[CALL TO ORDER ]
[00:00:05]
>> [BACKGROUND] [NOISE] I HEREBY CALL THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER.
MR. OLSON, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
[EXECUTIVE SESSION START TO FINISH]
WE WILL RECESS TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED HERE.I'M SORRY, MY GLASSES ARE SO DIRTY I CAN'T. [LAUGHTER] MICHAEL, GO. HE RAISED THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074, PERSONNEL TO DELIVER IT.
THE APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0711, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PITTING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. SLAUGHTER, AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[NOISE] I HEREBY RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF PARKER, TEXAS ON MARCH 21ST, 2023 AT 7:41 PM.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR ACTION FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION?
WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PLEDGES.
ANDY REDMOND, WOULD YOU BE SO KIND AS TO DO THE AMERICAN PLEDGE? TOBORG, WOULD YOU DO THE TEXAS PLEDGE?
I HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT CARD.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
ANDY, YOU WANT TO COME UP AND VISIT WITH US, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU.>> I GUESS MY BASIC COMMENT IS, I REALIZED WATER IS A TOUCHY SITUATION AND WE ALL NEED WATER.
BUT I JUST WAS LOOKING AT THE CHART AND EVERYTHING AND THAT THE RATE OF INCREASE IS ATROCIOUS, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
I'D URGE EACH OF YOU TO VOTE NO.
IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO GET A CONTINGENCY CONTRACT FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN RENEGOTIATE OR IF THE CITY HAS TO SUE THEM OR GET THE I THINK WE'RE A MEMBER OF, THE NAME OF IT IS EVADING ME.
I THINK WE BELONG TO ASSOCIATIONS WHERE WE CAN GET LEGAL DEFENSE THAT MANY MUNICIPALITIES DO.
THE NAME OF IT IS EVADING, MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE. BUT ALL THAT SAID, PERHAPS THEY COULD OFFER SOME LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO TRY TO, I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD.
I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WHERE THEY'RE BASICALLY A NON-ELECTED QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY THAT SEEMS TO HAVE NO OVERSIGHT THAT CAN DO WHATEVER AND HOLD CITIES, HOSTAGE.
AGAIN, REALIZE THAT THERE'S PROBABLY 50 WAYS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE BUT PASSING IT ALONG TO THE RESIDENTS IS NOT A GOOD WAY.
I'M SURE THE CITY ITSELF IS PROBABLY A LARGE CONSUMER OF WATER AS WELL.
I WAS SUPPOSED TO STATE MY NAME, I APOLOGIZE.
ANDY REDMOND, 7275 MOSS. RIDGE, SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ANDY. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? THE NEXT THING WE HAVE IS I'M SUPPOSED TO REMIND EVERYBODY TO PLEASE SPEAK INTO YOUR MIC.
THAT INCLUDES THE PEOPLE AT THE FRONT TABLE THERE, GARY, AND GRANTED, YOU ALL NEED TO SPEAK.
PLEASE. SPEAK INTO THE MIC SO IT CAN GET PUT UP ON [NOISE] VIDEO.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
REMEMBER THAT THURSDAY, APRIL 6TH IS THE LAST DAY TO REGISTER FOR VOTE.IF YOU ARE NOT A REGISTERED VOTER IN THE CITY OF PARKER, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE IN OUR ELECTIONS, SO PLEASE REGISTER TO VOTE.
PARKS AND RECREATIONS WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12TH AT 5:00 PM IN THIS ROOM, I THINK.
THE WOMEN'S CLUB IS HOSTING CANDIDATES NIGHT ON THURSDAY,
[00:05:03]
APRIL 13TH AT 7:00 PM AT VICTORY CHURCH.COME TO THAT AND BRING YOUR QUESTIONS FOR THE CANDIDATES.
THERE WILL BE A GREAT AMERICAN CLEANUP ON SATURDAY, APRIL 22ND, FROM 9:00-11:00 IN THE PRESERVE.
YOU CAN SIGN UP IN ADVANCE WITH FRANK D'COSTA.
HE'S GOT A SIGN-UP SHEET AND HOPEFULLY, WE'LL GET THE PARK LOOKING PRETTY.
LASTLY, WE HAVE THE NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE-BACK SATURDAY, APRIL 22ND, FROM 10:00-2:00, YOU CAN JUST DRIVE BY AND DROP ANY EXPIRED OR UNUSED DRUGS OFF WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PUTTING THEM IN THE WATER SUPPLY OR WHEREVER.
