[A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Audit Project 036 - Public Safety Communications. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

ITEM A ID 232057.

RECEIVE REPORT. HOLD A DISCUSSION.

GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING AUDIT PROJECT 036 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS.

HELLO, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M MADISON RORSCHACH DENTON, CITY AUDITOR.

I'M HERE TO PRESENT OUR FINDINGS FROM THE AUDIT OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH GENERALLY EVALUATED THE CITY'S 911 CALL RESPONSE PROCESS.

SO TO BEGIN, THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION IS THE FIRST POINT OF CONTACT FOR PEOPLE CALLING 911 FOR EMERGENCY HELP IN THE CITIES OF DENTON AND LITTLE ELM.

OVER THE PAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS, CALLS TO THE DIVISION TO THE DIVISION HAVE ALMOST DOUBLED DUE TO POPULATION GROWTH AND THE ADDITION OF LITTLE ELM TO ITS SERVICE AREA.

SPECIFICALLY, THIS AUDIT EVALUATED THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CITY'S UH, EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CITY'S 911 CALL RESPONSE, AS WELL AS COMPLIANCE WITH TELECOMMUTER COMMUNICATOR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

IN ADDITION, THE AUDIT WAS INTENDED TO ASSESS SUPPORT RESOURCES FOR THE DIVISION'S TELECOMMUNICATORS, BUT RELATED AUDIT FIELD WORK WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THIS REPORT. FOR THAT REASON, A SEPARATE MEMO WILL BE SENT TO THE CITY MANAGEMENT WITH INFORMATION RELATED TO THIS OBJECTIVE, BUT NO CONCLUSIONS WILL BE DRAWN.

SO FIRST I'LL DISCUSS 911 CALL ANSWERING TIMELINESS IN GENERAL 911 CALL RESPONSE.

TIMELINESS IS HIGHLY REGULATED BY SEVERAL STANDARD SETTING BODIES.

911 CALL RESPONSE TIMELINESS CAN GENERALLY BE BROKEN INTO TWO PIECES.

ONE THE TIME TO ANSWER A CALL AND TWO THE TIME TO DISPATCH NEEDED UNITS, WHICH INCLUDES THE TIME IT TAKES TO ANSWER THE CALL.

SPECIFICALLY, INDUSTRY STANDARD STANDARDS REQUIRE 90% OF 911 CALLS TO BE ANSWERED WITHIN 15 SECONDS, AND 95% OF CALLS TO BE ANSWERED WITHIN 20S.

IN ADDITION, ALL FIRE CALLS SHOULD BE DISPATCHED WITHIN 60S.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO INDUSTRY TIMELINESS STANDARDS FOR DISPATCHING POLICE CALLS DUE TO THEIR VARIABILITY.

BASED ON OUR REVIEW, WE FOUND THAT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2022 AND AUGUST 2023, CALL ANSWERING TIMELINESS STANDARDS WERE MET UM, EXCEPT IN AUGUST OF 2023 DUE TO STAFFING ISSUES.

IN ADDITION, DURING THAT PERIOD, UH FIRE CALLS FOR BOTH DENTON AND LITTLE ELM WERE DISPATCHED IN UNDER 60S IN ALIGNMENT WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS.

WHILE THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR DISPATCHING POLICE CALLS, THE DIVISION HAS ESTABLISHED GOALS TO DISPATCH PRIORITY ONE CALLS, SUCH AS BURGLARIES AND BURGLARIES AND PROGRESS KIDNAPINGS AND SUICIDES WITHIN 60S, AND PRIORITY TWO CALLS SUCH AS DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES, HIT AND RUNS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT WITHIN 100 AND 80S OR THREE MINUTES.

BASED ON OUR REVIEW, THE PRIORITY ONE GOAL WAS NOT MET FOR EITHER DENTON OR LITTLE ELM, WHILE THE PRIORITY TWO GOAL WAS MET FOR LITTLE ELM, BUT NOT DENTON.

UH, ACCORDING TO STAFF, THESE GOALS ARE NOT BEING MET DUE TO POLICE OFFICERS NOT ALWAYS BEING AVAILABLE.

SPECIFICALLY, ABOUT HALF OF DENTON'S PRIORITY ONE CALLS AND 15% OF PRIORITY TWO CALLS IN AUGUST OF 2023 COULD NOT BE DISPATCHED IMMEDIATELY DUE TO OFFICER AVAILABILITY.

STILL, FOR LITTLE ELM, NO PRIORITY ONE CALLS WERE HELD AND ONLY 3% OF PRIORITY TWO CALLS HAD TO BE HELD OVER THE SAME TIME PERIOD, YET THE PRIORITY ONE GOAL WAS STILL NOT MET.

THIS COMPARISON INDICATES THAT ADDITIONAL OFFICERS COULD HELP TO DECREASE THE TIME IT TAKES TO DISPATCH PRIORITY TWO GOALS OR CALLS, BUT IT'S NOT LIKELY TO AID WITH DECREASING THE TIME IT TAKES TO DISPATCH PRIORITY ONE CALLS.

FOR THIS REASON, WE'VE RECOMMENDED THAT THE POLICE DISPATCHING TIMELINESS GOALS BE EVALUATED PERIODICALLY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE FEASIBLE, AS WELL AS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE.

UH. BASED ON THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED NOT TO CHANGE THE DISPATCH GOAL AT THIS TIME.

HOWEVER, THEY DO INTEND TO REEVALUATE THEM ANNUALLY.

WE ALSO FOUND THAT ABOUT 14% OF ALL EMERGENCY CALLS ARE ABANDONED, MEANING THE CALLER HANGS UP BEFORE THE CALL CAN BE ANSWERED.

[00:10:04]

ABOUT 90% OF THOSE CALLS ARE RETURNED, AS REQUIRED BY DIVISION POLICY, ACCORDING TO DIVISION MANAGEMENT.

THE REMAINING 10% ARE LIKELY FROM REPEAT CALLERS OR NUMBERS THAT WERE MALFUNCTIONING.

UH. HOWEVER, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT THE DIVISION REVIEW ABANDONED CALLS MONTHLY TO ENSURE THAT ALL PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP ARE RECEIVING IT BASED ON THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSE.

THE DIVISION WILL RECEIVE AND REVIEW A REPORT OF ABANDONED CALLS EACH MONTH GOING FORWARD.

NEXT, TO BE EFFECTIVE BEST PRACTICES RECOMMEND THAT PROCEDURES BE DEVELOPED TO ENSURE COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION IS OBTAINED FROM 911 CALLERS AND TRANSFERRED TO FIRST RESPONDERS, INCLUDING DEVELOPING DETAILED PROTOCOLS AND EVEN CALL SCRIPTS.

IN ADDITION, LIKE OTHER TYPES OF CALL CENTERS, PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINTS SHOULD HAVE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS WHEREBY ACTUAL CALLS ARE REVIEWED IN DETAIL BY A SUPERVISOR TO DETERMINE IF THE PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED.

BASED ON OUR REVIEW, THE DIVISION HAS ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC CALL ANSWERING PROTOCOLS FOR DIFFERENT CALL TYPES TO GUIDE STAFF AND OBTAINING COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION.

IN ADDITION, WHILE CALL SCRIPTS HAVE GENERALLY NOT BEEN DEVELOPED TO ALLOW STAFF FLEXIBILITY, SCRIPTS MUST BE USED FOR EXTREMELY HIGH RISK CALLS, INCLUDING THOSE WHERE MEDICAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE GIVEN AND ACTIVE SHOOTER SITUATIONS.

THE CITY'S COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH, OR CAD SYSTEM, ALSO INCLUDES TOOLS TO HELP COMMUNICATE, TELECOMMUNICATORS, GATHER AND COMMUNICATE INFORMATION TO FIRST RESPONDERS.

IN ADDITION, THE DIVISION HAS IMPLEMENTED POLICIES THAT REQUIRE AT LEAST 25 MEDICAL CALLS TOTAL AND ONE NON-MEDICAL CALL PER TELECOMMUNICATOR TO BE REVIEWED FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE EACH MONTH. MEDICAL CALL QUALITY REVIEWS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR, ABOUT, OR FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS, AND ARE CONDUCTED BY A CITY CONTRACTOR WHO PROVIDES MONTHLY COMPLIANCE REPORTS. BETWEEN AUGUST 2022 AND AUGUST 2023, WE WERE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT AT LEAST 25 MEDICAL CALLS WERE REVIEWED FOR NINE OF THOSE 13 MONTHS.

REPORTING DIFFICULTIES MADE IT CHALLENGING TO CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF REVIEWS PERFORMED FOR THE REMAINING FOUR MONTHS.

STILL, WE FOUND THAT MEDICAL CALL QUALITY COMPLIANCE RATES HAVE GENERALLY BEEN IMPROVING OVER THAT PERIOD, DESPITE NON-COMPLIANT CALL RATES REMAINING STEADY.

ON THE OTHER HAND, NON-MEDICAL CALL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS WERE GENERALLY NOT PERFORMED UNTIL SEPTEMBER OF 2023 DUE TO STAFFING SHORTAGES IN THE DIVISION, SPECIFICALLY DUE TO HIGH VACANCY RATES.

SUPERVISORS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN REQUIRED TO ANSWER AND DISPATCH CALLS, TAKING TIME AWAY FROM IMPLEMENTING AND CARRYING OUT THE NON-MEDICAL CALL QUALITY REVIEW PROGRAM.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FIGURE ON THE SLIDE, VACANCY RATES HAVE BEEN DECREASING OVER THE LAST YEAR, ALLOWING SUPERVISORS TO SHIFT THEIR FOCUS BACK TO CALL QUALITY ASSURANCE.

FOR THIS REASON, WE'VE RECOMMENDED THAT THIS PROGRAM BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED AND OPTIONS TO TRACK INDIVIDUAL TELECOMMUNICATOR QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS OVER TIME BE EXPLORED BASED ON THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSE. THE DIVISION INTENDS TO CONTINUE THIS IMPLEMENTATION AND IS LOOKING INTO A SOFTWARE TO ALLOW SUPERVISORS TO TRACK CALL QUALITY PERFORMANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS, HOPEFULLY ALLOWING THEM TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS REPEAT QUALITY ISSUES IN THE FUTURE.

LASTLY, DUE TO THE COMPLEX AND FAST PACED NATURE OF PUBLIC SAFETY CALL TAKING AND DISPATCHING, IT'S CRITICAL THAT TELECOMMUNICATORS RECEIVE ADEQUATE TRAINING, INCLUDING EDUCATION ON PUBLIC SAFETY, ANSWERING POINT PROTOCOLS AND AREAS OF SERVICE.

TO HELP ENSURE THIS, THE STATE OF TEXAS REQUIRES ALL THOSE WORKING AS TELECOMMUNICATORS TO BE LICENSED AND TO COMPLETE CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSES.

BASED ON OUR REVIEW, WE FOUND THAT THE CITY'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION HAS DEVELOPED A COMPREHENSIVE NEW EMPLOYEE TRAINING TRAINING PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES HANDS ON TRAINING AND EDUCATION COURSES REQUIRED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S ACCREDITATION STANDARDS.

COMPLETION OF THIS TRAINING PROGRAM IS GENERALLY WELL DOCUMENTED, AND ALL REQUIRED TRAINING WAS COMPLETED FOR TEN NEW EMPLOYEES FROM THE PAST TWO YEARS.

BASED ON TEN EXISTING EMPLOYEE TRAINING RECORDS, ALL REQUIRED CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSEWORK WAS COMPLETED FOR THE MOST RECENT TWO YEAR CYCLE, AND IN ADDITION, ALL 20 REVIEWED EMPLOYEES MAINTAIN THEIR CPR CERTIFICATIONS DURING THAT PERIOD.

SO IN SUMMARY, WE ISSUED FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, THREE OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT AGREED WITH AND ONE THEY PARTIALLY AGREED WITH.

BASED ON THIS RESPONSE, WE BELIEVE THE IDENTIFIED RISKS WILL BE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED AND WILL CONTINUE A FOLLOW UP REVIEW.

UH, CONDUCT A FOLLOW UP REVIEW IN THE NEXT 18 TO 36 MONTHS.

QUESTIONS ON THIS AUDIT.

GREAT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

UH COUNCILWOMAN. MELTZER.

THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION, I COULDN'T SEE A WHOLE LOT OF DAYLIGHT BETWEEN THE RECOMMENDATION AND THE NEXT STEPS, BUT IT SAID PARTIAL AGREEMENT.

JUST WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE DISAGREEMENT? UH, I WELL, I THINK THE NATURE IS THAT THEY FEEL THAT THE GOAL, THE TIMELINESS GOALS ARE ADEQUATE, ARE ADEQUATE RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY DO AGREE THAT THEY WILL REEVALUATE THEM PERIODICALLY IN THE FUTURE.

DOES THAT ANSWER IT? YEAH.

THAT DOES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR HOLLAND? THANK YOU.

UM. SO WE'RE WE'RE DOWN POLICE OFFICERS AND 911 DISPATCHERS.

RIGHT. UH, I WE DID NOT THE AUDIT DID NOT COVER, UH, POLICE OFFICER STAFFING LEVELS.

BUT IT IS TRUE THAT THERE THE 911 DISPATCHERS ARE NOT COMPLETELY STAFFED AT THIS TIME.

AND WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE PROJECTION OF THAT? THE IS THAT IS THAT GOING TO GET FIXED.

[00:15:01]

IS IT TRENDING DOWNWARD.

WHAT WHERE ARE WE.

VACANCY RATES ARE TRENDING OR DECREASING.

SO IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE HIRING AND CONTINUING TO KEEP PEOPLE, UM, BETTER THAN THEY HAVE IN THE PAST.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SURE.

OKAY, SURE.

UH. OKAY.

ABANDONED CALLS.

UH, THE OPERATOR CALLS BACK.

DO THEY CALL BACK ONE TIME? UH, I BELIEVE IT'S ONE TIME.

UH, I'D HAVE TO, UH, DEFER.

AND I WONDER WHAT PERCENT.

UH, THERE THERE IS A CONTACT MADE ON THE CALL BACK.

UM, I'D HAVE TO GO LOOK AT THE DATA.

I BELIEVE THAT THEY TRACK THAT.

I JUST WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK.

OKAY. UM, DOES DOES 911 EVER GET ANY INAPPROPRIATE CALLS? I, I DON'T, I DON'T YEAH, I DEFER TO THIS I'M SURE.

BUT I JUST WONDER HOW MANY AND AND, UH.

AND HOW ARE THOSE HANDLED, PLEASE? UM, WE GET NUMEROUS INAPPROPRIATE, NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS.

YES, NUMEROUS. DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE CALLER.

YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE A ANGER ISSUE OR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE OR A CONFUSION ISSUE, IT DEPENDS ON HOW WE HANDLE IT.

IF THEY'RE REQUESTING OFFICERS, WE PUT THE CALL IN, WE DISPATCH OFFICERS.

WE LET THE OFFICERS HANDLE IT ON SCENE.

UM, SOME OF THOSE REPEAT CALLERS THAT SHE REFERS TO COULD BE WHAT WE REFER TO AS MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMER.

WE DO HAVE THE INITIAL CALL IN.

WE'RE DISPATCHING THEM. WE'RE SENDING OFFICERS OUT THERE.

BUT THEN THEY REPEATEDLY CALL THAT CAN OCCUR WHEN THEY CALL OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

IS THERE A IS THERE AN INDUSTRY.

AND I USE THAT FIRM APPLYING TO 911 OPERATORS SOMETHING SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO TO MINIMIZE THAT OR HAND THOSE KIND OF CALLS OFF TO, TO, TO, TO SOMEBODY ELSE THAT THAT MIGHT BE BETTER NEEDED ON THE FRONT LINE.

BUT NOT REALLY. NOT REALLY AN INDUSTRY STANDARD.

IT'S SO GRAY AS, AS AS FAR AS WHAT THEIR REQUEST IS, WHAT THEIR NEED IS.

UM, WE DO HAVE SPECIALLY TRAINED OFFICERS ON THE OTHER SIDE IN PATROL TO HANDLE, UM, THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.

UH, WE HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION, ETC.

ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THIS AUDIT, BUT THAT HANDLED THOSE TYPE OF CALLS.

I GUESS YOU'D SAY THERE'S NOT REALLY AN INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR IT AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. SO OKAY.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.

YOU DIDN'T SEE ME COMING. DOUG SHOEMAKER, CHIEF OF POLICE FOR CITY OF DENTON.

UM, JUST JUST TO KIND OF PUT THIS IN CONTEXT SOMEWHAT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT GENERALLY 911 CALLS, I MEAN, 911 IS WHAT EVERYBODY CALLS WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW WHO TO CALL. SO LITERALLY ANYTHING FROM, YOU KNOW, MY BASEMENTS FLOODING, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHO TO REACH OUT TO, TO.

THERE'S SOMEBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT OR WHATEVER IN BETWEEN.

YOU KNOW, OUR OUR FIRST FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ARE THE ONES THAT GET THOSE CALLS.

SO IT CAN RANGE, UM, QUITE THE GAMUT.

AND THEN THEY HAVE TO ASSESS WHAT THE ACTUAL PROBLEM IS IN BETWEEN.

UM, FROM THE TIME THEY TAKE THE CALL TO THE TIME THEY DISPATCH THE CALL.

SO IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE A FIRE, EMS OR POLICE CALL.

IT MIGHT BE A DIRECT REFERRAL TO SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER.

AND THAT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO ACCURATELY ASSESS.

SO THEY HEAR AND AND REALLY SEE IT ALL I SUPPOSE.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU CHIEF.

YES. THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE. THANK YOU MAYOR.

UM, MR. CITY AUDITOR, WELL DONE AS ALWAYS.

I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION.

UM, ON BACK ON SLIDE THREE.

UH, AND THIS COULD BE FOR DOCTOR SHOEMAKER.

ANYONE. UM, TALKING ABOUT, UM, THAT THE GOALS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED RECENTLY.

IS THERE AN INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR HOW OFTEN GOALS SHOULD BE EVALUATED? THESE GOALS, POLICE DISPATCH CALL SHOULD BE EVALUATED.

UM, WHOSE JOB IS THAT? LIKE AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? ANY TRACKING ON WHY IT WASN'T DONE? YOU KNOW, JUST GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

UM, IN GENERAL, THERE ARE NOT INDUSTRY STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THE POLICE ON GOAL EVALUATION.

WHEN WE LOOK AT GOALS IN GENERAL, LOOKING AT KPIS, METRICS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU SHOULD GENERALLY EVALUATE THEM ANNUALLY.

