>> WELL, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND START. GOOD EVENING.
[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
I AM CONVENING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER.AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR PATTI GREY.
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION START TO FINISH]
WE WILL RECESS TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED DIEM.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074; PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 (1); CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 (2); CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY, UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS, CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
AT THIS TIME, WE ARE IN RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT IS 6:01.
[BACKGROUND] AT THIS TIME, I'M RECONVENING OUR REGULAR MEETING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION, COUNSEL I WILL ASK, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND/OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS?
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL DO THE PLEDGES.
I WILL ASK TED LANE IF HE WILL DO THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND [INAUDIBLE] IF SHE WILL DO THE TEXAS PLEDGE.
>> THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE EVERYBODY THAT'S ON THE PODIUM SINCE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AT HOME CANNOT SEE THE STAND.
WE'LL START AT THIS SUDDEN, WE HAVE COUNCILMEMBER RANDY KERCHO, WE HAVE COUNCILMEMBER TERRY LYNCH, WE HAVE MAYOR PRO TEM, JIM REED, WE HAVE CITY ATTORNEY AMY STANPHILL, I'M MAYOR LEE PETTLE.
WE HAVE AMANDA NOE COUNCILMEMBER, AND TODD FECHT COUNCILMEMBER.
YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THIS CHAIR IS EMPTY.
IT IS EMPTY BECAUSE OUR CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS OUT ILL AND WILL NOT BE HERE TONIGHT.
BECAUSE OF THAT, WE MAY DO SOME THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MUDDLE THROUGH EVERYTHING WE NEED TO.
[BACKGROUND] PARDON? DO NOT SAY THAT ON TAPE.
[LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HE IS OUT ILL, PERIOD.
[LAUGHTER] WE'VE ALL DONE THAT, TODD.
[LAUGHTER] ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE? [NOISE] THEN WE WILL MOVE
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
ON TO ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR COMMUNITY INTEREST.JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE JANUARY 2ND SCHEDULED TO THE COUNCIL MEETING IS CANCELED.
THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE A GOAL-SETTING AND PLANNING WORKSHOP ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 9TH FROM 4:00-7:00 PM.
[00:05:06]
AGAIN, THIS IS BASICALLY FOR COUNCIL ON THAT.PARKS AND RECREATIONS, WE'LL MEET ON JANUARY 10TH AT 5:00 PM IN THIS FACILITY.
ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO JOIN PARKS AND RECS, PLEASE SUBMIT AN APPLICATION, WE DO STILL HAVE OPENINGS ON PARKS AND RECS.
FOR THE PRIMARY, THIS IS NOT FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, THIS IS FOR THE STATE PRIMARIES, DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND SUCH, THE ELECTION DATE FOR THE PRIMARIES IS MARCH 5TH.
PARKER WILL AGAIN BE A VOTING CENTER, SO WE WILL HAVE VOTING.
EARLY VOTING STARTS ON FEBRUARY 19TH.
THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS I HAVE ON THAT.
NEXT, WE'LL GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT AUTOMATE, I AM PULLING AND WE WILL NOT PROCEED ON IT TONIGHT.
WE'LL START WITH ITEM NUMBER 2;
[2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 5, 2023. [REGULAR MEETING]]
APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 5TH, 2023. [NOISE]>> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 5TH, 2023.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER NOE AND A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER FECHT.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 5TH, 2023 PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANYONE OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES.
[NOISE] FIVE TO ZERO. STORAGE ACCOUNT, LOOK IN THERE AND MAKE IT FOUR.
[3. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2023-775 REGARDING THE EXTENSION AND RATE INCREASE ADDENDUM TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MOBILE MODULAR.]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2023-755, REGARDING THE EXTENSION AND WRITE INCREASE ADDENDUM TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MOBILE MODULAR, THIS EVERYBODY KNOWS HAS TO DO WITH THE PORT MODULAR POLICE DOG.ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ON THAT?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A LITTLE BIT MORE.
WE'VE HAD THIS LEASE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW.
IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE COMPANY WOULD CONSIDER GIFTING? CONSIDER MAYBE A TYPE OF LEASE PURCHASE CONSIDERING HOW MUCH WE'VE ALREADY PAID THEM.
[LAUGHTER] IF YOU COULD TALK TO THAT.
>> I SPOKE TO THEM TODAY OR THE OTHER DAY IN REFERENCE TO THAT QUESTION, AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS NO.
[LAUGHTER] THE REASON THEY STATED WAS THE ABILITY, THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY SET UP, IT WAS A LEASE AND SO, THEY WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SELL IT TO US, BUT AT A PRICE OF OVER $100,000.
THEY COULD NOT GET IT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY SET UP. [INAUDIBLE]
>> WAS THERE ANY ARTICLE [INAUDIBLE] TO HOW THEY JUSTIFIED THE INCREASE IN NET FROM YEAR TO YEAR BECAUSE IT WENT FROM 20 [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE ORIGINAL RATE WAS 161, THEY WENT UP TO 171 BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COST FOR [INAUDIBLE]
>> SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MAINTENANCE COSTS, THE PPE, YOU SAY WAS 161 PREVIOUSLY, [OVERLAPPING] EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT DIDN'T SHOW THAT, THAT WE WERE PAYING?
>> THAT'S THE INFORMATION THEY PROVIDED ME BECAUSE I ASKED THAT VERY QUESTION.
BASED ON THE QUESTION, LUKAN TOLD ME THAT THEY INCREASED.
THEY SAID IT'S ALWAYS BEEN IN THE CONTRACT, HAS ALREADY BEEN CHARGED AS 161 AND SO CHANGE, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT CHANGE, AND IT WENT FROM THAT TO 171, AND THEN SUDDENLY CHANGED.
>> I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT IS IN THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT IT SHOWS ONE DOLLAR FOR PPE.
>> THAT'S A TYPO. I MADE THAT COMMITMENT TO THIS AND NO, THAT'S ACTUALLY A TYPO IN THE CONTRACT.
SHE SAID IT'S ALWAYS BEEN 161 ON THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAN LEAD TO, THAT'S WHY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IN ADDITION TO THIS ORIGINAL STATED CONTRACT THAT WE FOUND THAT HANG
[00:10:01]
A PPE, WE OWN THAT.>> I'VE JUST SEEN TO BUILD IT, DOESN'T HAVE THAT BROKEN OUT WHEREVER IT COMES THROUGH, SO IT'S ALSO GONE.
[OVERLAPPING] THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT.
>> THE TOTAL THAT WE'VE BEEN PAYING, I'M LOOKING AT THIS 2,450 AND 17,150 AND THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT SHOWS 2,300.
TO ME, THAT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE.
>> I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
WOULD YOU PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM?
>>SORRY. WELL, I SAID I WILL HAVE TO PULL OVER THE INVOICE TO SEE WHY IT'S NOT LISTED ON THERE.
I'LL PULL THAT AND MAKE IT BETTER INFORMATION TO YOU TONIGHT.
>> OKAY. COUNCIL, IS THIS SOMETHING WE NEED TO PASS?
>> I KNOW IT'S LATE IN RENEWING THIS, BUT THIS IS THE CONTRACT.
THE $2,300 IS THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT ON PAGE 17.
AM I LOOKING AT THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT THAT WE SIGNED?
>> IT SAYS ONE DOLLAR FOR MONTHLY PAYMENT.
>> [OVERLAPPING]THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT.
THIS WAS THE RENEWAL. IT'S SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH.
I THINK WE NEED CLARIFICATION BEFORE I'D BE [INAUDIBLE] POSTPONE THIS ITEM.
>> IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO GIVE THEM THE ANSWER, I CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT FOR YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT.
>> MADAM MAYOR I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO POSTPONE ITEM NUMBER 3.
COUNCIL, BEFORE I GO FURTHER, LET ME ASK, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT MUST BE INITIATED THIS EVENING?
>> THE INCREASED RATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE AUGUST AND WE HAVE BEEN PAYING THE INCREASED RATE.
>> WE'VE BEEN ACTING ON THIS CONTRACT WITHOUT IT BEING APPROVED, IS THAT CORRECT? WE'VE BEEN PLAYING THIS AMOUNT WITHOUT THE CONTRACT IN PLACE, CORRECT?
>> IT'S BASICALLY, BEEN AT ONCE A MONTH TO MONTH SINCE AUGUST.
>> BECAUSE IT RENEWS EVERY AUGUST, CORRECT?
>> THAT WAS THE END OF THE LAST RENEWAL.
>> THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT THE WHOLE THING UP WAS WHENEVER THERE WAS AN INCREASE, THEY WOULD START LOOKING FOR A CONTRACT AND THEY WOULDN'T SEE A CONTRACT.
THEN THAT'S WHY WE REACHED OUT [INAUDIBLE] TO SEE WHAT THE RATE WAS GOING TO BE AND [INAUDIBLE] WITHIN OUTLAW.
THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT ALL THIS UP.
>> WE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS OF SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO RENEW THIS, BRING US ANOTHER COMPANY TO BRING US A NICER PLACE FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ACHILLES HEEL OF THE CITY.
DO WE HAVE SOME OTHER OPTIONS FOR SIMILAR SAME PER MONTH?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A FERRIS WIFIELD SPACE WE'RE PAYING TILL WE'RE DONE WITH THIS LEASE, BECAUSE THEY CHARGE US FOR THE REMOVAL, AND KNOW THAT ITS A VERY PLAUSIBLE CHUNK OF MONEY.
>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME.
I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ZERO. THIS ITEM IS POSTPONED FOR CLARIFICATION.
I WILL ASK MS. LYNCH GET WITH CHIEF PRICE AND WITH COUNCIL AND FIND OUT WHAT QUESTIONS NEEDS TO BE ASKED SO WE GET THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION TO GO FORWARD.
>> OKAY. MR. SAVAGE WILL NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE AS WELL.
>> I'M GOING TO ADD SOME QUESTIONS WITH MS. LYNCH TO ADD TO THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
[00:15:02]
>> OKAY. YEAH. ANYONE IS WELCOME TO GET QUESTIONS OR GIVE HER HOWEVER Y'ALL WANT TO DO IT.
IT'S JUST THAT SHE HAD INDICATED THAT SHE HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
ANYBODY CAN GET WITH MS. PRICE AND GET THE QUESTIONS IN, LET'S GET ALL THE INFORMATION SO WE CAN GO FORWARD.
[4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE WATER IMPACT FEE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND IMPACT FEES UPDATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 395.]
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE WATER IMPACT FEE, LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND IMPACT THESE UPDATE IN THE GARDENS WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 395.WE WILL START WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS NOW OPENED.
