONITOR AN ORGANIZATION'S SAFETY HISTORY.

INJURIES, INJURIES, PROPERTY DAMAGE, VEHICLE ACCIDENTS AND NEAR-MISSES SHOULD BE CONSISTENTLY REPORTED AND TRACKED.

THE CITY HAS IMPLEMENTED AN INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT IS DESIGNED TO CENTRALIZE THE MANAGEMENT AND TRACKING OF THESE SAFETY RELATED INCIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

WHILE THE SYSTEM DOES REQUIRE SOME STANDARDIZED INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED, DEPARTMENTS ARE ALSO EXPECTED TO INVESTIGATE AND DOCUMENT ANY INCIDENTS PER THEIR OWN PROCESS.

BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH SOLID WASTE STAFF, THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A STANDARD FORM AND INVESTIGATION, INCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND REPORTING TRAINING FOR SUPERVISORS AND CREW LEADERS TO USE.

HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES FOR THIS PROCESS.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE IS ALSO NO CITY WIDE PROCEDURE THAT PROVIDES GUIDANCE TO DEPARTMENTS ON HOW, WHEN OR WHAT TO REPORT AND WHAT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS NECESSARY. BASED ON REVIEW OF 13 SOLID WASTE INCIDENTS AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION, WE FOUND INCONSISTENCIES IN WHAT WAS PHOTOGRAPHED AND HOW INFORMATION WAS LISTED.

SIMILARLY, WE FOUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS DEVELOPED A PROCESS THAT REQUIRES DRIVERS TO COMPLETE A PRE AND POST TRIP INSPECTION FOR THEIR TRUCKS.

AS PART OF THESE INSPECTIONS, DRIVERS MUST COMPLETE A CHECKLIST IN THE CITY'S ROUTING SYSTEM BEFORE THEY CAN SEE THEIR ROUTE FOR THE DAY OR COMPLETE THEIR TRIP IN THE SYSTEM.

THAT BEING SAID, THERE'S NOT CLEAR GUIDANCE FOR STAFF ON WHEN A TRUCK SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE BASED ON INSPECTION RESULTS, WHICH COULD CREATE UNCERTAINTY AND POTENTIALLY

[00:15:06]

WE ALSO DID PERFORM AN UNANNOUNCED OBSERVATION OF TEN TRUCKS TO VERIFY THAT BASIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT, LIKE BACKUP CAMERAS, MIRRORS AND BACKING BEEPERS, WERE OPERATIONAL.

AND BASED ON THAT OBSERVATION, ALL IN-SERVICE TRUCKS THAT WE REVIEWED HAD OPERATING SAFETY EQUIPMENT BASED ON THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSE.

THE DEPARTMENT PLANS TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING INCIDENT REPORTS AND RESPONDING TO ISSUES NOTED IN THE PRE AND POST TRIP INSPECTIONS.

FINALLY, THE STATE OF TEXAS REQUIRES ENTITIES TO OBTAIN PERMITS FROM THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OR TCU TO OPERATE A LANDFILL AS PART OF THE PERMIT. CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL DATA MUST BE REGULARLY RECORDED AND SUBMITTED TO ATTEST TO PERMIT COMPLIANCE.

AND IN ADDITION, COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INVESTIGATIONS ARE COMPLETED BY TCU PERIODICALLY IN 2022.

TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR.

WHILE WE WERE DOING THIS AUDIT, TCU COMPLETED A COMPLIANCE EVALUATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON'S LANDFILL AND FOUND NO VIOLATIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS.

IN ADDITION, WE FOUND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAS GENERALLY ESTABLISHED EFFECTIVE PROCESSES FOR RECORDING AND TRACKING DATA, DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE THAT REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED TIMELY AND COMPLETED ACCURATELY.

THAT BEING SAID, THERE WERE FEW OPPORTUNITIES TO POTENTIALLY INCREASE EFFICIENCY.

SPECIFICALLY, WE FOUND THAT COLLECTED DATA IS GENERALLY RECORDED ON HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND MUST THEN BE RE ENTERED SO THAT IT CAN BE REPORTED INCREASING THE RISK FOR ACCURACY ERRORS. SIMILARLY, COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES ARE TRACKED MANUALLY USING A PAPER CALENDAR, WHICH INCREASES THE RISK THAT DEADLINES COULD BE MISSED OR DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES PERFORMED LATE.

WHILE NEITHER OF THOSE ISSUES APPEARED TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE DEPARTMENT, MINIMIZING THE USAGE OF HAND WRITTEN DATA AND POTENTIALLY IMPLEMENTING COMPLIANCE SOFTWARE COULD IMPROVE THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFICIENCY.

SO BASED ON THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSE, THE DEPARTMENT PLANS TO RESEARCH POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE, SOFTWARES AND WAYS TO MINIMIZE HANDWRITTEN DATA COLLECTION.

SO IN SUMMARY, WE ISSUED A TOTAL OF 12 RECOMMENDATIONS, NINE OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT CONCURRED, AND THE REMAINING THREE THEY PARTIALLY CONCURRED.

BASED ON THIS RESPONSE, WE BELIEVE THE IDENTIFIED RISKS WILL BE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED AND WE WILL CONDUCT A FOLLOW UP REVIEW IN THE NEXT 18 TO 36 MONTHS, LIKELY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS AUDIT.

I'LL STOP SHARING MY SCREEN.

GREAT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S. MADISON.

I WAS TRYING TO FIND IT IN THE REPORT, IN THE BACKUP.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE GRAPH OF THE PAYOUTS, I BELIEVE IT'S YOUR SLIDE.

WHAT IS THIS? SLIDE FOUR OF SEVEN.

AND THE PRESENTATION, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS GRAPH, IS THERE.

IS THERE AN IDENTIFIABLE REASON? BECAUSE, I MEAN, IN 2019 THEY HAD THE PAYOUT WAS A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS AND IT STEADILY DECREASED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 2022, WHICH IS A LITTLE OVER 200, WHICH IS CUT IT ALMOST IN HALF. ARE THESE PRIMARILY WORK RELATED INJURIES OR ARE THEY ACCIDENTS INVOLVING LIKE AUTOMOBILES OR THINGS THAT GET RUN INTO OR.

YEAH, PRIMARILY THE CLAIMS INVOLVING SOLID WASTE OR MOTOR VEHICLE RELATED ACCIDENTS.

OKAY. DO YOU WERE YOU DID YOU FIND THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING IMPLEMENTED BETWEEN 2019 AND NOW THAT HAS SORT OF GIVEN A CAUSATION FOR THE REDUCTION? I MEAN, IS THAT HAVE HAVE THE ACCIDENTS DECREASED THAT MUCH OVER THAT TIME? I MEAN, THESE ARE THE CLAIM NUMBERS.

I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK TO SEE IF INCIDENT REPORTS BECAUSE NOT NECESSARILY CLAIM DOESN'T ALWAYS EQUATE TO AN INCIDENT.

SO. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

MAYOR, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, UNTIL THAT POINT, I THINK THERE ARE.

TO YOUR POINT, COUNCILMAN WATTS, I THINK WE HAD I FORGET THE CONSULTING GROUP THAT CAME IN AND WE USED TO RUN THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT EACH TIME SOMETHING WAS DUMPED AND WE CHANGED THAT THERE.

ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS FOR EFFICIENCY THAT WE WE WORK ZONES AND SO PEOPLE DUMP IN AN AREA, THEN WE COME BACK AND WORK IT.

SO THERE'S LESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR HEAVY MACHINERY AND CITIZENS TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE.

AND THERE'S BEEN SOME OTHER THINGS THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WE'VE IMPLEMENTED SO THAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THAT SAME THING.

AND I THINK THAT THAT GOT INFORMED A LOT OF THAT THAT THAT CHANGES THOSE THOSE WE REVIEWED THAT REPORT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING AND THERE WERE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LANDFILL SIDE, A LOT OF THINGS THAT IMPLEMENTED FOR SAFETY REASONS THAT COULD IT COULD HAVE CERTAINLY IMPACTED THE CLAIM NUMBERS IN THIS THAT THAT YOU SEE IN THAT GRAPH. YEAH. GOT IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING A LOOK AT THAT ONE.

WAS THAT WHAT YEAR IS IT? 2018, I BELIEVE.

GOT IT. SEEMS LIKE IT WAS YESTERDAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

[00:20:02]

I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. YEP.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM B, WHICH IS ID 222568 RECEIVED REPORT.

[B. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the updates to the Roadway Impact Fees. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 45 minutes]]

IT'S A GOOD PICTURE. YOU TWO THERE WITH A FLAG IN THE BACK.

THAT'D BE MAKE FOR A GOOD FLIER.

THAT'S GREAT. YEAH.

YEAH, RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, I'M PROBABLY SURE THAT THIS IS GOING IN THE TRASH.

I'VE BEEN CALLED THE GRINCH.

OSCAR THE GROUCH.

MY SON CALLED ME A CHRISTMAS TREE THIS MORNING, SO, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT GREEN WAS A GOOD COLOR, BUT.

YEAH, YOU KNOW, SO.

YEAH, GO GREEN.

I DO HAVE ONE DEGREE FROM THERE.

SO GOING GREEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S ROUGH OUT THERE.

OH, IT IS.

IT IS. YEAH.

GO AHEAD. MORE COLOR, MORE HAIR COLOR, I GUESS.

YOU KNOW. GOOD AFTERNOON, BECKY.

DEVINNEY, CITY ENGINEER, GENERAL MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS.

WE'RE HERE TODAY AS A FOLLOW UP FOR WORK SESSION PRESENTATION ON THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

AS YOU'RE AWARE, THIS WILL BE THE THIRD TIME WE'VE COME TO YOU TODAY.

AND REALLY OUR GOAL TODAY IS TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE AND REALLY WORK THROUGH SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT YOU ASKED FOR US TO BRING FORWARD.

I WANT TO KEEP IN MIND THE FIRST TIME THAT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES WERE ADOPTED WAS BACK IN 2016.

AND THIS IS THE UPDATE.

AS YOU'RE ALL AWARE, WE'RE ALMOST GOING ON A YEAR SINCE WE'VE UPDATED AND ADOPTED THE 2022 MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH GAVE US THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE.

SO I HAVE PETE KELLEY WITH KIMLEY-HORN, JEFF WHITAKER WITH KIMLEY-HORN HERE.

JEFF'S GOT THE COMPUTER OPEN READY TO DO ANY CALCULATIONS THAT WE MIGHT NEED.

AND WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO TRY TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS.

SO I'M HOPING BY THE TIME WE'VE COMPLETED THIS PRESENTATION, WE HAVE SOME DIRECTION AS TO WHERE WE WANT TO HEAD.

YOU WILL SEE US COME BACK IN MARCH.

AND I WANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT TODAY THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM WAS LITERALLY JUST TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR MARCH 7TH.

THAT'S REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE.

SO WE SET THAT TODAY AS A PART OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

AND THEN WHEN WE COME BACK, MARCH 7TH, OUR GOAL THERE WILL TO BE TO FIRST HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK TO ADOPT THE OVERALL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY. THAT'S EXHIBIT TWO.

I BELIEVE IN YOUR BACKUP.

AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION THAT SAME DAY, HOST A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ACTUALLY ADOPT THE RES.

SO THE STUDY ITSELF IS ALLOWING US TO SET THE MAXIMUM RATE AND THEN THE ACTUAL PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THE RATE WILL BE THE PERCENTAGE THAT YOU CHOOSE.

BASED ON THE CONVERSATION WE HAVE TODAY, I DO WANT TO BRING FORWARD THAT WE HAVE SENT OUT TO ALL THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION AND ALSO A COPY OF SOME OF THE BACKUP INFORMATION FROM THE STUDY THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED.

WE HAVE MET WITH A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS AND WE'VE RECEIVED A FEW QUESTIONS.

I'M ACTUALLY BUILDING A COMMENT LOG ON THAT SO YOU CAN ALL BE AWARE OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'RE RECEIVING IN THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SPEAKING WITH.

SO I HAVE A WAY TO TRACK ALL OF THAT.

BUT JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU KIND OF SOME BACKGROUND ON WHAT NEXT STEPS LOOK LIKE.

SO MARCH 7TH BE BACK TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THESE ITEMS, BUT I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO PETE AND LET HIM GIVE THE PRESENTATION MYSELF. JEFF, WE'RE ALL HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS THEY COME UP, BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU TODAY AND WITH PETE.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU, BECKY.

SET UP QUITE NICELY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON. SO WE ARE GOING TO TODAY WE'RE GOING TO JUST RECAP SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM YOU BACK IN DECEMBER.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO RECAP SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM CIC ALSO BACK IN DECEMBER.

WE'RE GOING TO SHOW THE UPDATED COLLECTION OPTIONS TO YOU AND GO OVER THOSE IN DETAIL.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO SHOW THOSE IN CONTEXT WITH THE COMPARISON DATA THAT YOU'VE SEEN PREVIOUSLY.

AND WE'RE GOING TO ALSO GO OVER WHAT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS, HOW MUCH REVENUE HAS BEEN COLLECTED IN THE IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND SINCE ITS INCEPTION, WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER THAT, ALSO GO OVER SOME PROJECTIONS OF WHAT THE IMPACT FEE REVENUE COULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT TODAY, WHAT KIND OF IMPACT THAT WILL HAVE ON ON ROADWAY FUNDING.

AND THEN AGAIN TO THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS, WHICH MOSTLY BECKY'S ALREADY COVERED.

SO WE MAY NOT NEED TO COVER THAT ONE AGAIN.

AND BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO REFERENCE IT A FEW TIMES IN THERE.

THERE IT IS THERE, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO IT.

RIGHT. CIC IS THE BACKBONE.

[00:25:05]

THERE WE GO. SO, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

SO. SO WHEN PEOPLE HEAR THAT CIC, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING? THAT'S RIGHT. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY, GREAT.

JUST IN CASE. GO AHEAD. ABSOLUTELY.

SO IN THE WORK SESSION WE HELD IN DECEMBER, THE THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE BULLET POINTS.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSION IN THAT.

BUT THE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT MEETING RANGED FROM 30% TO 80%.

THERE WAS A GOOD AMOUNT OF SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA OF AN ESCALATING FEE EACH YEAR TO ALLOW SOME TIME FOR THE RATE TO GO UP, RATHER THAN JUMPING UP MUCH VERY HIGH VERY QUICKLY. AND THERE WAS ALSO A DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THE VARIOUS COLLECTION RATES ON ON THE CURRENT TAX RATE.

WHAT'S WHAT'S THE BURDEN BORNE BY THE COMMUNITY BASED OFF THE COLLECTION RATES.

SOME OF THE FEEDBACK FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR CIC, THEY ALSO HAD SIMILAR RANGE OF RECOMMENDATION OF COLLECTION RATES FROM 30 TO 70%.

AND WE'RE ALSO GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF AN ANNUAL ESCALATION IN THE FEE.

ADDITIONALLY, THIS WAS AN EMOTION THAT WAS PASSED, BUT ONE OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS WAS AN INTEREST IN INCREASING THE NON RESIDENTIAL DISCOUNT IN SERVICE AREAS A, C AND E, OR A LOT OF THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES GOING ON.

CURRENTLY IT'S 25% LESS THAN WHAT'S BEING COLLECTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PER VEHICLE MILE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ESTABLISH WHY.

WHY SHOULD THIS GROUP BE CONSIDERING ADOPTION OF A NEW COLLECTION RATE MOVING FORWARD? CURRENTLY, THE COLLECTION AND WE'LL COVER THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE ON NEXT SLIDE.

AGAIN, WITH THE COLLECTION RATE OPTIONS.

BUT CURRENTLY YOU'RE COLLECTING 20% OF THE MAXIMUM FEE BASED OFF OF THE 2016 CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS.

AND YOU KNOW, THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE GONE UP QUITE A BIT SINCE THEN.

BUT ULTIMATELY WE'RE UNDER COLLECTING AND COLLECTING COMPARED TO THE TO THE NEED THAT WAS CALCULATED AT THE TIME.

ALSO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT RECENTLY WITH IMPACT FEE DOLLARS, MOST OF THEM, IT'S LESS THAN 5% ARE FUNDED BY IMPACT FEES AND THE REST IS FUNDED BY BY OTHER FUNDS.

AND ALSO JUST THE COST OF ROADWAYS, NOT FUNDED BY IMPACT FEES ARE GOING TO BE THE REST OF THAT COST IS CAN BE BORNE BY THE COMMUNITY.

SO WANT TO WALK THROUGH THE THE COLLECTION OPTIONS HERE.

FIRST, I'M GOING TO START WITH THE 2016 MAX FEE IN THE FIRST ROW.

THERE YOU SEE THAT THE COST PER VEHICLE MILE IS CALCULATED AT $2,002.

AND THERE'S A TABLE IN THE STUDY.

THAT SHOWS ALL THE DIFFERENT LAND USES AND EACH DIFFERENT LAND USE GENERATES A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF VEHICLE MILES.

WELL, THE ONLY LAND USE WE'VE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

IT'S ONE OF IT'S THE MOST COMMON.

IT'S EASY TO WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND WHAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER LAND USES IN THAT TABLE.

SO THE WAY THAT WE GET TO THAT $9,808 NUMBER IS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND THE 2016 STUDY GENERATES 4.9 VEHICLE MILES.

SO IT'S THE $2,002 MULTIPLIED BY 4.9.

THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS THE MAXIMUM FEE.

WHAT WAS ADOPTED WAS $408.16 PER VEHICLE MILE.

AND THE CALCULATION TO GET TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AGAIN, THAT 4.9 BRINGS YOU TO 2000 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO THAT'S ROUGHLY 20% OF THE MAXIMUM FEE MOVING FORWARD TO THE 2022 STUDY.

THE MAXIMUM FEE ASSESSABLE FEE PER VEHICLE MILE.

AND THIS IS CITYWIDE AVERAGE.

SO IT VARIES IN EACH SERVICE AREA IS $4,455 PER VEHICLE MILE.

AND THE THE RATES THAT WE USE ARE BASED OFF OF EITI, WHICH IS A NATIONAL SOURCE.

THOSE GET UPDATED EVERY SO OFTEN.

THEY HAVE BEEN UPDATED ACTUALLY TWICE SINCE THE LAST IMPACT FEE STUDY.

AND THE NUMBER USED THERE IS 4.61 VEHICLE MILES PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND THAT BRINGS US TO $20,538 PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THAT'S THE MAXIMUM FEE.

SO AS A STARTING POINT, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IF WE MAINTAIN THE SAME PERCENTAGE OR IN OTHER WORDS, JUST TO KEEP UP WITH INFLATION, WITH THE RISING CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

AND THAT CAME OUT TO $891 A VEHICLE MILE.

AND AGAIN, LOOKING AT IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THAT WOULD BE JUST OVER FOUR, $100 A VEHICLE MILE.

A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS HAS BEEN ABOUT WE, WE WE KNOW WE NEED TO COLLECT MORE.

WE NEED TO TAKE SOME OF THAT BURDEN OFF THE COMMUNITY AND WE NEED TO KEEP UP WITH THE DEMAND OF THE ROADS THAT NEED TO GET BUILT.

SO THE THE COLLECTION OPTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED HERE ARE STARTING AT 30%, 40% AND 50%.

NOW, YOU'LL YOU'LL NOTICE HERE, THESE OPTIONS ALSO INCLUDE A 5% ESCALATION PER YEAR.

[00:30:06]

SO YEAR ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE 30% YEAR ONE WOULD BE 30% YEAR TO 35 YEAR THREE, 40 YEAR 445 AND YEAR FIVE WOULD BE 50%.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING 30 AND 50%.

AND THEN 40. AND 60 AND 50 AND 70.

SAME THING AS YOU GO DOWN TO THE THE ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS, YOU SEE THE BOLDED DOLLAR AMOUNT, THAT'S THE YEAR ONE AMOUNT.

AND THEN THE AMOUNT IN PARENTHESES IS WHAT IT WOULD BE AFTER FIVE YEARS OF THAT 5% ESCALATION.

A QUICK RULE OF THUMB TO LOOK AT THIS IS OPTION ONE IS ROUGHLY THREE TIMES WHAT'S BEING COLLECTED TODAY.

IT'S JUST OVER $6,000 A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

OPTION TWO IS ROUGHLY FOUR TIMES AND OPTION THREE IS ROUGHLY FIVE TIMES.

AGAIN, THAT'S THAT APPLIES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

IT'LL BE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT USES.

AND WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS IF THEY COME UP.

BUT GENERALLY THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

AND AGAIN, THE THE RATE THAT GETS ADOPTED IS THE DOLLAR PER VEHICLE MILE.

AND THEN THE CALCULATIONS FOR WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LAND USE THOSE THOSE HAPPEN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM.

BEFORE I MOVE ON HERE, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS NOW OR YOU WANT TO DO THOSE AFTER THE PRESENTATION? WHAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU.

IT'S BEST TO HAVE THE QUESTIONS NOW.

OR CAN YOU? YOU CAN REFERENCE BACK.

NO PROBLEM. YEAH, I CAN COME BACK TO THEM LATER.

YES, LET'S DO THAT. SO TAKING THESE THREE OPTIONS TO PUT THEM IN CONTEXT OF OUR COLLECTION RATE DATA, WE DID HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COST OF THE COMPARISON CITIES AND THE MAX FEES AND THOSE AND WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM FROM DENTON.

ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS NEW BRAUNFELS, WE PREVIOUSLY HAD 2022 ON THERE.

THAT WAS THE LAST TIME THAT THE COLLECTION RATE WAS UPDATED.

THE COSTS WERE ACTUALLY BASED OFF OF 2018, SO WE'VE CORRECTED THAT ON THE TABLE HERE.

ALSO, THERE'S A LOT OF TEXTILE FACILITIES ON THE CAPE, AND MOST OF THOSE ARE ARE PRIMARILY FUNDED THROUGH TEXTILE ART.

SO THAT BRINGS OUR CAP COSTS DOWN A BIT.

ONE OTHER THING A COUPLE OTHER EXAMPLES WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN EXCUSE ME, IN FLOWER MOUND, WHERE WE HAVE A VERY HIGHLY DEVELOPED AREA ON THE EAST AND AN OPEN GROWING AREA OUT ON THE WEST.

SO WE SPLIT IT THAT OUT.

WE SPLIT THAT OUT INTO TWO ROWS.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE EAST, IT'S $3,000 ON AVERAGE.

AND OVER ON THE WEST SIDE, IT'S CLOSER TO 18,000.

A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH WE SEE THE WEST SIDE AS BEING A LOT MORE SIMILAR TO THE DENTON, ESPECIALLY THE AREAS AND ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF TOWN THAT ARE THAT ARE GROWING RAPIDLY.

SIMILAR WITH FORT WORTH WASN'T PREVIOUSLY ON THIS SLIDE.

THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES.

WE TRY TO HIGHLIGHT ONE OF THE SERVICE AREAS, WHICH WE THINK IS ALSO SIMILAR IN NATURE TO PARTS OF DENTON.

THAT'S A SERVICE AREA FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF FORT WORTH THAT HAS A LOT OF POTENTIAL FOR GROWTH RIGHT NOW AND ALSO HAS A LOT OF CREEKS AND FLOODPLAINS, SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES TO OVERCOME WITH THE ROADWAY DESIGN.

AND THAT CAME OUT TO 28,000, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THEY'RE CURRENTLY COLLECTING THEIR ORDNANCE, IS GOING TO BE COLLECTING 50% OF THAT STARTING IN JUNE.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE COLLECTION RATE OPTIONS IN YEAR ONE WOULD BE 2000.

AGAIN, JUST OVER 6180, 200 AND JUST OVER 10,000.

SO JUST COVERING SOME OF THE HISTORIC REVENUES FOR THE IMPACT FEE PROGRAM SINCE ITS INCEPTION, THE 2016 AND 2017 FISCAL YEAR WASN'T A FULL YEAR.

JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT.

AND ALSO THE 22 TO 23 ISN'T COMPLETE YET.

SO THOSE TWO ARE INCOMPLETE YEARS.

BUT TODAY YOU'VE COLLECTED JUST OVER $22 MILLION IN ROADWAY IMPACT FEE REVENUE, AND THIS IS THE BREAKOUT OF THOSE IN EACH SERVICE AREA.

SO IN THIS SLIDE, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT WHAT KIND OF REVENUE DO WE PROJECT COULD BE COLLECTED AT THE THREE DIFFERENT COLLECTION RATE OPTIONS THAT WE'VE PRESENTED TODAY.

AND I'LL TRY TO WALK THROUGH EACH COLUMN AND WHAT THIS MEANS.

SO THE THE FIRST COLUMN THAT HAS A DOLLAR AMOUNT IN IT, THAT'S THE FIVE YEAR TOTAL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SIP COST.

ONE DIFFERENTIATION I WANT TO MAKE HERE IS THIS ISN'T THE REGULAR CITY'S FIVE YEAR SIP, WHERE IT'S A PROGRAM LIST OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE.

THIS IS THE THE TEN YEAR NEED THAT'S CALCULATED IN THE STUDY IN TABLE NINE, THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE.

[00:35:03]

SO THAT INCLUDES EXISTING THE COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AS WELL, A LOT OF WHICH IS ALREADY CAPTURED IN THE BONDS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT TO TO FUND EXISTING ROADS.

GOING FROM THERE TO SEE HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ACTUALLY RECOVERABLE THROUGH ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

THAT'S THE NEXT COLUMN. THAT'S THE JUST UNDER $275 MILLION NUMBER.

SO THAT'S HOW MUCH COULD BE RECOVERED AND PAID FOR THROUGH IMPACT FEES.

LOOKING AT OUR PROJECTED GROWTH IN VEHICLE MILES AND THE THREE LUXURY OPTIONS THAT WE PRESENTED, WE'RE LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL REVENUE COLLECTION OF JUST OVER $82 MILLION AT THE 30% OPTION.

JUST UNDER $110 MILLION AT THE 40% OPTION AND JUST UNDER $138 MILLION AT THE 50% OPTION.

AND GENERALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMPARISON OF THAT REVENUE TO THE OVERALL NEED IN THE FIRST COLUMN, THE 775 MILLION, IT RANGES BETWEEN ROUGHLY 11 AND 18% OF THE OVERALL NEED COLLECTING THAT REVENUE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

AND SO ON THE RIGHT COLUMN SHOWS THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE LEFT UNFUNDED THROUGH THE ROADWAY AND IMPACT FEE PROGRAM OF THAT OVERALL NEED.

SO JUST AGAIN, THE DATES THAT WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT, THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL GO OUT ON THE 28TH AND WE'LL BE COMING BACK FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DO THE STUDY AND THE ORDINANCE AS WELL ON MARCH 7TH.

SO WE CAN DO QUESTIONS NOW.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, GREAT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

AND IF WE CAN PULL DOWN A PRESENTATION THAT ALLOW ME.

THANK YOU. CATHERINE DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I'M FULLY AWARE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM ON ON ROADWAY FUNDING GENERALLY.

I KIND OF WISH WE'D HAD THOSE THE OTHER WAY AROUND SO THAT WE KIND OF SEE A BIGGER A BIGGER PICTURE OF HOW WHERE THIS FITS IN SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAT THIS IS NOT THE MAIN WAY WE FUND A LOT OF PROJECTS.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CONSENSUS ON THE COMMITTEE WAS SOMETHING MORE LIKE A 50 TO 80% GRADUATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY NECESSARILY DISCUSSED TIME FRAME AND DIDN'T DISCUSS IT IN THAT MUCH DETAIL WITH THEM, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THEY THEY KIND OF SETTLED AROUND A RECOMMENDATION OF 50% TO 80% OVER TIME.

AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER IDEA.

THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF HOW THIS CONVERSATION FITS IN WITH.

THE REASON THESE THINGS EXIST, THESE FEES EXIST BECAUSE WE CANNOT FUND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FROM OUR CITY BUDGET ALONE, FROM TAXPAYER DOLLARS ALONE.

THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH MONEY EVER IN A GIVEN BUDGET YEAR TO FIX ALL THE ROADS THAT HAVE TO GET FIXED.

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY AND BONDS TO FIX ALL THE ROADS THAT HAVE TO GET FIXED.

AND SO THE LEGISLATURE GIVES US THIS TOOL TO COLLECT ADDITIONAL MONEY FROM THE FOLKS THAT ARE ADDING IMPACT TO OUR SYSTEM.

SO CAN I HAVE A BETTER EXPLANATION OF WHERE THIS FITS INTO OUR LONG TERM PLANS, OR ARE WE JUST KIND OF RUNNING OUT THIS GROWTH TRAIN UNTIL IT'S GONE, UNTIL THE NEXT MAYBE DODGED A BULLET WITH THIS RECESSION? BUT WHAT WHAT'S THE PLAN WITH THE FEES AND THE GROWTH AND PAYING FOR ALL OF THESE ROADS? NOW? I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO KASEY OGDEN, INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND CFO, THE REASON WE PUT THIS ITEM BEFORE THE ROADWAY FUNDING STRATEGIES ITEM WAS TO GET CONSENSUS AROUND THE IMPACT FEES BECAUSE WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED DIRECTION TODAY ON THE ROADWAY FUNDING STRATEGIES.

BUT WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE STUDY.

BUT IN REGARDS TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE GROWTH AND THE PLAN AND WHERE WE'RE HEADED, WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON IMPACT FEES BECAUSE IMPACT FEES PAY FOR THE GROWTH THEY PAY FOR THAT ADDITIONAL CAPACITY THAT'S BEING ADDED TO THE SYSTEM.

TRADITIONALLY, THE CITY HAS ISSUED LARGE BOND PROGRAMS FOR RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

WE FUND ABOUT $17 MILLION A YEAR THROUGH FRANCHISE FEES FOR OUR STREETS, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET.

BUT AS YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT DOES VERY LITTLE IN THE GRAND SCHEMES OVERALL NETWORK.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO PLAN FOR WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IN 40 YEARS IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE ISSUING LARGE BOND PROGRAMS SPECIFIC FOR STREETS, WE CAN DO THAT.

THAT'S AN OPTION.

HOWEVER, WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT'S SUSTAINABLE OVER THE LONG TERM.

[00:40:05]

THERE ARE A LOT OF NEEDS IN THE CITY AND A LOT OF THOSE ARE WE DO WE DON'T HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE.

SO A BOND PROGRAM IS THE ONLY FUNDING SOURCE, WHEREAS THE ROADWAY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

WE DO HAVE THIS TOOL IMPACT FEES, WE HAVE THE FRANCHISE FEES AND WE HAVE THE BOND PROGRAMS. ARE YOU THE ONE OR SOMEBODY ELSE? MAYBE THE ONE TO SPEAK TO THE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION AND KIND OF WHERE THEY WHERE THEY SETTLED OR WHAT THEIR CONSENSUS WAS? SURE. SO THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION STARTED OFF AT 30%.

WE DID RANGE FROM 30 TO 80%.

AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR MINUTES AND YOUR BACKUP IS MORE OF A 50 TO 80%.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT AS THE CONVERSATION WENT FORWARD, THEY DID TALK ABOUT 30 TO 70%.

SO THE REASON WHY YOU'RE SEEING THE 30% IS BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO A RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM COUNCIL TO LOOK AT 30, 40 AND 50%.

BUT OVERALL, THE CAC AND WHAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP AND IN THE MINUTES, THEY REALLY FOCUSED IN ON THE 50 TO 80%.

WE DID TALK A LOT ABOUT 30%, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THAT WAS A PART OF WHAT WAS A PART OF THE PRESENTATION THAT DAY.

BUT THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATION AND REALLY IT WAS SEVERAL OF THEM THAT WE RECEIVED THE CONSENSUS FROM THAT REALLY MOVED TOWARDS NO MORE THAN 80, NO LESS THAN 30.

AND 50 WAS REALLY KIND OF THE HAPPY MEDIUM, IF THAT HELPS EXPLAIN THE SITUATION.

OK DID DID THEY COME TO A CONSENSUS ON THE GRADUATED APPROACH, THOUGH? DID THEY? ABSOLUTELY. THEY WERE VERY MUCH IN RECOMMENDATION OF THE GRADUATED APPROACH.

THEY FELT LIKE THAT THE ESCALATION, FOR LACK OF BETTER WORDS, WAS NOT A LARGE HIT AT ONE TIME.

IT ALLOWED FOR THAT PROGRESSION OVER THE FIVE YEARS.

AND SO ABSOLUTELY, THEY WERE DEFINITELY IN CONSENSUS WITH AN ESCALATION.

THEY EVEN MOVED TO THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE FOR US TO FOCUS IN ON SPECIFIC SERVICE AREAS.

I'M GOING OFF MY MEMORY RIGHT NOW.

I BELIEVE IT WAS A C AND E THAT THEY ASK US TO FOCUS IN ON ON THE NEXT IMPACT FEE UPDATE AND ALSO LOOK AT SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIFIC AREAS AND EVALUATING THAT IN THOSE SPECIFIC SERVICE AREAS.

THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.

ON THE COMMERCIAL RATE, DID THEY HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OR ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THAT DISCOUNT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY MIGHT WANT TO SEE THAT? THE REASON WHY I'M NOT SO MUCH INTERESTED NECESSARILY IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR ITS OWN SAKE, BUT THAT CONVERSATION AND THE IMPACT, THE FEEDBACK THEY GOT FROM STAFF ON THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE FOR US TO HAVE AS WELL, NOT FOR THIS CURRENT IMPACT FEE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING AS THE CITY GROWS AND WE START TO SEE DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER SERVICE SERVICE AREAS AND AS AN ADDITIONAL IMPACT FEE UPDATE WOULD BE MADE, IT STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO BE MADE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

AS LONG AS YOU'RE KIND OF IN THAT WINDOW, WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE IT MORE OFTEN AS WE SEE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY ASK US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PUT DOWN AS A PART OF THE MINUTES FOR THE NEXT UPDATE, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ONE.

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES TO OUR OUR CIP PROJECTIONS? KIND OF. THAT'S A WHOLE BIG CHUNK OF THE NUMBERS, RIGHT? IS WHAT WHAT'S IN THE CIP, WHAT'S IN THE BUCKET THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PAY FOR? SINCE WE BEGAN THE CONVERSATION, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES IN THAT? BECAUSE I SEE THAT AS A BIG DRIVER OF THESE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALL THESE DIFFERENT CITIES.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT ARE CHARGING DIFFERENT FEES.

I MEAN, SOME OF THEM JUST DON'T HAVE AS MUCH TO BUILD.

SO COULD YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? HAVE THERE BEEN CHANGES IN THE CIP PROGRAM SINCE WE STARTED THIS CONVERSATION TO KIND OF WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE AT TODAY? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S BEEN MAJOR CHANGES IN THE OVERALL CIP CONVERSATION.

WE DID WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN ALIGNMENT WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT SERVICE AREAS AND THE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS ALSO DISCUSSED ROADWAYS THAT MAYBE THERE'S ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THAT WE FELT LIKE WAS NOT BUILT TO ITS ULTIMATE CAPACITY AND NOT ALIGNMENT WITH THE MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH IS THE GOAL OF THE MOBILITY PLAN TO TAKE THOSE ROADWAYS OF WHATEVER THEIR STATUS OR CLASSES AND ALIGN THAT.

AS FAR AS REALLY WHAT WE SAW, THE MAJOR INCREASE, IT'S IN THE COST 2019 COSTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN 2022.

YOU JUST HEARD FROM OUR TEAM SAYING WE'RE REJECTING A BID BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE BID CAME IN, $15 MILLION HIGH.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE COST INCREASE.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE GREATEST DIFFERENCE IN THE COMPARISON AND WHY IT'S REALLY NOT AN APPLES AND APPLES COMPARISON IS BECAUSE FROM 2019 TO 2022, THERE'S BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

AND THAT'S SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, IS CONCERN FOR THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION OR ROADWAY

[00:45:03]

BUT THE NUMBERS THAT ARE USED AS A PART OF THE PLAN ARE NUMBERS THAT OUR STAFF VETTED WITH THE MOST CURRENT BIDS THAT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME.

AND IT WASN'T JUST ONE BIT, IT'S MULTIPLE BIDS BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING QUITE A BIT OF WORK RIGHT NOW.

SO WE HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD RESOURCES TO USE.

THANK YOU. GOOD ANSWERS. THANK YOU.

ABSOLUTELY, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND THIS IS A FOLLOW UP TO TO WHERE BECKY JUST LEFT OFF.

SO AND I, I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT I'M JUST GOING TO SORT OF REPHRASE TO MAKE SURE.

THE THE COSTS THAT WERE IN THE ESTIMATE FROM KIMLEY-HORN THAT GOES INTO THE LANE MILE ESTIMATES ARE ACTIVELY BEING USED TODAY IN OUR CSP AND OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS.

THOSE ARE THOSE ARE CURRENT ESTIMATES BEING USED LIVE TODAY.

IS THAT CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE I WANT TO ASK IS, DO WE WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE BREAKDOWN FROM THE VARIOUS CITIES, THOSE WE'RE SEEING THE FINAL TOTALS TO SIMPLIFY IT FOR US, BUT WE HAVE THOSE SAME BREAKDOWNS FOR THE OTHER CITIES, THE COMPARABLES.

SO EXPLAIN TO ME A LITTLE BIT MORE.

MAYBE YOU'RE FOLLOWING WHAT HE'S ASKING AS FAR AS THE THE BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY USING TO CALCULATE THE INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEES? EXACTLY. SO KIMLEY-HORN DOES HAVE THAT BECAUSE THEY'VE DONE MULTIPLE OF THOSE FOR THOSE CITIES AND HAD THAT DATA.

BUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY DID THIS OVERALL PLAN, WE'RE USING THE ESTIMATES THAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY SEEING BECAUSE EVERYWHERE THAT CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON SEES A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MARKET AND A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT COST FOR PROJECTS.

BUT IN GENERAL, AND I'LL TAKE A GENERAL ANSWER.

SURE ARE ARE THE WAYS THAT THOSE LANE MILE COSTS FOR DENTON WERE ESTIMATED AND PERFORMED THAT ARE BEING USED LIVE TODAY, THOSE SAME SORTS OF THAT SAME FORMAT.

THE FORMALISM, I SHOULD SAY, WAS USED IN THE OTHER CITIES TO GET TO THE FINAL NUMBERS, GIVEN THE REGIONAL VARIATION AND WHATNOT.

ABSOLUTELY. SO, SO WE TO THE EXTENT WE'RE ABLE TO, WE ARE COMPARING AS MANY APPLES TO APPLES AS POSSIBLE.

MAYBE SOME OF THEM ARE CRAB APPLES IN SOME CASES, BUT IT'S ALL APPLES OK THAT THAT HELPS ME A LOT IN IN AND I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW ON FROM QUESTIONS FROM STAFF THAT YOU ALL SENT EARLIER.

AND THEN IT SEEMS THAT THE CONSENSUS FROM THE CIC WAS WE'RE SORT OF NAILING INTO IN THE DIRECTION OF AN EXTENDED OR DRILLING DOWN INTO, I SHOULD SAY, FROM MY METAPHORIC LANGUAGE TO THIS IDEA OF OF A OF A FIVE YEAR EXTENDED PLANS GENERALLY SOMEWHERE STARTING AT 4050 AND THEN GOING UP TO 7080, WAS THAT I MEAN WAS THAT MORE THE CONSENSUS? BECAUSE THE REASON I ASK THIS QUESTION SEEMED LIKE WE HAD OPTIONS.

BUT WHERE WAS THE MID-POINT IN THE RECOMMENDATION, I GUESS MORE OR WHAT WAS THE OVERALL CONSENSUS? IT FEELS LIKE IT'S MORE TWO OR THREE ISH THAN ONE.