KEEP IN MIND THAT EARLY VOTING STARTS APRIL 24TH AND OUR ELECTION IS ON MAY 6.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PULL OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA?>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MAYOR PRO TEM SLAUGHTER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
IT IS THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF MARCH 7TH, THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 10TH, AND THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 14TH.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANYTHING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU.
[4. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 840 OF THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING THE RATES AND FEES FOR WATER SERVICE; ESTABLISHING THE RATES FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 739; PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE]
DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 840 OF THE CITY OF PARKER TEXAS, ESTABLISHING THE RIGHTS AND THE FEES FOR WATER SERVICE, ESTABLISHING THE RIGHTS FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE, REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBER 739, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL, PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.OKAY. MR. OLSON, I THINK YOU WERE GOING TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW TO START.
>> MAYOR-COUNCIL, AS WE'VE HAD, I THINK WE HAD THE FIRST MEETING BACK IN OCTOBER ON THE WATER RATES.
THEN FEBRUARY SOMETIME, WE ADD THE SECOND MEETING.
[BACKGROUND] DECEMBER AND FEBRUARY. SORRY. ALL THESE MONTHS AREN'T RUNNING TOGETHER ANYMORE. [LAUGHTER]
>> YEAH, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS.
[LAUGHTER] AS YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS COUNSELS WELL AWARE, NORTH TEXAS IS HAVING A VERY DRASTIC RATE INCREASE ONTO THE CITY, INTO THE CUSTOMERS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PASS ON TO THE RESIDENTS AT DOUBLE-DIGIT INCREASES FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND THEN HIGH SINGLE-DIGIT INCREASES THE YEARS AFTER THAT.
THIS IS JUST TO SOLIDIFY THAT MAKING SURE THAT OUR WATER SYSTEMS WILL BE SOLVENT WITHIN THAT PROPRIETARY FUND.
THE 202I/2022 NUMBERS, THE FINANCIALS, THOSE ARE FROM THE LATEST [INAUDIBLE] WE'VE HAD DONE FOR THE CITY.
THOSE ARE UPDATED AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
I'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING AROUND THAT ONE.
GOING BACK TO DECEMBER IS WHEN WE HAD THE FIRST MEETING AND HE PRESENTED THREE SCENARIOS AND ONLY TWO OF THEM GOT CARRIED FORWARD.
DID WE ELIMINATE OR SOMEBODY ELIMINATED ONE OF THE SCENARIOS? THAT WAS THE SCENARIO THAT ALL THE INCREASE WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE USAGE, NOT THE BASE RATE.
HERE'S WHERE I'M HAVING A PROBLEM IN GOING THROUGH THIS.
LONG-TERM DEBT AND UPGRADING THE SYSTEM TO WHAT WE WILL NEED IN THE FUTURE WOULD REQUIRE WHAT?
[00:10:02]
A NEW WATER TOWER?>> YOU GOT WATER TOWER AND THEN YOU GOT ANNUAL MAINTENANCE, YOU'VE GOT WATER LINES THAT WE HAVE ASBESTOS LINES ON, THE AC LINES.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR OTHER STUDIES TO BE DONE.
>> BUT THE BIG ONE IS THE WATER TOWER AND THE LINES GOING TO THAT OR FROM THAT, CORRECT?
>> NO, THAT LINE IS ALREADY IN PLACE, ACTUALLY.
IT'S JUST THE BUILDING OF THE TOWER ITSELF.
>> THE TOWER COST APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH?
>> YEAH, SIX MILLION IS THE WHOLE NUMBER.
>> THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS, HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS CAN WE SUPPORT WITH OUR EXISTING SYSTEM WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO A NEW WATER TOWER?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT NUMBER OFF TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> THAT'S ONE THINGS I PUT IN THERE WE NEEDED TO START UPDATING OUR WATER MASTER PLAN.
THAT WOULD GIVE US THOSE NUMBERS FOR THAT.
THAT'S WHY I'VE GOT JOHN WORKING.
>> ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS TAKE OUR VOLUME AND DIVIDE IT BY THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS.
>> THERE'S MORE TO THAT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT NEW HOUSES COMING ON.
WE'VE GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF.
>> IF WE TOOK OUR CURRENT NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AND WE DIVIDED IT BY THE CONSUMPTION THAT WE USE ON A MONTHLY BASIS OR ON A YEARLY BASIS, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO CALCULATE IT, WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF HOW MUCH A HOUSEHOLD ON AVERAGE USES.