THAT'S WHERE WE CAME UP WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION.

RIGHT. UM, AND THEN I THINK IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THEY HAD A GOAL.

IT WASN'T NECESSARILY WRITTEN DOWN.

SO IT WASN'T NECESSARILY THAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT IT EVERY DAY OR THAT IT WAS IN POLICY TO REEVALUATE IT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SURE. YEAH.

SO WHO WHOSE JOB FUNCTION WOULD THAT BE? I BELIEVE IT'S MANAGEMENT.

THE THE MANAGEMENT'S JOB.

UH, PROBABLY IN, YOU KNOW, UH, DISPATCHERS MANAGEMENT IN, UH, CONVERSATION WITH POLICE MANAGEMENT TO, TO REEVALUATE TO EVALUATE THAT AND DECIDE WHAT'S FEASIBLE AND WHAT'S WHAT THEY LIKE.

WANT. YOU CAN SPEAK IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.

UM, YEAH.

SO TO SPEAK. MORE TO THAT, I GUESS THAT'S A TWOFOLD ANSWER.

MORE SPECIFICALLY, UM, IN TERMS OF OUR OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY, BOTH IN OUR DISPATCH CENTER AND ON THE SWORN SIDE, THE OFFICERS, THE WOMEN AND MEN YOU SEE OUT IN UNIFORM.

[00:20:02]

THE PRIMARY GOAL IS TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN FIRST AND FOREMOST WITHIN BOTH AREAS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BEEN A CHALLENGE GIVEN A NUMBER OF FACTORS.

I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS.

SO THAT'S KIND OF PHASE ONE.

THE SECOND PHASE WILL FALL INTO HOW WE PLAN OUT OUR GOALS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AND ESTABLISH A STRATEGIC PLAN.

SO AS WE LOOK AT EVERY PERFORMANCE FACTOR, THE AMOUNT OF UNCOMMITTED TIME, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT PEACE OFFICERS HAVE OUT ON THE STREET, THAT THEY'RE NOT TAKING CALLS FOR SERVICE, THAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE INITIATING A CALL, WHETHER THAT'S WALKING THROUGH A PARK OR GOING INTO A SCHOOL AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

WE WANT TO TRY AND INCREASE THAT NON-COMMITTED TIME THAT THEY HAVE TO GO OUT AND PERFORM THOSE COMMUNITY POLICING TYPES OF DUTIES.

THE SAME APPLIES REALLY, IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF, OF OF AVAILABILITY FOR THE CALLS FROM DISPATCH.

UM, IT WAS NOTED EARLIER ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PRIORITY ONE CALLS.

IF THE OFFICERS AREN'T AVAILABLE, THEY CAN'T DISPATCH THEM.

YEAH. UM, WE'RE WORKING ON IT AND I THINK WE'RE MAKING SOME PROGRESS, BUT, UH, THAT'S THAT'S PHASE ONE RIGHT NOW.

I LIKE THAT DIRECTION.

THANK YOU, DOCTOR SCHUMER. THANK YOU MAYOR.

YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. SEEING NONE. THANK YOU MADISON.

THANK YOU CHIEF. AND SUZANNE TAKES US TO ITEM B, ID 231575.

[B. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the Final Wastewater Master Plan. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 45 minutes]]

RECEIVE, REPORT, HOLD DISCUSSION AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN.

GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M KYLE PEDIGO.

I'M THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING MANAGER FOR WATER UTILITIES.

I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THE THIRD UPDATE ON OUR WASTEWATER WASTEWATER MASTER PLANNING PROJECT.

AND THIS WILL BE THE FINAL UPDATE BEFORE WE SEEK ADOPTION.

SO FIRST WE'LL GO THROUGH THE PHASING AND GROWTH PROJECTIONS.

AND THEN WE'LL COVER THE FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, UH, FOCUSED IN THE HICKORY CREEK BASIN AND THE CLEAR CREEK BASIN.

AND FINALLY, WE'LL GO OVER OUR PROPOSED NEXT STEPS.

SO HERE'S OUR PHASING AND GROWTH CHART.

UM, THAT SHOWS THE 0 TO 5 YEAR WINDOW WITH A PROJECTED 8.1% POPULATION GROWTH, BRINGING OUR TOTAL UP TO TWO OR JUST OVER 223,000 RESIDENTS.

HERE'S THE 5 TO 10 YEAR WINDOW SHOWING THAT GROWTH LEVELING OFF TO 3.5% TO BRING OUR TOTAL TO JUST OVER 265,000.

AND THEN HERE'S THE 10 TO 25 YEAR PLANNING WINDOW, SHOWING THAT LEVELING OFF FURTHER TO A 2% GROWTH RATE.

UM, TOTALING IN AT 357,400 RESIDENTS.

SO THIS IS THE DATA THAT WE PRESENTED IN MAY OF 2023.

AND OUR LAST UPDATE, UM, THAT HAD THE CONVEYANCE FOR THE HICKORY CREEK BASIN AT JUST AT 151 MILLION.

THE TREATMENT PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THE HICKORY CREEK BASIN AT 423 MILLION FOR A $574 MILLION TOTAL.

AND HERE IS OUR CURRENT MODEL THAT SHOWS OUR CONVEYANCE.

UM, A SMALL INCREASE IN THE CONVEYANCE TO 164 MILLION, BUT REMOVAL OF THAT HICKORY CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT FROM THE FIVE YEAR PLANNING WINDOW. SO THAT REDUCED, UH, OUR TOTAL IN THE HICKORY CREEK BASIN TO $164 MILLION.

THIS WAS FROM MAY OF THIS YEAR FOR THE CLEAR CREEK BASIN, WHICH SHOWED OUR CONVEYANCE AT 142 MILLION.

UM, OUR TREATMENT FACILITY, THE PROPOSED CLEAR CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT AT 109 MILLION, FOR A TOTAL IN THAT BASIN OF $251 MILLION OF IMPROVEMENTS.

UM, VERY SMALL CHANGES ON THIS.

UH, WE REDUCED THE CONVEYANCE.

UM, ADDED A SLIGHT INCREASE TO THE TREATMENT FOR A TOTAL OF $233 MILLION.

WE REDUCED THE LATERALS TO THE SOUTH OF THAT LINE.

UM, THOSE CAN BE DEVELOPED OR DELIVERED BY THE DEVELOPERS AS GROWTH IN THAT AREA CONTINUES.

SO HERE'S THE SUMMARY.

UM, WHEN WE STARTED THIS EFFORT IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR FOR THE TOTAL 25 YEAR WINDOW, WE WERE RIGHT AT ABOUT $1.62 BILLION IN TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THAT TIME. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE REDUCED OUR FOCUS TO THE FIVE YEAR, UM, PLAN.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAY AND DECEMBER NUMBERS, WHERE WE REDUCED THAT FURTHER, UM, FROM $825 MILLION TOTAL TO $397 MILLION.

SO FOR OUR NEXT STEPS NOW, UM, WILL BE TO SUBMIT THIS FOR APPROVAL THROUGH UH, FOR THROUGH PUB UM, GET IT ON CITY COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA FOR ADOPTION.

[00:25:01]

AND THEN ONCE IT IS ADOPTED, USE THIS IN OUR IMPACT FEE STUDY AND UPDATE.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I APPRECIATE THE THE TIME AVENUE EDITS.

AS YOU AS YOU AS YOU ADJUST YOUR 20 YEAR PLAN INTO DIGESTIBLE PHASES.

UM, CAN I TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT THE, THE THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE NOT IN THE FIVE YEAR PLAN, WILL THEY BE IN THE TEN OR THE 15? WHERE WHERE WILL THEY FALL IN THE FUTURE PHASES.

SO CERTAIN ELEMENTS WILL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HICKORY CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT THAT WE REMOVED FROM THAT FIVE YEAR WINDOW, THAT WILL LIKELY END UP JUST OUTSIDE THAT FIVE YEAR WINDOW AND THE TEN YEAR WINDOW.

UM, AND THAT SO IT WILL STILL BE NEEDED.

THAT CAPACITY WILL STILL BE NEEDED.

BUT THROUGH THE STUDY, AS WE LOOKED AT THE GROWTH PROJECTIONS, GROWTH PROJECTIONS, FLOWS IN THAT AREA.

UM, WE CAN HANDLE THAT AREA THROUGH THE EXISTING PECAN CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT.

AND TO EXTEND THAT, UM, EXTEND THE TIME FRAME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.

OKAY. SO I GUESS KNOWING THAT AND IT'S EXACTLY WHERE MY, MY, UH, NOT NOT CONCERNED, BUT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UH, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, UH, MAKE A DECISION ON A WATER TREATMENT PLANT SAYING YOU'RE SIX AND THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID, BUT YOU JUST SAID EARLIER IN THE, IN THE, IN THE TEN YEAR PLAN.

UM, WHAT DO WE DO? WE HAVE AN IDEA FOR, UH, WHAT THE THE YEAR OVER YEAR COST INCREASES, SOME OF SOME OF THE OTHER CONVEYANCES AND EVERYTHING HAD COST INCREASES ASSOCIATED MERELY WITH GOING FROM MAY TO DECEMBER.

AND SO I'M, I'M, I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS WHAT IS THE PRO CON OF SLIGHTLY KICKING THE CAN INTO THE NEXT PHASE IN TERMS OF COST. WELL, FOR FOR A PROJECT OF THAT SIZE WITH THE, THE ALL OF THE TECHNOLOGY NEEDED FOR THE TREATMENT PROCESS, WHEN YOU GET OUTSIDE OF THAT FIVE YEAR WINDOW, YOUR, YOUR PRICE PROJECTIONS REALLY DON'T HOLD UP.

SO WITH THE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE WAY THAT WE'VE SEEN INFLATION GOING EVEN FROM 2019 TO NOW, UM, WITH THE PRICE OF THOSE TREATMENT PROCESSES, WE CAN PROJECT IT AND PROJECT THOSE COSTS.

BUT IT'S BY THE TIME YOU GET PAST THAT FIVE YEAR WINDOW, THEY'RE NOT VERY ACCURATE.

OKAY. SO YOU THE FEELING OF STAFF IS THAT THE ERROR BARS ARE BIG ENOUGH.

WE REALLY JUST NEED TO DO IT IN PHASE TWO.

AND OKAY.

YEAH. SO SO WE BELIEVE WE'LL NEED THAT.

YOU KNOW WE WILL EVENTUALLY IF GROWTH PROGRESSES AS WE EXPECT IT TO WE'LL NEED THAT CAPACITY.

AND WE'RE GOING THIS IS A IT'S A LIVING DOCUMENT THAT WE THAT WE UPDATE AS WE GO.

UM SO THAT AS, AS THE GROWTH HAPPENS, AS WE GET BETTER NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, UH, ON OUR FLOW, ON OUR TREATMENT CAPACITY, WE CAN NARROW DOWN THAT, THAT NEED.

AND WHEN EXACTLY THE NEEDLE HIT.

I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. UM, IF I MAY JUST MAKE A NOTE TO THE CITY MANAGER.

UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAD THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE TIME BEFORE LAST, I WAS JUST THINKING THIS.

AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS.

I SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS IN MY NOTES THIS WEEKEND.

UM, THE POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTION NUMBERS ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE ISD IS TRACKING AND WHAT WE'RE TRACKING, BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS ARE MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE, INDICATING MUCH MORE GROWTH FASTER THAN WHAT I BELIEVE WE SAW IN THAT JOINT MEETING WITH THE ISD TIME BEFORE LAST.

SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE CAN GET THE NUMBERS SYNCED UP A LITTLE BETTER.

I MEAN, I KNOW WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GETTING THEM FROM A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES, AND I RESPECT THAT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'VE JUST JUST MAKING THAT NOTE.

YEAH, I'M GOING TO VERBALLY.

YEAH. THE INFORMATION THAT WE WORKED WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ON.

I'M GOING TO ASK SCOTT TO THEN COMPARE BECAUSE HE WORKS WITH STEVEN.

UM, TO COMPARE OUR NOTES AND THE GROWTH VERSUS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SEE WHERE WE ARE.

AND I HAVE A FEELING THEY'RE LOOKING AT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT STUDENT POPULATION OR THEY'RE LOOKING AT TOTAL POPULATION.

ALL OF THIS WILL BE WITHIN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

SO WE HAVE SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT COME INTO PLAY.

AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, UM, WHEN WATER AND WASTEWATER IS LOOKING AT OUR GROWTH, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT MIGHT BE IN OUR CORPORATE LIMITS OR OUTSIDE OF OUR CORPORATE LIMITS.

SO WE HAVE OTHER WATER USERS THAT FALL INTO THE FOLD.

SO UM, SO THOSE TAKES INTO, INTO ACCOUNT, LIKE THE FOLKS IN THE ETJ WHO ARE ALSO GOING TO BE RATEPAYERS.

YES. OKAY.

THAT ACCOUNTS FOR IT ALL THEN I APOLOGIZE.

NO YOU'RE GOOD. THAT MAKES THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE NOW.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. SORRY, STEVEN.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. TAKES US TO ITEM C RECEIVE UH ITEM C ID 23405 RECEIVE REPORT WHOLE DISCUSSION.

[C. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the updates to the Roadway Impact Fees. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 1 hour]]

[00:30:09]

GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING UPDATES TO ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

YOU. THAT'S A GOOD CATCH.

GOOD FOR YOU.

THIS IS SCARIER THAN. ALRIGHTY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

BECKY DEVINNY, CITY ENGINEER, GENERAL MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS.

I HAVE HERE WITH ME TODAY PETE KELLY.

UM, AS YOU REMEMBER, UM, BACK IN JANUARY, WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS THROUGH THE DECEMBER AND JANUARY MONTHS, UM, OVER ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

SO WE'RE JUST BRINGING THIS BACK TO YOU TODAY TO GO THROUGH REALLY KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY.

THE LATEST ADOPTED STUDY IS IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

UM, AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UH, FEE AND OVERALL ANTICIPATION OF COLLECTION RATE BASED ON THAT MAX FEE AND LOOKING FOR YOUR DIRECTION ON THAT.

SO I'M GOING TO LET PETE WALK THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE'LL BE HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

SO WE'RE GOING TO COVER TODAY IS GOING TO INCLUDE THE THE BASICS OF WHAT IMPACT FEE IS.

UH, THERE'S A WHOLE THE WHOLE REPORT COVERS THAT IN GREAT DETAIL.

WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO COVER JUST THE VERY HIGH LEVEL VERSION OF THAT.

WHAT THE REPORT DOES.

WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU THE IMPACT FEE STUDY RESULTS, AND ALSO GO OVER THE COLLECTION OPTIONS THAT WE'VE PREPARED WITH STAFF FOR YOU TO DISCUSS TODAY.

SO AN IMPACT FEE.

JUST THE BASICS. AN IMPACT FEE IS A ONE TIME FEE ASSESSED TO I THINK I JUST WENT.

THERE WE GO. ONE TIME FEE OF ASSESSED TO RECOVER INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS REQUIRED TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT EXISTING CITIZENS WILL PAY.

IT'S AND IT'S NOT A RECURRING FEE EITHER.

AND IT'S A FEE THAT'S GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 395, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS.

UM, SO WHY IMPACT FEES? DENTON IMPLEMENTED IMPACT FEES TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL FUNDING TOOL FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO AN IMPACT FEE IS COMPRISED OF FIVE BASIC COMPONENTS.

WE HAVE THE SERVICE AREAS, THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS, SERVICE UNITS AND THE MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATION.

SO WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE COMPONENTS JUST IN BRIEF DETAIL IN NEXT FEW SLIDES.

THE SERVICE AREAS. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE, CHAPTER 385 REQUIRES THAT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES BE LIMITED TO A SIX MILE AREA.

UH, FOLLOWING THAT, THAT STATUTE, THE CITY OF DENTON WAS DIVIDED INTO FIVE SERVICE AREAS IN THE 2016 STUDY.

UH, THIS JUST BEING AN UPDATE, THOSE SERVICE AREAS WERE MAINTAINED LARGELY WITH THE ADDITION OF ANY.

UH, PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY LIMITS SINCE THEN.

UH, JUST ANOTHER REMINDER AS WELL, ROADWAY IMPACT FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONFINED TO THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY AND CANNOT BE COLLECTED IN THE ETJ.

UH, SO YOU HAVE SERVICE AREA A ON THE SOUTHWEST AND GREEN SERVICE AREA B IN THE LIGHT BLUE COLOR ON THE SOUTH SERVICE AREA E, WHICH ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF THE EAST SIDE AND THE INNER LOOP IN THE PINK COLOR, AND THE AND THE NORTHEAST SIDE SERVICE AREA D AND THE NORTHWEST, UH, PART OF THE CITY SERVICE AREA C, AND THAT KIND OF ORANGISH BROWN COLOR. WE CALCULATED THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE GROWTH OR THE DEMAND OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS BY EACH SERVICE AREA.

AND THAT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IN FOUR BASIC CATEGORIES.

ONE IS RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S DWELLING UNITS, THAT INCLUDES SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY.

AND THEN THERE'S BASIC SERVICE AND RETAIL USES.

AND THE BASIC INCLUDES INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USES.

SERVICES. OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND RETAIL IS SHOPPING, DINING, ENTERTAINMENT KIND OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT DOESN'T FALL IN THOSE OTHER THREE CATEGORIES.

SO THIS JUST SHOWS THE GROWTH OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS PROJECTED.

UH, AFTER WE CALCULATED THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WE BEGAN TO DEVELOP THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

AND CHAPTER 385 REQUIRES THAT THAT PLAN IS BASED OFF OF AN ADOPTED PLAN.

UH, SO WE WHAT WE USE IS THE MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN MARCH OF 2022.

THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIP.

AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT ONE OF THE SERVICE AREA IMPACT SIPS LOOKS LIKE.

THIS IS SERVICE AREA B ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CITY.

UH, JUST TO CALL OUT A COUPLE OF THE DIFFERENT COLORS YOU'LL SEE ON THE MAP, WHAT THIS INCLUDES IS ESSENTIALLY ANY ROAD ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT'S NOT BUILT TO FULL

[00:35:03]

CAPACITY TODAY, BECAUSE IMPACT FEES CAN BE USED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY ON EXISTING ROADS AND ALSO ON ROADS THAT HAVEN'T YET BEEN BUILT.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THIS LEGEND IS SHOWING.

THE DASHED RED LINES ARE ROADS THAT ARE ON THE MOBILITY PLAN BUT HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT YET, AND THE BLUE LINES ARE THOSE THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN BUILT TO THEIR FULL CAPACITY, SO THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.