SO 30% WAS SOMETHING THAT WE MENTIONED TO THEM THAT WAS A DOLLAR NUMBER OR A PERCENTAGE NUMBER THAT WAS BROUGHT UP DURING COUNCIL.

SO WE DID DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM.

THAT 30% WAS A NUMBER THAT WE TOLD COUNCIL WE WOULD COME BACK WITH 30, 40 AND 50.

THE OVERALL CONSENSUS FOR THEM WAS TO NOT GO MORE THAN 80%, DEFINITELY A 5% INCREASE ESCALATION ANNUALLY TO GET YOU TO THAT NUMBER.

AND THEY WERE SOMEWHERE MORE IN THE RANGE OF 50%.

AND SO FOR THAT CAP OF 80% IS THAT AND I'M GOING TO PUT WORDS IN COMPLETELY CORRECT ME IF THIS IS WRONG, IS THAT AN ESTIMATE THAT THE NET ADVANTAGE TO THE ECONOMY OF DENTON IS ROUGHLY ON THE ORDER OF 20% FOR NEW GROWTH? IS IS THAT I KNOW THAT'S VERY APPLES TO BANANAS COMPARISON BUT IS THAT A ROUGH, ROUGH ESTIMATE THAT THE VALUE IS 20%? YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATION DIDN'T GO THERE.

I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ANSWERING THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REALLY WHERE THE CONVERSATION WENT.

IT WAS MORE OF WHAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL.

SO WE EXPLAINED THAT TO HIM BECAUSE WE CAME TO YOU BEFORE WE WENT TO THEM.

AND THEN IT WAS MORE OF, WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A RANGE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, WE DON'T WANT TO GO MORE THAN 80%.

WE REALLY LIKE THE ESCALATION THAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY SEEING IN OTHER CITIES.

FORT WORTH LITERALLY PASSED THEIRS JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE WE WENT TO THE CAC AND THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE LOWER THAN 30, BUT THEY REALLY LIKE STARTING SOMEWHERE MORE IN THE 50 RANGE. SO THERE WAS NOT ANY CAP OF COMPARISON OF WHAT THE 20% WAS ACTUALLY EQUIVALENT FOR.

WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THAT TYPE OF A CONVERSATION.

[00:50:01]

I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING FOR YOU.

JUST I WANT TO BE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE ARE WATCHING, TOO.

IS THAT AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS SORT OF HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FIND THE SWEET SPOT.

THIS IS A CITY THAT HAS SOME TREMENDOUS GROWTH OCCURRING NOW, AND WE'LL INTO THE FUTURE.

WE'RE LUCKY THAT WE'RE NOT BUILT OUT.

THIS IS ALL BASED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT AND A FEE THAT THAT WOULD BE CHARGED TO THOSE.

AND THEN THE MONEY THAT'S LEFT THAT YOU SAW OVER IN THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IF WE WERE TO CONTINUE TO DO TAKE CARE OF ROADS, THAT WOULD CITY WOULD HAVE TO BOND. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOU CHOOSE, WHETHER IT'S 30, 40, 50, 60, WHATEVER.

AND I DO THINK THE RECOMMENDATION OF FIVE BY INCREMENTS OF FIVE IS HELPFUL.

AND IT DOES IT DOESN'T THROW IT ALL ON A DEVELOPER AT ONE TIME, WHICH THEN, AS YOU KNOW, IS PASSED ON.

BUT IT DOES SHOW AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IN THE NEXT STUDY, IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION WHAT IT COST US TO DO A ONE LINEAR ONE LINE.

WHAT IS IT, ONE LINEAR, ONE LINE, ONE LINE MILE, WHAT IT COSTS PER LINE MILE, WHICH IS UNBELIEVABLE.

JUST AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN GOOD TO HAVE THAT PRESENTATION BEFORE, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS MONEY THROUGH AN IMPACT FEE THAT'S CHARGED.

IT COVERS A PART OF WHAT IT COSTS TO DO THE WORK.

BUT THERE'S THE OTHER PART OF IT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO USE A BOND PROGRAM TO FUND.

THAT'S IT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER MECHANISM TO DO THAT.

AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THAT FOR THE FUTURE, AS WE LOOK AT THESE FEES, THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR BOND PROGRAMS TO TO SUPPLANT THE BUILDING OF THESE ROADS.

I APPRECIATE THAT AND JUMPING RIGHT OFF FROM THAT.

I THINK IT'S REALLY FAIR TO TO ASK THE QUESTION WE SORT OF ASKED THE LAST WORK SESSION, WHICH IS HOW MUCH ESSENTIALLY SUBSIDY DO WE WANT TO USE TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE ECONOMY.

AND I THINK THAT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION.

THAT'S WHY I ASK BECKY AND I.

I AGREE THAT'S PROBABLY UNFAIR.

WHAT IS WHAT'S IN THAT 20%? SO I THOUGHT I'D TAKE A STAB AT IT, THOUGH.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY, THEN IT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF GENERAL REVENUE OR BOND OBLIGATION IS GOING TO COME OUT OF GENERAL REVENUE.

SO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I THINK THE FEEDBACK THAT I'M GETTING FROM MY CONSTITUENCY IS THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE NEW GROWTH PAY FOR ITSELF AS IS ADVERTISED.

SO I'M GOING TO BE LEANING OPTION THREE UNLESS I HEAR ARGUMENTS THE REST OF THIS DISCUSSION TO THE CONTRARY.

THANK YOU. ANYWAY, COUNCILOR MCGEE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. FIRST OFF, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION.

SITTING DOWN AND GETTING TO GO THROUGH ALL 138 PAGES.

WAS FUN THIS WEEKEND.

SO YEAH, YEAH, I FELT LIKE I WAS IN SCHOOL AGAIN.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. BUT BUT, BUT, BUT IT WAS NEEDED.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE TRACKING SOME OF THE FEEDBACK FROM FOLKS IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, SOME OF THOSE TO SHARE WITH US TODAY, BY ANY CHANCE, JUST TO KNOW IN THEIR MIND KIND OF GENERALLY WHAT THEY'RE THINKING.

OBVIOUSLY, NO NAMES, NOTHING SPECIFIC.

JUST GENERALLY, CURRENTLY, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED IS I'M AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

DO I HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEES? AND OF COURSE, THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S DEVELOPED.

SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS WE'VE RECEIVED ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE COST.

LIKE I MENTIONED WHEN I WAS SPEAKING WITH COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS THAT WENT INTO THE CALCULATIONS TO ACTUALLY COME UP WITH THE OVERALL CONSTRUCTION COST.

AND THAT'S WHY I'VE MENTIONED THAT WE'RE USING CURRENT ESTIMATES FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING THROUGH BIDDING RIGHT NOW.

AND SO THAT'S SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.

SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO IF I WAS A MULTIFAMILY, WHAT WOULD MY FEE BE? HOW IS THAT CALCULATED? THE INFORMATION, I ANTICIPATE STILL TO CONTINUE TO TRICKLE IN BEFORE THE MARCH 7TH, AND I'M ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED THAT TYPE OF CONVERSATION.

SO WE CAN STILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE COMMENTS.

WE HAVE HAD ONE MEETING WITH A DEVELOPER TO REALLY JUST TALK MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HOW WE COLLECT FEES FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE LARGE MODES THAT THE CITY HAS.

BUT IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED I THINK I'VE RECEIVED FIVE EMAILS TOTAL TO DATE.

UM, YEAH.

WHEN WHEN GOING THROUGH THIS, I UNDERSTAND WHY WE LOOK AT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BECAUSE IT'S EASIER.

BUT AS WE KNOW, AS A CITY, WE'RE NOT ONLY GROWING BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I NEEDED SOME CLARIFICATION ON.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL YIELD AND I'LL LET OTHER FOLKS TALK BEFORE WE DO DIRECTION.

[00:55:02]

I HAVE SEVERAL. FIRST, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND ON THE SLIDE AND LET ME PULL IT UP.

I THINK IT SLIDE.

I THINK IT MIGHT BE SLIDE FOR THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE.

WHERE IS IT? OH, YEAH, IT IS.

IT'S SLIDE. SLIDE EIGHT OF TEN.

I'M SORRY. SLIDE EIGHT OF THE PRESENTATION.

MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THESE NUMBERS.

SO IN THE COLUMN THAT SAYS IMPACT FEE REVENUE OVER FIVE YEARS AND IT SHOWS OPTION ONE, OPTION TWO AND OPTION THREE AND IT SHOWS A NUMBER ARE THOSE NUMBERS. THOSE NUMBERS INCLUDE THE ESCALATION OF THOSE FEES UP TO THOSE CORRESPONDING MAXIMUMS THAT ARE IN THE YEAR FIVE COLUMN FOR EACH OPTION.

IS THAT CORRECT? THOSE NUMBERS DON'T INCLUDE THE ESCALATION.

WE LOOKED AT IT COULD COME CLOSE TO THAT.

IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW HOW MANY VEHICLE MILES ARE PROJECTED.

SO IF YOU HAVE FEWER VEHICLE MILES, THAT COULD BE CLOSE TO THE NUMBER YOU HAVE WITH THE ESCALATION.

CURRENTLY, THOSE ONES DON'T INCLUDE IT.

OKAY. SO OKAY.

WELL, THAT I'M GOING TO THAT CREATES A REAL TIME QUESTION.

AND THAT IS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ESCALATION CLAUSE, WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THE ESCALATION CLAUSE, DEPENDING ON THE ANALYSIS OR THE VEHICLE MODELS OR WHATEVER, IT MAY NOT REALLY ADD MUCH MORE POTENTIAL REVENUE.

IT COULD ADD MORE, BUT IT ALSO COULD NOT ADD MORE BASED UPON AT LEAST THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED.

AND YOUR ANSWER TO THAT FIRST QUESTION, IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, IT'S DRIVEN BY GROWTH IS THE SIMPLE WAY TO EXPLAIN IT.

MORE GROWTH IS OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THEN AS FAR AS SO THERE'S THREE THERE'S TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT AND ONE OF THEM, COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE ALLUDED TO.

BUT THE ANSWER ABOUT MULTIFAMILY.

SO THERE'S NO REAL ALGORITHM OR ANYTHING, AT LEAST IN THE 137 PAGES THAT I LOOKED AT AND IN THIS PRESENTATION.

SO LET'S TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE CAME IN WITH A 300 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING DEVELOPMENT AND THEY WERE SUBJECT TO IMPACT FEES, TO ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, HOW IS THAT CALCULATED? DO YOU REDUCE THAT TO A SINGLE FAMILY EQUIVALENT LIKE THEY DO SORT OF WITH WATER IMPACT FEES? IS THAT HOW THAT WORKS? SO YOU'D GO BACK TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT PER VEHICLE MILE, RIGHT.

AND IF I DON'T THINK I'M SHARING THE SLIDE WITH YOU HERE, BUT IS THAT IN THE 137 PAGE PRESENTATION? I THINK IT I THINK I SAW THAT, YES.

SO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, FOR EXAMPLE.

WOW. 54 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR LET ME LOOK.

SURE. YEAH.

NO, GO AHEAD. YOU CAN FIND IT FASTER THAN I CAN BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON I'M TECHNOLOGICALLY NOT VERY SAVVY.

AND I'VE GOT TO SCROLL THROUGH EACH PAGE WITH THE SWIPE OF THE FINGER.

SO THAT DOESN'T HELP ME VERY MUCH.

SEE? SO GOING BACK TO THE 2020 MAX AT $404,455 A VEHICLE MILE, WE MULTIPLY THAT BY 4.91 TO GET TO $20,500 A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, YOU'D GO TO TABLE TEN IN THE STUDY.

THAT'S THE LAND USE VEHICLE MILE EQUIVALENCY TABLE.

AND THAT TELLS YOU HOW MANY VEHICLE MILES A SINGLE APARTMENT UNIT WOULD GENERATE.

AND FOR MOST OF THE APARTMENTS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FOUR STORY BUILDINGS THAT BE 1.9 VEHICLE MILES PER UNIT.

SO YOU MULTIPLY 4455 BY 1.9, 1.91, AND THAT WOULD GET YOU THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

JUST TO JUST TO COMPARE A LITTLE OVER 8000.

A LITTLE OVER ALMOST TWO TIMES.

RIGHT. RIGHT.

YEAH. OKAY. SO JUST JUST TO COMPARE, I KNOW YOU ASKED ABOUT A 300 UNIT COMPLEX.

WE RAN THE NUMBERS ON WHAT A 200 UNIT COMPLEX WOULD BE.

SO 2 TO 250.

THANK YOU, JEFF. TODAY, UNDER THE CURRENT RATES, A 250 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WOULD BE 310,000, WITH THE 2022 STUDY COLLECTING AT 30%.

THAT WOULD BE 638,000.

JUST JUST FOR REFERENCE, IF YOU WERE TO JUST DO THE 20% KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION, THAT WOULD BE 425,000.

AT 40%, IT'D BE 850,050%.

IT WOULD BE JUST OVER 1,000,050 UNIT COMPLEX.

OKAY. AND I THINK I THINK IT'S RIGHT NOW I THINK IT'S MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL USES.

THEY GET WHAT KIND OF DISCOUNT OFF OF THE CURRENT RATE? IS IT 25% WAS THAT WHAT I IT'S IT'S JUST COMMERCIAL USES AND THEY GET 25% LESS THAN SINGLE FAMILY.

[01:00:05]

AND SO IT'S MULTIFAMILY CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

SO IT WOULD BE IN THE SINGLE FAMILY CLASS.

THE CURRENT ORDINANCE RECOGNIZES RESIDENTIAL, SO IT DOESN'T GET THE DISCOUNT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I'VE HAD IS IT'S, YOU KNOW, WITH THE PRESENTATION OF THE NUMBERS AND THE PERCENTAGES. BUT WHAT DOES THAT TRANSLATE INTO, LIKE FOR A SMALL EITHER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, A 5000 FEET OR A WAREHOUSE THAT'S 100,000 OR 200,000 FEET? WHAT IS IT? WHAT'S THAT FEE TODAY? WHAT'S THAT FEE MOVING FORWARD? AND WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT TYPICALLY THOSE WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, THE PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLE LANE MILES OR COST PER VEHICLE MILE, THOSE ARE SMALLER THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY RATIO.

SO THEREFORE THEIR THEIR FEE IS QUOTE UNQUOTE, SMALLER BECAUSE THEY GENERATE LESS.

I GUESS, VEHICLE MILES, WHICH TRANSLATES INTO LESS DOLLARS.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.

FOR FOR MULTIFAMILY AND THEN FOR COMMERCIAL, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A VEHICLE MILE PER 1000 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF DWELLING UNIT.

AND SO THOSE ARE ALL LISTED OUT IN THAT TABLE.

OKAY. AND THAT'S IN THAT 137 PAGE REPORT, RIGHT? YES, IT IS.

BE STARTS ON PAGE NUMBER 45.

THAT GIVES YOU THOSE VEHICLE MILES PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT.

OKAY. AND COULD SOMEONE GIVE ME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SORT OF A 50,000 FOOT HIGH ELEVATION POLICY DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT WHERE WE NEED.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR NOBODY IS SAYING IMPACT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES IS GOING TO REPLACE OUR NEED FOR BOND FUNDING ON ROADS.

IS THAT THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT WHAT ANYBODY IS SAYING.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I WOULD SAY THAT'S CORRECT.

IS THAT CORRECT, MADAM CITY MANAGER? THAT I MEAN, WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW DO WE OFFLOAD SOME OF THOSE ON A BOND PROGRAM, BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY SAYING IT'S GOING TO REPLACE IT.

NO, NOT AT ALL.

IT WILL NOT. ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT.

SO LET'S SAY, FOR INSTANCE, WE GO BACK TO THE SPECIFICS.

SO I NEED TO KNOW, LET'S SAY WE'VE GOT $20 MILLION, I THINK YOU PROJECTED IN ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

SO DOES THAT GO TO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INCREASED DEMAND OR CAPACITY? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HAVING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ROAD BECAUSE OF DEVELOPMENT OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES CAN GO TO WIDEN A ROAD BECAUSE TO RECONFIGURE IT, RECONSTRUCT WHAT EXACTLY DO THOSE THINGS PAY FOR? I KNOW WE'VE GONE OVER, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET DOWN TO THE LEVEL WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND, OKAY, IF THIS IS THE MONEY WE'RE COLLECTING, WHAT CAN IT BE USED FOR SPECIFICALLY IN THE SENSE OF QUOTE UNQUOTE, NEW GROWTH? AND, FOR EXAMPLE, ALL THE LAND THAT ALL THE HOUSES THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED OFF OF SHERMAN DRIVE, WHICH IS FARM TO MARKET ROAD FOR 28.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE COLLECT THOSE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

DOES THAT GO TO WIDEN SHERMAN DRIVE? DOES IT I MEAN, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THEM? WHAT DO THEY GO FOR? I MEAN, I KNOW WE'VE GOT THESE TABLES AND ALL THIS, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING IS WE'VE GOT THIS KIND OF ESOTERIC SORT OF HIGH LEVEL CONVERSATION.

BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT ARE THEY ACTUALLY SPENT ON, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RAISING SINGLE FAMILY HOME PRICES BY WHATEVER AMOUNT THAT THIS COUNCIL DECIDES ON.

SO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER AND YOU CAN SAY THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER WILL BEAR THE BURDEN OF THAT.

HOWEVER, ALL THESE NEW ROADS THAT WE'RE CONSTRUCTING WITH THESE ROAD IMPACT FEES IS NOT THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THOSE ROADS.

THEN SUBJECT TO TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND FUTURE BOND FUNDING, IMPACT FEES CAN'T PAY FOR MAINTENANCE OR OPERATIONS, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO ALL I'LL DRESS WITH KIND OF THREE MAIN THINGS THAT STATE LAW ALLOWS AND AN IMPACT FEE PROGRAM.

SO FIRST, ON THE QUESTION OF THOSE IN THE VICINITY OF SHERMAN ROAD.

WHO'S WHO'S PAYING FOR THAT? SO THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT IMPACT FEES COLLECTED IN A SERVICE AREA BE SPENT IN THAT SERVICE AREA DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT PAYS THE FEE, BUT IT HAS TO BE IN THAT SERVICE AREA.

THE SECOND THING IS IT HAS TO BE ON A ROAD THAT'S IDENTIFIED ON THE ROADWAY IMPACT TYPE AND THAT ALSO HAS TO BE BASED OFF OF AN ADOPTED PLAN, WHICH WHICH IS WHY WE'VE RELIED ON THE MOBILITY PLAN FOR THAT.

AND THE THIRD ONE IS IT HAS TO BE AN INCREASE IN CAPACITY.

SO IF IT'S A RECONSTRUCTION OF A OF A TWO LANE ROAD THAT'S JUST IN POOR CONDITION, THAT IS BECOMES A TWO LANE ROAD YET AGAIN, THAT WOULDN'T QUALIFY.

BUT IF WE'RE WIDENING FROM 2 TO 4 LANES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR IMPACT FEE DOLLARS.

OKAY. AND CERTAINLY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRAND NEW ROAD.

YES, ABSOLUTELY. IN THAT CERTAIN ZONE WOULD QUALIFY FOR THOSE IMPACT FEE DOLLARS.

YEAH. OKAY.

LET ME LOOK OVER THE NOTES ONE MORE TIME.

[01:05:04]

ALL THESE LITTLE CITIES THAT ARE AROUND US THAT WHEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES GET SO EXPENSIVE, POTENTIALLY PARTLY BECAUSE WE DO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FEES, PEOPLE WILL BEGIN TO MOVE OUT.

NOW, THAT WILL CERTAINLY, I THINK, AS COUNCILMEMBER BYRD SAID LAST TIME, WELL, THESE PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO PAY THESE FEES.

OH, YEAH, THAT'S TRUE.

I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY, YOU KNOW, 400000 TO $500000 FOR A HOUSE.

BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE STILL IN THE 250 TO 300 OR 350.

AND WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT TEN OR $15,000 OF AN IMPACT FEE, NOW YOU'RE TALKING 3 TO 4%.

THAT'S JUST THE ROAD IMPACT FEE.

THAT'S NOT THE THE WATER, THE SEWER AND ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

SO FOR THAT PRIMARILY REASON, I CAN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO CONCURRING WITH WHAT I'M HEARING SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THIS COUNCIL AND WHAT MANY COUNCILS BEFORE IT HAVE IDENTIFIED AS A TREMENDOUS PROBLEM IN THIS CITY, AND THAT IS HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.

SO YOU'RE RIGHT, WE DO BETTER IF WE HAVE HALF A MILLION DOLLAR HOMES, IF OUR NEW HOMES ARE HALF A MILLION DOLLARS MORE TAX REVENUE, MORE TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR STREETS AND THINGS SUCH AS THAT.

BUT I THINK THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL WOULD INTEND FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO DRIVE OUT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY OUT OF THE CITY OF DENTON, CLEARLY.

SO THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE MAY BE THAT WE'RE AFFECTING THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE STILL FUNDING.

AND I THINK I SAW IN ONE OF THE PRESENTATIONS, I THINK IT WAS THE BOND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS OF $10 MILLION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES AND THE LIKE. SO THERE IS A SWEET SPOT HERE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S 50% GOING UP TO 70%.

I DON'T THINK IT'S I MEAN, THAT'S JUST MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION.

EVERYBODY SITTING AT THE DAIS HAS THEIR OWN IDEAS ABOUT THAT, AND I RESPECT THOSE IDEAS.

I JUST CANNOT SUPPORT I PROBABLY CAN'T EVEN SUPPORT 30 I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT 30% WITH NO ESCALATION TO SEE HOW IT GOES.

BUT RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY IN THIS ECONOMY, YOU HAD 10 TO 15000 TO THE PRICE OF A HOME.

THAT COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEBODY QUALIFIED AND NOT QUALIFYING.

AND WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT WE LOOK AT THE.

THE TABLE THAT SAYS WE COULD RAISE UP TO 137 MILLION OK I GET IT.

THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

AND THEN WE LOOK AT WE'RE STILL SHORT THREE QUARTERS OF $1,000,000,000.

WE JUST HAVE TO WEIGH THAT IMPACT WITH THE OTHER POLICY DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE.

THIS ISN'T A SINGULAR DECISION IN A VACUUM.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT.

COULD BE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO ALL THOSE THAT WE SAY WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE, WHO WORK HERE.

SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS AND I APPRECIATE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND THE DEPTH OF IT.

AND THE STUDY I THINK IS VERY HELPFUL AND JUST LAYING OUT THE FACTS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON A CONSENSUS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE'VE EXHAUSTED THE TIME WE'VE SET SO LIGHTNING ROUND.

ANYONE ELSE THAT HADN'T? COUNCILMAN BURTON, I'M GOING TO GO WITH OPTION THREE AGAIN.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ALL LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY.

AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW HOUSING, WHOEVER CAN AFFORD IT, THEY'LL BE THE ONES WHO PURCHASE A HOME WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM.

AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT BEING SAID AS WELL, WE'RE THINKING LET'S ALSO THINK ABOUT THE HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY HERE.

AT SOME POINT, THERE MAY BE AN OVERSATURATION OF HOMES FOR SALE.

IF WE CONTINUE ON THE PATH THAT WE'RE GOING WITH THE PERCENTAGE RATES.

FEDERAL PERCENTAGE RATES.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT WHILE WE CAN.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'M GLAD THAT I GOT TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BURT AND COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE AND MAYOR PRO TEM BECCA FROUD THAT YOU SPOKE AFTER ME BECAUSE Y'ALLS INPUT HAS REALLY HELPED SHAPE MY MY THINKING ON THIS, BECAUSE AS COUNCILMEMBER WHITE SAYS, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THIS IN A VACUUM.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, TOO, IN THE CURRENT ECONOMY IS THE FEDERAL RATES THAT IMPACTS NOT JUST OUR HOMEBUYERS.

AND SOME FOLKS ARE BUYING THE HOME TO OCCUPY AND SOME FOLKS ARE BUYING THE HOME TO RENT OTHER PEOPLE.

BUT IT AFFECTS EVERYONE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM.

THAT'S THE COST OF MONEY. THAT'S THE COST OF FINANCING.

A MAJOR SUBDIVISION IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE FEDERAL RATES ARE WHAT THEY ARE.

[01:10:03]

I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY JUST FOR KIMLEY-HORN BENEFIT, YOU COULD PROBABLY TAKE THE THE PUBLIC AND DENTON THAT'S WATCHING THIS ISSUE AND PUT IT UP AGAINST ANY OTHER CITY THAT YOU CONSULT FOR.

AND I'D SAY WE PROBABLY GIVE YOU A BETTER, BETTER RUN FOR YOUR MONEY THAN ANYWHERE ELSE.

AS FAR AS FOLKS WHO ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO UNDERSTANDING THIS ISSUE, PROBABLY BETTER THAN A LOT OF US IN THE ROOM.

BUT I HOLD ALL OF THAT INTENTION WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WITH THAT GROWTH, IF IT SLOWS TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, WE'RE WE'RE IN BIG TROUBLE AS A CITY, NOT JUST ON THE ROADS, JUST ON EVERYTHING THAT WE PAY FOR OUT OF THE CITY BUDGET.

IF WE IF WE WE CANNOT PUT THE THE HARD BRAKES ON GROWTH AS MUCH AS OTHER CERTAIN PEOPLE WOULD LIKE US TO, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE A PROBLEM OUT OF IT.

AND THAT COULD PUT PUT US IN A VERY, VERY BAD POSITION WHERE WE CAN'T AFFORD ANY BIT OF THIS CIP EVEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE ALREADY HERE.

THE OTHER THING THAT I HOLD IN TENSION IS THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON I TALKED TO, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY LIVE IN A ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOME OR IF THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ON ZILLOW UNDER THE 250 RANGE ANYBODY OR IF THEY IF THEY RENT AN APARTMENT, IF THEY MOVED HERE YESTERDAY OR IF THEY'VE BEEN HERE 50 YEARS, EVERY SINGLE PERSON I TALKED TO SAYS THEIR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS FIXING THE DAMN ROADS.

THE ROADS HAVE TO GET FIXED AND WE CANNOT AFFORD TO FIX THE ROADS, MUCH LESS BE BUILDING HUNDREDS OF MORE LANE MILES THAT WE'RE THEN GOING TO HAVE TO FIX IN ANOTHER 20 OR 40 YEARS.

ALL OF THAT IS TO SAY ONE OTHER THING TO ADD.

I THINK IT'S REALLY DANGEROUS FOR US, ANY OF US, EVEN THOSE WITH EXPERIENCE IN THE INDUSTRY, TO TRY TOO HARD TO PREDICT THE BEHAVIOR OF DEVELOPERS AND TO SAY, WELL, DEVELOPERS WILL DO THIS OR HOME BUILDERS WILL DO THAT.

IT IS ALREADY VERY MUCH WORTH THEIR WHILE TO BUILD OUTSIDE OF DENTON.

IT'S ALREADY MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD IN DENTON THAN IT IS TO BUILD IN CHROME OR SEEING OR IN A MUD BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

SO I DON'T THINK THIS THERE'S ONE LEVER WE'RE PULLING TODAY IS GOING TO BE THE DISPOSITIVE ONE THAT SENDS SOMEBODY OUT TO OTHER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY TO BUILD A SUBDIVISION AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING RIGHT HERE IN DENTON.

ALL THAT'S TO SAY I AM IN FAVOR OF A MODIFIED OPTION THREE.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS START AT 50% AND ESCALATE STARTING IN YEAR THREE.

SO A TWO YEARS AT 50% ESCALATE IN THREE YEARS.

BECAUSE WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS GIVE THE MARKET SOME TIME TO CORRECT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE FEDERAL RATES COME DOWN BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR OF THESE COSTS WE WE KNOW JUST INTUITIVELY ARE GOING TO GET PASSED ON TO HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE ALREADY FEELING THE PINCH. PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MOVE HERE AND BUY A HOME.

SO I'D LIKE TO LET THE HOUSING MARKET FIGURE ITSELF OUT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN ESCALATE FROM THERE UP TO THE 70%. THAT'LL ALSO GIVE US TIME TO COURSE, CORRECT IF WE NEED TO.

IF WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES IN THE MOBILITY PLAN BECAUSE OF GROWTH PATTERNS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. THE OTHER THING I'D ADD IS I'D LIKE TO SEE A 50% DISCOUNT FOR COMMERCIAL.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, I THINK, HAS SAID SOME VERSION OF WE NEED TO REDUCE THE TAX BURDEN ON HOMEOWNERS VERSUS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO I'D LIKE TO INCENTIVIZE EVERYWHERE WE CAN MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS DRIVING ITSELF TO SOME EXTENT THE COMMERCIAL. WE'RE HAVING TO ACTIVELY GO OUT AND SOLICIT FOLKS TO RELOCATE HERE.

SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE INCENTIVE TO DO THAT.

ANYONE ELSE? CANCER MCGEE.

CATHERINE MCGEE. MR. MAYOR. THIS WAS REALLY AN INTERESTING PROCESS TO GO THROUGH.

AND I WANT TO THANK STAFF, MANY OF YOU.

I BOTHERED WITH PHONE CALLS TRYING TO HELP TROUBLESHOOT THIS.

SO I WANT TO THANK I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK PETE AND JEFF FOR THIS PRESENTATION.

DID A REALLY GREAT JOB ON THIS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS TO CONSIDER.

THE THING THAT I CONSIDER MOST IS THE IMPACT ON REGULAR WORKING DEBT NIGHTS.

HAVING SAID THAT.

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT DEVELOPMENT IS THAT IF WE CONTINUE TO RAISE THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN THIS CITY, ONE OF TWO THINGS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

THAT COST IS GOING TO BE PASSED ON TO WORKING PEOPLE OR DEVELOPMENT WILL SLOW, JUST AS COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS JUST SAID.

IT MIGHT NOT SEEM LIKE A LOT FROM THE CHARTS AND THE GRAPHS AND THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

[01:15:01]

HE DIDN'T KNOW, BUT YOU WERE IN MY KOOL-AID CALLING OUT MY FLAVOR.

THAT 10 TO 15000 MEANS.

WHETHER IS THE DIFFERENCE IN WHETHER OR NOT A WORKING PERSON CAN GET A HOUSE, THAT SMALL FEE, THAT 50 TO $100 THAT YOU RAISED, THAT THAT A DEVELOPER HAS TO PASS THAT ON AND MULTIFAMILY IN TERMS OF RAISING RENT.

MEANS A PERSON GETTING AN APARTMENT OR NOT GETTING AN APARTMENT.

WE'RE IN A TIME RIGHT NOW COMING OUT OF COVID WHERE WE ARE STILL SEEING A ROOFTOP SHORTAGE.

WE NEED THE HOUSING.

THE HOUSING COMES HERE BECAUSE THERE IS A MARKET FOR WE CONTINUE TO NEED THE HOUSING.

I DON'T WANT TO SLOW THAT DOWN AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT UNAFFORDABLE.

I'M GOING TO COME IN ON OPTION ONE.

LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER. WHAT? I ACTUALLY FAVOR STARTING WHERE WE ARE AND STAIR STEPPING UP TO OPTION ONE.

WE HAVEN'T BEEN COLLECTING IMPACT FEES FOR VERY LONG.

I WANT TO, AS COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS SAID, GIVE THE MARKET TIME TO ADJUST.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE THE TIME TO DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO ABSORB SOME OF THIS COST AND NOT PASS IT ON TO HOMEOWNERS AND TO RENTERS IN THIS CITY. SO HAVING SAID THAT, I'M GOING TO COME IN AND OPTION NUMBER ONE, AND IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN POSSIBLY START WHERE WE ARE TO STAIR STEP TWO, OPTION ONE, THAT WOULD BE MY PERFECT PREFERENCE.

SO I YIELD BACK.

OKAY. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT.

AND THEN, MAYOR, YOU NEED YOU NEED TO GIVE YOUR $0.02.

BUT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, I THINK, A PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S COMING ON THIS.

AND THEN SO RIGHT NOW, I DON'T SEE ANY CONSENSUS WHATSOEVER.

OK COUNCIL MEMBER.

YOU SAID IT. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? QUICKLY, QUICKLY.

DAVIS I AGREE WITH THE 50% DISCOUNT FOR DAVID'S.

WE'VE GOT TO.

THAT WAS THE 50% FOR THE FOR THE COMMERCIAL FOLKS.

SO I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES COMING IN AND SATISFYING SOME OF THE NEEDS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE AROUND HERE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE NEWCOMERS COMING IN.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR NEW THINGS, BUT I'M GOING TO STAY WITH OPTION THREE.

I THINK THAT'S JUST A PLACE WHERE WE NEED TO START.

GOT IT. WITHOUT THE AMENDED.

VERY GOOD. SO. SO WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS BECAUSE I'M NOT COMING IN AT OPTION THREE.

SO I'LL LEAVE THAT TO STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.

SO I'LL SUMMARIZE THIS WAY.

I'M GOING TO END UP AT OPTION ONE, AND HERE'S WHY.

IF YOU LOOK AND IT'S JUST A DATABASE DECISION THAT THAT MONEY IS GOING TO GET PASSED THROUGH.

AND FOR THOSE TRACKING ALONE, THAT MAY NOT I DON'T CARE WHAT BUSINESS, YOU NAME IT.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO NAME DEVELOPERS.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT JEFF BEZOS, WHO'S BUILDING A $500 MILLION YACHT, AND HE'S STILL LAYING PEOPLE OFF AT AMAZON.

COULD JEFF BEZOS AFFORD TO PAY PEOPLE AT AMAZON? ABSOLUTELY. AT HIS OWN POCKET.

BUT HE CHOOSES NOT TO BECAUSE THIS IS BUSINESS.

RIGHT? AND SO BUSINESS, THEY'RE GOING TO PASS ON THIS COST.

SO OPTION ONE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PASSING ON $10,000, PARDON ME, 6000 TO A HOMEOWNER.

AND THEN I THINK THE POINT WAS MADE BEFORE AND JUST I JUST DID ROUGH MATH AND I COULD ABSOLUTELY BE WRONG ON HOW THIS IS CALCULATED.

BUT JUST TO KIND OF GIVE A NUMBER TO MY THOUGHT PROCESS, IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE $4,000 INCREASE, SO $4,108 INCREASE, IF YOU IF THAT WAS PASSED ON 20 AND SO THAT WOULD BE AN INTEREST OF 6%.

AND AND I THINK IT DID LIKE 30 YEARS, 6% COMPOUNDED MONTHLY.

IT ENDS UP BEING ROUND NUMBERS LIKE LET ME FIND IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISSTATE $24,000 ABOVE THAT. SO $25,000 JUST THE 4000 OVER 30 YEARS, 6%.

AND SO THAT'S THE OTHER THING YOU GOT TO FACTOR IN, THAT 6000 GETS TACKED ON TO THE COST OF THAT HOME.

THEN MOST PEOPLE DON'T BUY PAY CASH FOR THE HOME.

SO IT'S GOING TO GAIN SOME SORT OF INTEREST THAT'S GOING TO GROW.

SO I HAVE I JUST CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE DECIDE TO ADD THE NUMBER.

AND OPTION THREE IS 10,000 TO A HOME COST.

JUST CAN'T BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

AND BUT I DO LIKE THE ESCALATION BECAUSE WE CAN'T ENCUMBER FUTURE COUNSEL.

BUT THAT COUNSEL THAT PUTS A CONVERSATION, A HARD DATE FOR THIS CONVERSATION TO HAPPEN EVERY YEAR.

AND SO THEN YOU CAN ADJUST IT BACK DOWN, WHATEVER.

BUT AT LEAST THE BUILDERS HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AND EVERYONE INVOLVED AND ALL HOMEOWNERS HAVE A FEEL FOR, HEY, THIS IS COMING, THIS IS AN ANNUAL CONVERSATION.

[01:20:01]

AND IT'S LIKE, OH, BY THE WAY, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

NO, I DON'T WANT IT. YOU KNOW, BUT IF IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR, I THINK IF WE CAN GET INTO THAT ROUTINE, THAT'S FANTASTIC.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY JUST THE EFFECT.

RIGHT. AND SO FOR AGAIN, TRACKING ALONG, LET'S JUST USE $100.

IF A OF A SEGMENT OF ROAD COST $100, ONE LANE MILE, THE OPTION THREE COVERS 18% OR 18 BUCKS OF THAT, THE OTHER 82 IS UNCOVERED.

AND THAT'S AT THE MAX.

THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO GO.

THAT'S AND THAT'S NOT A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $7 DIFFERENCE PER LANE MILE TO.

BUT BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO THE HOMEOWNER BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING INTEREST ON THOSE THINGS.

AND SO IF IT'S A IF IT'S A HUGE IF IF IT IN FOOTBALL TERMS, IF IT FLIPS THE FIELD, GREAT.

YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OPTION THREE, CONSUMES 60% OF THE DEBT, GREAT.

AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN TAX PAYERS AND OTHER REVENUE STREAMS ARE GOING TO COVER 40% ALL IN.

BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENCE OF SEVEN BUCKS, 7%, IT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH TO TO TO PUT THAT PRESSURE ON ON THE COST OF A HOME BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY GETTING PASSED THROUGH, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT THAT'S BUSINESS ONE ON ONE JUST WATCH SHARK TANK WATCH ANYTHING.

RIGHT. I MEAN THAT'S JUST THE REAL THING.

SO THAT'S WHY I LAND AN OPTION ONE.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE STAFF TO THEN TAKE THE NOTE THAT JUST SAYS WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THE OTHER THINGS MENTIONED ARE 50% COMMERCIAL.

YOU CAN YOU CAN GO BACK AND TALK TO TO THEM AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THAT.

AND THE OTHER STUFF IS IN THIS STAIRS.

THAT, YOU KNOW, VERSUS EVERY YEAR VERSUS EVERY THREE YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, JUST KIND OF IF YOU WANT TO GET THERE.

FIELD BUT YEAH, WE'LL DO YEAH, WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE SHARE THAT INFORMATION.

THEN WE'LL PROBABLY COME BACK TO YOU AGAIN AND HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF WHERE WE NEED TO GO, CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT.

SURE COUNTS FOR SOMETHING SUPER QUICK.

I THINK A QUICK AND HOPEFULLY HELPFUL MAYOR.

I REALIZE THAT WE'VE EXHAUSTED TIME.

WE HAVE WE ARE THREE THREE ON A BAD OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM.

WE HAVE AN OPTION THAT IS ABOUT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE TWO.

AND WHAT I PROPOSE IS A TWO YEAR HOLD.

SO IT WOULD REALLY BE LIKE A SIX YEAR, SIX YEAR PLAN INSTEAD OF A FIVE YEAR PLAN.

IF I'M DOING MY MATH RIGHT, IT MIGHT BE SEVEN THAT WE DON'T START ESCALATING UNTIL YEAR THREE.

SO WE'D HOLD IT IF WE IF WE DID AN OPTION TWO THAT STARTS AT 40.

THAT'S AN INCREASE, JUST THIS 10% MORE THAN OPTION ONE.

AND WE DON'T ESCALATE UNTIL THE THIRD YEAR AND WE HAVE A 50% DISCOUNT FOR COMMERCIAL.

I THINK THAT LESSENS THE SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM.

IT'S STILL MOSTLY A SHOCK FELT BY NEW HOMEOWNERS, NEW PEOPLE COMING TO TOWN OR FOLKS MOVING WITHIN TOWN.

I JUST I PUT THAT UP OUT THERE.

I'D BE WILLING TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE WITH THE OPTION ONE FOLKS AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AN OPTION TO THAT DOESN'T ESCALATE UNTIL STARTING IN YEAR THREE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT I THINK THAT HOLDS EVERYTHING IN TENSION AND FINDS THE BALANCE THAT WE NEED TO FIND.

