Jun 01, 2021 City Council

CURRENTLY WE'RE NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FACILITY.

WELL, UNTIL WE WENT WITH WILEY, WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER PARKER MUNICIPAL COURT WARRANTS INTO THE SYSTEM.

WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH WILEY, WE'RE NOW ABLE TO DO THAT.

AND SO THOSE WARRANTS WEREN'T AVAILABLE TO BE SERVED.

WE COULD CALL PEOPLE AND TELL THEM HOW YOU GOT A WARRANT.

IF THEY DON'T COME IN, THERE'S NOTHING WE REALLY COULD DO BECAUSE WE HAD NO PLACE TO PUT THEM.

WILEY OFFERS US THAT OPPORTUNITY, WHICH WILL OPEN UP THE ABILITY TO PROCESS THOSE WARRANTS THROUGH MUNICIPAL COURT.

AND THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO, IF WE GO ONLY WITH COLLIN COUNTY.

IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THEN COLLIN COUNTY WOULD BE THEN YOUR BACKUP? YES, OK.

AND JUST CURIOUS IN GENERAL, LIKE, LET'S SAY FOR THE PAST YEAR, HOW MANY INMATES OR HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HAD TO USE WYLIE ON AVERAGE? CAN YOU JUST BALLPARK IT? WE ONLY STARTED WITH THEM IN MARCH AND WE'RE AVERAGING ABOUT THREE CURRENTLY PER MONTH.

BUT PARKER MUNICIPAL WARRANTS ARE NOT IN THE SYSTEM YET.

WE'RE STILL IN THE DEVELOPMENT STAGES OF THE ALL PAID SYSTEM AND WE HOPE TO GET THAT INSTALLED THIS MONTH.

AND THEN WE WILL SEND LETTERS TO EVERYONE THAT HAS A WARRANT, GIVING THEM AN AGREED UPON AMOUNT OF TIME TO TAKE CARE OF THAT WARRANT PRIOR TO IT BEING PLACED INTO THE SYSTEM.

ONCE THEY'RE PLACED INTO THE SYSTEM, ANY AGENCY IN OUR REGION CAN ARREST AND HOLD A PARKER MUNICIPAL WARRANT.

SO CAN YOU PUT IN WARRANTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED BUT HAVEN'T BEEN INPUT INTO THE SYSTEM? HOW FAR BACK CAN YOU GO? MURPHY'S PROCEDURE IS FIVE YEARS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR EARLY WARRANTS AND WORK BACKWARDS IN SENDING OUT LETTERS AND HOPEFULLY CLEARING THOSE.

AND THEN PROBABLY SOMEWHERE AROUND THE THREE YEAR MARK, WE'LL MAKE AN EVALUATION OF A WARRANT AND DETERMINE IF WE SHOULD GET OUR MUNICIPAL JUDGE TO REISSUE THE WARRANT.

AND THEN IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS.

SO THOSE THAT ARE OLDER THAN THREE YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AN INDIVIDUAL LOOK AT AND FIND OUT IF WE THINK IT'S WORTH TAKING THE TIME TO HAVE THEM REISSUED.

SO IS THERE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH GOING BACK IN TIME AND INPUTTING THOSE WARRANTS? THERE'S A STAFF COST, YES.

OK, SO YOU'RE GOING TO EVALUATE WHETHER IT'S WORTH IT OR NOT AT SOME POINT IN TIME? WELL, WE'LL EVALUATE WHETHER THE WARRANT IS SERVICEABLE, IF WE BELIEVE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE WARRANT IS GOOD INFORMATION AND WE RUN THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE AND DO A CHECK ON THEM AND DETERMINE IT'S GOOD INFORMATION, WE'LL PROBABLY ENTER IT AND HAVE IT REISSUED BY THE JUDGE.

CHIEF, ON THESE, I KNOW THAT WE USE WYLIE AND WE APPROVED THE CONTRACT TO USE THEM.

WOULD YOU BE UTILIZING COLLIN COUNTY FOR THE REASON ABOVE TO REALIZE THE SAVINGS, OR ARE YOU STILL TAKING THOSE TO WYLIE AS WELL? WE'LL STILL TAKE THEM TO WYLIE JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE TIME INVESTED.

LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, LAST ONE WE TOOK TO WYLIE, THEY WERE THERE FOR 20 MINUTES, SO.

OTHER THAN IN COLLIN COUNTY, KNOW YOU'LL BE THERE HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF ON AN EARLY SIDE.

SO THAT'S THE GOOD SIDE.

AND YOU COULD BE THERE AS LONG AS FOUR HOURS.

SO IF YOU CALCULATE THAT AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT WASTED IN THEIR FACILITY.

AND IT'S A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT PROCESSING BECAUSE WE

[00:15:03]

DROP THEM OFF.

WE DO A LITTLE BIT OF PAPERWORK AND WE'RE OUT.

SO THIS WOULD BE IN CASE WYLIE WENT DOWN FOR SOME REASON OR WAS UNABLE TO TAKE SOMEBODY, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE ASKING FOR THIS TO CONTINUE? BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS IN PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW AND WE'RE EXTENDING IT.

COLLIN COUNTY? YES.

YES, SIR.

I BELIEVE 2002 WAS THE FIRST YEAR IT WAS EXECUTED.

AND CHIEF, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED IN THE PACKET.

I THINK IT'S VERY THOROUGH.

IT PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, GIVES ME A COMPLETE ANSWER AS TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND WHY YOU'RE DOING IT.

AND I'M IMPRESSED THAT IT'S OCTOBER EFFECTIVE DATE THAT WE'RE DOING IN JUNE.

PATTI IS GOOD ABOUT KEEPING ME ALERTED TO THAT.

I THINK THE OTHER THING I WOULD ADD IS IT WAS PRETTY EASY TO DIGEST.

I WAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT PRETTY EASILY.

SO.

SO THANKS FOR MAKING IT EXECUTIVE KIND OF REVIEW HERE.

I LIKE TO HEAR THAT, THANK YOU.

OK, MR. SHELBY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE CONTRACT? I REVIEWED THE CONTRACT LAST YEAR OR WHENEVER IT WAS FIRST EXECUTED.

I DID REVIEW THE AMENDMENT.

AND YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT? YES.

OK, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? LAST QUESTION.

