[00:00:08]
>> I HEREBY CONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING.
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT IS DECEMBER 3RD, 2024 AT 5:31 PM.AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK MS. SCOTT GRAY, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
[EXECUTIVE SESSION ]
THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN 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, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.072, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
AT THIS TIME, 5:33, WE ARE IN RECESS.
I'M HEREBY CONVENING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING]
IT IS DECEMBER 3RD AT 7:06 PM.AT THIS TIME, I AGAIN WILL ASK MS. SCOTT GRAY, DO I STILL HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, YOU HAVE A SUPER QUORUM.
>> AT THIS TIME, WE ARE RECONVENING FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I WILL ASK COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION OR DELIBERATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? THEN WE WILL GO ON WITH THE PLEDGES.
I WILL ASK ROXANNE BOGDAN IF SHE WILL LEAD THE AMERICAN PLEDGE, AND I WILL ASK LETTY VALDEZ IF SHE WILL LEAD THE TEXAS PLEDGE.
PLEDGE] THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME,
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS.MS. BOGDAN, DID YOU HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT? WELCOME.
>> WE HAVE TO GET OUR TECHNICAL THINGS WORKED OUT.
THE FIRST ONE I HAVE IS ROXANNE BOGDAN.
WOULD YOU PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS ROXANNE BOGDAN, 6701 OVERBROOK DRIVE IN PARKER.
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT REGARDING COUNCILMAN FECHT NOISE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE UPDATE DATED NOVEMBER 19TH OF 2024.
IT IS VERY CLEAR TO ME AFTER HEARING THE SUMMARY OF THE PROGRESS OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT THERE WAS A HUGE DISCONNECT WITH MR. FECHT AND THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE GROUP.
THERE WERE SEVERAL ITEMS THAT I FEEL WERE MISREPRESENTED BY MR. FECHT WITH REGARDS TO THIS COMMITTEE.
NUMBER 1, HE IMPLIED THAT NOBODY WAS SHOWING UP AT THE MEETINGS, AND WE HAVE HAD CITIZENS SHOW UP AT BOTH OF THE MEETINGS THAT I HAVE ATTENDED, WHICH THERE'S BEEN THREE.
[00:05:01]
I FEEL THAT HE MISREPRESENTED THE CONCERNS OF THE PARKER RESIDENTS.MR. FECHT CALLED THE NOISE PROBLEM AN ISOLATED INCIDENT, AND HE STATED THAT THERE WERE 24 CALLS IN 24 MONTHS WHEN IN FACT THERE WERE ACTUALLY 96 CALLS FOR NOISE COMPLAINTS IN THAT TIME, AND THIS DOES SHOW THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM.
HE DOWNPLAYED THE PROBLEM WITH THE NOISE.
HE SAID HE WENT TO ONE EVENT, TOOK READINGS, AND IT WAS FINE.
YOU CANNOT JUDGE THIS BASED ON ONE EVENT.
HE SAID THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ONE PHONE CALL OR ONE EMAIL OF ANYONE COMPLAINING, AND THIS IS HUMOROUS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO NOTIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC AS FAR AS HOW THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HANDLE THESE COMPLAINTS.
I KNOW THAT THE MAYOR AND THE RESIDENTS HAVE ALL BEEN TRYING TO MAKE PHONE CALLS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO LOG AND TO KEEP TRACK OF DATA.
NOBODY HAS PUT OUT TO ANYBODY TO CALL MR. FECHT OR RANDY.
MR. FECHT HAS BEEN HAVING PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH SOUTHFORK AND DOING THIS ON HIS OWN ACCORD AND HE'S BEEN DEMANDING CONTRACTS FROM SOUTHFORK AND HE HAS HAD ZERO AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
HE HAS THREATENED SOUTHFORK IF THEY DIDN'T SHOW HIM THOSE CONTRACTS, AND I THINK THAT IS WRONG.
HE SEEMS TO BE NEGOTIATING WITH SOUTHFORK WHEN THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT EVEN HAD A CONVERSATION OF EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT MR. FECHT HAS ZERO INTENTIONS OF WORKING ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE.
I RESPECTFULLY LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL REMOVE MR. FECHT FROM THIS COMMITTEE AND ALLOW MR. KERCHO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COMMITTEE CHAIR AND ALLOW THIS GROUP TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WORK THAT THEY'VE BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO DO BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
I DISAGREE THAT THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO RECREATE THE WHEEL, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TWEAKING.
BUT THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE, AND I THINK WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP IN OUR COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, I HAVE BILLY BARON.
>> BILLY BARON, 6707 OVERBROOK.
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE SAME THING AS ROXANNE.
IT'S VERY CLEAR IN OUR MEETINGS THAT TODD MADE UP HIS MIND BEFORE THE COMMITTEE STARTED THAT HE DIDN'T WANT US TO MAKE ANY PROGRESS ABOUT LOOKING AT OTHER ORDINANCES.
FIRST OF ALL, HE DELAYED US HAVING OUR FIRST MEETING UNTIL BASICALLY YOU ALL APPOINTED RANDY TO COMMITTEE OR REPLACED LUKE AND RANDY SET UP A MEETING.
THEN EVER SINCE THEN, IT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR THERE'S A DIVIDE. HE WANTS TO DO NOTHING.
EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE COMMITTEE THINKS THE ORDINANCE NEEDS TO CHANGE, BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION YET ON EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE.
PART OF THIS IS WE SENT EMAILS OUT, AND MULTIPLE TIMES, COUNCILMAN FECHT HAS SHOWN THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN READING OUR EMAILS THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS SHARED.
HE ALSO AT THE LAST MEETING CLAIMED THAT HE SPOKE TO A FORMER COUNCIL PERSON IN BROOKS FARM.
THERE ARE TWO FORMER COUNCIL PEOPLE IN BROOKS FARM.
NEITHER OF THEM HAVE SPOKEN TO HIM.
HE CHERRY PICKED DATE OF OCTOBER 1ST BECAUSE THAT'S PAST THE SEASON WHEN MOST OF THE PROBLEMS ARE.
COUNCILMAN KERCHO DID DATE ON FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT EVENTS PRIOR TO THAT THAT I THINK COULD BE DEEMED PROBLEMATIC.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT THAT.
FINALLY, COUNCILMAN FECHT WOULD LIKE TO COME TO SOME VERBAL AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHFORK.
WELL, I HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, IF WE TALK TO THE MANAGER, DAVE ROBBIE, WE MIGHT COME TO SOME AGREEMENT WITH HIM.
WE DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GOING TO BE AROUND NEXT WEEK OR EVEN IF CENTURION AMERICAN'S GOING TO SELL IT OFF AS SOON AS THEY GET THE HOUSES BUILT.
WE HAVE NO IDEA, AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK AT SQUARE ONE.
ALSO, SOUTHFORK VIOLATED THEIR EXISTING ORDINANCE ON SEPTEMBER 28TH BY HAVING THEIR EVENT GO LATER THAN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO.
ALSO, THEY'VE BEEN INCONSISTENT ABOUT THEIR STATEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ON PURPOSE, BUT I'VE HEARD THEM BOTH SAY, ONCE THE HOUSING IS BUILT,
[00:10:01]
THERE'LL BE NO FURTHER OUTDOOR EVENTS, BUT I WAS AT A SEPARATE MEETING, UNRELATED MEETING WITH SHAWN TERRY AND HE TALKED ABOUT MAKING THE RODEO STANDS OUT THERE PERMANENT.I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
ANYWAY, I FEEL LIKE WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS I'D LIKE THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE TO BE ABLE TO MEET BECAUSE I THINK THE REST OF US WANT SOME CHANGE AND LET US COME UP WITH OUR VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE AND GO FROM THERE. THANK YOU.
>> I'M RICK DEBUS, 5007 DUBLIN CREEK.
I'M ALSO ON THE NOISE COMMITTEE AS WELL.
TO BASICALLY CONCUR WITH ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, WE HAD CHANGE IN THE COMMITTEE.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT COMMITTEES.
THERE'S ALL OF US IN THE GROUP, AND THEN THERE'S TODD.
TODD HAS HIS OWN AGENDA, AND I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT IT IS, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY NOT TO THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMITTEE OR PARKER IN GENERAL.
WE ALL WANT AND WE ALL REPRESENT A LARGER BODY OF CITIZENS THAT ARE IN AND AROUND ACROSS CREEK AND SOUTHFORK.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE ACROSS THE BOARD THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IN THE COMMITTEE AND MAKE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BASICALLY RECOMMEND TO YOU GUYS WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
THERE'S PROBABLY AT LEAST FIVE OR SIX IN MY ESTIMATE, FIVE OR SIX PROBABLY MORE MEETINGS.
WHEN WE HAVE COUNCILMAN THERE IN THE MEETING, IT IS VERY COMBATIVE.
WE REALLY NEED BETTER LEADERSHIP THERE TO GUIDE US ALONG THIS PATH WITHOUT HAVING US AND TODD.
I'M JUST REQUESTING A CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP IN THAT PARTICULAR COMMITTEE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I'M LAURA MANHINNEY WALSH.
MY HUSBAND, KEVIN WALSH, AND I RESIDE AT 6203 NORTHRIDGE PARKWAY IN SOUTHRIDGE ESTATES.
I'M USING TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF PARKER'S NUISANCE ORDINANCE.
I WAS GLAD TO SEE THE CITY COUNCIL FORM A NOISE COMMITTEE BACK IN JULY TO EVALUATE THE CONCERNS.
I KNOW THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE COMMITTEE WAS DUE TO SOUND ISSUES COMING FROM SOUTHFORK AND FROM CROSS CREEK.
HOWEVER, MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE EXPERIENCED ISSUES WITH OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS, WHICH CAUSED US TO BECOME MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT NUISANCE ORDINANCE AND ITS LIMITATIONS.
SOON AFTER THE COMMITTEE WAS ANNOUNCED ON JULY 11TH, WE SENT AN EMAIL TO EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, SO THIS SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR TO YOU, INCLUDING MAYOR PETTLE, CHIEF PRICE, AND AT THE TIME, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LUKE OLSON, HIGHLIGHTING OUR NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR NOISE ISSUES AND REQUESTING TO PARTICIPATE IN NOISE COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, I ATTENDED A NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING AND WAS ABLE TO SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR NOISE ISSUES WITH THE COMMITTEE.
COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO WAS IN ATTENDANCE, BUT COUNCIL MEMBER FECHT WAS NOT PRESENT.
OVER THE PAST YEAR, WE HAVE CALLED PARKER POLICE OUT TO NEIGHBORS HOUSE FOUR TIMES ON THREE SEPARATE DATES.
THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN HARASSING US AND INTENTIONALLY DIRECTING BRIGHT LIGHTS AND LOUD MUSIC AT OUR MASTER BEDROOM SUITE LATE AT NIGHT AND DURING PRE-DAWN HOURS.
WE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE POLICE TAKE DECIBEL READINGS TO ASSESS THE SOUND ISSUE.
DUE TO PARKER'S ORDINANCE WITH GENEROUS DECIBEL LEVELS TO ACCOMMODATE SOUTHFORK EVENTS, THE READINGS TAKEN BY THE POLICE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, AND THUS THEY COULD NOT ISSUE A VIOLATION.
OUR POSITION IS THAT THE DECIBEL LEVELS CONTAINED IN THE CURRENT NUISANCE ORDINANCE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF PARKER.
THE NOISE COMMITTEE HAS ACTUALLY DONE A VERY GOOD AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ON NUISANCE AND NOISE ORDINANCES IN THE SURROUNDING CITIES OF DFW.
MOST CITIES HAVE A SIMPLIFIED ORDINANCE THAT COVERS DAYTIME VERSUS NIGHTTIME DECIBEL LEVELS.
PARKER INSTEAD HAS THREE LEVELS OF NIGHTTIME DECIBEL RANGING FROM 65-45, WHEREAS MOST CITIES HAVE ONE NIGHTTIME LIMIT THAT AVERAGES 55.
IF PARKER HAD A NIGHTTIME LIMIT SIMILAR TO WHAT OUR NEIGHBORING CITY ALLEN HAS, THEN OUR NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE LIMIT AND THE POLICE COULD HAVE CITED AN OFFENSE.
WE BELIEVE THE PARKER POLICE SINCERELY WANT TO HELP US WITH OUR UNFORTUNATE SITUATION, BUT THEIR HANDS HAVE BEEN TIED BY THE CURRENT ORDINATES.
I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE.
ONE, DESIGNATE A SPECIAL EVENT ACTIVITY EVENT ZONE FOR SOUTHFORK, CROSS CREEK WITH DECIBEL LEVELS APPROPRIATE FOR EVENTS.