IT IS 7:21. MR. BIRKHOFF, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU LEAD US IN THIS, IF YOU WOULD.
>> JOHN BIRKHOFF WITH BIRKHOFF, HENDRICKS AND CARTER, DALLAS, TEXAS, ACTING AS YOUR CITY ENGINEER.
UNDER CHAPTER 395, THE CITY HAD HAS THE OPTION TO INSTITUTE AN IMPACT FEE BACK IN THE '90S, THERE WERE DEVELOPMENT FEES THAT WERE OUT THERE AND THEY WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE, WHICH THEN RESULTED IN THE FIRST IMPACT FEE LAW IN THE STATE.
THERE'S BEEN TWO OR THREE CHANGES OVER THE YEARS.
THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE IN MANY YEARS.
THE CITY HAS DONE AN IMPACT FEE BACK IN 2008, TIMEFRAME WAS UPDATED IN 2016, EFFECTIVE DATE WAS JANUARY OF 2017 AND HERE WE ARE IN 2023.
WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES TODAY IS THAT YOU UPDATE YOUR IMPACT FEE EVERY FIVE YEARS OR YOU EXTEND THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE.
AS WE REVIEWED WHERE WE ARE TODAY, THERE'S THREE PARTS TO THE IMPACT FEE.
ONE IS LAND USE PLAN, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND THEN THE IMPACT FEE ITSELF.
AS WE LOOK BACK FROM 2016 WHEN THE CITY ACTUALLY DID A LAND USE PLAN, THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THAT POINT.
NOW, NO RE-ZONING NO HIGHER DENSITIES, NO ANYTHING.
WE PRESENTED BACK TO THE CITY AND TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT WE UTILIZE THE 2016S LAND USE PLAN, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE READOPTED TONIGHT GOING FORWARD.
WE KNOW FROM THE MASTER PLAN THAT WE DID IN 2008 AND IT WAS REVISED IN 2015, THERE WAS NO REVISION.
THE CITY DID NOT WANT TO UPDATE THE MASTER PLANS FOR THIS STUDY.
THERE'S ONLY A FEW PROJECTS IN THERE THAT REMAIN, AND ONE OF THOSE IS THE ELEVATED TANK, THE SECOND ELEVATED TANK.
WE DID SOME CALCULATIONS FOR MR. OLSON THAT SAID THAT THE ELEVATED TANK BASED ON WATER DEMANDS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, THEY KEEP INCREASING.
THERE IS GOING TO BE A NEED FOR AN ELEVATED TANK.
THAT PROMPTED A REVISION TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO INCLUDE THAT ELEVATED TANK.
THE OTHER COMPONENTS WERE ALREADY THERE.
THERE'S A SHORT LINE THAT CONNECTS THE TANK.
THERE'S SOME WATER LINES IN FM 2551 THAT NEED TO GO IN.
IT HASN'T COME ONLINE YET, SO WE HAVE KEPT THAT IN AS A PROPOSED PROJECT BECAUSE IT HAS ZERO UTILIZATION TODAY.
AS WE GO BACK AND WE CALCULATE THE FEE, A BIG PART OF THAT ARE THOSE WATER LINES, THOSE 18-INCH WATER LINES AND THE ELEVATED TANK.
PRE-PANDEMIC, PRICES WERE A LOT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE POST.
THINGS, PUMP STATIONS, TANKS ARE LIKE TWO OR THREE TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WHAT THEY WERE PRE-PANDEMIC.
THAT STARTS TO DRIVE THE IMPACT FEE, MAXIMUM FEE.
TODAY, WE HAVE A WATER MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FEE OF $8,269.17, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE THAT YOU ADOPT IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FEE.
ONCE YOU'VE DONE THAT, IF YOU WANTED TO DISCOUNT THAT, THEN YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AS TIME GOES ON, IF YOU DISCOUNTED THE $8,261 TO WHAT THE FEE IS TODAY, WHICH IS $3,938.95. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION TO DO,
[00:20:05]
AND THAT ALLOWS YOU IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS TO INCREASE THE FEE ANNUALLY OR HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE.OR TONIGHT YOU CAN ADOPT THE MAXIMUM FEES, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE.
WHEN YOU CHARGED THIS FEE, IT IS CHARGED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT.
THE HOME BUILDER COMES IN, HE PAYS THE IMPACT FEE, SO HE BUILDS A HOUSE, THE METER GOES IN AND YOU COLLECT THAT MONEY.
THE IDEA OF THE IMPACT FEE IS NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PAY A PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THEM BECAUSE THERE'S EXCESS CAPACITY IN LINES AND TANKS AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THEM TO COME INTO THE CITY AND TO BE SERVED.
THE LAW, THE WAY IT'S SET UP IS A DEFAULT.
YOU CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM FEE, YOU TAKE 50 PERCENT OF THAT.
THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT ONCE THESE PEOPLE COME IN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAYING RATES, SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR SOME OF IT IN THE FUTURE.
EXISTING HOMEOWNERS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR SOME OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FUTURE, BUT HALF OF IT IS SET UP NOW FOR THE HOME-BUILDER TO PUT ON THE NEW HOMEOWNER WHEN THEY COME IN.
THAT GOES INTO THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE AND GETS FINANCED OVER HOWEVER MANY YEARS THEY FINANCE THEIR HOUSE FOR.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, THAT'S JUST A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE IMPACT FEE PROCESS.
>> COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
AS YOU SAID, SINCE PANDEMIC, THE PRICES HAVE GONE HUGE.
THE ACTUAL CALCULATION THAT WE DID, THE NUMBERS THAT WE PUT IN HERE, I GUESS FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE WATER IMPACT FEE, I ASSUME OUR TODAY'S DOLLARS?
>> YEAH. WHEN WE PROJECT OUT PROPOSED PROJECTS, WE'RE GOING BACK TO BIG TABS THAT WE HAVE ON WATERLINES OF WHAT THEY'RE COSTING FOR THAT SIZE FOR THE ELEVATED TANK.
WE GO BACK TO THE TANK MANUFACTURERS AND SAY, WHAT'S THE CURRENT PRICE OF ELEVATED TANKS? INTERESTING ENOUGH, FOREVER, PRICES WERE PRETTY CONSTANT UNTIL AROUND 2008, AND NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO THIS GLOBAL ECONOMY.
WHAT WE ALWAYS FEEL, IT OUGHT TO COST X AMOUNT FOREVER, HAS REALLY CHANGED SINCE 2008 AND EVERY TIME WE HAVE A WORLD EVENT, PANDEMIC BEING ONE OR A WAR, PRICES SPIKE UP AND THEN THEY COME DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY NEVER COME BACK TO WHERE THEY USED TO BE.
AN ELEVATED TANK FOR MOST OF MY CAREER, THEY WERE A DOLLAR A GALLON.
NOW WE'RE TALKING FOUR AND FIVE DOLLARS A GALLON FOR THE SAME THING.
EXISTING PROJECTS THAT ARE OUT THERE.
WHEN THE CITY BOUGHT THE PECAN ORCHARD WATER-SUPPLY CORPORATION, THERE WAS A VALUE THAT YOU PAID AND THAT'S IN THE IMPACT FEE.
THERE ARE STILL SOME OF THOSE LINES.
THERE'S CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO YOU.
LINES THAT YOU BUILT THAT WE KNOW THAT YOU FINANCE WE PUT A FINANCE CHARGE IN THERE.
LINES THAT YOU PAID FOR, BUT THE CITY REMEMBERED AND HAVE A RECORD OF IT, WE WILL JUST PUT CURRENT COST AND WITH NO FINANCING.
WHAT YOU REALLY WANT TO BE IS CONSERVATIVE IN THIS BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CHALLENGED.
IF YOU OVERDO IT, TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, THEY LIKE TO OVERDO THINGS AND THEY ALWAYS GET SUED, AND IT'S YEARS.
MOST FOLKS TRIED TO GO THE 50 PERCENT AND THAT'S A CONSERVATIVE AND SOME OF THE DECISIONS DON'T PUSH THE ENVELOPE TOO FAR.
WHEN YOU DO AN IMPACT FEE, YOU REALLY HAVE TO PUT BLINDERS ON TO SAY IT'S ONLY FOR FUTURE GROWTH, THE CAPACITY OF THAT LINE, THE CAPACITY OF THE PUMP STATION BECAUSE SOME OF IT'S FOR EXISTING, SOME OF ITS PROPOSED.
THE EAST-SIDE PUMP STATION, I'M STILL CAPTURING MONEY.
THE ELEVATED TANK OUT HERE, I'M CAPTURING MONEY.
WHEN I BRING A NEW ELEVATED TANK AND I FREE CAPACITY UP IN THAT ONE, I NEVER FULLY UTILIZE IT UNTIL BUILD-OUT.
WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THAT PROCESS THAT WE'VE NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE WAY WE DO THE CALCULATION, AND USING THE WATER MASTER-PLAN.
WE HAVE THREE HYDRAULIC MODELS AND WE'RE COMPARING BUILD OUT TO 2023 TO FIGURE OUT UTILIZED CAPACITY IN THE FACILITIES.
>> BUT FROM A COST AS YOU WERE SAYING, IT'S GOING TO COST X AMOUNT THAT FIT IN ANOTHER STORAGE TANK.
THE COST THAT'S IN THAT PARTICULAR WATER IMPACT FEE IS TODAY'S DOLLARS OR?
>> OKAY, AND DOES IT ALLOW YOU TO SAY,
[00:25:02]
HEY, PER OUR CIP PLAN, WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN FIVE YEARS AND IT'S GOING TO LIKELY COST MORE IN FIVE YEARS.>> [OVERLAPPING] YEAH. WE CAN ESCALATE THAT UP, IF WE HAVE A YEAR THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN.
THE CALCULATIONS THAT I'VE DONE, YOU NEED TO DO IT NOW.
YOU NEED TO GET THIS THING ROLLING BECAUSE YOU'RE TWO YEARS OUT.
THE PRICE THAT WE HAVE IS TODAY'S DOLLARS, TWO YEARS OUT.
IF YOU'RE GOING, FIVE YEARS OUT, SEVEN YEARS OUT, IT'S STILL IN THE 10-YEAR PERIOD THEN YOU PROBABLY SHOULD ESCALATE IT.
>> BODHI ARC IS SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN HERE AND CERTAINLY THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE DONE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
IS THERE AN INFLATION NUMBER OF BUILT INTO THIS?
>> THERE CAN BE A FASTER THE DESIRE OF THE CITY TO DO THAT.