YEAH. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO.

YOU DON'T NEED THE DECISION TODAY, RIGHT? YOU NEED TO JUST GENERAL DIRECTION TODAY.

RIGHT. SO BRING THAT BACK KIND OF WORKSHOP THAT AND BRING THAT BACK AS A KIND OF 1A1B OPTION WHEN YOU COME BACK TO US, IF THAT'S OKAY.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET INTO I MEAN, WE JUST WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANOTHER 45 MINUTES TO GO THROUGH THAT FOR STAFF ON THAT.

YEAH. YEP. COUNCILMAN WANTS YOU HAVE SOMETHING QUICKLY.

ONE, ONE SENTENCE.

LET'S NOT FORGET THAT INCREASED PRICES IN NEW HOMES ALWAYS LEADS TO INCREASED VALUATIONS ON THE TAX ROLLS TO EXISTING HOMES BECAUSE APPRAISED VALUES GO UP COMPARABLE SALES.

SO TO THINK THAT YOU CAN HAVE A LOT OF HALF A MILLION DOLLAR HOMES AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S HOME STAY THE SAME, THAT'S JUST NOT HOW IT WORKS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION.

TAKES US TO ITEM C ID 22741 RECEIVED PORTHOLE DISCUSSION GIVES STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING ROADWAY FUNDING

[C. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding roadway funding strategies. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 1 hour]]

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.

COUNCIL. I'M CASSIE OGDEN, INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND CFO.

I'M GOING TO KICK OFF THIS PRESENTATION AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO OUR CONSULTANT.

LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN.

[01:25:17]

SO AS I'VE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, WE ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, WE STARTED A STUDY TO LOOK AT NOT ONLY OUR OVERALL OCI RATING, BUT OUR BACKLOG OF OUR STREETS AS WELL AS REALLY GIVE US SOME OPTIONS FOR HOW WE CONTINUE TO FUND OUR STREETS, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS AND RECONSTRUCTIONS OVER THE NEXT 40 YEARS.

SINCE 2012, THE CITY HAS ISSUED $236 MILLION IN BOND PROGRAMS FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.

WE ALSO FUND THE STREET'S OPERATING BUDGET, SO OUR MAINTENANCE FUNDING COMES FROM FRANCHISE FEES.

THE CURRENT BUDGET THIS YEAR IS ABOUT 17 MILLION.

AND ALL OF THIS FOCUS ON STREET IMPROVEMENTS DOES HAVE A GOOD STORY.

WE HAVE INCREASED OUR OVERALL OCI RATING.

SO IN IN 2009, OUR OCI RATING WAS 64.

IN 2020 IT WAS 69.

WE'VE DECREASED OUR BACKLOG ABOUT 10% OVER THAT SAME PERIOD.

SO IT WAS ABOUT 28% IN 2000, 9 TO 18% IN 2020.

WE'VE DONE A NUMBER OF THINGS, INCLUDING UPDATING OUR CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, IMPROVING OUR PROCESS FOR CRITERIA, MANUAL REVIEWS, CHANGING OUR INSPECTIONS, AND ALSO CHANGING THE WAY THAT WE DELIVER PROJECTS.

SO WE ARE HERE TO PRESENT THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY THAT FREESE AND NICHOLLS CONDUCTED, GIVE YOU SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON OCI GOALS, BACKLOG, RECONSTRUCTION, BACKLOG GOALS AND TIME FRAMES, AND THEN AS WELL AS DISCUSS FUNDING OPTIONS SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO RELY ON LARGE BOND PROGRAMS OR TREY'S IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION TODAY, BUT IF YOU DO WANT TO SEE THIS COME FORWARD, WE WILL BRING IT BACK DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS SO THAT YOU CAN WEIGH THE ASK FOR THE FUNDING AGAINST ALL THE OTHER REQUESTS DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO TREY.

THANK YOU, CASSIE.

MAYOR, COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.

I'M TREY SHANKS WITH FREESE NICHOLS, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CASSIE AND BECKY AND ETHAN AND THEIR TEAM ON THIS PROJECT FOR THE STUDY FOR THE LAST NUMBER OF MONTHS.

AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS WALK THROUGH THIS QUICKLY.

I'VE GOT TEN SLIDES HERE, SO I WANT TO KEEP IT QUICK, PRETTY QUICK.

FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

THE KEY FOR THIS IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL FEEL COMFORTABLE.

UNDERSTAND WE'RE DOING A BIG PICTURE 40 YEAR LOOK AT ROADWAY FUNDING STRATEGIES.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A COMFORT FACTOR WITH THE CONTENT AND THE CONCEPTS WITH THINGS.

SO STARTING FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT WE'RE GOING BE TALKING ABOUT WITH ROADWAYS, ONE IS THE CONDITION AND THERE'S A GOAL, CONDITION THAT WE WANT TO HAVE RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN OVERALL CONDITION INDEX OF 70.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THAT'S RIGHT AT THE TOP, JUST ABOVE GOOD IN THE CITY ON AN OVERALL AVERAGE.

SO THAT IS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD OVERALL CONDITION EXCUSE ME, CONDITION INDEX IS REALLY A STANDARD.

THAT'S AN INDUSTRY STANDARD APPROACH.

YOU SEE THESE GRAPHICS HERE ARE IMAGES THAT SHOWED DIFFERENT EXAMPLES ACROSS THE WAY OF A ROAD IN EXCELLENT CONDITION. A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ROAD, FOR EXAMPLE, OR RECONSTRUCTED, WOULD HAVE A CONDITION ABOVE 85.

A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ROAD WOULD BE AT 100.

AND YOU CAN SEE AS YOU WORK YOUR WAY DOWN THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE IMPERFECTIONS.

AND LIKE YOU SEE IN THE MIDDLE THERE UNDER GOOD, YOU SEE THE WE CALL CRACK SEAL.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF PATCHING THAT IS DONE THERE.

YOU START TO SEE SOME MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.

YOU SEE IN THE FAIR, YOU SEE SOME PATCHING OF THAT POTENTIALLY FROM A UTILITY CUT AND THE LIKE.

WHEN YOU GET TO THE POOR CONDITION, WE'D CONSIDER THAT A FAILED ROAD THAT REQUIRES RECONSTRUCTION.

SOMETHING THAT WE'LL REVISIT HERE THROUGH THAT OR SLIDES IS THESE CATEGORIES ARE KIND OF IMPORTANT IN THAT DIFFERENT MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS APPLY BASED OFF OF

[01:30:08]

AND THOSE DIFFERENT MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS HAVE DIFFERENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

SO WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT MULTIPLE TIMES.

THOSE DIFFERENT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES SAY RECONSTRUCTION, ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT POTENTIAL FUNDING MECHANISMS AVAILABLE FOR THEM.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BACKLOG, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROADS THAT NEED RECONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCEPT OF LANE MILES THAT YOU THINK OF THAT'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE QUANTITY OF ROAD THAT IS NEEDING A MAINTENANCE TREATMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION. SO A ONE MILE ROAD WITH TWO LANES IS TWO LANE MILES.

A ONE MILE ROAD WITH FOUR LANES IS FOUR LANE MILES.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LANE MILES.

OKAY. SO QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT DO WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF DENTON? IF YOU LOOK JUST AT THE DONUT ON THE LEFT, ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF YOUR ROADWAY LENGTH IN THE CITY IS RESIDENTIAL ROADS.

ABOUT A THIRD IS MADE UP OF ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS.

SO THE PREDOMINANCE OF YOUR ROADWAY, AS YOU'D EXPECT, IS RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE.

AND THEN SIMILARLY, YOU'VE GOT TWO PAVEMENT TYPES.

YOU'VE GOT ABOUT A THIRD OF THE ROADS OR CONCRETE, AND ABOUT A THIRD OF THE ROADS ARE ASPHALT.

THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THOSE, THERE'S DIFFERENT MAINTENANCE APPROACHES FOR THOSE, THERE'S DIFFERENT MAINTENANCE COSTS AND FREQUENCIES FOR THOSE.

SO THE KEY WITH THAT IS YOU'VE GOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS ONE OF YOUR SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTAINING COST EFFECTIVELY FOR THE CITY.

I'M GOING TO JUMP IN A LITTLE BIT NOW TO FOR THE ROAD NETWORK IN THE CITY.

WHAT'S THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE CASSIE TOUCHED ON? YOU KNOW, IN 2009 YOU HAD A LARGE AMOUNT OF ROADS, ABOUT 28% NEEDING RECONSTRUCTION AND THAT'S DOWN TO ABOUT 18% OR SO.

SO AS YOU LOOK AT THE SCALE HERE, THIS IS THE QUANTITY IN LANE MILES OF ROADS AND YOU SEE DIFFERENT COLOR CODINGS THAT ARE TIED TO THIS CONDITION CHART THAT'S NOW ON THE LEFT.

SO AT THE BOTTOM YOU SEE OF ABOUT 220 LANE MILES OF ROADS THAT ARE REQUIRING RECONSTRUCTION OR IN THAT CONDITION AT THIS POINT.

ALTERNATIVELY, YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 425 ROADS THAT ARE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION THAT DO NOT REQUIRE MAJOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.

BUT AS YOU'LL SEE, THERE'LL BE SOME MAINTENANCE THAT WE RECOMMEND FOR THAT.

AND THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT QUANTITIES FOR EACH OF THE DIFFERENT MAJOR CONDITIONS.

SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THOUGH, IS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, CONCRETE ROADS, WHILE THEY MAKE UP ABOUT A THIRD OF THE ROADS OVERALL, THEY MAKE UP ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE ROADS IN EXCELLENT CONDITION.

SO WE'LL SEE IS THAT CONCRETE TENDS TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO CONSTRUCT BUT HAS A SLOWER DEGRADATION RATE AND WILL STAY IN A GOOD CONDITION A LONGER AMOUNT OF TIME. SO WHAT YOU NOTE FROM THAT IS ABOUT A THIRD OF THE EXCELLENT ROADS ARE ASPHALT.

CONVERSELY, IF YOU PULL EVERYTHING ELSE UP, YOU SEE THEY'RE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ROADS IN POOR CONDITION, REQUIRING RECONSTRUCTION AND THE ROADS IN FAIR CONDITION THAT ARE APPROACHING THE LIFE OF NEEDING RECONSTRUCTION ALMOST ENTIRELY.

THEY ARE IN ASPHALT.

SO WHILE YOUR OVERALL ROAD NETWORK IS AROUND 70 RIGHT NOW, 69 TO 70, YOUR ASPHALT ROADS ARE AT A LOWER LEVEL, AROUND 58 OVERALL. SO THE EXPERIENCE OF THE COMMUNITY AS THEY'RE DRIVING ON ASPHALT ROADS IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE EXPERIENCE AS YOU'RE DRIVING ON CONCRETE ROADS AND YOU CAN THINK OF WHERE YOUR CONCRETE ROADS AND YOUR ASPHALT ROADS TEND TO BE WITHIN THE CITY AND HOW THAT THAT PERCEPTION MAY BE.

SO WHEN WE KIND OF WALK THROUGH THIS AGAIN.

SO NOW THIS IS ANOTHER GRAPH THAT ARE SCALING WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN JUST A SECOND.

BUT INSTEAD OF NUMBER OF LANE MILES, IT'S BACK TO JUST THE CONDITION ITSELF.

AS WE GO THROUGH THIS AND WE START TO BRING UP SOME MORE INFORMATION.

KNOW THAT IN GENERAL, BIG PICTURE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ALWAYS IS WE WANT TO MAXIMIZE THE CONDITION WITHIN REASON.

WE'VE GOT ALTERNATIVE COMPETING FACTORS.

WE WANT TO MEET THE COMMUNITY'S EXPECTATIONS, AND WE WANT TO PROVIDE A SAFE ROAD NETWORK FOR THE COMMUNITY'S USE.

WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE WORKING TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF ROADS NEEDING RECONSTRUCTION BECAUSE THAT'S MOST EXPENSIVE.

WE WANT TO MINIMIZE THE COST TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM.

JUST LIKE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE.

YOU WANT TO GET THE MOST OUT OF IT FOR THE LEAST COST.

SO SIMILARLY, THE AMOUNT OF GETTING TO YOUR BACKLOG TIME FRAME, HOW MUCH TIME DO WE TAKE TO GET TO THAT GOAL? CASSIE MENTIONED THEY WERE AT 28% IN 2009.

YOU'RE ABOUT 18% NOW WITH A BACKLOG GOAL OF ABOUT 10% OF YOUR ROAD NETWORK BEING BACKLOG, AT WHAT POINT YOU WANT TO REACH AT THAT POINT,

[01:35:09]

YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE THE COMMUNITY'S PERCEPTION OF FRUSTRATIONS WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ALWAYS GOING ON.

SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS ON THE RIGHT, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, FOR THIS DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, THERE'S DIFFERENT TREATMENTS THAT YOU'D HAVE.

SO THINK OF THE THREE BIG CATEGORIES SURFACE TREATMENT, REHABILITATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION.

I'M GOING TO APPLY THAT MORE TO THE CAR THAT GOES ON THE ROAD SURFACE TREATMENT.

THINK OF THAT AS AN OIL CHANGE, RIGHT? REHABILITATION, MAINTENANCE.

THINK OF THAT AS A MAJOR TUNEUP AND RECONSTRUCTION.

THINK OF THAT AS A REBUILT ENGINE.

YOU WANT TO DO OIL CHANGES TO AVOID HAVING TO GO GET A REBUILT ENGINE.

RIGHT. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS OIL CHANGES ARE RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE AND EXTEND THE LIFE OF YOUR ASSET.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE SHOOTING FOR HERE.

REHABILITATION, MAINTENANCE.

SOMETIMES OVER TIME, REGARDLESS, YOU STILL NEED TO DO A MAJOR TUNEUP, BUT STILL AT A FRACTION OF THE COST OF RECONSTRUCTING THE OVERALL ROAD.

SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR THIS LONG TERM FUNDING STRATEGY IS TO GET YOU TO A POINT THAT STEADY STATE THAT YOU'RE MAXIMIZING, YOUR ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THE MAINTENANCE FUNDING TO MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR THE MORE EXPENSIVE RECONSTRUCTION.

IT'S NOT THAT IT WON'T EVER HAPPEN, BUT LET'S DELAY THAT AS LONG AS POSSIBLE AND PROVIDE THAT ROAD QUALITY, WHICH YOU'LL FIND IS THAT IT IS COST EFFECTIVE, JUST LIKE IT IS TO MAINTAIN YOUR CAR.

IT'S COST EFFECTIVE TO MAINTAIN YOUR ROAD.

OKAY. SO SAME COLOR CODING.

NOW IT'S KIND OF LOOKING TO LEFT TO RIGHT ON THIS.

WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS BACK TO THE QUANTITIES OF LINE, MILES.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, YOU'VE GOT THROUGH POOR CONDITION ROADS WITH THAT RECONSTRUCTION COST.

FAIR. GOOD.

VERY GOOD AND EXCELLENT.

AND YOU SEE THE UNIT COST TO DO THOSE MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS ACROSS ALL THOSE VALUES WITHIN OR THE NUMBER OF LANE MILES THAT ARE IN DENTON FALL INTO THOSE CATEGORIES. SO YOU SEE THAT YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 200 LANE MILES, AS WE MENTIONED, THAT REQUIRE RECONSTRUCTION.

AND SO OVER HERE, RECONSTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE, KIND OF HEAVY MAINTENANCE ON THE RIGHT SURFACE TREATMENTS.

SOMETHING KEY TO NOTE WITH THAT IS THERE'S A VARIETY OF FUNDING MECHANISMS OF HOW WE GET THERE.

SOMETHING THAT CITIES ARE OFTEN CHALLENGED WITH IS SOMETIMES THE APPROACH FOR THE FUNDING MECHANISM DRIVES THE MAINTENANCE ACTION.

AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE TO BRING THAT TO THE TABLE FOR CONSIDERATION.

BOND PROGRAM FUNDING IS LIMITED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, WHEREAS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM A COST EFFECTIVE STANDPOINT, WE WANT TO MAXIMIZE THE ABILITY OF THE MAINTENANCE BOND PROGRAM. FUNDS AREN'T ELIGIBLE FOR THAT.

SO YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE COMPLIMENTARY FUNDING TO BALANCE WITH YOUR BOND FUNDING.

RELATIVE TO OTHER FUNDING, YOU HAVE FRANCHISE FEES IN PLACE NOW THAT CAN BE USED FOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, SURFACE TREATMENTS, BUT ALSO COULD BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT RECONSTRUCTION.

GENERAL FUND COULD ALSO POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR THAT.

AND A USER FEE IS SOMETHING THAT CITIES ARE LOOKING AT AS WELL, WHICH WOULD BE A DEDICATED FUNDING MECHANISM.

JUST FOR THAT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN JUST A MINUTE.

OKAY. SO ONE MORE GRAPH HERE TO KIND OF SHOW YOU WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT.

SO AGAIN, NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE CONDITION SCORE.

SO POOR CONDITION ROADS, EXCELLENT CONDITION ROADS.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT TIME OVER TIME.

SO AS YOU HAVE A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ROAD, IT WOULD BE AT THE TOP AT 100 YEARS ZERO AS IT AGES AS ANYTHING DOES, AS I DO, I DEGRADE. RIGHT.

SO SO WE DEGRADE OVER TIME.

AND AS IT DEGRADES TO DIFFERENT LEVELS, YOU START TO HAVE DIFFERENT TREATMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO TAKE CARE OF IT.

SO LET'S USE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE CALL A RUN TO FAILURE.

WE BUILD IT, WE JUST USE IT, AND WHEN IT FAILS, WE RECONSTRUCT IT.

SO YOU BUILD A ROAD.

LET'S SAY IT'S ONE MILE, ONE LANE, MILE, 940,000.

WE DON'T REALLY DO ANY MAINTENANCE ON IT.

AFTER ABOUT 28 YEARS HERE, IT'S FAILED AND WOULD REQUIRE RECONSTRUCTION AND YOU'D GO LET IT THEN FAIL AGAIN.

THAT TO CONSTRUCTION OVER 40 YEAR PERIOD, YOU HAVE TWO TIMES OF CONSTRUCTION.

SO 40 YEAR COST IS 1.9 MILLION THE WHOLE LIFE.

WE'RE AT 28 YEARS FOR THAT FIRST RUN OF THINGS BEFORE IT FAILS AND THE AVERAGE OVERALL CONDITION MEETS YOUR GOAL.

IT'S 78, IT'S OVER 70.

AND WE WANT TO MAKE SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT 70 IS NOT THE BE ALL, END ALL.

I'M SORRY, OCI AND THE 70 SCORE DOESN'T ANSWER YOUR WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT YOU WANT.

YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE TO FACTOR IN WITH COST EFFECTIVENESS.

I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU NOW IF YOU DO SOMETHING WHERE YOU BRING IN MAINTENANCE.

SO YOU STILL HAVE THAT SAME UPFRONT CONSTRUCTION COST OF 950,000.

[01:40:02]

IT IMPROVES THE QUALITY AND EXTENDS THE LIFE BY DOING MICRO SURFACING.

IT IMPROVES THE QUALITY A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND EXTENDS THE LIFE BY DOING AN OVERLAY.

IT IMPROVES THE QUALITY AND EXTENDS THE LIFE.

SO AFTER 40 YEARS, IT HASN'T REQUIRED RECONSTRUCTION.

SO WHAT YOU SEE IS WE NOW HAVE A LONGER WHOLE LIFE.

WE HAVE A LOWER 40 YEAR COST.

SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE IMPROVED LIFE EXPECTANCY, LOWER COST.

AND INCIDENTALLY, WE HAVE A HIGHER AVERAGE CONDITION OVER THE LIFE OF THAT.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE, IS HAVING A PLAN APPROACH, A LOOK FORWARD APPROACH TO TO ALLOW FOR THAT MECHANISM.

YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE TO HAVE A FUNDING MECHANISM STRATEGY THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT PLANNED MAINTENANCE TO BE ABLE TO OCCUR.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE CLOSER TO THE NO PLAN MAINTENANCE APPROACH IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE REQUISITE FUNDING SOURCES AND STRATEGY FOR THAT.

OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW, JUST WHAT FUNDING APPROACHES ARE IN PLACE.

YOU HAD A 2014 BOND PROGRAM.

I WON'T GO THROUGH THESE IN A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT JUST THERE'S A 2014 BOND PROGRAM THAT HAS MADE A BIG DENT.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF FUNDING THAT IS WORKING TOWARDS CLOSURE ON THAT.

NOW, IN 2019, A LARGER BOND PROGRAM, 154 MILLION FOR THAT.

THERE'S THAT'S CONTINUING IN PLACE AND THERE'S ACTIVE ALLOCATION OF THAT THAT IS ONGOING.

AND THEN WE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THREE PROPOSED BOND PROGRAMS. AS I MENTIONED, YOU'RE AT 18%, 10% GOAL.

YOU REALLY WANT TO START TO MINIMIZE THAT GOAL THERE, TOO.

AND WE'LL SAY 10%, WHICH IS A GOOD GOAL TO SHOOT FOR.

THERE'S A TWO PHASE APPROACH TOWARDS THIS.

ONE IS WE'LL CALL IT PHASE ONE CREATIVELY TO GET TO THE BACKLOG GOAL AND THEN REALLY FOR THE LONG TERM, HOW DO WE MAINTAIN IT, A STEADY STATE. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF GET TO OUR GOAL AND THEN MIX IT AGAIN AND GET TO OUR GOAL.

AND THIS AGAIN IS HOW DO WE GET TO OUR GOAL AND THEN HOW DO WE KEEP IT THERE FOR THE LONG TERM BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE.

SO WE'LL CALL THAT A STEADY STATE PHASE.

SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE IS AND THIS IS WITH A LOT OF OF MODELING OF YOUR SYSTEM, DOING SOME SCENARIO MODELING OF THINGS IS WITH THE 2023 BOND PROGRAM.

THERE'S $32 MILLION THAT THERE'S, I THINK, ACTIVE DISCUSSIONS AND PLANNING IN PLACE FOR THAT $150 MILLION IN RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS IN 2026. THAT WILL MAKE A BIG DENT IN GETTING DOWN TOWARDS THAT 10% FOLLOWED UP BY ONE MORE BOND PROGRAM AT ABOUT $50 MILLION TO GET ALMOST TO THE GOAL ITSELF AND THEN COMBINED WITH EFFECTIVE ALLOCATION OF YOUR EXISTING FUNDING OR POTENTIALLY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING THAT WILL GET YOU TO YOUR GOAL OVER THE LONG TERM. AS OF RIGHT NOW, YOU'VE GOT $17.3 MILLION IN YOUR TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET.

THAT IS FROM THE FRANCHISE FEES AND MOST OF THAT IS ALLOCATED TO STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.

THERE'S ANCILLARY COMPONENTS TO THAT AS WELL.

SO GETTING TO THE KEYS HERE.

LOOKING AT THESE THREE SCENARIOS, WE'LL WORK OUR WAY ACROSS JUST FROM SCENARIO ONE, WORK OUR WAY ACROSS, AND THEY'LL COME BACK TOGETHER.

SO FOR SCENARIO ONE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THOSE THREE BOND PROGRAMS WE JUST DISCUSSED 32 MILLION, THEN 150 MILLION, THEN 50 MILLION.

RIGHT NOW ON THE ANNUAL REVENUE FUNDED EXPENDITURES, THAT'S YOUR EXISTING LEVEL OF FUNDING.

SO THAT'S ALLOCATED TO STREETS.

THERE'S 13.3 MILLION OUT OF THAT.

17.3 IS AVAILABLE FOR THE STREET MAINTENANCE DIRECTLY.

RIGHT NOW, 4.3 MILLION OF THAT IS BEING COMMITTED TO THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM THROUGH 2026.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT DIFFERENCE FROM 13.3 TO 9 EXISTS.

SO THERE'S A TEMPORARY ALLOCATION TO SUPPORT THE BOND PROGRAM FROM 2019.

IN 2027, THAT FULL 13.3 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR ACTIVITIES THAT, AS ARE MOST OPTIMIZED WITH THAT FUNDING APPROACH WOULD ALLOW TO WITH OPTIMIZED MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION WOULD ALLOW YOU TO GET TO THAT 10% GOAL, BUT NOT UNTIL 2047.

SO THAT'S WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.

YOU'RE WORKING YOUR WAY DOWN FROM THE 18% STEADILY TO THAT.

THERE'S NO THERE'S NO SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING ON TOP OF THAT OTHER THAN THIS BOND PROGRAM.

FOR MOST OF THAT TIME.

THE CONDITION THE OCI IS ABOVE AT OR ABOVE YOUR GOAL UNTIL YOU GET OUT AT THE FAR END OF THE 40 YEARS.

AT THAT POINT, YOUR CURRENT CONCRETE INVENTORY THAT RIGHT NOW IS A NEW AND EXCELLENT CONDITION WILL HAVE AGE TO A POINT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A MORE SIGNIFICANT SLUG THAN WHAT YOUR CURRENT FUNDING STRATEGY WOULD ALLOW FOR.

[01:45:02]

AND IN, SAY, 2055 OR SO WOULD REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER BOND PROGRAM AT THAT POINT.

OPTION TWO, THE KEY IS I'M GOING TO FOCUS IN FIRST ON THE ANNUAL REVENUE FUNDED EXPENDITURES WHERE IT'S 14,000,018.3.

WITH THIS LOOKS AT IS IF YOU HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUAL FUNDING OF $5 MILLION A YEAR, DOES THAT ALLOW YOU TO MEET YOUR GOAL? AND WHAT THIS OPTION SHOWS IS YOU CAN ACTUALLY REDUCE YOUR BOND COMMITMENT FROM $150 MILLION TO 75 MILLION.

MEET YOUR CONDITION GOAL, YOUR BACKLOG GOAL.

YOU MEET IT SIX YEARS SOONER.

AND THE OCI, THE CONDITION WOULD BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE 40 YEAR PLANNING PERIOD.

OKAY. SO THIS IS ASSUMING A $5 MILLION OF ANNUAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING.

OPTION THREE HAS THE ORIGINAL $150 MILLION BOND AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING.

AND THE KEY DIFFERENCE WITH THAT IS YOU WOULD ACHIEVE THAT IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

THE BACKLOG GOAL YOU'D REACH IN A TEN ABOUT A TEN YEAR TIME FRAME.

OKAY. SO THE CURRENT FUNDING MECHANISMS WE TOUCHED ON THIS A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS LOOKING AT SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OPTIONS.

THE FUNDING YOU HAVE NOW AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS RIGHT NOW, YOUR PRIMARY SOURCE OF CAPITAL RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING. AND THAT YOU KNOW, THE SEMANTICS OF THAT, AS WE MENTIONED, THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.

SO THAT'S THE LIMITATION ON IT FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING.

YOUR CURRENT ANNUAL FUNDING OF FRANCHISE FEES, ABOUT 14.5, 14.3 MILLION OF YEAR THAT GOES TO THE STREET FUNDING PART OF OUR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.

THAT'S FUNDED BY FRANCHISE FEES AND IT'S BASED OFF OF CHARGES TO THE UTILITIES.

SO THE CITY UTILITIES OR THIRD PARTY UTILITIES, ABOUT 5% CURRENTLY TO GET THAT SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING WOULD REQUIRE AN INCREASE OF THAT FUND, THAT 5% TO A HIGHER PERCENTAGE POINT, ASSUMING ABOUT 6.7%.

SO BUT THAT IS YOUR CURRENT FUNDING MECHANISM.

THERE ARE SOME CONSTRAINTS THAT YOU'VE GOT CONTRACTS FOR THE THIRD PARTY FRANCHISE FEES THAT WOULD LIMIT YOUR ABILITY TO TO CHANGE THOSE.

AND SO IT'S REALLY MORE OF A CITY UTILITIES ADJUSTMENT THAT THAT WOULD NEED TO COME FROM THE PRIOR PRESENTATION SPOKE TO ROADWAY IMPACT FEES AND THE REALLY THE SIMPLE ANSWER ON THAT IS ROADWAY IMPACT FEES ARE FOR GROWTH IMPACTS.

SO NEW ROADWAYS ARE EXPANSION OF ROADWAYS AND WOULD NOT BE A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR MAINTAINING EXISTING ROADWAYS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. SO ROADWAY IMPACT FEES JUST AREN'T APPLICABLE FOR THIS.

AND THEN AS FAR AS GRANT FUNDING AND THE LIKE, KNOW CITY IS VERY PROACTIVE AND ENGAGING WHEREVER POSSIBLE ON GETTING FUNDING FROM TECH SKOG, THE COUNTY AND THE LIKE TO OFFSET CITY COSTS FOR THAT.

BUT THAT IS TYPICALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE RELIED ON ON AN ONGOING LONG TERM BASIS AS YOUR SOLE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THAT.

BUT THIS ALWAYS IS A GOOD WAY TO SHAVE SOME OF THE IMPACT TO THE CITY.

SO AS FAR AS SOME SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OPTIONS, THE FIRST TO GET TO GENERAL FUND ASPECTS OF THINGS.

SO THE PROPERTY TAX AND ADJUSTMENT TO THE TAX RATE WOULD WOULD GENERATE THAT REVENUE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL CHALLENGE OF THAT, THAT REQUIRES A PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE OR ALTERNATIVELY AND A GENERAL FUND OFFSET TO.

IF YOU'RE ALLOCATING THOSE DOLLARS FOR THE STREETS, YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE IT FROM SOMETHING ELSE.

SO THERE'S A CHALLENGE THERE. SIMILARLY WITH THE SALES TAX, YOU'RE ALREADY AT YOUR 2% MAXIMUM.

SO THAT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE AN OFFSET TO BE ABLE TO TO ACCESS SALES TAX REVENUE AND AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDPOINT.

FRANCHISE FEE ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT ALLOCATION.

THAT IS A POTENTIAL MECHANISM THERE.

IT'S JUST IT'S ALSO A CURRENT FUNDING MECHANISM.

SO JUST ADJUSTING THAT.

AND THEN THE THIRD ONE IS WHAT IS CALLED A ROAD USER FEE, SO SIMILAR TO A WATER FEE OR WASTEWATER FEE OR A STORMWATER FEE THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE.

IT'S AN ASSESSMENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS ON A UTILITY BILL, TYPICALLY BASED OFF OF A PROPERTY'S LAND USE TYPE.

[01:50:04]

AND WE'VE DONE IT ON THAT FOR DENTON KNOW THAT ABOUT A $2.50 TO $5 A MONTH CHARGE PER RESIDENT AND AN EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT TO ALL THE BUSINESSES AND THE LIKE WOULD GENERATE $5 MILLION A YEAR.

THERE'S A LOT OF POLICY CONSIDERATIONS THAT GO INTO THAT.

SO THAT'S WHERE THAT RANGE COMES FROM.

BUT THIS IS WOULD BE A FEE MECHANISM THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED JUST TO ROAD FUNDING USES.

SO IT'D BE A DEDICATED FEE.

IT'S A VERY STABLE, PREDICTABLE REVENUE STREAM AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT MORE AND MORE CITIES IN TEXAS HAVE IMPLEMENTED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AS THEIR MECHANISM TO HAVE THAT SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OPTION WITH THEIR BOND PROGRAM.

OKAY, SO THIS IS THE LAST SLIDE.

SO REALLY FROM THIS STUDY, THERE'S REALLY THREE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THAT WE HAVE OUT OF THIS FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND ONE IS ESTABLISHING THE STEADY STATE PERFORMANCE GOALS FOR THE ROADWAY NETWORK.

FOR THE LONG TERM, YOU NEED YOU NEED A PERFORMANCE GOAL TO BE SHOOTING FOR.

SO THE NETWORK OCI OF 70 OR GREATER, WE RECOMMEND AS A GOAL.

AND WE SAY WE'RE GREATER BECAUSE AT TIMES WHAT YOU'LL FIND IS IT'S ACTUALLY CHEAPER TO HAVE IT IN A BETTER CONDITION THAN 70.

SOMETIMES IT CAN BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO LET DEGRADE TO A LOWER CONDITION.

SO AT 70 GREATER, YOU REALLY ARE LOOKING FOR THAT LOWEST WHOLE LIFE COST IS WHAT YOU WANT TO WORK TOWARDS THE BACKLOG FOR RECONSTRUCTION.

YOU LIKE TO HAVE THAT LESS THAN 10%.

THE MORE YOU HAVE IN THERE, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT IS FOR YOU AND REALLY THE LESS SATISFIED THE COMMUNITY IS BECAUSE THEY'RE EXPERIENCING THE THE DRIVE ON FAILED ROADS AND THE DURATION OF BACKLOG IS SOMETHING REALLY TO BE THINKING OF FOR THE LONGER TERM THAT ONCE A ROAD IS IN A FATAL CONDITION, HOW LONG DOES IT STAY IN THAT CONDITION BEFORE IT GETS RECONSTRUCTED? THAT IS SOMETHING, AGAIN, THAT THE COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES THAT.

SECOND, WE TALK ABOUT THE THREE BOND PROGRAMS. SO THESE THREE BOND PROGRAMS, REALLY THE KEY IS TO ADDRESS THAT PHASE ONE PART OF GET OUT OF THE THE BACKLOG EXCESS AND GET TO THE GOAL AND GET TO THE STATE OF ALLOWING A LONG TERM STEADY STATE ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.

AND THEN THIRD IS IMPLEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE FUNDING TO MAINTAIN THAT STEADY STATE OVER THE LONG TERM.

SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE ROAD USER FEES, AN EXAMPLE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE FRANCHISE FEE ADJUSTMENT IN THE ALLOCATION.

AS AN EXAMPLE, WE'RE PROJECTING ABOUT $5 MILLION A YEAR IS WHAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT STEADY STATE APPROACH FOR THE LONG TERM.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S KEY OUT OF THIS IS THE APPROACH WE'VE TAKEN WITH THIS IS LOOK AT HOW THIS IS.

YOU ALL ARE DOING A GREAT JOB OF LOOKING AT THE LONG TERM APPROACH TO HOW DO WE TAKE CARE OF INFRASTRUCTURE WITH YOUR BOND PROGRAMS. WE'VE GOT THREE IN HERE, BUT NOTE THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING PLANNED IN HERE AND IDENTIFIED IN 2040 OR 2050 AND THE LIKES.

NOT THAT YOU WON'T EVER NEED FUTURE BOND PROGRAMS ROADWAY RELATED, BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T COMMIT OR ENCUMBER FUTURE COUNCILS TO THOSE FOUR PLANNED ACTIVITIES.

IT PROVIDES MORE OF THAT BOND USE FLEXIBILITY AS THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEEDS FOR COUNCIL AT THE TIME COMES UP AND THE COMMUNITIES EXPECTATIONS.

SO IT GIVES YOU MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE USE OF THINGS.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

GREAT. AND SO THE AND IF WE CAN PULL DOWN A PRESENTATION THAT WOULD.

SO STAFFS REQUEST IS TO GIVE DIRECTION REGARDING ROADWAY FUNDING STRATEGY SO GIVE THEM GIVEN DIRECTION AROUND THAT.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU. QUESTION ON SLIDE TEN, AND THEN I HAVE DIRECTION.

AND MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE NOTE AT THE BOTTOM OF SLIDE TEN THAT THAT EACH OF THOSE PROJECTIONS ASSUMES A REALLOCATION OF FUNDING FROM SERVICE. IS IT SERVICING THE 2019 BOND OR THAT THAT NOTE IS A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME? YEAH, NO, THAT'S FAIR. SO THERE IS OF THE ANNUAL REVENUE FUNDING, $4.3 MILLION IS ALLOCATED TO GO SUPPORT THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM.

AND THAT COUNTS FOR THROUGH YEAR 2026.

AND SO THE AND AFTER THAT, THE ENTIRETY OF THAT 4.3 WOULD THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR THE FULL OPTIMIZATION OF YOUR ROAD MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES.

[01:55:05]

GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL ETHAN COX, DIRECTOR OF STREETS.

SO, BECKY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN.

THE ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION THAT'S COMING FROM THE STREETS OPERATING FUND IS TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL SCOPE TO THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM.

YOU HAVE CONNECTOR STREETS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED INITIALLY WHEN THE BOND PROGRAM WAS APPROVED.

YOU ALSO HAVE SOME UTILITY WORK THAT WAS DONE UNDERNEATH ROADS THE NECESSITATE SOME ADDITIONAL ROADWORK TO HAPPEN.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE THAT ALLOCATION COMES FROM.

BUT I THINK ALSO TO WANT TO TREY'S EARLIER POINTS, IT IS ALSO KIND OF HAVING AN IDEA OF WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ALLOCATING REVENUE TOWARD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION AND TRYING TO RELY LESS IN THE FUTURE, NOT JUST UNTIL 2026, BUT LESS IN THE FUTURE ON BOND PROGRAMS TO PERFORM THOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS.

BUT IF I'M READING THE NOTE RIGHT, IT'S A REALLOCATION FROM DEBT SERVICE.

LIKE, COULD WE PUT THE NOTE BACK UP? BECAUSE IT'S IT'S NOT NOT VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

YEAH, IT WAS A TEMPORARY ALLOCATION ORIGINALLY WAS STREET OPERATING FUNDS.

IT'S BEEN COMMITTED IN THE SHORT TERM TO THE BOND PROGRAM TO SUPPORT.

AND THEN WE'LL RETURN TO BEING FULLY AVAILABLE TO THE STREET OPERATING.

OKAY. SO HERE, HERE'S MY.

YEAH. LET'S. LET'S SEE THE NOTE REAL QUICK, IF WE COULD.

RIGHT. SO THE NOTE SAYS SHOWS REALLOCATION OF 4.3 A YEAR FROM BOND SUPPORT TO STREETS.

IN 2027.

SO IS THAT AN ALLOCATION THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE FROM THE STREET FUND GOING TO BOND SUPPORT THAT WE WOULD THEN STOP IN 27? YEAH, THAT'D BE BETTER. SO SO THE ANSWER MY ORIGINAL QUESTION, THIS IS SOMETHING THE 4.3 IS IN THE PRO FORMAS THAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE ON OUR CURRENT DEBT.

BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS MAKING THAT REALLOCATION IN 2027 BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME OTHER OTHER BOND PROGRAMS AND DO DIFFERENT THINGS WITH THAT.

THAT STREETS FUND.

THAT'S CORRECT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT BOND PROGRAMS WITH THIS KIND OF HORIZON BECAUSE AND DON'T MEAN ANYTHING.

I MEAN, ALL DUE RESPECT BY THIS, I DON'T WANT THIS TO SOUND THE WRONG WAY, BUT THIS SOUNDS A LOT LIKE TO ME IS WHEN YOU SIT DOWN WITH YOUR FINANCIAL PLANNER AND THEY SAY ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS SAVE 5% A YEAR TOWARDS RETIREMENT AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE GOOD.

WELL, YOU ALREADY HAVE PLANS FOR THAT 5% AND THE BUDGET DOESN'T HAVE AN EXTRA 5%.

AND, YOU KNOW, IN ABOUT TWO YEARS END, THE HOT WATER HEATER BREAKS AND YOU NEED THAT 5% AND YOU CAN'T PUT IT TOWARDS WHAT.

SO I'M VERY I'M VERY WARY OF I'M GOING TO TAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

I'M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH A BUNCH OF FOLKS AND MAKE SURE EVERY SMALL CHILD IN THE CITY WHO MIGHT SOMEDAY BE ON THIS CITY COUNCIL KNOWS THAT WE HAD A PLAN IN 2023 FOR HOW WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THIS STUFF, BECAUSE I DON'T TRUST OURSELVES TO KEEP OUR HANDS OUT OF THE COOKIE JAR FOR THAT KIND OF HORIZON.