THIS IS ONLY THIS REDUCED RATE OF 58 DOLLARS AND CHANGE IS ONLY GOOD FOR ONE YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

WELL, DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'LL REASSESS IT? OR DO YOU THINK THAT IT'S JUST CONTINGENT ON IT WAS THIS WAS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE CARES ACT ? GO UP SO.

I GUESS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION IS WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE AN EXTENDED TWO YEAR AGREEMENT AT THE SAME RATE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT [INAUDIBLE].

NO, THEY'RE REALLY GOOD ABOUT THAT PART.

BUT I AM IMPRESSED THAT THEY LOWERED IT THAT AMOUNT.

SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.

MADAM MAYOR.

I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVED RESOLUTION 2021-668, PROVIDING FOR THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND COLLIN COUNTY JAIL.

OK, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL MOVE TO SECOND.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SLAUGHTER, A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER ABRAHAM TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2021-668 PROVIDING FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR ONE YEAR BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND COLLIN COUNTY.

ANY LAST DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2021-668, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0.

THANK YOU.

OK, ITEM NUMBER THREE.

[3. DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 801, REGARDING “NO THRU TRUCK TRAFFIC” SIGNAGE. [PETTLE/BROOKS]]

WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST STAY IN DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO ITEM 801 REGARDING NO THRU TRUCK TRAFFIC SIGNAGE.

AND BEFORE I LET, TALK TO YOU GUYS, I WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND.

PEOPLE THAT LIVE ALONG OR RIDE ON DUBLIN ROAD HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TRUCKS THAT ARE ON THERE, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LIKE WHITE PICKUP TRUCKS.

I'M TALKING ABOUT SEMIS AND BIG TRUCKS.

AND PEOPLE ARE ALSO NOTICING THAT THAT'S WEARING OUT THE STREET A LOT FASTER THAN IT SHOULD.

WE HAD A RESIDENT WHO SUGGESTED THAT WE GO FOR NO THRU TRUCKS ON DUBLIN ROAD AND TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO TAKE LOS RIOS OR HOGGE ROAD OR SOMEWHERE ELSE.

AND WHEN I BROUGHT THIS UP WITH THE CHIEF, HE EXPRESSED SOME RESERVATIONS.

SO, CHIEF? ANY TIME YOU INSTALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES THERE, IT'S COMPLICATED.

IT DOESN'T SOLVE WHAT YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO SOLVE, BUT A POSITIVE TO DOING A NO THRU TRUCK IS THAT THE LAW ABIDING TRUCK DRIVERS, IF YOU APPROPRIATELY SIGN IT, WILL ABIDE BY IT.

SO YOU WILL SEE A REDUCTION IN TRUCKS.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS IT ALSO PROVIDES THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE A DUBLIN ROAD, THE FALSE SENSE

[00:20:01]

OF SECURITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO STOP TRUCK TRAFFIC.

AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

AND SO WHERE THEY ARE NOW COMPLAINING ABOUT IT DAMAGING THE ROAD, THE COMPLAINT WILL THEN BE THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT OF THE NO THRU TRUCK ORDINANCE.

AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT IS, IS TRUCKS ARE EVEN IF YOU HAVE NO THRU TRUCKS, TRUCKS ARE ALLOWED ON THE ROAD.

THEY CAN MAKE DELIVERIES, THEY CAN PICK UP THE GARBAGE, THEY CAN DO AMAZON DELIVERIES AND ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY DO, THEY CAN DELIVER ROCK, ALL THE THINGS THEY NEED TO DO WITHIN THAT AREA.

ALL IT PROHIBITS IS DRIVING STRAIGHT THROUGH.

SO FOR THERE TO BE A VIOLATION, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO OBSERVE THAT TRUCK, MAKE THAT ENTIRE ROUTE WITHOUT STOPPING.

AND SO IF YOU'RE SITTING ON DUBLIN AND YOU SEE AN 18 WHEELER, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE AT THAT POINT TO STOP AND INVESTIGATE THAT TRUCK BECAUSE THAT TRUCK HASN'T VIOLATED A LAW UNTIL YOU SEE IT DRIVE ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

SO IF IT HAD A DELIVERY OR IT WAS DOING A FUNCTION IN THAT AREA, WE WOULD NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP IT UNTIL WE SAW IT DRIVE ALL THE WAY THE LIKELIHOOD OF A POLICE OFFICER TURNING IN BEHIND A TRUCK AND FOLLOWING IT ALL THE WAY IS SLIM.

SO THEY'RE STILL GOING TO SEE THE TRUCKS AND THEY'RE STILL GOING TO SEE THE ISSUE.

SO IT'S VERY HARD FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE.

SO THAT WOULD BE OUR POSITION, THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT AND JUST CHANGE THE COMPLAINT FROM IT DAMAGING THE ROAD TO YOU'RE NOT ENFORCING THE NO TRUCK ORDINANCE, WHICH AGAIN, IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT.

COUNCIL, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS? I HAVE A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED.

AND AGAIN, THERE WAS A GOOD BIT OF INFORMATION AND I APPRECIATE BEING ABLE TO SEE THAT.

BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS APPLICATION THAT YOU HAVE TO FILE WITH TXDOT AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

IS THERE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? IS TXDOT GOING TO CHARGE US FOR? THAT WOULD ONLY BE IF IT WAS A STATE HIGHWAY THAT WE WERE JUST GIVEN ALL THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION WITH.

THAT WOULD ONLY BE IF IT WAS A STATE HIGHWAY THAT WE ARE ROUTING PEOPLE UP, LIKE, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE 75 BUSINESS ROUTE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TOWN.

TYPICALLY WHAT THEY'LL DO IS THEY'LL REROUTE TRAFFIC TO 75, THE NORMAL ROUTE AND, YOU KNOW, NORMAL INTERSTATE.

WE'RE JUST NOT DOING THAT.

WE'RE NOT, THAT'S IF WE DID PARKER ROAD OR SOMETHING DOWN THAT LINE, THAT'S A STATE HIGHWAY.

SO WE WON'T HAVE TO GET ANY APPROVALS FROM ANYONE? IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO THE CITY ENGINEER OR LEGAL THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT ANYWAY.

YEAH, OK.