WE CAN TAKE THAT NUMBER AND SAY, OKAY, AT WHAT POINT WILL WE BE WHEN WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO GET A NEW WATER TOWER? YOU SUBTRACT ONE FROM THE OTHER AND YOU COME UP WITH A NUMBER AND THAT'S THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WE CAN SERVE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> JOHN'S WORK OFFERING IN THOSE NUMBERS, HE SAID WITHIN THE NEXT T10 YEARS, WE'LL NEED THAT TOWER.
>> THAT'S FINE, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS WE CAN ABSORB WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO A NEW WATER TOWER.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE AS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS THAT WITH THE PUMP STATION ASSUMING THAT THE NEW PUMP STATION IS ONLINE WITH EXISTING WATER TOWER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT HAS TO FILL UP MANY MORE TIMES, BUT YOU STILL WOULD HAVE MORE CAPACITY THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
>> WAIT, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW PROTOCOLS PEOPLE.
>> WOULD YOU ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION?
>> I DIDN'T GET THAT NUMBER, YES.
>> ONCE WE HAVE THAT NUMBER, THEN WE CAN LOOK AT, AND I KNOW THIS IS GOING DOWN A PATH, BUT THERE'S SOME LOGIC BEHIND IT.
HOW MUCH LAND DO WE HAVE AVAILABLE IN PARKER THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED AT SOME POINT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT 30 YEARS, SAY? THEN LOOK AT OUR ZONING AND SAY, OKAY, IF WE DEVELOP THAT LAND PER ZONING OF TWO ACRES, HOW MUCH WATER WOULD THOSE NEW HOUSES NEED AND THEN WE CAN DETERMINE IF WE NEED A NEW WATER TOWER OR NOT.
>> THERE'S MORE TO THAT THAN JUST USAGE.
>> IT'S VERY COMPLICATED, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. WE CAN GET WITH JOHN.
>> THERE'S INFORMATION TO SHOW YOU THAT WILL HELP UNDERSTAND HOW THE NEW TOWER WOULD BE DETERMINED WHEN WE NEED THAT.
>> YOU'VE GOT PRESSURE, YOU'VE GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHERS THINGS.
>> THOSE THINGS ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHENEVER HE DID THOSE ORIGINAL NUMBERS BEFORE, WHENEVER HE DETERMINED WHEN THAT TOWER WOULD BE NEEDED BEFORE.
NOW, THAT'S CHANGED A LITTLE BIT WITH GROWTH MAY BE FASTER OR SLOWER THAN IT WAS ANTICIPATED, THAT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THINGS.
BUT THE NUMBERS ARE STILL AND THE TOWER IS WHAT PROVIDES THE WATER PRESSURE FOR THE SYSTEM.
THE PUMP STATION PROVIDES MOVING THE WATER AROUND.
THEY'RE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> BUT IF WE HAVE THOSE NUMBERS, I'M JUST ASKING FOR THIS NUMBER SO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE AN IDEA WHICH WAY WE SHOULD GO BECAUSE RIGHT NOW-
>> I'M SORRY. I THINK WE'RE WAY PAST THAT POINT BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING BILLS NOW FROM NORTH TEXAS THAT WE'RE GOING INTO FUND BALANCE. [INAUDIBLE] NOT CORRECT ON THAT GRANT.
>> CAN I JUST SAY ONE MORE THING? I CAN UNDERSTAND, RAISING THE RATES TO EQUATE TO THE SAME AMOUNT THAT NORTH TEXAS IS CHARGING US IF IT GOES UP 5-8% PER YEAR AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE NUMBERS WERE.
>> THIS PAST YEAR. IT'S 13 RIGHT NOW AND PROBABLY ANOTHER 13% NEXT YEAR.
>> IF WE JUST PASSED ALONG THAT AMOUNT OF INCREASE TO
[00:15:02]
OUR RESIDENTS UNTIL THE TIME THAT WE HAVE BETTER FIGURES ON WHEN WE'RE GOING TO NEED INFRASTRUCTURE JUST TO SUPPORT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, THE $10 MILLION.>> WHAT WE DID WAS WE DIDN'T PUT THE WHOLE 13% AND WE'RE SPREADING THAT OUT ACROSS THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.
IT WASN'T A BIG JUMP FOR EVERYONE.
IT WAS A STEADY INCREASE THROUGHOUT THOSE YEARS.
THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME YEARS WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO A LITTLE BIT OF RESERVE FUND AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME YEARS WE MAKE MONEY ON THAT FUND.
BUT IT SHOULD ALL WASH OUT AT THE END OF THE YEAR BECAUSE THERE'S MORE WET YEARS THAN DRY YEARS.