AND I'M SURE COUNCILS 20 YEARS AGO WOULD AGREE WITH ME AND SOME THINGS I'VE SPENT MONEY ON TODAY.

SO I LIKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I OBVIOUSLY LIKE THE THE, THE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE.

WE KNOW THAT PART OF WHAT OUR ISSUE NOW IS THAT WE WENT WE WERE DRIVE TO FAILURE FOR DECADES.

WE WERE DRIVE TO FAILURE AND WE WERE NOT MAINTAINING OUR STREETS.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT BEHIND BECAUSE AND WE STOPPED THAT THANKFULLY WITHIN THE LAST DECADE OR SO.

I TELL YOU, THE ONE THING THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE NONSTARTER FOR ME, THOUGH, IS THAT USER FEE.

THAT IS THAT'S A THAT'S A HIDDEN PROPERTY TAX.

THAT'S PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE PAYING THEIR PROPERTY TAXES FOR POLICE, FIRE, ROADS, PARKS AND LIBRARIES.

AND THEY WOULD RATHER, I THINK, SEE US PUT THAT RIGHT UP FRONT IN THE BUDGET.

THEN TO SAY, YOU KNOW, BY THE WAY, THERE'S A LITTLE EXTRA THING ON YOUR UTILITY BILL.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHEN YOU MAKE A TOLL ROAD OUT OF EXISTING LANES AND YOU HEAR IMMEDIATELY FROM FOLKS, I ALREADY PAID FOR THAT ROAD AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE ME TO DRIVE ON IT. I THINK THAT'S A FAIR CRITICISM.

I'D RATHER SEE A BUDGET ORDINANCE IF WE'RE GOING TO TELL OURSELVES THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE A CERTAIN HERE'S OUR INTENTION FOR THE BUDGET.

AND IF WE WANT TO UNDO THAT IN A PARTICULAR BUDGET YEAR, BECAUSE WE NEED TO DIP INTO THAT BECAUSE THERE'S THE WATER HEATER BREAKS OR WHATEVER, THEN WE DO THAT.

BUT RATHER THAN A USER FEE, I'D RATHER SEE A BUDGET ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THIS IS THE AMOUNT, LIKE WE HAVE THIS ON OTHER THINGS LIKE OUR FRANCHISE FEES AND STUFF.

[02:00:01]

I'M GOING TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO STICK TO IT.

ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I SHARE SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS ABOUT THE UTILITY FEE OPTION.

I. I UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S DONE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT SPREADS IT OUT KIND OF IN SMOOTHLY OVER THE ENTIRE POPULATION BECAUSE EVERYBODY USES UTILITIES.

AT THE SAME TOKEN, IF IT FEELS.

NOT TO PUT WORDS IN COUNCILOR DAVIS'S MOUTH.

I'LL PUT WORDS IN MY OWN MOUTH.

IT FEELS LIKE SORT OF A BACKDOOR TAX.

AND I DON'T MIND TAXES.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN CLEAR IN THIS DYESS, AS LONG AS WE'RE EFFICIENTLY SPENDING IT AND WE'RE UP FRONT THAT WE'RE DOING IT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THERE CAN BE HEARTBURN IN THE COMMUNITY AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T MIND.

THE DRC IS NOW GOING TO PUBLISH TOMORROW.

BECK DOESN'T MIND TAXES.

I STAND BY THAT.

I HAVE NO NO FEAR OF THAT AT ALL.

I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

THE 5.52 UP TO 6.7 FOR THE FRANCHISE FEE.

DOES THAT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WHICHEVER DEPARTMENT HEAD BUT I THOUGHT.

WE WERE ALREADY PROJECTING FRANCHISE FEES TO GO UP FOR DM NEEDS.

IS SO IS THIS IN ADDITION TO SO THE 1.2 IS IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER ELSE IS GOING ON? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO AS I RECALL, IT WAS GOING UP TO SIX.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 7.2 OVERALL.

I MAY BE MISREMEMBERING THESE NUMBERS, SO PLEASE CORRECT ME.

YEAH. SO THE ROI WENT UP TO 6%.

THE FRANCHISE FEE REMAINED AT I THINK IT'S 5%.

SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT ONE OF THE OPTIONS WOULD BE TO INCREASE THE FRANCHISE FEE TO 6.7% TO TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE OF ABOUT $5 MILLION A YEAR.

BUT WERE WE ALREADY GOING TO INCREASE THE FRANCHISE FEE? THE ROI WAS INCREASING.

WE ALREADY INCREASED THE ROI.

YES. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS THIS IS IT, 5.5 OR FIVE.

5.75 OR SORRY, 5%.

OKAY. SO THIS GOING FROM 5 TO 6.7.

THIS THIS 2.7% INCREASE, IT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING IN THAT 2.7 INCREASE.

THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL FRANCHISE FEES PROJECTED.

FOR ANY OTHER CITY PURPOSES.

THAT'S JUST OUR. YEAH, THIS IS JUST.

JUST OUR YES, JUST OUR CITY UTILITY WOULD PAY THE FRANCHISE FEE AND THEN SORT OF EVEN THOUGH I JUST COMPLETELY THREW THE UTILITY FEE UNDER THE THE BUS AND I STAND BY THAT.

DID YOU, DID YOU ALL LOOK AT COMBINATIONS OF FRANCHISE FEE, PROPERTY TAX INCREASE AND UTILITY FEE OR OR ANY MULTIPLE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS NECESSARY, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY $5 MILLION AS I.

YEAH. AND THEY SAID MAYBE A DIFFERENT WAY OF SAYING THAT IS WE'VE GOT KIND OF A UNIT COST FOR EACH OF THOSE DIFFERENT FUNDING MECHANISMS AND ANY TAKE A PORTION FROM MULTIPLE THAT ARE INTEREST TO LOOK INTO SO THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT TO IDENTIFY IF A LITTLE BIT COMES FROM A CHANGE IN THE FRANCHISE FEE ALLOCATION A LITTLE BIT COMES FROM A PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT, A LITTLE BIT COMES FROM A USER FEE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT YES, THAT'S ALL AVAILABLE TO DO.

AND SO ARE WE ASKING FOR DIRECTION ON THAT PART AS WELL, THE DISTRIBUTION OF THAT.

SO WE'RE ASKING FOR DIRECTION ON IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS.

SO IF YOU WANT TO SEE OPTIONS FOR INCREASING THE ALLOCATION TO STREETS, WE CAN COME UP WITH A SEVERAL DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE STUDY FROM FREESE AND NICHOLS. BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS $5 MILLION INCREASE TO STREETS A YEAR, WE WILL BRING THAT BACK AS PART OF THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, MY MY, MY GENERAL DIRECTION IS I THINK WE DO NEED TO SEE PRIOR COUNCILS, INCLUDING ME AND INCLUDING AND PRIOR TO ME, HAVE SAID, HEY.

AND I THINK COUNCILOR DAVIS ALLUDED TO IT JUST A SECOND AGO.

WE'VE WE'RE TRYING TO AND I THINK THE PRESENTATION SAID IT TOO.

WE'RE TRYING TO WEAN OURSELVES FROM USING DEBT OBLIGATION TO DO MAINTENANCE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE.

AND SO I'M GOING TO LEAN TOWARDS SOME SORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE MECHANISM BECAUSE THAT GETS US IN THE DIRECTION THAT WEANING, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MULTIPLE FACTORS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITIZENS MAY NOT WANT MORE THAT OBLIGATION TO MAY VOTE THAT

[02:05:10]

SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE TAX COUNCIL TO RAISE TAXES, WHICH IS FAIR, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE OUT IN THE OPEN IN FRONT OF HIGHER POWERS AND EVERYONE.

SO I'M I'M GOING TO LEAD TO ANY OPTION WITH WITH WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING AND I'M GOING TO LEAD TO OPTION TWO, HONESTLY, BECAUSE IT PUTS LESS EMPHASIS ON THE BOND PROGRAM.

I KNOW THAT EXTENDS THE HORIZON, BUT WE'VE GOT TO WEAN OURSELVES DOWN FROM PUTTING MAINTENANCE ON BONDS.

I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN BURT. I THINK I KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

I'VE BEEN LISTENING VERY INTENTLY AND I WANT TO GO HERE TO THE.

PAGES. THIS IS ON PAGE 12, I BELIEVE, CONDUCT THREE ROAD BOND PROGRAMS TO MEET BACKLOG.

THAT 23, 26, 31 YEAR, 23 YEAR, 26, YEAR 31.

CAN THOSE BE MOVED AROUND? YES. YES.

IN THAT 31 YEAR, 20, 31, THAT $50 MILLION THAT YOU HAVE THERE, IS THAT WHAT IS THAT ACCOUNTABLE FOR? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING NEXT TO THAT.

REALLY THE SAME, YOU KNOW, OF CONTINUING TO FOCUS ON JUST REDUCING THAT BACKLOG.

JUST REDUCING THE BACKLOG.

YES. OKAY.

SO THEN THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT RUDEL AND MINGO WAS SITTING UP THERE ON TOP.

SO ROAD USER FEES AND THIS IS WHAT I'M THINKING AS WE'RE TALKING, IF WE ADD THAT ADDITIONAL FEE, OH, FIRST OF ALL, $2.50 TO $5 A MONTH.

GENERALLY WHEN I OPEN UP MY UTILITY BILL, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST KIND OF IT'S KIND OF ALL OVER THE PLACE, JUST A STEADY PACE.

BUT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, $2.50 MORE THAN WHAT I PAID THE LAST MONTH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT EVERYBODY.

IT JUST DOESN'T REALLY HIT ME THAT HARD IF I KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT IT'S COMING FROM.

I REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD THAT STORM WATER SITUATION AND WE WERE PAYING FOR THE WATER THAT COMES ON OUR PROPERTY AND WE'RE USING IT.

AND THEN WE HAD THE WHOLE STORM WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SITUATION.

AND SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE STARTED PAYING FOR STORM WATER THAT WAS RUNNING OFF OUR PROPERTY AS WELL.

AND THAT WAS COSTING US ABOUT $5 A MONTH.

AND WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T HAVE A BIG FANFARE, BIG FAN SHOW OR ANYTHING.

SOMETHING CAME THROUGH THE MAIL AS USUAL, OPEN IT UP, KIND OF CHUNK IT OUT AND LOOK AT THE BILL.

IT'S $5 MORE.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT COMPELLING TO ME.

SO I DEFINITELY WOULD WANT TO.

AND OF COURSE, THAT'S JUST ME.

I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND AGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY YOU KNOW, IT'S RIGHT HERE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF REVENUE TO COME IN.

AND I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH PUTTING THE USER FEE.

EVERYBODY USE THE ROADS FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.

I, I HEAR A LOT OF OLDER RETIRED FOLKS SAY, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO PAY PROPERTY, I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR SCHOOL BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE KIDS IN SCHOOL.

BUT WE CERTAINLY DO NEED TO HAVE THEM TO PAY.

BUT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

SO THEN NEXT, MY QUESTION.

NEXT QUESTION. HOW DO YOU HOW DO WE IS THIS THE THE THE LENGTH OF THE ROAD OR HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH BETWEEN 250 AND THE 500 THAT HOW WAS THAT DETERMINED? NOW, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

AND REALLY FOR SIMPLICITY'S PURPOSE, I JUST SHOW IT FOR A TYPICAL RESIDENCE.

I MEAN, YOU CHARGE THE SAME AMOUNT FOR EVERY RESIDENCE.

THERE'S DIFFERENT APPROACHES THAT CAN BE DONE FOR THAT WITH THE RANGE REALLY GETS TO AND I'M GOING TO USE COLLEGE STATION AS AN EXAMPLE, COLLEGE STATION PUT IN A ROAD USER FEE.

SO A COLLEGE TOWN, THEY PUT IN A ROAD USER FEE 067 YEARS AGO FOR THE SAME PURPOSE CALLED A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE IS WHAT THEY CALL IT. AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO ASSESS THE FEE TO TEXAS A&M.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT THAT RANGE PRACTICALLY GETS TO IS, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTIES DO YOU CHARGE, YOU KNOW, THE UNIVERSITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND LIKE IF YOU DON'T, THEN EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO PAY MORE TO OFFSET THAT REVENUE NEED.

IF EVERYBODY WITHIN C LIMITS IS PAYING, THEN IT COULD BE AS LOW AS 250.

SO THAT CONVERSATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO. ALL RIGHT.

[02:10:03]

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO GO IN REVERSE.

SO THE LAST ANSWER, WHAT DO WE DO ON OUR DRAINAGE FEE? IS THAT APPLY TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY? UTILITY BILLS, UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL DISTRICT, NONPROFITS FOR PROFITS.

JUST SO THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE DISCUSSION, THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S REALLY THE CLOSEST COMPARISON TO THE ROAD USER FEE IS THE DRAINAGE FEE ON THE UTILITIES.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WHAT'S THE DRAINAGE FEE IS NOT APPLIED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS.

IT IS PLACED ON THE UTILITY BILL FOR TENANTS.

AND SO. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, T.W.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, I BELIEVE ALL THOSE ARE EXEMPT FROM OUR DRAINAGE FEE CURRENTLY.

WAS THAT CITY POLICY OR IS THAT STATE MANDATED? I BELIEVE THAT CITY POLICY UNIVERSITY IS ACTUALLY A STATE MANDATE.

SCHOOL DISTRICT IS POLICY.

YEAH, I'M GONNA BE TRUTHFUL.

I WASN'T ON COUNCIL WHEN THE DRAINAGE FEE CAME THROUGH, BUT I CERTAINLY WAS OPPOSED TO IT SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A UTILITY BILL, LET'S HAVE A UTILITY BILL. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TAXES, LET'S HAVE TAXES.

SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE QUESTION I DO HAVE, WHICH HAS NOT REALLY BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT WE'VE DISCUSSED IT OVER THE YEARS AND I'VE BEEN A STRONG PROPONENT OF CONCRETE STREETS. AND SO IS THERE GOING TO COME A TIME WHEN WE AS A COUNCIL DECIDE, OKAY, WE'VE GOT TO START SOMEWHERE, THE CONCRETE STREETS, THEY THEY LAST LONGER.

I THINK THEY ALSO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT.

WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? ESTHETIC TO YOUR COMMUNITY.

SO I THINK THERE'S A CONVERSATION DOWN THE ROAD WE NEED TO BEGIN TO TALK ABOUT HOW CAN WE BEGIN TO MOVE MORE IN THAT DIRECTION.

I KNOW CARROLL BOULEVARD HAS HAD SOME CONCRETE WORK DONE WHERE THEY COME IN AND CUT THE SECTIONS OUT.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW OLD CARROLL BOULEVARD IS.

I MEAN, I GREW UP IN THIS CITY. IT'S GOT TO BE, WHAT, 40, 50 YEARS OLD? AT LEAST. AT LEAST I WOULD THINK SO.

I THINK THAT'S A CONVERSATION FOR.

BUT YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR DISCUSSION IN A LONG TERM STRATEGIC GOAL OF HOW DO WE IMPROVE OUR STREET CONDITIONS OVERALL. YES, IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD EXPERIENCES WHERE SOMETIMES YOU PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE UPFRONT AND YOU GET A LITTLE BIT BETTER QUALITY.

YOU GET A LITTLE BIT BETTER. MORE A LONGER LASTING ASSET THAN IF YOU GO SOMETHING THAT'S THAT'S LESS EXPENSIVE.

IT'S GOOD. BUT IT ALSO HAS ITS CHALLENGES WHEN IT COMES TO MAINTENANCE AND THINGS SUCH AS THAT.

I'M WITH COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS AND FIRST OF ALL, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW MUCH TIME AND ENERGY YOU ALL SPEND IN THIS PRESENTATION.

SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, TO BE ABLE TO PUT ALL THOSE NUMBERS TOGETHER, WHICH WE SEE THE END RESULT.

WE DON'T SEE THE MANY HOURS BEHIND THE SCENES OF CRUNCHING THESE THINGS, DOING MODELING, DOING ALL KINDS OF THINGS, ON TRYING TO GIVE US THE BEST DATA WE CAN TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE OR SOMETHING THAT'S A 30 OR 40 YEAR PLAN.

AND SO IT IS GOOD WE WE HAVE A PLAN.

BUT I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE PLANS ARE JUST THAT.

JUST LIKE WHEN WE HAVE OUR BUDGET PRESENTATIONS, WE GO OUT, WHAT IS IT, FIVE YEARS, I THINK, OR MORE.

AND I REMEMBER EVERY TIME WHEN WE'D HAVE A BUDGET PRESENTATION, AT LEAST FROM FROM BRIAN AND DAVID AND PROBABLY CASSIE, HEY, WHEN YOU GET OUT FIVE YEARS, YOU'RE JUST SORT OF PROJECTING. YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW IT'S ALL GOING TO PAN OUT, BUT THE FIRST TWO OR THREE YEARS YOU CAN, YOU CAN PREDICT PRETTY ACCURATELY.

SO TO ME, THE BIG QUESTION IS, I MEAN, THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN OPTION.

I MEAN, OPTION ONE DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYBODY WANTS TO GO WITH OPTION TWO.

THE DIFFERENCES ARE THE FULL BOND PROGRAM AND THE $5 MILLION A YEAR SUPPLEMENT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OPTION THREE.

I MEAN, WHEN YOU PLAN OUT 40 YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES IN THOSE TIMES TO CHANGE DIRECTION IF IT'S NEEDED.

THE MOST IMMEDIATE IMPACT IS THE $5 MILLION PER YEAR.

HOW DO YOU COLLECT THAT? I AM I AM NOT FOR COLLECTING THAT ON THE UTILITY BILL.

IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, LET'S DO IT.

WE ALREADY, I THINK, DO IT IN A WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IS SIMILAR, WHICH I DON'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS AGREE WITH WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ROUTING SOME OF THE ROI OVER TO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

AND THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INCREASING THE FRANCHISE FEE OVER TO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

SO I'M OKAY WITH THE DIRECTION IS DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN THE BUDGET? I THINK WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT IN THE BUDGET.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY THAT WE WILL COME UP WITH A TOTAL AGREEMENT FOR WHAT, THE 5 MILLION WHERE IT SHOULD COME FROM OR WHERE IT'S GOING OR HOW IT'S GETTING RAISED.

BUT I CERTAINLY THINK IT'S WORTHY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THE BUDGET BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE BUDGETS FOR.

[02:15:03]

SO MY DIRECTION WOULD BE I MEAN, I'M PRETTY BENIGN ON OPTION ONE OR TWO.

I MEAN, TWO OR THREE, IF I HAVE TO GO WITH ONE, I'LL JUST SAY OPTION THREE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE MORE ASPIRATIONAL ONE.

AND UNDERSTANDING THAT A 40 YEAR PLAN IS PRIMARILY ASPIRATIONAL.

BUT THE $5 MILLION, I CERTAINLY AM OKAY WITH FINDING A FUNDING SOURCE.

I'M GOING TO BE VERY HESITANT FOR THAT FUNDING SOURCE TO BE $2.50 OR $5 ON A UTILITY BILL.

UNDERSTANDING. THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT DISCUSSION IS.

THERE'S OUR IS ABOUT 50% RENTALS.

AND SO PEOPLE WHO RENT, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY PAY PROPERTY TAXES DIRECTLY, BUT THEY DO PAY THEM BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNERS TYPICALLY PASS THOSE ALONG TO THE TENANTS.

SO I JUST THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT WITH WHAT IT NOT TRANSPARENT, WE'RE BEING TRANSPARENT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE MORE TRUE TO WHAT IT REALLY IS.

IT'S A ROAD IMPACT FEE.

IT'S A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE.

ROADS ARE TYPICALLY GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY ITEMS, AND I THINK WE CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK THERE IF THAT'S THE COUNCIL'S PRIORITY.

SO THAT'S MY DIRECTION.

OPTION THREE $5 MILLION IS OKAY.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO FIND A FUNDING SOURCE OTHER THAN THE ROAD USER FEE.

K ANYONE ELSE COMES FROM MCGEE.

MR. MAYOR. I WILL TRY TO BE SUCCINCT.

I FAVOR.

I FAVOR OPTION TWO.

YES, OF COURSE. I WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AS PART OF THE BUDGET.

IN TERMS OF HOW WE COLLECT THE $5 MILLION A TAX ON UTILITY BILLS.

I'M ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I'M AN ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THAT $5 MILLION IS A GALLON.

A GALLON OF DIESEL AT $5 IS A CARTON OF EGGS RIGHT NOW.

I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO PASS ALONG MORE COSTS TO WORKING PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE THEIR INSECURITY AS THEY TRY TO WORK EVERY DAY AND TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.

SO I'M OUT ON THE 5 MILLION BEING COLLECTED THAT WAY.

THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE, COUNCILMAN DAVIS? THANK YOU. I'LL BE BRIEF BECAUSE I JUST DON'T THINK I EXPRESSED MYSELF IN TERMS OF THE THREE OPTIONS.

I'M AN OPTION.

OPTION THREE, AND THAT'S BECAUSE I WAS TALKING ABOUT HORIZONS.

OPTIONS TWO AND THREE ARE GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO IT, WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO DECIDING WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THAT MIDDLE BOND ISSUE THERE, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO TODAY TO SAY THAT.

OPTION TWO, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO 75 INSTEAD OF 150.

THE FUTURE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DECIDE THAT I LIKE OPTION THREE BECAUSE IT PUTS US ON THE PATH.

I THINK THE WORD COUNCILMEMBER WANTS USED WAS ASPIRATIONAL.

IT PUTS US ON THE PATH TO THAT BACKLOG, GETTING DOWN TO WHERE WE WANT IT FASTER IN 2033 AS OPPOSED TO FURTHER OUT.

THAT'S WHAT I LIKE ABOUT IT.

AND AGAIN, I REALLY LIKE THE OPTION OF TYING OUR HANDS A LITTLE BIT AND SAYING THIS IS HOW MUCH OF THE BUDGET FROM WHATEVER SOURCE IT IS, GOES TO STREETS LIKE WE DO WITH THE FRANCHISE FEE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A SITUATION LIKE CAR WITH YOUR ROI.

THAT'S A GOOD CONVERSATION TO HAVE ABOUT THE ROI BECAUSE WE SET THAT SOME TIME AGO AND WITH THE FULL INTENTION.

IF YOU GO BACK AND WATCH THOSE COUNCIL MEETINGS THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE AT THAT 6% ROI FOREVER, WE'RE GOING TO DIAL THAT BACK AND STOP YOU.

IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO TAKE OUR HANDS OUT OF A COOKIE JAR ONCE IT'S OPEN.

THROUGH NO FAULT OF OUR OWN OR FUTURE COUNCILS, THERE'S JUST STUFF GOES AT PRICES GO UP, STUFF GETS MORE EXPENSIVE, THERE'S MORE GROUND TO COVER WITH LESS MONEY.

I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE US CONSTRAIN OURSELVES AND COMMIT SOME PORTION THROUGH ORDINANCE OF THE BUDGET EVERY YEAR TO ROAD MAINTENANCE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO GET US OUT OF THIS. OK.

COUNCILMAN. MCGEE. SARA SOME ARE JUST TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS IF THE CONSENSUS IS OPTIONAL.

OPTION THREE TO BE CLEAR, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

I WAS BEING CONCERNED ABOUT HAMSTRINGING THE FUTURE FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO SIT IN THIS SEAT, BUT FOR CONSENSUS PURPOSES, I'M OKAY WITH ONE OPTION.

YES. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

COUNCILMAN BYRD, DID I SAY OPTION THREE? I'LL DEAL WITH OPTION THREE AS WELL.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF I NOTICED THAT OR NOT.

GOT IT. ANYONE ELSE? YEAH. IF. IF IT HELPS BUILD CONSENSUS, I CAN.

I CAN GO TO THREE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I STILL WOULD LIKE TO KEEP US OFF OF BONDS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

ALL RIGHT. AND I GUESS BILLY, BRING CATHERINE WATCH BACK WHENEVER HE GETS BACK.

I GUESS ANYONE ELSE MAY OR MAY I JUST SAY, YOU SAY WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY, THOUGH.

NO, GO RIGHT AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THE LAST TWO PRESENTATIONS.

NOT ME SO MUCH, BUT PARTICULARLY CASSIE, BECKY, ETHAN, NICK.

[02:20:03]

AND THEN, OF COURSE, WITH OUR CONSULTANTS, THIS HAS BEEN TRULY A LABOR OF LOVE.

I MEAN, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS, IS A NEXT LEVEL RECOGNITION OF BEING FORWARD THINKING FOR THE FUTURE, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE FEES ESTABLISHED SO THAT WE AREN'T BACK HERE IN FIVE YEARS GOING, OH, OUR ROADS ARE STILL NOT VERY GOOD.

WE'VE GOT TO PUT MORE INTO RECONSTRUCTION VERSUS MAINTENANCE.

WE'RE PRETTY MUCH SAYING TO YOU, YOU KNOW, WE REALIZE WE'VE COME A LONG WAY IN OUR ROAD RECONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE, BUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE THAT SWEET SPOT.

I KEEP SAYING THAT, BUT IT'S REALLY A SWEET SPOT OF FINDING, OBVIOUSLY, WHERE THE IMPACT FEE WOULD END UP, BUT ALSO HOW HOW QUICKLY WE CAN GET OUR ROADS UP TO SPEED AND MEET A HIGHER LEVEL AND WHAT IT IS AND THEN MAINTAIN IT PROPERLY SO THAT WE'RE NOT SPENDING 947,000 PER LANE MILE SOMEWHERE AROUND IN THERE, 67,000 PER LANE MILE TO DO THAT.

SO THAT WE'RE REALLY, REALLY THINKING ABOUT OUR FUTURE.

AND SO A BIG KUDOS TO THE STAFF AND I PROBABLY MISS SOMEBODY HERE, BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS IS TRULY BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH ON ON DOING DRY RUNS AND NOPE THAT CHANGE THIS CHANGE THIS. SO I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW PROUD I AM TO WORK WITH SUCH WONDERFUL PROFESSIONALS.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

NO. AND SO FOR ME, I THINK THE FIRST THINGS FIRST, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND QUICKLY WHAT IS THE GREATEST CAUSE OF DEGRADATION OF A ROAD? WHAT IS THE WHAT HAS THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THAT PROCESS? YEAH, SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF FACTORS, BUT I MEAN, THE ROAD TRAFFIC ITSELF IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON IT, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, GETTING MOISTURE INTO THE ROAD SUBBASE AND THE LIKE.

SO AS YOU START PART OF REASON YOU SEE THOSE CRACK SEALS AND THE LIKE IS YOU WANT TO KEEP MOISTURE FROM GETTING INTO THE ROAD AND STARTING TO HAVE FREEZE CRACK ISSUES AND DEGRADING THAT. SO AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE SURFACE TREATMENTS, THINK OF THAT AS CAPPING THE ROAD AND KEEPING IT SEALED SO IT'S NOT DEGRADING THE BASE.

THOSE ARE TWO MAJOR IMPACTS.

YOU GET A LOT OF EXTERNAL IMPACTS, A CHANGE IN PROJECTED TRAFFIC, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO IF YOU HAVE HEAVY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC WHERE YOU WEREN'T ANTICIPATING IT, IT CAN QUICKLY DEGRADE A ROAD, WHERE YOU WEREN'T ANTICIPATING THAT THERE'S UTILITIES IMPACTS OBVIOUSLY.

SO YOUR APPROACH TO HOW YOU PATCH UTILITIES CUTS, YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD ROBUST APPROACH TOWARDS THAT, BUT THERE IS STILL AN IMPACT TO THAT.

AND THE UPFRONT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, AGAIN, YOU HAVE GOOD ROBUST CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.

SOMETHING THAT'S VERY KEY IS PUTTING THE ROAD IN THE GROUND THE RIGHT WAY FROM THE START.

THAT REALLY IS WHAT MAKES THE PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES.

WE SHOULD GIVE YOU THAT ONE DOTTED LINE DEGRADATION CURVE, KNOW THAT THERE'S REALLY 15 DIFFERENT CURVES WE LOOKED AT IN ALL OUR MODELING FOR THE CITY.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS THERE'S A VARIETY OF THEM IS THE DIFFERENT QUALITY OF THE BASE OF THE ROADWAY.

IF IT'S GOT A POORER BASE FOUNDATION, IT DEGRADES MUCH MORE QUICKLY THAN IF IT'S GOT A STRONG BASE.

I'M NOT SURE IF I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, IT'S OUTSTANDING AND POPULAR CULTURE IS RIGHT.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BASE.

BUT I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE YOU LEFT WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT TWO, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S I, I SO BUT I THINK I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT PUTTING IN THE ROAD RIGHT.

THE FIRST PLACE AND IT CAN'T BE OVERSTATED OR POINTED OUT ENOUGH WHEN CASSIE TOUCHED ON IT IN THE BEGINNING BUT STAFF AND KIND OF THROUGH THESE STUDIES HAVE HAVE ZEROED IN ON EXACTLY THAT. WE OUTSOURCE OUR OUR INSPECTIONS SO THAT WE CAN GET MORE DONE WHEN PEOPLE ARE BUILDING IT.

WE'VE CHANGED THE DEPTH OF WHICH WE KIND OF BUILD AND HOW THOSE THINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE GOING IN RIGHT.

AND IT MATCHES WHATEVER THAT ENVIRONMENT IS.

AND SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE CRITICAL.

AND SO I APPRECIATE STAFF BRINGING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, THOSE THINGS.

AND KIND OF WE'VE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE YEAR BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, IT REALLY THAT'S A THAT'S WHERE YOU START TO TO HAVE GREAT RESULTS.

AND I THINK IT HELPS US WHEN IT COMES TO CITIZENS THAT SAY, HEY, THIS ROAD IS BRAND.

WHY IS IT NOT PERFORMING WELL? AND SAME THING ABOUT MAKING SURE WE TAKE CARE OF INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE WE GO BACK WITH THE ROAD, TO MAKE SURE ALL AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT DISTURBING THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S VERY HELPFUL, I GUESS, FOR ME TO TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION, IT WOULD REALLY BE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ROADS AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CAN HELP WITH.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ROADS THAT ARE TRIPS GRANT ELIGIBLE.

I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO LATCH ON TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S 14 WHATEVER THAT IT'S MILLIONS THAT WE GET BACK FROM OUR 14 MILLION WE GIVE TO.

[02:25:05]

SO WE GIVE THEM AND THIS I MEAN WE'RE JUST CRUSHING IT AND SALES TAX.

SO I HAZARD TO GUESS HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM.

BUT I WANT AS MUCH OF THAT BACK AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT'S OURS AND WE WORK HARD FOR IT.

BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE ROADS THAT ARE TRIPS, TRIPS, GRANT ELIGIBLE AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THAT KIND OF AVERAGE $5 MILLION NUMBER, IF WE COULD USE THAT, USE THAT MONEY AND INCREASE WHAT WE GET BACK THROUGH THAT GRANT.

AND IT GOES I GUESS IT'S JUST AN ADDENDUM TO THOSE OTHER.

BUT IT'S I'D LIKE TO SEE JUST KIND OF A CALL OUT SHEET.

BUT YOU TOUCHED ON GRANTS ALREADY.

THAT'S JUST ONE I'D LIKE TO SEE KIND OF CALLED OUT TO SEE WHAT SPECIFICS BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY CERTAIN ROADS THAT IT'S APPLIED TO.

THEN I WOULD SAY TO COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS POINT AND I TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT THIS AND I UNDERSTAND STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING AND POSITION, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE A MAYBE AN ANALYSIS ON AN ASPHALT ROAD, LET'S SAY MIDDLE OF THE ROAD THAT SO IT'S GOOD CONDITION AND THEN WE CONVERT THE CEMENT. RIGHT? SO THERE'S THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO THAT.

RIGHT. AND SO DOES THE QUESTION IS DOES THAT CONVERSION AND THE LENGTH MAKE THAT WORTH IT TO DO OR IS IT COST PROHIBITIVE? THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M TRYING TO BACK INTO THE SEE, BECAUSE I HAD THAT SAME QUESTION.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT MATH LOOKS LIKE.

IF WE TAKE A ROAD, MIDDLE ROAD AND KIND OF DO THAT AND THEN.

YEAH. NO. AND THEN THIS CITY MANAGER, IF I COULD SEE IN OUR NEXT PRESENTATION.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING WHERE WE ENDED UP IN FY 2022, IN AND OUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS WHERE WE END UP.

YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE THERE'S GREAT THINGS THAT DON'T GET MONEY ALLOCATED TO THEM.

AND I JUST NEED A REFRESHER ON THAT.

BUT ALL THAT TO SAY, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, COUNCILMAN WATTS AND SOME OTHERS ARE SPOT ON.

I'D LIKE TO JUST SEE US BEGIN TO PUSH THIS AS A PRIORITY AT THE TOP OF THE BUDGET, AND THEN THAT'S GOING TO PUSH OTHER THINGS DOWN, NOTABLY.

BUT BUT I THINK WHERE DO WE FIND THE MONEY FOR THIS OTHER THING VERSUS THE MONEY FOR ROADS IS BAKED IN TOP PRIORITY, RIGHT? AND SO IF WE DO THAT, THAT PUTS US SOME OTHER STUFF DOWN.

AND THE BOND FUNDING, I'M I THINK THIS IS PERFECT TIME TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE NEXT BECAUSE WE CAN SAY WHAT DO WE DO? WE WANT TO GO HEAVY HERE UNDERSTANDING WE'RE JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON INFRASTRUCTURE GOING FORWARD.

RIGHT. OR KIND OF HOW WE BALANCE THAT, WHAT WE NEED VERSUS, HEY, NEXT FEW YEARS, BONDS ARE GOING TO BE SOLELY ON ROADS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET CAUGHT UP.

RIGHT. AND SO GET SOME OF THOSE WANTS OUT OF THE WAY SO THAT WE CAN FOCUS ON MUST HAVES GOING FORWARD.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I FEEL.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT OPTION THAT IS.

I SHARE WITH MY MY WITH SOME HAVE SAID I, I, I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE FEES.

I'D BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE WITH THE PUBLIC THINKS.

BUT I WOULDN'T I THINK WE JUST I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A PRIORITY.

RIGHT. I JUST THINK THAT 5 MILLION IS AT THE TOP AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A FEE FOR SOMETHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, REC FEE, LIBRARY FEE.

NOT SAYING THOSE ARE REAL THINGS, BUT JUST SAYING THERE'S THERE'S THERE'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE THINGS WE SHOULD BRING FORWARD.

RIGHT. BUT THERE'S OTHER THINGS LIKE, HEY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW GOLD PLATED GARBAGE CAN FEE.

RIGHT. IF YOU WANT THE SUPER DELUXE VERSION THEN THEN, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE DOWN THE LINE.

BUT WHAT WE'RE THOSE PRIORITIES THAT WERE REQUIRED TO DELIVER, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE FEES FOR THAT.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE OTHER STUFF FOR, FOR THAT STUFF THAT'S OPTIONAL.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY THANK THE MAYOR FOR BRINGING UP THE IDEA OF REINFORCING THE IDEA OF THE ROAD MAINTENANCE THAT THE COUNCILOR WATTS BROUGHT UP EARLIER.

I'VE HEARD MIXED THINGS ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL LONG TERM COSTS ARE ON A 40 YEAR ROAD, CONCRETE VERSUS ASPHALT.

SO THAT'S REALLY GOING TO IMPACT.

I MEAN, I'VE LITERALLY HEARD IT BOTH WAYS THAT ONE IS CHEAPER THAN THE OTHER OVER 40 YEARS WITH MAINTENANCE.

SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE A DECISION.

SO I'M GLAD THE MAYOR REINFORCED THAT AND I WANT TO REINFORCE THAT, TOO.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

Y'ALL HAVE EVERYTHING YOU GET.

GREAT, GREAT.

THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES ITEM C TAKES US TO ITEM D, RECEIVE, REPORT, HOLD DISCUSSION, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON THE

[D. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on a 2023 Bond Election. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 1 hour]]

GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM BACK AGAIN TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF A 2023 BOND ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

[02:30:12]

I'LL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE OF THE PREVIOUS BOND PROGRAMS. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL PROJECTS THAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED ALONG WITH THEIR COST ESTIMATES AND THE TAX RATE PROJECTION.

IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A BOND PROGRAM, A TIMELINE, AND THEN NEXT STEPS.

SO AS I REPORTED BACK IN JUNE DURING OUR CIP BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, THE 2012 BOND PROGRAM HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

WE HAVE SPENT ALL OF OUR FUNDS FOR PROPOSITION ONE, WHICH WAS THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS.

2012 BOND PROGRAM.

WE ARE STILL WE STILL HAVE A FEW REMAINING DOLLARS, MOSTLY IN PROP ONE FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS.

THOSE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ENDING THAT SHOULD BE COMPLETED.

WE'RE ESTIMATING.

Q TWO OF THIS YEAR, SO 2023.

AND THEN 2019 BOND PROGRAM.

SO PROP ONE HAD THE $154 MILLION THAT TREY REFERRED TO EARLIER FOR THOSE STREET RECONSTRUCTIONS.

SO THAT INCLUDED 14 NEIGHBORHOOD PACKAGES.

11 OF THOSE PACKAGES ARE IN DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW.

THREE HAVE NOT BEEN STARTED YET.

SO WE HAVE SAID A IN CONSTRUCTION SAID BE IN CONSTRUCTION NEIGHBORHOOD SEVEN, YOU WILL SEE COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

AND THEN THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERTISING OR ALREADY UNDER DESIGN.

SO AS WE STARTED DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF A BOND PROGRAM IN NOVEMBER, WE WERE TRYING TO ALIGN OUR PROJECTS WITH COUNCIL PRIORITIES.

OUR STRATEGIC PLAN REALLY FOCUSING ON MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, ENHANCING OUR RECREATIONAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE AREAS, AND THEN ALSO LOOKING MAKING AVAILABLE FOR PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES WITH SOME OF OUR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS.

SO WE HAVE THESE POTENTIAL PROPOSITIONS IDENTIFIED.

YOU'LL SEE QUALITY OF LIFE REALLY FOCUSES ON RECREATION FACILITIES.

IS OUR FACILITY, OUR CITY OWNED BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES, AND THEN PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IS REALLY THOSE FIRE STATIONS THAT ARE IN A SEPARATE PROPOSITION FROM THE CITY BUILDINGS, ROADWAYS, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND THEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO WITH EACH PROJECT, I'VE IDENTIFIED A KEY FOCUS AREA FROM THE CITY'S STRATEGIC PLAN, AS WELL AS WHAT'S DRIVING THE PROJECT.

SO IT COULD BE A COUNCIL PRIORITY.

IT COULD BE IDENTIFIED IN A MASTER PLAN.

WE DID CONDUCT A FACILITIES ASSESSMENT OR FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT EXCUSE ME.

AND WE'RE USING THOSE SCORES BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT TO TO PROPOSE THESE PROJECTS.

AND SO I KNOW THERE WERE SEVERAL.

WE RECEIVED SEVERAL.

EMAILS IN FAVOR OF A NEW SENIOR CENTER.

SO AN ACTIVE ADULT CENTER, WHICH WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED.

HOWEVER, BASED ON THE FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT, IT DID NOT RANK HIGH AS NEEDING A NEW BUILDING.

BUT WE DID EVALUATE $570 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS AND WE'VE WE'VE PRIORITIZED THE LIST DOWN TO THE 328 MILLION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE. BUT COUNCIL I'M ASKING AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION FOR YOUR DIRECTION ON THOSE PROJECTS, WHICH PROJECTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE MOVE FORWARD AND WHICH ONES YOU'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF.

SO WE'LL HAVE WE'LL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION.

BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE'S THERE'S REASONS WHY YOU'RE SEEING SOME PROJECTS AND THEN SOME PROJECTS YOU MAY NOT SEE.