TWO, DESIGNATE ALL OTHER ZONES IN PARKER AS NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF
[00:15:02]
DECIBEL LEVELS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF PARKER.THREE, CHANGE THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE TO GIVE POLICE MORE DISCRETION TO ISSUE VIOLATIONS FOR EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR.
IN A SITUATION SUCH AS WHAT MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, THE POLICE HAVE ALREADY BEEN CALLED OUT FOUR TIMES.
THEY WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO ISSUE A VIOLATION WITHOUT A DECIBEL READING IF THEY CONCUR THAT THE NOISE IS TOO LOUD FOR A REASONABLE PERSON.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE NOISE COMMITTEE EVALUATE THESE SUGGESTIONS, AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE ON THE NOISE COMMITTEE TO REPRESENT THE ISSUE WITH NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR NOISE COMPLAINTS. THANK YOU.
I LIVE ON 3506 MCCREARY LANE HERE IN PARKER.
I DON'T HAVE A NICE SPEECH PREPARED.
I JUST WANT TO SAY IN SUPPORT OF ALL THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS THAT I AGREE WITH THEM.
ALSO, RIGHT BEFORE THIS MEETING, I DID READ THE NOISE COMMITTEE THAT WAS DATED NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024.
MY GENERAL IMPRESSION WITH THAT REPORT IS THAT THE REPORT IS INACCURATE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IT STATES THAT ONLY ONE PERSON ATTENDED AT LEAST ONE OF THE MEETINGS, WHICH SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THERE'S VERY LIMITED INTEREST IN THIS NOISE ISSUE.
OVERALL, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT REPORT DISMISSES THE OVERALL NOISE CONCERN AS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT, WHICH CLEARLY IS NOT THE CASE.
NOW, MY PERSONAL MOTIVATION TO GET MYSELF INVOLVED IN THE NOISE COMMITTEE IS WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF DRAG RACERS UP AND DOWN MCCREARY ROAD.
I'M HOPING THAT THAT ISSUE WILL BE ADDED TO THE NOISE COMMITTEE'S AGENDA AT SOME POINT.
>> THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS I HAVE AT THIS TIME.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NEXT, WE WILL GO ON TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST WHICH I'D LIKE TO NOTE
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
THAT THE PARKS AND REX COMMISSION MEETING THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 11TH AT 5:00 PM IS HEREBY CANCELED.PARKS AND REX DECIDED THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A MEETING IN DECEMBER, WOULD GO FORWARD IN JANUARY ON JANUARY 8TH IN THIS ROOM AT 5:00 PM.
OUR NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS ON DECEMBER 17TH, AND THE ONE AFTER THAT IS ON JANUARY 7TH, JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW.
NEXT, WE WILL GO TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA ]
THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.THE FIRST IS THE APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 22ND, 2024, WHICH WAS A SPECIAL MEETING, AND SECONDLY, APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024, WHICH WAS A REGULAR MEETING.
COUNCIL, DOES ANYONE WANT ANYTHING MOVED OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? NOT HEARING THAT, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PROVIDED.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO APPROVE THE TWO ITEMS, THE MEETING MINUTES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0.
I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT AMANDA [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT HERE WITH US THIS TIME.
THE NEXT IS CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024 815,
[4. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2024- 815, APPOINTING A FIRE CHIEF AND APPOINTING AN ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF. [Rescheduled from 2024 1112 and 2024 1119]]]
APPOINTING A FIRE CHIEF AND APPOINTING AN ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF.FIRST, I WILL ASK MIKE SHEFF, THERE YOU ARE.
[00:20:02]
DID YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, IF SO, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MOST DEFINITELY HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S MY HONOR TO RECOMMEND THAT CHIEF MILLER BE PROMOTED FROM THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT CHIEF TO FIRE CHIEF, AND THAT CHIEF KENDRICK BE PROMOTED FROM THE POSITION OF DIVISION CHIEF TO ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF, AND I RECOMMEND COUNCIL TO TAKE SUCH ACTION.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS OF FORMER CHIEF CHEF? SEEMS FUNNY TO CITE IT.
>> JUST THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE ALL THE TIME AND DOING IT TRULY VOLUNTEER FOR SUCH A LONG TIME TO PROTECT OUR CITY.
I WANT TO THANK HIM VERY MUCH. MIKE THANKS A LOT.
>> GETTING BACK TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-815, COUNCIL, IS THERE A MOTION? MR. KERCHO.
>> BEFORE WE GET TO MOTION, AGAIN, CHIEF SHEFF, A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY NOT RECOGNIZE WHAT HE'S DONE FOR THE CITY OVER REALLY THE DECADES.
I THINK NEXT MONDAY, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A CELEBRATION AND HOPEFULLY PEOPLE CAN MAKE IT TO HONOR HIM, BUT HE'S GIVEN DECADES OF VOLUNTEER SERVICE BEING THAT.
SEEING THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH A LOT OF GROWTH HAS PUT IN ALL THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS THAT WE NOW PRETTY MUCH RELY ON FROM ALL THE VARIOUS CITIES AROUND US TO ASSIST OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ASSIST THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE QUICKEST RESPONSES THAT WE CAN.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS VERY HIGHLY RATED AND THAT RATING BASICALLY GOES TO EACH OF OUR INSURANCE PAYMENTS BECAUSE THEY LOOK AT SEE WHAT TYPE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT THE CITY HAS IN DETERMINING WHAT OUR FIRE PREMIUMS ARE IN OUR INDIVIDUAL HOMES.
I HAD A HUGE IMPACT ON A NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
EVERY TIME WE COME UP ALSO FROM ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE, WHETHER IT BE EXPENDITURES HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND DONE A GREAT JOB IN TERMS OF EVEN BUDGETING.
WHEN WE GET TO THE BUDGETING SESSIONS, HE IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST PRESENTATIONS THAT THERE IS PRESENTED FROM THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND DONE A FANTASTIC JOB.
ALSO ACTING AS A MENTOR TO THE TWO PEOPLE THAT HE HAS RECOMMENDED.
I THINK THE CITY IS VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE INDIVIDUALS OF CALIBER OF ASSISTANT CHIEF MILLER AND DIVISION CHIEF KENDRICK, WITH THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, AND ALSO NOW FAMILIARITY WITH PARKER TO GUIDE PARKER INTO THE FUTURE.
WITH THAT MA'AM I WOULD TAKE THE RETIREMENT CHIEF SHEFF AND I MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF JUSTIN MILLER AS CITY OF PARKERS FIRE CHIEF AND JEFFREY KENDRICK AS THE CITY OF PARKERS ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. I'LL SECOND NOT ONLY WHAT BOTH COUNCILMEN HAVE SAID ABOUT THE CHIEF AND ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HE'S MADE, BUT JUST ADD TO THAT.
I SECOND EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE SAID.
BUT IT'S A RARE CASE WHERE WE SEE SOMEONE WHO PROVIDES THE KIND OF SERVICE THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OUR CHIEF HERE OVER ALL OF THESE DECADES, AND I THINK HE DESERVES A ROUND OF APPLAUSE.
>> I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE, IT'S PRETTY COOL BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1999, I'VE PHRASED TO JOSHUA 25, ZACHARIAH 24, AND JACOB 19, AND YOU'VE BEEN THERE TO MAKE SURE OUR HOUSE DIDN'T BURN DOWN, AND IT SLEPT A LOT BETTER, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT OWE A LOT OF THANKS TO MIKE SHEFF AND HIS 41 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY.
IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM POSSIBLE THAT HE WILL NOT BE HERE.
BUT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE JUSTIN MILLER AS FIRE CHIEF AND JEFFREY KENDRICK AS ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MOTION AS READ.
[00:25:02]
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0.AND AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK IF CHIEF MILLER TO PLEASE COME UP HERE.
[BACKGROUND] RIGHT THERE. I NEED TO SWEAR YOU INTO THE OATH OF OFFICE, AND I WILL ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND YOU CAN READ WITH ME.
>> DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM.
>> DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM?
>> THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES.
>> THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES.
>> OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF FIRE.
>> OF THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF FIRE.
>> AND WILL DO TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
>> AND WILL DO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
>> PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS STATE, SO HELP ME GOD.
>> PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS STATE, SO HELP ME GOD.
>> AT THIS TIME, I WILL GIVE YOU.
HOLD ON TO THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO SIGN IT.
AT THIS TIME, WHO DO YOU WANT TO PIN YOUR BADGE ON YOU? DO YOU WANT MEGAN OR ANNA? OH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE KIDS.
WHO SHALL I GIVE IT TO BLAKE AND JACKSON.
STAND UP ON THE STEPS THAT THAT'LL HELP.
CAN WE GET A FAMILY PICTURE WITH ANNA AND MEGAN AND THE KIDS? ANNA.
[BACKGROUND] THEN YOU NEED TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
[LAUGHTER] I'LL LET YOU HOLD THAT ONE.
IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. THIS IS DIFFERENT. I
>> DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM.
>> DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM.
>> THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF.
>> THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF.
>> THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF FIRE.
>> THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF FIRE.
>> AND WILL DO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
>> AND WE'LL DO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND.
>> TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND.
>> THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS STATE, SO HELP ME GOD.
>> TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS STATE, SO HELP ME GOD. THANK YOU.
[APPLAUSE] NOW, YOU GOT TO PROMISE NOT TO MAKE BLOOD.
[00:30:26]
>> I GOT TO SAY, WHICH ONE IS CASE? [LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND]
>> I GOT TO STAND UP ON THAT SIDE.
>> [APPLAUSE] THANK Y'ALL. THANKS EVERYONE OF YOU.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING OUT [INAUDIBLE] MURPHY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. IT MEANS A LOT [INAUDIBLE] [APPLAUSE]
>> NEXT, WE WILL GO TO NUMBER 5, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE WATER CCN TRANSFER PAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS AND INTEGRITY COMPANIES, LLC, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF PARKER CCN TO THE CITY OF WILEY CCN, ORDINANCE NUMBER 881.
WE NEED TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
UNDER WHICH ONE? [BACKGROUND] WELL, I LOST MY PIECE OF PAPER.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE ARE RECESSING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER 551.071.WE WILL RETURN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
WE ARE RETURNED FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING]
IT IS 7:54 PM.COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYTHING FROM THIS EXECUTIVE SESSION?
>> NO, MADAM MAYOR. HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE MR. JOHN DALENE COME UP HERE.
HE CAN MAYBE GIVE SOME OVERVIEW IF HE'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT OF THE SITUATION.
>> LET ME READ NUMBER 5 FOR YOU.
[5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE “WATER CCN TRANSFER PAYMENT AGREEMENT” BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, AND INTEGRITY COMPANIES, LLC., RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM CITY OF PARKER’S CCN TO THE CITY OF WYLIE’S CCN. [ORDINANCE NO. 881] [Postponed from 2024 1119]]
WE ARE GOING ON ITEM NUMBER 5, CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE WATER CCN TRANSFER PAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS AND INTEGRITY COMPANIES, LLC RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF PARKER CCN TO THE CITY OF WYLIE, CCN, WHICH IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 881.[00:35:05]
>> ON NUMBER 6, CONSIDERATION AND/OR OTHER ACTION ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF WYLIE, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF APPROXIMATELY 48 ACRES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF WYLIE FROM PARKER'S WATER CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, CCN TO WYLIE'S WATER CCN, AND THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 882.
WE HAVE BOTH ITEM NUMBER 5 AND ITEM NUMBER 6. HELLO?
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M JOHN DALENE WITH INTEGRITY COMPANIES.
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS CHANCE.
ANY PARTICULAR QUESTION BEFORE I START OR?
>> IF YOU WOULD JUST GIVE US AN OVERVIEW.
>> THEN WE MIGHT HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON IT.
>> THAT'D BE FINE. [NOISE] WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE MONROE PROPERTY THAT SITS JUST SOUTH OF PARKER IN THE CITY OF WYLIE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 47 ACRES, APPROXIMATELY 32.5 OF IT IS DEVELOPABLE.
WE'LL BE PUTTING IN ONE OF OUR LADERA LIVING ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITIES.
IT'S RESTRICTED FOR AGE 55 AND ABOVE.
THEY'LL BE 159 HOMES IN THERE.
[NOISE] HAVE ITS OWN AMENITIES.
THIS WILL BE OUR TENTH COMMUNITY IN DFW.
WE HAVE MORE LOCATIONS IN DFW THAN ANY OTHER ACTIVE ADULT BUILDER.