ANOTHER QUESTION IS KIND OF A FOLLOW UP TO A PREVIOUS MEETING WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE ROADS AND WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE MAJOR KIND OF CULPRITS AND MAYBE AN ANSWER WOULD BE TALKING TO THEM AND SEEING IF AND I THINK THEM AT THAT POINT WAS REALLY JUST REPUBLIC WASTE AND SEEING IF THEY WOULD HELP US OUT BY DRIVING TO OTHERS.

HAVE WERE YOU ABLE TO APPROACH THEM AND WHAT DID YOU GET FROM THAT? WE TALKED ABOUT IT, MAINLY A LOT OF THEIR STUFF IS JUST PICKUPS IN THAT AREA.

THEY'RE DOING A LOT OF PICKUPS DOWN THAT ROAD OR BULK TRASH, BULK SERVICE SEEMS TO BE THE MAIN CULPRITS GOING UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD.

WE DO HAVE THEM STATIONED HERE AT CITY HALL TO DO THE EASY DUMP FOR THEM SO THAT THOSE TRUCKS AREN'T, YOU KNOW, SITTING AT THE LANDFILL FOR TWO OR THREE HOURS WAITING TO GET DUMPED IN.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY STILL ON THE ROAD.

YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE WITH THAT, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT WITH THE WAY IT'S RAINED, I WOULD SUSPECT TO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE CRACKS ALONG DUBLIN ROAD JUST BECAUSE OF THAT WATER INTRUSION OR THE SUBBASE.

AND THEN HEAVY VEHICLES LIKE TRASH TRUCKS.

WE DON'T HAVE SCHOOL BUSSES RIGHT NOW, BUT IF THERE WAS, THERE WOULD BE SCHOOL BUSSES OR THINGS LIKE THAT THERE WOULD BE A CRACK IN THAT ROAD.

SO ALONG THE EDGES, THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD ADD LIVING ON DUBLIN IS OUR PRIME OFFENDERS, REALLY HAVE NOT BEEN REPUBLIC, IT'S BEEN A LOT OF THE GUYS FROM THE TRUCK DEPOT THAT RUN THROUGH, IT'S BEEN A LOT OF PASS TRAFFIC THAT OTHER STREETS DON'T GET BECAUSE THEY EITHER GO TO HOGGE, OR THEY GO TO DUBLIN.

BUT MOST OF THOSE TRUCKERS, I THINK, REALIZE THAT THEIR CHANCES OF RUNNING INTO YOU GUYS ON DUBLIN IS LESS IN THEIR MIND THAN HOGGE.

SO THEY WILL HAUL BUTT DOWN DUBLIN ROAD, ESPECIALLY THE S CURVE.

MY CONCERN AS I READ THIS THAT I HAVE IS I DO AGREE WITH THE CHIEF ON ENFORCEABILITY, BUT I THINK IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT IF WE DON'T SPREAD THIS OUT AS TWO ORDINANCES

[00:25:01]

FROM PARKER TO PARK AND THEN FROM PARK TO THE PARKER CITY LINE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S A VIOLATION IF THEY GO ALL THE WAY DOWN DUBLIN.

SO THEY'VE GOT TO CROSS PARK AND KEEP GOING.

BASED ON THE WAY THAT I READ THE WAY WE WROTE THIS UP.

IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION TWO WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, CITY ATTORNEY, BRANDON SHELBY, AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS, YOU CAN BREAK THAT OUT.

DUBLIN ROAD FROM PARKER ROAD TO BETSY AND THEN BETSY TO CITY LINE, CITY LIMITS, IF YOU'D WANT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE LEFT THE INSERT, TOO, THERE SO YOU COULD BREAK IT UP IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS IF YOU WANTED.

SO THEN WHAT HAPPENS, THOUGH, IF THEY WANT TO GO FROM PARKER ROAD ALL THE WAY DOWN PAST BETSY TO ANOTHER AREA.

SO WHERE WOULD, AS FAR AS THE ENFORCEMENT GOES, IS THAT CONSIDERED ONE TRIP OR DO YOU? BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THEY'RE NOT IN VIOLATION, IF THEY GO FROM PARKER TO BETSY, SPEAKERS] AND THEN THEY COULD TURN RIGHT OR LEFT.

I'M ASKING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

SO THEY DON'T USE THAT.

SO WHERE DOES THE VIOLATION START AND WHERE DOES IT END? THAT WOULD BE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE AS WELL.

AND I THINK SOME OF THE HEADINGS GOT LOST IN THE SUPPOSED TO ROAD ABOVE DUBLIN ROAD AND EXTENT ABOVE WHERE IT SAYS INSERT TO INSERT.

OK, SO YOU CAN CHOOSE DUBLIN ROAD.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE MORE ROADS, YOU CAN ADD THEM THERE AND THEN INSERT TO INSERT IS PARKER ROAD OR WHATEVER THE TWO INTERSECTIONS ARE.

THE ONLY THING OTHER THING I WOULD ADD AND THE REASON WHY I WOULD BE MORE IN FAVOR OF THIS WAS RECENTLY THEY JUST DID REPAIRS ALONG DUBLIN ROAD AND THEY PUT UP SIGNS NO TRAFFIC.

I WILL TELL YOU, IT DID HELP THAT THE ROAD WAS CUT OUT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC DOWN DUBLIN ROAD TOTALLY WENT ALMOST NON-EXISTENT UNLESS THE PERSON LIVED ON DUBLIN ROAD.

SO THE HOPE WOULD BE THE LAW ABIDING INDIVIDUALS, OBVIOUSLY.

BUT IF ENFORCEMENT HAS TO HAPPEN, IF YOU ALL HAPPEN TO STOP SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING ELSE, AND THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ENFORCED, THERE'S A BENEFIT THERE, TOO.

MY CONCERN IS THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE THESE LARGE TRUCKS ARE DOING AND NOT NECESSARILY THE TRASH TRUCKS, BUT IT IS THE SEMIS CARRYING FULL LOADS, LEAVING FROM THE TRUCK DEPOT IN DILLEHAY ARE THE ONES THAT I'VE SEEN AND I'VE HAD THEM AS I COME DOWN DILLEHAY TO PULL OUT IN FRONT OF ME AND THEY FOLLOW ME ALL THE WAY TO DUBLIN.

THEY'LL MAKE A LEFT DOWN DUBLIN AND THEN FULL THROTTLE DOWN DUBLIN THE S CURVE.