>> PLAN SCENARIO 1, SCENARIO 1 ALSO INCLUDES.
>> NO, THAT WAS JUST TO HAVE THE OPTION TO ISSUE DEBT IF YOU DID WISH TO ISSUE DEBT AT THAT POINT, YOU WOULD HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ISSUE THAT DEBT.
AS WE'VE SAID BEFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE TO ISSUE THAT DEBT.
IF WE GET DOWN TO YEAR 4 HERE ON THE SCALE, LET'S JUST SAY 2025, THINGS ARE CHANGED COMPLETELY AND YOU GUYS DECIDE, HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO INCREASE THIS YEAR, THAT'S THEIR WISHES AT THAT TIME.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU FOR THE NEXT AT LEAST 2-3 YEARS, WE'RE DOING 10.
I THINK IT WAS WHAT, 10%, AND THEN TWO NINES, LET ME PULL UP, 9%, 9%, 8%, AND 8%.
THAT'S BASICALLY JUST THOSE FIRST THREE YEARS ARE JUST COVERING THE INCREASES FOR THIS NEXT TWO YEARS POSSIBLY A LITTLE BIT MORE.
>> GRABBING AND APPROVING SCENARIO 1 WHICH IS LONG-TERM DEBT CLIENT CAN POSTPONE THAT AND JUST TO APPROVE THE INCREASE TO COVER THE INCREASE THAT NORTH TEXAS IS CHARGING US. [BACKGROUND]
>> I'LL HAVE TO GET WITH STAFF ON IT THEN.
>> WHILE YOU'RE THINKING ON THAT, JIM, YOU HAD A QUESTION. GO AHEAD.
>> I THINK I WAS ON THE SAME PATH THAT COUNCILMAN MEYER WAS ON IS THAT, I'M FOR OFFSETTING THE INCREASE SO THAT WE DON'T TAKE ON ANY MORE DEBT LOW.
WE DO HAVE A GOOD RESERVE ALSO RIGHT NOW.
BUT LOOKING AT 10 YEARS OUT, I CAN'T SEE FUNDING THAT NOW FOR SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT THE ACTUAL USE IS.
I'M AGREEING WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN MEYER IS SAYING.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I HAD A QUESTION.
>> I'M GOING BACK AND REVIEWING THE FEBRUARY 21ST AND GOING BACK TO MY CHICKEN SCRATCH NOTES FROM THAT MEETING.
ON THIS SCENARIO, WE DISCUSSED THE SIX MILLION IN 2025, THE SIX MILLION IN 2029.
I HEARD THE WATER TOWER IS ONE OF THEM.
I HAD NOTES FOR ROADWAY, WATERLINE ISSUES, THEN I PUT IE DUBLIN BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE WATERLINE IS JUST GOING TO COME UP.
IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, IT WASN'T JUST THE WATER TOWERS, AND WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I ASKED A VERY SIMILAR QUESTION, [NOISE] COUNCIL MEMBER MEYER ASKED AND MR. MILES WAS THE ONE THAT WAS HERE, SAID THAT THE OTHER UNKNOWN FACTORS ETJ THAT WE HAD TO PROVIDE WATER TO.
I THINK THAT WAS THE OTHER CONCERN THAT THEY HAD IS THAT NUMBER IS STILL A PIE IN THE SKY BECAUSE WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE WATER TO THE ETJ AREAS AND WE DON'T GET TO SAY WHEN THOSE GET DEVELOPED OR HOW THEY GET DEVELOPED.
I THINK THAT THE DEBT WAS A CONSIDERATION, THAT IT IS VERY LIKELIHOOD THAT WE COULD NEED IT.
IT ALLOWED FOR THE DEBT CAPACITY UNDER THAT IF I WAS UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.
>> CORRECT. IT GIVES US THE OPTION, WE WILL HAVE THE DEBT CAPACITY AT THAT POINT TO ISSUE THE SIX MILLION WHERE THE WATER RATES WOULD HAVE FUND THAT IF WE NEEDED IT.
>> TO FOLLOW UP, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS ON THE OTHER SCENARIOS.
ONE SCENARIO WHERE WE DID AND THEN WE JUST TOOK THAT MONEY AT THE TIME.
THAT WAS NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR THE CITY ON OUR CURRENT PATH.
THEN THE LAST OPTION THAT I SAW PUT ALL THE DEBT ON THE RESIDENTS AT THAT TIME AND I KNOW THERE WAS QUESTION ABOUT RESIDENT WHO MIGHT NOT BE HERE FOR 20 YEARS HAVING TO PAY THEIR SHARE INTO THAT.