WE'RE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT WHAT WE DO IN THE MARKETPLACE AND THE PRODUCT.
WHEN THIS GOT PRESENTED TO US FROM THE PROPERTY, WE LOOKED AT IT, AND OF COURSE, KNEW ABOUT THE WATER SITUATION.
WE'VE ALREADY DESIGNED THE PROJECT.
WE WILL BREAK GROUND SHORTLY AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR.
EVERYTHING IS COMPLETE AND READY TO GO.
IN THAT, WE'VE WORKED ON THIS.
I HAD MY FIRST CONVERSATIONS WITH YOUR TOWN ADMINISTRATOR A YEAR AGO IN NOVEMBER, TRYING TO GET THIS RESOLVED.
I'VE EXPENDED A LOT OF ENERGY AND MONEY TRYING TO GET THIS SITUATION RESOLVED.
WE WOULD LIKE THE PERMISSION TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THE CCN OUT OF PARKER INTO WYLIE.
THE PROPERTY IS IN THE CITY OF WYLIE.
ALL THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE CITY OF WYLIE, AND THEREFORE, IT JUST MAKES SENSE FOR THE WATER THEN TO BE A PART OF THAT IN THE CITY OF WYLIE.
IT WOULD ALSO BE A HUGE INCONVENIENCE FOR A 159 HOMEOWNERS TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH ONE CITY FOR WATER IN ONE CITY FOR SEWER, TRASH, AND EVERYTHING ELSE WHEN THEY'RE IN THAT CITY.
JUST LIKE IT TALKS ABOUT CCN, IT'S A CONVENIENCE THAT IT WOULD BE THE BEST THING FOR ALL, FOR THE WATER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE INTO THE CITY OF WYLIE.
WE'VE OFFERED TO COVER THE COST OF PARKER, AS FAR AS DOING THIS, OUR ATTORNEYS WILL HANDLE ALL THE PAPERWORK AND ALL THE TIME.
THIS WON'T BE A QUICK PROCESS.
IT'LL STILL TAKE 6-9 MONTHS, BUT ONCE AGREED UPON, WYLIE IS READY TO ADOPT IT TO ACCEPT US IN THERE.
[NOISE] WE CAN GO AHEAD AND THEN BE SERVICED BY WYLIE, WHILE WE WORK THIS OUT THROUGH THE PUC.
[NOISE] THAT'S WHERE BASICALLY IT STANDS AT THIS POINT.
THE CHALLENGE IS, OF COURSE, THERE'S INADEQUATE WATER TO SERVICE THE COMMUNITY FROM PARKER.
THE ONLY LINE THAT IS THERE, THERE'S A FOUR INCH LINE NORTH OF US BY, I THINK, 300 OR 400 FEET SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
A FOUR INCH LINE IS NOT ENOUGH TO SERVICE 159 HOMES YOU NEED ANYWHERE ON THE LOW SIDE EIGHT INCH AND PROBABLY 12 INCH DEPENDING UPON WHAT'S GOING ON.
THE OTHER COMPLICATION IS THAT CREATES A DEAD END LINE.
THE WATER HAS TO BE LOOPED ALL THE WAY BACK TO ITS MAIN SOURCE.
WE CANNOT HAVE JUST A DEAD END LINE COMING IN THERE.
THAT VIOLATES ALL STUFF, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THE EXPENSE TO PUT IN A NEW WATER LINE TO GET IT DOWN THERE, OUR ENGINEERS HAVE TOLD US IS IN EXCESS OF A MILLION DOLLARS.
WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT 1, 1, 1, 2, 01, 3, SOMEWHERE IN THERE PLUS TO THE TIME FACTOR, IT WOULD TAKE IN EXCESS OF PROBABLY A YEAR BECAUSE HERE WE ALREADY DECEMBER, NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL JANUARY, FOR THE MOST PART, HAS TO BE DESIGNED.
[00:40:03]
EASEMENTS HAVE TO BE ACQUIRED, THE WHOLE NINE YARDS, IT'S NOT A SIMPLE PROCESS, AND IT'S A PRETTY GOOD DISTANCE.OUR PRODUCTS PROJECT IS READY TO GO AND WE CAN'T BE IN A POSITION TO BE WAITING FOR THE WATER TO COME IN, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED [NOISE] AND THEN WE INFORMED THE CITY ATTORNEY TODAY, WYLIE IS WILLING TO GIVE FOR THREE YEARS THE SPREAD BETWEEN THE WHOLESALE AND THE RETAIL ON THE WATER BACK TO PARKER, TO HELP THE SITUATION OUT.
THAT'S WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. ONE QUESTION I HAD WAS THAT ONCE YOU START THE BUILD PROCESS, HOW LONG BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY WOULD NEED THE WATER ONCE YOU STARTED TO BUILD? THERE HAS TO BE A DWELL TIME BETWEEN WHEN YOU BREAK GROUND SO YOU ACTUALLY WOULD NEED THE WATER, CORRECT?
>> SURE. WHEN WE BREAK GROUND, WE'LL HAVE ABOUT 2-3 MONTHS OF EXCAVATION.
THEN WE'LL START LAYING THE WATER SEWER, WHAT'S CALLED THE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE'LL NEED WATER AT THAT TIME BECAUSE WITHIN ABOUT 30 DAYS OF THAT, WE'LL ALREADY BE TESTING LINES AS THEY'RE IN.
WATER HAS TO BE ACCESSED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, OR I'M SORRY, THAT'S A MISSTATEMENT, BUT WITHIN 3-4 MONTHS WE'LL NEED WATER.
THEN FROM THERE, BY TIME STREETS GO IN, WE'LL START BUILDING HOMES PROBABLY NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, REALISTICALLY.
WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE TO HAVE THE WATER SERVICE BY THEN, SO IT'S A CHALLENGE.
>> ABOUT 11 MONTHS FROM RIGHT NOW, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT A TIME FROM NOW UNTIL THE TIME YOU WOULD ACTUALLY NEED IT, YOU'RE SAYING NOVEMBER?
>> WELL, THAT'S ONLY FOR HOMES.
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE THE SYSTEM, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE PIPES UNDERGROUND, AND THAT HAS TO BE DONE AND TESTED LONG BEFORE WE CAN BUILD HOUSES BECAUSE THEY WON'T ALLOW US TO BUILD HOUSES IF THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT WATER TO BE ABLE TO RUN FIRE, ALL THAT STUFF.
>> YOU HAVE 3-4 MONTHS BEFORE YOU NEED TO TEST THE LINE, AFTER YOU START MOVING DIRT, HOW SOON BEFORE YOU WOULD START MOVING DIRT IF THIS IS APPROVED?
WE'LL START MOVING DIRT IN JANUARY.
>> APRIL TO MAY IS YOUR CRITICAL DATE?
>> YOU SAID THREE MONTHS ON EXCAVATION SO JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH?
>> TWO TO THREE MONTHS. APRIL IS YOUR DUE DAY FOR WATER?
>> COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. DALENE?
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT ON THAT.
>> LOOK, IT'S A TOUCHY SITUATION.
WE WOULD LIKE TO BE A GOOD PARTNER, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING AS A WHOLE, THE INCONVENIENCE OF OUR HOMEOWNERS, EVENTUALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THIS GO THROUGH, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR VOTE FOR IT.
>> SURE. JUST TO BE KIND, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL OPTIONS.
I UNDERSTAND AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. MARCANO OR OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
>> WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OTHER THINGS AT THE SAME TIME.
WE WANT TO GET THIS CLOSED BECAUSE WE THINK THIS IS A CRITICAL ISSUE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME FEEDBACK ON WHERE WE ARE AS A COUNCIL.
>> THIS IS YEARS OF WORK GETTING VERY CLOSE.
>> COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR [OVERLAPPING]
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACTUALLY POSTPONE THE CONSIDERATION OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE WATER CCN TRANSFER PAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS AND INTEGRITY COMPANIES RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE CITIES OF PARKER CCN TO THE CITY OF WYLIE CCN.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER COTE VAGUE ON POSTPONING THIS ITEM NUMBER 5 UNTIL OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
>> NO. HE ONLY MADE A MOTION ON FIVE.
COUNCIL. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS ITEM.
[00:45:03]
ITEM NUMBER 5 UNTIL A LATER DATE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0.
>> YOU SAID A LATER DATE, WAS THAT TO A DATE SPECIFIC TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I DIDN'T HEAR A SPECIFIC DATE. I JUST [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WOULD CERTAINLY AMEND IT TO BE TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 17TH.
>> THEN EVERYBODY WISHES TO VOTE FOR THAT DATE.
[6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WYLIE AND THE CITY OF PARKER,” BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF WYLIE RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF APPROXIMATELY 48 ACRES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF WYLIE FROM PARKER’S WATER CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (“CCN”) TO WYLIE’S WATER CCN. [ORDINANCE NO. 882] [Postponed from 2024 1119]]
WHICH IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 882.>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION OF CONSIDERATION OR OTHER ACTIONS ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WYLIE AND THE CITY OF PARKER BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF WYLIE RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF APPROXIMATELY 48 ACRES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF WYLIE FROM PARKER'S WATER CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY CCN TO WYLIE'S WATER CCN ORDINANCE NUMBER 882 TO THE 12/17/24 MEETING.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BUDDY PILGRIM TO POSTPONE ITEM NUMBER 6 TO DECEMBER 17TH.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OR POSTPONING THIS ITEM TILL DECEMBER 17TH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. THANK YOU.
[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE “FIRST AMENDMENT TO NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - CITY OF PARKER POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AMENDATORY CONTRACT,” PROVIDING FOR A SECOND POINT OF DELIVERY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, SETTING MINIMUM WATER DELIVERY AMOUNTS, AND PROVIDING CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. [ORDINANCE NO. 883] [Postponed from 2024 1119]]
CONSIDERATION AND OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, CITY OF PARKER, PORTABLE WATER SUPPLY AMENDATORY CONTRACT, PROVIDING FOR A SECOND POINT OF DELIVERY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, SETTING MINIMUM WATER DELIVERY AMOUNTS, AND PROVIDING CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS.THIS WILL BE ORDINANCE NUMBER 883.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?
>> I THINK MAYBE WHAT I MIGHT ASK IS THAT SINCE WE'RE IN FRONT OF OUR GROUP HERE, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT OUR COUNSEL MIGHT GIVE A LITTLE OVERVIEW? I KNOW THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTATION IS RIGHT THERE, BUT JUST A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING CONSIDERED HERE.
>> IF I CAN GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MICROPHONE.
THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR WATER SERVICE FROM NORTH TEXAS TO PARKER SECOND TAKE POINT AND TO PROVIDE THE AMOUNTS FOR THAT TAKE POINT OVER THE NEXT NINE YEARS, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE THE EFFECT OF THE COUNCIL BEING ABLE TO RESOLVE THE MORATORIUM.
THERE IS AN UPDATED AGREEMENT THAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE AGREEMENT THAT'S IN THAT WAS ATTACHED IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL.
SO IF THERE'S A MOTION MADE ON THAT, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE FOR THAT VERSION OF THE AMENDMENT.
>> JUST MIGHT ALSO POINT OUT TO ANYONE THAT'S WATCHING OR IN THE AUDIENCE, THAT THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO OUR EXISTING WATER AGREEMENT, CORRECT? IT IS NOT A REPLACEMENT OF OUR EXISTING WATER CONTRACT WITH NORTH TEXAS, WHICH WE'VE BEEN OPPOSED TO REPLACING THE CONTRACT WITH THEIR NEW CONTRACT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THIS AMENDS THE 2002 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, I'D ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION OF CONSIDERATION, AN APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, CITY OF PARKER, POTABLE WATER SUPPLY, A MANDATORY CONTRACT, PROVIDING FOR A SECOND TAKE POINT OF DELIVERY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, SETTING MINIMUM WATER DELIVERY AMOUNTS, AND PROVIDING CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS, ORDINANCE NUMBER 883.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM JI ME, AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BUDDY PILGRIM.
IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 883, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A SECOND FIRST AMENDMENT TO
[00:50:02]
THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, CITY OF PARKER, PORTABLE WATER SUPPLY I NEVER CAN SAY THAT WORD, EMENDATORY CONTRACT, PROVIDING FOR A SECOND POINT OF DELIVERY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, SETTING A MINIMUM WATER DELIVERY AMOUNT AND CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS.>> I JUST MAKE A COMMENT FOR THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE, THAT KATHERINE'S DONE A SUPERB JOB OF PICKING UP THE BALL ON THIS AND CARRYING ON THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.
SHE'S DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB OF CONTACTING A HIGHER LEVEL OF PEOPLE THERE.
WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT WE PUT PRESSURE ON THEM TO COME TO THE TABLE AND TRY TO SETTLE THIS ISSUE THAT'S BEEN GOING ON SO LONG.
BUT YOU REALLY DESERVE SOME COMMENDATION ON THE WAY THAT YOU'VE HANDLED THIS NEGOTIATION.
NO DEAL LIKE THIS EVER ENDS UP 100%, YOU'RE GETTING 100% OF YOUR WAY, BUT IT'S A VERY FAVORABLE DEAL TO US.
IT'S MUCH MORE FAVORABLE THAN ANYTHING THAT WAS OFFERED.
GETTING THIS RESOLVED WILL ULTIMATELY ALLOW US TO LIFT THE BUILDING MORATORIUM AND WILL ALLOW PARKER TO MOVE FORWARD IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
>> I CONCUR, YOU'VE BEEN CARRYING THE HEAVYWEIGHTS IN THE LAST SIX TO NINE MONTHS OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT.
IT'S GOTTEN A LOT PRETTIER IN THOSE CLOSED-DOOR MEETINGS OF GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU.
>> YES. WE APPRECIATE YOUR HANGING IN THERE WITH US.
AT THIS TIME, HEARING NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
I WILL CALL FOR EVERYONE'S VOTE ON APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 883.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
WE HAVE PASSED A NEW CONTRACT.
FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING OR LISTENING, THIS WILL GO BEFORE THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD ON DECEMBER 19 FOR HOPEFULLY THEIR APPROVAL.
AT THAT POINT, IF EVERYTHING GOES, WE CAN WITHDRAW OR REMOVE OUR WATER MORATORIUM, WHICH WE ARE VERY HOPEFUL OF DOING.
>> YES, COUNCIL MEMBER KIRCHER.
>> I HAVE A POINT. SO I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME CHANGES, AS YOU NOTED TO THE ONE THAT WAS IN THE PACKET.
SO FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, WHEN DO WE THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE RELEASED?
>> THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU'LL JUST VOTED ON? IT CAN BE IN THE MINUTES. I CAN MAKE SURE THAT PATTY HAS A COPY OF THAT FOR THE MINUTE.
>> AT THIS POINT, I WOULD SAY IT'S A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
[8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 878 REGARDING THE CITY OF PARKER’S TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM BENEFITS: (1) ADOPTING NON-RETROACTIVE REPEATING COLAS, FOR RETIREES AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES UNDER TMRS ACT §853.404(f) AND (f-1), AND (2) AUTHORIZING ANNUALLY ACCRUING UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS AND TRANSFER UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS. [Rescheduled from 2024 1112]]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 878 REGARDING THE CITY OF PARKER TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM BENEFITS, ONE, ADOPTING NON-RETROACTIVE REPEATING COLA.FOR RETIREES AND THEIR BENEFITS UNDER THE TMR F ACT 853 EXCUSE ME 404F AND F1 AND TWO, AUTHORIZING ANNUALLY ACCRUING UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS AND TRANSFER UPDATES OF SERVICE CREDITS.
OKAY. MR. SAVAGE, YOU WANT TO TALK TO.
>> SURE. SO MAYOR, COUNSEL, BACK IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, SOME OF THE BUDGET WORKSHOPS THAT WERE HELD OVER THE SUMMER FOR THE 24, 25 BUDGET.
ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE TABLE WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL TO ADD COLA FOR THE TMRS BENEFIT.
AT THE TIME, WE DIDN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF INFORMATION ON THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WERE AVAILABLE, AND COUNCIL HAD ASKED TO TABLE THIS, LEAVE THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET, AND THEN COME BACK AT A LATER DATE WITH MORE INFORMATION FROM A TMRS REPRESENTATIVE.
MR. ANTHONY MILLS MET WITH COUNCIL MEMBER C KIRCH MYSELF LAST MONTH.
I THINK WE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
MAYBE YOU GOT ANSWERS FOR MOST OF THEM.
JUST CLARIFY ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETROACTIVE AND NON RETROACTIVE.
THE RETROACTIVE WAS WOULD GO BACK AND CAPTURE ALL CPI ADJUSTMENTS FROM THE TIME THAT AN EMPLOYEE HAD RETIRED.
SO IF AN EMPLOYEE HAD BEEN RETIRED FOR 20 YEARS, IT'S GOING TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT 20 YEARS AND CAPTURE ALL THE CPI ADJUSTMENTS OVER THAT 20-YEAR PERIOD, COMPOUND THEM TOGETHER AND IT WOULD BE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ADJUSTMENT.
[00:55:05]
TEXAS LEGISLATIVE TEXAS LEGISLATOR LAST MAY ALLOWED TMRS, A THREE-YEAR PERIOD TO DO A NON-RETROACTIVE, WHICH WOULD MEAN IT WOULD ONLY GO BACK FOR A YEAR AND CAPTURE THE CPI FOR A YEAR FOR ALL PEOPLE THAT ARE RETIRED.THEN GOING FORWARD, IT WOULD BE AN ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT.
SO COUNCIL MEMBER CHURCHILL SAT THAT MEETING AND HAD QUESTIONS MAYBE ANSWERED, BUT HE MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE COUNSEL HAD QUESTIONS ON.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KIRSCH, I'LL START WITH YOU, ASSUMING YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
BUT IT WAS FAIRLY COMPLICATED.
SO I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO MEET WITH THE TMRS. I REPRESENT THE LAST MEETING THAT WE TRIED TO HAVE.
BUT GOING BACK, I'M GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN IT.
I'M NOT CERTAINLY AN EXPERT IN THIS.
SO GRANT, IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG ON SOMETHING AS WE GO, OBVIOUSLY, SPEAK UP.
AS WE KNOW, MAJORITY OF US ARE NOT WORKING IN SECTOR, WE HAVE REALLY A 401 K PLAN.
EVERYONE'S MORE FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
THE 401K PLAN AS WE KNOW, WE PUT MONEY TOWARDS IT AND THE COMPANY THAT WE WORK FOR TYPICALLY CONTRIBUTES SOMETHING ADDITIONALLY TO IT.
SO THIS IS THE SAME CASE EXCEPT CERTAINLY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES DON'T HAVE 401K PLAN.
THEY'RE USING WHAT IS CALLED THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT PLAN BASICALLY.
THEY PUT IN 7% OF THEIR PARTICULAR EARNINGS TODAY, AND THE CITY TODAY MATCHES TWO TO ONE TO WHAT THEY PUT IN.
A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT A 401K PLAN IS IS THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSER TO A PENSION, BECAUSE REALLY A 401K PLAN AS WE TAKE THE MONEY OUT, IT'S WHATEVER MONEY EXISTED AT THE TIME THAT WE RETIRED.
HERE, IT BASICALLY GOES TO THE LIFE OR SURVIVOR BENEFITS OF THE SPOUSE OR WHATEVER.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE AS WE GO FORWARD, THIS PARTICULAR C, WHAT THIS IS IS LIKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THAT.
IT BASICALLY SAYS I'M DOING I'M GOING TO CALL IT PENSION, BUT WE ALREADY DISCUSS WHAT IT IS.
BUT YOUR PAYMENTS, THEY COME UP AS SOON AS YOU RETIRE, THEY HAVE ACTUARIES JUST LIKE A PENSION WOULD AND THEY COME UP AND SAY, HERE'S WHAT YOUR PAYMENTS ARE GOING TO BE OVER YOUR REMAINING LIFE.
THOSE ARE SET. ADJUSTMENT HERE BASICALLY SAYS, HEY, IF THE COST OF LIVING, WHICH IS THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT GOES UP, THEN BASICALLY IT IS INCREASING YOUR BENEFIT PAYMENT AS YOU GO AS WELL.
NOW, A LITTLE BIT ADDITIONAL TWEAK TO THIS.
GOING BACK BEFORE I GET THERE IS REALLY WHAT GRANT HAD TALKED ABOUT RETROACTIVE VERSUS NON RETROACTIVE.
CITIES LOOKED AT THIS, IT WAS ALWAYS AN OPTION TO GO BACK, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS RETROACTIVE.
AS GRANT INDICATED IF YOU SELECTED SOMETHING THAT WAS RETROACTIVE, IT WENT BACK TO EVERY EMPLOYEE EVER HAD AND BASICALLY SAID, OKAY, WHAT I'M GOING TO KEEP ADDING UP THE COS SINCE THE TIME THAT THEY RETIRED AND IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEIR RETIREMENT PAY.
IF YOU RETIRED FOR 20 YEARS, ALL THOSE COS OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, YOU HAVE A FAIRLY GOOD INCREASE LIKELY IN YOUR PAYMENTS, WHICH THEN THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.
FRI IS THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE, IT CREATES JUST LIKE A PENSION.
IT CREATES AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
THE CITY SITS ON UNFUNDED LIABILITY THAT BASICALLY IS AMORTIZED OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD THAT THE CITY HAS TO CONTINUE TO CATCH UP PAY TO EVENTUALLY WIPE OUT THAT UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
COMPLICATING THINGS EVEN MORE PREVIOUSLY WE ADOPTED COUNCIL ADOPTED WHAT WAS CALLED UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS PREVIOUSLY.
THE UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS REALLY AT THE TIME WAS THOUGHT TO BE SAYING, OKAY, IF A PERSON CAME FROM ANOTHER CITY, LET'S SAY CAME FROM MURPHY, WHATEVER HAD SPENT THREE YEARS THERE, THAT THOSE SERVICE CREDITS WOULD COME ACROSS AS THEY WERE THEN HIRED BY PARKER.
[01:00:07]
BUT THE UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS HAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, FACTOR INTO IT AS WELL.WHAT IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT IF I WAS FIRST, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE ARE PEOPLE THAT WORK BASICALLY FOR FIVE YEARS FOR GOVERNMENT, I'LL JUST CALLED GOVERNMENT.
THEY COULD HAVE WORKED FOR WILEY FOR THREE YEARS AND PARKER FOR TWO, WORKED FOR PARKER FOR FIVE YEARS OR WHATEVER, BUT HAVE BEEN IN THE TMS SYSTEM FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS.
THOSE ARE THE ELIGIBLE PEOPLE.
MOST PEOPLE RETIRE WHENEVER AND WHEREVER THEY ARE.
SO SOMEONE WORKED HERE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN WENT TO MURPHY WORKED THREE YEARS AND WILEY WORKED SOME.
JUST LIKE A 401 K PLAN, THE CITY OF PARKER OWES A PORTION OF THEIR PAYMENTS WHEN THEY RETIRE.
WHEREVER YOUR RETIREMENT PAY IS, EACH OF THOSE CITIES THAT THE PERSON WORKED IN IS GOING TO CONTRIBUTE A PORTION OF THAT RETIREMENT PAY.
THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS $1,000,000 UNFUNDED LIABILITY ON THE TMS SYSTEM.
WHERE THAT REALLY CAME ABOUT, FOR THE MOST PART IS THAT AS WE UPDATED OUR MATCH AND OTHER STUFF.
AS YOU WOULD THINK, WHAT IT DID IS WENT BACK TO EVERY PERSON THAT EVER TOUCHED PARKER AND HAS BEEN WORKING IN THE SYSTEM FOR FIVE YEARS AND SAID, OKAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT YOUR RETIREMENT ACTUARIAL RETIREMENT PAY WOULD HAVE BEEN OR IS WHEN YOU RETIRE.
BUT CITY OF PARKER INCREASED THEIR MATCH INSTEAD I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS BEFORE, I CAN'T RECALL, BUT INSTEAD OF LET'S SAY ONE FOR ONE, NOW IT'S TWO FOR ONE.
THEY GO BACK AND THEY SAY, HEY, YOU USED TO WORK FOR PARKER, AND IF THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A MATCH FOR TWO FOR ONE, INSTEAD OF ONE FOR ONE, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD MORE MONEY.
THE UPDATED SERVICE CREDIT GOES BACK AND BASICALLY TAKES THOSE PEOPLE AND SAYS, OKAY, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD MORE MONEY, AND ADDS MORE MONEY TO THEIR POT, BASICALLY.
>> WELL, JUST WE WENT FROM A 6% EMPLOYES CONTRIBUTING 6%, AND THE CITY PUT IN 12% TO SEVEN AND 14%.
>> YEAH. SO THAT'S WHAT REALLY HAS CREATED THIS UNFUNDED LIABILITY, BUT YOU WOULD THINK THAT SAYS, OKAY, IF THEY PUT IN 7%, I MATCH TWO FOR ONE, DONE.