AND RECENTLY WITH THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED AT DUBLIN AND PARK, I THINK IT'S AN EVEN BIGGER CONCERN FOR ME.

YEAH, MY ONLY, YOU KNOW, IF IT DOES REDUCE IT AT ALL, WHETHER IT'S IN THE ENFORCEABLE OR NOT, AND IF IT ISN'T ANY COST TO US, I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO DO BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOME BENEFIT, NOW, IF.

BUT THERE WILL BE A COST, BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE TO SIGN PARKER ROAD, BETSY, DUBLIN.

I'M CONFUSED AS HOW THAT MULTIPLE JURISDICTION WORKS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD HAVE TO SIGN ON 544 TO ALERT THEM THAT PARKER CITY LIMITS HAS NO THRU TRUCK.

SO THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME SIGNAGE COST, BUT THAT WOULD BE MINIMAL.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT AN OVERWHELMING COST.

YOU'D HAVE TO PROVIDE SIGNAGE AT THE ENTRANCE OF EACH NO THRU TRUCK TRAFFIC ZONE.

SO AT EACH INTERSECTION THERE'D HAVE TO BE A SIGN.

SO WE WOULD PUT IT AT 544, ALERTING THEM THAT FROM THE PARKER CITY LIMITS, IT'S NO THRU TRUCKS.

AND AS FAR AS ENFORCEMENT GOES, THEY HAVE TO PROVE IF YOU IF YOU PULL THE TRUCK OVER ON DUBLIN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE ON DUBLIN FOR DELIVERY, AS EVIDENCED BY BILL OF SALE OR INVOICE.

YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT.

SO IF YOU SEE A TRUCK AND IT GETS PULLED OVER BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY HAVE TO SHOW I'M HERE MAKING A DELIVERY OR I LIVE HERE OR.

YEAH, IT'S UP TO THEM.

BUT THE CHIEF COULDN'T USE THAT.

THAT IN AND OF ITSELF WOULD NOT BE PROBABLE CAUSE ANY MORE THAN YOU COULD STOP SOMEBODY TO SEE THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN STOPPED FOR SOMETHING ELSE OR ONE OF OUR PATROL OFFICERS WOULD HAVE TO SEE THEM ENTER DUBLIN AND THEN EXIT DUBLIN AND NOT MAKE ANY STOPS ALONG THE WAY.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

MIC] IF YOU GET A TICKET ON A STOPLIGHT CAMERA, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY.

I CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

I'M TALKING ABOUT ON BOTH ENDS IF THE SAME TRUCK COMES IN AND LEAVES AT THE SAME TIME.

ON THE PICTURE, RIGHT? NOW YOU HAVE PROOF THAT THEY'VE GONE, RIGHT AND THEY DIDN'T

[00:30:04]

OK, THANK YOU.

I HAVE, THIS IS PROBABLY A STUPID QUESTION BUT I'LL ASK IT ANYWAY.

IS THERE A WAY WE COULD IMPLEMENT THIS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS TO SEE IF IT WORKS OR NOT WORKS, TO SEE WHAT EFFECT IT MIGHT HAVE IF IT DOES CHANGE THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE CITIZENS AND.

YEAH, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, COULD WE DO THAT? YES, YOU COULD.

THE COSTS WOULD BE THE UPFRONT COST OF THE SIGNAGE WOULD BE THE SAME, WHETHER IT'S TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT.

BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS IMPLEMENT SOMETHING ON A TEMPORARY BASIS ON STATE HIGHWAYS WHEN THEY CHANGE THE SPEED LIMIT, FOR EXAMPLE, OR PUT UP NO PARKING SIGNS, THEY'LL PUT THOSE OR NEW STOPS ON.

THEY'LL PUT THOSE UP FOR A PERIOD OF TIME TO SEE HOW IT WORKS AND THEN BEFORE EVEN PASSING THE ORDINANCE TO IMPROVE IT.

BUT YEAH, THAT IS SOMETHING YOU COULD HAVE.

COULD WE DO IT TEMPORARILY, WOULD WE HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE TO DO IT TEMPORARILY OR.

OK, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA TO TRY JUST TO DO LIKE A ONE YEAR PILOT PROGRAM OR .

YOU COULD PASS THIS ORDINANCE AND THEN REPEAL THIS ORDINANCE AT ANY TIME.

IT COULD BE YOU REPEAL IT AT THE NEXT YEAR.

CAN WE SAY WITH THIS ORDINANCE IS IN EFFECT UNTIL 9/1/21, UNTIL WHICH TIME IT WILL BE RECONSIDERED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SURE, THE EFFECT WOULD BE THE JUST REMINDING US TO BRING IT BACK UP FOR RECONSIDERATION.

WELL, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COUNCILMAN SLAUGHTER ALREADY SAID THAT JUST WITH THE ONE SIGN THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A REDUCTION OR AT LEAST SOME SORT OF AN IMPROVEMENT.

WHEN THE ROAD WAS UNDER REPAIR.

SO IT'S SHOWING THAT IT WORKS A LITTLE BIT.

BUT JUST REMEMBER, THERE WERE BARRICADES IN THE ROAD THAT PREVENTED THEM FROM GOING.

THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A SIGN.

BUT WOULD THERE MAYBE THIS QUESTION IS FOR GARY.

WOULD THERE BE A COST SAVINGS TO THE CITY IF THIS ORDINANCE WAS SUCCESSFUL AND WHAT ITS INTENT IS TO STOP THE THRU TRAFFIC, WHICH WOULD THEN MINIMIZE THE DAMAGE TO DUBLIN ROAD? WOULD YOU SEE A SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS? DO YOU? I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO THEORIZE I MEAN, CONSIDERING THE COSTS THAT WE'RE CONSTANTLY DOING.

NOW, I'M TALKING ABOUT LIKE REPAVING WHAT'S CAUSED BY THE CURRENT ACTIVITY? BIG TRUCK TRAFFIC ON THERE I THINK WOULD BE DEFINITELY THE ROAD WOULD LAST LONGER, IT WOULD END UP BEING A COST SAVINGS.

DO YOU SEE THAT AS A SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS OR JUST A MODERATE? I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER, I WOULD THINK SO BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE TO FIX THE ROADS.

OK, SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING LONG TERM WISE IS THAT IN THE END IT WILL BENEFIT THE CITY.