SO START OUT WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE PROPOSITION, THE INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND.

THIS PROJECT WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY IN THE PARKS RECREATION AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN.

THIS WOULD BE TO REPLACE THE LARGER PLAYGROUND STRUCTURE AT NORTH LAKES PARK WITH A COST ESTIMATE OF THREE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.

AND I DID WANT TO POINT OUT I DO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS HERE IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED PROJECTS THEMSELVES THAT I CAN'T ANSWER.

AND SO SECOND PRIORITY FOR OUR QUALITY OF LIFE PROPOSITION WOULD BE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THIS WAS IDENTIFIED AS ANOTHER HIGH PRIORITY IN THE PARKS RECREATION AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN.

[02:35:01]

SO RIGHT NOW IT'S ABOUT $1.5 MILLION FOR A TRAIL MILE COMPLETION.

SO WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLETE ALL OF THESE TRAILS, BUT IT GETS US CLOSER TO OUR GOALS.

AND OUR THIRD PRIORITY FOR QUALITY OF LIFE PROPOSITION IS THE AQUATICS.

IT WOULD BE IMPROVEMENTS TO WATERWORKS PARK.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY IMPROVING THE AMENITIES AND A PLAY STRUCTURE, CHANGING OUT THE FILTRATION SYSTEM AND ACTIVITY POOL, EXPANDED PAVILIONS.

AND THIS IS THE AQUATICS MASTER PLAN IS STILL IN PROGRESS.

SO BUT IT WILL BE IDENTIFIED LIKELY IN THE AQUATICS MASTER PLAN AS A PRIORITY.

THE COST ESTIMATE IS $15 MILLION FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND OUR FOURTH PRIORITY FOR THE QUALITY OF LIFE PROPOSITION WOULD BE THE CLEAR CREEK NATURE CENTER.

SO THIS WOULD BE IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE 2014 CLEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN, BUT IT WOULD BE TO LOCATE ON PROPERTY NEAR HARTLEY FIELD ROAD. SO THERE IS A PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY WITH YOU.

AND WE KNOW THEY WANT TO RELOCATE THEIR ASTRONOMY CENTER.

HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT COMMITMENT FROM YOU AND T, BUT THEY DO NEED TO RELOCATE THEIR FACILITIES.

SO THIS COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTNER WITH THEM AND COMPLETE A PROJECT THAT'S PART OF OUR MASTER PLAN AS WELL AS FULFILL ONE OF THEIR NEEDS.

AND MOVING ON TO THE FACILITIES PROPOSITION.

SO CITY HALL WEST, YOU PREVIOUSLY HEARD YOU'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS AT LENGTH ABOUT CITY HALL WEST AND THE PROPOSED USES.

THIS WAS IDENTIFIED AS A COUNCIL PRIORITY DURING THE BUDGET RETREAT IN JUNE.

AND THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN SITTING VACANT SINCE 2016.

AND SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO INCLUDE IT IN THE BOND PROPOSITION FOR $9.4 MILLION.

AND I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, IF THIS PROJECT MOVES FORWARD, IF WE DO, IF COUNCIL GIVES DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH A BOND PROPOSITION, THAT WILL BRING BACK PROGRAMING AND SPACE CONSIDERATIONS AS AS PART OF A DIFFERENT WORK SESSION WITH COUNCIL.

OUR SECOND PRIORITY FOR THE FACILITIES PROPOSITION IS OUR SERVICE CENTER.

SO THIS WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1978.

IT'S A. THAT'S A FACILITY DEDICATED TO OUR FIELD OPERATIONS, MOSTLY.

SO IT HOUSES OUR STREET MAINTENANCE CREWS, DRAINAGE CREWS, WATER AND WASTEWATER FIELD OPERATIONS.

IT HAS OUR SAFETY OPERATIONS AS WELL AS OUR WAREHOUSE AND PURCHASING DIVISIONS.

SO ONE CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL AS YOU PRIORITIZE THESE PROJECTS, THE SERVICE CENTER, WHILE THIS PROJECT PROPOSES RELOCATING THE SERVICE CENTER, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH COMPLAINTS AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE TRUCKS DRIVING IN TO DROP OFF AT THE WAREHOUSE.

IF WE ISSUE COS SO CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, WE COULD RECONSTRUCT OR RENOVATE THE EXISTING FACILITY AND IT WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BOND PROGRAM. SO JUST A CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO RENOVATE THE AT THE EXISTING SITE.

WE COULD NOT RELOCATE THIS FACILITY.

IF, IF COUNSEL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH RELOCATING, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE IN THE BOND PROGRAM.

AND SO THIS WAS NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IN THE FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT.

THE BUILDING IS AT A POINT WHERE WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S WORTH IT TO CONTINUE INVESTING IN MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OR DO A FULL RECONSTRUCTION.

AND THIS HAS A COST ESTIMATE OF 34.5 MILLION.

AND I DO HAVE ON A FUTURE SLIDE OTHER ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR FROM UTILITY SINCE THIS IS A JOINT FACILITY.

AND SO NEXT IS OUR PROPOSAL FOR SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY.

THIS WOULD BE TO BUILD A NEW SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY, RELOCATE THE EXISTING SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY ONTO A SITE THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED BUT NOT PURCHASED YET.

CURRENTLY, SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY HAS SOME CHALLENGES MEETING THE NEEDS OF THEIR THEIR THEIR COMMUNITY.

SO THIS WAS IDENTIFIED AS A HIGH PRIORITY IN THE LIBRARY MASTER PLAN.

THEY CURRENTLY HAVE SOME PROGRAMING CHALLENGES ALONG WITH MEETING ROOM LIMITATIONS.

[02:40:04]

BUT RELOCATING THIS FACILITY AND EXPANDING IT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROGRAMING AT SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY.

AND SO THE NEXT FACILITIES PREPOSITION PROJECT WOULD BE EXPANSION OF OUR ANIMAL SHELTER.

SO THIS SHELTER HAS BEEN OPERATING SINCE 2015.

WE HAVE A CAPACITY OF 164 CATS AND 114 DOGS, BUT WE CURRENTLY HAVE A WAIT LIST OF OVER 100 ANIMALS.

OUR INTAKE FOR 2022, YOU CAN SEE OVER 4000 ANIMALS AND APPROXIMATELY 15% OF THOSE ARE COMING FROM THE COUNTY.

AND SO WE'RE PROJECTING THAT THAT ANIMAL INTAKE IS GOING TO INCREASE 38% BY 2030.

AND SO THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR EXPANSION TO EXPAND WHERE THE DOG KENNELS ARE HELD AND AN EXERCISE YARD AND A SEPARATE QUARANTINE AND DOG ISOLATION SPACE, AS WELL AS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OFFICE AND MEETING SPACE FOR STAFF.

THE THIRD PROPOSITION WAS PUBLIC SAFETY PROPOSITION.

SO WE HAVE TWO FIRE STATIONS, NUMBER FIVE AND NUMBER SIX.

THEY WERE BOTH BUILT IN THE NINETIES.

THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A LOT OF CHALLENGES FOR OUR FIRE STAFF.

THERE'S NO THERE'S A LACK OF PRIVATE SLEEPING AND RESTROOM AREAS.

SO BOTH STATIONS HAVE A DORM DESIGN CURRENTLY, WHICH AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IF YOU LIVE AT THE STATION WHILE YOU'RE ON YOUR 24 HOUR SHIFT, CAN FEEL A LITTLE BIT IMPOSING FOR STAFF.

THERE'S ALSO A LACK OF SPACE TO STORE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE GEAR, AS WELL AS A LACK OF GENERATOR SERVICES TO RUN THE ENTIRE STATION AND THE BAY DOOR DESIGN.

IT'S A ROLL UP INSTEAD OF A BIFOLD.

SO IT ACTUALLY INCREASES THEIR RESPONSE TIME BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME TO GET OUT OF THE STATION.

STATION SIX ALSO HAS A BLIND RESPONSE EXIT AND THEN THEY HAVE TO BACK IN AND DO A 3 TO 4 POINT TURN WHEN RETURNING TO THE STATION.

IT JUST CREATES ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES.

BUT ALSO KEEP IN MIND IF THE SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY WERE RELOCATED TO A DIFFERENT SITE, IT WOULD ALLOW SOME EXPANSION OF STATION SIX AND MAYBE SOME RECONFIGURATION OF THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING.

AND THE COST ESTIMATE FOR EACH STATION IS 12.65 MILLION, SO A TOTAL OF 25.3.

AND CASSIE, ISN'T IT TRUE, AT LEAST IN ONE STATION THERE YOU MENTIONED SEPARATE, BUT THERE'S AN ISSUE.

FEMALE MALE YES.

IN THE FIRE STATION, THEY BEING ABLE TO HAVE PRIVATE.

IT'S JUST DOWN TO NOT A GOOD SITUATION SHOULD THEY.

THEY ARE USING SHOWER CURTAINS TO SEPARATE SLEEPING QUARTERS AND THEN ALSO RESTROOM AND SHOWER SPACES.

AND SO THOSE TWO FIRE STATIONS ARE THE ONLY ITEMS IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROPOSITION.

SO I'M MOVING ON TO THE DRAINAGE PROPOSITION, ONE OF THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED.

WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A STORMWATER MASTER PLAN, BUT THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT.

SO OAKLAND DRAINAGE AND UPSTREAM DETENTION, IT REALLY WORKS TO ADDRESS THE FLOODING IN DOWNTOWN AND THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR 21 PROPERTIES TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND IT ALLOWS US TO COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE B OF THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM BECAUSE WITHOUT SOME DRAINAGE ENHANCEMENTS IN THAT AREA, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT.

AND SO THE OAKLAND DRAINAGE PORTION IS SIX AND ONE HALF MILLION, AND THEN THE UPSTREAM DETENTION PORTION WOULD BE $24.6 MILLION FOR A TOTAL OF 31.1 MILLION. THE SECOND PROJECT PROPOSED IN THE DRAINAGE PROPOSITION IS PEC FOR PHASES THREE AND FOUR.

YOU'VE SEEN THIS PROJECT COME BEFORE YOU BEFORE.

WE HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED USING TERS FUNDING TO FUND EITHER A PORTION OR ALL OF THE THE PROJECT BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GATHER CONSENSUS.

WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROPOSE IT AS PART OF THE BOND PROGRAM BECAUSE IT DOES REMOVE PROPERTIES IN THE FLOODPLAIN AROUND DOWNTOWN, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE CARROLL COURTS BUILDING AND THAT FARMER'S MARKET AREA.

[02:45:02]

AND SO THE NEXT PROPOSITION IS ROADWAYS.

AND WE REALLY HAVE ONE PROJECT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED FOR THIS PROPOSITION.

IT'S THE RUDEL MINGO PROJECT.

SO IT WOULD CREATE A CONTINUOUS TURN LANE PLUS ONE LANE EACH WAY, HAVE A TEN FOOT TRAIL AND THEN A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK. SO IT WOULD INCLUDE ROADWAY, SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE LAST YEAR AND THEY THEY ASKED US TO PROPOSE THE QUIET ZONES IN THIS AREA AS PART OF THE RUDEL MINGO PROJECT, BECAUSE IT WILL ACTUALLY BE CHEAPER TO COMPLETE THE QUIET ZONES ALONG WITH AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ROADWAY AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS INSTEAD OF DOING THE QUIET ZONES SEPARATELY.

SO THE QUIET ZONES WERE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 2014 BOND PROGRAM.

HOWEVER, AS COSTS ESCALATED, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO COMPLETE THAT PROJECT.

AND SO THE BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ASKED US TO LOOK AT INCLUDING THE QUIET ZONES ALONG WITH THE RUDEL MINGO PROJECT.

AND SO THE TOTAL COST ESTIMATE FOR THIS PROJECT IS 38 MILLION.

SO ABOUT 6 MILLION OF THAT IS THE QUIET ZONES.

WITHOUT DOING THE QUIET, WITHOUT DOING THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, JUST THE QUIET ZONES WOULD COST ABOUT 12 MILLION.

AND SO THE NEXT PROPOSITION IS CALLED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UNDER CHAPTER 380.

WE CAN HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOND PROPOSITION AS LONG AS WE HAVE IDENTIFIED PROGRAMS. AND SO DANNY'S TEAM HAS DONE A FABULOUS JOB OF WORKING ON THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TOOLKIT, WHICH YOU ALL ADOPTED LAST YEAR.

BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW THIS THIS PROJECT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO REALLY KICK START AND GIVE RESOURCES TO THAT PLAN.

SO IT WOULD BE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE AND EXPAND OUR CAPACITY AND RESOURCES FOR THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. SO WE'RE ESTIMATING $10 MILLION RIGHT NOW.

SO THIS THIS IS ONE THAT WE FEEL IS VERY IMPORTANT WITH TEACHERS AND OUR OWN EMPLOYEES NOT BEING ABLE TO RESIDE IN THE CITY THAT THEY WORK FOR.

SO THIS IS WHY WE HAVE INCLUDED THIS IN THE IN THE BOND PROGRAM.

AND THEN THE FINAL PROJECT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, THIS CAME OUT OF THE COUNCIL RETREAT IN JUNE, AS IDENTIFIED AS A COUNCIL PRIORITY IS THE CITY HALL WITH A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

AND SO WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT EITHER RENOVATING THE EXISTING CITY HALL OR RELOCATING TO A DIFFERENT FACILITY.

AND THIS PROJECT WOULD REALLY ALLOW US THE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY, WHAT COUNCIL DIRECTS US TO DO.

SO WE ARE ESTIMATING THAT IT WOULD COST ABOUT OUR PORTION WOULD BE 7 MILLION OR 70 MILLION, EXCUSE ME, BUT THAT'S REALLY FLEXIBLE DEPENDING ON THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY PUT OUT AN RFP IF COUNCIL GAVE US DIRECTION TO PROCEED AND THIS PASSED IN THE BOND PROPOSITION.

BUT WE ARE QUICKLY RUNNING OUT OF SPACE AT OUR CURRENT CITY HALL.

AS YOU KNOW, IT'S CONSTRUCTED IN 1967.

IT'S 35,000 SQUARE FEET.

WE HAVEN'T DONE A MAJOR RENOVATION SINCE 1997.

SO THIS THIS PROJECT WOULD REALLY LOOK AT IF WE WERE TO RELOCATE CITY HALL AND ASKING A PRIVATE PARTNER TO HELP BUILD SOME SORT OF MIXED USE.

SO SOME RETAIL OR MAYBE SOME SOME HOUSING COMPONENT ALONG WITH OUR CITY HALL OFFICES.

AND SO WITH THAT, THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALL, I'VE BROKEN IT DOWN BY PROPOSITION AND AGAIN.

IF COUNCIL WANTS TO ISSUE COS THIS YEAR INSTEAD OF INCLUDING THE SERVICE CENTER IN THE BOND PROGRAM, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE THING I WILL NEED CONSENSUS ON TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT THAT COULD SAVE 21.7 MILLION OF THE TOTAL 328 MILLION PROPOSED.

AND THEN ALSO I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THE NATURE CENTER.

SO WE'VE WE'VE CONTINUED WITH IT IN OUR BOND PROGRAM, BUT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE A COMMITMENT, A DOLLAR AMOUNT COMMITMENT FROM UNDP.

BUT WE COULD THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE OUT THE SERVICE CENTER OR THE NATURE CENTER AND FIND A SENIOR CENTER,

[02:50:01]

BUT CURRENTLY TOTAL COST ESTIMATE OF $343 MILLION.

SO I'VE IDENTIFIED SOME OTHER FUNDING.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE 460,000 SITTING IN A PROJECT FOR CITY HALL LIST, SO THAT'S AVAILABLE FUNDING THAT WE COULD PUT TOWARDS THE TOTAL PROJECT COST.

THE SERVICE CENTER, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IS A JOINT FACILITY, SO IT'S USED BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING THE UTILITIES.

SO THEY WOULD PAY THEIR PORTION, WHICH IS ABOUT 30%.

AND THEN WE HAVE ABOUT TWO AND ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS ALREADY IDENTIFIED IN A PROJECT FOR THE SERVICE CENTER RENOVATION THAT WE COULD USE ALSO.

SO 34 AND ONE HALF MILLION FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT, BUT THE GENERAL FUND OR BOND PROGRAM PORTION WOULD ONLY BE 21.7 MILLION.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE PEC PHASES THREE AND FOUR.

WE HAVE $1.5 MILLION CURRENTLY IN A PROJECT DEDICATED TO PEC FOUR.

SO WE COULD PUT THAT TOWARDS THE COST ESTIMATE, LEAVING THE TOTAL OF 23.9.

SO A TOTAL BETWEEN ALL THE PROPOSITIONS IS $328 MILLION.

AND SO THE TAX RATE PROJECTION.

SO I'VE INCLUDED A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS BECAUSE ORIGINALLY WHEN WE WERE PUTTING TOGETHER THE BOND PROGRAM, WE SAID NO MORE THAN $250 MILLION.

BUT AS WE IDENTIFIED ALL THE PROJECTS AND LOOKED AT ALL THE NEEDS, WE HAD OVER $570 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS.

AND SO WE'VE WE'VE PARED IT DOWN TO ABOUT 330.

BUT IF COUNCIL GIVES DIFFERENT DIRECTION, I WANTED TO GIVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

SO MY TAX RATE ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON I HAVE A VERY CONSERVATIVE GROWTH ASSUMPTION OF 6% IN THE ASSESSED VALUE GROWTH EVERY YEAR.

THIS WOULD BE FOR 20 YEAR BONDS OVER A FIVE YEAR ISSUANCE TIME FRAME.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM.

WE ISSUED THOSE OVER A SEVEN YEAR PERIOD.

ALSO, OUR INTEREST RATES ARE A LITTLE HIGHER NOW, SO THIS IS ASSUMING A 5.5% INTEREST RATES ON OUR BONDS AND THEN ALSO USING ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN RESERVES FOR OUR ON OUR DEBT SERVICE.

AND THEN I GAVE YOU AN THE RATE INCREASE OVERALL.

SO THAT RATE INCREASE INCLUDES OUR PLANNED CO ISSUANCE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE 23 SIP.

SO THAT'S ABOUT 87 AND ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE WERE ALREADY PLANNING ON ISSUING COSTS FOR.

BUT IF YOU JUST EXCLUDE IF YOU EXCLUDE ALL THOSE CO ISSUANCE AND JUST LOOKED AT THE 250 TO $330 MILLION BOND PROGRAM, YOU CAN SEE A TAX RATE IMPACT BETWEEN FIVE AND ONE HALF CENTS TO SEVEN, ALMOST $0.08.

AND BEFORE YOU DO THAT, JUST REAL QUICK, IF YOU'LL GO BACK TO THAT ONE SHEET THAT SHOWS THE THE CHOICES, I JUST I HAD LONG DISCUSSIONS WITH THE EXECUTIVE TEAM ABOUT THIS. AND I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT THIS HAS NOT GONE UNNOTICED WITH US AS WE ENTER INTO A SEASON WHERE THERE ARE MAJOR CORPORATIONS MAKING HUGE LAYOFFS.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE MADE SURE TO KIND OF CONSIDER IS MAKING SURE THAT WE DIDN'T BUILD THINGS THAT WOULD ADD A BUNCH OF STAFF, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WANT TO DO THAT AND THEN HAVE TO TURN AROUND IF THE ECONOMY GOES SOUTH AND AND NOT HIRE PEOPLE OR LAY THEM OFF.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY YOU MAY HAVE TO ADD A COUPLE OF STAFF FOR SOUTH BRANCH, BUT SERVICE CENTERS REPLACEMENT, CITY HALL WEST IS REPLACEMENT FIRE STATIONS, REPLACEMENT RUDEL, MINGO ROAD PROJECTS, THE DRAINAGE PROJECT, SAME THING.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS JUST USING THE MONEY TO THE GOOD OF TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, CITY HALL, A REPLACEMENT AND HOPEFULLY ECONOMIC BOOM.

SO EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF THE THE AQUATICS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT NATURE CENTER.

WE DON'T KNOW CONTINUE ABOUT THAT, BUT A LOT OF THOSE WON'T BE AS HEAVY, SIGNIFICANT.

AND EVEN IF YOU DECIDED TO SWAP IT OUT AND SHE MENTIONED A SENIOR FACILITY OR WHAT I'D CALL INTERGENERATIONAL FACILITY, THAT BY CHANGING SOME THINGS OUT, IT WOULDN'T BE HEAVY, SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL STAFF, IT WOULD HAVE SOME.

SO WITH THE SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT OF, YOU KNOW, LIKE TEN POSITIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WE WERE REAL COGNIZANT OF THAT ABOUT THAT.

WE'RE HAPPY IF YOU WANT TO DO IT ANOTHER WAY.

BUT WE WERE TRYING TO BE VERY REASONABLE BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO A BOND PROGRAM, IF IT'S HEAVY ON THINGS THAT YOU'RE ADDING, IT'S GOING TO BE HEAVY ON STAFFING.

AND WHEN I HEAR THE THE FOCUS ON GETTING ROADS AND EVERYTHING ELSE DONE, WE HAVE TO BE REAL COGNIZANT OF OUR STAFFING ISSUES AND NOT PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION OF THEN EVENTUALLY HAVING TO CUT BACK.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'LL ADD IS WHEN WE EVALUATED THE NEED FOR A BOND PROGRAM THIS YEAR, WE DID NOT WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONSTRUCTION FATIGUE BECAUSE WE WILL NOT WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON BEING COMPLETED WITH THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM UNTIL 2026.

[02:55:02]

SO THE QUALITY OF LIFE, THE FACILITIES AND THE FIRE STATIONS MORE SO THAN THE ROADWAY FUNDING, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S STILL A NEED, BUT LIKE YOU SAW ON THE LAST PRESENTATION, WE REALLY WANT TO WAIT TILL 2026 BEFORE WE INTRODUCE A HEAVY ROADWAY FOCUSED BOND PROGRAM.

AND SO WITH THAT, I'M JUST SEEKING DIRECTION.

FIRST, ON HOLDING A NOVEMBER 2023 BOND PROGRAM AND THEN SEEKING COUNCIL FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSED PROJECTS, THE PROPOSITIONS, AND THEN AS WELL AS INCLUDING A PROPOSITION FOR PUBLIC ART.

SO WE DO HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2013 THAT SAYS THAT FUTURE COUNCILS WILL CONSIDER PLACING A STANDALONE PROPOSITION FOR PUBLIC ART ON BOND PROGRAM ON BALLOTS.

IT WOULD BE 2 TO 4% OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, BUT EXCLUDING THOSE STREETS AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS.

SO I CALCULATED FOR THE QUALITY OF LIFE FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES PROPOSITIONS, IT WOULD BE BETWEEN 2% WOULD BE A LITTLE OVER $3 MILLION AND 4% WOULD BE $6.7 MILLION.

SO JUST SEEKING COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THOSE ITEMS. AND THEN IF COUNCIL GIVES DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD, HERE'S A TENTATIVE TIMELINE.

SO WE WOULD COME BACK TO DISCUSS INITIATING A CITIZEN COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE THE PROJECTS AND GIVE COUNSEL A FINAL REPORT IN JULY.

AND THEN AUGUST WOULD BE WHEN COUNCIL NEEDS TO CALL THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.

OCTOBER EARLY VOTING WOULD START AND THEN ELECTION DAY WOULD BE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH.

GREAT. SO DINNER IS HERE AND IT'S SO LET'S GRAB THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN HERE A BIT.

YEAH. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND SO LET'S TAKE A.

AND WE CAN SEED IN HERE AND SO IT'S, IT'S ROUND NUMBER IS FIVE.

SO LET'S BE BACK HERE.

FIVE. I THINK WE CAN ALL HUSTLE AND BE BACK IN 10 MINUTES.

SO FIVE, TEN BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A HARD DEADLINE TO GET STARTED IN THERE.

SO 510 BACK IN SEATS FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. WELCOME BACK TO THIS MEETING OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

IT IS 511.

WE'RE ON ITEM D AND WE'RE TO THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PORTION JUST COMPLETED THE PRESENTATION.

SO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. A FEW QUESTIONS AND I THINK SOME PRELIMINARY DIRECTION.

THERE IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS OF ANY OF THESE.

THESE ARE BIG, HIGH LEVEL THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HELP ME MAKE UP MY MIND, NOT LITTLE, LITTLE THINGS.

WHAT COLOR IS THE PAINT OR WHERE WE PUT IN THE PARK BENCHES? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF THE SERVICE CENTER.

IS THERE A POTENTIAL SITE? WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A ADDITIONAL SERVICE CENTER OUT ON THE WEST PART OF TOWN.

IS THERE A SITE FOR THIS SERVICE CENTER RELOCATION IN THE IN THE MIX OR SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING? I'M GOING TO HAVE CHRISTINE ANSWER THAT ONE FOR ME.

CHRISTINE TAYLOR, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

WE HAVE A COUPLE CITY SITES ALREADY IDENTIFIED THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IN OUR MASTER PLAN, BUT WE HAVE PROPERTY LOCATED OFF MAYHILL AND THERE HAS BEEN CONVERSATIONS OF AS DEMI EXPANDS AND THEY POTENTIALLY MOVE LOCATIONS OUT CLOSER TO THEIR DECK THAT WE COULD OCCUPY THE SPACE OFF.

SPENCER SO BOTH OF THOSE ARE IDEAL.

MOVING THE OPERATIONS MORE TOWARDS THE LOOP AND THEN WOULD WORK BETTER WHEN WE DO GET TO THE PLACE OF HAVING A SERVICE CENTER OFF THE LOOP AND THEN ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN, I'M GOING TO KIND OF PUT IN A PRELIMINARY VOTE IN FOUR FOR MAYHILL, NOT SPENCER, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THERE'S SOME RETAIL THERE.

THEN ON THE DETENTION, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT OR A MENTION OF UPSTREAM DETENTION.

WE HAVE SOME UPSTREAM, WE HAVE SOME SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE DETENTION SITES ALREADY.

I'M CURIOUS WHERE WHERE THAT UPSTREAM DETENTION WOULD BE BECAUSE ALMOST ALL THE OTHER UPSTREAM IS THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS ARE PARKS, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

I'M GOING TO HAVE SETH GARCIA COME UP AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

GOOD EVENING. COUNCILMEMBER SETH GARCIA, PROGRAM MANAGER WITH CAPITAL PROJECTS.

SO ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ON THE NORTH PACKAN CHANNEL BEHIND KIND OF THE KROGER AREA OFF.

CARROLL SO ONE OF THE REASONS, YEAH, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THERE NOW.

ABSOLUTELY. SO ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT AREA BEHIND THAT IS WHEN WE DO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON OAKLAND, GETTING THE WATER MORE EFFICIENTLY TO THIS CHANNEL THAT'S RIGHT BACK BEHIND US ACTUALLY CAUSES THE 100 YEAR ELEVATION TO RISE SO THAT ENTRY DETENTION WOULD BE NEEDED TO OFFSET THE RISE FROM PUTTING IN

[03:00:08]

OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTIONS I THINK ARE GASSY QUESTIONS.

THE FIRST ONE IS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT TO US ABOUT COS I THINK I'M GOING TO NEED MORE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT THAT CALL OR GIVE ANY KIND OF DIRECTION THERE BECAUSE I NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT RATES AND REPAYMENT SCHEDULES AND HOW THAT AFFECTS THE REST OF THE PRO FORMA AND JUST THE PLUSES AND MINUSES GENERALLY OF OF SEARS VERSUS GEOS FOR THOSE PROJECTS.

I THINK THE SERVICE CENTER IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU MENTIONED, YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT HISTORIC CITY HALL HAS SOME MONEY.

COULD YOU TELL US WHAT MONEY THAT IS THAT'S KIND OF ALREADY IN THE IN THE POT FOR THAT? WE HAD ISSUED MONEY FOR SOME RENOVATION AND WITH THE I THINK IT WAS WINTER STORM URI THAT CAUSED SOME OF THE FLOODING.

SO WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH OUR INSURANCE CLAIM TO PAY FOR SOME OF THAT.

SO WE DIDN'T USE ALL OF THE RENOVATION FUNDING.

SO WE HAVE ABOUT $460,000 LEFT IN THE PROJECT ACCOUNT.

AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS ON THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC ART.

SO IN THE OR IN THE RESOLUTION WHERE WE ARE TO CONSIDER.

THE PERCENTAGE FOR PUBLIC ART.

ARE WE CONSTRAINED IN WHAT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC ART? FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE IS A FACILITY PROVIDING FOR THE ARTS AT HISTORIC CITY HALL IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

CAN THAT MONEY CAN PUBLIC ART MONEY BE USED FOR THAT, OR ARE WE GOING TO RUN IN THE SAME CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE WITH PREVIOUS BOND ISSUES WHERE A PERCENTAGE OF THIS BOND ISSUE IS FOR PUBLIC ART, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE ART ON THE STREET, IT'S GOT TO BE ART ON THE POLICE BUILDING, IT'S GOT TO BE WHATEVER.

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SO AND GARY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND PROBABLY HAVE LEGAL WEIGH IN.

IT MUST BE DIFFERENT FROM ONE CITY TO THE NEXT.

BUT I CAN SAY IN MY PREVIOUS CITY IT WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR ART TO BE USED AT THAT SITE OF SOME, WHETHER IT WAS ON THE BUILDING OR RIGHT THERE BY THE BUILDING. BUT IT WAS ART AS A PART OF THE PROJECT.

RIGHT, WHICH I THINK IS THE CASE WHEN I'M JUST GOING TO NEED MORE INFORMATION ON THIS.

I THINK THAT'S THE CASE WHEN IT'S.

THAT'S HOW WE'VE ALREADY CONSTRAINED OURSELVES, WHEN IT'S PART OF THE PROJECT.

BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IF THE IDEA OF A STANDALONE IF PART OF THE PURPOSE OF A STANDALONE WOULD BE THAT IT KIND OF FREES IT FROM BEING A MEDALLION ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY OR A BRICK ART AT THE POLICE STATION OR WHATEVER IT IS, BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN A VERY BIG CHALLENGE IN IN PROVIDING PUBLIC ART TO OTHER PARTS OF TOWN THAT AREN'T RIGHT WHERE THAT CITY PROJECT IS.

MY DIRECTION IS GENERALLY THIS.

THAT'S JUST TOO BIG A BOND ISSUE.

IT'S JUST IT'S TOO MUCH.

OUR LAST WAS, WHAT, TWO, 20 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TOTAL? THAT WAS A BIG ONE.

AND THAT WAS A BIG THAT WAS A BIG STEP FOR OUR VOTERS TO GET TO.

NOT ALL OF OUR PROPOSITIONS GOT THE SAME AMOUNT OF LOVE IN THE LAST ELECTION.

I, I UNDERSTAND THE STRATEGY IN NOT INCLUDING MORE ROAD PROJECTS NOW.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

BUT I THINK WHAT A LOT OF VOTERS EXPECT TO SEE IN A BOND ISSUE IS HEAVY, HEAVY ON INFRASTRUCTURE, HEAVY ON STREETS.

SO WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE KIND OF GETTING FOLKS WHO AREN'T NECESSARILY COMFORTABLE WITH.

A BOND ISSUE FOR.

PARKS AND HOUSING AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, GETTING THEM THERE.

AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

I HAVE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

I'M OKAY WITH SENDING.

SOME VERSION OF THIS LIST TO TO A CITIZEN COMMITTEE.

I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT TO PARE IT DOWN OURSELVES HERE ON COUNCIL JUST A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TOO MUCH TO TO GIVE THEM.

I JUST THINK IT'S TOO BIG, TOO BIG A SPEND FOR THE CITY RIGHT NOW AT THE AMOUNT THAT IT IS.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SENIOR CENTER.

I THINK WE NEED TO GET CREATIVE ABOUT THAT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT MAYBE BUILT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY IF IT'S GOING TO BE AN INTERGENERATIONAL.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME SOME REC CENTERS WE WANT TO BUILD.

MAYBE WE LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK THAT'S I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST MAXED OUT OVER THERE AND WE CAN'T ACT LIKE THE SENIOR CENTER CONVERSATION ISN'T REALLY THE SAME CONVERSATION WITH THE STORMWATER CONVERSATION BECAUSE EVERYTHING RIGHT HERE ON THIS PROPERTY WHERE WE'RE SITTING IS PART OF THE STORMWATER CONVERSATION AND WHERE THE FLOOD WATER GOES.

SO I'D LIKE TO GET CREATIVE ABOUT WHERE WE FIT THE SENIOR CENTER INTO THIS BOND PROGRAM.

SIMILARLY ON THE PEC FOUR PEC FIVE EXCUSE ME, PEC THREE AND FOUR.

[03:05:04]

SO I AGREE THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN CONSENSUS YET ON THE TERS FUNDING, BUT THERE ALSO HASN'T BEEN CONSENSUS ON WHAT ELSE TO SPEND THAT MONEY ON OR HOW TO RESTRUCTURE THE TERS OR HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE IT.

SO I THINK IT'S TIME TO PROBABLY REVISIT THE TERS CONVERSATION BEFORE WE SAY THE ONLY WAY WE CAN AFFORD THE PEC FOUR IS TO IS TO GO WITH A BIG A BIG BOND ISSUE.

THE. THE ONLY ONE THAT I'M JUST REALLY, REALLY HAVING A PROBLEM WITH.

THE ONE I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH IS I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN GET BEHIND PUBLIC PRIVATE FOR CITY HALL.

I LIKE PUBLIC PRIVATE.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO GO FOR OFFICE SPACE GENERALLY, BECAUSE YOU CAN FLEX IT.

YOU CAN. IS IT PUBLIC OFFICE? IS IT PRIVATE OFFICE? IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE NEEDS ARE.

AND EVERYBODY'S GOT SOME SKIN IN THE GAME, PUBLIC, PRIVATE FOR STRUCTURED PARKING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

PUBLIC PRIVATE FOR LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

I'M HAVING A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A CITY HALL WHERE YOUR CITY GOVERNMENT MEETS AND PASSES LAWS AND MAKES DECISIONS AND PASSES THE TAX RATE IN THE SAME BUILDING WITH A SUBWAY OR A BURRITO SHOP OR A BUNCH OF APARTMENTS.

I'M JUST HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THERE.

EVEN WITH PRIVATE OFFICE SPACE, I'M.

I'M JUST HAVING TROUBLE GETTING CONCEPTUALLY TO THE CITY DOING THAT.

I'M ON BOARD WITH THE IDEA OF PUBLIC PRIVATE.

I'M NOT ON BOARD WITH THE IDEA OF PUBLIC PRIVATE FOR THE ACTUAL CITY HALL WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETS AND MAKES DECISIONS.

I THINK THAT THAT'S A THAT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF SPACE.

AND WHEN YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH, I, I THINK GIVEN THE THE SOME OF THE I MEAN, ONE OF THE REASONS ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE RUNNING INTO THAT THAT HAVE BUMPED THE A LOT OF THESE TO LIKE NECESSITIES, ALMOST NOT QUITE NECESSITIES MAYBE, BUT CLOSE IS THE AGE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE TOUCHED ON THIS WITH ROADS AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE IN THE ROAD, LIKE AS AN ANALOGY TO THE ROAD CONVERSATION WHERE WE'RE RUNNING INTO FAILURE AND THEN REBUILDING IT AND RUNNING IT TO FAILURE AND REBUILDING IT.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME OF THESE ARE CLEAR ATTEMPTS TO DO THE MID LEVEL TUNE UP, AS THE CONSULTANT WAS SAYING IN IN SI TWO.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK WE DO PROBABLY WANT TO INCLUDE IN WHAT WE SEND TO THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE, THE SENIOR CENTER.

I THINK THAT'S THAT'S I THINK THERE ARE PLACES THAT I PROBABLY WILL ADDRESS HERE IN A SECOND.

I HAD SOME A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS THOUGH.

SOME OF THESE THINGS FOR PARKS, IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME WHETHER WE'LL NEED TO DO LAND ACQUISITION OR WE ALREADY HAD THE LAND.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE ALL OF THE LAND FOR THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR PARKS.

SO THEN THE ONLY LAND ACQUISITION WOULD BE FOR THE AFFORDABILITY TOOLKIT.

NO. WHAT'S IT CALLED? YES.

AFFORDABILITY HOUSING TOOLKIT ITEM OK BECAUSE IN IN THE MULTIPLE PHASE WAS LAND BANKING FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

AND, AND I THINK WE WE LOSE SIGHT OF THAT AT OUR PERIL.

SO AND I DON'T THINK YOUR DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE LOSING SIGHT OF THAT.

BUT I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO REALLY STRESS LAND ACQUISITION BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COUNCILOR DAVIS SAID IS WHERE ARE WE PUTTING THE SERVICE CENTER? YOU KNOW, I THINK AND SO A QUESTION I HAD FOR THE 70 MILLION FOR THE CITY HALL, I THINK YOU WERE IMPLYING THAT THAT IS ENOUGH MONEY TO RENOVATE IN PLACE AND OR BUY ADDITIONAL PROPERTY AND PUT A NEW BUILDING.

YES. IF WE DID SOME SORT OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, BUT NOT ENOUGH WITHOUT THE PART.

CORRECT. BUT NOT BUYING LAND.

WE NOT BUYING AND IT WOULDN'T BE TEARING THIS BUILDING DOWN.

THIS IS A HISTORIC BUILDING. YOU CAN'T TURN IT DOWN AND LITERALLY BE LOOKING AT WE OWN THE LOT.

WE OWN THE AREA ACROSS THE STREET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IF THE COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE USING EXISTING LAND AND THEN OUR SHARE OF IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 70 MILLION IF WE DIDN'T USE A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT WHERE WE GOT A QUOTE FOR 112 MILLION THAT INCLUDES A PARKING STRUCTURE.

IF IT WAS JUST OUR FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CITY HALL PLUS PARKING.

OKAY. AND AND I AND I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT NOT TO OVERUSE BECKY'S WORDS OF HOLISTIC, BUT COUNCILOR DAVIS ALSO TOUCHED ON THIS AND THAT IS OUR OUR STORMWATER IMPACTS OUR SENIOR CENTER IN OUR CITY HALL.

[03:10:03]

AND AND IT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ALL THESE ESTIMATES DON'T INCLUDE ANY OF THAT TYPE OF SYNERGY.

RIGHT. WELL, I GUESS YOU DID MENTION THE FIRE STATION SIX, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY SYNERGY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO, YOU KNOW, IN IN GENERAL I'M GOING TO PROVIDE PARTIAL DIRECTION NOW, AND THAT IS ANY OF THE ONES WHERE WE'VE GOT SYNERGY WITH ANOTHER AGENCY. SO WE'VE GOT SYNERGY WITH THE AQUATIC CENTER, WITH DISD, CLEAR CREEK, WE HAVE UNDP AND POSSIBLY ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDING THAT WE CAN GET THAT WOULD AUGMENT THAT AND REDUCE THE COSTS OF THAT.

THAT MIGHT DOVETAIL WITH COUNTY AND STATE MONEY FOR MINOT AND COMBINED CLEAR CREEK WITH MULTIPLE OVERLAPPING MISSIONS BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

THE LIBRARY WAS FIRE STATION SIX, SO QUITE CLEAR CREEK, THE LIBRARY.

MCNAUGHT THE THE DRAINAGE WE HAD TO DO TO GET NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE AND THAT'S IMPACTING HERE.

SO I MEAN THESE ONES WITH SYNERGIES, I THINK WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING MULTIPLE DOLLARS PER DOLLAR.

YOU CAN MAKE THAT SAME ARGUMENT FOR PEG FOUR.

SO I WOULD ACTUALLY COUNCIL AS A NEW COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THE PEG FOR DISCUSSION.

IT DOES.