THE IMPACT FEE FUNDS CAN BE USED TO TO PROVIDE AND THE BLACK LINES, JUST TO POINT OUT OUR MOBILITY PLAN, ROADS THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE, CIP, OR THEY OR THEY'VE BEEN BUILT TO THEIR FULL CAPACITY.

JUST WANTED TO NEXT DESCRIBE THE METHODOLOGY THAT WE USE TO TO CALCULATE THE IMPACT FEE.

SO WE TAKE THE LAND USE AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS THAT WE DID IN THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS STEP.

WE TAKE THE MASTER MASTER PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS OR IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED TO SERVE THAT GROWTH OVER THE TEN YEAR WINDOW.

AND WE DEVELOP THAT TEN YEAR IMPACT FEE CIP.

AFTER WE DO THAT, WE WE DEVELOP THE COST FOR THAT, AND THEN WE REMOVE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING DEFICIENCIES AND ALSO THE COST TO SERVE DEMAND BEYOND THE TEN YEAR WINDOW, BECAUSE THAT TEN YEAR WINDOW IS A REQUIREMENT OF CHAPTER 395.

UH, THE NEXT STEP IS WE CALCULATE A PRE CREDIT MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEE.

AND THE WAY WE DO THAT IS WE TAKE THE COST OF THE CIP DIVIDED BY THE GROWTH IN SERVICE UNITS.

AND THEN AFTER THAT THERE'S A CREDIT CALCULATION STEP THAT'S REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 395.

AND WE ALSO DID THAT CREDIT CALCULATION STEP.

THERE'S TWO OPTIONS.

ONE IS YOU CAN JUST ESSENTIALLY TAKE HALF OF THE COST THAT YOU CALCULATED.

OR YOU CAN GO THROUGH AND DO A DETAILED CREDIT CALCULATION.

AND THE CITY OPTED TO DO THE DETAILED CREDIT CALCULATION.

AND SO THE RESULTS OF THOSE CALCULATIONS AGAIN, MUCH MORE DETAIL IN THE STUDY, VERY HIGH LEVEL IN THIS PRESENTATION.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THE PROCESS.

UM, THIS SHOWS THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE FEE PER VEHICLE MILE, UM, IN EACH OF THE FIVE SERVICE AREAS.

UM, THE SERVICE UNITS AGAIN FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES ARE VEHICLE MILES.

SO THAT'S BASED OFF OF THE TRIP RATE OF A TYPE OF LAND USE.

AND ALSO THE TRIP LENGTH.

AND THAT TRIP LENGTH IS CAPPED AT SIX MILES AGAIN BY THE SERVICE AREA SIZE.

UM SO THAT'S PER VEHICLE MILE.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WHEN WE TRY TO TRANSLATE THAT TO THE DOLLAR PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT, IF YOU WILL.

SO THIS EXAMPLE, JUST A VERY BRIEF EXAMPLE ON THIS SLIDE SHOWS YOU WHAT THE IMPACT FEE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE WOULD BE.

IN ORDER TO GET THAT WE START WITH THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE MAXIMUM PER VEHICLE MILE.

AND THEN THERE'S A TABLE IN THE STUDY.

IT'S CALLED THE LOVE MAP TABLE OR LOVE MET THAT SHOWS HOW MANY VEHICLE MILES PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT THERE ARE FOR EACH LAND USE TYPE.

AND THERE'S OVER 50 LAND USE TYPES IN THAT TABLE.

SO THIS IS JUST SHOWING, UM, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND BASED ON THOSE CALCULATIONS, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME GENERATES 4.61 VEHICLE MILES AND THE PM PEAK HOUR.

AND SO YOU MULTIPLY THOSE TWO NUMBERS TOGETHER AND GET THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE FEE, UM, FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT JUST UNDER 21,000 OR $20,779. SO THAT BRINGS US TO THIS NEXT TABLE, WHICH SHOWS A LOT OF NUMBERS.

AND I'LL TRY TO WALK THROUGH THIS LINE BY LINE JUST TO KIND OF EXPLAIN TO TO SHOW WHERE WE WERE, WHAT WE'VE ADOPTED, WHAT WE'VE ADOPTED SINCE 2016, AND ALSO WHAT A FEW DIFFERENT COLLECTION RATE OPTIONS ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE 2022 STUDY.

SO STARTING ON THE TOP LEFT, THE 2022 MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WAS $9,800, AND THE EFFECTIVELY THE ADOPTION RATE WAS ABOUT 20% OF THAT.

UM, IT'S NOT 20.00.

IT'S IT'S CLOSE TO 20%, BUT IT'S $2,000 A HOUSE AND AND GOING DOWN FROM THERE.

UH, THE NON RESIDENTIAL USES WERE DISCOUNTED AT HALF THE RATE OF SINGLE FAMILY AND THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES.

ALL THE INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY WERE CAPPED AT THE WAREHOUSE RATE.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE WE'RE STARTING FROM IN THE 2016 STUDY.

AND WHAT'S BEING COLLECTED TODAY.

UH, WHAT'S BEING PUT FOR YOU TO BEFORE YOU TO DISCUSS, WE HAVE ON THE, ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND COLUMN IS THE THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE FOR EACH OF THESE EXAMPLE LAND USES.

AGAIN, WE'VE GOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OF 250 UNITS, A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER, A 5000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.

AND SO WE'RE SHOWING WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH A COLLECTION RATE OF 20%, 30%, 40% AND 50% OF THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE.

AND I'LL ALSO ADD THAT FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER ROW AND BELOW, THOSE INCLUDE A DISCOUNT ON THE RESIDENTIAL RATE.

[00:40:06]

SO THE NON RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ACTUALLY SHOWING AT TEN, 15, 20 AND 25.

UM ON THIS ON THIS TABLE HERE.

AND SO WHAT YOU WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 20% WOULD BE JUST OVER $4,100 AND AT 50% WOULD JUST BE WOULD BE JUST OVER $10,000.

AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW THAT THAT AFFECTS THE OTHER LAND USES AS YOU LOOK DOWN THROUGH THE TABLE.

AND JUST ANOTHER NOTE TO TO ADD ON THIS SLIDE AS WELL, IS THAT CHAPTER 395 DOES ALLOW FOR A WAIVER OR DISCOUNT TO HOUSING THAT QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE THAT'S ALLOWABLE BY POLICY.

UH, WE ALSO ADDED THE SLIDE JUST TO SHOW HOW THESE DIFFERENT NUMBERS, UH, HOW THESE FEES WOULD FACTOR INTO THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT FEES, WHICH ARE ALREADY A PART OF THE CITY'S FEE PACKAGE.

SO WE'RE SHOWING THE EXISTING WATER, WASTEWATER, BUILDING PERMIT, PARKS, DEVELOPMENT DEDICATION FEES AND AVERAGE DEVELOPMENT FEES.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE RANGE WITH THE WHOLE PACKAGE PUT TOGETHER FROM 20% UP TO 50% RANGES FROM 20,000 AND $300 A HOME TO JUST OVER 2000 $626,500 A HOME.

AND OF COURSE, AT THE IF YOU WERE TO ADOPT AT THE 100% RATE, IT WOULD BE OVER JUST UNDER $37,000 A HOME.

AND THAT WE ARE SHOWING ALSO THE AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE FOOT OF LIVING AREA ON THAT AS WELL.

UM, PROVIDING SOME COMPARISON DATA TO COMPARISON CITIES.

UM, WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS THAT THE 20% RATE IS THAT THE $2,000 HOUSE RATE, RATHER, UM, THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING COLLECTED, IS TOWARDS THE LOW END OF THIS LIST OF COMPARISON CITIES, UM, JUST ABOVE COLLEGE STATION AND BELOW FRISCO, WHICH IS COLLECTING 70% OF THEIR MAXIMUM FEE, WAS CALCULATED IN 2019.

UM, GOING UP TO THE 50% RATE, WHICH IS TOWARDS THE HIGH END OF THESE COMPARISON CITIES.

UM, IT IS BELOW THE MOST EXPENSIVE SERVICE AREA IN FORT WORTH.

UM, BUT IT'S ABOVE THE AVERAGE SERVICE AREA IN FORT WORTH.

SO FORT WORTH DOESN'T HAVE A FLAT COLLECTION RATE.

UH, THEY RECENTLY ADOPTED AND UPDATED THEIR FEES IN LATE 2022.

AND THEN IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR.

SO JUST TO RECAP THE THE FOUR COLLECTION OPTIONS THAT WE ARE WITH STAFF BRINGING FORWARD FOR YOUR DISCUSSION TODAY.

UH, OUR 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% AND JUST SHOWING ON THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN OF THIS TABLE THAT WOULD INCLUDE A PROPOSED, UH, DISCOUNT TO NON RESIDENTIAL USES AT HALF OF THE RESIDENTIAL RATE.

SO TEN, 15, 20 AND 25%.

THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE 30%.

SO OPTION 230% FOR RESIDENTIAL AND 15% FOR NON RESIDENTIAL.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY AS WELL THAT RESIDENTIAL INCLUDES MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY USES.

SO I'LL GO BACK AND STAY ON THIS SLIDE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER MYSELF OR BECKY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

COUNCILMEMBER MELTZER.

YEAH, I JUST WANT TO, UH, CALL ATTENTION TO THE FOURTH FOOTNOTE, A COUPLE OF SLIDES BACK AND JUST CHECK IN AND SEE IF THAT'S.

UH, YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE.

YEAH, THAT'S STILL VALID.

THAT'S AN OPTION FOR US IF YOU HAVE A FEELING ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THAT MUNICIPALITIES MAY DISCOUNT OR WAIVE IMPACT FEES FOR QUALIFIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF THE, UH, CONSTERNATION OR AT LEAST ONE PIECE OF IT, UH, REGARDING IMPACT FEES, IS THAT IT RAISES THE COST OF HOUSING AND, AND AFFORDABILITY. SO AND I UNDERSTAND SOME IMPACT FEES YOU CAN'T WAIVE BUT THESE YOU CAN SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT.

YEAH. ABSOLUTELY.

SO AS YOU JUST MENTIONED IN CHAPTER 35 YOU CAN WAIVE IMPACT FEES FOR SINGLE OR FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

EXCUSE ME. AND UH, REALLY BY POLICY YOU CAN CHOOSE CERTAIN LAND USES TO DISCOUNT OR TO WAIVE FEES FOR.

WE'VE HAD CITIES DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT CREATIVE THINGS IN THAT.

IN THAT VEIN, UH, TO INCENTIVIZE CERTAIN TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY WANT TO SEE IN THEIR, IN THEIR COMMUNITY.

UH, SO REALLY, IT'S IT'S PRETTY, PRETTY OPEN IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU CAN WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS SAY, UH, THIS DEVELOPER WANT TO DISCOUNT YOU AND THIS DEVELOPER, I DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT YOU IF THEY'RE THE SAME TYPE OF LAND USE.

UM, OF COURSE, THERE'S THERE'S DIFFERENT, UM, ELEMENTS THAT MAY FACTOR INTO PLAY THERE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

[00:45:01]

BUT IN GENERAL IT'S PRETTY OPEN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, AND I'M GOING TO, UM, PICK UP, UH, FROM THERE.

AND THEN I'VE GOT A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS.

UM, SO DID DID I MISS IT OR DID THE THE THE THE THE THE STUDY INDICATE WHAT FEE WAIVER OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE IF WE WANT TO CHOOSE A HIGHER AMOUNT AND THEN WAIVE FEES FOR DESIGNATED TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT, DOES IT LIST THAT? NO. THE STUDY IS PRIMARILY COVERS THE CALCULATION AND METHODOLOGY FOR HOW THE MAXIMUM FEE IS CALCULATED.

DOESN'T REALLY DIVE INTO ALL THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS THAT THAT YOU MAY HAVE WHEN ADOPTING IT.

GO AHEAD. YEAH, IT WOULDN'T GO INTO THAT.

THE NUMBER FOUR FOOTNOTE THERE IS DIRECTLY FROM STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO DO WAIVERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THERE'S NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS FOR WAIVERS.

SO IF YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT DOING SOMETHING ON ANOTHER PROJECT, SAY IT WAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR OTHERWISE, YOU COULD NOT WAIVE THOSE IMPACT FEES.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THOSE FEES FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE IF YOU WANTED TO GIVE THEM EFFECTIVELY THAT DISCOUNT.

I'M JUST THINKING THROUGH YOUR WORDS IN MY HEAD, OKAY, I THINK I'VE GOT IT.

OKAY. APPRECIATE THAT THAT THAT CLARITY.

SO THIS REALLY IS SORT OF THE ONLY WAIVER.

YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

UM. AND, AND THEN, UM, UH, OKAY.

SO THEN MOVING ON FROM THAT, THEN, UM.

GENERALLY, IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD OUT AND HAVE THE IMPACTS AND THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.

I APPRECIATE THE ON THE QUESTION AND THE RESPONSES TO STAFF.

UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE ANY ANYTHING THAT WE DON'T INCLUDE ON 100% COST RECOVERY.

WILL COME FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHETHER GENERALLY THE GENERAL FUND.

RIGHT. UM, THE REALLY THE OPTIONS IMPACT FEES ARE JUST ONE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX, RIGHT.

THAT YOU CAN COLLECT AND USE TOWARDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

THE OTHER OPTIONS ARE BONDS OR REVENUE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT, BUT TYPICALLY MAJOR ROADWAY PROJECTS YOU SEE GOING THROUGH THE BOND PROCESS.

AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE THESE IMPACT FEES ARE MUST BE SPENT ON ELEMENTS WITHIN THE REGION OF THOSE IMPACT FEES. SO THAT IS CORRECT OSTENSIBLY FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT REGION, THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES THAT ARE COLLECTED HAVE TO BE USED WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA OF WHICH THEY WERE COLLECTED IN, WHEREAS SOMETHING LIKE A BOND OR MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND WILL COME FROM EVERYWHERE TO SERVICE A PARTICULAR REGION.

AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT TO COVER ANY ANY GAPS BEYOND THE IMPACT FEES, THE BOND PROJECTS THAT ARE THAT OR CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT STAFF AND ALONG WITH THE MOBILITY PLAN, ETC.

THAT UM STAFF PARTICIPATES IN OR PUTS FORWARD AS A PART OF A BOND.

THOSE FUNDING WILL COME DIRECTLY THROUGH THE BOND PROCESS.

IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO A SERVICE AREA.

IMPACT FEES ARE THE ONLY THING THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE SERVICE AREA.

OKAY, I, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARITY.

AND I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION AND UM.

UH, CAN YOU GO INTO A LITTLE.

I APPRECIATE THE ANSWERS YOU GAVE ME IN THE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON, UH, THREE, THREE.

UM, FOR THE REST OF THE COUNSELORS THAT ARE FOLLOWING ALONG, UM.

DO WE HAVE? YOU KNOW, IT WAS A LITTLE LESS THAN CLEAR, BUT SOME OF OUR OUR SISTER COMPARABLE MUNICIPALITIES SUBSIDIZE MOORE'S.

SOME SUBSIDIZE LESS.

UM, UH, THE I GUESS IN GENERAL, I'LL GO DOWN TO THAT ONE PARTICULARLY.

YOU SAID IT FOR FLOWER MOUND AND AND ASK IT MORE AS A GENERAL SENSE IN GENERAL FOR PEOPLE THAT IMPLEMENT HIGHER IMPACT FEES, DO THEY IN THE DFW METROPLEX, ARE THEY SEEING RESTRICTIONS ON GROWTH? AND IN GENERAL, I WOULD SAY NO, NOT NOT NECESSARILY.

UM. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE FULL ANSWER FOR YOU ON THAT.

IN TERMS OF HOW IS THE MARKET RESPONDING TO TO IMPACT FEES? UH, IN GENERAL, THE THE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE DONE THAT ARE THAT THEY HAVEN'T SEEN DECREASES IN GROWTH AS THEY HAVE INCREASED THEIR FEES.

SO, UH, BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE FAIRLY RECENT.

SO WE'RE STILL KIND OF SEEING THAT DATA COME IN.

I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'LL HOLD MY DIRECTION UNTIL I HEAR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL.

YEAH, I'LL JUST GET OUT OF THE WAY.

I, I DON'T RECOMMEND THE 30%.

I DISAGREE WITH STAFF JUST SLIGHTLY JUST BECAUSE AS I LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, AM I READING THIS RIGHT?

[00:50:03]

2017 TO 2022.

WE WENT TO UH, BASICALLY INCREASED JUST UNDER $7, RIGHT? $7,000. RIGHT.

1010 EIGHT TWO 9 TO 18 191.

RIGHT. AM I READING THAT CHART RIGHT ON THE 12TH SLIDE.

ON THIS CHART? NO.

UH, THE ONE.

YES. THERE.

RIGHT. SO THAT WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT JUMP FROM 17 TO 22, IS THAT RIGHT TO CATCH UP? RIGHT. AND THEN TO THEN JUMP AGAIN.

ANOTHER. 30% A YEAR LATER SEEMS A LITTLE AGGRESSIVE FOR MY FOR MY TASTE.

I CAN AGREE WITH THE 20%.

WHAT IS THE WHAT'S THE REGULAR PERCENTAGE OF HOW HOW REGULAR DO WE REVISIT THESE IMPACT FEES.

SO BY SUGGESTION IT'S EVERY FIVE YEARS.

UM, OR IT COULD BE DONE SOONER IF THE CITY ELECTS TO DO THAT.

YEAH, I WOULD LIKE THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO DO 20% THIS YEAR WHENEVER YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S ENACTED AND THEN HAVE LIKE A YEARLY LOOK AT IT, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE GROWING SO FAST AND IT GETS PEOPLE IN THAT CADENCE.

AND EVEN IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT, WE JUST LOOK AT IT EVERY YEAR AND SEE WHERE WE ARE AND ACT ACCORDINGLY ALMOST ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

AND THAT GIVES PEOPLE TIME TO ADJUST CALIBRATE, BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK TO, UM, GO FORWARD, ONE MORE SLIDE TO THE COMPARISON DATA.

YEAH. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU WHAT YOU DON'T SEE BETWEEN THE LINES IS SO FOR EXAMPLE FLOWER MOUND, THEY DON'T EVEN ALLOW HOME DEPOT TO HAVE ORANGE PAINT.

THEY IT'S LIKE A CITY VOTE TO HAVE MUNICIPAL I MEAN PARDON ME APARTMENTS.