BUT I GUESS WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS, THERE IS NO DOUBT BECAUSE I ASKED THAT QUESTION AND THEY SAID THAT THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE A WATER TOWER AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR BOTH LUKE AND MR. MICHADO THAT WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE A WATER TOWER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM AN EMAIL BETWEEN ME AND MR. BIRKHOFF.
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE WILL NEED A WATER TOWER BASED ON POPULATION AND SOME OTHER WATER USAGE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE UNTIL 7-10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
>> THE OTHER ISSUE IS, OUR RESIDENTS USE A LOT OF WATER.
IT'S NOT UNFAIR TO SAY THAT WE HAVE SOME RESIDENTS USE WHAT,
[00:20:03]
50,000-100,000 GALLONS A MONTH EASILY.>> WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DO THAT.
>> WHAT'S THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION THEN.
>> I THINK WHEN THEY FIGURED IT OUT, I THINK IT WAS [OVERLAPPING] 17,000, 18,000, WE'LL THEN CAME BACK WITH.
>> I REMEMBER IT WAS 15 [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY USE 10,000, I BELIEVE IN THEIR NUMBERS.
[OVERLAPPING] LET ME PULL IT BACK UP.
>> LUCAS, I THINK IT'S SIX. I'M SORRY.
>> LUCAS IS 16,000, BUT OTHERS ARE 9,000-10,000.
>> CORRECT. IF WE DO PUT THE PROPOSED RATE, I THINK THIS SCENARIO 1 HERE, IT'LL PUT OUR BASE WITH AN AVERAGE OF WHAT, 10,000 GALLONS, IT'LL BE 7205 JUST FOR WATER.
THAT'S STILL PUTS THIS BELOW WILLIS, ALAN, SACHSE, AND MAYBE IN LINE WITH ROYSE CITY.
BUT WE'RE STILL UNDER LAVON, ST. PAUL, FARMERSVILLE, MURPHY, LUCAS, HEATH.
WE'RE GOING TO BE THE THIRD LOWEST WATER RATE STILL IN THE AREA FOR NORTH TEXAS WITH THAT INCREASE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, MAY I ASK ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION? THE OTHER THING THAT I WAS GOING TO QUESTION OR ADDRESS IS, AND IT CAME UP IN PUBLIC COMMENTS TOO, WAS WHETHER WE HAD ANY SECONDARY OPTIONS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND RIGHT BEFORE WE GET TO ANYTHING ON THIS.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE REALLY IN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE, NORTH TEXAS IS [INAUDIBLE] .
WE DON'T HAVE AN OPTION TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION ON OUR CURRENT RATING.
THE ONLY OPTION THAT WE HAVE IS TO CONTINUE TO PAY IT OUT OF GENERAL FUND, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO TRULY DO OR PASS ON AS WE ARE IN SMALLER CHUNKS OF THE RESIDENTS, CORRECT.
>> IT WOULD COME OUT THE WATER PROPRIETY FUND.
BUT YES, WE'RE AT THE POINT NOW WHERE WE'RE AT THEIR MERCY.
EVERY CITY GOT HIT WITH THESE NUMBERS EVEN MEMBER CITIES, AND CUSTOMER CITIES.
THIS IS WHERE IT'S GOING TO STAND AT THIS POINT.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND THE SMALL CITY COALITION GROUP.
>> THE FINAL ADMINISTERING OF QUESTIONS.
IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE TODAY, WHEN CAN WE REVISIT AND ADDRESS IF WE'RE ACCUMULATING TOO MUCH TO BE ABLE TO FUNCTION FOR THAT FUTURE DEBT IF WE DETERMINE WE'RE NOT GOING TO NEED IT OR A MAGIC GRANT FALLS OUT OF THE SKY THAT'S JUST FOR WATER TOWERS.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE READDRESS ANNUALLY.
IT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF AN OCTOBER 1 START DATE.
RESIDENTS WILL NOT SEE THIS START ACTUALLY IN THEIR FIRST BILL UNTIL THEY MAY BILL, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE FOR APRIL.
APRIL, THEY'LL BE GETTING MARCH'S BILL.
SO WE'RE NOT RETROACTIVE IN THAT BACK WHERE IT SO IF APRIL'S BILL WILL COME OUT IN MAY.
THAT'S WHEN IT ALL START FOR THE FIRST BILLING CYCLE.
BUT ANNUALLY, WE WOULD LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS AND SAY, HEY, ARE WE STILL DOING THIS? HOW ARE WE STILL LOOKING AT THE FINANCES OF OUR SYSTEM? THAT'S JUST DONE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
>> JUST TO ANSWER MR. ROBBINS QUESTION, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THE CITY CAN MITIGATE THIS INCREASE AT THIS TIME?