>> WHAT INFLATION UMBER WOULD YOU RECOMMEND, SIX PERCENT, EIGHT PERCENT, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
>> MOST CITIES USE CURRENT DOLLARS, AGAIN, TO BE ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE.
AS WE SIT TODAY, SEVEN PERCENT, EIGHT PERCENT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO DO.
WHEN YOU'RE SITTING AT TWO OR THREE PERCENT, DID YOU DO ANYTHING? AND DO YOU GO UP TO THE SEVEN PERCENT KNOWING THAT WILL IT STAY THERE? OR DO YOU ANTICIPATE IT GOING DOWN? IT'S THE CRYSTAL BALL, THAT'S INPUT THAT WE NEED TO GET BACK OF HOW THE CITY WANTS TO APPROACH YOU.
AND AT THIS POINT, WE HAVEN'T BEEN GIVING ANY DIRECTION TO ESCALATE IT.
I HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP ON THE TANK.
WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT? BECAUSE MY TIME IS TWO YEARS, YOU NEED IT.
>> YES, I WOULD THINK WE NEED AN INFLATION NUMBER IN THERE OR WE'RE WALKING BACKWARDS.
>> AND WE CAN PUT IN INFLATION FACTOR ON ALL THE PROPOSED PROJECTS.
>>THE OTHER THING IS LOOKING BACK AT THE LAST TIME THAT WE ADDED WATER IMPACT STUDY ANALYSIS THAT INDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE FOR BODHI ARC, SOME TYPE OF PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE THAT WAS NEEDED.
BUT I SAW THAT WAS EXCLUDED THIS TIME, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T PUT IN ANYTHING OVER BODHI ARC SO I WAS WONDERING WHY THAT GOT EXCLUDED?
>> I THOUGH WE STILL HAD IT IN THERE.
I THINK WE DID THAT WITH TEXTILE.
DID WE NOT, THAT THE BRB WENT IN WITH TEXTILE?
>> I THINK IT GOT PUT IN ALREADY.
>> THEN, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO PUT IN A WATER LINE ALONG DUBLIN.
DOES THAT COUNT INTO THIS STUDY?
>> NO. BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUTURE GROWTH DOWN THERE.
>> BUT THERE'S ETJ PROPERTY ALL ALONG DUBLIN THOUGH.
>> BUT IT'S NOT FED FROM DUBLIN? THE LINES YOU HAVE IN THERE TODAY ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE SYSTEM? YOU HAVE SOME MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS WITH THOSE LINES, SO YOU'RE REPLACING THEM FOR MAINTENANCE, YOU'RE NOT REPLACING THEM FOR FUTURE GROWTH?
>> I THOUGHT THAT WE'RE INCREASING THE SIZE OF THAT LINE QUITE A BIT AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF THE PIPE.
IF IT'S ADEQUATE TODAY, WHY WOULD WE INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE PIPE?
>> YOUR MINIMUM LINE SIZE TODAY IS EIGHT-INCH.
IF YOU HAVE SIX INCHES, YOU WOULD REPLACE IT TO YOUR STANDARD THAT YOU MAKE DEVELOPERS PUT IN.
IF YOU WANTED TO KEEP IT AS SIX-INCH, IT'S ADEQUATE IN THE MODEL.
THE COST BETWEEN A SIX-INCH AND EIGHT-INCH IS PRETTY INSIGNIFICANT.
>> THE COST OF PUTTING IT IN AS AN INSIGNIFICANT?
>> THE CONSTRUCTION PART OF PUTTING IT IN IS THE EXPENSIVE PART.
BUYING A SIX-INCH PVC LINE AND AN EIGHT-INCH PVC LINE, YOU'RE PROBABLY TALKING TO A FEW DOLLARS, FIVE DOLLARS A LINEAR FOOT.
AND AGAIN, WE CAN PUT A SIX-INCH IN.
WE RUN THE HYDRAULIC MODEL, IT WORKS.
>> I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT FROM PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT WHILE WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE NORTH TEXAS CONTRACT, THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING US TO PAY SOME ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR LINE, FOR HOOKUP.
IS THAT OR SHOULD THAT BE IN THIS WATER IMPACT STUDY?
>> THAT QUESTION CAME UP WHEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION AND IT WAS DETERMINED NOT TO PUT IT IN.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAD. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, A CLARIFICATION QUESTION.
IN THE PACKET, THE 2016 IMPACT PROPOSED PROJECT SHOWS CHAPARRAL OF $4.8 MILLION ELEVATED
[00:30:01]
STORAGE IN THE 2016 IMPACT FEE.DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT THE CHAPARRAL ELEVATED STORAGE TANK IS SOMETHING NEW IN THIS CURRENT 2020 [BACKGROUND]?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. GARY BROUGHT THAT UP, BUT WHAT'S IN YOUR PACKET, AND SO THAT IS A PLAN THAT WAS DATED IN NOVEMBER OF 2016.
IT DOESN'T MATCH THE 2016 IMPACT FEE.
I WENT BACK AND THERE'S A REVISION, IT'S A DECEMBER CIP, THAT MATCHES THE IMPACT FEE.
SOMEWHERE IN THAT PERIOD IT WAS DETERMINED TO TAKE THAT TANK OUT.
I DIDN'T DO THE 2016, ONE OF MY PARTNERS DID.
I QUIZZED HIM ON IT, AND HE DIDN'T RECALL THAT MOMENT OF SOMEBODY SAID, WE GOT TO TAKE THE TANK OUT.
WHEN I WENT BACK THIS AFTERNOON AND LOOKED AT CALCULATIONS BACK IN 2016 ON THE PER CAPITA USAGE, WHICH WAS 521, COMPARED TO YOUR SEVEN SOMETHING TODAY.
IT PROJECTED THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE LAST YEAR IN 2026 THAT IT WOULD BE NEEDED.
SOMEWHERE, A DECISION WAS MADE TO TAKE IT OUT BEFORE IT WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS.
WHY IT'S IN YOUR PACKET? I CAN'T TELL YOU WHY THE OLD ONES THERE BECAUSE WE MAKE REVISIONS AS WE GO, AS WE GET INPUT FROM THE CITY.
I WOULD SAY CLERICAL OR WHATEVER, SOMEBODY SCANNED IT AND IT'S THE WRONG ONE.
IF YOU WANT TO UPDATE THE 2016.
>> YES, IN THE APRIL 2017 MINUTES IS WHERE THE CURRENT ONE IS AND IT DOESN'T INCLUDE IT, AND I WANTED TO GET CONFIRMATION. I GET ANSWERS.
>> AS GARY BROUGHT THAT UP TODAY.
IT DOESN'T MATCH, THEN I WENT IN AND THERE ARE LASER-FISH AND FOUND THAT IT HAD BEEN REPLACED BY THE DECEMBER DATED ONE.
>> OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM REED, ANY QUESTIONS?
>> NO. I THINK THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED AND ANSWERED, THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE PACKET THAT THE ACCURATE DATA BE IN THERE THAT THAT'S NOT CONFUSING.
IF WE LOOK BACK IN IT ANOTHER TIME AFTER WE GO THROUGH THIS APPROVAL PROCESS, I WOULD HATE TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE 2016 ONE THAT WAS DONE IN DECEMBER, MAKE SURE THAT THIS DATA WAS RIGHT.
I PROVIDED A COPY OF THE CORRECT ONE EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON.
>> COULD YOU PLEASE JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST STATED REGARDING THE PREVIOUS PACKET, REMOVING THE IMPACT FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SECONDARY WATER TOWER, ELEVATED STORAGE TANK?
>> IN THE PACKET THAT YOU HAVE, IT HAS THE 2016 LAND USE PLAN, AND ATTACHED TO THAT IS THE 2016 CIP.
I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WAS ATTACHED THAT WAY, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE LAND USE DOCUMENT, IT'S A SEPARATE DOCUMENT.
THROUGH THAT PROCESS IN 2016, IT CAME BEFORE P&Z OR COUNCIL.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT GOT TO THAT THAT TANK WAS REMOVED, AND SO THAT MAP EXHIBIT AND THE COSTING WAS REVISED AND DATED DECEMBER.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS USED TO DO THE 2016 IMPACT FEE THAT WAS DATED JANUARY, FEBRUARY OF 2017.
IT WAS JUST AN ITERATION PROCESS.
>> SURE. SO THEN IT WAS THE NET RESULT OF THAT SUCH THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN COLLECTING ANY IMPACT FEES SINCE THE 2016?
>> YOU HAVE NOT BEEN COLLECTING ANY MONEY FOR A FUTURE ELEVATED TANK.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> IF I CAN ADD, THAT THAT WOULD BE WE NEVER HAVE.
>> YOU HAVE NEVER COLLECTED ANYTHING ON THE CHAPARRAL ELEVATED TANK? YES. NEVER.
>> MY QUESTION TODAY [INAUDIBLE] $1,971 IN 2027, WHEN IT'S 2023 TODAY?
>> I DON'T DISAGREE. WE JUST NEED TO COME UP WITH A PERCENT.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE FOR US TO COME UP WITH THAT?
>> SORRY, I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE CITY HAS NO SEWER SYSTEM.
ALL OF IT HAS BEEN PUT IN BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND
[00:35:01]
MOST OF YOUR SEWER SYSTEM IS SEPTIC TANKS.YOU'RE ONE OF THE FEW CITIES THAT DOES NOT HAVE A SEWER IMPACT FEE.
>> OKAY. I ONLY ASKED BECAUSE LOOKING LATER AT OUR UPCOMING KING'S CROSSING, IT TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S 500,000 OF SEWER LAID AND THAT, BASICALLY WE WERE REIMBURSING THE DEVELOPER X AMOUNT PER LOT, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE PAID FOR THE SEWER SYSTEM.
>> WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO KING'S CROSSING.
>> OKAY. BUT DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE'S ZERO COST? IS HE SAYING THERE IS ZERO COST TO FIT IN BECAUSE WE, AS A CITY, HAVEN'T PAID ANYTHING FOR SEWER.
>> IF YOU PAID FOR SEWER, EVEN REIMBURSABLE, THEN YOU COULD DO A SEWER IMPACT FEE? I WAS NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE CITY HAS PAID.
MOST OF THIS IS INFORMATION THAT I GET BACK FROM THE CITY.
AS I DID THE PROJECT AND THEN I KNOW WHAT THE COSTS ARE.
>> OKAY. IF YOU WOULD, SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, I WANT TO SEE IF ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE DOES WANT TO HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON OUR WATER IMPACT FEE, LAND-USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND IMPACT FEES AT THIS TIME? THEN I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
GARY, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD AS TO THIS ITEM?
>> I THINK JOHN'S COVERED IT PRETTY THOROUGHLY.