RIGHT. LIKE THEIR CHARTER IS AGGRESSIVE.

LIKE WHATABURGER WON'T GO THERE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAVE THEIR ORANGE SIGN.

RIGHT. SO YOU DON'T READ THAT IN HERE, RIGHT? SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPARABLES AS FAR AS MULTIFAMILY.

WHAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THERE.

RIGHT. IT'S BECAUSE BY CHARTER IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO GET IT DONE.

SO YOU CAN'T.

BUT WE'RE A COLLEGE TOWN RIGHT.

AND THERE'S CHALLENGES THERE.

SO I JUST THERE IS NO APPLES TO APPLES.

RIGHT. THERE'S SO MANY VARIABLES THAT I MEAN IT'S GOOD.

IT'S FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT A CHART LIKE THIS, THEN GREAT.

YOU YOU DO IT AT YOUR OWN DETRIMENT THOUGH, BECAUSE THERE'S DETAILS ALL IN THERE AND HOW THOSE ARE STRUCTURED.

IT JUST DOESN'T GIVE YOU A CLEAR READ.

SO FOR ME, JUST I WOULD JUST RATHER FOCUS IN ON DENTON AND WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT I'M SEEING ON THE GROUND AND OUR HISTORICAL KIND OF INCREMENTAL RATES SO WE CAN GET TO 30.

I'M JUST SAYING LET'S NOT GET TO 30 IMMEDIATELY AFTER.

WE JUST HAD A HUGE JUMP.

RIGHT. UM, AND SO THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, AND THEN THIS IS JUST DEALING WITH FACTS ON THE GROUND IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

WHAT? AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS.

WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE NUMBERS.

UM, BECAUSE THERE'S MORE YOUNG ADULTS LIVING AT HOME LONGER BECAUSE OF THE COST TO OF JUST APARTMENTS, THAT SORT OF THING. OR PARENTS NEED MORE SUPPORT.

WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE NUMBERS? IS THAT CAPTURED? I KNOW YOU SHOWED IN WHATEVER SLIDE THAT WAS UH, THE KIND OF THE VEHICLE MILES PER HOME THAT'S ON THE 10TH SLIDE.

BUT ARE YOU ACCOUNTING FOR PEOPLE BEING AT HOME LONGER, MORE MORE CARS? IN A SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING HOME.

ARE YOU? WHAT DOES THAT DO TO YOUR TO THE ALGORITHM? SO IN TERMS OF WELL I'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND THEN I'LL HOP BACK TO THE, YOU KNOW, RAISING RATES REGULARLY.

THERE'S ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY ON ON THAT, BUT IN TERMS OF THE LIKE THE 4.61 AND HOW MANY TRIPS THERE ARE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND PEOPLE LIVING LONGER, OR KIDS STAYING LONGER IN THEIR IN THEIR PARENTS HOMES.

SO WHAT WE REFER TO WHEN WE CALCULATE HOW MANY TRIPS ARE GENERATED BY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, AND THEY UPDATE THAT ABOUT EVERY 4 TO 5 YEARS TO TO INCORPORATE THE LATEST DATA TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WE'RE CAPTURING CURRENT TRENDS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A LOT MORE DELIVERY TRUCKS ON THE ROADS THAN THERE WERE TEN, YOU KNOW, TEN YEARS AGO AND MAYBE IN FIVE YEARS AGO.

UM, SO WE ARE USING THE MOST RECENT DATA THAT WE, THAT WE HAVE ON HOW MANY TRIPS ARE BEING MADE FROM A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND THAT SHOULD CAPTURE THE MOST RECENT TRENDS, UH, IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN A, IN A HOME THESE DAYS.

UM, BUT ON THE ON THE OTHER QUESTION THAT, THAT YOU RAISED ON, UH, HOW OFTEN CAN THESE BE REVISITED? I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE VISITED EVERY, EVERY FIVE YEARS, AND THAT SETS THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE FEE. HOWEVER, THE COLLECTION RATE THAT THAT CAN BE CHANGED EFFECTIVELY AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WITHOUT READDRESSING THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS.

SO THOSE THOSE TWO CAN BE, UH, DONE SEPARATELY.

[00:55:02]

SURE. NO THAT WORKS.

AND AND THEN ON THE FEES, IS IT THE SAME? AND PARDON MY IGNORANCE BUT REBUILD VERSUS NEW BUILD.

UH, IMPACT FEES ARE THERE IF I'M REBUILDING A HOME.

IMPACT FEES, IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES APPLY.

YES OR NO? UH, TYPICALLY NOT.

IF YOU'RE REBUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THEY WOULDN'T APPLY.

YOU USUALLY HAVE TO GENERATE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE, MORE TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO HAVE TO PAY AN IMPACT FEE IF YOU'RE REBUILDING.

SO IF YOU'RE KNOCKING DOWN A HOME OR KNOCKING DOWN A VERY LOW TRAFFIC BUSINESS AND YOU'RE PUTTING IN A VERY HIGH TRAFFIC BUSINESS, YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY THAT YOU HAVE TO GENERATE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO, TO PAY A FEE ON REDEVELOPMENT.

RIGHT. AND SO AND THAT THAT THEN GOES TO MY POINT ON, WE HAVE A LOT OF OLDER INFRASTRUCTURE, RIGHT? SO EVEN IF WE'RE REBUILDING HOUSES OR MODERNIZING HOUSES, IT DOESN'T GIVE US MONEY IN THOSE AREAS TO ADDRESS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE AREAS WHERE THIS WOULD APPLY ARE NOT IN THE CORE OF THE CITY.

IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S BECOMING LESS IN THE NORTH PART OF THE CITY AS THAT FILLS IN.

YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT SOUTH AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS TO COME, BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CORE OF THE CITY.

I JUST DON'T SEE A WHOLE BUNCH OF WHOLESALE CHANGES OR A BUNCH OF LAND THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN IS GOING TO GOING TO CHANGE HOW, HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.

SO THIS I EFFECTIVE NEEDED CERTAINLY I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, HAVING A HARD TIME AND THEN THE, THE THE ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I'LL POINT OUT IS UM, I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYONE AGREE ON AFFORDABLE.

RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S SO SUBJECTIVE.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO, TO PUT ANY WEIGHT.

IT'S IMPORTANT.

IT'S A GREAT CONVERSATION TO HAVE.

IT'S NOT MEASURABLE BY ANY STATE BY ANY MEANS.

RIGHT? I MEAN, IT JUST IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO, THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCE, WHERE THEY'RE FROM, ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS.

RIGHT. AND SO FOR ME, THAT'S JUST KIND OF A IT'S IT'S GOOD TO KNOW IF WE'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING THEN GREAT.

WE CAN WE CAN GET THERE AND USE THAT AS A REASON TO JUSTIFY THAT DISCOUNT.

BUT THERE'S NOT I CAN'T GO TO BOB SMITH ON SMITH STREET AND SAY THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE IS THIS.

I'M SURE WE HAVE A DOCUMENTED BECAUSE WE'VE HAD CONSULTANTS COME IN.

BUT EVEN THOSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE.

THEY'RE NOT SPECIFICALLY SAYING THIS HOUSE.

AND I'D LOVE FOR IT TO CHANGE THAT WAY.

I'D LOVE TO USE BY BY JUST KIND OF AS A GUIDELINE, I PERSONALLY USE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY BECAUSE THEIR HOUSES ARE PRAISING JUST JUST OVER $300,000. AND SO IF SOMEHOW WE COULD CODIFY SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SOME MEASURABLE BECAUSE THEY CARRY THE NOTE, THEY HAVE VOLUNTEER LABOR AND DONATIONS AND ALL THAT STUFF.

SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE, UH, CHEAPER THAN THEY CAN, RIGHT? SO IT KIND OF GIVES AT LEAST A BOTTOM OF THE MARKET LOOK AT SINGLE FAMILY AT LEAST.

BUT THOSE ARE THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

SO I CAN GET COMFORTABLE WITH THE 20% JUST BECAUSE WE JUST WENT UP A YEAR AGO SIGNIFICANTLY.

AND I AND I CAN GET BEHIND ANNUAL LOOKS AT THAT TO ADJUST.

UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THAT THAT PASS THROUGH TO, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS I DON'T BUILD HOUSES.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WELL, BUT I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE DIFFERENCE IN 4000 OR $6000, AN ADDITIONAL $2,000 TO THE BOTTOM LINE.

OF A BRAND NEW HOUSE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE THREE 50S.

I MEAN, I JUST THINK YOU GOTTA YOU YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE FROG SOME TIME IN COLD WATER.

IF YOU THROW THEM IN THE HOT WATER, THEY'RE GOING TO JUMP OUT.

AND, MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY REALLY QUICKLY ON THIS SLIDE.

ROADWAY IMPACT FEES WERE ADOPTED IN 2016, AND THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THE CITY EVER HAD ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

THE 2017 EXAMPLE THAT'S GIVEN HERE IS JUST TO GIVE A FIVE YEAR TIME FRAME.

THE 2022 IS TO ALIGN WITH THE OVERALL STUDY.

SO THESE FEES THAT ARE THAT WERE UPDATED WERE SPECIFIC TO THE INDIVIDUAL FEES.

ROADWAY IMPACT FEES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 2016.

JUST FOR CLARITY.

WHERE AM I LOOKING HERE ON THIS SLIDE SPECIFICALLY.

SO YOU SEE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

THOSE WERE ADOPTED IN 2016 AT THE $2,000 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN 2022.

WE'RE JUST SHOWING YOU THAT COMPARISON OF WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS TODAY.

AND WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSED WHERE THE IMPACT HAS COME FROM.

THE ADOPTION IS WHEN ANNUALLY THE FEES ARE ADOPTED BASED ON WATER, WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES OR THE PERMIT FEES OR THE PARKS FEES.

YOU CAN SEE THE JUMP IN THE PARKS FEES, PARKS DEDICATION OR OVERALL DEVELOPMENT FEES.

AND THEN OF COURSE, IN SEPTEMBER, WE ALSO UPDATED THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION FEES BASED ON STATE LAW.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE 2022 NUMBERS THAT ARE GIVING OR TO BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE OVERALL STUDY TIME FRAME OF WHEN THE STUDY WAS COMPLETED.

[01:00:01]

CERTAINLY. AND I TAKE THAT POINT.

BUT WE ALSO LOOK AT THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE UTILITY BILL, RIGHT.

WE LOOK AT, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO RAISE WATER, WHICH THEN AFFECTS THE ENTIRE BILL.

SO YEAH, SO I TRACK WITH YOU.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I MEAN THAT'S ALL IN.

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO THE HOUSE. RIGHT? WE'RE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE AND BIFURCATE THE ROAD IMPACT FEES OR THE OTHER FEES.

IT'S ALL IN. RIGHT.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE MINDFUL ABOUT HOW WE BALANCE THAT.

IF I'M TRACKING WITH YOU.

YES SIR. YES SIR.

THE OVERALL GOAL IN THIS SLIDE IS REALLY JUST TO SHOW YOU THE CHANGE IN THE FEES OF THE ADOPTION, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE RATE IS SPECIFIC TO ROADWAY IMPACT FEE, KNOWING THAT THE WATER WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES ARE COMING FORWARD IN A FUTURE DATE, AND ALL THE OTHER FEES ASSOCIATED THAT YOU SEE HERE ALSO COULD BE INCREASED AT SOME TIME.

RIGHT? BUT IF NOTHING CHANGES, IF ALL THOSE OTHER IMPACT FEES HOLD, THE DIFFERENCE IS $2,000 OR UH, BASICALLY.

$4,000 AM I? AM I TRACKING RIGHT? YOU'RE CORRECT.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CURRENT RATE OF 2000 VERSUS 4156 TO YOU KNOW.

YES, SIR. YOU'RE CORRECT OKAY.

THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH.

AND SO IT'S SO I APPRECIATE THE THE ADDITIONAL CLARITY.

BUT FOR ME AGAIN LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE HOME BECAUSE ALL OF US ARE GOING TO PASS THROUGH, NO ONE'S NO ONE'S IN THE BUSINESS.

IF YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF EATING FEES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN BUSINESS LONG.

SOMEONE'S GOING TO BUY YOU OUT AND THEN START RAISING FEES, RIGHT? SO IT GETS PASSED THROUGH.

AND SO FOR ME, I CAN GET COMFORTABLE WITH $2,000.

AND LOOKING AT IT EVERY YEAR, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T GET TO, BECAUSE I JUST THINK THE OPPOSITE IS IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO GET BEHIND BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF THE AFFORDABILITY. RIGHT? ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE PICKING WINNERS OR LOSERS.

WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, STAFF DOESN'T.

THAT'S THE STAFF HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

OR DOES THAT COME TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

THE WAIVERS THE FEE WAIVERS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY COME TO COUNCIL.

YEAH. AND SEE THAT THAT'S WAY TOO SUBJECTIVE RIGHT I MEAN.

I WON'T SAY IT. YOU JUST READ MY MIND ON THE VARYING DEGREES OF DECISIONS HERE, AND I'LL GIVE YOU IN PRIVATE.

I CAN GIVE YOU A LIST OF EXAMPLES OF HOW SHOCKING THINGS CAN GO FROM 0 TO 60.

RIGHT. AND QUICKLY.

SO I JUST WHEN YOU'RE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOOD AND INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE HOUSING, THAT'S WHAT LOWERS COST MORE, YOU KNOW, UH, MORE HOUSING, MORE, UM, AVAILABLE HOUSING DRIVES COSTS DOWN.

RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO GO.

AND WE'LL FIND A BALANCING POINT IN SOMEWHERE.

AND I'D LOVE TO SEE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES MORE OF THAT A FOCUS THERE.

I JUST THINK THAT THAT ADDS VALUE.

BUT YOU'RE ALREADY SEEING PEOPLE DO THE RENT FOR UH, HOMES FOR RENT TYPE THING, THAT COTTAGE STYLE.

AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE, BUT, UH, SO THAT'S WHERE I LAND AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE INFO.

IT'S REALLY GOOD INSIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME WITH THOSE QUESTIONS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COUNCILMEMBER BYRD.

CAN WE START OUT WITH 20% AND COME THROUGH EVERY YEAR AND ADD ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGES ON? WOULD THAT BE.

OR ARE WE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO, YOU KNOW, DO 50% AND NOT HAVE TO, UM, CONTINUE TO TACKLE THIS? IF WE DO 50% TODAY, WILL THAT PULL US THROUGH TO 2030 2040? UH, HOW WAS SOMETHING LIKE THAT? LOOK FOR US. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK ABOUT THAT? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION.

SURE. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS, UM, THE 20% BASICALLY IS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE 40% INCREASE WE'VE SEEN IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

SO, UM, 2019 NUMBERS THAT YOU SEE FROM THE COMPARISON CITIES, A LOT OF THOSE, UM, ACTUAL STUDIES WERE ADOPTED AND COLLECTION RATES WERE SET DURING THE TIME FRAME OF WHEN WE HADN'T SEEN THE 40% INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

SO GOING FROM $2,000 TO 41, 56 BASICALLY IS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT 40% INCREASE.

YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT A RATE AND INCREASE AT A PROCESS FORWARD, WHETHER IT BE A 5% INCREASE, 10% INCREASE COLLECTIVELY. YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION, AS PETE MENTIONED, TO BRING THIS BACK ANNUALLY.

UM, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

OH YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO CONNECT THAT.

RIGHT. AND SO THE FIVE YEARS IS BASED ON THE OVERALL, UH, LAND USE ASSUMPTION AND THE MOBILITY PLAN.

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THE INFORMATION TO ACTUALLY SET THE FEE BASED ON THAT DATA.

OKAY. WELL, MY, UM, THIS IS GOING TO SOUND A BIT HARSH, BUT I JUST THINK THAT IT'S NECESSARY RIGHT NOW TO PULL US UP

[01:05:06]

TO A LEVEL, UM, THAT'S GOING TO.

THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE.

UM. THE NEED ARE UP TO 50%.

SO I'M GOING TO GO FURTHER OUT THAN THE THAN THE MAYOR.

UM, IT JUST IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE SO FAR BEHIND, YOU KNOW, ON ON THESE FEES.

AND AGAIN, WE CERTAINLY WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS IS FOR FUTURE GROWTH.

UM, SO THIS IS WHY I THINK AND I THINK THAT OUR BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO DEVELOP HERE AND I AND AS I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE A HOTBED FOR BUSINESSES THAT WOULD WANT TO DO BUSINESS HERE, LARGE BUSINESSES.

UM, THEY I THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BALK AT THAT.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S CONTENTIOUS BEING THAT HIGH.

BUT I THINK THAT IN THE END, IT'LL IT'LL ALLOW US TO GET EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS GROWTH.

SURE. SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO THERE.

AND THAT'S THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

SO OUR OVERALL GOAL TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR IS TO GET COUNCIL CONSENSUS ON AN OVERALL ADOPTION RATE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH ADOPTING THE STUDY AND SETTING THE MAXIMUM RATE AND THEN YOUR PERCENTAGE OF THE COLLECTION.

UM, AND YOU CAN COME BACK AT ANY TIME AND MAKE THOSE MODIFICATIONS BASED ON UPDATING A PROPOSED NEW RATE.

WELL, I WILL SET I WOULD REQUEST TO SET THE RATE AT 50%.

AND THEN WE HAVE 20%.

AND WE'LL SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS.

SO CLARIFY THAT FOR ME BECAUSE I'M NOT 50% OKAY.

GOT IT. ALL RIGHT.

YES, MA'AM. UM, YOU ALREADY SPOKEN WITH ANYONE ELSE? FIRST TIME COUNCILOR HOLLAND? THANK YOU. UM, FOLLOWING UP WITH WHAT THE MAYOR WAS DISCUSSING.

UM. WHAT ABOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION IN AN OLD NEIGHBORHOOD, EH? I IMAGINE A VACANT LOT THAT THAT HAS EITHER NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED OR HADN'T BEEN DEVELOPED IN A LONG, LONG TIME.

DOES THAT DOES THAT CONSTRUCTION PAY IMPACT FEES? UH, SO THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU DEVELOP A NEW DEVELOPMENT IN AN OLD NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT NOT A DEVELOPMENT A SINGLE LOT.

OH, A SINGLE LOT.

UH, YES.

YEAH. THAT IMPACT FEES WOULD APPLY TO THAT, THAT PROPERTY.

OKAY, OKAY.

UM, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT TROUBLE ME.

FIRST OF ALL, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THING.

UM. EVERYBODY WANTS HOUSING TO BE AFFORDABLE.