>> THERE IS NONE AT THIS POINT, THAT THEY ARE ALREADY CHARGING US FOR IT.
WE ARE STUCK LIKE EVERY OTHER CITY IS UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.
>> WE TOO LIKE TO KNOW THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION, IT SHOULD BE PRETTY EASY TO GROUND IT.
>> WELL, AVERAGE CONSUMPTION IS 18,000 GALLONS PER HOME A MONTH.
>> BUT THEN WHAT IS OUR CAPACITY BEFORE WE HAVE TO BUILD ANOTHER WATER TOWER? THERE SHOULD BE A NUMBER FOR THAT TOO.
BECAUSE HOW WOULD WE KNOW WHEN WE HAVE TO BUILD IT IF THERE ISN'T?
>> WHEN YOU GOT TO TURN THE TOWER OVER, ACTUALLY THEN YOU CAN, WHEN YOU'RE NEEDING TO PUMP MORE WATER, THEN YOU CAN READ THE AMOUNT OF THAT WATER.
[OVERLAPPING] WE DON'T WANT TO GET TO THAT POINT BUT THERE IS NO FORCE THAT PROVE WE CAN A LOT MORE.
[BACKGROUND] BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE RATES, BUT IT ALSO AFFECTS OTHER THINGS TOO,
[00:25:02]
THE NUMBER OF HOUSES WE CAN PUT ON THE GROUND, AND THAT TYPE OF THING.IT'S REALLY VALUABLE INFORMATION ALL THE WAY AROUND.
LIKE I SAID, I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PERFECT NUMBER, BUT IT'LL GET US IN THE BALLPARK AND THAT WILL HELP ALSO DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD WHETHER WE SHOULD BE PREPARING FOR ANOTHER WATER TOWER AND WHEN, AND THAT WILL ALSO CHANGE THINGS.
[OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE.
>> NUMBERS JOHN HAS RIGHT NOW IS 2,067 CONNECTIONS.
BASED ON THE APPROVAL OF LOTS, WE WOULD HAVE A POPULATION OF 7,991 BASED ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE IS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, [BACKGROUND] 7,991 POPULATION.
>> THAT'S WHAT BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE ON LOTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS GOING IN NOW.
>> CURRENTLY, YES. THAT'S BASED ON THE PROJECTED NUMBERS OF THE 797 SLOTS.
>> THAT'S THE LOTS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW OR?
[BACKGROUND] THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE MORE TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE LOTS FIGURED IN TO THOSE NUMBERS.
>> IT SEEMS HIGH TO ME. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'LL GO BACK AND DOUBLE-CHECK, MAYBE IF I'D FINGERED THIS.
>> IT'S 2,000 MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
>> TWO THOUSAND INDIVIDUALS, WE'RE ALMOST AT SIX.
>> THE REASON I REMEMBER AS A LOT OF OUR PLANNING SESSIONS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE POPULATION, WE WERE SAYING THAT MAYBE 9,000 WAS ABSOLUTE BUILD-OUT.
SO TO HAVE THAT MANY ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW, IT SEEMS HIGH TO ME.
>> IT'S CLARIFICATION, THESE ARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
IS THAT HOW MANY LOTS ARE TO BE BUILT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER A PERIOD OF MANY YEARS.
>> CORRECT. IT'S NOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW. YES.
>> FUTURE PHASES, STUFF LIKE THAT.
IT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD OF WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT WATER TOWER WITHIN THAT TEN-YEAR PERIOD.
>> WAS THAT PART OF THE IMPACT STUDY, THE WATER IMPACT STUDY? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS WAS ACTUALLY EXPLAINED BACK AND I'LL WAIT FOR THAT WATER TOWER TO GO IN PLACE.
>> IN THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME.
>> IN THAT SAME STUDY, AND THAT'S SOMETHING JOHN'S BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.
WE NEED TO UPDATE THAT STUDY BECAUSE SINCE '08 SINCE WE HAVE UPDATED THAT STUDY.
>> I NEED TO CLARIFY IT. SO THAT THE 2,067 CONNECTIONS ARE WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE NOW?
>> WE DON'T HAVE 2,000 HOUSES IN PARKER. I DON'T THINK.
>> WE DO. SOME HAVE TWO METERS, SOME HAVE IRRIGATION METER, BUT WE DO HAVE 2,000 HOMES.