THERE'S NO UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
BUT THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY CAME ABOUT BY SAYING, I'M GOING BACK TO ALL THE PREVIOUS EMPLOYEES AND CURRENT EMPLOYEES THAT BASICALLY SAID, HEY, IT'S NOW TWO FOR ONE.
IF THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THAT MORE GENEROUS TYPE OF BENEFIT DURING THE TIME YOU WERE AT PARKER, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD MORE MONEY IN YOUR ACCOUNT AND THEY BASICALLY PUT THAT MONEY IN THE ACCOUNT AND CREATE UNFUNDED LIABILITY TO THE CITY.
>> AS WE GO INTO THE COLA, SAME THING.
IF WE SAY HEY, IT'S GOING TO BE COLA NON RETROACTIVE, THEY AT LEAST GO BACK ONE YEAR.
THIS PAST YEAR, WILL GO BACK AND SAY, WHATEVER THAT PERCENTAGE WAS.
NOW, GO BACK TO ALL THE PREVIOUS EMPLOYEES AND BASICALLY SAY SAME THING.
IF YOU WENT BACK, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD THAT MUCH MORE MONEY BECAUSE THEY CREATED THIS COLA GROUP AND UNFUNDED LIABILITY WILL INCREASE.
IF YOU PASS A COLA OPTION IS I THINK 30%, 50%, AND 70%.
INSTEAD OF SAYING 100% OF WHATEVER THE COLA INCREASES, YOU CAN CHOOSE 100%, BUT YOU CAN ALSO CHOOSE 30, 50 OR 70 AS WELL.
THE UNFUNDED LIABILITIES WOULD INCREASE, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK A 30% RAISE ABOUT A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND UP TO MAYBE CLOSER TO A MILLION AT THE TOP SIZE.
>> THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND IS 30% AND ABOUT 900,000 IS 70%.
>> THAT INCREASES THE CITY'S UNFUNDED LIABILITY, WHICH WE WOULD THEN PAY OVER 20 YEARS.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SAVAGE?
>> I DID MENTION, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE TEXAS LEGISLATION, MAKING THE CHANGE, MAKING THIS AVAILABLE FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD.
2024 WAS THE FIRST YEAR, 2025 WAS THE SECOND,
[01:05:01]
AND THEN 2026 WAS THE THIRD YEAR.THERE'S THAT SMALL WINDOW TO BE ABLE TO ADOPT THE NON-RETROACTIVE.
IF YOU WERE TO ADOPT IT IN 2027, RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD BE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THAT OPTION AND IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVE.
IT'S A SMALL WINDOW THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ADOPT THE NON-RETROACTIVE PORTION.
LOOKING AT THE OTHER CITIES IN COLLIN COUNTY, THERE'S FIVE CITIES IN COLLIN COUNTY RIGHT NOW THAT DON'T HAVE COLA: BLUE RIDGE, JOSEPHINE, LOWRY CROSSING, NEVADA, AND PARKER.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY FIVE CITIES IN COLLIN COUNTY THAT DON'T PARTICIPATE OR DON'T HAVE THE COLA OPTION AVAILABLE.
THEN OUT OF THE CITIES THAT DO HAVE THE COLA OPTION, ALL OF THEM HAVE 70%, EXCEPT FOR FAIRVIEW IS AT 50% AND CELINA IS AT 30%.
>> COUNCIL, WHAT WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO DO?
>> MAYOR, I THINK THAT AGAIN, THERE'S A THREE YEAR PERIOD THAT WE CAN ELECT THIS.
WE CAN ELECT IT NOW, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2025, OR WE CAN ELECT IT ANYTIME NEXT YEAR ELECTED OR EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2026.
I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT COLA AND THE INCREASE IN INFLATION AND THE IMPACT ON INFLATION ON INDIVIDUALS RETIREMENT PAYING, ETC.
HOWEVER, I THINK I PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT FURTHER THOUGHT.
I THINK THAT CITY OF OUR SIZE CREATING THAT LARGE OF THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY IS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE COMMERCIAL OR OTHER THINGS THAT HELP MAYBE FROM A BACKBONE PERSPECTIVE AND COVERING COSTS.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY A HUGE PROPONENT OF PENSIONS TO START WITH, BUT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY I'D LIKE TO PERSONALLY WAIT AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR AND GIVE IT SOME MORE THOUGHT AND DIG INTO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
>> JUST THE COMMENTS I HAVE ON IT, I HATE PENSIONS. I CAN'T STAND THEM.
I THINK THEY'RE A BIG PROBLEM.
I FEEL FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT WORK FOR THE CITY.
I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SOME WAY TO HELP THEM PLAN FOR RETIREMENT.
EVERYBODY DESERVES SOME WAY TO PLAN FOR RETIREMENT.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN MANDATING ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS WE CAN AND CAN'T RETIRE.
I'D BE MUCH HAPPIER IF WE HAD A (401)K SYSTEM FOR EMPLOYEES OR JUST PRIVATE RETIREMENT FOR PEOPLE TO PLAN FOR THEMSELVES.
PENSIONS ARE THE WAY ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT GET IN DEEP TROUBLE WHEN THEY START PROMISING PEOPLE THAT THEIR PAY IS GOING TO CONTINUE FOR YEARS, SOMETIMES DECADES EMPLOYED BY BUSINESS OR BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.
I'M IN FAVOR OF DOING SOMETHING ON THIS, WHETHER WE DO IT TONIGHT OR AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
I TEND NOT TO WANT TO LEAN TO THE 70% COLA.
I UNDERSTAND COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH THE OTHER CITIES IN COLLIN COUNTY, IF WE'RE GOING TO ATTRACT QUALITY EMPLOYEES AND KEEP QUALITY EMPLOYEES IN THIS CITY.
WE CERTAINLY HAVE A LOT OF QUALITY EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EMPLOYEES, BUT THE ONE THAT WE HAVE, ONCE WE HAVE ARE QUALITY PEOPLE.
I WOULD HATE TO LOSE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE.
WHETHER WE DO IT NOW OR WHETHER WE DO IT THREE MONTHS FROM NOW, I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO APPROVE A COLA.
I WOULD PERSONALLY SUGGEST A 50% RATHER THAN A 70% JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF HOW THESE ARE FUNDED OR ACTUALLY UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.
>> I THINK I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHER TWO COUNCIL MEN THAT JUST SPOKE.
I WOULD THINK THAT MAYBE WHAT WE COULD DO IS CAN WE HAVE SOME TICKLER AND MAYBE LOOK AT THIS SECOND QUARTER OF '25? THAT WAY, WE'LL HAVE SOME TIME TO DIGEST IT AND DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT CLOCK RUNNING ON THE RETROACTIVE VERSUS NON-RETROACTIVE IN '26.
I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE US SIX MONTHS TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
>> I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUES.
>> YOU HAVE ONE PERSON THAT WANTS TO WAIT OVER ABOUT A YEAR, YOU HAVE ONE THAT WANTS TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE
[01:10:04]
CARE OF IT THIS EVENING AND ANOTHER THAT WANTS TO THINK ABOUT IT.I NEED SOMEONE TO EITHER MAKE A MOTION OR TO DO SOMETHING.
>> THIS WAS PLANNED FOR IN THE BUDGET. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT AND THOUGHT WE HAD GENERALLY AGREED TO MOVE FORWARD AT SOME LEVEL.
WHAT LEVEL OF COLA WAS PLANNED FOR IN THE BUDGET?
>> IN THE BUDGET, WE HAD 70% NON-RETROACTIVE.
>> I DON'T KNOW A LOT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE IN SIX MONTHS.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
IF IT DOESN'T GET A SECOND OR NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO SUPPORT IT, THAT'S FINE.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF IT NOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE IN SIX MONTHS.
I WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE APPROVE A NON-RETROACTIVE COLA AT THE RATE OF 50%.
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM CITY COUNCILMAN BUDDY PILGRIM TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 878, AT 50%?
>> AT 50% WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER FECHT TO APPROVE ALSO AT 50%.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SHE JUMPED AND IT SCARED ME.
THAT BEING THE CASE, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE COLA AT TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT LEAVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 878 AT 50% RETROACTIVE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> I'M SORRY, NON-RETROACTIVE.
AGAIN, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR AND CAUSE THE MOTION TO PASS.
THAT IS NON-RETROACTIVE AT 50%.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT THAT.
>> ALSO, I WILL NOTE FOR THE OTHER FOLKS THAT IF YOU WANT TO AT ANY POINT IN TIME, YOU CAN BRING THIS BACK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION IF SOMETHING COMES UP.
>> THANK YOU, GRANT. ITEM NUMBER 9,
[9. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2024-820, AUTHORIZING THE REPUBLIC SERVICES RATE ADJUSTMENT. [Rescheduled from 2024 1112]]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-820, AUTHORIZING THE REPUBLIC SERVICE RATE ADJUSTMENT.ALL OF YOU ALL HAVE GOTTEN IN YOUR PACKET A WHILE BACK THE REPUBLIC WASTE CONTRACT, WHICH AS YOU SAW, CALLS FOR AN ANNUAL CPI.
WHAT WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO DO? I DON'T SEE MR. BERNAS HERE.
I GUESS HE'S NOT HERE TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT.
>> I READ THE CONTRACT AND IT CERTAINLY TALKS ABOUT ANNUALLY THAT THEY CAN HAVE A RATE INCREASE AND HOW THAT RATE INCREASE IS CALCULATED.
I WENT BACK AND HAS AN AVERAGE OF THE MONTHLY NUMBERS CHANGE FROM WHAT THEY CALLED THE WATER SEWER TRASH CPI.
I WENT BACK AND CALCULATED THAT AND IT BASICALLY DOES COME OUT RIGHT ON THE 5.01.
I WOULD HAVE WISHED THAT SOMEONE FROM REPUBLIC WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE TONIGHT IS WHY THEY USE THAT CPI.
THE CPI THAT IS AGAIN, WATER SEWER AND TRASH IS A COMPOSITE OF TWO CPIS.
THE TWO CPIS, ONE IS WATER AND SEWER MAINTENANCE,
[01:15:06]
AND THE OTHER IS TRASH AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL.WHY A TRASH AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL COMPANY IS INCLUDING WATER AND SEWER MAINTENANCE IN THEIR CPI INCREASE IS A HUGE QUESTION TO ME.
THE TRASH AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL CPI HAS BEEN INCREASING IN A MUCH LOWER RATE YEARLY THAN THE COMPOSITE RATE OF THE TWO COMBINED.
HOPEFULLY, WHENEVER WE RENEGOTIATE REPUBLIC WASTE CONTRACT THAT WE CERTAINLY TRY TO BRING UP THAT QUESTION AND HOPEFULLY CREATE THE CPI ONLY TO TRACK THE TRASH AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL.
>> I THINK I'M GOING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HERE, BUT I'M THINKING THAT OUR CONTRACT IS UP WITH REPUBLIC WASTE NEXT YEAR.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEY ARE ASKING FOR 5.01% CPI.
THEY'RE DOING THAT BASED ON THEIR CONTRACT BECAUSE IT IS A CLAUSE IN THEIR CONTRACT.
>> I WISH WE COULD GIVE HIM A 50% COLA.
>> WHAT WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO DO?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WANT TO MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT WE MAKE A MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-820 AUTHORIZING THE REPUBLIC SERVICE RATE ADJUSTMENT.
>> SAY THAT AGAIN. I DIDN'T HEAR IT. I'M SORRY.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-820 AUTHORIZING THE REPUBLIC SERVICE RATE ADJUSTMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND BY CITY COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO TO PROPOSE A RECONSIDERATION OF THE REPUBLIC WASTE COLA OR CPI.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PROPOSING A RECONSIDERATION OF THE 5.01% IN THEIR CONTRACT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANYBODY OPPOSED? I WILL REACH OUT TO REPUBLIC WASTE AND SEE IF WE CAN'T GET THEM HERE AND DISCUSS THIS.
I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED THEY'RE NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT STUFF HAPPENS.
>> THEY WERE EMAILED. HE HAD WRITTEN THE EMAIL.
>> THEY JUST DIDN'T RESPOND TO IT AT ALL?
>> WELL, I KNOW WHEN IT WAS ON THE AGENDA LAST TIME, HE HAD SAID THAT HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THE CALL DURING THE MEETING, BUT HE DID NOT.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE EMAIL.
I SAW WHERE HE READ IT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY COMMENT.
>> IF YOU WOULD REACH OUT TO MR. BURNES AND SEE IF HE COULD BE HERE AT EITHER THE DECEMBER 17TH OR JANUARY 7TH MEETING, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM HIM AT THAT TIME.
>> JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THE EXPIRATION DATE WAS 12/31/2026.