>> OKAY. GRANT, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>> OKAY. RANDY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER FOR MR. BIRKHOFF?
>> NOT PRIOR TO BAKING A MOTION ABOUT REVISING IT FOR THE INFLATION FACTOR.
I'M PUSHING IT THIS WEEK, I KNOW I DIDN'T PUSH IT LAST WEEK.
>> OKAY. COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?
>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD, IF I CAN AND TO GO WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN KIRK WAS SAYING IS THAT, I THINK THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD COME UP WITH A NUMBER AS A GROUP AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IF WE WANT TO MAKE THAT CONSERVATIVE.
I MEAN 8% OR 9% NUMBER IS PRETTY STEEP.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE TOO HIGH, BUT I THINK LIKE 2% OR 3% IS PRETTY LOW.
WHAT I'D THROW OUT THERE IS MAYBE FIVE.
MIGHT BE A NUMBER THAT I THINK WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE US A LITTLE BUFFER, AND AT THE SAME TIME NOT BE TOO HARSH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH EVERYBODY ELSE BEFORE WE AGREE ON THAT.
>> OKAY. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE WATER IMPACT FEE?
>> WHICH THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE GO FROM WHAT WE HAVE TO $8,269.17?
>> CORRECT, BUT WHAT WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 5% BANDWIDTH THERE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THAT NUMBER, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND, THE WAY WE'RE TALKING.
I THINK TO GIVE US SOME BANDWIDTH, WE MIGHT WANT TO INCREASE THAT A LITTLE BIT JUST TO HAVE SOME BANDWIDTH ON THAT, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THE INFLATION RATE RIGHT NOW IS A LOT HIGHER THAN THAT.
I KNOW IT'S TOUGH TO DO, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT I WOULD HATE TO BE SHORT ON IT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE INFLATION, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WITH A NUMBER THAT'S MAYBE A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT AND WE CAN AGREE ON TO JUST AT LEAST HAVE.
>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT THIS IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY LAW.
>> I'M SORRY, BUT MR. BIRKHOFF MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE COULD ADD THE INFLATION FACTOR TO IT.
>> THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO MR. BIRKHOFF FOR A SECOND.
UNDER 395, WE HAVE CERTAIN THINGS WE HAVE TO MEET.
>> DO YOU WANT US TO TAKE A RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES?
>> OKAY. WE ARE RECESSING FOR FIVE MINUTES FOR CLARIFICATION OF AN ISSUE.
AT THIS TIME, WE ARE RECONVENING.
>> AS I SUSPECTED, IF THERE IS AN ADJUSTMENT RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE THESE IMPACT FEES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSED IN THE NEXT ITEM.
WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICED FOR TODAY FOR OUR PARTICULAR AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON OUR WEBSITE.
[00:40:04]
WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING NOTICED FOR IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN INCREASE FOR THE INTERESTS.>> PUT THAT IN DOLLAR TERMS OF WHAT WOULD IT COST US TO, IN FACT.
>> IT'S ABOUT A $400 DIFFERENCE.
>> YOU GO FROM $8,260 TO $6,947.
>> THAT'S 6% IN 12 MONTHS OR WHAT IS THAT?
>> I TOOK THE PROPOSED PROJECT NUMBER $17,177,122, I INCREASED THAT BY 5% AND ADDED TO THE EXISTING [INAUDIBLE]
>> AND HOW MUCH DOES IT COST US TO REPOST THEM AND PUBLISH ANYTHING?
>> IT'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT, I THINK, FOR THE PUBLICATION, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO ASK PATTY.
>> ISN'T IT JUST POSTING LIKE A REGULAR MEETING?
>> WOULD YOU SAY IT HAS VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO PUBLISHING [INAUDIBLE]
>> THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION, THE OBVIOUS ONE, AND I'M SORRY FOR ASKING AN IGNORANT QUESTION, BUT WHERE ARE WE ON THIS? IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A MEETING UNTIL JANUARY, THEN WE'LL LOOK AT IT AGAIN.
WHAT DOES THAT DO AS FAR AS IS THERE ANY REPERCUSSIONS OF IT BEING JANUARY RATHER THAN DECEMBER?
>> CAN I CLARIFY ONE OTHER THING?
>> TODAY, YOU COULD SEVER THIS, BUT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THE LAND-USE ASSUMPTIONS WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED, AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
AS FAR AS THE IMPACT FEE, IF YOU DO APPROVE THOSE TOO, THE IMPACT FEE WOULD HAVE TO BE DECIDED WITHIN 30 DAYS BY JANUARY 16TH.
UNDER THE STATUTE, WHICH IS OUR NEXT MEETING.
WELL, THAT'S WHY I SAID THIS IS WITHIN 30 DAYS.
>> I LOOKED AT THE [INAUDIBLE] HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO PUT THIS [INAUDIBLE] IT'S A SMALL ORDER.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. IT'S $228.50, THAT'S WHY SO UNDER $300.
>> DOES ANYONE HAVE THE FLOOR? AMY, COULD WE APPROVE IT, AND THEN AT A LATER TIME AMEND IT AND ADD AN INFLATION FACTOR OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IS THE INFLATION FOR THAT PARTICULAR YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>> I THINK NOT BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY WOULD BE IF YOU PROVED IT WITH THE OTHERS, YOU WOULD BE APPROVING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT MR. BIRKHOFF HAS ALREADY PRESENTED TO US.
WE CANNOT AMEND IT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SOME MORE FORMALITIES AND HEARINGS.
>> AGAIN, FROM $1 STANDPOINT, AM I UNDERSTANDING IT COSTS ABOUT $200 SOMETHING, CALL IT $250 TO PUT IN THE AD.
WE WIND UP WITH THE IMPACT OF $400 MORE PER HOUSEHOLD, RIGHT?
>> I'M GOING TO CORRECT THAT $216 AS FIXED COST ALREADY ON THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE STORAGE.
>> MR. BIRKHOFF, WOULD YOU COME BACK TO THE MIC? I'M SORRY. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
>> YES. THERE'S TWO COST PARTS OF THE IMPACT.
THE ONE IS ELIGIBLE EXISTING PROJECTS AND THE OTHER ONES ARE PROPOSED.
THE FIRST ONE I DID, I JUST DID THE 17 MILLION.
BUT AS WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PROJECTS, THE PUMP STATION, THE GROUND STORAGE, AND THE METER STATION THAT YOU'VE PAID FOR ALREADY, YOU CAN'T ESCALATE THOSE.
THAT'S A DONE DEAL. WE ONLY HAVE THE ELEVATED TANK.
WHEN YOU TAKE THE ELEVATED TANK AND YOU ESCALATE AT 5%, AND IN REALITY WE NEED TO DO IT OVER WHATEVER YEAR YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO BE TO GET TO THE REAL NUMBER.
[00:45:02]
I ONLY DID IT FOR ONE YEAR BUT I DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING THE TANK FOR TWO YEARS OUT.YOU'RE BETWEEN $2-300 MORE IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO COME OUT TO BE.
>> MR. BIRKHOFF, COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT WAS THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE ELEVATED STORAGE TANKS? SORRY.
>> WE HAVE A CAPITAL COST OF $4,100,000.
THE OVERALL COST OF THE $4,000,920.
WE HAVE DEBT SERVICE AT 20 YEARS USING 5% INTERESTS.
DO WE INCREASE THE 5% INTEREST ALSO IN ESCALATE THE COST TO TWO YEARS? THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT.
WHAT THE PERCENT AND WHAT YEAR YOU WANT TO GET TO?
>> OKAY. PERSONALLY, JUST FROM MY OWN OPINION, FOR $200 PER HOUSEHOLD AND $200 COST, I'D RATHER PUT IT IN JUST SO THE NEXT TIME THE WATER IMPACT STUDY IS DONE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT INFLATION RATE SHOULD BE USED.
>> I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
I THINK INSTEAD OF HAVING A NUMBER, WE NEED TO PEG IT TO SOMETHING OR WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS THE ACTUAL INFLATION RATE IS.
IF WE END UP IN JIMMY CARTER ERA AND IT'S 18% AGAIN, WE'RE COVERED.
THIS STUDY IS DONE EVERY FIVE YEARS OR IF SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT HAS HAPPENED.
>> A MAXIMUM EVERY FIVE YEARS, YOU COULD DO IT EVERY SIX MONTHS IF YOU WANTED TO, EVERY YEAR, WHATEVER CYCLE YOU WANT TO BE ON.
>> THAT'S AN INTERESTING TWIST BECAUSE TO COUNCILMEMBER FECHT POINT, YOU COULD HAVE ALL KINDS OF INFLATION TERMS THAT COME UP, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN ADVANCE.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK SOMETHING.
IF WE DO AUGMENT THIS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK IT AND THEN STICK WITH IT.
THEN, IF THERE IS WILD SWINGS, MAINLY UP, THEN YOU WOULD YOU HAVE TO ADJUST IT, I ASSUME.
THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE ARE AND I DO TEND TO PRETTY STRONGLY AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN KERCHO WAS SAYING IS THAT I'D RATHER HAVE IT IN THERE, THAT WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO GET THE RIGHT NUMBER THEN AS OPPOSED TO NOT HAVING IT ACCURATE AND THEN HAVE TO ADJUST IT.
AS LONG AS THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER REPERCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE MISSING.
>> I'M CONCERNED AT THE COST OF REDOING THIS IS IN ADDITION TO POSTING.
WE'VE GOT THE ENGINEER'S COST AS WELL AS STAFF COSTS.
HOWEVER, I DO AGREE WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING INFLATION.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW HOMES.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVERY HOMEOWNER.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST NEW HOMES IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS MAXIMUM.
>>YOU COULD DO THIS TONIGHT AND THEN YOU COULD TURN AROUND AND DO ANOTHER ONE.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF COST FOR THAT.
>> ENGINEERING-WISE, WE'RE JUST NOW DOWN TO THE CALCULATION, SO IT'S NOT A HUMONGOUS COUPLE OF HOURS AND PUT IT BACK OUT.
>> WE'RE TALKING THROUGH THIS, SO PARDON MY THINKING THROUGH IT AND THINKING OUT LOUD.
BUT MAYBE THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS WE COULD DO IT.
WE COULD GO AHEAD AND REDO THE WHOLE THING, BRING IT BACK WITH AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT WE THINK AND HAVE SOME DEFLATIONARY NUMBER AND THAT'S ONE WAY.
THE SECOND WAY WE COULD DO IT IS LIKE WE SAID, WE COULD GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT NOW.