I THINK WE SEND OUT ALMOST JUST OVER 1,900 NEWSLETTERS.
WE'RE SENDING OVER 1,900 NOW NEWSLETTERS.
>> TELL ME ABOUT THE SURCHARGE.
>> THAT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE WITH NORTH TEXAS.
THAT IS PART OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN.
IT DOES NOT AFFECT ANYONE THAT HAS THE BASE RATE.
IT'S STARTS AT 30,000 GALLONS.
THAT IS A LOT OF WATER TO USE [LAUGHTER] BEFORE YOU START GETTING THE SURCHARGE RATES.
>> I WOULD NOT WANT THIS TO AFFECT SOMEONE THAT IS ON THE BASE RATE.
IT STARTS AT 30,000 AND GOES UP TO WAY PAST THAT.
>> THIS IS REQUIRED BY NORTH TEXAS?
>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, KATHERINE, WE LOOKED AT THAT, AND THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL ONE.
WE TOOK THE OLD ORDINANCE AND THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE IN THE SOUTH TOO.
>> I DIDN'T GO BACK AND LOOK AT YOUR AGREEMENT WITH NORTH TEXAS FOR THIS BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTED IN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE. WE CAN DO THAT.
[00:30:01]
I BELIEVE THAT NORTH TEXAS DEMANDED THAT WE PASS THE CONSERVATION PLAN, AND I GUESS THIS WAS A PART OF THAT SOME YEARS AGO.THEY LITERALLY CAME TO THE MEETING TO MAKE SURE, [LAUGHTER] BUT THAT'S JUST TALK.
>> MADAM MAYOR. I WAS DOING JUST SOME QUICK MATH HERE.
TO GET THE EXTRA 2,000 THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HIT THE WATER TOWER, WE'RE ROUGHLY 371 HOUSEHOLDS AT 2.75 PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD, WHICH IS WHAT THE LAST CENSUS HAD AN AVERAGE.
I WAS LOOKING BACK AT MY NOTES WHEN I WAS ASKING A QUESTION ON JUST OUR ETJ POSSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I KNOW WE HAVEN A DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM, WHICH HOPEFULLY, WILL NOT LAST FOREVER.
IT LOOKED LIKE FROM WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY THE ENGINEER THEN, WE HAD MORE THAN THAT IN JUST OUR ETJ THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED AND WE HAVE TO PROVIDE WATER THERE TOO.
BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WAS SOME QUESTION THAT I HAD ABOUT THE GROWTH BECAUSE OF THAT SAME QUESTION, AND THAT WAS ON ACTUALLY MR. BIRKHOFF'S REPORT THAT HE PROVIDED US LAST YEAR, AND THAT SAME NUMBER WAS THERE AND IT SEEMED RIDICULOUSLY HIGH, BUT HE JUSTIFIED IT BY SAYING A LOT OF THAT WAS IN OUR ETJ.
>> YOU GOT ONE THAT'S GOING RIGHT NOW AT 666 HOMES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE WATER TO BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR CCN.
THAT WOULD BE FORCED UPON US TO PROVIDE THAT SAID WATER TO THAT DISTRICT IF IT DIDN'T COME INTO FRUITION.
>> WHICH I WOULD ADD IS PART OF THE REASONING BEHIND MY THOUGHT THAT WE INCREASE FOR THE OUT OF CITY WATER USAGE WHICH WE HAVE IN THIS AS WELL, I NOTICED.
>> GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS? IF THERE IS A MOTION, I WILL ACCEPT ONE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I RELUCTANTLY MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 840 OF THE CITY OF PARKER, ESTABLISHING THE RATES AND FEES FOR THE WATER SERVICE AND ESTABLISHING THE RATE FOR THE WASTEWATER SERVICE AND APPEALING ORDINANCE 739, PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER CLAUSE, PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION AND THE NUMBERS FOR THE WATER TOWER AND SUCH SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THIS AT A FUTURE DATE AS WELL IF WE ARE OVER BUDGETING HERE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM SLAUGHTER.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WILL SECOND THAT.
MAYBE IT'S A REQUEST TO ADD TO THAT, THAT AT THE ANNUAL BUDGETING SESSION, WE MAKE A SPECIFIC OR MORE DELIBERATE REVIEW OF THE WATER FUND AND EXISTING RESERVE AND MAKE ANY DETERMINATIONS IF ADJUSTMENTS ARE NEEDED AT THAT TIME AS WELL.
>> WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE TYPICALLY WE GET OUR LETTER FROM NORTH TEXAS.
>> DO YOU ACCEPT THAT, YOUR AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION?