>> NEXT IS ITEM 11, KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT, LOT 26.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO GO RIGHT PAST THAT.
>> YEAH. I WAS JUST GOING RIGHT PAST ITEM NUMBER 10.
[10. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2024-822 APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUCAS AND THE CITY OF PARKER FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE AND EMS ASSISTANCE]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-822,[01:20:02]
APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUCAS AND THE CITY OF PARKER FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE AND EMS ASSISTANCE.COUNCIL, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A EMS FIRE AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE HAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME WITH LUCAS AND WE ARE JUST SIMPLY ASKED TO CONTINUE IT.
>> I'LL ASK NEWLY APPOINTED CHIEF MILLER ANY DETAILS OR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM YOUR SIDE OF HOW THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN WORKING FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE?
>> IT WORKS GREAT. IT'S FANTASTIC.
WE'VE BEEN, LIKE MAYOR SAID, WORKING WITH LUCAS MUTUAL AID FIRE EMS FOR SOME TIME NOW.
WE USE THEM AS A BACKUP AS WELL IF WILEY IS OUT.
IF ALL FOUR OF THEIR MEDICS ARE MAKING RUNS IN OTHER CITIES, WE CAN CALL LUCAS, WE CAN CALL MURPHY.
IT'S BASICALLY JUST A UPDATED ILA FOR LUCAS'S COUNCIL AND THEIR NEW CITY MANAGER.
THAT'S ALL IT IS. NOTHING WILL CHANGE ON OUR END OR THEIR END.
WE'LL STILL ASSIST THEM AND VICE VERSA. THAT'S ALL IT IS.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ONCE COUNCILMAN PILGRIM COMES BACK TO THE DIAS.
>> I SECOND YOUR PROFESSIONAL COURTEOUSM.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-822 AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER FAT.
>> SECOND IT IS. PROFESSIONALISM OF HIS COLLEAGUE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO IS SAY WE WILL WAIT UNTIL COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM GETS BACK BEFORE I CALL FOR THE VOTE.
AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER FAT TO APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUCAS AND THE CITY OF PARKER FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE AND EMS ASSISTANCE.
AT THIS TIME IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANYBODY OPPOSE? NOT SEEING ANY, MOTION CARRIES 4-0.
[11. KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT LOTS 26 & 27, BLOCK F ANNEXATION: 2 Page 3 of 4 KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT LOTS 26 & 27, BLOCK F WAS ON THE OCTOBER 22 , 2024 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND APPROVED BY INACTION ON OCTOBER 26, 2024 (EXPIRATION OF 30 DAYS). KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 LOTS 26 & 27, BLOCK FSERVICE AGREEMENT PUBLIC HEARING KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 LOTS 26 & 27, BLOCK F ANNEXATION CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 884, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (MSA). CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 885, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 2.078 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS.]
KING'S CROSSING, PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT, LOTS 26 AND 27 BLOCK F MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT, MSA AND ANNEXATION.[01:25:04]
THIS IS KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT, LOTS 26 27 BLOCK F WAS ON THE OCTOBER 22ND, 2024, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND APPROVED BY IN ACTION ON OCTOBER 26TH, 2024.EXCUSE ME. 10/26/24, WHICH WAS THE EXPIRATION OF 30 DAYS.
THE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, LOTS 26 AND 27 BLOCK F SERVICE AGREEMENT.
THAT WILL BE THE FIRST THING WE WILL GO ON IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IT IS 8:44. MR. SOLMAN [PHONETIC], YOU WANT TO COME UP AND START US OFF?
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, STEVE SOLMAN, 4040 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.
WE HAVE REQUESTED ANNEXATION OF TWO LOTS IN OUR KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 PROJECT.
THIS IS A CONTINUED FOLLOW-UP FOLLOWING THE TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY IN 2007, WHEREBY WE WOULD ANNEX THE PROPERTY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THEIR PLATS ARE FILED AND THIS DEALS WITH TWO LOTS, 26 AND 27. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SOLMAN? AS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THOSE LOTS? NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:47.
COUNCIL, YOU HAVE, IN YOUR PACKET, RECEIVED A COPY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 884, WHICH IS THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT.
>> THIS IS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT TANGENTIAL, BUT I WAS LOOKING AT THE DRAINAGE A LITTLE BIT OF THIS.
I KNOW WE'VE LOOKED AT THE PLATS, BUT I JUST WAS GOING TO ASK, STEVE, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR ME, THE TWO PONDS THAT ARE THERE AND THAT'S THAT WALKWAY, THAT GREEN BELT THAT'S THROUGH THERE, THOSE ARE MORE ORNAMENTAL THE WAY I UNDERSTAND.
THEY'RE NOT REALLY DRAINAGE RETENTION PONDS; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> MY ONLY QUESTION WAS AND THIS MAY BE OUT OF LINE FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE DOING THE ANNEXATION, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS AND MAYBE SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION BEFORE, BUT WHEN YOU SEE 26 AND 27, THEY JUT OUT INTO THAT AREA RIGHT THERE.
IS THAT JUST GOING TO BE LANDFILL THAT'S GOING TO ELEVATE THAT THERE? HOW IS THAT WATER GOING TO NOT ERODE THAT AREA AS IT OVERFLOWS THERE IF YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT DRAINAGE OR IS THERE AN ABUTMENT THERE OR SOMETHING THAT DIVERTS IT? I'M JUST CURIOUS.
>> THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY BEING RECLAIMED FROM THE FLOODPLAIN.
AT THAT LEVEL, IT'S DIRECTED INTO THE CHANNEL AND IT GOES INTO THE POND.
THE DRAINAGE FROM THE SUBDIVISION GOES INTO THE POND AND THEN SLOWLY DRAINS OUT OVER A SPILLWAY INTO THE CREEK.
>> DOWNWARD, YOU'RE SAYING, THAT IT WOULD DRAIN.
ALL THAT ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN WHAT THE ACTUAL GRADING IS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? I'M NOT HEARING ANYBODY.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 884, THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT? ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? IF NOT, I WOULD TAKE A MOTION.
>> MAYOR, I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT THE FINAL PLAT OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, LOTS 26,
[01:30:08]
27 BLOCK F, AS WELL AS ORDINANCE 884, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER KERSHAW AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER FAT TO ACCEPT KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, LOTS 26 AND 27 BLOCK F TO BE ANNEXED AND THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, WHICH IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 884.
>> THE PLOT SIZE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED.
>> THE PLOT SIZE BEEN ACCEPTED.
>> THE PLOT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, YES.
AT THIS TIME, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT ORDINANCE NUMBER 884.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 884, WHICH IS THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT? NOT HEARING ANYTHING, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 884, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
NOW WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER, I CALL IT NUMBER THREE UNDER THIS.
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 885, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 2.078 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR MOTIONS?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION IN CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE NUMBER 885, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 2.078 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF PARKER.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER BUDDY PILGRIM TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 885.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[12. UPDATE(S)]
WE'LL START WITH THE UPDATES.MR. MACHADO WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH 2551?
>> [INAUDIBLE] CONTRACTOR HARPER BROTHERS IS NEARLY DONE WITH ALL THE WATER CROSSINGS.
THEY'RE WORKING ON THE LAST ONE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS UP AT PARKER ROAD.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TAPPING THAT TONIGHT.
IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO BEING DONE WITH ALL THE WATER CROSSING.
>> WHAT'S THE NEXT PHASE OF THAT?
>> THEY'RE PUTTING BYPASS ASPHALT.
WE'LL SHIFT TRAFFIC A LITTLE BIT.
THEY START WORKING ON GRADING AND EXCAVATING AND ACTUALLY LAYING THE ROAD.
>> NEXT THING IS THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.
I THINK WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT AT LENGTH TONIGHT AND APPROVED THE CONTRACT.
COMP PLAN IS SCHEDULED TO BE AT A WORKSHOP BETWEEN COUNCIL AND P&Z ON 12/17.
COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM, IS THERE ANY UPDATE ON TCEQ?
>> NO, THERE'S BEEN NO ACTION AT TCEQ AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ELSE RECENTLY OUT OF EITHER THE HUFFINES OR JOHN COX, OR JORDAN RAMIREZ.
I THINK RAMIREZ IS IN THE PROCESS OF SPEAKING TO RESIDENTS IN THE AREA TO SOLICIT THEIR FEEDBACK ON HIS CONCEPT.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ENGINEERING REQUEST.
MR. MACHADO, HAS A MEETING BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THAT?
[01:35:03]
>> THERE ARE SOME CITIZENS HERE TONIGHT THAT WERE NOT HERE FOR NOVEMBER 19, SO I THOUGHT AS A COURTESY, I WOULD JUST GO THROUGH THE REPORT.
I'VE SPOKE WITH CATHERINE A FAIR AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS REPORT, ETC., AND GETTING HER WISDOM.
THEN I'LL ASK CATHERINE SOME THOUGHTS AND IDEAS BECAUSE SHE SAID I COULD TALK ABOUT EXECUTIVE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN GREAT DETAIL.
THE CITY OF PARKER HAS APPROXIMATELY 6,000 PEOPLE, AND WE HAD THE COMMITTEE AND WE HAD ONE PERSON SHOW UP, I SHOULD SAY CONSISTENTLY, AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER COUPLE SHOW UP ON DRAG RACING, WHICH WE ADDRESSED WITH THE POLICE CHIEF, AND I WAS NOT THERE FOR THE FIRST MEETING BECAUSE I HAD SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA.
ONE OF THE CITIZENS COMPLAINED ABOUT CROSS CREEK.
I ALWAYS THOUGHT SUGAR GETS YOU FURTHER THAN SALT AND COMPLAINING AND POINTING FINGERS AND BICKERING.
I ASKED MATT AT CROSS CREEK, WHICH CAME IN WITH HIS SISTER TO COME IN AND JUST TALK TO US AS A COMMITTEE AND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS MAKING THE COMPLAINT.
THEY EXPLAINED THAT THE CITIZEN AGREED THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE AUGUST BECAUSE THEY HAD A DOOR THAT THEY PUT IN THAT CLOSED A LOT OF THE NOISE, AND RANDY YOU WERE IN THE MEETING.
THEN THEY ALSO PUT IN INSULATION.
THEN I ASKED THIS CITIZEN, HAS THIS BEEN A MAJOR ISSUE? HOW MANY PROBLEMS HAVE YOU HAD, AND THE QUOTE WAS TWICE PER YEAR, ETC.
THEN THEY EXCHANGE PHONE NUMBERS TO COMMUNICATE BETTER AND OPEN THE DOORS.
NOW, WITH SOUTH FORK, THEY'RE UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PROBLEMS, WE ALL KNOW THAT.
BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH NEW MANAGEMENT AND THEY CAN'T PAY FOR THE SINS OF OLD MANAGEMENT.
THEY DEFINITELY WANT TO COOPERATE WITH US AND I FEEL THAT THEY WERE SINCERE AND HONEST.
I HAVE REQUESTED BACK CONTRACTS BECAUSE WHAT I WANT TO DO IS I WANT TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE IN THOSE CONTRACTS IF IT HAS THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OR WHAT WE SAY, OUR DECIMAL LEVELS ARE, ETC., AND SEE IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY HOLDING THEIR CLIENTS TO AN AGREEMENT THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING OR WE'RE GETTING LIP SERVICE.
TWO CITIZENS THAT BOTH LIVE IN BROOKS FARM THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT, I DON'T HAVE THEIR PERMISSION TO SAY THEIR NAME, SO I WON'T.
THAT SAID, THE LAST CONCERT THAT WE HAD UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT WAS ACCEPTABLE.
I'M ACTUALLY WORKING WITH SOUTH FORK AND ASKING THEM TO VOLUNTEER BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE FROM 1996, 2017, IF THEY WOULD GO FROM MIDNIGHT TO 11 O'CLOCK VOLUNTEERING AND JUST WORK WITH US AND SHOW US SOME GOOD FAITH.
THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ARE GOING ON, AND THEY'RE GOING ON AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL WITH SOUTH FORK.
AS YOU ASKED ME TO BE A CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT LIMITATIONS OF WHO I COULD TALK TO OR STRATEGIES I COULD TAKE, ETC.
WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.
I'VE HAD MANY CITIZENS OVER THE YEARS TELL ME UNEQUIVOCALLY, THEY DO NOT WANT THE CITY OF PARKER TO BECOME AN HOA FOR EVERYBODY.
WHEN YOU PURCHASE A HOME IN PARKER, YOU HAVE A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS.
THEY CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES.