I THINK AND THIS IS JUST AN IDEA AT THE ONSET OF THE ORDINANCE, LIKE WHEN IT WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY STARTING IT, MAYBE IF THEY IF PEOPLE SEE INCREASED PATROLLING IN THAT AREA, THAT COULD BE A DETERRENT.

YOU KNOW, YOU SERVE KIND OF LIKE, OH, MAN, THE COPS ARE HERE.

AND MAYBE THAT PATTERN WILL TRY TO, YOU KNOW, LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF REPEAT OFFENDERS THAT GO THROUGH THERE.

I CAN'T GO HERE.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU STOP IT WHENEVER YOU WANT TO STOP IT.

AND THEN IF WE GET COMPLAINTS AGAIN, THEN WE TRY TO STOP, YOU KNOW, START UP PATROLLING AGAIN IN THAT AREA DURING THE HIGH TRAFFIC TIMES.

ABSOLUTELY.

AND IT'S JUST WORTH A TRY BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT IT FROM THE RESIDENTS ON DUBLIN.

TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE NO THRU TRAFFIC.

WE AGREE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AGREE, THAT THESE TRUCKS DAMAGE THAT ROAD AND THE ROAD IS VERY SMALL AND IT'S UNSAFE FOR THEM TO BE THERE ANYWAY.

BUT WHAT I WANT THE COUNCIL TO BE AWARE OF IS WHEN YOU GET THESE COMPLAINTS, UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WITH PASSING THIS ORDINANCE.

WE JUST CAN'T SEE A TRUCK AND STOP IT.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

AND SO I JUST WANT YOU ALL TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO WHEN YOU GET THE COMPLAINT, YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE IN THAT REALM OF ENFORCEMENT.

BUT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S IN SUPPORT.

THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE AN 18 WHEELER TRUCK ON THAT ROAD UNLESS IT NEEDS TO BE THERE.

AND THE ONLY THING THAT I DID WANT TO ADD IS OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FREQUENTLY UP AND DOWN DUBLIN ROAD, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THEY'RE NOT THEY ARE ALWAYS ON DUBLIN ROAD AS IT IS ANYWAY.

BUT IF THEY'RE NOT THERE, THE TRUCKERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.

AND I MEAN SEVERAL PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.

BUT THE TRUCKERS ESPECIALLY AND WITH THE INCREASE IN BICYCLE TRAFFIC, IT JUST IT CONCERNS ME IN THE LONG RUN, IF WE IT'S NOT JUST THE ROADWAY WHICH WILL BENEFIT, I BELIEVE, BUT ALSO THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS ALONG DUBLIN.

AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH GARY, MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER MORE ON THIS, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS THAT WILL HAVE TO GO TO BE ABLE TO ERECT SIGNS ON BOTH PARKER ROAD AND 544.

[00:35:04]

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT PROCESS TAKES, BUT EVERY TIME I DO SOMETHING WITH TXDOT, IT'S A LONG PROCESS TO GET THE SIGNS PUT UP.

NOW, BETSY WILL BE EASY BECAUSE THOSE ARE OURS.

BUT PARKER AND 544 BOTH WILL REQUIRE TEXTILE APPROVAL ON THE SIGNAGE.

GARY, CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT A SIGN MIGHT COST? YEAH, METAL PRICES OR TIN PRICES ARE KIND OF EXPENSIVE.

TYPICALLY THEY'RE ABOUT FIFTY FIVE DOLLARS A SIGN, WOULDN'T YOU SAY, GARY? NO, THEY'RE MORE THAN THAT EVEN FOR JUST A LITTLE STREET SIGN.

OH, ARE THEY? YEAH.

I HAVEN'T LOOKED THROUGH THE BOOK LATELY, THEN.

SO I'M OK.

EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR THE WHOLE THING.

OH YEAH.

I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T.

THE STATE TAKES A LOT OF THAT MONEY AND WE GET VERY LITTLE OF THAT, THAT MONEY.

OK, COUNCIL, WHAT SAY YOU? AND I WOULD ASK IF.

INTERSECTION, TO NAME THE INTERSECTIONS, THE SECTION OF DUBLIN ROAD, BECAUSE THAT PART OF ORDINANCE IS BLANK RIGHT NOW, PARKER TO BETSY AND THEN BETSY TO ALMOST TO 544, BECAUSE RIGHT IN THERE, MURPHY COMES AND RIGHT AT THE CITY LIMIT.

CITY LIMITS.

MADAME MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO PASS A TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 801 FOR A PERIOD OF NO LESS THAN ONE YEAR REGARDING NO THRU TRUCK TRAFFIC SIGNAGE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE SIGNAGE WOULD BE FROM PARKER TO BETSY AND THEN FROM BETSY TO THE CITY LIMIT.

FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT'S THE SOUTH CITY LIMIT.

YES, I'M SORRY? SOUTH CITY LIMIT.

OK, OK.

IS IT SOMETHING LIKE THAT? THIS IS AN ORDINANCE.

PART OF IT? WELL, I MEAN, WE'LL JUST PUBLISH IT AND THEN PUBLISH TO REPEAL IT OR RESCIND IT? PUBLISH IT AS IT IS.

AND THEN WE'LL SET A REMINDER FOR US TO BRING IT BACK IN A YEAR.

SO IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ABRAHAM AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM MEYER TO I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GOING TO GET THIS RIGHT TO ADOPT A TEMPORARY ORDINANCE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR TO NOT ALLOW THRU TRUCK TRAFFIC ON DUBLIN TO BETSY.

NO, THAT'S FROM PARKER TO BETSY AND FROM BETSY TO THE CITY LIMITS.

I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

SOUTH CITY LIMITS.

WHY STIPULATE IT'S TEMPORARY? I MEAN, WE CAN REPEAL THE ORDINANCE AT ANY TIME.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO SAY TEMPORARY.

AND THAT WAY IF IT WORKS, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE.

IT'S UP TO YOU ALL, COUNCIL.

DO YOU WANT IT TO BE PERMANENT WITH A REVIEW DATE? YEAH.

MAYBE A REVIEW DATE THEN WOULD BE IN ORDER.