BUT MAYBE IN THAT APPROVAL MOTION, I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION, MAYBE THAT IN SIX MONTHS WE GET THIS DATA TOGETHER, TAKE SOME TIME TO GET A NUMBER THAT WE FEEL IS A LITTLE MORE ACCURATE FOR WHAT THE INFLATION THAT WE'RE SEEING FROM NOW UNTIL THAT TIME, AND THEN WE CAN ROLL THAT IN AND HAVE ANOTHER HEARING AND ADJUST THAT AND WE HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
>> WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE? JUST TYING IT TO THE CPI.
BECAUSE WE HAD 18% INTERESTS IN '78, AND FIVE YEARS AGO, WE HAD 2%.
THAT FACTORS IT AND IT KEEPS US OUT OF GUESSING WRONG. YOUR THOUGHTS, PLEASE?
[00:50:02]
>> I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE DIFFERENCE RIGHT NOW, THE INCREASE RATE.
WHAT IS CURRENTLY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 " IT'S WHAT, $3,000?
THEN IT GOES TO $8,000 IN TERMS OF NUMBERS.
>> IT GOES TO $8,000 THOUSAND. THEN FOR THE TWO-INCH, IT SAID WHAT, $15,000 SOMETHING AND IT GOES TO $33,000? WE'RE A LITTLE BEHIND.
WE ACTUALLY SHOULD PROBABLY DONE THIS BEFORE.
WE'RE A LITTLE OUTSIDE THE FIVE-YEAR JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE.
I KNOW THE NEXT ACTION ITEM WHEN IT COMES UP, WHICH I'D LIKE TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF AN ORDINANCE AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME OPTIONS WHETHER TO ADOPT THE LAND-USE ASSUMPTION IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
IF YOU DO THAT, THEN WITHIN 30 DAYS YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE DECISION ON THE IMPACT. IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU.
>> MS. FECHT TO YOUR QUESTION, WE HAVE TO SET THE MAXIMUM FEE.
IT CAN'T BE ONE THAT GROWS OVER TIME.
IT'S GOT TO BE A FIXED NUMBER AS I READ THE LAW, BUT THAT'S.
>> MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES AGO.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID WE CAN APPROVE THIS AND THEN HAVE AN INFLATION FACTOR IN THERE. DID I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU?
>> YOU DID. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU ADOPT THE MAXIMUM FEE AND THAT'S A FIXED FEE.
IF WE WANT TO ADJUST OUR PROPOSED TANK PROJECT FOR INFLATION UNTIL FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME AND SOME AMOUNT, WE NEED TO DO THAT BEFORE WE SET THAT MAXIMUM FEE.
YOU CAN, TODAY, ADOPT THE MAXIMUM FEE BUT SET TO FEE LESS.
YOU COULD ADOPT THE $8,000 INSTEAD OF $5,000 THEN ESCALATE IT UP IF YOU WANTED TO.
MOST CITIES ADOPT THE MAXIMUM AND CHARGE IT.
>> OKAY COUNCIL WHAT WOULD Y'ALL LIKE?
>> AMY, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE?
>> I'VE NOTHING BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT ITEM, THEN I DO HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD.
>> OKAY. WELL THEN THERE'S NO VOTE ON ITEM NUMBER 4 THAT'S REQUIRED, THAT'S JUST THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ITEM NUMBER 5 IS CONSIDERATION AND OR
[5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ADOPTION OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP), AND IMPACT FEES AND UPDATE THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTIONS 51.85 – 51.99 ACCORDINGLY.]
ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ADOPTION OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CIP, AN IMPACT FEES, AND UPDATE OF THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTION 51.85-51.99, ACCORDINGLY.I THINK WE PRETTY WELL DISCUSS THAT, BUT GO AHEAD.
>> THEN I'D LIKE TO AMEND IT TO CONSIDER THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS DRAFTED AND OMITTED INITIALLY.
>> OKAY. OH OKAY YEAH, THAT'S ALRIGHT.
WE TALKING ITEM 622? [OVERLAPPING]
>> OKAY. APOLOGIES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OH I'M SORRY. YES, IT WAS LACKING IN THE PACKET AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
I HAVE PREPARED THE ORDINANCE FOR YOU AT YOUR CHAIRS AND I WOULD ASK THAT WE COULD HAVE THE TITLE REVISED ON THE FLOOR TO BE CONSIDERATION OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ADOPTION OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CIP, AN IMPACT FEES, AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 862 UPDATING THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 1 OR 51.85-51.99.
>> AMY, IF I WANTED TO TRY TO TRADE AT MOTION THAT WOULD BASICALLY SAY WE'RE GOING TO NOT DO THE WATER IMPACT EXCEPT FOR 30 DAYS FROM NOW, WOULD I JUST DELETE THE AN UPDATED IMPACT FEES FROM ALL OF IT SECTION HERE?
>> MAYBE AND POSTPONE THE UPDATED IMPACT FEES, BUT YEAH, YOU COULD DELETE IT FROM THERE.
WE JUST HAVE TO ACT IN 30 DAYS ON THE CURRENT ONE.
>> OKAY. MAYOR, CAN I MAKE A MOTION?
[00:55:01]
>> MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, APPROVING THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, THE UPDATE AT WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, AMENDING THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 51.85-51.99, PROVIDING FOR SEPARABILITY PILLAR, PROPER NOTICE? NO, I GUESS I DON'T NEED TO ASK THAT.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO ADOPT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND IMPACT FEES AND UPDATE OF THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTORS 51-85 THROUGH 51.99, ACCORDINGLY AND ALSO INCLUDE PASSING ORDINANCE NUMBER 862.
>> I THINK YOU SAID AND UPDATE THE IMPACT FEES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED.
>> IN WHICH CASE PORTIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE STRICKEN BECAUSE IT INCLUDES [OVERLAPPING].
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE MOTION.
>> OKAY. FORGET TO THE ORDINANCE, AND ORDINANCE TO BE DRAFTED.
>> DO YOU WANT TO REPEAT THE MOTION MAYBE? [BACKGROUND]
>> WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO REVISE THIS ORDINANCE SO MAYBE WE HAVE TO REVISE THE ORDINANCE IF THE MOTION WAS AS I THINK IT IS, APPROVING THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND WE COULD COME BACK WITH AN ORDINANCE AT A FURTHER DATE.
>> OR I CAN REVISE THIS ORDINANCE TO TAKE OUT ANYTHING THAT REFERENCES ADOPTION OF THE IMPACT FEE AND THAT AGAIN, WOULD HAVE TO STILL BE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IT.
>> I CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE'RE APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS WHERE THE NUMBER COMES FROM FOR THE IMPACT FEE.
THAT SEEMS TO BE CONTRADICTORY.
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK MR. BIRKHOFF ABOUT THAT.
>> THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DOCUMENT DOES INCLUDE COST.
THE PROJECTS DON'T CHANGE, BUT THE COST WOULD.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. UNDER THE STATUTE WHERE YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME FRAME TO CONSIDER, I GUESS I THINK IT IS 60 DAYS FROM WHEN YOU DID RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CIAC TO ADOPT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS OR TO TAKE ACTION ON IT.
IF YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT, I'D HAVE TO LOOK BACK BECAUSE WE SET THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE, BUT WE MAY BE OUTSIDE OF THE 60 DAYS.
>> CAN WE GO WITH THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO ADOPT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, SO WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND IMPACT FEES, UPDATE THE CITY OF PARKER'S CODES AND ORDINANCE 862 AS REVISED AFTER THIS MEETING.
>> MADAM MAYOR, IT STILL IS, I DIDN'T SAY TO INCLUDE THE WATER IMPACT FEES, SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE EXCLUDED.
>> HIS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE POTION [OVERLAPPING].
>> OKAY. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.
>> WE SEEM TO BE IN CONFUSION AND MAYBE AMY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN HELP US THROUGH THE CONFUSION.
IF ANYBODY [LAUGHTER] PERHAPS THAT, GIVE US YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.
>> THE DESIRE, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, BUT NOT THE IMPACT FEES AT THIS TIME.
>> THAT WAS MY MOTION, BUT COUNCILMEN LYNCH HERE HAS AN ISSUE WITH THE CIP SIDE WHICH YOU INDICATED THAT YOU MAY HAVE AN ISSUE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM SECONDS, SO THAT IS ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.
>> OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?
[01:00:04]
IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ON APPROVING ADOPTION OF THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CIP PLAN.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
OKAY. LET'S TRY AGAIN [LAUGHTER].
AMY, CAN YOU GUIDE US IN PROPER WORDAGE?
>> WELL, IT'S OUT THERE AND NOW I THINK THAT COUNCILMEN LYNCH HAD SOMETHING ELSE, SO IF SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE A MOTION, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A MOTION, BUT THEN THE PROPONENTS DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT, SO YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE [LAUGHTER].
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ADOPTION OF THE LAND USE ASSUMPTION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CIP AND IMPACT FEES AND ORDINANCE 862 UPDATING THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND IMPACT FEES.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH, AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER NOE, TO ADOPT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND IMPACT FEES IN ORDINANCE 862.
IS THAT OKAY? JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT IT DOWN RIGHT.
>> I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, I DO RECOGNIZE THIS PROVES THE ENTIRE ACTIONS.
HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO GO AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I DO THINK WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE FILES FOR FUTURE USE BY THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THAT GROUP BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IT BE CONSIDERED.
BUT I DO FEEL THAT THE FIVE-YEAR, YEAH, WE'LL BE PAST FIVE YEARS, EVERYTHING GOES SO SLOW IN GOVERNMENT AND RIGHT NOW DEVELOPMENT IS SLOW.
>> YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY IS SLOW AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A REVISION EVEN AS EARLY AS A COUPLE OF MONTHS FROM NOW, GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT CHANGE TO ADD THAT INTEREST RATE AT THAT TIME.
I FEEL LIKE THE MOTION IF WE PASS IT TODAY, IS ABLE TO BE CHANGED LATER IN THE FUTURE IF WE WOULD LIKE TO.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
>> ONE DISCUSSION. YOU'D BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE AT THE CIP PLAN, SO ADOPTING THIS, DOESN'T THAT CREATE YOUR SAME ISSUE?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
TO ME, WHEN WE ADOPT THIS, THIS KEEPS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE DOCUMENT WITH NO CHANGES.
HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T IMPACT US WHEN WE DO THE CIP PLAN.
WE CAN INCORPORATE IT THERE, BUT NOT FOR PURPOSES OF REIMBURSEMENT AT THIS TIME.