>> YES. I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED TO THOUGH BECAUSE THAT WAS A STAFF DIRECTION.
DO I NEED TO ACCEPT THAT AS AN AMENDMENT?
>> RIGHT. I DIDN'T TAKE THAT AS PART OF HIS MOTION.
HIS MOTION WAS TO APPROVE AND A SIDE NOTE OF WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK THE STAFF DO THIS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] AS WELL AS SIDE NOTE, YES.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS A PART OF THE MOTION, SO THAT'LL WORK.
>> JUST AS A COMMENT TO THAT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> I DO HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY.
WE CAN'T WAIT A YEAR TO BRING THIS BACK BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO NEED THIS INFORMATION FOR THE COMP PLAN AS FAR AS GROWTH AND ALL THAT GOES, SO AS SOON AS STAFF CAN PULL THAT TOGETHER, WE NEED TO READDRESS.
>> WE'LL TRY TO GET TO THAT BY NEXT WEEK IF POSSIBLE.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE EMAILS I'VE GOTTEN HERE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM SLAUGHTER, [NOISE] EXCUSE ME, AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER LYNCH.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE FOR APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 840.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[00:35:01]
MOTION CARRIES 5, 0. THANK YOU-ALL.THAT IS ALWAYS A HARD THING FOR US.
AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE UPDATES.
[5. UPDATE(S):]
MR. OLSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY UPDATE, OR MR. MATATA?>> GARY HAD A PHONE CALL WITH THEM TODAY 2551 ALLEGEDLY IS GOING TO BE BID OUT IN TWO WEEKS.
I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT I'VE SEEN WORSE THINGS HAPPEN BEFORE.
[OVERLAPPING] WE'VE GOT AN ISSUE AT PARKER ROAD AND HOGUE.
WHEN THAT COMES THROUGH THERE, WE APPARENTLY HAVE A VALVE THERE THAT EITHER NEEDS TO BE MOVED OR DO BYPASS.
I THINK WE'RE HAVING TO CALL ON THAT ON THURSDAY CONCERNING THAT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE GOT A MEETING SCHEDULED OR WE'RE GOING TO SCHEDULE A MEETING AND SO HOPEFULLY, THAT'S RIGHT, SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT.
>> THE VALVE SUPPLIES THE WATER TO THE WHOLE CITY.
WE JUST CAN'T SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE IT'LL SHUT THE WHOLE CITY DOWN.
>> WE'LL SHUT OFF THE WHOLE WATER TOWER SYSTEM.
>> THAT WOULD CERTAINLY SOLVE.
>> PEOPLE WANT TO GET A RATE INCREASE THEN AT THAT POINT.
>> WE CAN SET THAT VALVE NOW FOR A LITTLE WHILE, BUT NOT FOR [INAUDIBLE] COUPLE OF WEEKS.
>> WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET TWO, THREE HOURS OUT OF IT, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT.
>> WE'RE WORKING ON THAT LITTLE SLIGHT SNAFU THAT WAS NOTIFIED TO US TODAY.
THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE TOLD US, I DON'T KNOW, [OVERLAPPING] FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO BECAUSE THIS WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PARKER ROAD EXTENSION.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT NOW, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THAT.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER UPDATES?
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY UPDATES? YOU-ALL SEE WHERE YOUR CONNECTIONS ARE TO THE MONTHLY REPORTS.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MONTHLY REPORTS? WE WILL ACCEPT A DONATION FOR THE FIRE POLICE AND OR CITY STAFF.
[6. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $500) ]
FOR THE RECORD, TRUDY JACKSON AND ED STANDRICH DONATED NUTS, POPCORN, FRUIT, AND GRANOLA BARS VALUED AT $50 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.>> MADAM MAYOR, MAY I COMMENT? I THINK THAT'S THE HEALTHIEST DONATION WE'VE HAD AS FAR AS FOOD IN THE ALMOST FOUR YEARS I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL.
>> IT SEEM ODD THAT ED WOULD DONATE NUTS.
[LAUGHTER] MOVING RIGHT ALONG.
ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TO BE REQUESTED AT THIS TIME THAT WE GET WITH THE DIRECT STAFF ON THE WATER INFORMATION? YOU SHOULD KNOW YOU CAN SEND ME AN EMAIL ANYTIME TO ADD SOMETHING OR SEND IT TO PATTY.
AT THIS TIME, LET ME ASK, DO WE NEED TO RETURN TO EXECUTIVE?
>> NO, MADAM MAYOR, I DON'T THINK WE DO.
IT IS 8:18.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.