IT'S YOUR MOTION, COUNCIL MEMBER, DO YOU WISH TO AMEND IT? OK, I'LL AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO SAY THAT WE PASSED AN ORDINANCE NUMBER 801 REGARDING

[00:40:01]

NO THRU TRUCK TRAFFIC SIGNAGE WITH THE STIPULATION, THE SIGNAGE AT PARKER TO BETSY AND BETSY TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMIT.

OK, SO YOUR MOTION IS TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.

801,WE'RE SPLITTING UP THE DUBLIN FROM PARKER ROAD ALONG DUBLIN TO BETSY AND FROM BETSY ALONG DUBLIN ROAD TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS? I HAVE ONE QUESTION, COUNCIL.

AT THE INTERSECTION OF BETSY, THE EAST SIDE IS BETSY, THE WEST SIDE IS PARK.

THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERSECTIONS WAS TO ALERT THE DIRECTOR OF ROADWORKS WHERE THE SIGNS NEED TO BE.

IT'S ALL BETSY, IT'S ALL BETSY AND PARK.

OK, IT BECOMES PARK IN PLANO.

OK, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF THAT.

AND THAT WOULD BE DOWN ON THE BRIDGE.

OK, ON THE BRIDGE? OK, INTERESTING.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND, BUT IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT A TIME FOR REVIEW, THE TIME THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE REVIEWED? I STILL HAVE.

I'M SERIOUSLY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASED CALLS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND THE REAL PROBLEM IS IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD.

AND THE REAL PROBLEM IS IT'S THAT OUR ROADS ARE NOT IN GOOD REPAIR.

BUT I DO HEAR THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA CONCERNS AND SEE THAT THIS COULD HAVE A TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE.

BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME KIND OF TEMPORARY NATURE TO THE ORDINANCE.

I [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION THAT AT LEAST REVIEW IT IN A YEAR.

BUT LIKE I SAID, ANY TIME YOU GUYS WANT TO BRING IT BACK UP, JUST PUT IT ON THE TABLE, OK? YEAH, WE CAN PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS WITH A DATE OF SIX MONTHS OR, YOU KNOW, PICK A DATE.

BECAUSE MY ONLY CLARIFICATION AND I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER LYNCH ON THIS ONE, BUT WE WANT TO ALSO MAYBE HAVE SOME DATA ANALYTICS OF WHAT WE WANT TO LOOK TO SEE IF IT'S EFFECTIVE OR NOT AT THE SAME TIME AND NOT JUST LOOK AT IT.

SO IF WE CAN GET THAT FROM CHIEF BROOKS, I THINK THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE.

YOU KNOW, I'M SURE IF AT ANY TIME CHIEF BROOKS TELLS US THIS IS JUST THE BIGGEST MESS IN THE WORLD, YOU NEED TO, YOU KNOW, REDO THEN WOULD PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA AND LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.

AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANYTHING FANCY.

IT'S JUST LIKE INCREASED NUMBER OF CALLS OR.

OH, I'LL BE FANCY.

I GOT TO BE FANCY.

OK, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ON ORDINANCE 801.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE 801 THAT WILL BE FROM BETSY TO PARKER AND FROM BETSY TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS ALONG DUBLIN AND WILL BE REVIEWED.

OH YEAH.

OH OKAY.

DO YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN YOUR SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.

ARE WE READY TO VOTE NOW? OK, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING ORDINANCE NUMBER 801, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ANYONE OPPOSED? NO.

ORDINANCE PASSES 5-0.

CAN I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION? HEY GARY, CAN YOU CHECK WITH ALAN AND SEE CITY OF ALLEN AND SEE IF THEY CAN MAKE THOSE SIGNS FOR US AND WE COULD JUST PAY A LITTLE BIT OVER COST FOR THOSE.

OK, APPRECIATE IT.

PATTI, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS FOR SIX MONTHS A YEAR.

TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT? OK, AND I'D LIKE TO THANK LINDA NELSON FOR THAT SUGGESTION BECAUSE SHE WAS A RESIDENT THAT MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT WE TRY THIS.

OK, NEXT, WE HAVE CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON

[4. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2021-669 ON UPDATING THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE. [PETTLE/SAVAGE]]

[00:45:03]

RESOLUTION NUMBER 2021-669 ON UPDATING THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, AFTER EVERY ELECTION, WE ARE AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR.

WE HAVE TO UPDATE THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND WE NEED A NOMINATION FOR EXCUSE ME, FOR CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER AND TWO OTHER SERVING.

CURRENTLY ED STANDRIDGE WAS OUR CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER.

HE IS NO LONGER WITH US.

AND CINDY MEYER AND MYSELF WERE THE TWO OTHER OFFICIALS.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE COUNCIL MEMBER MICHAEL SLAUGHTER FOR THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THE CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER.

OK, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.

OK, BEFORE WE GO FURTHER, I NEED TO ASK COUNCIL MEMBER SLAUGHTER ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE? AND THEY YOU DO UNDERSTAND YOU WILL HAVE TO TAKE THE PUBLIC FINANCE, SAY THE REST OF THE NAME OF THAT.

PUBLIC FINANCE AND INVESTMENT ACT CLASS.

YES.

WHICH IS A 10 HOUR CLASS.

AND YOU CAN TAKE IT ONLINE OR IN PERSON, BUT YOU MUST TAKE IT.

SOUNDS ABSOLUTELY FUN.

SURE.

I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SAY WE TRAPPED YOU LATER, AND I DIDN'T TELL YOU.

IT'S A PRETTY EASY CLASS, SO.

WELL, THEY MAKE IT VERY EASY FOR YOU WHEN YOU'RE.

YEAH, IT WAS USEFUL.

IF GRANT CAN SIT THROUGH IT, I CAN SIT THROUGH IT.

I LEARNED A LOT IN THAT CLASS.

WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ABRAHAM AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER LYNCH FOR A NOMINATION OF MICHAEL SLAUGHTER TO BE OUR CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER.

OH, OK.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? AND I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.

OH, WAIT A MINUTE.

ARE WE NOMINATING TWO PEOPLE? BECAUSE THERE'S TWO BLANKS THERE.

WELL, WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR THE CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER.

WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT AND COME BACK TO THE OTHERS.

OK, WE'LL TRY AGAIN.

THAT'S OK.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MICHAEL SLAUGHTER BEING OUR CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

OK, ANYBODY OPPOSED? OK, MOTION PASSES 5-0.