I'M I ALSO AM UNCLEAR HOW WE RENOVATE IN PLACE THE SERVICE CENTER.

SO I WOULD I WOULD LOVE TO SEE I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS BUT UNDERSTANDING IF WE DON'T BUILD A NEW SERVICE CENTER, HOW DO WE HOW DO WE RENOVATE IN C TO AGAIN, THE SERVICE CENTER? AND THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT OUR CODE RATIOS THAT WE'LL NEED.

AND AND SO I THINK ALL THOSE ARE PLAYING MY HEAD, THE ONE THAT I, I SEE THE MOST FLEXIBILITY ON.

AND CITY MANAGER SAID WE WOULDN'T BUY NEW PROPERTY IF WE DID THIS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONE WE HAVE THE MOST FLEXIBILITY ON IS THE EXTENT AND RANGE OF A CITY HALL EITHER RETROFIT VERSUS REBUILD OR NEW BUILT.

AND I THINK IF WE HAD TO KICK A CAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO INFLICT A LOSS OF SERVICES ON OUR FACILITIES, ON STAFF, BUT YOU CAN GET A LOT OF YOU CAN GET A LOT OF RENOVATION AND IMPROVED FACILITIES THAT MAKE YOUR LIVES EASIER AND MORE FACILE FOR HALF OF THAT BUDGET.

AND THEN USE THE OTHER HALF FOR, SAY, A SENIOR CENTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO I'M NOT SAYING EXCLUDE THAT, BUT I WOULD I WOULD LOWER.

FOR ME PERSONALLY, I'M NOT SEEING THE SYNERGIES ON THAT ONE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ONE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST PASSED ON TO CITIZENS.

AND THE FINAL QUESTION I HAD IS IT SEEMS LIKE THE RUDEL MINGO QUIET ZONE SYNERGY THAT WAS THERE, WAS THERE A SYNERGY THERE OR WAS IT JUST IT MADE SENSE TO DO IT? YOU GAVE US A NUMBER AND I CAN'T QUITE REMEMBER THAT WE WE.

SAVE SOME. HOW MUCH WAS IT? WE SAY WE DID THE SAME. IT'S ABOUT 6 MILLION.

IF WE DO IT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S ABOUT 11 TO 12.

IT SAVES ABOUT 6 MILLION.

OKAY, SO WE IF WE DON'T DO IT AT THE SAME TIME, WE LOSE AN ADDITIONAL 6 MILLION.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S THAT PROJECT REALLY IS JUST THAT CORNER OF T W IT'S, IT'S NO ADDITIONAL PARTS OF BINGO.

BECKY I'M GOING TO HAVE BECKY ANSWER THAT OR SETH ANSWER THAT.

SURE, WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER THAT, BUT IT'S JUST THAT CHUNK OF T W MINGO YEAH.

SO THIS PROJECT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE IT FROM MINGO ALL THE WAY WRAPPING AROUND TO 380.

SO JUST PASS MOCKINGBIRD SO ALL THE WAY TO 380 FROM T W.

CORRECT. AND THEN IT WAS OR, OR WHATEVER.

CORRECT. AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE ROUTE RUDEL FROM MINGO TO 380 AND THEN THE RUDEL EXTENSION WHICH WOULD BE THE NEW ALIGNMENT OF RUDEL GOING SOUTH ACROSS THE TRAIN TRACKS.

SO THAT'S A PROJECT THAT WHEN I GOT HERE IN 2007, MY NEIGHBOR SAID, DANG, I WISH WE HAD THAT.

SO 16 YEARS LATER, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD FOR ME REPRESENTING MY NEIGHBORS TO NOT PUSH FOR A MINGO PROJECT WITH ALL MY HEART AND SOUL.

SO ID2 WILL LOVE YOU IF YOU WILL FIX MINGO.

SO I WOULD PRIORITIZE THAT ONE AS WELL.

AND AND I ONE LAST QUESTION, AND IT'S REALLY UNFAIR TO BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE NUMBER, BUT I KIND OF SNUCK IN THE SECOND AGO.

DO YOU HAVE THE SORT OF.

ROUGHLY, OR CAN YOU GET US THE THE COST PER MILLION OF OF DEBT OBLIGATION OR WHAT IT WOULD GO TO THE TAX RATE PROJECTIONS SO THAT WE CAN SAY, LOOK, IF WE DO THE SENIOR CENTER AND IT'S $38 MILLION, THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER PENNY, ANOTHER TWO PENNIES OR WHATEVER.

[03:15:02]

THAT'S VERY. THANK YOU. SO.

MAYOR PRO TEM JUST JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, BUT I DO NEED TO SAY THIS.

THIS SERVICE CENTER WAS THE NUMBER ONE ITEM IN OUR FACILITIES ASSESSMENT THAT CAME OUT AS IN BAD SHAPE.

IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED.

A MAJORITY OF OUR WORKFORCE, FRONTLINE WORKFORCE, PARKS AND RECREATION, TRANSPORTATION ARE IN REALLY UNSIGHTLY CONDITIONS.

THAT BUILDING HAS TO BE REPLACED OR WE HAVE TO MOVE THEM OUT, LEAVE THEM WHERE THEY ARE AND THEN DO SOMETHING, FIX IT UP AND THEN BRING THEM BACK IN.

THIS BUILDING IS NOT IN BAD SHAPE, BUT IT IS NOT IN GREAT SHAPE AND IT IS NOT.

WE ARE CRAMMING PEOPLE IN THIS BUILDING.

SO IF YOU DO NOT WANT US TO DO A CITY HALL OR A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU GIVE US SOME DIRECTION ON SOMETHING ELSE.

BECAUSE WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN HERE TO INTERVIEW FOR A JOB.

IT'S A JOKE WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN HERE WHO'S MOBILITY CHALLENGED.

IT'S A JOKE THAT YOU HEAR THEM GOING UP THE IN THE AUTOMATED.

IT'S NOT VERY.

AND I HAVE PICTURES OF THE CRITTERS WE'RE PULLING OUT OF THIS BUILDING, NOT ONLY UPSTAIRS BUT DOWN BELOW AND IN THE CANDY VENDING MACHINE.

SO YOUR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PROVIDING THE GREATEST SERVICES TO THIS, TO THE CITY AND THEY ARE ARE WORKING IN CONDITIONS THAT WHILE WE DID UP IN HERE, THE BONES ARE NOT VERY GOOD AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS BUILDING.

BUT THE WAY WE'RE PACKING IT IN HERE, IT WON'T LAST AS LONG BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING UP TEMPORARY WALLS, WE'RE ADDING PEOPLE IN AND WE JUST DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ROOM.

SO I SHARE THAT WITH YOU BECAUSE I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE MONEY AND I GET IT.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO SAY, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT AND LET'S LOOK AT THIS HOLISTICALLY, BECKY'S WORK, WE HAVE A DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN COMING.

THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN IS GOING TO LOOK AT THIS PARK AND THE SENIOR CENTER AND THE EMILY FOWLER LIBRARY.

I DO TO THINK IN SUPPORT OF I'VE BEEN OVER THERE TO THE CENTER.

I WAS OVER THERE JUST THE OTHER DAY, AND IT'S PACKED TO THE GILLS.

IT IS NOT CERTAINLY NOT CONDUCIVE WHEN YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WANTING TO COME IN THERE AND PARTICIPATE AND THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH ROOM.

BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS.

WE'RE DOING THIS MASTER PLAN AND IT'S COMING SOON.

SO, YOU KNOW, DO WE WAIT UNTIL 2026? I DON'T KNOW. BUT WE CAN EFFECTIVELY LOOK AT ALL OF THIS, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY NEED IT.

THE OTHER THING I'LL TELL YOU IS.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THAT WOULD BE.

AND THEN THE LIBRARY, IF YOU'VE BEEN TO THE SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY, THAT'S THAT'S A SHAME.

THEY JUST CAN'T. THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT THEY COULD BE DOING, BUT THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE ROOM.

AND SO, LIKE YOU SAID, THE ABILITY FOR THE FIRE STATION TO GROW AND TAKE OVER SOME OF THAT LAND.

BUT AND I THINK WE'RE CLOSE TO GETTING THE PROPERTY MAYBE WHERE THE LIBRARY WOULD GO.

BUT THE OTHER THING IS, IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A LIBRARY OR WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A A NEW SENIOR CENTER, LET'S DON'T LET'S GO LET'S MAKE SURE WE DO IT RIGHT.

LET'S GO AND DO SOMETHING THAT'S TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED THAT HAS THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY NEED, THAT IS INVITING TO KIDS AND FAMILIES OF ALL AGES AND REALLY DO IT RIGHT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY, WELL, WE DIDN'T BUILD IT BIG ENOUGH AND NOW WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM.

I WOULD SAY IF YOU ALL WANT TO CUT IT BACK, HEY, WE'RE ALL FOR IT.

IT'S JUST WHERE DO WE MAKE THE CUTS AS THE KICK IS THE KICKER.

AND I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THOSE COMMENTS AND I THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING A LOT OF THE ISSUES.

I WILL JUST DRAW A LITTLE DAYLIGHT BETWEEN THE COMMENTS OF COUNCILOR DAVIS AND I AND AND AGAIN, IS GOING TO THIS ISN'T GOING TO APPEAR IN THE DRC TOMORROW.

I'M OKAY WITH THE SCOPE OF OF THE BOND PACKAGE IF IT'S EFFICIENT.

OH YEAH. NO, I'M DOOMED.

Y'ALL WANT TO STAY TEN FEET AWAY FROM ME ON THAT ONE IF IT'S AN EFFICIENT, GOOD USE OF FUNDS.

SO I'M WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS, IS WHERE THOSE ARE AND WHAT WE'RE PASSING ON TO THE FUTURE CITIZEN STAKEHOLDER MEETING AND RELATIVE PRIORITIES.

AND THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED THE SYNERGIES FIRST, BECAUSE THEY LEVERAGE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS.

SO IN TERMS OF THE SERVICE CENTER, I'M I'M NOT FIGHTING THAT.

IT'S A 1978 SERVICE CENTER.

YOU KNOW THAT.

YOU KNOW THE QUESTION I DON'T EVEN SEE HOW YOU REBUILD THAT IN PLACE BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY I THINK YOU REALLY DO HAVE TO GET A NEW NEW FACILITY.

BUT NOW WE HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT PIECE OF PRIDE? SO THERE'S THESE DOMINOES THAT HAVE TO FALL AND WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS ON.

SO I'M NOT AGAINST ANY OF THOSE ITEMS GOING FORWARD TO THE CITIZEN STAKEHOLDER MEETING.

I THINK I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO ADVISE US THAT THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE THEM HEARTBURN OR NOT.

BUT I DON'T THINK IT IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CONVERSATION AT THIS EARLY POINT IN THE GAME, I WAS JUST GIVING MY RELATIVE PRIORITIES.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?

[03:20:02]

I'VE GOT TO GET BACK TO MY SCREEN.

I WANTED TO DO.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE TAKING CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

AND SO I WOULD DEFINITELY PRIORITIZE THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.

I WOULD WANT TO PRIORITIZE THE FACILITIES PROPOSITION, THE CITY HALL WEST.

I'M NOT SO, YOU KNOW, I'M AN ANIMAL LOVER.

I'M A PARMAR MYSELF.

BUT I'M NOT REAL SURE IF THE ANIMAL SERVICE EXPANSION NEEDS TO BE AT THIS TIME.

I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT WANT IT TO TO PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE CITY HALL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ALL OF THAT.

SO MY FIRST PRIORITY WOULD BE THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, THE FACILITIES PROPOSITION, OF COURSE, RUDEL AND MINGO.

REALLY RUDEL AND MINGO WOULD BE MY FIRST, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M PUSHING FOR.

AND THEN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN WHATEVER JUST COMES AFTER THAT.

WE CAN JUST CONTINUE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON IT.

PUBLIC SAFETY, ROADWAYS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

IN FACILITIES PREPOSITION.

THOSE ARE MY TOP ONES.

OK COMES FROM MCGEE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

ALL OF THESE THINGS OBVIOUSLY ARE VERY WELL NEEDED.

SO AQUATICS AND YOUR PRESENTATION YOU MENTIONED LIKE A FILTRATION SYSTEM UPDATE.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ANYWAY.

IS THAT AM I READING THAT RIGHT? WHETHER OR NOT WE INCLUDE THAT IN THIS, THAT IS A NECESSITY.

I WOULD SAY IT IS. I'LL LET GARY ANSWER IT.

BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD FILTRATION SYSTEM IN A POOL, YEAH, WE'RE IN TROUBLE.

GARY PACKAN, DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION.

SO THE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS YES.

OUR THE NATATORIUM IS OBVIOUSLY 20 YEARS OLD.

THE WATERWORKS PARK IS 20 YEARS OLD.

SO IT'S GETTING TO A POINT OF SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE'S LIFESPAN IS IS REACHING A POINT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP IT KEEP IT MOVING FORWARD, AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN USE THAT SPACE BETTER TO BRING MORE PEOPLE TO THE FACILITY, HELP OFFSET SOME OF OUR OPERATING COSTS AS WELL.

OKAY. THANK YOU, GARY.

WE'LL GO BACK TO THE LIST REAL QUICK.

TRAIL DEVELOPMENT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE CAN DELAY IF NECESSARY.

I APPRECIATE WHAT MS..

BYRD SAID. YES, ALWAYS.

WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE PUBLIC SAFETY.

CLEARLY, WE CAN'T BUMP WATER NOR ROADWAY AND BINGO.

I'M VERY HAPPY TO LEARN THAT THE QUIET ZONES ARE GOING TO EXTEND ALL THE WAY UP TO THE UNIVERSITY.

THAT'S HUGE. THANK YOU.

YEAH, IF I HAVE TO.

IF I HAVE TO CHOOSE A COUPLE, I WOULD DELAY TRAIL DEVELOPMENT.

GARY, DON'T BE MAD AT ME.

I WOULD DELAY AQUATICS.

WHEN YOU SAY I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

NOT THAT. NOT THE POOL, RIGHT? NO. YES. ONE OF YOU.

YES, MA'AM. THANKS FOR BEING CLEAR.

THE WATER PARK IMPROVEMENTS.

WATER PARK IMPROVEMENTS. JUST.

JUST THE FILTRATION, BUT NOT THE IMPROVEMENTS.

THE FILTRATION SOUNDS LIKE IT HAS TO HAPPEN ANYWAY.

SO JUST THE IMPROVEMENTS.

JUST IMPROVEMENTS. NATURE CENTER.

BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD I WOULD FAVOR DELAYING.

HERE'S HERE'S JUST SO THAT I WANT TO BE CLEAR.

WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO PARTNER WITH YOU IN T NO MATTER WHAT YOU T IS LOOKING TO, TO FIND A NEW LOCATION FOR THEIR ASTRONOMY ASTRONOMY TOWER. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO PARTNER WITH THEM TO DO THAT.

THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A NATURE CENTER, BUT WE'VE JUST NOT GOTTEN TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY WOULD PUT IN, HOW MUCH WE WOULD PUT IN.

SO WE'RE STILL GOING TO WORK WITH THEM NO MATTER WHAT.

BUT IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU'D WANT TO KICK DOWN FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, WE COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT.

IT'S JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE AMOUNT.

I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAD.

MARKOWITZ. IS THAT ENOUGH? WELL, YEAH, BECAUSE I THINK REALLY THE KEY IS EVERYONE I'VE HEARD SAYS, YES, WE WANT TO GO TO A CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE, AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE WANTS TO BE ON A RECORD THAT THEY WANT TO SUBVERT THE CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW.

[03:25:04]

BUT BY ALL MEANS, IF THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

RIGHT. SO YOU CAN HAVE THE OPINION THE OPPOSITE TO SAY, YEAH, NO, I DON'T WANT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO SEE IT AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE KNOWN AND YOU NEED TO GO ON THE RECORD, SAY THAT. SO IT'S, IT'S MORE OF A AND NOT REALLY SO MUCH THE FOCUS IS IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO GO TO, THE CITIZENS SPEAK UP.

AND IF THERE IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT GOING TO THE CITIZENS, THEN IT'S GOING TO GO.

SO THINGS YOU DON'T WANT CITIZENS TO SEE BECAUSE THERE IS A CONSENSUS ALREADY FOR IT TO GO FORWARD.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT STAFF NEEDS.

SO WITH THAT, THINK ABOUT THAT, COUNCILMAN WATTS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS BECAUSE I GUESS YOUR COMMENTS BRING TO QUESTION JUST A GENERAL QUESTION.

THAT IS THE PROCESS.

I MEAN, SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT.

SO I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND OR MAYBE MY EXPERIENCE HASN'T BEEN THIS, BUT SO ARE WE DECIDING OR GIVING DIRECTION ON WHAT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE IS LIMITED TO ON A BOND PROGRAM? IF THEY IF WE DON'T SEND IT TO THEM, THEY HAVE NO DISCRETION TO LOOK AT SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY THAT THEY MAY WANT TO ADD.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

IS THAT I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I GUESS I'VE ASKED THE CITY, IS THAT CORRECT, MR. CITY ATTORNEY? THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN PROPOSED.

OBVIOUSLY, COUNCIL IS GOING TO GIVE THE CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE AS FAR AS WHAT THEY DO, BUT AT THIS POINT, THAT'S THE DISCUSSION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THESE WOULD BE THE ITEMS REFERRED TO THEM. OKAY.

SO THAT'S THAT'S NOT A POLICY OR AN ORDINANCE DURING THIS PROCESS.

THIS IS ONE THAT'S SORT OF DECIDED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

SO IF THIS COUNCIL DECIDED, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO SEND THESE THINGS, BUT IF THEY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO ADD AND WHAT THEY WANT TO DELETE, WHICH THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DELETE, I PRESUME THAT'S SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL CAN DECIDE.

IS THAT CORRECT? COUNCIL, WHEN THEY CREATE THE COMMITTEE, WE'LL GIVE THEM THEIR CHARGE AS TO WHAT THEY WANT THEM TO DO.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S STILL THAT'S STILL FLEXIBLE.

ALL RIGHT. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID IN LEGAL TERMS, THAT WE GIVE THE CHARGE AND WE CAN GIVE WHATEVER CHARGE WE WANT TO GET.

IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH.

YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY IT.

AS I'M LISTENING, I'M THINKING, I MEAN, FOLKS, WE WE DON'T DECIDE THIS.

IN THE END, THE VOTERS DECIDE IT.

THAT'S RIGHT. SO AS FAR AS THE MAYOR'S COMMENTS, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE SENDING ANY OF THIS TO THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE, BASED UPON OUR CHARGE, EVEN IF IT'S EXCLUDING, THEY CAN ADD I'M SURE OUR CHARGE IS GOING TO BE IF THEY DON'T THINK SOMETHING SHOULD BE IN THERE, THEN IT THEY CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATIONS TO BRING IT OUT, BECAUSE MY HUNCH IS WE'RE GIVING IT TO THEM TO GIVE US A RECOMMENDATION SO I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE.

SO I'VE JUST GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO TRY TO HELP FERRET OUT SOME OF THE EDUCATIONAL COMPONENTS OF EACH ONE OF THESE.

SO ON THE ADOPTION CENTER, HOW MUCH DOES THE HOW MUCH CAPACITY DOES IT INCREASE IN ORDER TO BRING IN NEW ANIMALS? HOW MANY NEW ANIMALS DOES THAT AMOUNT TRANSLATE INTO AS FAR AS INCREASE CAPACITY? WE HAVE TIFFANY THOMPSON HERE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

OH, GOD. THIS THING IS REALLY ACTING UP.

GOOD EVENING. TIFFANY THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER SERVICE AND ANIMAL SERVICES.

AND I'M SORRY, I WAS WALKING, SO I ONLY CAUGHT PART OF THE QUESTION, IF YOU CAN REPEAT IT FOR ME HERE, WE'VE GOT A WE'VE GOT A PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE ADOPTION CENTER, THE MAGNET ADOPTION CENTER.

THAT EXPANSION TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE INCREASED CAPACITY OF HOW MANY ANIMALS THAT YOU COULD THAT IT WOULD ACCOMMODATE FOR DOGS, IT WOULD INCREASE IT BY 50% AND FOR CATS, ABOUT 25%.

BUT DOGS, ESPECIALLY LARGE DOGS, IS PRIMARILY WHAT'S ON OUR WAITLIST RIGHT NOW AND WHAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE FUTURE.

YEAH. I GUESS I NEVER KNEW THERE WAS A WAIT LIST FOR THE ADOPTION CENTER, SO I JUST.

IF YOU COULD JUST SEND OUT AN EMAIL, SORT OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, HOW THAT WORKS.

I MEAN, I THOUGHT PEOPLE JUST BRING THEM IN AND THEY'RE FOUND.

THE COUNTY BRINGS THEM IN, BUT.

SO IF YOU COULD JUST. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT NOW.

SO 50% AND RIGHT NOW THE CAPACITY FOR DOGS IS.

HOW MUCH? WE CAN TAKE 114 DOGS RIGHT NOW.

SO IT WOULD INCREASE IT BY ABOUT 50.

ABOUT 60 DOGS.

CHRIS SAID 50? YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

I REMEMBER WHEN WE BUILT THAT ORIGINALLY.

WHAT WAS THAT? WAS IT 6 MILLION? 7 MILLION. A LOT LIKE IT WAS AROUND NOW.

[03:30:01]

I UNDERSTAND. OKAY.

THAT HELPS ME ON THAT ONE.

ON THE TRAILS.

DID I HEAR THAT A TRAIL MILE IS $1.5 MILLION, OR DID I HEAR THAT WRONG? THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

THAT'S WHAT GARY'S ACTUALLY TELLING ME.

IT'S A LITTLE HIGHER.

I FIND THAT FASCINATING, BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A RECONSTRUCTED ROAD, ROAD LANE MILE IS 967,000.

SO I NEED I WILL NEED SOME HELP UNDERSTANDING THAT.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING DON'T SEND IT.

I THINK WE JUST NEED TO HAVE SOME EDUCATION ABOUT WHY IT COSTS ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR A I DON'T NEED IT NOW, BUT FOR A FOR A TRAIL MILE ON THE ON THE FIRE STATIONS, ARE THOSE GOING TO BE RELOCATED OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE RECONSTRUCTED ON SITE, LIKE WITH SOME LAND LIKE WE DID ON FIRE STATION FOUR? IT WOULD BE AT THE EXISTING SITE, SO THERE'S ENOUGH FOR SIX WOULD BE RELOCATED, BUT STATION FIVE WOULD BE ON THE EXISTING SITE.

WE'D HAVE TO FIND A WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A SORT OF A WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

WE WANT TO STAND UP THERE, I MEAN A MODULE TYPE SITUATION.

BUT YEAH, SIX WOULD BE ON SITE BECAUSE WE'D HAVE THAT LIBRARY SITE.

BUT YEAH. KENNETH HEDGES FIRE CHIEF SECTION SIX IS KIND OF AN ANOMALY THERE.

IT WAS BUILT IN 91 AND IT WAS BY ITSELF, LIBRARY'S BUILT RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT WASN'T THE BEST LOCATION.

SO ONE OF THE PROPOSALS WE'VE KIND OF DISCUSSED INTERNALLY IS WHEN SOUTH BRANCH VACATES THAT BUILDING, WE COULD ACTUALLY RECONFIGURE THAT BUILDING FOR LIVING QUARTERS FOR THE FIRE STATION AND JUST ADD ON AN APPARATUS BAY.

SO THAT SHOULD REDUCE SOME COSTS ON THE RECONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN WITH ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU COULD EVEN POSSIBLY ADD A COMMUNITY ROOM.

YOU COULD HAVE A SMALL SUBSTATION THERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS OUT THERE AS WELL.

BUT AS FAR AS THE LOCATION THAT REALLY WE'VE DETERMINED THROUGH OUR DATA ANALYSIS, THAT'S IN THE PROPER LOCATION AS WELL.

AND THEN WE KNOW LANDS GOING TO BE HARD TO FIND UP AND DOWN.

TEASLEY RIGHT NOW. SO WE'D PREFER TO STAY ON THAT SET.

SURE. CHIEF, IF IF THE LIBRARY PROPOSITION PASSES, THE VOTERS AND SOUTH BRANCH IS RELOCATED, IF THEY RECONFIGURING THAT SPACE TO LIVING QUARTERS AND ADDING A BAY AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS TO MAKE IT MORE MODERN AND MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED WITH THE NEW BAY DOORS AND SO FORTH, WOULD THAT STILL EQUAL THE SAME COST AS I THINK THERE'S A 12 AND ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS IS WHAT WAS IN THE PRESENTATION, I THINK 12 AND A HALF MILLION EACH.

WOULD THAT LOWER THAT COST OR WOULD IT PRETTY MUCH EAT ALL THAT UP? I WOULD SAY YOU STICK WITH THAT, BUT WITH THE ASSUMPTION IT SHOULD BE LESS THAN THAT AMOUNT, HONESTLY.

BUT THAT'S PERSONAL OPINION I'M LOOKING AT TREVOR.

IT'D BE HARD TO ESTIMATE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ADDITION.

THE BAYS HAVE TO HAVE 12 PLUS INCH THICK CONCRETE, JUST, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO HOLD THE APPARATUS WEIGHT AS WELL.

SO I'D BE RELUCTANT TO GIVE YOU A TRUE YES OR NO RIGHT NOW.

OH, NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION.

THANK YOU. ON THE QUIET ZONES ON THE MINGO PROJECT, WHICH I WAS GLAD TO HEAR THE EXTENT OF THAT, THE QUIET ZONES, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE OLD QUIET ZONES WRAPPED AROUND THROUGH DOWNTOWN, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

YEAH. THE 2014 BOND PROGRAM, I THINK THOSE WERE UP AND DOWN.

MINGO AND THEN SOME EITHER AT MCKINNEY AND A COUPLE OF OTHERS.

IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. SO SETH GARCIA, PROGRAM MANAGER WITH CAPITAL PROJECTS.

SO THAT'S ACTUALLY SPLIT INTO TWO PROJECTS.

WE DO HAVE ONE QUIET ZONE PROJECT THAT'S MOVING FORWARD RIGHT NOW, AND THAT INCLUDES MCKINNEY STREET, SYCAMORE, PRAIRIE AND OAK OR HICKORY, WHICHEVER ONE CROSSES THERE AND FRONT.

SO THOSE FOUR ARE SEPARATE.

AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THE QUIET ZONES STARTING RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE SERVICE CENTER AND GOING UP TO MOCKINGBIRD.

SO IS THE THE IS THE CROSSING.

I THINK THAT'S FRAME STREET.

THAT FRAME STREET. I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

ABOUT THE CENTER RIGHT.

SO THEN THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE MCKINNEY.

SO WITH THE. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY IT'S MOVING FORWARD AND IT'S IN PROGRESS, DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE THE FUNDING? WE'RE JUST WAITING ON THE RAILROAD TO GIVE US PERMISSION, CORRECT? YEAH. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE UPPER ARE ON THE SYCAMORE SIDE PATH PROJECT.

SO THOSE TWO HAVE COMBINED WITH THAT AS WE'RE ADDING THE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT THE SYCAMORE CROSSING.

SO THOSE TWO PROJECTS SYNC UP AND THOSE FOUR CROSSINGS ARE MOVING FORWARD.

WELL, THAT'D BE GREAT IF YOU HAD THE CROSSINGS FROM MINGO AND 380 ALL THE WAY DOWN TO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FURTHEST SOUTH ONE IS, THAT THAT WHOLE CORRIDOR WOULD HAVE QUIET ZONES, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING.

YES, SIR. ALL THE WAY TO MOCKINGBIRD.

OKAY, GREAT. ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S WONDERFUL. AND WE SAVED MONEY IN THE PROCESS.

PACK THREE AND FOUR.

WOULD THAT REQUIRE ANY PURCHASE OF PROPERTY OR I MEAN, DO WE NEED TO ACQUIRE ANY PROPERTY IN ORDER TO DO THAT? YES, SIR. SO WE ARE CURRENTLY AT 90% DESIGN, AND WE HAVE IT ON HOLD THERE UNTIL WE IDENTIFY THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING.

BUT FROM THE LAST TIME I LOOKED AT IT, I BELIEVE THERE'S 50 PLUS PROPERTIES THAT WE WOULD NEED SMALL EASEMENTS OR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS TO BUILD THOSE TWO PHASES.

[03:35:10]

SO I THINK THE REALLY ONLY THING THAT THAT NOT CAUSED ME A LITTLE PAUSE BUT MADE ME THINK ABOUT SOME PROCESSES WAS THE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PORTION. AND THAT IS YOU'VE GOT $10 MILLION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING GET THAT YOU GOT $70 MILLION FOR A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR CITY HALL.

WHICH I THINK WE WERE JUST TOLD THAT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE PRIVATE PART, IT'S 128 MILLION.

I THINK WE NEED TO GO WITH THE ONE WITHOUT THE PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

I MEAN, WE NEED TO PRESENT THAT AT LEAST BOTH OF THEM TO THE COMMITTEE.

AND PERSONALLY, THIS IS I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT.

I GUESS MAYBE WE DO.

IF IT GOES TO A BALLOT, I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE SPLIT UP.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A $10 MILLION.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSITION PAIRED WITH A 70 TO $128 MILLION CITY HALL PROPOSITION TO WHERE THEY EITHER BOTH ARE FAILED BASED UPON HOWEVER YOU FEEL ABOUT EITHER ONE OF THOSE, I THINK THOSE ARE VERY DISTINCT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT COULD BE DONE LEGALLY, BUT TO ME THEY'RE VERY DISTINCT IN THEIR THEIR DESIRE AND THEIR GOAL.

AND I WOULD JUST TO TO TO WRAP IT UP, WHEN I HEAR ABOUT US SPENDING $9 MILLION FOR CITY HALL WEST AND I HEAR ABOUT A SPENDING I FORGOT HOW MUCH MONEY IT WAS FOR NEW SERVICE CENTERS, WHICH I GET IT. I'VE BEEN IN THAT BUILDING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT'S GOING TO BE A VACANT BUILDING.

WE'VE HAD ANOTHER VACANT BUILDING, CITY HALL WITH I.

I MEAN, IF WE NEED SPACE FOR PEOPLE IN CITY HALL, EAST OR CITY HALL, MAIN CITY HALL, AND WE'VE GOT BUILDINGS THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT AND NEWLY RENOVATED BUILDINGS, THAT WOULD BE NICE, THAT WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE.

I THINK WE NEED TO WE JUST NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

AND I PRESUME THE COMMITTEE WILL AS WELL.

SO I DON'T MIND SENDING IT ALL TO THE COMMITTEE.

I MEAN, THEY CAN GIVE US RECOMMENDATIONS AND ULTIMATELY IT'S THE VOTERS THAT ARE GOING TO DECIDE.

AND MY ONLY BIG CONCERN OR OBSERVATION IS THE CITY HALL, WHATEVER.

IT'S 70 MILLION OR 128 MILLION.

THAT REALLY SHOULD BE A VOTE SEPARATE IN AND OF ITSELF, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT WOULD BE ALMOST A THIRD OF THE BOND PACKAGE.

IT'S 20 TO 20 5 TO 30% OF THE BOND PACKAGE.

AND TO TIE THAT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH I THINK FOR ONLY $10 MILLION, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, BUT THEY MAY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE OTHER. BUT THAT'S A CONVERSATION FOR A DIFFERENT TIME.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. MAYOR, THANK YOU SO AND SO WE NEED TO WE HAVE ABOUT 7 MINUTES AND WE HAVE ANOTHER WORK SESSION.

WE HAVE THREE CLOSED SESSION, TWO AND ONE HALF, WHATEVER.

AND THEN SO THAT'S GOING TO PUT US RIGHT AT LEAVING HERE AND WALKING DIRECTLY IN THERE AND STARTING.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO SHOTGUN THESE THINGS AND I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET AN ANSWER.

BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS USING USING YOUR NUMBER 1997 FOR THIS BUILDING.

JUST TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, GAS WAS $0.70 IN 1997, RIGHT? THAT'S CRAZY. SO AND THE RESTROOM FACILITY, THE LACK OF ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABILITIES, ALL THOSE THINGS, EXECUTIVES, ETC., ETC..

SO THAT'S WHY I FEEL REAL GOOD ABOUT THAT GOING ON.

AND I DO WANT TO I DO TAKE NOT ISSUE, BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT EQUATION.

NO MATTER WHAT WE BUILD, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, WE DON'T BUILD IT.

THE CITY OF DETROIT DOESN'T BUILD THINGS.

WE PARTNER WITH PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS TO BUILD WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO BUILD, RIGHT? SO YOU CAN CALL IT PUBLIC PRIVATE.

YOU CAN CALL THAT CONTRACT, YOU CAN YOU CAN PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT ON IT.

THE CITY IS NOT DOING IT.

AND SO TO THAT END, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR NUMBERS, BECAUSE I WENT AND LOOKED BECAUSE I THINK DENTON PARALLELS WELL WITH MCKINNEY.

NOW, MCKINNEY IS A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF US IN SOME THINGS, AND WE'RE A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THEM AND SOME THINGS, BUT I THINK WE PARALLEL WELL WITH THEM.

AND SO YOU LOOK AT THERE, THEY HAD $50 MILLION BOND IN 2019 THAT THAT PAYS FOR THEIR NEW CITY HALL, BUT IT CAME IN AT 110, 104 MILLION.

SO BUT THEY HERE'S HERE'S THE VALUE.

SO IF YOU'RE TALKING TO ME IF I'M THINKING, OKAY, PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, ONE SAVES TAXPAYERS MONEY, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE OPTION TO PICK THE BEST BUILDER.

WE GOT TO GO FOR THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE OR ALL THESE OTHER THINGS AND ALL THIS OTHER TIME.

AND THEN THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER CONTINGENCY FEES AND WORKING WITH THE CITY VERSUS A PRIVATE BUILDER THAT CAN THEN SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT AND GETS LOST IN THAT CONVERSATION AND SAY, OH, WELL, WHAT MIGHT SOME PERSON THAT SEES THIS AS A BAD THING THINK

[03:40:02]

AND AND I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE MY FOCUS.

AND SO YOU LOOK AT THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, HERE'S WHAT THEY DID.

SO THEY HAVE A 50 MINUTE BOND.

THEN THEY HAD AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN.

SO THE ARPA FUNDS, TERS FUNDS, THEN FUNDS COLLECTED, CAPTURING ANY GROWTH, PROPERTY VALUE AND THIS AND THAT.

SO THEY JUST GRABBED A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS TO TO FUND IT THE OTHER WAY.

AND I THINK THAT TO ME BECOMES YOU EMPTY OUT EVERYTHING AND SO I WOULD RATHER PARTNER WITH SOMEONE AND SAVE THIS TAXPAYER MONEY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DO EVERY TIME ANYWAY.

WE DON'T BUILD ANY OF THE NON FIRE STATIONS WE HAVE.

THOSE ARE ALL PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT THE CITY PARTNERED WITH TO BUILD THOSE FACILITIES.

RIGHT. SO. I JUST THE THE THE ALPHABET SOUP AND KIND OF WORDSMITHING, YOU KNOW, I THINK ULTIMATELY WHAT IS THE OUTCOME? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TASKED TO DO.

THAT'S WHAT. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE OUTCOME.

IF WE CAN HAVE A NEW CITY HALL BUILDING THAT ACCOMMODATES PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, THAT GIVES OUR STAFF A BETTER PLACE, WORK ENVIRONMENT, AND ALSO POINT TO I POINT TO CITY HALL WEST, WHERE WE'RE NOW PAYING $9 MILLION TO UNDO WHAT WE DID TO IT, RIGHT? SO WE PUT IN A CEILING, WE DID ALL THESE THINGS.

NOW WE'VE GOT TO GO BACK AND TAKE IT ALL OUT.

AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO AVOID GETTING TO THAT POINT HERE WITH CITY HALL.

SO. AND THEN WHAT YOU CAN EMAIL ME THIS, THE RESPONSE, BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND, IF WE IF YOU FACTORED IN, I KNOW YOU'RE BEING CONSERVATIVE, BUT HAVE WE FACTORED IN HUNTER CODE? HUNTER NAME IS CHANGING, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE KNOW IT TO BE NOW.

SO HUNTER AND COAL RANCH, THOSE WOULD BE COMING ON BOARD AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE EVALUATIONS FACTORED IN.

SO IF YOU CAN LET ME KNOW THAT EVERYONE'S KIND OF TOUCHED ON THE SERVICE CENTER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THAT.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT OFFICES THERE.

I'LL JUST CANDIDLY I MEAN, THE TRAIN DRIVES ME CRAZY FROM A DISTANCE AND IT JUST WOULDN'T BE RIGHT TO PUT MORE STAFF THERE.

SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT VALUE COMES OUT OF THAT.

AND YOU MAY HAVE TOUCHED THAT ON YOUR PRESENTATION.

I SAW THAT IN THE COLUMN.

I JUST DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO ASK THE QUESTION.

BUT KIND OF WHAT WHAT'S THE VALUE? WHAT'S TAKING THAT FULL LOOK AT THINGS AND SAY, OKAY, WELL, THIS IS GOING TO GO OVER HERE, THIS IS GOING TO BE THAT AND THAT MONEY COMES BACK IN.

ABSOLUTELY. SO THAT SUBSIDIZES WHAT WOULD GO TO THE BOTTOM LINE? I WOULD THINK SO. JUST KIND OF WHAT STAFF'S PLAN FOR THE SERVICE CENTER, IF WE PUT IT ON THE MARKET OR WHATEVER YOU SEE THERE, AND THEN FIRE STATION, THE TWO FIRE STATIONS, I'M OKAY WITH. I'M CURIOUS, THOUGH, ABOUT THE TIMING.

SO FIRE STATION NINE, I THINK COMES ON BOARD 2024.

SO IF STAFF COULD FOLLOW UP WITH ME, WHAT'S THE TIMING ON FIVE AND SIX, WHAT WE DO THERE AND KIND OF HOW THAT SYNCS UP WITH WHEN THOSE WOULD DELIVER? BECAUSE IT'S ONE UNDERSTAND THAT TIMING AND THEN UNDERSTAND ANY.

AND THEN.

I HAD A NOTE OK YOU ANSWERED THAT.

GOT THAT. AND NOW THE GREAT THING ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION, HAVING IT NOW IS WE'LL GET A PREVIEW.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEWS AND I FOUND IT, IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT IT SYNCS UP EXACTLY THE SAME.

DIDN'T ISD HAS A $1.4 BILLION BOND COMING AND THE CONVERSATION THEY HAD WAS WE CAN'T GO IN AT THIS RATE.

AND THEY HAD 100 PEOPLE FROM THE FROM THE COMMUNITY SAY, HEY, WE TRIED TO GET IT DOWN AS BEST WE COULD.

WE JUST NEED THIS STUFF, RIGHT? BECAUSE OF GROWTH AND WE'RE IN THE SAME WE'RE FIGHTING THE SAME FIGHT, RIGHT? SO AND TO THAT POINT, I DO WANT TO ADD THE TO THE LIST THAT WE GO TO THE TO THE COMMITTEE.

I DO WANT TO ADD THE SENIOR CENTER.

I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A WORTHY CONVERSATION FOR THEM TO HAVE.

AND I DO LIKE WHAT WHAT CHIEF SAID ABOUT THE PD SUBSTATION RIGHT THERE THAT WOULD THAT WOULD FIT WELL ON TEASLEY LAYING THERE, I THINK JUST TO SERVICE THAT AREA AND MAY ENHANCE SERVICE TIMES, OUR RESPONSE TIMES.

YEAH. AND SO, YEAH, NO, I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOOD.

AND I THINK AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT.

THE DISEASE BOND PACKAGE GOES IN MAY, SO WE'LL HAVE AND THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM IT WAS, HEY, THIS IS TOO MUCH.