EVERYBODY WANTS THAT.

BUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CHECKS ALL THE BOXES.

EXCEPT THAT IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND SO THEY GET THEY GET A WAIVER ON THIS.

IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, THEY HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY.

THEY DRIVE THE SAME NUMBER OF MILES.

THEY HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF OF KIDS.

BUT BUT THEY BUT THEY DON'T.

BUT THEY OPT OUT OF THE THEY NOT OPT OUT.

THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED IN THE IN THE IMPACT FEE.

RIGHT. AGAIN THAT'S THAT'S AN OPTION THAT THIS BODY CAN CHOOSE TO EXERCISE ACCORDING TO STATE LAW.

IT'S IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OR IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.

NO. I BEG YOUR PARDON.

OKAY. OKAY.

SECONDLY IS IT IS IT APPROPRIATE TO COMPARE US WITH OTHER CITIES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT OTHER CITIES, WE'RE DENTON.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF IF TO TO COMPARE US TO TO ANYBODY.

FLOWER MOUND WAS A GREAT EXAMPLE, BUT, UH, I, I KIND OF THINK WE FAVOR, UH, COLLEGE STATION.

UH, BUT IS THAT FAIR? SO THE, THE CONS, AS YOU MENTIONED, THEY HAD NO CITIES GOING TO BE NO TWO CITIES ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEGREE OF APPLES AND ORANGES, NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

UH, THE PROS IS IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT OTHER OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPERS HAVE, UH, IN THE MARKET, IF THEY IF THEY WANT TO PASS ON DENTON AND WANT TO GO TO ANOTHER CITY, YOU CAN SEE WHAT THEY'RE CHARGING.

THAT WAS JUST A REQUEST THAT THAT WE RECEIVED TO SHOW THE SHARE SOME COMPARISON CITY DATA.

UH, IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND THE THE PERFECT COMPARISON OUT THERE, BUT JUST TO KIND OF SEE WHAT IN GENERAL CITIES ARE DOING SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE LOOKING AT WHEN THEY DECIDE WHERE THEY WANT. WELL.

AND OUR NEEDS, OUR NEEDS LIKELY ARE NOT THE SAME AS, AS CITY X.

UH, ABSOLUTELY. VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR FOR OUR NEEDS TO BE THE SAME AS CITY X.

OKAY, NOW, UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I'D LIKE TO TO ASK THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD TO HELP ME WITH, UH, IF, IF YOU STARTED WITH A 20% RATE AND YOU RAISED IT PER YEAR, HOW MUCH WOULD YOU RAISE IT PER YEAR AND HOW MANY YEARS WOULD YOU RAISE IT?

[01:10:02]

AND AND I'M WONDERING IF IT HAS TO BE DONE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

CAN IT BE DONE ANNUALLY? CAN IT BE DONE EVERY YEAR? SO I THINK TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT IT'S THE LAND USE ASSUMPTION, CIP THAT HAS TO BE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS.

THE RATE CAN BE SET PER ORDINANCE TO UPDATE AUTOMATICALLY EVERY YEAR IF YOU CHOOSE, OR YOU CAN REVISIT IT AND MANUALLY UPDATE IT, UM, EVERY YEAR.

OKAY, OKAY. I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME SOME ANSWERS TO THAT, TO THAT FROM, FROM THE MAYOR AND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE. AND WE'LL CIRCLE BACK AFTER EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN.

ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK FOR THE FIRST TIME? COUNCILMAN MCGEE. I WOULD LIKE TO GO, BUT DO YOU WANT ME TO LET YOU GUYS ANSWER? BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT BEFORE I MAKE GIVE DIRECTION, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I'VE, UH.

OR YOU JUST WANT ME TO GO. UH, I'M CERTAINLY JUST TO TO GET OUT OF THE WAY AND COUNCIL MEMBER.

UH BYRD. I'LL LET HER DECIDE.

BUT FOR FOR ME, UH, I WOULD SAY I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER IN MIND, BUT WHAT I DO UNDERSTAND IS EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS COSTS GO UP EVERY YEAR.

RIGHT. AND SO THAT IS A KNOWN PATTERN.

AND THEN I THINK YOU CAN SYNC UP WITH THAT WITH AND GET BUY IN FROM, FROM DEVELOPERS TO SAY, HEY, I UNDERSTAND COSTS GO UP EVERY YEAR.

I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO REVISIT THIS EVERY YEAR.

I JUST THINK THAT'S THE NATURAL MOVEMENT OF BUSINESS.

SO DO I HAVE A PERCENTAGE IN MIND? I THINK I CAN GET TO 30 IN 2 YEARS.

RIGHT. I THINK AT FIVE AND FIVE.

RIGHT. YOU KNOW, AND SO IT'D BE 25 FIVE IS HOW I WOULD, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE COST YOU KNOW, YOU FIGURE ABOUT A 3% KIND OF THING AND PLUS.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING.

THAT'S HOW I GET TO FIVE COUNCIL MEMBER.

OF COURSE I CAN CERTAINLY COMPROMISE AND AND YOU KNOW, SAY 20%.

UM, DO FIVE, FIVE, FIVE, YOU KNOW, FIVE, TEN, 15, 20.

IT CAN GO EITHER WAY.

BUT RIGHT NOW, THE IDEA FOR ME IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING, MAKE THIS AUTOMATIC.

UM, EVERY YEAR I SAY IT 50% BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE, WE'RE AT A SIGNIFICANT APEX HERE.

WE ARE AT THE CROSSROADS ON, UH, HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO PLAY OUT FOR US.

AND IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO, YOU KNOW, SLOW IT DOWN, UM, HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO THINK ON IT. THE BUSINESSES THAT THAT WANT TO BE HERE, UM, THEY WILL PAY THE PRICE TO BE HERE.

THEY WILL NOT COME IF THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND MAKE A PROFIT HERE.

THE ONES THAT WILL DO THAT, THEY WILL COME AND PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD.

THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT CAN ACTUALLY AFFORD STUFF.

AND SO THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS UNAFFORDABILITY AND THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS AFFORDABILITY.

IT'S JUST THERE.

IT'S THERE FOR THE TAKING, FOR EVERYONE THAT CAN DO, YOU KNOW, THAT CAN MEET AT THAT LEVEL.

SO IT CAN EASILY BE SAID 50% FOR ME, UM, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO STILL GO FORWARD.

WE MAY GO FORWARD AT A SLOWER PACE.

WE MAY HAVE BUSINESSES THAT THAT WILL BE MORE HIGH QUALITY BUSINESSES THAT COULD BRING HIGHER QUALITY JOBS FOR A HIGHER QUALITY LIVING.

UM, BUT OF COURSE, WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE THE SUPPORT FOR THE AFFORDABILITY PIECE THAT'S GOING TO ALWAYS BE THERE FOR US.

BUT WHAT IS THAT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, ME SAYING YES TO 50% YES, I WANT TO SAY YES TO 50% AND THEN SAYING YES TO 20%, THAT'S ALSO VIABLE AS WELL.

UM, I THINK THERE'S JUST GOING TO BE SOME PROGRESSION EITHER WAY.

I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO BE AFRAID OF SAYING 50% BECAUSE WE'RE STILL GOING TO GO FORWARD.

WE JUST MAY GO FORWARD A LITTLE SLOWER.

AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. UM.

COUNCIL MEMBER, AND SHE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT ME WHEN SHE SAID, PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD STUFF.

YEAH, SHE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT ME.

I CAN'T AFFORD ANYTHING. SO MY DIRECTION IS GOING TO BE MY DIRECTION IS GOING TO BE VERY CLEAR BASED OFF OF WHAT I CAN AFFORD.

UM, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE SLIDE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MELTZER REFERENCED WITH THE CHAPTER 395.

UM, BECKY, HAVE WE WAIVED ANY FEES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES? NO. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET.

UM. NO, SIR, IT HAS NOT.

UM, WHAT IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH THAT HAPPENS? DOES DOES A DEVELOPER APPLY TO HAVE THEIR FEE FEES WAIVED, OR DOES SOMEONE ON SCOTT'S TEAM JUST SAY, HEY, THIS QUALIFIES AND BRING RECOMMENDATIONS TO US ONE

[01:15:04]

BY ONE? LIKE I'M TRYING TO RECOGNIZE.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO KNOW THIS IS THAT THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT WE SAID WE COULD DO IN 395.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I'M GOING TO LET SCOTT ANSWER.

OKAY. SURE. SCOTT MCDONNELL, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS IS RELATIVELY A NEW ROLE FOR THE CITY.

WE HAVE NOT DONE THIS.

WE HAVE NOT DONE THIS WITH ANY OF OUR FEES.

WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEING AN INCENTIVE FOR SOME OF OUR INFILL DEVELOPMENT, HOW WE CAN ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT.

UM, SO THIS WOULD BE ONE MORE TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX AND THIS WOULD BE A COUNCIL DECISION, WOULD NOT BE A STAFF DECISION AND IT WOULD BE BASED ON WE WOULD CREATE A PROCESS AND A POLICY OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, WHEN THAT WOULD BE APPROACHED, HOW IT WOULD BE APPROACHED.

SO IN IN THIS FORMAT, IT'S REALLY JUST A MATTER.

THIS IS AN OPTION ON ROADWAY IMPACT FEES AND WE CAN BRING THAT FORWARD AS WE GO.

WE JUST HAVEN'T DONE IT TO THE PAST.

OKAY. UM.

I APPRECIATE THAT I AM.

TRYING TO STAY WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF POSTING, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING I'M VERY INTERESTED IN, SO I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE AND GET THAT INFORMATION OUT SO PEOPLE CAN BE INCENTIVIZED TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IF I MIGHT. ONE MORE, I GUESS I WOULD.

I WOULD SUGGEST, BECAUSE WE ARE SO FAR BEHIND ON GETTING THESE ADOPTED, WE HAVE TO DO THIS EVERY FIVE YEARS.

WE'RE BEHIND ON THIS.

UM, I'VE HEARD 20% NUMEROUS TIMES.

AND IF WE CAN GO DOWN THAT PATH, IF WE HAVE, IF WE IF WE HAVE CONSENSUS TO DO THAT, WE CAN AT LEAST FRAME THIS UP, BRING IT BACK, AND THEN ALSO WORK ON THOSE PROVISIONS ON HOW IT IS THAT A WE CAN COME BACK ANNUALLY OR, YOU KNOW, EVERY TWO YEARS WITH WHAT AN INCREMENTAL INCREASE MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

ADDITIONALLY, HOW IT IS THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO DO A PROCESS FOR WAIVERS, WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, WE CAN WORK WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS AND LEGAL TO, TO CRAFT WHAT THAT WOULD BE IN THE PROCESS FOR THAT LAST PART.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM. AND BECKY, HOW MUCH FOR FOLKS WHO WANT TO DEVELOP OUTSIDE THE CITY BOUNDARIES? HOW MUCH DO THEY IMPACT FEES ON AVERAGE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL SIX OR SO? ALL SIX THAT WE CHARGE VERSUS WHATEVER THE COUNTY MIGHT CHARGE.

WHAT ARE THE IMPACT FEES OUT IN THE COUNTY? I'M NOT AWARE THAT THE COUNTY COLLECTS IMPACT FEES.

WE CAN ONLY COLLECT WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS.

OKAY. UM, SO I'M I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE SAID.

IMPACT FEES ARE BECAUSE OF VERY SIMPLY AFFORDABILITY.

I'M THINKING ABOUT ME.

I'VE SAID IT A BUNCH OF TIMES.

I LIVE IN A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT THE SIZE OF MY APARTMENT DID NOT GROW THIS YEAR, BUT MY RENT WENT UP BY $120.

SO Y'ALL MAKE THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE TO ME.

SO, UM, AND I ALSO KNOW THAT IF WE RAISE IMPACT FEES TOO HIGH, FOLKS ARE JUST GOING TO GO A FEW MILES RIGHT OUTSIDE OUR ETJ WHERE NEW RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY CAN COME AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL OF THE GREAT AMENITIES THAT THE CITY OF DENTON HAS TO OFFER, AND NOT PAY THEIR FULL FREIGHT.

AND WAIT. SO, UM, MY DIRECTION IS GOING TO BE, UM, VERY SIMPLE SINCE 20% IS GOING TO BE A DOUBLE, LET'S STAY AT 20%. LET'S GO UP 5% EVERY YEAR.

BUT I WANT TO EVALUATE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A FULL STUDY SO THAT WE HAVE TO GO AND HIRE A CONSULTANT AND DO THIS LONG PROCESS EVERY MORE OFTEN THAN FIVE YEARS. LET'S STICK WITH FIVE YEARS.

BUT I WOULD LOVE FOR STAFF TO FIGURE OUT A MECHANISM TO COME TO US EVERY TWO YEARS AND TELL US WHAT THEY'RE SEEING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE.

IF PRESSURE IS INCREASING, IF IT'S DECREASING, BECAUSE WE CAN SET THE RATE AT ANY TIME.

SO I'D LIKE FOR US TO GO 20%, GO UP EVERY FIVE YEARS AND SEE WHAT THAT DOES TO THE MARKET.

AND LIKE I SAID, FOR THE REASONS SIMPLY FOR ME, IT'S BECAUSE AFFORDABILITY, LIKE WORKING FOLKS CAN'T AFFORD MUCH MORE THAN THIS.

SO I'M VERY CONSCIOUS THAT WHATEVER FEES WE SET, DEVELOPERS AREN'T GOING TO PAY THEM.

I'M GOING TO PAY THEM.

PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE GOING TO PAY HIM.

SO AFFORDABILITY IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

SO WHEN WE FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NUMBER IS, I WOULD ASK ALL MY COLLEAGUES TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

WORKING PEOPLE IS ALREADY HARD, HARD ENOUGH FOR US.

IT IS TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE MORE THAN THE MONEY AS IS.

SO THANK YOU.

OKAY. UH, COUNCILMEMBER MELTZER.

YEAH. THANK YOU. ENDING UP IN SIMILAR PLACES THROUGH DIFFERENT ROUTE.

UH, FIRST OF ALL.

20%, EVEN 20% IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OVER WHERE WE ARE NOW.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE A FAIR AMOUNT TO ABSORB.

AND I ACTUALLY LANDED THERE AS WELL.

AND AS OPPOSED TO THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULDN'T LOOK AT OTHER COMMUNITIES, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE LIST OF OTHER COMMUNITIES.

AND THAT 20% PUTS US, YOU KNOW, SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LIST.

IT'S NOT MAYBE IT'S NOT AN ARITHMETIC MEAN, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT PUTS US, UH, BECAUSE WE ARE CONSIDERED NOT JUST BY DEVELOPERS, BUT

[01:20:10]

ALSO BY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE SOMEWHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE COMPARED TO OTHER PLACES.

SO I THINK THAT IT'S DEFENSIBLE, THE FACT THAT THAT THAT SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT REPRESENTS WILDLY DIFFERENT PERCENTS OF ALLOWED RECOVERY.

UH, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

BUT IN TERMS OF LIKE THE PRICE TAG, I WOULD I WOULD GO 20% ACROSS THE BOARD.

UM, AND I ALSO, UH, LET ME SAY A COUPLE OTHER THINGS.

ONE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF HOW WE GET MONEY.

YOU MENTIONED THERE ARE THREE WAYS WE GET MONEY FOR THESE THINGS FOR ROADS, RIGHT? WE GET IT FROM POTENTIALLY FROM GENERAL FUND, GET IT FROM BONDS AND FROM IMPACT FEES.

SO IMPACT FEES SAYS, WELL REALLY THE VALUE OF THIS ADDITIONAL ROADWAY IS, IS THE VALUE GOES TO JUST THE NEW PEOPLE COME IN.

I THINK WHEN YOU EXPAND A NETWORK OF ROADS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT BENEFITS THEM BUT BENEFITS EVERYONE ELSE TOO.

WHEN YOU TAKE IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, IT SAYS THE VALUE OF THIS SHOULD BE BORNE BY EVERYONE WHO'S HERE TODAY.

AND CLEARLY THIS IS IN THE FUTURE, THE THE BENEFIT OR THE CORRECTNESS.

IN MY VIEW OF HAVING MOST OF THE COST BORNE THROUGH BONDS IS THAT BONDS SAY THESE FUTURE PROJECTS WILL BE BORNE BY THE FUTURE TAXPAYERS WHO ARE HERE TO PAY THE BONDS.

I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

NOT A 100%.

THE IDEA THAT IT'S A MIX, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE WHEN WE DO PARK FEES, WE TALK ABOUT WHAT'S INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, WHAT'S COLLECTIVE BENEFIT, THE IDEA THAT 20% WOULD COME FROM THOSE DEVELOPING, I THINK LIKE KIND OF PHILOSOPHICALLY, IT'S A IT FEELS OKAY IN THAT 80% IS LIKELY BORNE BY BONDS.

SO SO I'M THERE AS FAR AS THE FACT THAT IT'S REVIEWABLE EVERY YEAR, I'D SAY IF IT'S IF IT'S REVIEWABLE EVERY YEAR, WHICH IS HELPFUL.

I THINK THAT THE POINT IS BECAUSE THINGS CHANGE EVERY YEAR AND CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AND THE ABILITY TO BEAR AN INCREASE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE IN THE PIT OF A MASSIVE RECESSION ONE OF THOSE YEARS, YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY.

SO I WOULD SAY, YEAH, FOR SURE.

YOU KNOW, LET'S AGREE TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA EVERY YEAR AND THEN MAKE THAT DECISION EVERY YEAR.

I DON'T NEED TO DECIDE NOW THAT 5% IS RIGHT.

TWO YEARS OUT OR THREE YEARS OUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COUNCIL SITTING HERE BY THEN.

HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT.

UH, LAST POINT, UH, YES, THERE IS THE WORD AFFORDABLE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT HAS LOTS OF, UH, SUBJECTIVE MEANINGS.

BUT I THINK THERE IS ALSO LIKE A DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

SOMEBODY ON STAFF PROBABLY DOES THAT WHEN WE HAVE, WHEN WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT HAVE PERCENT OF.

PERCENT OF THE UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE, PERCENT ARE MARKET.

THERE'S DEFINITIONS, THE FEDERAL DEFINITIONS THEY HAVE TO DO WITH PERCENT OF AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME, AND WHAT PERCENT OF THE INCOME CAN GO TOWARD HOUSING.

THERE'S WAYS TO SAY WHAT'S QUALIFIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND AND I FAVOR IT MIGHT REQUIRE A LITTLE MORE.

WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD REQUIRE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION TO SAY HOW IT WOULD WORK, BUT I DO FAVOR A CARVE OUT FOR QUALIFIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THESE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES. THAT'S MY INPUT.

WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT? BECAUSE I WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP RIGHT NOW.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

RIGID DEFINITION OR ALGORITHM FOR IT.

WHO WHO WHO ANSWERS THAT I CAN DO THE THE QUICK ANSWER IS YES.

THE THE STATE LAW REFERS YOU TO FEDERAL LAW.

UM, SPECIFICALLY THE SECTIONS THAT DEAL WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THERE'S CALCULATIONS AND IT'S A DEFINED TERMS UNDER FEDERAL LAW THAT THE STATE LAW IS LOOKING AT.

YOU HAVE TO MEET THAT QUALIFICATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

DOES THIS COUNCIL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OR IGNORE THAT? NO. THE WAY IT WORKS IS IT HAS TO MEET THAT FEDERAL DEFINITION IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE WAIVER UNDER STATE LAW.

BUT FOR US TO WAIVE OUR FEE, THAT'S NOT FEDERAL, RIGHT.

IT'S US FOR US TO WAIVE THE IMPACT FEE.

IT'S GOT TO MEET THAT FEDERAL REQUIREMENT, THAT FEDERAL DEFINITION.

OKAY. AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS COUNCIL HAS NO AUTHORITY, NO ABILITY TO IF A IF A PROJECT DOESN'T MEET THAT THIS COUNCIL LOSES HIS, ITS ABILITY OR A COUNCIL LOSES ITS ABILITY TO SAY, AH, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO WAIVE THE IMPACT FEE. CORRECT? RIGHT.

OKAY. PERFECT. THAT'S GOOD.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. MAKING A NOTE.

UM, MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

UM, WE'RE WE'RE TOLD ALL THE TIME THAT GROWTH IS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR GROWTH, AND AND I AND I IT IS TRUE.

[01:25:01]

WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT AS WE DEVELOP NEW GROWTH AREAS, EXISTING, UM, CITIZENS MAY OR MAY NOT USE THOSE GROWTH AREAS. BUT IN GENERAL, THE IDEA IS THAT GROWTH PAYS FOR GROWTH AND THAT THEN AT A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT HAS HAS OCCURRED, THOSE THAT THOSE ROADWAY IMPACTS ARE PICKED UP GENERALLY BY THE ENTIRE CITY AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THIS IS A A QUESTION OF I THINK IT'S, IT'S WE DO NOT CURRENTLY PAY FOR, UH, THE BULK OF OUR ROADS, UH, IN AN M AND O SORT OF WAY.

UM, WE, WE WELL, MAYBE NOT THE BULK.

MAYBE THAT'S THE WRONG THING.

WE WE PAY FOR SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF OUR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ON ONGOING BOND PROJECTS, WHICH MEANS WE'RE CONSTANTLY GOING BACK TO THE CITY AND AND SAYING, WELL, WE HAVE TO COVER THIS AGAIN WITH ANOTHER BOND AND ANOTHER BOND AND ANOTHER BOND OR MORE SO IT'S NOT A ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. AND I, I FIND THAT DISTRESSING.

UM, AND THE OTHER THING I FIND A LITTLE CONCERNING IS THAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SUBSIDIZING THE, UH, NEW DEVELOPMENT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT THAT MAY BE DESIRABLE FOR GROWTH.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MEAN SUBSIDY ACROSS ALL OUR COMPARABLES, THAT WAS ABOUT 65%.

ALL RIGHT, WHICH IS NOT EVEN, UH, ONE OF OUR OPTIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

UM, THE THE MEAN DOLLAR VALUE WAS ABOUT 58, 64.

IF I, IF I TAKE THOSE IN, WHICH WOULD, WHICH WOULD BE RIGHT ABOUT THE 30% MARK THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED.

SO THAT SAYS THAT FOR THESE IMPACT, UH, THE COST OF CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR WHICH IMPACT FEES COULD BE USED, THAT THE REST OF THE CITY IS GOING TO PAY FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, 70% IF WE DO 20%, 80%.

SO WE'RE ASKING THE REST OF THE CITY TO PAY FOR THE NEW GROWTH.

I, UM, I WHILE I AM HEARTENED AND I LEND MY SUPPORT TO THE WAIVER, UH, DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND MAKING GETTING THAT CLEAR AND DECIDING ON ON HOW AND WHEN WE CAN APPROPRIATELY BEGIN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAIVERS WHEN THEY MEET THE DEFINITIONS.

UM, I CAN'T GET BEHIND, UH, YOU KNOW, TREMENDOUS SUBSIDIES OF GROWTH WHEN WE WERE TOUTED THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR ITSELF.

SO I, I HEAR THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, GENERAL CONSENSUS FOR SOME 20 WITH ONGOING INCREASES.

BUT I'M, I'M LIKE COUNCILOR BYRD, I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE COMPROMISE FOR ME WOULD BE THE STAFF, UM, POSITION.

UM, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZING MORE THAN 50%.

SO I'M GOING TO JOIN COUNCILOR BYRD AT 50%.

NOW, I KNOW THAT'S TWO VOTES OR TWO PEOPLE OUT OF, UH, AND FOR PEOPLE SAYING, YOU KNOW, 20% PLUS SOME NUMBER, UM, YOU KNOW, AND WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT IF WE HAVE TO.

BUT IN TERMS OF JUST PUTTING A, YOU KNOW, THE LINE IN THE SAND OF, YOU KNOW, WE BE SURE THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL THAT YOU'RE ASKING THE EXISTING CITIZENS TO, TO PAY FOR THE GROWTH OF NEW AREAS.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SUBSIDY FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT, AND BE SURE THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.

SO THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. UM. COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

HEY, MR. MAYOR, UM, PERMISSION TO DIRECT MY REMARKS TO MAYOR PRO TEM? UM, JUST. YOU CAN MAKE YOUR YOUR REMARKS GENERALLY.

OKAY. ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

OR YOU CAN MENTION THE SEAT AT WHICH YOU'RE, UH, YOU CAN MENTION A POSITION, BUT THAT THAT'S.

YEAH. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM, UM.

AND THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, WE JUST LOOKED AT THAT SLIDE THAT SHOWED POPULATION GROWTH.

RAISING IMPACT FEES TO A LEVEL AT WHICH OUR DEVELOPER FRIENDS WILL JUST GO RIGHT OUTSIDE THE CITY, AND FUTURE FOLKS WILL COME INTO THE CITY AND USE ALL THE CITY RESOURCES, BUT NOT FAIRLY CONTRIBUTE TO THAT. WHAT DOES THAT DO? WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND? IF WE WANT TO HAVE AND I KNOW THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO BOTH OF US.

KEEP IN MIND WE DON'T HAVE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ON PEOPLE DIRECTLY OUTSIDE THE CITY, BUT WE DO IN THE CITY.

SO I THINK THIS IS A WAY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO COME INTO THE CITY AND DO BUSINESS RIGHT HERE IN THE CITY, WHERE WE HAVE SOME CONTROL, A LITTLE BIT OF CONTROL OVER HOW THEY BUILD.

UM, AND IT STILL JUST COMES BACK DOWN TO DOWN TO AFFORDABILITY.

THE NUMBERS INDICATE FROM THE WASTE FROM THE WATER PLANT PLAN THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING, AND WE'RE ASKING OUR RESIDENTS NOW TO PAY FOR RESIDENTS TODAY AND FUTURE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO OUR DAILY BREAD.

AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE OUR DAILY BREAD CONTINUE TO GROW, BECAUSE FOLKS WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT MOVE HERE WITH BIG CHECKS ARE GOING TO COME AND PUSH PEOPLE LIKE ME OUT OF THE PROCESS

[01:30:06]

WHO CAN'T AFFORD A HOME.

REMEMBER, THIS COST IS GOING TO BE PASSED DOWN TO US.

TO ME, I DON'T HAVE A HOUSE YET Y'ALL, AND I'D LIKE TO BUY A HOUSE ONE DAY.

ANOTHER $10,000 PRICE IS ME AND A WHOLE LOT OF BIG SWATH OF DENTON RIGHT OUT OF THE MARKET.

I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY DIRECTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

YES, SIR. I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLAND IS RIGHT.

AND PERHAPS IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

I WANT TO LAND SOMEWHERE BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLAND AND COUNCIL MEMBER MELTZER.

LET'S JUST STICK WITH 20% AND LET'S EVALUATE YEARLY.

I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT.

LET'S NOT NECESSARILY HAMPER A FUTURE COUNCIL NEXT YEAR WITH HAVING TO MAKE A 5% INCREASE, GIVEN SOME CATASTROPHIC IN THE MARKET MIGHT HAPPEN.

SO I'M GOING TO GO WITH 20% AND THEN YEARLY EVALUATION.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. COUNCILOR HOLLAND, NEED UH CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR DIRECTION FOR ME, PLEASE? AND THANK YOU. I'M NOT POSITIVE THAT IT WAS MY DIRECTION, BUT.

BUT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH 20% AND POSSIBLY AN INCREASE OF OF UP TO 3% A YEAR OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. OKAY.

UM, UP TO 3%.

NOT NOT AN AUTOMATIC.

YES. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

BUT YOU I KNOW YOU PUT YOUR.

THIS AFFECTS WHAT YOU DO.

TAXES, FEES, THAT SORT OF THING.

IS THERE ANY ANY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR TO, TO SHARE ANYTHING.

I MEAN, YOU HAVE REAL ESTATE.

YOU PARTICIPATE IN THIS AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL THAN A LOT.

SO JUST IF YOU HAVE WORDS OF WISDOM, THOUGHTS, I WANT TO.

YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO. ANYTHING YOU SAY WILL AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.

CERTAINLY. SO TREAD SOFTLY.

I APPRECIATE THAT I.

I HAVE NO PLANS OF BUILDING ANYTHING.

YEAH. AT THIS POINT IN MY LIFE, I THINK THAT'S, I THINK MY, MY BEST BUILDING YEARS ARE BEHIND ME.

OKAY. VERY GOOD.

OKAY. UH, THEN THEN, UH, SO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS AROUND THE 20% AND A LOOK AT THAT ANNUALLY.

AND THEN I'LL ALSO SAY, JUST TO GET IT OFF MY CHEST, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THAT.

CU, WHICH USED TO BE DENTON AREA TEACHERS CREDIT UNION THAT IS NOW IN CORINTH, AND BUCKY'S, WHICH TRIED TO GO TO CORINTH AND ENDED UP IN DENTON.

YOU DON'T AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO FORCE THE MARKET TO DO ANYTHING.

THE MARKET'S GOING TO DO WHAT IT WANTS TO DO, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO INVEST WHAT THEY WANT TO INVEST.

AND, UH, THIS, THESE FEES, THESE ACTIONS DO HAVE AN EFFECT.

AND I DON'T WEIGH EITHER ONE OF THOSE.

I JUST I DO LAMENT THAT VETERINARY TEACHERS CREDIT UNION IS IN CORINTH THAT DOES THEIR CORPORATE OFFICE WHERE WE COULD WE HAVE A UNIVERSITY THAT WE COULD BENEFIT FROM THAT BEING HERE.

BUT THAT WAS BEFORE MY TIME.

BUT THE DECISIONS HERE HAVE AN EFFECT.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS WHO CAN SPEAK TO, UM, EVERYTHING I'VE STUDIED SAYS THAT MORE HOUSING DRIVES DOWN HOUSING COSTS, RIGHT? IF WE WANT TO HAVE AFFORDABILITY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS AND I YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE MORE STOCK, MORE HOUSING STOCK PER SE IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO LOWERING COST.

AM I WRONG? AM I READING THAT WRONG? I THINK LIKE, LIKE ANYTHING ELSE IF IF THERE'S SUPPLY, IT'S SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

SO IF, IF YOU HAVE MORE HOUSES ON THE GROUND, THEN WHOEVER'S SELLING THOSE HOUSES HAS TO BE MORE COMPETITIVE.

FEWER HOUSING OPTIONS, CAUSES THEN THAT.

YOU KNOW THAT PRICE WAR.

GOT IT. OKAY.

I WOULD ADD TO THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A DIVERSE HOUSING STOCK.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.

GOT IT. OKAY. MR. MAYOR, UM, MAYOR, CAN I JUST SUMMARIZE WHAT I HEARD? YES, WE HAVE FOR FOR 20%.

UM, I DIDN'T HEAR FOR FOR A GRADUAL INCREASE, BUT WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA IN A YEAR, 18 MONTHS TO SEE GIVE COUNCIL A REPORT OF HOW WE'RE COLLECTING THOSE IMPACT FEES AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING AND THE MARKET.

AND THEN COUNCIL CAN DECIDE AT THAT POINT ANY INCREASES.

THEY'LL CORRECT ME WHERE I'M WRONG, BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS ENOUGH OF A THAT SAME FOR CONSENSUS IN REVISITING ANNUALLY TO SOME DEGREE.

NOT A FIXED NUMBER, NOT A FIXED RIGHT TO GIVE A REPORT.

EXACTLY. RIGHT.

YES, YES. THEN YEAH, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.

THANK YOU. AND THEN WE'LL JUST GO IN ORDER.

UH COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN BYRD.

AND THEN COUNCILMAN HOLLAND.

YEAH. MAYOR, I JUST, UH, WASN'T TRACKING PROPERLY AS CAREFULLY AS YOU WERE.

AND I'M UNCLEAR ON, UH, HOW MANY SUPPORT, UH, WAIVER FOR QUALIFIED, AFFORDABLE PROJECTS.

I DO, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S.

DO Y'ALL NEED DIRECTION ON THAT? I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. I GUESS IT DEPENDS TO THE EXTENT YOU WOULD WANT TO WRITE THAT INTO THE ORDINANCE, SO THAT EVERY AFFORDABLE PROJECT AUTOMATICALLY GOT IT, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO

[01:35:02]

HAVE THEM TO COME BACK? KIND OF.

THIS PROCESS WAS DESCRIBED ONE BY ONE, BRING THEM BACK TO COUNCIL AND HAVE A PROCESS FOR YOU TO TO REVIEW THEM INDIVIDUALLY AS THEY COME UP AND REQUEST THAT.

UM, HAPPY TO HAPPY TO BRING BACK A PROCESS THAT WE MIGHT LOOK WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE BEFORE WE INCORPORATE IT.

WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE TWO VERSIONS THAT WE MAY BRING BACK FORWARD, BUT CERTAINLY WE NEED TO EXPLORE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW COMPLICATED IT MAY BE.

YEAH, I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU I DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE SAID.

RIGHT? IN A SUBTLE WAY.

I'M TRYING TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I JUST I RESPECT IT.

I JUST MY LIFE EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN VERY DIFFERENT.

SO WHATEVER THE MAJORITY DECIDES, YOU KNOW, HEY, THAT'S GREAT.

SO, UH, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.

MAYOR, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY WHAT YOUR POSITION IS ON THIS? BECAUSE I'M. NO, NO, I DON'T HAVE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

RIGHT. NO. THEY'RE GOING TO BRING SOMETHING BACK.

WE WOULD WE WOULD RATHER JUST TAKE CARE OF THE BUSINESS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF AT HAND, AND THEN WE CAN AUGMENT THAT AT ANY POINT IN TIME.

SO CERTAINLY GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO DELVE INTO THIS A LITTLE FURTHER AND THEN BRING BACK SOMETHING AS A PROPOSAL THAT WE CAN INCORPORATE.

RIGHT. DOES THAT SATISFY YOUR.

WELL, MY MY QUESTION WAS HOW MANY SUPPORT IT.

SO THAT'S STILL MY QUESTION.

SUPPORT IT OKAY.

WELL WHEN YOU COME BACK WE'LL WE'LL BRING IT BACK.

GOT IT. THANK YOU.

UM. COUNCILMAN BYRD.

YOU KNOW, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE IDEA, UM, AND I'M NOT REFUTING ANYTHING.

I'M JUST VOICING AN ADDITIONAL OPINION.

UM, THAT.

THE GROWTH IS GOING TO COME.

AND IF THERE IS A BUSINESS THAT IS PUT OFF BY 50%, THERE IS ALWAYS ANOTHER BUSINESS THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE PUT OFF BY 50%.

AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BECAUSE WE ARE SEVERELY LOW IN HOUSING STOCK, I UNDERSTAND WHERE 5 TO 7000 JUST BEHIND RIGHT NOW.

UM, THEN THAT IS GOING TO COME AND THEN THERE IS GOING TO BE A PERCENTAGE THAT'S GOING TO MEET THE THE AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED.

AND IF THERE IS, UM, A SATURATED SUPPLY OF HOUSING, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT OUR CITY IS A RENTAL CITY, A BIT MORE THAN 50% OF ALL THE THE UNITS OUT THERE ARE RENTAL BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF CITY THAT WE ARE.

UM, JUST A NOTE THAT I SPOKEN WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, AND HE NOTED TO ME THAT THEY HAD TO REJECT 2500 STUDENTS FROM LIVING ON CAMPUS LAST YEAR, THIS YEAR.

AND OF COURSE, THOSE STUDENTS FOLDED OVER INTO OUR HOUSING.

SO THAT'S LEAVING PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE MAKING 60, 70, $75,000 IN PROFESSIONAL DOLLARS STRUGGLING TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO GIVING THAT BEING SAID, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, JUST AN OPINION AND I'M GOOD WITH 20% AND A STAGGERING AND COMING BACK. THAT'S NOT A THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE FOR ME.

BUT THE ISSUE FOR ME IS.

US THINKING THAT THINGS ARE GOING TO GET NECESSARILY BETTER JUST BECAUSE IT'S 20%.

I THINK THAT WE COULD STILL PULL THIS OFF WITH IT BEING 50%, BECAUSE THAT GROWTH IS GOING TO COME DENTON IS THE NEXT. THE IS THE THING ON THE BLOCK RIGHT NOW.

WE KEEP HEARING AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD PASS UP THIS OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

AND THEN WHO ELSE? COUNCILMAN HOLLER A COUPLE OF THINGS, PLEASE.

UM. WHEN? WHEN DOES THIS START? WHEN DO WE START CHARGING? UH, NEW STARTS.

THE. WHATEVER IT IS, IF IT'S 20%, WHEN DOES THAT START? AND WHEN IS THE FISCAL YEAR OF WHEN THE THE ASSESSMENT, UH, BE IT 3%, UP TO 3% A YEAR OR WHATEVER IT IS. WHEN DOES THAT START? UM, AND AND AS MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO SAY THIS, UH, IF IT'S REALLY AN IMPACT FEE, IF WE'RE IF WE'RE DEALING WITH THE IMPACT, THEN I DON'T SEE HOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING GETS A WAIVER ON THE IMPACT.