NOW, THERE ARE TWO OTHER MEMBERS THAT NEED TO BE APPOINTED OR ELECTED TO SERVE ON THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE.

MAYOR PRO TEM CINDY MEYER AND MYSELF HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT CINDY, BUT I'D LIKE TO STAY ON.

WELL, MAYOR THEN I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT CURRENT INVESTMENT OFFICIAL, MAYOR PETTLE AND COUNCILWOMAN MEYER REMAIN AS THE INVESTMENT OFFICIALS.

IS THERE A SECOND? I CAN SECOND THAT.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MAYOR PRO TEM MEYER AND MAYOR PETTLE TO CONTINUE WITH THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION AS AS MAYOR, ARE YOU AUTOMATICALLY A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE? YES, I AM.

AND I'VE ALWAYS KIND OF WONDERED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE FOR THREE YEARS I'VE SERVED ON IT.

BUT I SERVED, THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK, IS VOTING.

WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN REVIEWING THE INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS NOW.

WE'LL PROBABLY BE BRINGING BACK SOME CHANGES TO THE INVESTMENT POLICY.

SOME OF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

SO, LIKE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR IS NOT EVEN ON THE LIST OF PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE.

NO, HE'S AUTOMATICALLY ON.

NO, IT'S NOT EVEN IN THERE.

WE WERE LOOKING THE WORDAGE ON IT.

YOU'RE KIDDING.

NO.

SO I'M ON THERE, THE CITY ADMINISTRATORS ON THERE, THE MAYOR, THE CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, AND I THINK ONE OTHER PERSON; CORRECT? INVESTMENT OFFICIALS.

YEAH, BUT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR IS NOT EVEN ON THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, WHICH KIND OF MAKES NO SENSE, EVEN THOUGH HE'S PARTICIPATING IN ALL THE MEETINGS WE HAVE HAD.

SO, DO WE NEED TO ADD THE MAYOR OR IS SHE? IF THE MAYOR IS AUTOMATICALLY A MEMBER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

[00:50:03]

YOU SHOULD YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE HER IN AS A MEMBER.

WELL, IS THE MAYOR A VOTING MEMBER OR AN AD HOC COMMITTEE? WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS MAKING HER AN INVESTMENT OFFICIAL.

YOU'RE ADDING HER AS A VOTING MEMBER.

AND FIRST, I DON'T CARE.

YOU KNOW, I'M GOOD WITH EITHER.

SO WHATEVER Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO DO OR DO Y'ALL WANT TO WAIT UNTIL GRANT BRINGS BACK HIS SUGGESTIONS? WELL, I THINK THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE [INAUDIBLE] .

SO THEN WOULD YOU STILL REMAIN AS THE, AS ONE OF THE TWO INVESTMENT OFFICIALS, IF YOU NOMINATE HER LIKE [INAUDIBLE] OK.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER, EXCUSE ME, MAYOR PRO TEM, I'M GOING TO GET USED THAT, CINDY MEYER AND MAYOR PETTLE STAY ON THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME AS INVESTMENT OFFICIALS.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OK, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 5-0.

GRANT, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE IT? I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN VERY BUSY WITH THE AUDIT AND WHATNOT, BUT.

NOW THAT WE HAVE THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEETING.

AND I'VE GOT MY MIND SO WE CAN REVIEW AND MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS.

AND I HATE TO COMPLICATE THIS EVEN MORE, BUT I WANT TO TIE THIS UP WITH A BOW AND HAVE SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE RESOLUTION 2021-669 WITH THE APPOINTMENTS PREVIOUSLY.

COUNCIL, I WILL ASK FOR YOU TO VOTE ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2021-669.

APPOINTING THE CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, MICHAEL SLAUGHTER APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

OH, LUKE OLSON,[INAUDIBLE], MAYOR PRO TEM SANDY MYERS AND MAYOR LEE PETTLE.

IF ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT.

I'LL SECOND IT.

YEAH, I MEAN,[INAUDIBLE] SO MOVED.

AND I'LL SECOND IT.

THANK YOU.

OK, NOW WE'LL VOTE ON IT AGAIN.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, MICHAEL SLAUGHTER INVESTMENT OFFICIALS OF MAYOR PRO TEM MEYER AND LEE PETTLE.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OK, THIS GETS TOUGH WHEN YOU DO THAT AND THEN YOU COME RIGHT BACK WITH A DEAL.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK ON THAT.

THAT'S REALLY NOT REALLY ACCEPTABLE.

OK, NEXT IS CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE

[5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 802, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PARKER FINDING THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COSERV GAS, LTD. IS REASONABLE; ORDERING COSERV GAS, LTD. TO IMPLEMENT THE RATES AGREED TO IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; REQUIRING REIMBURSEMENT OF CITIES’ RATE CASE EXPENSES; FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REQUIRING NOTICE OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE COMPANY AND LEGAL COUNSEL. [SHELBY]]

NO.

802, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PARKER FINDING THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND COLD SERVE GAS, LTD IS REASONABLE, ORDERING COLD SERVE GAS, LTD TO IMPLEMENT THE RIGHTS AGREED TO IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CITY'S RATE CASE EXPENSES.

FINDING THAT THE MEETING OF THE ORDINANCE IS A PUBLIC MEETING, WHICH IT IS OK.

DO YOU? I'M GETTING IT.

OK, GO AHEAD.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS IS A ORDINANCE APPROVING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BETWEEN THE CITY AND ITS GROUP, THE COSERV CITIES.

COSERV GAS CITIES AND COSERV LTD FOR A INCREASE IN THEIR RATES.

THE COSERV ASKED FOR AN ELEVEN POINT EIGHT PERCENT INCREASE.

THAT INCREASE WAS DENIED BY THE GROUP THAT WE'RE PART OF.

AND THE SETTLEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED AT A SAVINGS OF ABOUT FIVE POINT TWO FIVE

[00:55:11]

MILLION DOLLARS, REPRESENTING A FORTY FIVE POINT SIX REDUCTION TO THE COMPANY'S REQUEST.

THE STEERING COMMITTEE THAT WE'RE PART OF, THE COSERV GAS COMMUNITIES, HAS RECOMMENDED THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE AVERAGE COST WILL BE TO A RESIDENT? IT WAS BECAUSE I COULDN'T IT SAYS A CUSTOMER CHARGE OF FIFTEEN DOLLARS, IS THAT TOTAL OR IS THAT CUMULATIVE OR? I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AN EXTRA 15 DOLLARS.