IF I FEEL THIS IS AN ISOLATED SITUATION THAT IS AFFECTING LESS THAN 1% OF THE 6,000 PEOPLE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 3,000 PEOPLE THIS IS AFFECTING, THIS ISN'T HALF OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
ACCORDING TO POLICE REPORTS, IT IS WRONG TO PUNISH THE LESS THAN 99% OF CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT COMPLAINING WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS WITH ORDINANCES AND TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS.
THIS COULD BE UNLAWFUL TAKING, WHICH COULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES, AND PARKER ISN'T BIG GOVERNMENT.
THIS ISN'T NEW YORK, THIS ISN'T DALLAS TO COME PUT THE THUMB DOWN ON THE PEOPLE.
I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH PRIOR TO THE FIRST MEETING TALKING TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS AND ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT ABILITIES AND THAT THEY [INAUDIBLE].
ONE OF THEM WAS AN ATTORNEY WHO SUED THE CITY OF PARKER AND WON AS WE OVERSTEPPED OUR BOUNDARIES.
HE IS ALSO AT BOTH THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE RULING IN THE FOLLOWING CASES.
TOWN OF LAKEWOOD V. BIOS, HE WON, [INAUDIBLE], HE WON, FTC V. FRISCO, I WON'T GO INTO THOSE IN GREAT DETAILS.
BUT AS THE CITY IS EVOLVING, TEXAS [INAUDIBLE] IS FOCUSED ON THE LAST FEW YEARS ON STRENGTHENING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
PARTICULARLY WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS INVOLVED.
THE COURT HAS PARTICULARLY STRESSED THAT BOTH THE US AND TEXAS CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE PRIVATE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS.
SOUTHWARK IS WORKING WITH THIS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A ROOKIE MISTAKE TO TRY TO CHASE THE [INAUDIBLE] WITH THEM.
PLUS, YOU HAVE [INAUDIBLE] USAGE [INAUDIBLE] RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT HOUSES AND ONE THAT THEY HAVE THOSE RULES.
CHANGING COULD LEAD TO HUGE LITIGATION.
WE ALREADY HAVE LITIGATION IN THIS CITY.
WE HAVE SIX LAWSUITS, WE DON'T NEED A SEVENTH.
WE HAVE VERY LITTLE LEVERAGE WITH SOUTH FORK.
THAT'S WHEN SUGAR GETS YOU FURTHER THAN SALT.
WE ALREADY HAVE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS IN PLACE SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES FROM '96 AND 2017.
[01:40:01]
THE OWNER OF SOUTH FORK HAS THE ECONOMIC REALITIES TO BANKRUPT THE CITY IN LITIGATION JUST FOR DRILL IF WE UPSET THE APPLE CART.THAT'S A QUOTE FROM SLAUGHTER WHEN I TALKED TO HIM.
IN A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH A FORMER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO LIVES ACROSS FROM SOUTH FORK, I DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO SAY THEIR NAME, SO I WON'T.
HE REPORTED TO ME THAT HE'S HAD ONE ISSUE IN FIVE YEARS WITH A CONCERT.
I ALSO SPOKE TO A CITY MEMBER IN THE BACK OF BROOKS FARM WHO SAID HE'S HAD NO NOISE ISSUES.
I SPOKE WITH HIM ON NOVEMBER 19TH, APPROXIMATELY 4:03 BECAUSE MY PHONE CAN VERIFY THAT CONVERSATION.
[INAUDIBLE] AS A CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, WE HAVE ONE PHONE CALL OR EMAIL FROM PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT NOISE AT SOUTHWARK ACROSS CREEK.
I ALSO PUT IN MY NOVEMBER REPORT, IF ANYONE HAS COMPLAINTS ABOUT NOISE FROM OCTOBER 1ST, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING CATHERINE AND I TALKED ABOUT WAS STARTING A STARTING POINT OF THE NEW MANAGEMENT, ETC, TO PLEASE EMAIL ME, I PUT MY EMAIL IN HERE, AND WE WILL REVIEW AND MAKE THE APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATIONS.
I HAVE NOT HAD ONE EMAIL OR ONE PHONE CALL SINCE I GAVE THIS REPORT.
SINCE SUGAR GETS YOU FURTHER THAN SALT, THE RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS POINT IS JUST TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME AND KEEP WORKING WITH SOUTH FORK AS WE'RE CURRENTLY HAVING A GREAT RELATIONSHIP.
THAT WAS MY REPORT I GAVE TO YOU AS COUNCIL.
I HAD SOME VERY POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM MANY OF YOU.
THEN AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL, WE DISCUSSED IT IN GREATER DETAIL IN EXECUTIVE, WHICH THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL WAS IN FAVOR OF TAKING NO ACTIONS AND PUTTING THIS ON HOLD FOR SIX MONTHS.
CATHERINE, IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION?
>> I RECALL THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> OKAY, COUNCIL, YOU HAVE HEARD THE COMMENTS FROM PETE EARLIER TONIGHT, YOU HAVE HEARD TODD'S COMMENTS.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? RANDY, YOU'VE BEEN MORE ACTIVE THAN MOST OF US WITH THIS, WHAT'S YOUR POINT OF VIEW?
>> WELL, AGAIN, FROM A STRAW POLL WITHIN COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVE MEETING, DISCUSSION WAS HAD ABOUT THE VARIOUS THINGS OF WHICH TODD HAD ALREADY BROUGHT UP.
THAT MAJORITY OF THE COMPLAINTS [INAUDIBLE] SOUTH FORK RELATED, A LITTLE BIT OF CROSS CREEK.
CROSS CREEK SEEMS TO BE ON A GOOD PATH TO RESOLVING ITS ISSUES.
TALK IS TALK, AND HOPEFULLY, ACTION COMES FORTH.
CITIZEN'S SITUATIONS, CERTAINLY THEY EXIST.
I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE POLICE DISCRETION.
I KNOW ALSO FROM AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND DISCUSSION SOME PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IT MIGHT EVEN, I GUESS THE TERM WAS USE, WEAPONIZE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO GIVE THEM SOME DISCRETION.
I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE OVERBOARD, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.
YOU SEE IT ON TV ALL THE TIME THAT SOME PEOPLE, ANYBODY, WHETHER THEY'RE POLICE OR NOT, WILL TAKE MATTERS IN THEIR OWN HANDS.
I THINK THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE GOT IS OLD, AND I THINK THAT WE'VE GROWN SINCE THAT ORDINANCE, AND I THINK THAT ALL OF OUR SURROUNDING CITIES HAVE ADOPTED SOMEWHAT CLOSE ORDINANCES TO WHAT IS OUT THERE THAT INITIALLY, THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO.
I STILL THINK IT'S GOOD TO ADOPT THOSE CHANGES, BUT, AGAIN, WITHOUT TOTAL COUNCIL SUPPORT, IT IS NOT GOING TO GO ANYPLACE ANYWAY.
I WOULD SAY THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO WAIT THE SIX MONTHS AND SEE WHAT COMES ABOUT WITH ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND DISCUSSION AND ACTION FROM OTHER CITIZENS IF THEY'RE HAVING ISSUES AS WELL AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
>> IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, TODD, WHAT YOU WERE RECOMMENDING IS THAT THE NOISE COMMITTEE GOES INTO HIATUS, FOR WANT OF A BETTER TERM, FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND AGREED UPON IN THE OTHER ROOM.
TWO WEEKS AGO, IT HAS THE MAJORITY.
>> THAT WAS WHAT EVERYBODY VOTED ON?
>> THAT'S WHEN WE DISCUSSED. THEY ALREADY VOTED ME IN AS CHAIRMAN A LONG TIME AGO.
THEN THAT WAS MY REPORT, AND THEN WE DISCUSSED THE REPORT IN EXECUTIVE, AND THE MAJORITY AGREED TO DO THAT.
>> IS THAT CORRECT, CATHERINE?
>> I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING VOTED ON.
[01:45:04]
>> WAS THERE ANYTHING VOTED ON IN THE COMMITTEE? DID THE COMMITTEE COME TO ANY AGREEMENT?
>> NO, AS THE CHAIRMAN, I DIDN'T CALL FOR ANY VOTES ON DIFFERENT THINGS.
IT WAS LIKE YOU'VE GOT THE COMMITTEE AS THE CHAIRMAN, YOU'RE THE HEAD OF IT, AND THEN YOU START LOOKING AT LEGAL STUFF, YOU START WORKING WITH SOUTH FORK AND YOU RUN IT JUST LIKE THE PRESIDENT AS A BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
HE DOESN'T TAKE THE ADVICE OF EVERY BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
HE MAKES A DECISION AT SOME POINT.
THAT'S WHAT I DID ACTING IN MY CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN WITHOUT LIMITATIONS FROM WHEN I WAS VOTED IN.
>> WAS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, RANDY?
>> WE DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY VOTE WITHIN THE COMMITTEE.
I THINK CERTAINLY BASED ON COMMENTS TONIGHT THAT THE COMMITTEE PROBABLY WOULD DISAGREE.
BUT, AGAIN, KNOWING THAT THE NEXT STEP IS TO GET COUNCIL APPROVAL ON A NOISE ORDINANCE, AND BASICALLY, MAJORITY OF COUNCIL SAYING THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO WAIT SIX MONTHS.
IT SEEMS TO BE A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP HAVING TO WAIT SIX MONTHS.
>> IS THAT WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO? OR WHAT DOES COUNCIL WANT TO DO?
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT YOU MADE.
THERE'S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT WE'VE GOT TO WAIT SIX MONTHS.
>> BECAUSE IN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES, CATHERINE AND TODD INDICATED IS THAT THERE WAS, NOT A VOTE, BUT A STRAW POOL OF PEOPLE'S OPINIONS.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, PEOPLE SAID, HEY, YEAH, THIS IS WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO TOO IS WAIT SIX MONTHS. THE MAJORITY SAID THAT.
I THINK THAT TODD [INAUDIBLE] CERTAINLY SAID THAT I WOULD THINK THAT IT SHOULD CHANGE AND THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD ON IT AND THAT THE SHOULD HAVE SOME DISCRETION AND IT DIDN'T CARRY CERTAIN OPINIONS WITHIN THAT ROOM.
>> I AGREE THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION IN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE IT AS A VOTE FOR ONE REASON.
WE DON'T VOTE IN CLOSED SESSION, IT'S ILLEGAL TO VOTE IN CLOSED SESSION ON ANY ISSUE.
I WOULD SAY WE DIDN'T VOTE IN CLOSED SESSION.
I WOULD COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THAT.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A CONSENSUS NOT TO BRING ANY ACTION WHEN WE CAME BACK.
THAT'S WHAT WE DO DISCUSS IN THERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO BRING ACTION FOR A VOTE WHEN WE COME BACK INTO OPEN SESSION, AND THERE WAS A CONSENSUS NOT TO BRING IT UP FOR A VOTE.
I WAS SATISFIED WITH WHAT I HEARD THAT NIGHT FROM COUNCILMEMBER FECHT IN HIS REPORT.
HOWEVER, LISTENING TO THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT, LISTENING TO THOSE WHO SPOKE DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SESSION, IT RAISES DIFFERENT CONCERNS THAT I WASN'T AWARE MANY OF THEM FELT THAT WAY AND THE FEELINGS ARE QUITE STRONG.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF WAITING SIX MONTHS TO DO ANYTHING.
I THINK I WOULD RATHER TRY TO RE-RECONSTITUTE, MAYBE THE COMMITTEE.
IF TODD WANTS TO STAY ON IT, FINE.
BUT MAYBE WE LET THE COMMITTEE DO SOMETHING ABOUT SELECTING LEADERSHIP.
I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO GET PEOPLE TO FOLLOW YOU.
MY DEFINITION OF A LEADER IS SOMEONE WHO HAS CHEERFUL, WILLING FOLLOWERS.
IF THEY'RE NOT CHEERFUL, THEN YOU'RE FORCING THEM.
IF THEY'RE NOT WILLING, THEN THEY'RE BEING FORCED.
LEADERSHIP INVOLVES BRINGING PEOPLE ALONG, AND THAT'S NOT TO MISCHARACTERIZE YOUR TOTAL STYLE OF LEADERSHIP OR WHAT YOU DID IN THE COMMITTEE.
BUT I THINK THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME CONCERNS OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN A PART OF IT OR WANTED TO BE A PART OF IT AND DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY GOT TO BE.
I THINK WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THEIR INPUT, MAYBE TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON SOME ISSUES AND BRING RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO COUNCIL.
>> I THINK THAT I HAVE A VERY SIMILAR THOUGHT ON IT.
WE DID TALK ABOUT IT, WHAT COUNCILMAN FECHT WENT THROUGH.