THEY HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS ANYBODY ELSE.

[01:40:03]

PLEASE. THANK YOU.

SURE. SO TODAY WE'RE JUST SEEKING YOUR DIRECTION FOR THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION OF THE FEE.

WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU AT A LATER DATE, SOMETIME WITHIN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS TO ACTUALLY DO THE ADOPTION.

SO WHAT YOU WILL DO IS WE'LL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, AND GO THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE ACTUAL STUDY, AND THEN YOU WILL SET THE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

SO IT HAS A PROCESS THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.

SO IT'LL BE SOMETHING IN THE JANUARY FEBRUARY TIME FRAME WHEN WE CAN FIND TIME TO PUT THAT ON COUNCIL AND MEET ALL THE REGULATIONS OF POSTING.

THANK YOU. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL FEE ADOPTION AND WHEN THAT WILL GO INTO PLAY, THAT'LL ALSO BE A CHART THAT'S A PART OF THE OVERALL ORDINANCE.

PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLOTTED WILL BE ASSESSED WITH THE FEE THAT IS SET AT THE 2016 RATE, AND WE'LL WORK THROUGH THOSE LOGISTICS OF WHAT THAT FEE WILL BE AND WHEN THAT WILL BE ASSESSED FOR NEW PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT STARTED GOING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

GOT IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. UH THEN THAT CONCLUDES THAT ITEM TAKES US TO ITEM D.

[D. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on pending City Council requests for: 1) Request for a medium priority work session to discuss and enact a policy mandating the availability of menstrual products in all city facility restrooms. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. UH D ID 23229 RECEIVE REPORT.

HOLD US. HOLD A DISCUSSION.

GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON PENDING CITY COUNCIL REQUEST.

FINE.

IT'S.

THANK YOU. RYAN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

JUST TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE WORK SESSION, TWO MINUTE PITCH PROCESS AND THE REQUESTING COUNCIL MEMBER WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO DESCRIBE AND JUSTIFY THE REQUEST.

THE REMAINING COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF ONE MINUTE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND INDICATE THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF CITY STAFF, TIME TO RESPOND TO THE REQUEST AND A CONSENSUS. UH, PARDON ME A CONSISTS OF FOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IS REQUIRED FOR IT TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND AS FEEDBACK IS GIVEN, IF A PRIORITY IS PROVIDED AS WELL, HIGH, MEDIUM OR LOW THAT WILL ASSIST STAFF IN PRIORITIZING THE REQUEST.

SO WE DO HAVE ONE REQUEST TODAY THAT'S FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE FOR A MEDIUM PRIORITY WORK SESSION DISCUSSING A POLICY MANDATING THAT PERIOD PRODUCTS BE MADE AVAILABLE IN ALL CITY FACILITIES, RESTROOMS, AND I'LL YIELD TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER TO PRESENT THEIR PITCH.

THANK YOU. RYAN. ARE YOU READY? YEAH. GO RIGHT AHEAD. OKAY.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. UH, THANK YOU COLLEAGUES.

UM, SO, UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT FOR FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

UM, ALL OF US HERE AT THIS TABLE HAVE RELATIONSHIPS IN OUR LIVES WITH WOMEN, RIGHT? ALL OF US GOT HERE BECAUSE WE WERE BORN OF A WOMAN.

MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, WE MARRIED WOMEN.

AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, WHEN WE HAVE CHILDREN, WE HAVE DAUGHTERS, RIGHT? SO WE KNOW THAT WE ALL KNOW PEOPLE IN OUR LIVES WHO NEED PERIOD PRODUCTS.

UM, I BELIEVE IT IS WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON'S POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT PERIOD PRODUCTS ARE AVAILABLE IN ALL OF OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES, PUBLIC FACILITIES. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I'M INTENDING TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRE CITY.

THIS IS JUST CITY OF DENTON FACILITIES.

THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER CITIES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT HAVE THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THIS, AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE VALUES OF THOSE OF US WHO SIT ON CITY COUNCIL ABOUT HOW WE VALUE MORE THAN HALF OF THE POPULATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND MORE THAN HALF OF THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD.

RIGHT. UM, MY LOGIC, MY LOGIC IS VERY SIMPLE.

WHEN PEOPLE GO TO THE BATHROOM, WE DON'T CHARGE THEM FOR THE SOAP TO WASH THEIR HANDS, THE WATER TO WASH THEIR HANDS, THE PAPER TOWEL TO DRY THEM, OR THE ELECTRICITY TO RUN THE AIR DRYER OR THE TOILET PAPER.

WHY ARE WE CHARGING WOMEN FOR PERIOD PRODUCTS THAT THEY NEED THAT ARE ESSENTIAL? I PUT TOILET PAPER, SOAP, PAPER TOWELS, THINGS LIKE THAT AS ESSENTIAL ITEMS. I THINK THEY'RE ESSENTIAL ITEMS. I THINK WOMEN IN THIS COMMUNITY WOULD AGREE THAT PERIOD PRODUCTS ARE ESSENTIAL ITEMS, AND I WANT TO THANK THE CITY MANAGER FOR FOR WHAT SHE'S DONE IN THIS AREA.

WHAT I'M INTENDING TO DO IS HAVE A WORK SESSION TO SET A POLICY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT OUR CITY MANAGER HAS DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, OPERATIONALLY, WILL CONTINUE TO BE DONE IN PERPETUITY.

I HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT ABOUT MAKING SURE WE TELL HER TO DO THIS IN A SPECIFIC WAY.

THAT'S UP TO HER. BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SET A POLICY THAT PRODUCTS ARE OFFERED IN OUR CITY FACILITY RESTROOMS. I'M ASKING FOR A WORK SESSION WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE.

I'M ASKING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TIME.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. SO WITH THAT, I YIELD.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. MAYOR.

YES. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

MAY I ADD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO THE STAFF RESPONSE? YES. WE DID PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION, UH, REGARDING A STAFF BEING, UH, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH A LOCAL NONPROFIT.

[01:45:07]

AND I DO HAVE AN UPDATE THAT IS MORE RECENT THAN WHEN WE PUT THIS IN YOUR AGENDA.

WE DO HAVE, UH, WE HAVE FINALIZED THAT AGREEMENT, AND THAT IS SLATED TO COME FORWARD ON JANUARY 9TH.

SO I DO WANT TO PROVIDE THAT.

YEAH. OKAY.

UH, SO I'LL JUST SAY THIS IS NOT NECESSARY.

THIS IS NOT THE LEVEL OF COUNCIL TO BE IN THE WEEDS ON.

I MEAN, NEXT WE'RE GOING TO BE MANDATING ORDINANCES FOR FOR BIC PENS.

I JUST WE'RE WAY TOO LOW ON THIS LEVEL.

AND I JUST WOULD I WOULD IMPLORE THIS COUNCIL OF MAJORITY MEN TO NOT MANSPLAIN TO THE FIRST FEMALE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THIS ARENA.

PLEASE DON'T DO THAT TO HER AS SHE HAS TO GO TO CONFERENCES.

IS THIS IS GOING TO BE IN THE NEWS ALREADY? IT'S JUST IT'S TERRIBLE THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

IT'S TERRIBLE THAT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE MEN SIT HERE TRYING TO TELL THE FIRST WOMAN CITY MANAGER HOW TO CONDUCT HER BUSINESS IN THIS AREA. JUST I BEG YOU, PLEASE HAVE SOME DECORUM.

HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR HER LIFE EXPERIENCE, FOR HER POSITION, FOR HER CONVERSATIONS WITH HER PEERS.

LET'S GET BACK TO FIXING STREETS.

MAN. WHO ELSE? COUNCIL MEMBER. OF COURSE, I'M GOING TO WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THIS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

BUT I THOUGHT WE HAD AGREE WITH THIS WHEN, UM, WHAT'S HER NAME? THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WAS HERE, THE MANAGER THAT WE BROUGHT THAT FORWARD AND WE WERE WE'RE KIND OF DOING THAT ALREADY.

SO MAYBE THAT QUESTION CAN BE ANSWERED.

WE ARE WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE UH, I'LL GO THROUGH A LITANY OF EXPLANATION AS I'VE ALREADY.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THE MACHINES IN A FACILITY BECAUSE OF VANDALISM AND THE CLOGGED TOILETS AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT EVERYONE EXPERIENCES.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN WHY WE HAVE STEAL TOILETS AND STEAL SINKS IN OUR PARKS.

WE HAVE THEM BEHIND THE COUNTER FOR ANYONE THAT NEEDS THEM.

I PLACE THEM IN THE CITY HALL RESTROOMS FOR ANYONE THAT NEEDS THEM.

WE'VE WORKED WITH A NONPROFIT ALREADY WHO WILL BE PROVIDING THEM IN CITY FACILITIES AT NO COST TO THE CITY.

UM, I UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, MCGEE IS TRYING TO DO IS MAKE IT A ORDINANCE.

UM, BUT WE ARE ALREADY DOING THESE THINGS, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THEM.

NOW, I DO UNDERSTAND HIS POINT ABOUT IF I'M NOT HERE, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT NO ONE WALKS AWAY WITHOUT GETTING THE SERVICE THEY MIGHT NEED IF THERE'S A ISSUE, AN ISSUE.

SO YEAH, WE DID THAT.

UM, IT WASN'T A NEED TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IT WAS JUST ALREADY PROVIDED.

OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO RESUME COUNCILMAN BYRD? ARE YOU DONE? DO YOU HAVE ABOUT, UM, YOU'RE AT 20S.

OKAY, SO, UH, YES, I WILL, UH, SUPPORT MCGEE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN HOLLAND? THANK YOU.

UM. SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE WOMEN.

I MARRIED A WOMAN.

MY MOM WAS A WOMAN.

I THINK I'VE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE.

I TA TA.

MEMBER MCGEE'S POINT.

UM, WE PROVIDE PAPER TOWELS, WE PROVIDE TOILET PAPER, WE PROVIDE DRYERS, WE PROVIDE ELECTRICITY TO RUN THEM.

I THINK THAT IS WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN.

THERE HAS TO BE A LINE DRAWN SOMEWHERE.

AND I THINK THAT'S IT.

I, WE WE, WE SPEND SO MUCH TIME AND AND AND AND GET THE STAFF INVOLVED IN ALL SORTS OF MINUTIA, THINGS LIKE THIS. WHEN TO QUOTE THE MAYOR, WHEN WE OUGHT TO BE FIXING STREETS.

THERE'S POTHOLES OUT THERE THAT NEED TO BE FIXED, STREETS THAT NEED TO BE PAVED.

I HADN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT STOPPED UP TOILETS, QUITE FRANKLY.

I JUST HADN'T HADN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.

BUT THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM.

I'M ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO THIS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? UH, MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I THINK I SENSE A MISUNDERSTANDING.

THERE'S A POLICY THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE CITY MANAGER.

COUNCILOR MCGEE IS REINFORCING THAT POLICY.

UH, THIS THIS THIS THIS IS NOT IN THE WEEDS IN THE SENSE THAT WE ARE SETTING A POLICY.

HOW THE CITY MANAGER AND FUTURE CITY MANAGERS IMPLEMENT THAT POLICY, WHERE THEY CONTRACT WITH ALL THE VARIOUS MINUTIA THAT THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR.

THIS IS THE GENERAL 50,000 FOOT VIEW CEMENTING A GOOD IDEA THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY, YOU KNOW, FEMALE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE

[01:50:02]

THE CITY MANAGER AT THIS POINT.

SO THIS IS THIS IS MORE REINFORCEMENT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT INTERFERENCE WHEN THIS IS REINFORCEMENT OF A DECISION THAT WAS ALREADY MADE.

SO, UM, I THINK YOU CAN TELL WHICH WAY I'M GOING TO LEAN ON A FUTURE DISCUSSION.

BUT YES, I WILL SUPPORT THAT DISCUSSION.

POINT A POINT OF INQUIRY.

RYAN. AM I MISSING AN EMAIL? DID YOU NOT SEND ME EMAILS ON? WOMEN REQUESTING THIS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE SENT YOU AN EMAIL.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE RECEIVED ANY EMAILS.

ARE THERE ANY EMAILS? HE SPOKE ON EMAILS.

I NEED TO KNOW WHERE THESE ARE.

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY EMAILS THAT OF HAVING THIS REQUEST.

SO DO WE HAVE ANY PHONE CALLS, ANY CORRESPONDENCE, ANYTHING THAT STAFF IS AWARE OF FROM ANYONE IN THE CITY OF DENTON THAT REQUESTED THIS? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

NO, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OTHER THAN WHAT WAS MENTIONED, AND IT WAS REQUESTED TO BY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER DEB PARMENTER, WHO I WORKED WITH DIRECTLY. THERE WAS NO POLICY.

IT WAS JUST LET ME JUST PUT SOME.

SHE SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT CITY HALL.

OKAY. SO I JUST THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF POINT OF INQUIRY.

ALSO, SOMEONE MENTIONED WE SHOULDN'T BE CHARGING PEOPLE.

ARE WE CHARGING ANYONE FOR ANY OF THESE PRODUCTS THAT ARE IN THERE? WE ARE NOT. SO IS THERE ANY HISTORY OF THE CITY OF DENTON CHARGING ANYONE FOR ANYTHING WE HAVE NOT.

OKAY, I JUST WANT TO HAVE A CLEAR RECORD AND CLEAR UNDERSTANDING SO THAT THOSE ARE TWO MISCHARACTERIZATIONS MISCHARACTERIZATIONS.

UH, ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN MELTZER.

BUT NOT OPPOSED TO A BRIEF WORK SESSION, UH, TO, UH, UH, HOPEFULLY HEAR ABOUT AND SUPPORT WHAT, UH, THE CITY MANAGER'S ALREADY DOING.

OKAY, THERE YOU GO.

THERE'S NO NO ONE MENTIONED PRIORITY, BUT, UM, THAT'S ONE THAT'S NOT A MAJORITY DIRECTION, BUT.

OKAY, WELL, YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.

OKAY, WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE THE FLOOR.

UH, BUT THANK YOU, I UNDERSTAND.

ON WHAT? THAT THAT ITEM IS.

CONCLUDED. WILL YOU BRIEFLY ALLOW EVERYONE TO GIVE A POLICY? GIVE A LEVEL? NO. THEY KNOW THE RULES COMING IN.

IT IS IT. STAFF DICTATES IT SAYS IT.

IT'S WRITTEN THERE.

IT IS EVERYONE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO WORK THAT IN TO THEIR CONVERSATION.

PER THE ORDINANCE.

I CAN'T CHANGE THE ORDINANCE OR THE RULES.

HE EXPRESSLY REMINDED EVERYONE JUST BEFORE THEY STARTED TALKING.

IT'S WRITTEN IN THE BACK UP.

THERE'S ENOUGH NOTABILITY NOTICE.

NOTICE THAT THAT'S A REQUIREMENT, UH, OF STAFF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO THAT, THEY CAN THEY DON'T HAVE TO AND SO THEY ELECTED NOT TO. I JUST THOUGHT YOU MIGHT BE OKAY BEING A LITTLE GRACIOUS, GIVEN THAT YOU ALLOWED THE CITY MANAGER TO SPEAK DURING THE PITCH PROCESS, WHICH DOESN'T NORMALLY HAPPEN, AND YOU HAD A DIALOG BACK AND FORTH WITH STAFF THAT WAS WELL AFTER YOUR ONE MINUTE.

I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT JUST BE A LITTLE BIT OF GRACIOUS, BUT IT'S OKAY.

I HAD A POINT OF INQUIRY.

ARE YOU DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE THAT ABILITY IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER? I DON'T HAVE MY BOOK WITH ME, BUT I CAN GIVE YOU THE SITE DURING THE BREAK.

I DO, THAT'S WHY I ASKED.

OKAY, WELL, THEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE POINT OF INQUIRY BECAUSE I STATED IT PROPER, I DO BELIEVE.

DID I DID I STATE IT WRONG? YOU DID AND I DID STATE IT WRONG.

NO. YOU'RE GOOD.

OKAY. YOU STATED IT CORRECTLY.

I WAS JUST SIMPLY ASKING FOR A LITTLE GRACE.

OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S BEEN DENIED.

NO PROBLEM. I'D ALSO, IF WE'RE GOING TO BELABOR THIS CONVERSATION, I'D ALSO LIKE YOU TO STEP BACK YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU SAID WE'RE CHARGING PEOPLE.

YOU MADE AN INCORRECT STATEMENT.

MAYOR PRO TEM MADE AN INCORRECT STATEMENT, AND NEITHER ONE OF YOU WALKED THAT BACK.

SO IF I MAY RESPOND, I BELIEVE WE SAID WE DON'T CHARGE FOR THE TOILET PAPER AND THE PAPER TOWELS AND THE SOAP AND THE WATER AND THE ELECTRICITY TO RUN THE AIR DRYER.

PERHAPS, IF YOU LIKE, STAFF CAN GO BACK AND RERUN THE VIDEO AND SEE IF I SAID THAT.

BUT I BELIEVE WE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WE DON'T CHARGE FOR IT.

YOU'RE SAYING IF I MADE A MISTAKE, I APOLOGIZE.

YOUR STATEMENT WAS THAT WE SHOULD NOT CHARGE FOR WOMEN'S PRODUCTS, WHICH IMPLIES THAT WE DO THAT.

THAT'S YOUR THAT WAS YOUR STATEMENT.

YOU YOU MADE AN INFERENCE THAT THAT'S THAT'S YOUR RIGHT TO DO.

OKAY. BUT THAT WAS NOT MY INTENTION.

SO IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO LEAP TO THAT.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT. AND THE OTHER ONE, WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE.

NEVER MIND. IT'S IT'S IT'S LET'S MOVE FORWARD OKAY.

SO THE COUNCIL WILL NOW AT 4:54 P.M., CONVENE IN CLOSED MEETING TO DELIBERATE THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES THE

[1. Closed Meeting:]

FOLLOWING ITEM A ID 232418.

CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071.

WE'LL SET THE ROOM. WELCOME BACK TO THIS MEETING OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

[01:55:03]

IT IS 523.

WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. CALL A MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

WE'RE TAUGHT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA SECTION OF THE MEETING.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION. BUT FOR AND JUST PLEASE NOTE, ITEM D WAS PULLED FOR A SEPARATE VOTE.

I'LL MOVE APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE. SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION.

AND THIS IS PLEASE LET THE BEFORE YOU VOTE.