>> BUT WE HAVEN'T EVEN VOTED ON THE CIP PLAN YET, RIGHT? IT'S STILL IN DRAFT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. [LAUGHTER]
>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS, THE [INAUDIBLE], AND IMPACT FEES, WHICH INCLUDES ORDINANCE NUMBER 862, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION CARRIES 4-1, RANDY KERCHO BEING THE ONE. THANK YOU.
NEXT, WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 6,
[6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 859 ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, CHECKLIST, AND PROCESS TO BE ADMINISTERED, MAINTAINED, AND UPDATED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND POSTED ON THE CITY OF PARKER WEBSITE; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED WAS NOTICED AND IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 7. KINGS C]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 859, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, CHECKLIST AND PROCESS TO BE ADMINISTERED, MAINTAINED, AND UPDATED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND POSTED ON THE CITY OF PARKER WEBSITE, PROVIDING FOR A REPEAL OR PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED WAS NOTICED AND OPEN TO[01:05:03]
THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.AMY OR GARY, WHO WISHES TO DISCUSS THIS OR I CAN. GO AHEAD.
>> IT'S IN THE PACKET, THE NEW LAW THAT WAS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, FROM THE LATEST LEGISLATIVE GIFTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, DOES REQUIRE THAT WE INCLUDE THIS PLAT APPLICATION AND LIST OF ALL REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT IT'D BE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE NO LATER THAN JANUARY 1ST.
WE CAN UPDATE IT LATER, BUT THEN THOSE UPDATES WOULD HAVE TO ALSO BE POSTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE CHANGE.
I BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT IS ONCE THIS PROCESS IS APPROVED, THEN IT COULD BE UPDATED, MAINTAINED BY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OR THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND THEN UPDATED TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE STATUTE.
WE HAVE WANTED TO BE THOROUGH.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE CANNOT REQUIRE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE WANTED TO BE SURE WE REQUIRED BECAUSE UNDER THE LAW, ONCE THIS IS POSTED AND A PLAT SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE THERE WITH, IT IS CONSIDERED COMPLETE.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IDENTIFIES ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
[LAUGHTER] THE ONE THING IT DOESN'T IDENTIFY IS THE ENGINEER'S COST THAT WE WILL BE PASSING THROUGH AND WE PASSED AN ORDINANCE THAT SETS THAT UP.
IS THAT SUFFICIENT TO HAVE THAT SEPARATE? IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR?
>> THAT SAYS DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION BECAUSE IT DOES COVER MORE THAN THE PLAT SUBMITTALS, EVEN THOUGH PLAT SUBMITTALS ARE THE ONLY THING GOVERNED UNDER THAT STATUTE RIGHT NOW.
WHAT WE DID, WHICH ALL PASSED, WAS THAT WE COULDN'T FACE THE COST FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER FEES BASED ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE LATEST CHANGE OR ONE OF THE LATEST CHANGES.
THAT IS ACTUALLY INCLUDED ON OUR FEE SCHEDULE.
THEN, GARY IS IT IN OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATION OR HOW DO WE ADMINISTER?
>> I THINK IT'S JUST IN OUR FEE SCHEDULE.
LAST WE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE [INAUDIBLE].
>> NO, THE RATES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THAT PART OF THE NEW LEGISLATION.
>> WE DID ADOPT THAT, WE JUST CAN'T COLLECT BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION.
BUT I'M JUST WONDERING, FUNCTIONALLY, IF DEVELOPERS INCURRED THOSE COSTS, IS IT A PERMIT THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY?
>> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT JOHN [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU ON THAT.
WE WOULD NEED TO GET THIS PORTION POSTED ON THE WEBSITE BY THE 1ST.
>> BUT IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE PIECE, Y'ALL COULD UPDATE IT AT THAT TIME?
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT CAN BE AMENDED AND UPDATED.
>> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS THAT THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CAN BE DYNAMIC.
ARE THEY PRETTY CONSISTENT ON THERE THAT YOU HAVE LISTED? DOES THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED AT ANY POINT?
>> WE REVIEWED THOSE AND THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE CAN'T REQUIRE NOW.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WEREN'T INCLUDED.
GARY AND LUKE REVIEWED WHAT WE HAVE, BUT AGAIN, WE CAN UPDATE IT IF SOMETHING COMES UP.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 859, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST AND PROCESS TO BE ADMINISTERED, MAINTAINED AND UPDATED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND POSTED ON THE CITY OF PARKER WEBSITE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER FECHT TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 859.
[01:10:02]
NOT HEARING ANY, I CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU.
[7. KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5: CONSIDERATION OF AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT. PROPOSED KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 SERVICE AGREEMENT PUBLIC HEARING KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 ANNEXATION CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 860 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 SERVICE AGREEMENT, ORDINANCE NO. 861 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 49.585 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS (THE KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 ANNEXATION).]
AND I BET THIS IS WHAT PRESTON'S HERE FOR.>> HE BROUGHT US CHRISTMAS COOKIES.
>> I TOLD DMZ IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO START BUYING INSTEAD OF BRINGING DINNER.
>> OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 7, KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, CONSIDERATION OF ANY INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS ON KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT.
THIS IS A MULTI-ITEM SITUATION, SO WE WILL START WITH THE PROPOSED KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 SERVICE AGREEMENT.
I BELIEVE IT IS IN EVERYBODY'S PACKET.
>> DO WE NOT NEED TO GET THE PLAT FIRST? [BACKGROUND]
>> BEN DID A PAGE BREAK THERE.
PRESTON, WOULD YOU COME UP AND INTRODUCE IT?
>> SURE. I'LL TAKE THE FIRST STAB.
HI, PRESTON WALHOOD, 44 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY WITH WARNER GROUP.
THIS IS A MULTI-PIECE AGENDA ITEM.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN LONG BEFORE I WAS INVOLVED IN PARKER LAID OUT A PLAN OF HOW WE GET TO ACT TONIGHT, SO WE GET TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS.
KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 IS PART OF OUR ONGOING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR KING'S CROSSING, WHICH IS A 450 ACRE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY AT THE INTERSECTION OF LUCAS ROAD AND LEWIS LANE.
KING'S CROSSING 5 IS AN INTERNAL ADDITION TO THE SUBDIVISION.
IT HAS NO NEW ROAD FRONTAGE ON LUCAS ROAD OR LEWIS LANE.
IT WAS JUST THE ADDITION TO THE NORTH OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 4.
IT IS AT THE HIGH PART OF THE HILL AND DRAINS DIRECTLY INTO A CREEK, WHICH MAKES THINGS VERY EASY, AND IT DRAINS FROM WEST TO EAST.
THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN MARCH.
I'M GLAD TO SAY I WAS MEETING WITH GARY AND MR. BIRKHOFF EARLIER TODAY ABOUT ANOTHER PROJECT, AND WE'RE ALL HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THIS ONE HAS GONE VERY WELL, THAT WE HAVE HAD SOME GOOD EXPERIENCE IN OUR LAST COUPLE OF PROJECTS AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS REALLY WHAT THE GOAL IS AND HOW TO GET THERE.
THIS PROJECT DELIVERS 35 LOTS, I BELIEVE. IS THAT RIGHT? THIRTY FIVE ONE-ACRE LARGER LOTS, AND THEN A COUPLE OF COMMON SPACE LOTS.
THE COMMON SPACE LOTS HAVE DETENTION AND RETENTION PONDS AND AMENITY BONDS ON THEM THAT WERE UTILIZED FOR THE HYDROLOGY, AND THEN ONE IS JUST AN AMENITY TO THE OPEN SPACE.
WE'LL WORK THROUGH THE FINAL PLAT, AND THEN NEXT WE REQUEST ANNEXATION SO THAT WE CAN BE BROUGHT INTO THE CITY AND SERVED BY THE CITY AND RECEIVE ADDRESSES FROM THE CITY.
>> ONCE YOU ASSUME IT'S A DONE DEAL, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PONDS IN THE COMMON AREAS?
>> THE PONDS ARE IN COMMON AREA LOTS THAT WILL BE DEEDED TO THE HOA.
THE DEVELOPER COMMITTED TO INSTALLING ITERATION AND FOUNTAINS ON THE PONDS, BUT ALL OF THOSE WILL BECOME COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE ITEMS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] MR. BIRKHOFF.
>> I WANT TO GO THERE. [LAUGHTER]
>> MR. BIRKHOFF, I ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED KING'S CROSSING FINAL PLAT 5?
>> YES. JOHN BIRKHOFF WITH BIRKHOFF, HENDRICKS CARTER, DALLAS, TEXAS.
AS MR. WALLHOOD SAID Y'ALL APPROVE PLANS IF BEING THIS YEAR AROUND FEBRUARY-MARCH TIMEFRAME THAT APPROVED THE DRAINAGE DESIGN THAT HE HAD, THE CIVIL PART OF THE STREETS WARD LINES AND SO THEY'VE DONE THROUGH AND THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE PROJECT.
WE WENT OUT EARLY NOVEMBER, WE CREATED A PUNCH LIST OF 11 ITEMS. RELATIVELY MINOR ITEMS COMPARED TO PAST PROJECTS OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
THEY ATTACKED ALL 11 OF THOSE,
[01:15:01]
GARY AND HIS FOLKS WENT OUT, AND I GUESS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MONTH AROUND DECEMBER 1ST AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN COMPLETE.FROM WHAT THEY HAD TOLD US THEY WERE GOING TO DO, THEY DID IT.
THE CONTRACTOR TOOK CARE OF SOME OF THE PUNCH LIST ITEMS. PART OF THE DRAINAGE DID INCLUDE A VOMER WHICH IS IN PROCESS THAT COVERS A NUMBER OF THOSE LOTS.
>> THIS ONE LOT. THAT ONE LOT IS STILL OUTSTANDING UNTIL THAT GETS APPROVED.
>> FEMA WILL NOT ACTUALLY ACCEPT THE LUMBER ART APPLICATION UNTIL THE PLAT IS FILED BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE ON A FLATTED LOT.
>> THEY HAVE COMPLETED EVERYTHING IN THE PROJECT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR FINAL PLAT AND WE RECOMMEND THAT.
>> OKAY. COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. BIRKHOFF?
>> THERE'S NO OTHER ITEMS ON THE PUNCH LIST AND THEY'RE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE APPROVED BACK IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> AS OF DECEMBER 1ST, THEY WERE.
>> UNDERSTOOD FOR THE RECORD [LAUGHTER].
>> GARY AND BOBBY HAVE BEEN OUT THERE, I'M SURE OF IT.
IT IS FINISHED AND IN GOOD SHAPE.
AGAIN, PROBABLY ONE OF THE BETTER ONES THAN THE LAST TWO HAVE BEEN REALLY GOOD PROJECTS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTIONS I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR YOU MR. BIRKHOFF OR MR. WALTER RELATED TO THE POND ON THE WEST SIDE, THE BIG POND WITH THE BIG CONCRETE.