ON TOP OF WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING? WHAT THEY'RE ALL PAYING.

WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING.

THE COMPANY HAD REQUESTED EIGHT DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS.

AND THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT WAS FIFTEEN DOLLARS.

SO THAT IS THAT OVER A YEAR.

I THINK THAT'S TYPICALLY CUSTOMERS CHARGED MONTHLY.

SO I WOULD PROBABLY FIFTEEN DOLLARS EXTRA A MONTH.

YES.

THAT'S STEEP.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ASSUME.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT AND WE ARE PART OF A GROUP THAT DID.

AND IT MIGHT BE I'M PROBABLY SPEAKING OUT OF TURN NOW, SO.

I'M JUST CONCERNED IF WE'RE RAISING, SAY, SOMEBODY'S BILL IS ALREADY 40 DOLLARS AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO ADD 15 MORE? RIGHT, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT, IT GOES UP 18.50 INSTEAD OF 15.

NO WAY TO NEGOTIATE IT ANY LOWER? NOT AT NOT AT THIS POINT.

WE COULD HAVE TAKEN IF WE WEREN'T A PART OF THIS GROUP.

WE DO OUR OWN NEGOTIATIONS AND TAKE IT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.

AND THERE'S A THERE'S A ROUTE TO FIGHT INCREASES IN RATES.

OUR CHOSEN ROUTE HAS BEEN TO BE A PART OF THE COSERV CITIES COMMITTEE AND RELY ON THE CONSULTANTS AND EXPERTS THAT THEY HIRE.

WE CAN LOOK INTO, NOT EVERYONE'S A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.

WE CAN LOOK INTO WHAT THE WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE IF WE WEREN'T PART OF THAT COMMITTEE.

AND I CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION COUNCIL, IF YOU LIKE.

OK, COSERV IS REQUIRING THAT WE DEAL WITH THIS TONIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S A DEADLINE OF ? JUNE 7TH, I BELIEVE.

JUNE 7TH.

I JUST WANT TO SAY I LOVE ALL THE TIME THAT WE GET TO CONSIDER AND MAKE DECISIONS.

THE THING THAT I WOULD ASK AND YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THE ANSWER, I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S ALREADY A CUSTOMER CHARGE.

MOST UTILITY PROVIDERS CHARGE SOMETHING.

SO I AM ASSUMING WE'RE NOT GOING FROM ZERO TO 15 BECAUSE IT'S ASKING FOR AN INCREASE.

SO I'M ASSUMING AND I DON'T LIKE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY GET THE INFO.

I THINK THEY DO CHARGE IT BECAUSE I USED TO HAVE COSERV AND I DO BELIEVE THEY CHARGE A CUSTOMER RATE CHARGE FOR THAT.

IT'S A 15, I DON'T KNOW WHAT INFORMATION IS, NOT CLEAR WHAT IT'S GOING FROM, BUT THE NEW CHARGE IS 15, THERE WAS CERTAINLY A CHARGE BEFORE.

OK, SO THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER THEIR CURRENT CUSTOMERS CHARGE.

SO TOTAL 15.

ON THE WEBSITE IT'S 12 DOLLARS AND 60 CENTS CURRENTLY, THAT IS A CUSTOMER CHARGE.

SO IT'S AN INCREASE OF TWO DOLLARS AND 40 CENTS? THAT'S BASED ON WHAT IT SAYS ON THEIR WEBSITE.

IT SAYS RIGHT NOW, ALL CUSTOMERS, COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC, ARE TWELVE DOLLARS AND 60 CENTS FOR GAS.

OK, THAT'S BETTER THAN 15 DOLLARS EXTRA.

I WAS TRYING TO DO THE PERCENTAGE REAL QUICK BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, OH MY GOSH, MAY I JUST ASK THAT IN THE FUTURE WE GET PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION WHEN WE PULL THESE THINGS TOGETHER, IF WE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO IT? I THINK THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

AND WE CAN I THINK WE'RE GOING HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER THIS.

THERE WAS THERE WERE SOME ISSUES GETTING INFORMATION FROM THE WE CAN DISCUSS THE ISSUES, GETTING INFORMATION FROM THE COMMITTEE.

SO SHOCKER, A LARGE GROUP OF UTILITY DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE PARKER INFORMATION.

THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE CONTACT INFO.

SO WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY THEN THE ACTUAL INCREASE IN COSTS IN THIS IN THIS PARTICULAR SENSE TO THAT FROM THE FIFTEEN DOLLARS, ROUGHLY ABOUT THIRTY SIX

[01:00:02]

DOLLARS A YEAR FOR A CUSTOMER HERE IN PARKER, ROUGHLY TWO DOLLARS.

FIFTY TIMES TWELVE, RIGHT? YES.

ROUGHLY.

THAT WORKS WITH MATHEMATICS.

NOT MY FORTE EITHER.

SO WHAT? I DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE.

SO WHAT DO WE THINK THE CUSTOMER CHARGE WILL BE? FIFTEEN DOLLARS.

FIFTEEN DOLLARS AND THAT IS JUST RIGHT NOW? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT IS JUST OK.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL TAKE A MOTION IF THERE IS ONE.

MADAME MAYOR, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PASS ORDINANCE NUMBER 802 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PARKER, FINDING THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COSERV GAS LIMITED IS REASONABLE, ORDERING COSERV GAS LIMITED TO IMPLEMENT THE RATES AGREED TO IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CITY'S RATE CASE EXPENSES.

FINDING AT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

REQUIRING NOTICE OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE COMPANY AND LEGAL COUNSEL.

OK, I'LL SECOND WHAT SHE SAID.

PATTI DID YOU GET THAT? DID YOU GET THAT? OK, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ABRAHAM AND THE SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SLAUGHTER TO ACCEPT/ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 802, A ORDINANCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER FINDING THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COSERV AS REASONABLE ORDERING COSERV TO IMPLEMENT THE RIGHTS AGREED TO IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY RATE CASE EXPENSES, AND THAT THE MEETING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

OK, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PASSING ORDINANCE NUMBER 802 PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OK, MOTION PASSES 5-0.