IT'S BUT FOR ITEM D JUST SO EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE.

SO LET'S VOTE ON SCREEN.

THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

I'LL TAKE TAKE UP ITEM D ID 232275.

[D. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton dissolving the Traffic and Safety Commission; repealing all ordinances and resolutions in conflict; and providing an effective date.]

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON DISSOLVING THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY COMMISSION, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AND CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

UH. I'LL MOVE APPROVAL.

IS THERE A SECOND? SORRY. OH, MY PHONE AT COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLAND.

YOU MADE A MOTION. I'LL SECOND.

YES. SO JESSE.

I'M THE MOVEMENT.

UH, COUNCILOR HOLLAND AND SECONDER DISCUSSION.

COUNCILOR MELTZER.

UH, YES. I'LL BE VOTING NO IN FAVOR OF ASK UH, BECAUSE I'D RATHER ASK, UH, OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO JOIN ME IN THIS REQUEST, BUT, UH, I'LL BE MAKING THE REQUEST TO STAFF TO COME BACK WITH AN OPTION, UH, THAT, UH, WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, UH, ACTUALLY DISCUSSED A COUPLE OF TIMES, WHICH WOULD BE RATHER, RATHER THAN DO THIS TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THE EFFICIENCY FOR STAFF OF HAVING TO ONLY DO ONE PREPARATION, BUT TO KEEP THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS AND THE THE VARIATION THAT I'LL BE ASKING THEM TO COME AND DISCUSS WITH US WOULD BE.

TO NOT DISSOLVE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY.

TO DISSOLVE MOBILITY.

BUT ADD.

UH, COULD BE THOSE MEMBERS AND AN EX OFFICIO CAPACITY TO THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY.

SO THEY END UP BASICALLY MERGING THE TWO, UH, AND KEEPING THE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND HAVING ONLY ONE STAFF PREP.

SO I'LL BE VOTING NO ON THIS MOTION.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? COUNCILMAN HOLLAND.

THANK YOU. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE TAKE SOME, GIVE SOME CREDENCE TO THE PEOPLE WHO WHO PUT THESE THINGS TOGETHER.

AND IT'S THE STAFF THAT PUTS THESE THINGS TOGETHER.

AND IF WE CAN COMPRESS SOME OF THESE, THESE ITEMS, SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND PROBABLY MAKE EVERYTHING MORE EFFICIENT AND, AND REQUIRE THE STAFF TO DO LESS WORK, I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S A WIN.

UH, I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT THIS.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BYRD. I GUESS TO CLARIFY COUNCIL MEMBER MELTZER'S POINT, UM, SAYING YES, IT IS, IS GOING TO DISSOLVE THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY COMMISSION.

UM, AND THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW US TO COME BACK.

AND I'M JUST IN A CLARIFICATION MODE RIGHT NOW.

PLEASE ALLOW ME, UH, FOR US TO COME BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT OUR MOBILITY COMMITTEE AND MAYBE HAVE CONVERSATIONS TO ADD CITIZENS TO THE MOBILITY COMMITTEE OR KEEP THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY COMMISSION, DISSOLVE THE MOBILITY COMMITTEE AND ADD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY COMMISSION.

I MEAN, EITHER WAY, WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK FOR SOME EFFICIENCY, AND EITHER ONE WOULD GO, SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO SAY YES TO THIS SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO NEXT.

RIGHT. IS THAT WHAT I'M THINKING? YES, I'M GOING TO SAY YES.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. UM, MY COMMENT IS I'M GOING TO SAY NO, BECAUSE IF WE SAY YES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WILL NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT MR. MELTZER IS SUGGESTING IS THE WAY I THINK OUR TRACK.

IS THAT CORRECT, MR. MAYOR? MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONE WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY WE CAN DO.

WE CAN CREATE OR NOT CREATE A BOARD OR COMMITTEE AT ANY POINT IN TIME.

SO NO, IT DOESN'T FORECLOSE US FROM DOING WHATEVER WE DEEM NECESSARY TO TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ADEQUATE, ADEQUATE COVERAGE.

SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

BUT BUT I'LL DEFER TO STAFF IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CORRECT ME WHERE I'M WRONG.

[02:00:01]

UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE TWO VACANCIES ON TRAFFIC SAFETY AND SAFETY.

SO WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS DISSOLVE THE MOBILITY COMMISSION STAFF, COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION OR WITH A WE HAVE A COMMITTEE THAT IS MADE UP OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WOULD HAVE A CITIZEN OR TWO REPRESENTATIVE, AND IT WOULD BE CALLED TRAFFIC AND SAFETY AND I.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH. COUNCIL MEMBER. MELTZER.

WELL, YOU KNOW.

WILL. I WASN'T IDENTIFYING THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF EACH.

THE GENERAL IDEA IS TO IS THAT MY REQUEST IS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE NO ON THIS, SO THAT STAFF CAN COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IN ONE FORM OR FASHION, UH, COMBINES THE TWO.

GOT IT. I'LL JUST SAY THIS.

I THINK WHAT'S MISSING FROM THE CONVERSATION, I'M OBVIOUSLY I SUPPORT THIS.

UH, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN COME BACK AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED.

BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, YOU UNDERSTAND EFFICIENCY, IS THIS STAFF PRESENTING TO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS. EVERY MEETING WE HAVE IS PUBLIC.

I CANNOT STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH HOW IT'S BEEN CHARACTERIZED ENOUGH TO SAY THAT SOMEHOW CITIZENS ARE BEING CARVED OUT.

THEY HAVE EVERY SEAT AT EVERY TABLE FOR EVERY MEETING WE HAVE.

THEY HAVE ACCESS TO US AT FOR EMAIL, PHONE CALLS, EVERY MEETING, THIS MEETING THAT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED WOULD BE.

BUT WHERE YOU GAIN EFFICIENCY IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A CITIZENS COMMITTEE THAT DOESN'T HAVE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO GET TO THE BODY THAT DOES HAVE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY.

SO TO, TO CAPTURE THE THE UH, COUNCIL MEMBER EARLIER THAT SPOKE ABOUT EFFICIENCIES AND TRUSTING STAFF.

STAFF WAS INTENTIONAL ABOUT PRESERVING THE BODY THAT MAKES DECISIONS.

AND THEN IT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT CITIZENS DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

HALF THE STUFF THAT WE TAKE UP, HALF THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE, THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION FOR IT.

JUST LOOK AT OUR LAST MOTION, OUR, UM, WORK SESSION.

THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION FOR IT.

THERE'S NO REQUEST. BUT YET WE'RE TOLD IT'S FOR CITIZENS.

SO CITIZENS ARE HEARD REGULARLY AND WELL REPRESENTED AND HAVE ACCESS TO EVERY MEETING WE HAVE.

WE'RE NOT CARVING ANYONE OUT.

WE'RE NOT DISENFRANCHIZING ANYONE.

WE'RE ADDING EFFICIENCIES SO THAT OUR STAFF CAN BE MORE EFFICIENT, DO MORE, UM, FASTER.

UH, AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL DID BEFORE IT EVEN CAME FORWARD.

UM, AND I'M GOING TO STAY IN THAT POSITION TO THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL SUPPORTED THIS.

THAT'S HOW IT GETS ON OUR AGENDA.

UM, AND TRYING TO MOVE IT FORWARD.

THE ONLY REASON IT HADN'T MOVED FORWARD, I BELIEVE, IS BECAUSE WE'RE WE ONLY HAVE SIX MEMBERS.

AND SO THAT'S CREATED THIS.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECLAIM MY TIME.

UM, I HAD A QUESTION.

IF I MAY ASK, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS WHICH ONE OF THESE IS STATUTE? UM, STATUTORY BASED ON THE CHARTER.

OR BETWEEN THE MOBILITY COMMITTEE AND THE TRAFFIC ANY EITHER OF THEM.

NEITHER OF THEM ARE FROM THE CHARTER, SO THEY CAN BOTH BE CREATED OR DISSOLVED.

OKAY. UM, I APPRECIATE THIS.

UM, WHEN I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY WHY I HAVE DELAYED IN MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THIS COMMITTEE.

I STILL THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT I APPRECIATE MR. MELTZER, BECAUSE I THINK HE HAS A BETTER IDEA.

UM, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE NIMBLE WHEN I HEAR A BETTER IDEA.

I'M HAPPY TO CHANGE MY MIND BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ADULTS CAN DO WHEN FACED WITH NEW INFORMATION.

SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE WE'RE EXPOSED TO, UH, AN IDEA OF OF GETTING BOTH AND AND ALSO GETTING THE EFFICIENCIES. UM, IF YOU RECALL, I WAS I WAS NOT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M FROM THE IF YOU WILL.

I'LL GET CHARACTERIZED THIS WAY ANYWAY.

THE NON EFFICIENCY GROUP COMPROMISING DOWN TO EFFICIENCY.

UH I THINK THE THE THE ABILITY TO COME BACK IN THE FUTURE, UH, TO, TO MAINTAIN THE ACTUAL GOAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER, UM, AND PARTICIPATION, UH, IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT.

UH, DENTON HAS EXPRESSED THAT KIND OF WILL OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN MANY FASHIONS.

SO I'LL BE VOTING NO, ONLY SO THAT I CAN GET TO A BETTER PRODUCT IN THE FUTURE.

OKAY, LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

[02:05:06]

AND THAT FAILS.

THREE, THREE.

YES. SO IT'LL COME BACK, UH, NEXT, NEXT YEAR.

OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES OUR OUR, UH, CONSENT AGENDA TAKES US TO, UM.

OUR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS, OF WHICH WE HAVE THREE.

[A. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending the master ordinance that established the City of Denton extendable commercial paper financing program and authorized extendable commercial paper notes, series A to add general obligation bonds authorized by the voters within the City at an election held on November 7, 2023; providing for approval by the attorney general, and providing an effective date.]

UM. OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT.

THREE ON THE FIRST PAGE.

TWO AFTER THAT. YOU'RE RIGHT.

I WAS GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.

UH, IT'S ITEM ID 232242.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE MASTER ORDINANCE THAT ESTABLISHES THE CITY OF DENTON'S EXTENDABLE COMMERCIAL PAPER FINANCING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZES EXTENDABLE COMMERCIAL PAPER NOTE SERIES A TO ADD GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AUTHORIZING AUTHORIZED BY VOTERS WITHIN THE CITY AT AN ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2023.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M VISIBLE PENTAGON, ADF FINANCE.

AND HERE TO TALK ABOUT COMMERCIAL PAPER.

CALL ITEM. OKAY.

ITEM B IS ID 232243.

[B. Consider adoption of an ordinance considering all matters incident and related to the issuance, sale and delivery of up to $100,000,000 in principal amount of "City of Denton General Obligation Refunding Bonds”; authorizing the issuance of the Bonds; delegating the authority to certain city officials to execute certain documents relating to the sale of the Bonds; approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating to said Bonds; enacting other provisions relating to the subject; and providing an effective date.]

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE CONSIDERING ALL MATTERS AND MATTERS INCIDENT AND AND RELATED TO ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF UP TO $100 MILLION IN PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION.

REFUNDING BONDS.

AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS.

DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO CERTAIN CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SALE OF BONDS.

APPROVING AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND POWERS.

PROCEDURES RELATING TO SAID BONDS, ENACTING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO SUBJECT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

SO BACK IN APRIL OF 2020, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A $100 MILLION CIP PROGRAM THAT WAS TIED TO THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM.

THE CIP PROGRAM ALLOWS THE BOND PROGRAM TO BEGIN FASTER DUE TO CONTRACT APPROPRIATION.

AUTHORITY. NO COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATION CIP PROGRAM CURRENTLY.

THIS ORDINANCE WILL ADD THE 2023 BOND PROGRAM TO THE EXISTING 100 MILLION CIP PROGRAM, WITH THE ROUGH COST OF $15,000 VERSUS THE INCREASING THE 100 MILLION, OR CREATING A NEW PROGRAM WITH THE COST AROUND $275,000.

SOME KEY BENEFITS OF THE CPP PROGRAM ARE.

FUNDING CAN BE RECEIVED WITHIN 1 OR 2 DAYS.

LOW SHORT TUM INTEREST RATES AND ALSO DEBT ISSUING ALIGNING WITH THE PROJECT TIMELINE.

SOME, UH, SOME, UH, SOME BENEFITS TO UH, ANNUAL REFUNDING OF THE OF THE GEO PROGRAM IS BENEFITS ARE FLEXIBILITY TO REFUND THE COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM RATING AGENCIES AND POTENTIAL INVESTOR VIEWING REFUNDING AS A POSITIVE MEASURE AND POTENTIAL AVOIDING ADDITIONAL COSTS.

AND LASTLY, HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE 2023 BOND PROGRAM ISSUANCE TIMELINE.

AT THIS TIME, WE ARE NOT SEEKING FOR APPROVAL OR REQUIRED AT THIS TIME.

QUESTIONS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SO NO ACTION ON EITHER OF THESE, RIGHT? NO. PERFECT. JUST JUST UPDATES OKAY.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

SEEING NONE.

THE JOB IS OKAY.

THERE IS ACTION NEEDED.

OKAY. ON.

HEY, ANDREW. THEY ALL NEED.

THEY BOTH NEED ACTION. THEIR ORDINANCES.

OKAY. IT'S ADOPTING THE ORDINANCE.

YES, IT IS ADOPTING THOSE TWO ORDINANCE.

OKAY, SO, UM, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON ITEM A.

COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD. I MOVE TO APPROVE.

MAYOR PRO TEM SECOND.

IT'S A MOTION. AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE? COUNCILOR HOLLAND. ARE WE VOTING ON BOTH ITEMS AT THE SAME TIME? NO, SIR. JUST ONE.

JUST A. AND THEN WE'LL TAKE UP B AFTER THIS.

OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.

LET'S VOTE ON SCREEN. THAT PASSES SIX ZERO TAKES US TO ITEM B, I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLAND 23 2243.

COUNCILWOMAN BYRD. I SECOND HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

[02:10:02]

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

IT PASSES SIX ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

TAKES US TO ITEM CA230003C.

[C. Conduct the second of two readings of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas annexing approximately 7.25 acres of land, generally located 224 feet north of E. McKinney Street and 1,140 feet east of Trinity Road, into the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; extending the boundary limits of the City of Denton to include the annexed property in the city limits; providing for a corresponding amendment to the city map to include the annexed land; and providing for a savings clause and an effective date. (A23-0003c, Walker Tract Annexation, Angie Manglaris)]

CONDUCT A SECOND OF TWO READINGS ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 7.25 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED IN 224FT NORTH OF EAST MCKINNEY STREET AND 1140FT EAST OF TRINITY ROAD INTO THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ANGIE MANGLARES, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS IS A 23 0003C.

THIS IS THE FINAL STEP IN THE ANNEXATION PROCESS FOR APPROXIMATELY 7.25 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 224FT NORTH OF EAST MCKINNEY AND 1140FT EAST OF TRINITY ROAD.

UH, JUST A QUICK REMINDER, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY FOR THE POSSIBLE EVENTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH TOWNHOMES.

THEY DO HAVE A NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

IT IS CURRENTLY PREDOMINANTLY UNDEVELOPED PASTURE AND IT IS OFF OF EAST MCKINNEY STREET, WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH AND IS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL.

UM, WE HAVE COMPLETED, UH, THE ADOPTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE FIRST READING OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS THE PUBLICATION OF THE ANNEX ORDINANCE, ANNEXATION ORDINANCE.

THIS WILL BE THE SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE AND IS THE FINAL STEP IN THE PROCESS.

SO I WILL READ THE ORDINANCE CAPTION.

THIS IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 7.25 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED 220FT NORTH OF EAST MCKINNEY STREET AND 1140FT EAST OF TRINITY ROAD INTO THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO INCLUDE THE ANNEXED PROPERTY IN THE CITY LIMITS, PROVIDING FOR A CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY MAP TO INCLUDE THE ANNEXED LAND AND PROVIDING FOR SAVINGS CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE UH.

THIS ANNEXATION APPLICATION DOES MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

SEEING NONE. I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

COUNCILOR HOLLAND.

MOTION TO APPROVE 8023 0003C COUNCILMAN BYRD.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

THAT TAKES US TO OUR NEXT TWO ITEMS, WHICH I'LL CALL TOGETHER.

[D. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to authorize the spend for an insurance binder to Archer Contingent Energy Risk, LLC, for forced outage insurance for the Denton Energy Center for the Winter of 2023-2024; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (RFP 8389 - authorizing the spend for power plant forced outage insurance coverage for the Winter of 2023-2024 and awarding such insurance binder to Archer Contingent Energy Risk, LLC, in the not-to-exceed amount of $950,000.00).]

[E. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, temporarily waiving requirements to purchase winter outage insurance for the Denton Energy Center under the 2023 Denton Municipal Electric Energy Risk Management Policy; and providing an effective date.]

UH, PER PER LEGAL.

WE WOULD NEED TO AUTHORIZE ONE AND THE OTHER WOULDN'T, UH, REQUIRE ACTION.

I'LL LET HIM CLARIFY, BUT I'LL CALL HIM.

UH, SO IT'S ITEM D, ID 232351.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, A TEXAS HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE THE SPEND FOR AN INSURANCE BINDER TO ARCHER CONTINGENT ENERGY RISK, LLC FOR FORCED OUTAGE INSURANCE FOR THE DENTON EMERGENCY CENTER FOR ENERGY CENTER FOR THE WINTER OF 2023 2024, AND ITEM E, ID 232419.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, A TEXAS HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TEMPORARILY WAIVING REQUIREMENTS TO PURCHASE WINTER OUTAGE INSURANCE FOR DENTON ENERGY CENTER UNDER THE 2023 DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY.

UH, ANYTHING TO ADD? UH, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER TO STAFF, I THINK DEREK CAN EXPLAIN IT, BUT ONE OF TWO THINGS ARE EITHER GOING TO ADOPT THE ITEM D, WHICH IS THE INSURANCE PURCHASE, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY OUR POLICY.

IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO BUY THE INSURANCE, AS TERRY WILL GO THROUGH THAT, YOU'LL NEED TO APPROVE ITEM E, WHICH IS A WAIVER OF OUR POLICY THAT REQUIRES US TO OTHERWISE BUY THE INSURANCE. OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL.

UH, TERRY NAULTY, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AT DME.

VERY QUICKLY.

UH, OUTAGE INSURANCE IS A TYPE OF INSURANCE THAT WE HAVE ROUTINELY PURCHASED FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.