WE NEED TO PARE IT DOWN.

CITIZENS SAID WE CAN'T PARE IT DOWN AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHO WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND NEED TO BE RESPONSIVE TO.

AND SO I WOULD SEE A COMMITTEE OF ABOUT 50 PEOPLE IF WE DO HALF THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE, THAT SHOULD GIVE US A GOOD PULSE OF THE THE CITIZENS AND GIVE US SOME ROBUST FEEDBACK TO TO WORK FROM.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. YES.

YES. I DON'T WANT TO DRAG THIS OUT, BUT YOU ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT WHAT DO WE NOT WANT TO SEE? GO TO THE COMMITTEE. I THINK WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM A NUMBER AND I THINK WE CAN TELL THEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR FORMING A COMMITTEE THAT HAS A SPENDING CAP AND THEY CAN TELL US WE COULDN'T FIT IT.

[03:45:04]

AND IF WHAT WE GIVE THEM IS A FOLDER FULL OF THINGS THAT COST $330, I WOULDN'T BE VERY SURPRISED TO GET BACK PROPOSITIONS THAT EQUAL ABOUT $330.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HEARTBURN, I'M JUST SIGNPOSTING RIGHT NOW FOR WHEN THIS COMES UP.

IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HEARTBURN AT ALL IN THE COMMUNITY, THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT, I'M GOING TO WANT TO PUT A NUMBER ON IT.

AND YOU ASK US TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

I AM NOT COMFORTABLE SENDING THE CITIZENS A PUBLIC PRIVATE CITY HALL, PUBLIC PRIVATE OFFICE SPACE, PUBLIC PRIVATE CITY SPACE, PUBLIC PRIVATE FACILITY ALL DAY LONG, PUBLIC, PRIVATE, WHERE WE PASS THE LAWS.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT PROBLEM.

I THINK WE HAVE AN OFFICE SPACE PROBLEM.

WE HAVE A FACILITY PROBLEM.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED A CITY HALL WITH A SUBWAY OR A CHIPOTLE IN IT.

WELL, AND FOR THE RECORD, WE'VE NOT PROPOSED WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE.

SO ANYONE LISTENING THAT THAT THAT'S NOT BEEN TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO GO.

AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH CHIPOTLE AND SUBWAY AND I'D LOVE THEM TO BE EVERYWHERE THEY WANT TO BE IN THE CITY OF DENTON ONE.

SO THAT'S NOT A NEGATIVE.

AND SO PLEASE CALL US.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YEAH, NO, YOU AND I WILL CATCH UP.

WE'LL TALK WILL TRADE, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AT ALL.

CANDIDLY, I DON'T I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POSITION.

RIGHT. AND SO IN MAN, WE'RE GETTING REALLY CLOSE.

OKAY? JUST ONE NEEDS TO BE ONE.

WE WE HAVE TO GO.

OKAY, WE GOT TO GO.

WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, I'M WITH DAVIS ON THAT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

BUT WE JUST NEED TO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PRIVATE DOES NOT OVERSTEP ITS BOUNDS WITH PUBLIC FUNDS.

THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING US WITH US WITH THE GO GO ZONE SITUATION.

SO I THOUGHT I'D THROW THAT OUT AND WELL, AND SO HERE I GO.

THIS COMMUNITY SPENT $16 MILLION SERVING THOSE THAT ARE UNHOUSED.

THAT'S 16 MILLION THAT COULD GO TO A CITY HALL.

BUT WE OPTED NOT TO.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE MAKING WE'RE WORKING TO SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY THE BEST WE CAN.

AND IF WE AND THAT'S AND SO PEOPLE TRACK IT ALONG AND GET THE NUMBER 11 MILLION FOR THE MONSIGNOR KING CENTER THE NEW THE NEW JUNCTION FACILITY ON LOOP 28 3 MILLION FOR THE PROPERTY 2 MILLION TO GO TO HOTELS $16 MILLION THIS COMMUNITY PAYS NOW WE COULD EASILY TAKE THAT STRETCH THAT OUT AND THEN GO DO OTHER THINGS WITH IT.

BUT WE PRIORITIZE THESE THINGS AND SO DOES THAT MAKE IT SO WE HAVE TO PARTNER WITH OTHER PEOPLE TO GET A CITY HALL.

YES, BUT WE ACCOMPLISHED BOTH GOALS.

BUT I THINK IT'S AGAIN, IT'S THAT MESSAGING.

AND I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT WE'RE JUST COZYING UP TO ANYONE PLAYING FAVORITES WITH ANYONE.

FACT OF THE MATTER IS, AND MAYBE THAT'S A SLIDE TO BRING BACK THAT JUST SAYS A PRIVATE COMPANY BUILDING SOMETHING VERSUS US GOING THROUGH OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND THAT INFLATES THE COST.

IT JUST DOES. AND SO WE'RE PASSING ON SAVINGS TO OUR CITIZENS AND PROVIDING BETTER SERVICES.

SO I GET IT. WE'LL TALK OFFLINE BECAUSE I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. TAKES US TO OUR LAST WORK SESSION.

[E. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the May 6, 2023 General Election, and any runoff election if applicable, including locations, dates, and times. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

WHOLE DISCUSSION GIVES THAT DIRECTION REGARDING THE MAY SIX GENERAL ELECTION AND ANY RUNOFF ELECTION APPLICABLE, INCLUDING LOCATIONS, DATES AND TIMES.

AND SO AFTER YOUR PRESENTATION, IF YOU COULD JUST KIND OF REALLY NARROW US DOWN ON WHAT YOU NEED IS FOR DIRECTION THAT BE APPRECIATED. YES, SIR.

ONE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS ROSARIO'S AND I AM YOUR CITY SECRETARY.

I AM HERE TO PRESENT POLLING LOCATIONS FOR THE UPCOMING MAY SIX, 2023.

GENERAL ELECTION.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THE ELECTION IS TO HOLD ELECTIONS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOR DISTRICTS ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE'VE OUTLINED WHAT THE EARLY VOTING PERIOD IS, AS WELL AS WHERE THE WHEN THE CANVASING WOULD OCCUR.

AND OF COURSE, IF A RUNOFF IS NECESSARY, WE WOULD DO SO AT THAT TIME OF CANVASS.

THE ORDER OF GENERAL ELECTION IS SCHEDULED RIGHT NOW FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY SEVEN, 2023, WITH A DEADLINE TO ORDER ANY ELECTION BEING FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17.

AND AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME DETAILS HERE ABOUT A RUNOFF ELECTION AND WE WOULD REVISIT THOSE AT THE TIME WE CANVASS.

SO THE PROPOSED POLLING LOCATIONS HERE, YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS WERE THAT WERE USED IN 2019 AND 2021, AS WELL AS WHAT THE VOTER TURNOUT WAS AT THOSE LOCATIONS,

[03:50:03]

THE SAME INFORMATION IS PROVIDED HERE FOR ELECTION DAY.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FOR THE EARLY VOTING LOCATION WE DO, WE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THE DENTON COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION IS THAT IS THE MAIN EARLY VOTING SITE.

AND THEN FOR ELECTION DAY UNT, UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE GATEWAY CENTER AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF THE SUMMER MONTHS.

WORTMAN HAS INDICATED THAT NO LONGER WISH TO HOST THE ELECTION, ALTHOUGH WESLEY CENTER HAS INDICATED AN INTEREST TO POSSIBLY BE USED IF YOU DESIRE TO USE THEM.

SO THE THE CLEAR DIRECTION THAT I NEED FROM YOU IS WHAT LOCATIONS WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT WE USE FOR EARLY VOTING FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND THEN AGAIN FOR ELECTION DAY? NOW, REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE OTHER PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS.

SO WHILE WE MAY SELECT ONLY CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN OUR CITY, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS FOR OTHER FOR THE FOR OUR DISTRICTS WITHIN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. AND THAT'S MY PRESENTATION.

ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP. ARE WE NOT TO VOTER VOTING CENTERS YET? I KNOW THAT WE TALK ABOUT THAT.

I MEAN, THE COUNTY WAS IT'S COMING, RIGHT? YES. SO WHAT THEY HAVE INDICATED, THEY TOLD US FRIDAY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE MOVING TOWARD VOTE CENTERS FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, NOVEMBER.

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU TO IDENTIFYING DESIRED LOCATIONS.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU NEED MUCH DIRECTION OTHER THAN SUGGESTION FOR SITES.

I WILL TELL YOU FEEDBACK FROM FROM DISTRICT TWO IS THERE.

THEY'RE NOT EXCITED ABOUT SISK IF THEY'LL VOTE THERE IF YOU MAKE THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

I KNOW WE USE THE LDS CHURCH ON OLD NORTH AND WE'VE USED A COUPLE OF OTHER LOCATIONS.

DID WE TALK TO THEM? NO, SIR. SO WE WE PUT THE SIX CENTER HERE JUST AS AN OPTION.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SELECT THAT LOCATION.

THAT IS A SCHOOL LOCATION THAT TYPICALLY THEY WOULD USE IF THEY ARE ON THE BALLOT.

BUT WE COULD LOOK AT THE OTHER LOCATION SHOULD YOU DESIRE.

BUT SO FAR, DISTRICT TO THE OTHER LOCATION WAS USED PRIMARILY BY BY DENTON COUNTY DURING THEIR ELECTION.

SO THEY USUALLY SELECT OTHER LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF CITY OWNED FACILITIES.

AND THE WHEN WE'RE NOT CHARGED A FEE, FREEZING DSD FACILITIES.

YES. WHERE IT'S PROPORTIONED BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS.

SO ANY PARTICIPANTS THAT USE THAT LOCATION, IT WOULD BE SHARED.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, THEN I'LL I'LL GET BACK TO YOU WITH WITH ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK, IF I CAN.

IF I CAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE REC CENTERS USED FOR EARLY VOTING.

I KNOW THERE'S THERE'S DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THERE.

I KNOW THAT INTERRUPTS SOME SCHEDULES, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST VOTING VOTERS PATTERNS.

NOT TO MENTION THAT THE NORTH LAKE'S REC CENTER KIND OF DOES DOUBLE DUTY FOR DISTRICT TWO AS WELL.

THERE'S A GOOD CHUNK THAT IT'S VERY CONVENIENT FOR DISTRICT TWO.

AND DISTRICT TWO ONLY HAS ONE OTHER EARLY VOTING SITE.

YEAH, THE KIND OF THE DATA THAT WE'RE MISSING HERE IS PREVIOUSLY USED.

AND I KNOW BECAUSE SOME OF THEM AREN'T AVAILABLE, BUT PLACES WE'VE USED BEFORE AND THE TURN OUT TO THOSE PLACES BECAUSE SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN PRETTY HIGH, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN GOOD, USEFUL SPOTS LIKE THE REC CENTERS.

SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE BOTH NORTH LAKES AND DENIA AVAILABLE FOR EARLY VOTING AS WELL.

HOWEVER, WE CAN WORK THAT OUT.

ANYONE ELSE. LET'S REVERT.

I APPRECIATE THE KIMBERLY DRIVE, THE ADMINISTRATION, MLK CIVIC CENTER.

ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN PRETTY RELIABLE, AND I LIKE TO KEEP THOSE FOR BOTH.

ANYONE ELSE. WE'LL COME BACK WITH A MEMO TELLING YOU WHAT THEY FOUND OUT.

YES. ALL RIGHT. GREAT.

OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES THAT ITEM.

TAKES US TO A CLOSED SESSION.

[1. Closed Meeting:]

AND YES, WE WILL AT.

608. WE WILL CONVENE.

OH, HERE WE GO. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW AT 6:08 P.M., CONVENE IN CLOSED MEETING TO DELIBERATE THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEM A ID 23316.

CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551071B ID 23317.

CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551071 AND SEE ID 23309 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551071.

AND GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

IT IS 631 AND WE ARE BACK IN FOR OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[2. CONSENT AGENDA]

[03:55:06]

THERE'S NOTHING PULLED.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA IS LISTED.

OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCILMAN DAVIS? A SECOND.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. MAYOR PRO TEM.

I SEE YOU. HI, COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

COUNCILMAN BYRD I.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE I.

COUNCILMAN. WHAT I.

IT HURTS AS WELL PASSES SIX ZERO THAT TAKES US TO GET THERE.

HERE WE GO. FIRST ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS A220003, CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE

[A. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas regarding a Municipal Services Agreement, pursuant to Tex. Loc. Gov. Code Sec. 43.0672, between the City of Denton and Timothy and Jeanna Sutton for the provision of city services to approximately 7 acres of land, generally located east of Bonnie Brae Street and approximately 1,000 feet south of Vintage Boulevard; approving a schedule of annexation; authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement; and providing an effective date. (A22-0003, Roark Annexation, Ron Menguita)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR MANSOUR.

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THIS IS RAMON GUIDA, PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

IF YOU ALL CAN SEE. THERE WE GO.

THIS IS AN OH, SORRY.

A REQUEST FOR A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, WHICH IS PART OF OUR ANNEXATION PROCESS.

IT'S THE FIRST STEP OF FOUR SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR THE COUNCIL.

IT IS FOR AN APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRES OF LAND, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE, OUTLINED IN YELLOW, EASTBOUND AND BRAY IN ABOUT 1000 FEET JUST SOUTH OF VINTAGE BOULEVARD.

IN ADDITION TO THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT, THE ORDINANCE ALSO INCLUDES A SCHEDULE OF ANNEXATION.

THE APPLICANT, TIMOTHY AND GINA SUN, WHO ARE PRESENT TODAY, ARE REQUESTING THIS ANNEXATION AS IT IS PART OF A NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND PART OF THAT NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT IS THAT A PIECE OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED LESS THAN FIVE ACRES.

THE INTENT OF THE SUTTONS IS TO SUBDIVIDE THE LAND TO 3.5 ACRES EACH, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT. THE COLLECTOR ROAD THAT'S ON THE EAST I'M SORRY, THE WEST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BONNIE BRAE, AND AGAIN IT IS A COLLECTOR ROAD.

THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP, INCLUDES THE DEPARTMENTS THAT YOU SEE REPRESENTED HERE.

THEY'VE REVIEWED THE SERVICE AGREEMENT AND HAVE MOVED IT FORWARD FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION.

THE ANNEXATION SCHEDULE.

AS YOU SEE HERE, THE FIRST ITEM, AS MENTIONED, IS THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL REQUIRE ACTION.

PUBLIC HEARING WHICH FOLLOWS OH, IT DOES NOT.

THEN THERE'S THE FIRST READING OF ANNEXATION, WHICH WILL BE THE FIRST READING, AND THERE WILL BE NO ACTION.

AFTER A SUCCESSFUL RECOMMENDATION OR CONSIDERATION, WE WILL PUBLISH THE ORDINANCE.

IN OUR NEWSPAPER, LOCAL NEWSPAPER.

FOLLOWING 30 DAYS, WE WILL BRING IT BACK FOR THE SECOND READING AND HOPEFULLY ADOPTION OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE AND REQUIRE ACTION.

WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OK MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO IN THE PAST, WHEN WE'VE DONE A BUNCH OF THESE, YOU SORT OF SHOWED US WHERE THE ONE AND TWO BOUNDARIES HAVE EXPANDED AS WE WE CHANGE OUR PRIMARY LINES.

DO WE, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S I'M ASSUMING THE ANSWER IS NO OR YOU WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANY THINGS WE NEED TO KEEP OUR EYE ON AND EG ONE AND TWO FROM EXPANDING OUR BOUNDARIES FOR THIS PROPERTY.

BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE CITY, THERE IS NO EXPANSION, SO IT'S WITHIN THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS.

SO FOR THIS SUBJECT ANNEXATION, THERE WILL BE NO EXPANSION AS A RESULT OF IT.

AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. I'LL TAKE COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, SIR.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE COUNCILMAN DAVIS I SAY YOU I MAYOR PRO TEM I COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

I COME FROM BURT.

I. CATCH ME.

[04:00:01]

MAY HUDSPETH EYES. WELL, THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU. TAKES US TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THIS IS THE ONLY ONE FOR THIS EVENING, I DO BELIEVE.

AND THAT'S ITEM AA220003A.

[A. Hold a public hearing and consider a petition for voluntary annexation of approximately 7 acres of land, generally located east of Bonnie Brae Street and approximately 1,000 feet south of Vintage Boulevard into the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (A22-0003a, Roark Annexation, Ron Menguita)]

AND I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN OVER YOU.

THANK YOU. MAYOR AMES COUNCIL.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT ANNEXATION THAT WE JUST HEARD REGARDING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT PER STATE LAW THERE REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

THEREFORE, THAT IS WHAT'S BEING HELD TODAY.

YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THIS SLIDE AS TO WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING.

TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT AS TO WHAT'S SURROUNDING WHAT'S SURROUNDING THE AREA.

CURRENTLY, THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE AREA IS MODERATE RESIDENTIAL.

IT IS CURRENTLY NOT IN THE CITY.

THEREFORE IT KNOWS THERE IS NO ZONING ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY.

AS YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S REPRESENTED IN WHITE.

AND WITH THAT I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

AND AGAIN, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HERE PRESENT.

OKAY, SO NO ACTION HERE, BUT ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE'S WELCOME TO SPEAK, IF YOU'D LIKE.

YOU CAN COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL HAVE 4 MINUTES.

SEEING NONE. OKAY, SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

RON, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

DID WE HAVE TWO WEATHER NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED, LIKE SIGNAGE OR ANYTHING AROUND THERE, OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO THERE IS JUST THE NEWSPAPER REQUIREMENT AND PUBLICATION IN THE WEBSITE CITY WEBSITE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO GREAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU.

THAT CONCLUDES THAT ITEM.

TAKES US TO SECTION FIVE IN THE AGENDA.

IF YOU'RE TRACKING ALONG, THAT'S THE REMAINDER OF OUR AGENDA, JUST INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

AND SO THE FIRST IS ITEM AA220003B CONDUCT THE FIRST OF TWO READINGS OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS

[A. Conduct the first of two readings of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas annexing approximately 7 acres of land, generally located east of Bonnie Brae Street and approximately 1,000 feet south of Vintage Boulevard into the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; providing for a correction to the city map to include the annexed land; and providing for a savings clause and an effective date. (A22-0003b, Roark Annexation, Ron Menguita)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AGAIN, THIS IS THE THIRD STEP IN THE PROCESS FOR THE ANNEXATION AS WE NEED TO HOLD OR CONDUCT THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE TO START THAT THIRD PROCESS.

SO FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO READ THE ORDINANCE CAPTION.

SUCH AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF BONNY BRAY AND APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET 1000 FEET SOUTH OF VINTAGE BOULEVARD INTO THE CITY OF DENTON, THEN COUNTY, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CORRECTION TO THE CITY MAP TO INCLUDE THE ANNEXED LAND AND PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

AND THERE THERE IS NO ACTION AFTER THIS ITEM.

GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND JUST FOR THOSE IN ATTENDANCE OR THOSE THAT ARE ON THE WAY, LISTENING IN THE CAR, YOU HAVE TO INDICATE ON THESE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. YOU HAVE TO INDICATE THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK BEFORE I CALL THOSE.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS NEXT ONE, IF YOU IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO SAY, WE'LL ALLOW THAT.

BUT THE OTHERS BEFORE I CALL THE ITEM, YOU WOULD NEED TO FILL OUT A CARD TO TO REGISTER TO SPEAK.

THAT BEING SAID, I'LL CALL ITEM B, WHICH IS ID 23230.

[B. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton regarding a request for consent to the creation of Denton County Emergency Services District No. 2 located South of U.S. Highway 380 and West of the city limits of the City of Denton, Texas and partially located within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Denton, Texas; and providing an effective date.]

JOHN.

[04:05:18]

MAYOR COUNCIL SCOTT MCDONALD, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR THIS EVENING.

WHAT I'M GOING TO PROVIDE TO YOU IS REALLY JUST KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF REALLY WHAT WE HAVE FOR AN EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OR WHAT IS OUR ITG AND THEN HOW IT IS WE CAME TO WHERE WE'RE AT WITH IT, AN OVERVIEW OF JUST REALLY OUR MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES FOR DENTON AND SOME OF OUR SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

ULTIMATELY, WHAT OUR GROWTH IS LOOKING LIKE TODAY AND WHAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT FOR A PROPOSED SD NUMBER TO.

OUR EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE DECLARED THIS AS AN AREA TO PROMOTE THE PROTECT THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING IN ADJACENT TO THE MUNICIPALITIES, I.E.

DENTON. THIS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILES BEYOND OUR CORPORATE LIMITS.

SEVERAL WELL, 20 YEARS AGO WE HAD A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH DENTON COUNTY, AND THEN IN OUR LOCAL AGREEMENT WE HAVE TWO DIVISIONS OF OUR ETB.

THAT IS FIVE MILES ROUGHLY.

THE FIRST THREE AND A HALF MILES IS REALLY DIVISION ONE, WHICH THE CITY DOES THE PLATTING AUTHORITY.

THE REMAINDER OF THAT IS DENTON COUNTY.

DENTON COUNTY HAS THE PLANNING AUTHORITY.

THE ESTIMATED POPULATION OF OUR CURRENTLY IS ABOUT 95,000 INDIVIDUALS, AND OUR CITY SUBDIVISION STANDARDS APPLY IN ONE, NOT IN TWO.

SO THIS MAP IS ILLUSTRATING THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES FOR THE CITY OF DENTON IN GREEN.

THAT IS OUR CORPORATE BOUNDARIES.

THE NEIGHBORING CITIES ARE IN BLUE.

THEIR JAWS ARE INDICATED IN PURPLE.

AS WE LOOK AT PONDER AND JUST IN AND TO THE SOUTH, THOSE THOSE LINES ARE ALL, OF COURSE, BLURRED.

BUT THAT WILL SHOW YOU AT LEAST WHERE THOSE AREAS ARE.

DENTON'S EDGE IS THE BLUE CROSS-HATCHING IS OUR EDGE ONE, AND THE CROSS-HATCHING IN YELLOW IS OUR TWO.

BUT THE ENTIRETY OF THAT IS DENTON'S EDGE, WHERE IT IS THAT ULTIMATELY WHEN WE HAVE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THAT OCCUR COME FORTH BEFORE COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSENT. THE GROWTH THAT IS IMPACTING DENTON TODAY.

WHAT YOU SEE AND YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE.

THE OUTLINES IN OUR ATG ARE MUDS MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS.

WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF THESE THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN OUR ATG AND ADJACENT TO OUR ATG.

THE ONES IN RED ARE NOT IN OUR ATG.

THOSE ARE OUR FORMED MUDS AND THEN THE BALANCE ARE WITHIN OUR ATG OR ULTIMATELY REQUIRED AND CONSENT THROUGH THE CITY.

A COUPLE OF THESE WE DO HAVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND CONSENT.

WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS EVENING IS THE PROPOSED DENTON COUNTY EMERGENCY DISTRICT NUMBER TWO.

THIS IS A WIDE ANGLE VIEW.

YOU WILL SEE OUR CORPORATE LIMITS IN GREEN.

THE BLUE AND THE RED IS OUR BOUNDARIES.

AND THEN YOU WILL SEE THE VARIOUS MUDS WITHIN THAT IN KIND OF A A BLUED OUT BOX.

AND THEN THE PINK AREA IS SD TWO, WHICH GOES FROM 380 ALL THE WAY DOWN SOUTH OF 114 INTO FORT WORTH OR FORT WORTH'S BOUNDARY OF THEIR CORPORATE LIMITS AND INTO THEIR ATG.

IT IS A HUGE AREA THAT'S BEEN CREATED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTIN AND PROSPER.

PONDER EXCUSE ME.

THIS IS JUST A CLOSE UP THAT'S SHOWING A LITTLE LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AS IT RELATES TO SPECIFICALLY OUR AGE AND HOW IT IS THAT IT ULTIMATELY AFFECTS OUR JAY.

WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS PROPOSED FIRE STATIONS, WHICH ARE THE HYDRANT AND THE FIRE STATIONS THAT EXIST OR WHERE YOU SEE A FIREMEN'S HEAD OR HELMET IN THAT IN THE ILLUSTRATION, WHICH IS REALLY IN THE CITY.

AND THEN WHERE IT IS THAT YOU SEE THOSE RED LINES, THE DARKER SHADED AREA, THAT IS REALLY A FOUR MINUTE RESPONSE TIME FOR WHAT DENTON FIRE WOULD BE PROVIDING.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 156 AND HIGHWAY 380 ON THE WEST SIDE OF 156,

[04:10:05]

AND WE DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT CURRENTLY IN PLACE WITH THAT DEVELOPER, THE MEADOWS FOR FIRE PROTECTION.

THIS ESD DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE, LET ALONE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE MAY BE WORKING ON.

THE OPTIONS TONIGHT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ARE TO PROVIDE CONSENT, TO DENY CONSENT OR TAKE NO ACTION.

ITS STAFFS POSITION IS TO DESIGN TO DENY CONSENT AND THE RATIONALE I BULLIED IT OUT.

ULTIMATELY, THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CITY RESIDENTS NOT TO HAVE CITY FIRE SERVICES.

SO ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT MAY ANNEX INTO THE CITY WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE FIRE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF DENTON.

THE EXISTING CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY OF DENTON FIRE IS SIGNIFICANT IN MANY AREAS, MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN IN OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES OR WHAT THIS ISD WOULD BE PROPOSING TO PROVIDE.

SO TO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS LOOKING TO PROVIDE A EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT, WHICH IS HUGE.

THE PLAN IN FIRE, FIRE EMS SERVICES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AND THE PETITION DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EXISTING AGREEMENTS THAT THE CITY OF DENTON MAY ALREADY CURRENTLY HAVE, AND IT IS LIKELY TO HAVE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS TO THE CITY WHEN IT IS THAT ANNEXATION ANNEXATION OCCURS.

THE EXHIBIT TO THE RIGHT IS REALLY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED WITHIN YOUR BACKUP.

JUST AGAIN, SHOWING THAT AREA AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

SO THEN MAYBE ANY QUESTIONS? BUT WHAT OF THE OTHER COMMUNITIES? YOU POINT OUT THE MATH.

JUST TO KIND OF A PROOF OF CONCEPT TO SAY HOW FAR WE'VE EXTENDED OUR OUR SERVICES OR HELPED WHAT OTHER CITIES IN.

SO KRUM CROSSROADS PONDER IF WE EVER SENT SERVICE TO ANY OF THOSE AREAS AND I'LL LET THE CHIEF YES WE HAVE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS AND WE RETUNE RETURN.

WE ROUTINELY PROVIDE SERVICES TO OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.

I THINK THE STATISTICS WILL SPEAK CONTENTIOUS FIRE CHIEF.

YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. THROUGH A STATE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT, IF AN ORGANIZATION REQUEST ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL APPARATUS EQUIPMENT THEY DO CALL, FOR INSTANCE, DIDN'T FIRE DEPARTMENT. IF WE HAVE RESOURCES AVAILABLE, IT IS STILL OPTIONS.

SO WE HAVE SENT MUTUAL AID RESOURCES TO EVERY CITY IN THIS COUNTY AT SOME POINT.

AND WE DO TRACK THAT IN SOME DATA METRICS AS WELL.

AND I CAN TELL YOU FOR.

FROM LAST YEAR, WE SENT A UNIT AT LEAST 17 TIMES, ARGYLL 27 TIMES, SINGER 17 TIMES.

SO WE VERY CONSISTENTLY PROVIDE MUTUAL AID VERSUS WE LOOK AT MUTUAL AID GIVEN VERSUS MUTUAL AID RECEIVED, WE GIVE WAY MORE THAN WE RECEIVE.

RIGHT? AND THAT'S JUST. JUST TO POINT OUT THAT WE CAN SERVICING THIS AREA WITHOUT THE FIRE STATION IS IS WELL WITHIN OUR CAPABILITIES, ESPECIALLY THEN ONCE WE HAVE THE NEW STATION THAT WE'VE ALREADY PLANNED IN PLACE.

OKAY. GOT IT. THANK YOU.

THEN I'M GOING TO MOVE DENIAL AND I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER MCGEE.

MAYOR, I FIRST WANT A SECOND YOUR MOTION.

BUT I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION THAT I THINK COULD FALL UNDER DISCUSSION.

I'LL WITHDRAW. SO YOU CAN OK.

GOT IT. COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

I'D LIKE TO SECOND YOUR MOTION SO I CAN MOVE INTO A DISCUSSION FOR A QUESTION.

OH, GOT IT, OK.

THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MCGEE FOR YOUR ACCOMMODATION.

SO, MOTION MAYOR HUDSPETH.

SECOND COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

COUNCILMAN DAVID SHEPHERD FOR.

THANK YOU. AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR CHIEF HEDGES.

I THINK PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW THAT OUR FIRE RESCUE SERVICE IS JUST SECOND TO NONE, THAT WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT FIRE DEPARTMENT.

I PUT THEM UP AGAINST ANYBODY.

BUT CAN YOU KIND OF IN A IN A DIPLOMATIC WAY, TELL US WHY IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THESE AREAS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TO BE EITHER NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, SERVICED BY OUR FIRE CAPABILITY, OUR FIRE RESCUE SERVICE, AS OPPOSED TO LETTING SOMEBODY ELSE SOMEWHERE ELSE FOOT THE BILL FOR IT? SURE. SO WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT FIRE SERVICE, THE DIFFERENT THREE CATEGORIES OF LOCATIONS, SO WHO'S THE CLOSEST? SO THAT'S JUST ONE SMALL COMPONENT.

THE OTHER IS CAPACITY.

DO THE DOES THAT ORGANIZATION HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE ON MUTUAL.

I'M SORRY, NUMEROUS CALLS AT ONE POINT.

SO SUBSTANTIAL.

OFTEN WORSE THAN THAT. STACK.

STACK CALLS. YEAH.

THANKS. STACK COST.

SO IF, FOR INSTANCE, A FIRE DEPARTMENT, A IF THEY HAVE ONE CALL, DO THEY HAVE RESOURCES TO GO IN A SECOND CALL THE SAME TIME PERIOD?

[04:15:06]

SO AND THEN CAPABILITIES EXACTLY WHAT ALL DISCIPLINES DO THEY HAVE TO OFFER FIRE SERVICES? ONE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IS ONE THAT 70% OF WHAT WE DO TECHNICAL RESCUE, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SWIFT WATER BOMB CITY DIDN'T ACTUALLY PRACTICE ALL THOSE DISCIPLINES.

AND WE'RE VERY, VERY WELL VERSED IN THAT AS WELL.

SOME OF THESE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE ESD FIRE, I CAN JUST SPEAK PARTNER DOES NOT HAVE EMS. THEY ACTUALLY HAD TO CONTRACT WITH CRIME TO SEND THEIR EMPHASIS FROM CRUM DOWN TO PONDER AS OF TODAY AS WELL.

SO WE START LOOKING AT THAT REALLY THOSE THREE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS WE LOOK AT.

SO BY FAR DENT IS SUPERIOR ON ALL THREE OF THOSE.

YEAH. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT ALSO, THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS YOU LOOK AT AS FAR AS THE INSURANCE RATING AS WELL.

SO DENTON IS AT A 1 TO 10 SCALE, ONE BEING THE BEST CURRENTLY SIT DOWNS OUT OF TWO.

AND THEN THE OTHERS ARE OBVIOUSLY HIGHER AS WELL.

SO THAT GIVES YOU DIRECT BENEFITS TO THE HOMEOWNERS.

AND THEN ALSO IT GOES TO THE COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS FAR AS THEIR INSURANCE RATINGS AND PREMIUMS. K MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS IS A THIS IS A PEDANTIC QUESTION, BUT AND I SUPPORT THE MAYOR'S WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE MAYOR'S MOTION.

BUT JUST CHECKING IN WITH LEGAL.

IS THERE A DISTINCTIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MOVE TO DENY CONSENT VERSUS A MOVE TO DENY THE ITEM? I'M JUST MAKING SURE.

RIGHT. I THINK WE WERE CLARIFYING IT WITH THE MAYOR.

HIS MOTION IS TO DENY THE CONSENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE PENDING MOTION IS RELATED TO, TO NOT CONSENTING TO THE APPROVAL OF THE.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? JEFF? YOU'RE GOOD.

OKAY. GOT COUNCILMAN.

WHAT? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

CHIEF. THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU.

AS FAR AS MUTUAL AID, I MEAN, IF THERE'S AN SD.

DO WE HAVE TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM TO PROVIDE MUTUAL AID? NOT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE THOSE.

I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. AT THIS POINT, NO.

WE FOLLOW A STATEWIDE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT.

SO IT'S JUST IF THEY SEND A REQUEST, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY YES OR NO.

AND WHEN WE FULFILL THAT REQUEST.

AND AND IF WE DO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE, IS THAT IS THAT REIMBURSED AT A CERTAIN NO REIMBURSEMENT? YES. YOU GET NOTHING REIMBURSED ON EACH TYPE OF MUTUAL AID.

THERE'S DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS, AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENTS THAT YOU CAN CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER ORGANIZATION AND HAVE SET RATES, WHICH, FOR INSTANCE, SD NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS ARGYLE.

WE HAVE THAT FOR THE ROPES AND RANCH AREA AND A VERY BENEFICIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOTH ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL, WHERE WE SUPPORT 50% OF THEIR OPERATING COSTS AT THAT STATION FOR A SET TIME PERIOD.

YEAH. AND I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS I WAS ON BOARD WHEN WE WHEN WE DEVELOPED THAT AGREEMENT.

AND IS THAT I MEAN, HAS THE CITY NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME SOME BRAINSTORMING TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS THAT MAY MAXIMIZE THE INTERESTS OF EVERYBODY INVOLVED? I MEAN, THAT JUST SEEMS A LITTLE ODD TO ME THAT WE'RE HERE MAKING A MOTION TO DENY CONSENT, WHICH ILLUSTRATES TO ME THAT SOMEHOW WE'VE BEEN CUT OUT OF SOME DISCUSSIONS. OR IS THAT IS THAT A MISCHARACTERIZATION ON MY PART? I BELIEVE YOU'D BE CORRECT IN THAT STATEMENT AS WELL.

SO WE TRY TO COMMUNICATE WITH ALL PARTIES INVOLVED AND INCLUDING THE DENTON COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, TO REALLY BE AT THE TABLE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NEGOTIATIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR THESE MUDS AND THE SERVICE AREAS AS WELL.

SO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT ON FIRE PROTECTION WITH THE MEADOWS AND THEN THE LEDGE.

AND SECONDLY, AGREED TO SITE SELECTION AND THE MEADOWS THAT PROVIDE FIRE SERVICE IN OUR FOR THE FUTURE AND REALLY PREPARING FOR THE NEXT 20, 30 YEARS OUT THERE DELIVERING THE SAME SERVICE THAT EVERY CITIZEN DIDN'T GET AS OF TODAY.

SO I GUESS MY FINAL QUESTION JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

SO IF BY ANY CHANCE THIS S.D.

CONTINUES TO MOVE FORWARD AND COMES INTO FRUITION, THE CITY OF DENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT.

DOES NOT HAVE BY LAW AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.

OR THEY DO. PER LAW.

THEY DO NOT. WE DO NOT KNOW IF ASSISTANCE IS REQUESTED.

WE CAN DENY THAT.

OKAY. I MEAN, I MEAN, I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY WE WE WOULD I'M JUST I'M JUST DISAPPOINTED THAT FOR DEPARTMENTS SUCH AS OURS, THAT'S ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH ANOTHER ESD THAT HAS BEEN MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TO EVERYBODY INVOLVED, THAT THIS IS NOT OCCURRED IN THIS.

PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD MAXIMIZE THE INTEREST OF EVERYBODY.

NOW, IT'S JUST THAT'S TOO BAD.

IT'S DISAPPOINTING. I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE DESIRE ON OTHERS TO BRING EVERYBODY TO THE TABLE TO MAXIMIZE THE INTEREST.

BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHIEF.

OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILOR MCGEE? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M JUST CURIOUS IN THIS CASE.

NO ACTION VERSUS A DENIAL.

[04:20:01]

I ASSUME NO ACTION IS ALSO CONSIDERED A DENIAL.

OH, OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? RIGHT. OKAY.

WELL, MOTION BY MYSELF, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? AND THIS IS A TO GET THE LANGUAGE RIGHT.

MOTION TO DENY CONSENT.

THAT BEING SAID, I'M AN AI.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

I. MAYOR PRO TEM I.

COUNCILMAN, WHAT'S. AND THEN COUNCILMAN MCGEE I COUNCILMAN BYRD I OK.

AND THE MOTION TO DENY CONSENT PASSES SIX ZERO.

OKAY, THAT TAKES US TO ITEM C, WHICH IS ID 23258.

[C. Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the creation of a Steering Committee to guide the development of the Northeast Denton Area Plan, generally bounded by FM 428 to the north and west, Loop 288 and University Drive to the south, and the Greenbelt and Floodplain area associated with the Elm Fork Trinity River and Lake Lewisville to the east; and providing an effective date.]

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RAMI GET A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRINCIPAL PLANNER.

THIS RESOLUTION IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.

WE'RE EXCITED TO GET STARTED ON THE NORTHEAST AREA PLAN.

ONE OF THE STEPS IN THE BEGINNING IS TO ESTABLISH A STEERING COMMITTEE.

THE STEERING COMMITTEE IS GOING TO HELP IN GUIDING THE PROCESS AND HELPING WITH REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS STEERING COMMITTEE IN PLACE SO WE CAN START HAVING THOSE MEETINGS WITH THEM.

I'VE PROVIDED YOU IN YOUR BACK UP THE LIST OF STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATION INTERESTS THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE.

IT'S A BALANCE LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT INCLUDES CITY AS WELL AS COUNTY, THEN COUNTY STAKEHOLDERS.

ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE OBVIOUSLY ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS THEMSELVES.

THE NAMES THAT ARE LISTED TO THE LEFT ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE, I'M SORRY, THE STEERING COMMITTEE THAT HAVE AGREED TO SERVE ON THIS STEERING COMMITTEE. SO I WON'T GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE LIST, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU AND THE PUBLIC AUDIENCE WHO THERE AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I REALLY LIKE THE COMPOSITION THAT STAFF PUT TOGETHER OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS, DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS.

I THINK IT REALLY SHOWS YOU ALL DID A FANTASTIC JOB LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE THAT THAT LIVE IN THE AREA AND HAVE THE MOST TO GAIN AND LOSE BY THIS NORTHEAST DENTON PLAN.

AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S IN MY DISTRICT.

BUT I THINK YOU DID AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB COMPOSING THE DIFFERENT COMMENTATORS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND STAFF.

THANK YOU. AND JUST IF I CAN JUST ADD TO THAT, THERE THERE WAS A LOT OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OTHER STAFF MEMBERS AND OUR CONSULTING TEAM AS WELL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? CANCEL.

WHAT'S. REFRESH MY MEMORY.

SO THIS IS WE'RE LOOKING AT APPOINTING THESE PEOPLE TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE.

IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT THIS ACTION ITEM IS? CORRECT. THIS IS TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION THAT WILL CREATE THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND WILL COMPOSE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION.

SO THESE WERE SOLICITED THROUGH JUST STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, THROUGH PUBLIC NOTICES, THROUGH MEETINGS.

I MEAN, HOW HOW DID HOW DID THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE GET SELECTED? SO STAFF UNDERSTANDING THE AREA, PUT TOGETHER A STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE LIST.

AND FROM THAT WE THEN REACHED OUT TO IDENTIFIED THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD SERVE FOR THAT PARTICULAR REPRESENTATION.

WE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY PROVIDED US WITH SOME OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS.

WE ALSO REACH OUT TO OUR OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY.