>> THIS MAYBE A QUESTION FOR OUR ENGINEER, SO I'LL ASK RYAN KING TO JOIN US TOO.
>> COME ON UP. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER].
>> PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT THE THING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE FUN DOING BECAUSE [BACKGROUND] ASSOCIATION.
HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION RELATES TO THE OUTFLOW PART OF THAT POND WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE HOLES, YOU'VE GOT TWO GROUPS OF HOLES WITH TWO HOLES EACH, AND ONE OF THE LOWER HOLE IS PARTIALLY COVERED.
>> THE OUTFLOW ORIFICE? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE HYDROLOGY.
>> HI, I AM RYAN KING WITH THE PETTIT ECD AT 1600 NORTH COLLINS BOULEVARD IN RICHARDSON.
THE ORIGINAL POND WAS A DETENTION POND FOR PARKER LAKE ESTATES ADJACENT TO OUR KINGS CROSSING 5.
WHEN WE CAME IN TO DO OUR DESIGN, WE HAD TO MODIFY THE OUTFALL STRUCTURE FOR OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
WE ALSO HAD TO MAKE IT WORK FOR MULTIPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STORM EVENTS.
I THINK WHEN THEY DESIGNED IT, IT WAS JUST FOR THE 100-YEAR STORM.
NOW WE'RE HAVING TO DESIGN FOR A FIVE-YEAR STORM, A 10-YEAR STORM, MULTIPLE DIFFERENT EVENTS.
WE HAD TO COVER UP PORTIONS OF THEM AND STAGGER THE ELEVATIONS OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS SO AS IT FILLS UP WITH DIFFERENT RAIN EVENTS, IT FLOWS DIFFERENTLY DURING THOSE DIFFERENT RAIN EVENTS.
>> OKAY. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT OUTFLOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THE DIRT'S A LITTLE HIGHER THAN WHERE THE WATER WOULD COME OUT WITH AND I'M CONCERNED OF BIG RAINS OF THAT NOT BEING AS CLEAN AS THE WATER KICKING INTO IT, AND [BACKGROUND] ERODING IT.
>> WHAT YOU'RE STATING IS THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE ELEVATION DOWNSTREAM IS HIGHER THAN THE OUTFLOW OF THE POND?
>> THERE'S JUST SOME DIRT IN [OVERLAPPING] IT'S DONE A LOT.
>> PART OF THE ISSUE WITH THIS CHANNEL THAT WE WERE DISCHARGING INTO IS IT'S CONSIDERED WATERS OF THE US.
WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO IN THERE AND TOUCH IT WITHOUT MITIGATING FOR IT, WHICH IS A VERY LARGE EXPENSE.
WE TRIED TO LEAVE THAT CHANNEL NATURAL FROM OUR OUTFALL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE CREEK.
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE IT NATURAL WITH TREES STILL IN IT AND THEN WE BURNED UP EACH SIDE TO CARRY THE FLOW THROUGH THERE SO WE DID LEAVE THAT AREA NATURAL.
IF IT DOES ERODE, THAT'S PART OF THE NATURAL COURSE OF THE WATER AND WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT ALONE.
>> YES, THAT COULD GET FIXED AS LONG AS IT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THE ROCK FORMATION IS AND THE I GUESS THE PART THAT GOES OVER THE PARKER LAKE ESTATE, DOES THE COMMON AREA GO ALL THE WAY TO THE BARRIER?
[01:20:05]
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE [OVERLAPPING] SEEM LIKE THERE WAS A WIRE FENCING AND STUFF OVER THERE.>> YES, BUT THE BOUNDARY LINE IS BASICALLY RIGHT WHERE THAT FENCE IS LOCATED.
THERE ARE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON THE PARKER LAKE ESTATE SIDE OF THAT FENCE AND UP THE LOTS WHERE THAT DRAINAGE IS COMING FROM PARKER LAKE ESTATE.
THE CITY DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO GRANT ACCESS INTO THERE TO MAINTAIN IT ON THAT OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY BUT THAT WIRE FENCE IS GENERALLY WITHIN A FEW INCHES THE BOUNDARY LINE.
>> OKAY [BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER].
>> WE DID NOT WANT TO MESS WITH THEIR PROPERTY OR THEIR FENCE IF WE COULD HELP IT.
>> OKAY. THIS POND, THE HIGH LEVEL OF THE CONCRETE THAT FLOWS OFF TO WESTFIELD, THAT IS THE 100-FOOT FLOOD LEVEL? I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE A LOT OF WATER FLOWING DOWN THAT LINE.
>> THERE WOULD BE SOME FLOW GOING THROUGH THERE DURING A 100-YEAR STORM, WHICH IS A 1% CHANCE OF IT HAPPENING ON ANY GIVEN YEAR.
BUT THE MAIN OUTFALL FROM THIS POND IS THAT OTHER SIDE, YOUR EVERYDAY STORMS WILL BE GOING OUT THAT DIRECTION.
IT'LL BE A MAJOR STORM EVENT FOR IT TO COME OUT THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE THAT YOU SEE FROM WESTFIELD.
IT REALLY DOES LOOK [INAUDIBLE] REGULARLY.
[LAUGHTER] IT WAS WELL DONE, IT'S ALL READY TO GO.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT I DIDN'T TALK TOO MUCH IN THE CHAT-UP EARLIER TODAY ON THOSE COMMON AREAS TO CONFIRM THAT THERE IS NOT ONLY WINTER GRASS BUT SOME GRASS THAT WILL GROW IN THE SUMMER IN THOSE COMMON AREAS SO THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DOESN'T END UP HAVING TO PUT UP SIDES IN THOSE AREAS.
THAT'S CORRECT, THAT AREA IN THE SUMMER GRASS WILL GROW.
>> IT'S SEEDED WITH A BI-SEASONAL GRASS, SO WINTER RYE AND THEN BERMUDA ARE THROWN TOGETHER AND SO THE BERMUDA AND THEN IT'S RAKED WITH A HARROW RAKE.
THE RYE IS WHAT HAS POPPED NOW AND YOU SEE THE GREEN COMING UP.
THEN IT'LL BE MAINTAINED AT A ROUGH GRADE ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE WINTER.
THEN IN THE SPRING, THE BERMUDA SHOULD POP AGAIN, AND IT'LL BE CONTINUALLY RESEEDED UNTIL IT'S VEGETATED.
>> NOW ONE QUESTION ON THE RYE.
THAT RYE TYPICALLY IN TEXAS, USUALLY AFTER A YEAR OR SO, DOES NOT COME BACK.
WILL THAT HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED OR WILL JUST THE BERMUDA BE STRONG ENOUGH ONCE YOU'VE ALL TAKEN THAT, YOU WON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING?
>> EVENTUALLY THE BERMUDA WILL BE STRONG ENOUGH, BUT IT WILL REQUIRE OVER-SEEDING FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL IT STABILIZES.
>> MR. MACHADO, I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> DID THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR RECOMMENDATIONS?
>> THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IF NOT, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, FINAL PLAT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER FECHT TO APPROVE PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? NO. IT PASSES 5-0.
>> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] ONE OF THREE. MERRY CHRISTMAS.
YEAH. DO YOU NEED ME FOR THE NEXT TWO PIECES? DO I FORMERLY NEED TO REQUEST THE ANNEXATION? NO.
>> NOW WE WILL GO ON THE SERVICE AGREEMENT.
COUNCIL, THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET ALONG WITH ALL OF THE ANNEXATION INFORMATION.
WE GOT TO DO THE PUBLIC HEALTH.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE SERVICE AGREEMENT?
[01:25:03]
THEN AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 ANNEXATION.I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I SEE WE HAVE MR. WALHOOD HERE TO TALK TO US.
>> AS ONE SPEAKER, MADAM MAYOR, THE CITY OF PARKER FORMALLY ACCEPTED THAT KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT AT 8:30 P.M. ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19TH.
NOW, THE FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS A PROPERTY OWNER, WE FORMALLY REQUEST ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF PARKER.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS ANY COMMENTS REGARDING ANNEXATION OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5? NOT HEARING ANY, THEN I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:33.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO TO CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 860, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 SERVICE AGREEMENT AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 861, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 49.585 ACRES INTO THE CITY'S LIMITS, WHICH IS THE KING'S CROSSING 5 ANNEXATION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 860, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 SERVICE AGREEMENT, ORDINANCE NUMBER 861, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 49.585 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS, THE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 ANNEXATION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER NOE AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER FECHT TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 860 AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 861.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING ORDINANCE NUMBER 860 AND 861, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO SOME OF THE UPDATES.
[9. UPDATE(S)]
SOME WILL NOT BE VERY COMPLETE BECAUSE LUKE IS NOT HERE.I'M NOT SURE, LUKE WAS LOOKING INTO THE ENTERPRISE UPDATE AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS THAT INFORMATION.
SINCE HE PLANNED TO BE HERE UNTIL ABOUT 4 O'CLOCK, HE DIDN'T REALLY GET A CHANCE TO SHARE, SO WE WILL DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
CHIEF PRICE, CAN YOU GIVE US JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A CUT DEAL ON THE VEHICLE SITUATIONS?
>> TOTALLY. THE VEHICLES THAT WERE FROM PENNSYLVANIA IN ARKANSAS THEY ARE STILL WAITING ON SOME PARTS TO COME IN AS SCHEDULED.
THEY HAVE VEHICLES, THEY ARE WAITING ON THE PARTS TO COME IN.
WE HAVE HAD PUBLIC WORKS STRIP THE CARS THEY ARE WILLING TO HAVE PARTS TAKEN FROM IT.
THEY WILL BE SHIPPED PROBABLY AFTER THE HOLIDAYS TO PENNSYLVANIA.
THEY WILL START WORKING ON IT FEBRUARY 12TH.
I TRANSPORTED THE PARTS FOR ONE THAT WAS PURCHASED AT SILVER FORD.
WHEN WE DELIVERED THE PARTS, THEY GOT NOTIFICATION THAT SOME OF THE PARTS COMING IN WERE DELAYED UNTIL MID TO LATE JANUARY.
IT PROBABLY LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE COMING IN THE FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY.
STILL HAVE NO WORD UPON THE ONE THAT WE PURCHASED IN AUGUST FROM DALTON TEXAS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ARE THE OTHER VEHICLES ALL RUNNING?
>> THEY'RE UP AND RUNNING AND MAKING IT SO FAR.
>> EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE [INAUDIBLE] SO WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME [INAUDIBLE]
>> CHIEF PRICE, IN TERMS OF THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE NO WORD ABOUT, IS THAT ONE THAT WE PURCHASED THROUGH ENTERPRISE?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY'VE ALL BEEN PURCHASED THROUGH ENTERPRISE.
>> GOT IT. I JUST WONDERED IF ENTERPRISE IS HELPING US TO [OVERLAPPING] TRACK DOWN WHAT'S GOING ON?
[01:30:02]
>> THEY ARE REACHING OUT. THEY INFORMED ME.
>> ONE ITEM, JUST BECAUSE IT'S MY DAYTIME GIG AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE [NOISE] THROUGH THIS ISSUE WITH AUTOMOBILES.
THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY IS SLOWING DOWN.
YOU CAN JUST DRIVE AROUND NORTH TEXAS AND LOOK AT THE LOTS AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
MY POINT BEING IS THAT, WE SHOULD BE SEEING AN END OF THIS.
I REALIZE WITH POLICE VEHICLES HAVING TO BE OUTFITTED WITH A DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAVE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
BUT OVERALL, THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY IS SLOWING DOWN.
I WOULD SAY WHEN WE GET INTO FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR, THIS SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE ANYMORE.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT LUKE HAS BEEN LOOKING INTO AND WE WILL GET THE INFORMATION HOPEFULLY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, IS A NEW VEHICLE CHART FOR THE CITY BY ENTERPRISE, WHICH SHOULD GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE AND INFORMATION ON GOING FORWARD.
>> THAT WAS ONE OF MY POINTS ALSO THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE DO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH ENTERPRISE, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THEIR PLAN FOR COMING OUT OF THIS BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE A PRETTY CLEAR PLAN OF HOW WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME OUT OF THIS BY THIS POINT SO WHEN WE GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM, I'D LIKE TO ASK THEM THOSE QUESTIONS SINCE I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT INDUSTRY.
>> WELL, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE ENTERPRISE PEOPLE HERE, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY VIDEO.
ON 2551, GARY, CAN YOU UPDATE US ON THAT, PLEASE?
[LAUGHTER] WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO START AFTER THE HOLIDAY IS IN THE MEDIAN IN THERE ON PARKER ROAD FROM DILLEY.
[NOISE] THERE WILL BE OPEN CUTTING, THE CENTER MEDIAN AND PUT A BIG BOX CULVERTS.
IT'S GOING TO BE NASTY [INAUDIBLE].
>> THEY PICKED THE PERFECT TIME TO DO THAT, DIDN'T THEY?
>> THAT WAS NOT WHAT I THOUGHT THEIR PLAN WAS.
I THOUGHT THEY'RE GOING TO WORK ON THE NORTH-SIDE OF THE ROAD.
THEN, THEY'LL START GOING NORTH ACROSS THE FIELD.
THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BEGIN.
>> THEY'RE GOING TO START GOING EAST ON DILLEY?
>> NO, DOWN PARKER ROAD, THEY'RE GOING TO START AT THE CREEK HERE BY CITY HALL WITH THE DRAINAGE, AND THEY ARE GOING TO PUT THAT DRAINAGE IN AND GO EAST TO HALL AND THEN TURN, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE DRAINAGE FOR THE ROAD.
>> QUESTION ABOUT THAT DRAINAGE.
I KNOW THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF DRAINAGE STUDIES, OR IT SEEMS THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF DRAINAGE STUDIES ON DILLEY.
BUT THIS SEEMS TO HAVE COME UP AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WE MIGHT BE PUSHING FROM THE NEW 2551 OVER INTO THAT CREEK, AND WHAT IMPACT THAT MIGHT HAVE ON OUR RESIDENTS, AND THE CITY MAYBE [LAUGHTER].
>> GOOD POINT. I'M STILL UPSET ABOUT TEXTILE CUTTING DOWN ALL OUR TREES.
>> HAVE THEY DONE ANY ANALYSIS OR JUST DECIDED THEY'D LIKE TO?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY'VE GOT ENGINEERS THAT HAVE RETIRED OFF THIS PROJECT.
[LAUGHTER] THEY BEGAN AND RETIRED ON THIS PROJECT.
IT'S BEEN OVER 20 YEARS WORKING ON THIS SO THEY'VE DONE SOME ENGINEERING ON IT.
>> THEY'RE CONFIDENT THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT? [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] IN THAT WHAT WE REQUIRE OUR DEVELOPERS TO DO TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT IMPACTING THE DOWNSTREAM PEOPLE.
>> THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A LOT OF THOSE SAME PROTECTIONS PUT IN PLACE.
WHEN I DO THIS, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR LEVELS ARE, WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE, BUT I CAN LOOK INTO THAT MORE AND SEE IF THEY'VE DONE SOME STUFF THERE TO PROTECT THEM.
>> THAT DRAINAGE THAT'S THERE TODAY WAS UNDERSIZED WHEN THEY PUT IT HERE.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HAVING IT, BECAUSE THIS REALLY ISN'T PART OF THAT PROJECT.
BUT IT'S TO FIX THAT DRAINAGE.
IT COMES DOWN PART OF THE ROAD THERE THAT WAS A PROBLEM.
>> THERE IS AN UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE THERE NOW? THEY'RE JUST EXPANDING IT. IT'S NOT TOTALLY NEW.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY'RE RUNNING PARALLEL TO IT, YES.
>> THE IDEA BEHIND THAT IS THAT, IN THEORY, THAT SHOULD ELIMINATE PARKER ROAD FROM GETTING THAT EXCESS BUILD-UP OF THE PRETTY BIG STORM IS WHAT I'M HEARING?
>> YES. BUT IT'S STILL THE FARM FIELDS BRING MUD OVER AND STOP UP THE DRAIN AND THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.
I KNOW THAT A MEETING IS PLANNED WITH CIVICPLUS IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO GO ON AND BE UPDATING OUR WEBSITE.
[01:35:02]
OTHER THAN THAT, TERRY, UNLESS YOU OR JIM, HAVE ANYTHING? I KNOW THAT LUKE IS DOING THAT. I JUST DON'T KNOW.>> I'M NOT SURE THAT THE DATE HAS BEEN [BACKGROUND] SET FOR THAT.
>> COMP PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARE BOTH BEING SCHEDULED AND WILL GO ON.
IT'LL BE PROBABLY AFTER THE NEW YEAR, BUT THEY WILL BE SCHEDULED.
WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN ABOUT THEM.
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AMY.
>> NOTHING NEW EXCEPT THE PARTIES CONTINUE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS.
THE HEARING ON THE MERITS IS STILL SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 13TH OR 15TH.
>> ANY UPDATE ON THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERING?
>> I DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATE SINCE.
WILL HAVE TO LOOK TO [OVERLAPPING] LUKE ON THAT.
[LAUGHTER] ANY ADDITIONAL UPDATES? [NOISE] AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE MONTHLY REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU THROUGH THE LINKS.
I WILL ASK THAT YOU PLEASE LOOK AT THEM AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR MAKING THEM BETTER, CAPTURING INFORMATION THAT IS MORE NECESSARY TO THE CITY, CAN YOU PLEASE LET US KNOW? BECAUSE WE CAN AMEND IT.
THE ONE THING THAT DID COME UP THE OTHER DAY AND I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS GREAT.
I WAS TOLD BY A NEW SUBDIVISION THAT WANTS TO BE THAT THEY NO LONGER HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
THEY HAVE A VALUE ENHANCEMENT PERSON, [LAUGHTER] WHATEVER.
>> [LAUGHTER] THAT WAS ELIMINATED.
>> YES. IT'S TO ENHANCE THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY THAT WE ARE ENFORCING.
[LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] WHAT YOU CALL IT IS EVERYTHING.
[10. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $500)]
THESE ARE DONATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE CITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FIRE, POLICE, AND CITY STAFF.PAM AND ALAN TERRELL DONATED A TRAY OF COOKIES VALUED AT $25 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
PAM AND ALAN TERRELL DONATED A TWO-LAYER CAKE VALUED AT $40 TO CITY STAFF AND COUNCIL.
THE CHRISTIAN AINSWORTH FAMILY DONATED FOOD VALUED AT $175 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE BASE WAUGH FAMILY DONATED COOKIES, VALUED AT $10 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE BASE WAUGH FAMILY DONATED ASSORTED HOLIDAY COOKIES VALUED AT $15 TO OTHER CITY STAFF.
PAM AND ALAN TERRELL DONATED HOMEMADE CAKE, COFFEE, HOT CHOCOLATE, AND HERBAL TEA, VALUED AT $45 [NOISE] TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WE THANK ALL OF THESE PEOPLE FOR THEIR GENEROSITY AND APPRECIATION IN THINKING OF US AT THIS TIME.
[11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
WHAT'S THE PROPER DEAL FOR THE LAND-USE ASSUMPTION, CIP, SO I CAN PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA SO IT DOESN'T GET LOST.EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT ME BLANK.
>> I THINK THE THOUGHT WAS TO GO MAYBE MEET WITH THE CAP ON PERMANENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS IT WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
>> I JUST WANT TO GET IT ON THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, SO IT DOESN'T GET LOST IN WHEREVER.
JUST TRYING TO GET THE PROPER NAME FOR THAT COMMITTEE.
>> ANOTHER ITEM I'D HAVE ADDED TO THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS IS ON FENCES, DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
[LAUGHTER] IT WAS ON BEFORE AND I'VE OFFERED TO TAKE IT OFF.
>> BUT WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS COMING UP, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICED, BUT PARKER, KING'S CROSSING HAS SOME 75 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEEN IN THE BACK OF THEIR YARD.
I CAN IMAGINE GARY'S STAFF, WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
I THINK WE NEED TO AGREE ON A POLICY FOR HOW WE HANDLE FENCES IN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
[01:40:09]
>> ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? I'M GOING TO PUT THE RQ BACK ON [LAUGHTER].
>> IT'S ON THE NEXT AGENDA. [LAUGHTER].
>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU KNOW YOU CAN ALWAYS SEND ME AN EMAIL.
>> THE OTHER THING WOULD BE THE PERSONNEL MANUAL.
[OVERLAPPING] WHETHER THAT NEEDS TO BE A WORKSHOP OR WHAT? I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET IT.
>> YES. I THINK [OVERLAPPING] AFTER A MONTH READING IT, IT WOULD BE MY OPINION, IT'D BE A GOOD IDEA FOR COUNCIL TO HAVE A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS IT.
OTHERWISE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE SITTING HERE PAGE BY PAGE.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO IN A WORKSHOP.
ANYTHING ELSE? THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED.
IT IS 08:48 [NOISE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.