THEY PROVIDED US WITH SOME ADDITIONAL NAMES AND I PERSONALLY REACHED OUT TO INDIVIDUAL TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ASKING IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE, EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ROLE WOULD BE.

AND THEN AFTER HEARING THAT THEY DID AFTER ACCEPTING THEN WAS THEN ADDED TO THE LIST.

[04:25:02]

THANK, MR. MAYOR. RON, DO WE HAVE A TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE SET YET? WE DO NOT. SO WE ARE HOPING SOMETIME MID-FEBRUARY, AS SOON AS WE CAN GET THE STEERING COMMITTEE IN PLACE.

OKAY. THANK YOU, RON.

IF YOU DON'T MIND TOUCHING ON WHAT IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN? WHAT IS THE OUTCOME, THE DESIRED OUTCOME, OR WHAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE SEEKING? SURE. SO THE AREA PLAN IS TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE REFINED AS FAR AS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE THIS AREA TO BE.

WHAT'S THE VISION FOR THIS AREA? WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS OR SO? OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE THERE WERE CONCERNS, THAT IS, WITH REGARDS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA, TRAFFIC AND JUST LAND USE AND DENSITY.

SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO AND DIVE INTO.

HOPEFULLY WE COME OUT WITH A PLAN AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION THAT WE CAN THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH AND ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD.

YEARS AGO OR MONTHS AGO.

GOT IT. SO SO KIND OF A 20 YEAR LOOK AT ROUGHLY.

THAT'S THE THAT'S THE TIMELINE.

OBVIOUSLY, THINGS CHANGE.

WE CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK TO IT.

BUT THAT'S THE PLANNING HORIZON THAT WE LOOK FOR.

AND LIKE MOST OF OUR OTHER COMMITTEES, THIS WILL BE A PUBLIC COMMITTEE.

SO ANYONE CAN AND ANYONE CAN SIT IN ON THE MEETINGS, TAKE NOTES, PROVIDE FEEDBACK.

SO IT'S THESE PEOPLE.

GREAT REPRESENTATION, BUT OPEN TO ANYONE THAT WANTS TO BE PLUGGED IN, ACTIVE IN THE PROCESS.

CORRECT. IT FOLLOWS THE SAME BOARDS AND COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

WE WILL POST IT AND WE WILL HOLD IT IN A PUBLIC SETTING AND SO FORTH AND TAKE MINUTES AS WELL.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. MAYOR PRO TEM, I AM EXCITED AND HAPPY TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS COMMITTEE.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE HAPPY.

THE SECOND EXCELLENT COMPOSITION OF FOLKS.

WELL DONE MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, SIR.

I'M SORRY. WHAT? WHAT? I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION, COUNCILMAN BIRD.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU SAY THIS OR NOT.

ALL THESE PEOPLE AS LISTED HERE, ARE THEY.

ARE THEY. THEY HAVE PROPERTIES LOCATED OVER IN THIS AREA OR THEY'RE JUST KIND OF AROUND THE TOWN? YES. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE PROPERTIES EITHER LIVE OR HAVE PROPERTY OR OWNERSHIP ARE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK ON THE LIST.

SO, YES. SO THERE'S A HANDFUL OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

I THINK ONE OF THEM IS ACTUALLY PRESENT HERE.

SO I HAVEN'T MET THEM DIRECTLY BUT ANYTHING ELSE.

GREAT MAYOR PRO TEMPORE.

I SAY HI COUNCILOR MCGEE I.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

I COME FROM BYRD HIGH.

COUNSEL. WHAT'S. YOU WANT TO PREFACE IT WITH A NOD.

BUT I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THAT ONLY LESS THAN HALF OWNED PROPERTY IN THE AREA.

BUT I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT.

BUT I JUST I JUST NOTICED THAT.

SO ANYWAY, I AM I AS WELL AT SIX YEAR OLD PASSES.

THANK YOU. TAKES US TO ITEM RD.

[D. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., for the construction of the Neighborhood 7A Project with geographical limits as follows: Bernard Street from Acme Street to Parvin Street, Leslie Street from Willowwood Street to Dudley, Oakwood Drive from McCormick Street to 1100 Oakwood Drive, Underwood Street from Kendolph Drive to Avenue D, Wisteria, Azalea, and Camellia Streets from Laurel Street to Parvin Street, and all public alleyways between Laurel Street and Parvin Street; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (CSP 7976 - awarded to McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., in the not-to-exceed amount of $7,620,553.16). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (5 - 0).]

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, A TEXAS HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH MCCARTHY.

MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES INC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEIGHBORHOODS SEVEN A PROJECT AND GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS AS FOLLOWS. BENARD STREET FROM ACME STREET TO PARVIN STREET.

LESLIE STREET. FROM WILLOW WOOD STREET TO.

TO DUDLEY OAKLEY, OAKWOOD DRIVE FROM MCCORMICK STREET TO ONE 1100 OAK DRIVE, UNDERWOOD STREET FROM KEN DOLPH DRIVE TO AVENUE D, WISTERIA AZALEA AND CAMILLE CAMILLA STREETS FROM LAUREL STREET TO PARVIN STREET AND AND ALL PUBLIC ALLEYWAYS BETWEEN LAUREL STREET AND PARVIN STREET.

PROVIDING FOR AN EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, THEREFORE.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

COUNCIL. MY NAME IS SCOTT FETTIG, PROJECT MANAGER WITH CAPITAL PROJECTS HERE THIS AFTERNOON FOR CONSIDERATION OR EVENING FOR THE CONSIDERATION AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR CIP PROJECT NEIGHBORHOOD 7AI THINK SCOTT'S GOT US ALL TONIGHT.

YEAH. SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROJECT OVERVIEW.

THIS IS PART OF THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM.

WITH THIS PROJECT WE WILL BE DOING ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION, SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY, WASTEWATER UPGRADES AND WATER UPGRADES.

JUST TO MENTION A FEW OF THE EXTENTS, BERNARD, LESLIE, WISTERIA, CAMELLIA AND AZALEA STREET, THE SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY

[04:30:10]

SO WILL YOU ADVERTISE THIS AS A CSP OR A COMPETITIVE SALE PROPOSAL? WE HAD TWO PROPOSALS COMING IN AFTER EVALUATION.

MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES CAME OUT ON TOP WITH A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF JUST OVER 7.6 MILLION.

SO PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR THIS.

WE COMPLETED DESIGN IN AUGUST OF 22.

WE WENT TO PUBLIC UTILITY BOARDS ON JANUARY 9TH.

WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL.

IF APPROVED, WE MOVED TO TRY TO GIVE A NOTICE TO PROCEED IN QUARTER ONE OR 2023 OR.

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION FINAL COMPLETION FOR QUARTER ONE OF 2024.

AND WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES AND THE AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED OF JUST OVER 7.6 MILLION, WHICH DOES INCLUDES 5% CONTINGENCY.

AND THAT'LL OPEN UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

GOT IT. AND THE LAST NAME AGAIN.

I'M SORRY. FETTIG.

FETTIG. FETTIG. YEAH.

I HADN'T SEEN THAT ON EMAILS.

YOU KNEW WELL JUST OVER A YEAR.

OUTSTANDING AND PRESENTED BEFORE.

JUST VIRTUALLY, YEAH.

NICE. VERY GOOD. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. YEAH. SO WHEN.

ANNIVERSARY ROLLED AROUND.

SOON WE'LL GET YOU. GET YOU LIKE A SNICKERS BAR.

SO. AUGUST BE TWO YEARS.

PROBABLY BETTER CITY FOR ABOUT FIVE, BUT I'LL BE TWO YEARS AS A PRODUCT MANAGER.

GOT IT. WHAT WERE YOU DOING BEFORE I WAS IN WASTEWATER COLLECTION.

IT STARTED OUT A CREW LEADER AND THEN MOVED UP TO SUPERVISOR.

SO HAS IT BEEN UPGRADED DOWN? GREAT. DON'T ANSWER THAT. YEAH.

OH, YEAH. YOU CAN'T LOSE.

CAN'T LOSE. WORK WITH TREVOR.

NO, NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

SEEING NONE. SO YEAH, NO, I THINK JUST FOR ME, I WAS JUST CURIOUS.

LOCATION WISE, THIS IS.

THIS IS NEAR. JUST.

EAST OF DANGER, IS THAT RIGHT? BUT THAT SEGMENT OF BERNARD.

YES. YES. OKAY. YEP.

RUNNING FROM ROSELAWN UP TO ACME, JUST EAST OF THE DINNER PARK AREA.

OKAY. YEAH, GREAT.

AND WE DON'T ANTICIPATE IT INTERFERING.

SO, ROSELAWN, THERE'S SOME CONSTRUCTION GOING ON AROUND THERE, BUT WE FELT WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT OUR.

THAT THAT INTERSECTION WILL TIME THAT UP.

WELL, YES, SIR. OKAY.

COORDINATE WITH ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON IN THE AREA AND MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS HAVE IN AND OUT AND TRAFFIC FLOWS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SCHOOL AND AREA AND THE PARK AS WELL.

RIGHT. OKAY, VERY GOOD.

YEAH. THAT'S ANOTHER THING I GUESS WE'LL COORDINATE WITH.

AND IT'S PRETTY FAR AWAY.

BUT BOORMAN WILL WE'LL TALK TO THEM, MAKE SURE THEY KNOW.

YES, SIR. OKAY, GREAT.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OK COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

I MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR PRO TEM. SECOND MOST FROM OUR COUNCILWOMAN MCGEE.

SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE CATCH MCGEE.

HOW SAY YOU? I? MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

I SOME BIRD I CAN SMELL WHAT I.

MAYOR HUDSPETH EYES WELL PAST THE SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YEP.

TAKES US TO ITEM E ID 23171.

[E. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Wilson Contractor Services, LLC, for the construction of the Hickory Creek Interceptor 3 Project; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (CSP 8091 - awarded to Wilson Contractor Services, LLC, in the not-to-exceed amount of $5,793,183.01). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0).]

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL AND MAYOR.

GOOD EVENING. WANTING TO MAKE SURE I GET US CONNECTED TO ZOOM.

I MIGHT BE DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

I'VE GOT MY SUPPORT TEAM.

IT'S. THAT'S GREAT.

CHEERS. HERE.

AND SHE. INTERESTING.

FANTASTIC. I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE HERE WITH THE ZOOM CLICKING.

FORTUNATELY, I GET TO DO THIS THREE TIMES THIS EVENING, SO I MIGHT HAVE SOME PRACTICE.

[04:35:01]

I'M ONE OF THE PROJECT MANAGERS AS WELL TONIGHT WITH CAPITAL PROJECTS.

IT'S PLEASURE TO BE HERE THIS EVENING.

AND TONIGHT I'D LIKE TO SHARE A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HICKORY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PHASE THREE PROJECT AND ASK YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

THE PROJECT IS APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES LONG, ABOUT 9700 LINEAR FEET.

IT'S GOING THROUGH PROPERTY THAT'S RELATIVELY UNDEVELOPED.

IT'S ALSO A 30 INCH REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING LINE.

THE EXISTING LINE WILL BE PREDOMINANTLY ABANDONED AND THE LOCATION IS GOING TO START ROUGHLY WHERE THE HICKORY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PHASE ONE AND TWO COMPLETE NEAR I 35 W IT'LL MOVE NORTH KIND OF WEST PAST FM 1515 UP TOWARDS THE MARSH BRANCH BETWEEN MARSH BRANCH AND WESTERN.

THE DESIGN WAS DONE IN HOUSE.

WE WENT OUT TO BID SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS PROJECT YOU HEARD.

WE DID SEE KSP, WHICH IS THE COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS.

WE RECEIVED SEVERAL PROPOSALS THAT CAME IN.

WILSON CONTRACTING WAS THE LOWEST, OUR HIGHEST SCORING AND NEAR THE LOWEST PRICE.

SO WE GOT TWO BANGS FOR A BUCK FOR THAT.

THE FUNDING IS COMING FROM THE WASTEWATER PROJECT, SO THE PROJECT IS APPROXIMATELY 400 DAYS LONG, ONCE GOING EXCUSE ME, ONCE STARTED. SO APPROXIMATELY 13 MONTHS PROJECT.

THE FINAL CONCLUSION FOR THE CONTRACT AMOUNT $5.5 MILLION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS 30 INCH LINE.

AND THE CONTINGENCY INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 275,000, BRINGING THE TOTAL PROJECT TO JUST SHORT OF $6 MILLION.

WITH YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT, WE'D LOVE TO ASK YOU TO ACCEPT THIS MOVE FORWARD, AND I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND TRACY AND I HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE BECKS AND DENTON ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.

MY QUESTION IS ON THE.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE WENT TO THE COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS.

THE THEY WERE ALL FAIRLY EQUAL.

YOU MENTIONED THE PRICE OF A COUPLE OF THEM WERE LITTLE STAND OUT AND ONE THAT ONE THAT SEEMED TO REALLY STAND OUT FOR THIS COMPANY WAS THE QUALITY REPUTATION.

AND THIS IS THIS IS A CURIOSITY EDUCATION QUESTION.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TABLE OR ANYTHING, AND THAT IS SORT OF WHAT WE'RE HOW DO WE EVALUATE THAT? AND BECAUSE THAT ONE JUST STOOD OUT AS A REALLY OUTLIER AMONGST THE REST OF THE DATA, WHEREAS A LOT OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS WE'VE SEEN TONIGHT, ALL ALL THE TABLES ARE LIKE WITHIN A POINT OR TWO OF EACH OTHER, AND WE'VE JUST SORT OF TAKEN THE BEST SCORING ONE.

SO IT SEEMED LIKE THAT ONE REALLY STOOD OUT.

CAN CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? RIGHT. SO TREVOR CRANE, DIRECTOR OF CAPITAL PROJECTS.

SO FOR COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL, WHAT WE DO IS WE ASK FOR THE CONTRACTORS TO SUBMIT A 1015 PAGE PROPOSAL SPECIFIC TO THOSE PROJECTS, WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO BE BIDDING ON. AND SO WE HAVE A TEAM THAT WE USUALLY INCLUDE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECTS TEAM, A COUPLE OF PEOPLE FROM THE DEPARTMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DELIVERING THE PROJECT FOR.

SO IN THIS CASE, THE WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT.

THAT WAY WE'VE GOT PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GRADING THESE.

AND WHAT WE DO IS WE ALL MEET OR WE ALL LOOK AT THESE PROPOSALS SEPARATELY AND WE GRADE THEM SEPARATELY SO THAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THEM KIND OF THROUGH OUR OWN EYES AND GRADING THEM. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE QUALITY AND REPUTATION.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE INFORMATION THEY PRESENT, HOW THEY PERFORMED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS, KIND OF THAT SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND BUDGET, WHERE THEY CAME IN ON SIMILAR PROJECTS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT THEIR SAFETY RECORD PRICE IS ALSO A BIG PIECE OF IT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT SIMILAR PROJECTS THAT THEY'VE COMPLETED AROUND, YOU KNOW, AROUND THIS DOING THE SAME TYPE OF WORK.

SO IT'S REALLY A PRETTY INCLUSIVE.

KIND OF PROCESS SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL DIFFERENT PHASES AND REALLY TRYING TO GET THAT BEST CONTRACTOR FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT.

OK I THINK THAT THAT ANSWERS MOST OF MY QUESTION.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS JUST A CURIOSITY QUESTION.

WHEN WE ABANDON A LINE, WHAT DO WE.

WE JUST PUT SEALS IN IT AND WALK AWAY.

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE ABANDONED LINES? SO IT DEPENDS SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT SIZE IT IS, KIND OF WHERE IT'S AT.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN DO IT.

YOU CAN LEAVE IT IN PLACE.

YOU JUST LEAVE IT. LEAVE THE VOID THERE.

YOU WILL CAP EACH SIDE IF IT'S UNDERNEATH, LIKE SOME FACILITY THAT YOU DON'T WANT IT TO COLLAPSE, YOU CAN FILL IT WITH FLOW, FILL AND THEN CAP BOTH SIDES.

SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS THEY DO THAT.

SO DEPENDING ON WHERE IT'S AT, WHAT IT WAS USED FOR, THE REALLY THE CONDITION THAT IT'S IN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT THERE WITH A VOID IN IT FOR IT TO COLLAPSE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU GET SETTLING.

SO IT REALLY KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE CASE.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE GO THROUGH WITH OUR DESIGN ENGINEERS THROUGH THAT DESIGN PROCESS ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH THAT PIPE.

ONCE IT'S ONCE WE SWITCH OVER TO NEW ONE AND OUR STAKEHOLDERS WHO WERE DELIVERING THE PROJECT FOR SO.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

[04:40:02]

BUT COUNCILMAN BURT.

SECOND, A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BYRD.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEE, NONE. COUNCILMAN DAVIS, HOW SAY YOU? I COUNCILMAN BURT, I COUNCIL MEMBER G I.

MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCILMAN WATTS.

HI. MAYOR HUDSPETH IS I AS WELL.

PASSES SIX ZERO TAKES US TO ITEM F, WHICH IS ID 2317 TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF

[F. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., for the construction of the Mayhill Road Phase 2 Project; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (CSP 8092 - awarded to McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., in the not-to-exceed amount of $20,469,433.55).]

MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES INC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MAYHILL ROAD.

PHASES PHASE TWO PROJECT PROVIDING FOR AN EXPENDITURE FUNDS THEREOF.

NO. YOU.

KEEP LOSING. ACTUALLY, I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PLACE.

THIS YOU PROJECT? NO, THIS IS ME.

THIS THING. WHAT YOU MAY NEED, STEVE, RIGHT.

I WAS GOING TO PROMISE A REALLY FAST EVENING, BUT I'LL JUST PICK UP MY YANKEE SPEED WHEN I SPEAK THIS NEXT TIME.

THEN YOU HAD THE ZOOM.

20.

IF YOU. YOU.

SHE. NATURAL.

BUT AT THE.

KNOW, JUST MAYBE YOU DON'T LOOK THAT VERY GOOD.

SO YOUR SCREEN.

SELECT YOUR. THAT'S VERY QUICK.

AND.

ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE.

AGAIN, THIRD PRIMETIME WILL PROBABLY BE A CHARM.

WE'LL SEE HOW WE PULL THIS OFF AGAIN.

TRACY BEX, CITY OF DENTON.

I'M A PROJECT MANAGER, AND TODAY I'M GOING TO BE DISCUSSING ANOTHER PROJECT FOR YOU, THE MAYHILL PHASE TWO PROJECT.

THIS PROJECT'S GOING TO HAVE A FOLLOW UP AS WELL.

DISCUSSING BOTH INSPECTIONS AND CONSTRUCTION, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE SAME VERY SIMILAR PRESENTATION.

SO I'LL BE QUICK THROUGH THIS ONE.

THE PROJECT SCOPE FOR THIS IS GOING TO BE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.

IT'S EXTENDING FROM APPROXIMATELY AT THE COLORADO MAYHILL NEAR THE HOSPITAL.

IF YOU'RE GOING NORTHBOUND, EXTENDING THAT FOUR LANE SECTION NORTH WITH A BRIDGE OVER THE OR THE CTA TRAIN AND THEN COMING BACK DOWN TO GRADE TO MEET THE EXISTING PHASE ONE THAT WAS JUST COMPLETED A FEW YEARS AGO.

THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE A LITTLE CONNECTION THAT GOES BACK TO THE OLD MAYHILL ROAD THAT WILL STAY FUNCTIONING.

THIS PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES, IN ADDITION TO THE BRIDGE OVER MAYHILL DC, TO THE SIDE PATHS ALONG THE ROUTE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND A REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURE.

THE PROJECT WAS DESIGNED BY FREESE AND NICHOLS.

THIS PROJECT ALSO WENT OUT FOR THE CSP.

WE INTERVIEWED SEVERAL AND SCORED THEM AND MCCARTHY, WHICH WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH IN THE PAST SO FAR, AND GOOD RELATIONSHIP IS AWARDED THE 86.77 POINTS OUT OF 100, AND THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE FUNDED OUT OF RTR FUNDS AS WELL AS ROAD IMPACT FEE FUNDS, SERVICE FOR AREA E, AS WELL AS STREET AND TRAFFIC FUNDS.

AND THERE WILL BE SOME TRIP REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS.

THE PROJECT SCHEDULE HAS GONE THROUGH THE DESIGN COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2022.

WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE BID AND ADVERTISING AN AWARD TODAY.

THE PROJECT IS GOING TO RUN APPROXIMATELY 20 MONTHS.

THE PROJECT TOTAL FOR THE BASE BID IS 19.5 MILLION, WITH A 5% CONTINGENCY BRINGS IT TO APPROXIMATELY $20.5 MILLION.

AND TODAY'S REQUEST IS THAT WE ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO AWARD THE PROJECT TO MCCARTHY FOR THE BASE BID OF 19.5 WITH THE CONTINGENCY.

[04:45:01]

YEAH. I JUST WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND SO THAT I CAN COMMUNICATE.

THE EXISTING MAYHILL IS GOING TO STAY IN PLACE.

THE NEW MAYHILL WILL CONNECT AS THAT AS SIGNALED INTERCHANGE TO CONTROL THOSE TWO.

CORRECT. AND.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE EXISTING MAYHEM DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RAISED.

AND SO THE BRIDGE WILL BE AT THE LEVEL WHERE THE WHERE THAT FOUR WAY INTERSECTION, I GUESS IT'S A THREE WAY INTERSECTION IS NOW, IS THAT DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, THE CURRENT THREE WAY INTERSECTION AT COLORADO? YES. IF YOU WERE COMING FROM THE I-30 FIVE GOING NORTH, YOU COME TO THE T INTERSECTION.

IF YOU DON'T STOP AND KEEP GOING STRAIGHT, THAT WILL BE ALL EMBANKMENT.

IT'LL BE FILLED UP.

SO IT'LL BE A FOUR LEGGED INTERSECTION AT THAT INTERSECTION.

IT'LL CONTINUE HIGH ON GROUND, GOING OVER THE BRIDGE OVER TO AND THEN COME BACK TO GRADE NEAR QUAIL CREEK, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA, AND IT'LL RECONNECT BACK TO THE EXISTING MAYHILL.

RIGHT. SO THAT BUT THAT WHAT IS A THREE WAY WILL BECOME A FOUR WAY SIGNAL SIGNAL? YES, SIR. GOT IT. OH, SIR.

GOT IT. AND SIMILAR ON MAY HILL WHERE JOINS BACK.

CORRECT. THERE WILL BE A LITTLE LEG OF THE OLD MAYHILL THAT NEEDS TO RECONNECT TO IT.

THAT INTERSECTION WILL BE ALSO SIGNALIZED.

OKAY, SO WILL IT BE SET UP SO THAT THE TRAFFIC GOING NORTH, COMING OVER WHAT WOULD BE THE NEW BRIDGE AND MERGING IN? WILL THEY BE ABLE TO KEEP GOING? AND THEN IS IT A YIELD OR IT'LL BE A STOP CONTROL WITH THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SO THE NEW MAYHILL WILL CONTINUE STRAIGHT.

THAT'LL BE THE DOMINANT DRIVING PATTERN.

THE OLD MAYHILL WILL BE BASICALLY A A COLLECTOR ROAD AT THAT POINT, TYING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE OFF TO THE EAST AND CONNECTING THEM BACK TO MAYHILL. THEY'LL HAVE TWO OPTIONS TO GO EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH.

THEY CAN GO TO THE COLORADO INTERSECTION IF THEY'RE GOING TO EITHER 35 OR GO TO THIS NEW LITTLE PIECE THAT'LL CONNECT THEM TO THE NORTH.

GOT IT. OKAY.

AND IT'S THERE.

SO WHENEVER THAT PHASING AND ALL THOSE THINGS GO AND I'M SURE IT'S ALREADY PLANNED BECAUSE IT'S BID ON, BUT ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO GIVE LOTS OF PREFERENCE TO THOSE. CONTINUING ON MAYHILL VERSUS I KNOW IT'S THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? THE THE THE AND THE THE BAKERY AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS.

I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT, BUT WANT TO TRY TO KEEP THAT FLOWING, WHICH YOU PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW THAT BUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.

YES. YES.

TO THOSE OF US WHO GO THAT WAY EVERY MORNING FOR WORK.

I MEAN, IF IF I DON'T GET THERE THROUGH THERE BY 620, I CAN FORGET ABOUT IT.

THAT'S GOING TO ADD LITERALLY 20 MINUTES TO MY COMMUTE.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO DRIVE TRUCKS, PARTICULARLY THOSE COMING OUT OF THE BREAD COMPANY THERE WHO ARE GOING TO GO NORTH TO 380, IT'S TIGHT.

SO, YES, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TRACY OK.

COUNCILMAN BACK. I JUST HAVE TWO TRIVIAL QUESTIONS.

WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THE EXISTING RAILROAD CROSSING ON OLD MAY HILL? THAT'S JUST GOING TO STAY HOW IT IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PHASE.

THAT IS NOT ANY.

THERE WILL BE NO WORK DONE TO THAT INTERSECTION.

WE ARE LOOKING AT A PHASE THREE, MAYHILL, PHASE THREE, AND WE'RE TAKING INTO SOME OF THE LESSONS LEARNED THAT WE'RE WATCHING THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO DO TO THAT INTERSECTION, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER COMPONENTS THAT WOULD COMPLETE THIS PROJECT TO 35, SUCH AS IMPROVING SOME OF THE SIDEWALK TRAILS.

ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO REMOVE THAT CROSSING AS THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AND THERE'S NOT A CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK.

SO BY LEAVING THAT INTERSECTION, IT SAVED US SOME MONEY OF DISPOSABLE MONEY.

IF WE HAD DONE SOMETHING TO IT AND WE CAME BACK ANOTHER TIME, WE'D THROW THE MONEY AWAY.

SO WE DECIDED TO PULL THAT OUT OF A PHASE TWO AND CREATE THAT AS A SEPARATE PROJECT TO WORK A LITTLE BIT CLOSER WITH WHAT THE NEEDS ARE TO WATCH THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION.

BUT THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS CONSTRUCTION.

AND MY OTHER THANK YOU AND MY OTHER TRIVIA QUESTION IS IN THE PRESENTATION, SAID OLD MAY HILL.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S JUST A HOLDER, BUT ARE WE GOING TO NAME IT OLD MAY HILL FOR THAT LITTLE SIDE PIECE? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO NAME IT.

THE THE LEGACY OF THIS PROJECT RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE OLD, OLD MAYHILL AS A PLACEHOLDER.

OLD HILL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, BUT BUT THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO AND WORK WITH THE POST OFFICE, MAKE SURE WE GET THE GOOD NAME.

I DON'T LIKE I DON'T LIKE OLD MAYHILL.

THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING OLD MAYHILL.

THAT WAS THE OLD ALIGNMENT.

SO WE DON'T WANT TO CLUTTER THE AREA UP.

BUT ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WAS EDWARDS IS TO CONTINUE CONTINUE THE EDWARDS CORRIDOR THROUGH THERE.

AND COLORADO.

WE LOOKED AT COLORADO, BUT WE'LL WORK THAT OUT DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A GOOD DECISION THAT EMERGENCY SERVICES AND SUCH CAN GET TO IT.

[04:50:05]

THANK YOU SO MUCH. OK COMES FROM BYRD.

I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, OH, MAYHILL.

I THINK I'M GETTING READY TO START TALKING ABOUT OH MAYHILL.

BUT I AM RECOGNIZING DO WE NEED TO CALL IT SIDE PIECE? WE NEED THE RECIPES, BUT I'M RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S NOT FINISHED OUT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT? THE OLD MAYHILL. THE OLD MAYHILL IS AN EXISTING TOO.

EXACTLY. IT'S AN EXISTING TWO LANE ROAD.

AND PART OF THE COMPONENTS OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WHAT I DISCUSSED.

THE PHASE THREE IS TO REHABILITATE THAT SECTION THAT WILL BE PHASING, AND IT MAY NOT BE A FOUR LANE ROAD, BUT IT WILL BE DOING SOME WORK TO THAT.

WE'RE COORDINATING WITH THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT STREETS PEDESTRIAN NEEDS.

WE'RE KIND OF PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER.

THE EMPHASIS WAS TO GET THIS FOUR LANE SECTION IN PLACE.

AS COUNCILMAN MCGEE SAID, WE NEED THIS ROAD IN PLACE.

SO WE'VE GOT THE DRAINAGE COMPONENT THAT'S HIGH, THE CAPACITY FOR THE ROAD, AND THEN WE'RE COMING BACK AND BACKFILLING SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT WE'VE HEARD AS WE WERE MOVING FORWARD. I'VE ON THE MOBILITY COMMITTEE AND TEXTILE HAS ALREADY NOTED MY QUESTION FROM THIS NEW PART ON TO 35 TO 24 AND 99 COMPLETION.

THEY NOTED THAT THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE IN CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY START FIXING THAT OTHER PART, 24.99.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

I WOULD SAY I WOULD ASK FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MAYHILL PHASE THREE, THAT IT INCLUDE QUAIL CREEK.

I KNOW THAT'S JUST A UNIMPROVED ROAD RIGHT NOW, BUT TO HAVE THAT BE IMPROVED, TO GIVE US A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS TO THAT ENTIRE AREA AS GOING OUT ON BRINKER IS INCREASINGLY TOUGH AND GETTING THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION TO BE ABLE TO COME OUT SOMEWHERE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT CONNECTS. THAT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC, RIGHT? SO BUT JUST JUST TO ASK, AS WE LOOK AT PHASE THREE, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO THERE.

THE MOBILITY TEAM WILL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH OUR MOBILITY PLANNING TEAM TO LOOK AT WHAT'S NEEDED IN THAT AREA, TO MAKE THOSE INTERCONNECTIONS TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THAT PHASE THREE. THAT'S THE NEXT STEP IN OUR DISCUSSION, IS WORKING WITH THEM TO SEE WHAT THEY SEE IS NEEDED IN THE AREA BASED ON DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING IN.

THE MOBILITY PLAN. SO GREAT.

YEAH, AND I'M SURE FIRE WILL BE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.

AND THEN FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, YOU CAN TIP A TIP OF THE CAP.

WE CAN NAME WHATEVER STREET NEEDS TO BE RENAMED IN THAT SECTION.

DON LEE LANE THAT'S INSIDE JOKE, BUT OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.

IS THERE A IS THERE A MOTION? MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL.

COUNCILOR MCGEE SECOND.

SO MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. MAYOR PRO TEM, I SAY YOU, COUNCILOR MCGEE.

I COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

COUNCILMAN BURT, I.

COUNCILOR WATTS.

HI. MAYOR HUDSPETH AS WELL.

PASSES SIX ZERO.

THAT TAKES US TO OUR LAST ITEM BEFORE INDIVIDUAL.

[G. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with CONSOR Engineers, LLC, for construction project management and inspection services for the Mayhill Phase 2 Project as set forth in the contract; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (RFQ 7894-002 - professional services agreement for management and inspection services awarded to CONSOR Engineers, LLC, in the not-to-exceed amount of $701,289.08).]

SO WE HAVE ONE MORE, AND THAT'S ITEM G, WHICH IS ID 23173.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, A TEXAS HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CONCER ENGINEERS LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES OF MAYHILL PHASE TWO PROJECT. AND FORGIVE ME IF I SAID THEIR NAME WRONG.

I SAY IT THE EXACT SAME WAY.

OK MAYOR AND COUNCILPERSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO.

THREE TIMES IN A ROW.

I GOT THE ZOOM WORKING GREAT.

AND THIS IS THE SAME PROJECT WE JUST DISCUSSED A MOMENT AGO.

SO WE DISCUSSED THE CONSTRUCTION.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO ROLL INTO THE INSPECTIONS.

THAT PROJECT IS A $20 MILLION PROJECT THAT INCLUDES THE MAYHILL.

PHASE TWO, INCLUDES A VERY SIGNIFICANT BRIDGE GOING OVER THE TRACKS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS TASKING WITH US IS HOW DO WE GET THE INSPECTIONS THAT WE NEED WHEN A BRIDGE GETS UNDERWAY, YOU NEED A FULL TEAM OF INSPECTION WORK AS WELL AS THE SKILLS AND TO KEEP OUR STAFF FREED UP.

WE LOOKED AT THE OPTIONS OF USING EXTERNAL INSPECTIONS FOR THIS TEAM AND WE DECIDED IT WAS A GOOD SOLUTION.

WE USED OUR PRE QUALIFIED LIST AND WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE PROVIDED AND SOME OF THE BENEFITS THAT WE'LL GET FROM THIS CONTRACT ARE GOING TO BE FULL TIME SERVICE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR, PLUS A SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR, PLUS A SUPPORTING ENGINEER THAT CAN HELP US ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR THAT AND BEYOND.

WHAT WE WOULD ALSO SEE WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE DISPUTE CLAIM SUPPORT.

[04:55:01]

WE'LL HAVE RECORD KEEPING USING PRO CORPS JUST THAT PASSED AS WELL TONIGHT.

AND THEN THE SERVICES FROM PRE CONSTRUCTION ALL THE WAY CRADLE TO GRAVE, ALL THE WAY THROUGH CONSTRUCTION.

SO THIS IS A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO USE OUR PRE QUALIFIED LIST FOR INSPECTIONS.

WE WENT THROUGH FIVE VENDORS APPLIED CANCER WAS THE LOW THE HIGHEST SCORE I KEEP SAYING THE LOWEST BID.

I'M SO PAST THE IFB WITH SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.

WE ARE LOOKING AT QUALITY, WE'RE LOOKING AT SKILLS.

AND AS TREVOR POINTED OUT EARLIER, WE TAKE A REALLY SERIOUS LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE QUALIFICATIONS.

THERE'S NO ONE BEST CONTRACTOR INSPECTIONS FOR ANYONE.

SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE BEST FIT FOR THE PROJECT.

SO WITH OUR SCORE OF 91 OUT OF 100, WE FELT THE ARKANSAS WAS THE BEST THERE.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS CAME BACK AT 704,000.

THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS ARE ALL THE REGIONAL TOLL REVENUE, THE RTR FUNDS.

THE SCHEDULE OF THE PROJECT IS SUPPOSED TO START AS SOON AS THE CONSTRUCTION STARTS AGAIN CRADLE TO GRAVE AND WILL CONTINUE 20 MONTHS THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.

SO TONIGHT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE TO FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO CONSIDER FOR THE AMOUNT OF 704,000.

ANY QUESTIONS? GREAT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

OH, AND CAN WE PULL DOWN THE PRESS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PERFECT. THEY GOT IT.

YEAH. ANY.

ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS, SECOND MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I SAY YOU, COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE I COUNCILMAN BYRD.

COUNCILMAN WATTS.

MAYOR HUDSPETH IS THE EYES WELL PASSED A60.

THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.

THANK YOU. GREAT JOB. THANK YOU.

TAKES US TO OUR CONCLUDING ITEMS.

[6. CONCLUDING ITEM(S)]

I HAVE SOME GREAT NEWS.

I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH KEN AND BOB AND MARGARET FROM BETH MARIE'S.

AND WE NOW HAVE A CITY OF DENTON ICE CREAM O CALLED DENTON, NORTH OF ORDINARY.

IT'S SERIOUSLY.

AND IT'S GOT PECANS.

IT HAS VANILLA ICE CREAM WITH CHOCOLATE SWIRL.

IT HAS RUM SOAKED CHERRY CHIPS.

NOT ENOUGH TO CHOCOLATE SHAVINGS AND BUTTER.

BRICKELL. AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY DELICIOUS.

ABSOLUTELY DELICIOUS, WHICH YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO TASTE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BRING SOME TO A COUNCIL COMING UP.

BUT WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL DENTON ICE CREAM AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE HOPEFULLY SELLING IT ACROSS THE STATE.

EXCELLENT. THAT IS GREAT NEWS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THEY ALREADY SELLING IT, BUT THEY'RE MAKING IT NOW.

WE'RE HAVING A DIRECTORS RETREAT ON THURSDAY, AND I'M ACTUALLY BRINGING A BOX TO LET THE DIRECTORS TRY.

BUT I'M TELLING YOU, MONICA AND I TASTE TESTED IT, AND IT WAS SO GOOD.

I HAD THREE CUPS.

I DON'T REALLY WANT TO BROADCAST THIS, BUT I JUST DID.

BUT IT'S DELICIOUS. IT'S JUST DELICIOUS.

AND IT'S WORKING WITH THEM.

AND. AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG SELLER.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO TEST THAT.

THAT'S. YEAH. YEAH. I APPRECIATE YOU.

DO WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ICE CREAM? YEAH. MAYOR PRO TEM? YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT I'M TOLD THE WEATHER IS SUCH THAT WE'VE GOT SLEET, SNOW, FREEZING NASTINESS.

SO EVERYBODY LEAVING HERE, PLEASE BE CAREFUL.

EVERYBODY DRIVING AROUND. PLEASE BE CAREFUL.

TAKE PRECAUTIONS.

OKAY? CATHERINE DAVIS.

I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE RUM SOAKED CHERRY CHIPS REPRESENT IN THAT ICE CREAM, BUT NO, JUST KIDDING.

A COUPLE OF FANTASTIC EVENTS THIS WEEKEND.

DIDN'T BLACK FILM FESTIVAL KICKS OFF.

THAT IS A PREMIER EVENT.

IF YOU HAVEN'T PARTICIPATED IN THAT BEFORE, CHECK IT OUT.

THERE REALLY IS SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY.

AND THEN ALSO UNITED WAY TRIBUTE GALA, DANCING WITH OUR STARS IS THIS WEEKEND.

THERE'S STILL TICKETS AND TABLES AVAILABLE.

GUY AND COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

THANK, MR. MAYOR. I, TOO, WANTED TO LIFT UP UNITED WAY.

DANCING WITH THE STARS. SATURDAY NIGHT.

IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT EVENT.

I'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE COMING.

SHOUT OUT TO MY ONE OF MY MENTORS, THE MAYOR OF LITTLE ELM, WHO WAS COMPETING, LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING HIM AND ALSO HIGHLIGHTING MY AUNT'S BIRTHDAY COMING UP.

SO HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AUNT.

OK ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE. I'LL JUST.

YEAH. SO DIDN'T BLACK THEM.

FEST IS GREAT. SO I HAD THAT AS WELL.

I DIDN'T DIDN'T COUNTY UNITED WAY.

NOT ONLY DO THEY HAVE THE GALA BUT ALSO IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO LATE TO HELP WITH THE DENTON COUNTY POINT IN TIME COUNT AND JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT

[05:00:02]

AND WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT DECIDES WHAT THE FUNDING THEY WILL GET FOR FOR TO SERVE THE UNHOUSED COMMUNITY.

THEY GO BY THAT ONE POINT, THAT ONE DATA POINT THAT ONE DAY.

SO IT'S CRITICAL THAT THEY THEY GO OUT AND THEY ACCOUNT FOR EVERYONE SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO TO SERVE THAT THAT UNHOUSED COMMUNITY.

SO THAT'S THAT'S REALLY CRITICAL IF YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO GO TO THE DENTON COUNTY UNITED WAY WEBSITE AND SIGN UP OR VOLUNTEER FOR ANY SEGMENT OF TIME OR ANYTHING TO HELP WITH THAT, IT REALLY MAKES A BIG IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY.

AND THEN LASTLY, OUR OUR END WITH BROTHER CLIFTON MAXWELL.

HE OWNS PEOPLE'S FUNERAL HOME.

HIS BIRTHDAY'S ROLLING AROUND THIS WEEKEND.

AND SO I WANT TO WISH BROTHER MAXWELL A HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

OUTSTANDING GUY, OUTSTANDING.

PART OF OUR COMMUNITY SERVES OUR COMMUNITY WELL.

AND HE'S HE'S A REALLY CLOSE FRIEND.

SO WITH THAT, WE WILL CONCLUDE AT 737.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.