AT THE TIME, I FELT COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT HE HAD DONE.
I KNOW HE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE POLICE INVOLVEMENT AND OBVIOUSLY, I DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE AN OVERSTEPPING OR OUT OF BOUNDS KIND OF THING.
I REMEMBER HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT.
NOW THAT I'VE HAD TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND I HAD A COUPLE CALLS FROM CITIZENS ABOUT THIS I GUESS NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR CONFLICTS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM OR WHAT HAVE YOU, JUST MAYBE MY PERCEPTION OF HOW THINGS HAD GONE OVER THE REVIEW,
[01:50:01]
I DIDN'T REALLY SEE THAT AS A BIG FACTOR IN THE OVERALL CONSIDERATION.IT'S NOT THAT I JUST DISCOUNTED IT, IT'S JUST THAT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS AN ACTION BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS MORE OF THE OVER ARCHING NOISE, VIOLATIONS FROM PUBLIC EVENTS AND THAT SORT OF THING THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
IN HEARING THAT AFTER I HAD THE CALLS, I THINK THAT MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AND MAYBE I MIGHT WANT TO RETHINK MY THOUGHTS ON THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE POLICE, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A RECURRING SITUATION POTENTIALLY.
WITH ALL THAT AS A PREAMBLE, SO TO SPEAK, AND I THINK I SAID THAT NIGHT THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DISBAND IT.
I THINK WE WANTED TO KEEP IT GOING.
MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT IT NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO BE ENGAGED AND IF IT'S NOT BEING REPRESENTED, WHICH DOES SEEM TO BE SOME DISCONNECT THERE.
WE NEED TO GET THAT DISCONNECT WORKED OUT THROUGH THE COMMITTEE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD IN THE RIGHT WAY
>> WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE IS A DISCONNECT.
WE HAVE A COMMITTEE THAT HASN'T BEEN FUNCTIONING IN SOME WAYS, AND IT HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING IN OTHERS.
I THINK IT HAS NOT SOLVED ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE OUT THERE, WHETHER FOR THE GOOD OR FOR THE BAD.
I DON'T SEE THEM BEING RESOLVED.
I STILL SEE EVERY ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE STARTED WITH STILL BEING THERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COME IF THEY ARE WILLING TO GO FORWARD AND SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE AND COME BACK AT SOME FUTURE TIME WHEN YOU'RE READY, WHEN THERE IS A AGREEABLE SOLUTION RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU ALL CAN MAKE TO CITY COUNCIL.
>> I WANT TO COMMENT ON ONE THING.
WHEN SOMEONE SAID I HAD AN AGENDA, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE BECAUSE I ALLOWED 50% OF THE COMMITTEE MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO'VE CALLED THE POLICE AND COMPLAINED BECAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR THEM.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE FOUR PEOPLE IN THE COMMITTEE, IT'S 6,000 CITIZENS THAT WE GOT TO LOOK AT.
WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING TO MAKE 10 PEOPLE HAPPY OR FIVE PEOPLE HAPPY.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF THE TOTAL TRANSACTION.
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN YOU HAVE 50% OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE CALLED THE POLICE AND COMPLAINED AND YOU DON'T GIVE THEM NEW RULES, THEY PROBABLY WON'T BE HAPPY, AND THEY PROBABLY WON'T FOLLOW YOU.
BUT THERE'S 6,000 PEOPLE HERE AND WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT'S LESS THAN 1%, IS MY THOUGHT.
I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID, BECAUSE WE HAD MATT SIT HERE AND WE TOOK CARE OF THAT ISSUE AND HE EXPLAINED HOW THE DOOR WAS FIXED AND THE INSULATION WAS PUT IN.
RANDY, YOU WERE IN THE MEETING.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A CROSS CREEK ISSUE.
WE TOOK CARE OF 50% OF THE PROBLEM.
I WAS NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE NEIGHBOR ON NEIGHBOR ISSUE UNTIL THE POLICE CHIEF BROUGHT IT UP AND I TALKED WITH CATHERINE ABOUT IT.
THAT MIGHT BE MORE OF A CIVIL ISSUE THAN IT IS A POLICE ISSUE.
BUT I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, AND I DON'T PLAY WITH MTV.
>> WELL, I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO KEEP THE COMMITTEE IN PLACE.
I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ASKING TODD TO BE REMOVED FROM THE COMMITTEE.
I HEARD, LISTENED TO AND RESPECTED ALL OF THE OPINIONS THAT YOU'VE OFFERED BEFORE ON THIS.
I LISTENED TO ALL THE PEOPLE TONIGHT AND I TAKE WHAT THEY SAY AT FACE VALUE AS WELL.
THERE IS A VERY DIFFERENT OPINION AS TO HOW THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED ON THIS.
I GUESS MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE CONTINUE THE COMMITTEE.
MAYBE CONSIDER LETTING RANDY CHAIR IT, BUT YOU STILL PARTICIPATE IN IT, TODD. THAT'S MY SUGGESTION.
MAYBE THE COMMITTEE HAS OTHER FEELINGS.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE COMMITTEE NEED TO FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GETTING A FAIR SHOT AT HAVING THEIR OPINIONS HEARD AND LEGITIMATELY CONSIDERED, AND MAYBE SOME OF THEM EVEN TAKEN FORWARD OR VOTED ON OR SOMETHING.
THEY MAY GET VOTED DOWN, BUT AT LEAST BEING HEARD AND CONSIDERED.
I THINK WE OUGHT TO DO THAT AND MAYBE GET A REPORT AFTER EACH MEETING THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS IF IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN A WRITTEN REPORT THAT'S SUBMITTED TO THE MAYOR AND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO COUNCIL.
>> RANDY, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?
[01:55:03]
>> WELL, I DO BELIEVE THAT TODD HAS A VERY GOOD DIRECTIONS THAT HE'S TAKEN IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT CONTRACTS AND LOOKING AT HOW PEOPLE ARE UTILIZING THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND ARE THEY KEEPING TO THE ORDINANCE OR NOT? I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S CERTAINLY A DIVIDE WITHIN THE COMMITTEE REALLY AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAID TODAY, THE COMMITTEE AND TODD.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE CERTAINLY BELIEVE TODD HAS SOME VERY GOOD CONTRIBUTIONS.
PROBABLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE COULD GO FORWARD WITH TODD AS THE CHAIRMAN.
>> AGAIN, TOUGH SITUATION HERE BECAUSE AGAIN, I DO THINK ALSO HE HAS BROUGHT A LOT TO THE TABLE.
BUT AGAIN, I HAVEN'T BEEN IN ANY OF THE MEETINGS, SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO MAKE A DECISION.
MY STRONG OPINION IS THAT I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO FORWARD.
I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN PILGRIM IN THAT THE IDEAS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M VERY PRO TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE AND THE CITIZENS ACTUALLY BRING FORTH THEIR OPINIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET CULMINATED INTO SOMETHING THAT CAN PROVIDE A SOLUTION.
I THINK THAT SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LEGAL, AND I THINK THAT TODD'S DONE A GOOD JOB ON THAT, BUT ALSO BRINGING THESE FAMILY TO FAMILY SITUATIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON SO WE CAN GET THOSE RESOLVED.
THERE'S PROBABLY SOME GOOD IDEAS THAT WILL COME OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CONTINUE AS FAR.
AS LEADERSHIP IS CONCERNED, I WOULD MAYBE AGREE WITH BUDDY IS THAT I MAYBE LIKE TO SEE COUNCILMAN FECHT STAY ON THE COMMITTEE FOR SOME ADVICE, BUT MAYBE LET RANDY LEAD IT AND SEE WHERE THE DIRECTION IS AND ALLOW THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO MAYBE HAVE A LITTLE MORE VOICE.
>> WELL, I'M IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING THE COMMITTEE.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH EITHER RANDY TAKING IT OVER OR THEM DECIDING THEIR OWN CHAIR.
TO ME, EVERYBODY THERE IS CAPABLE.
I WOULD HOPE THAT TODD WOULD CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE BECAUSE I THINK HE HAS A PART OF POINT OF VIEW THAT IS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS.
>> BUT HOW WE ENDED UP IN SO MANY LITIGATIONS, I'M NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE LAW.
>> OF COURSE, THE COMMITTEE CAN BRING ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT IT WANTS TO TO COUNCIL.
UNTIL COUNCIL VOTES ON IT AND APPROVES IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A MATTER OF LAW OR AN ISSUE OF LAW THAT WE'RE CREATING.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS CITIZEN INPUT, AND THEN IT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE UP TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISIONS.
WE MAY REJECT EVERY SINGLE IDEA THAT THE COMMITTEE BRINGS, AND THEY MAY WANT TO VOTE ALL OF US OUT OF OFFICE NEXT TIME AROUND.
OR WE MAY APPROVE HALF OF WHAT THEY BRING OR ALL OF WHAT THEY BRING.
I DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN OR HEARD WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BRING YET.
BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND DRIVE THIS TO A CONCLUSION NOW BECAUSE WE COULD KEEP GOING IN THESE CIRCLES ALL NIGHT LONG.
I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE BE VOTED ON BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THEY CAN SELECT THEIR OWN LEADER, WHETHER IT'S A COUNCIL PERSON OR A NON COUNCIL PERSON, AND THAT WE KEEP THE CURRENT MEMBERSHIP, AND THAT IT'LL BE UP TO THEM TO VOTE ON THEIR LEADERSHIP AND THEN TO BRING SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO CITY COUNCIL AT A POINT IN TIME WHEN THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE, WHETHER THAT'S NEXT MONTH OR SIX MONTHS. THAT WAS LONG WINDED.
>> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO LET THE LEADERSHIP OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO BE DECIDED BY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE COMMITTEE REMAINS THE CURRENT MEMBERSHIP, AND THEY WILL EVENTUALLY BRING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THEY MAY HAVE BACK TO COUNCIL.
IS THAT YOUR MOTION? MAKE SURE I GOT IT RIGHT.
>> THERE'S PROBABLY A BETTER WAY TO WORD IT THAN YOU DID OR I DID, BUT I THINK YOU GOT THE GIST OF IT.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
>> I'M OBVIOUSLY GOING TO SUSTAIN.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[02:00:02]
>> YOU SUSTAINED. YES. MOTION CARRIES THREE TO ONE.
>> AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE.
PATTI, I KNOW IF THE DIAS IS OPEN, YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY DO IT IN HERE WITH THE RECORDING OR YOU COULD EVEN TAKE THAT PORTABLE RECORDER, I WOULD ASSUME. I'M OFF FOR THAT.
>> IS THERE ANY REASON THE MEETING COULDN'T BE IF IT'S AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING?
>> THERE'S NO REASON IT COULDN'T BE RECORDED.
I DON'T KNOW AS FAR AS THE PEOPLE THAT DO THIS RECORDING IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR RECORDING FURTHER MEETINGS.
>> THERE IS A COST, BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WHEN LUKE WAS HERE, I THINK THAT THE AMOUNT OF RECORDING ABILITY THAT WE HAVE FAR EXCEEDED WHAT WE USUALLY CONSUME, SO WE MIGHT CHECK ON THAT GRANT.
YOU MIGHT CHECK ON THAT AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE PLENTY OF BANDWIDTH THERE.
>> BUT IF NOT, WE CAN DO THE RECORDING.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON THE SYSTEM.
>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION. IF IT'S RECORDED, DOES THAT MEAN SOMEONE HAS TO KEEP MINUTES AT THE MEETING AS WELL?
>> I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO KEEP WRITTEN MINUTES.
YOU WOULD JUST KEEP THE RECORDING.
>>I WAS WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY UPDATE ON LEWIS LANE.
I'M SORRY, JUST OUT OF MY HEAD.
WE HAD A MEETING WITH LUCAS ON LEWIS LANE, AND IT WAS A VERY POSITIVE MEETING.
WE ARE WAITING FOR THEIR ATTORNEY TO DRAW UP AN ILA THAT WE MAY GO FORWARD ON, WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE ROAD BEING REPAIRED AT A SOONER TIME.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? IF NOT, I WILL GO TO 13 THE DONATIONS,
[13. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801])]
ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION FOR THE POLICE FIRE AND CITY STAFF.FOR THE RECORD, PAM AND ALAN TERRELL DONATED TWO STARBUCK COFFEE GROUND PLUS ONE BOX OF HOT CHOCOLATE MIX VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY $40 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
NOW, ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS?
[14. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. I THINK WE STILL NEED A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM OF A WORKSHOP FOR AN EMPLOYEE MANUAL, AND WE NEED A WORKSHOP FOR CITY STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION.
>> WORKSHOP ON THE PERSONNEL MANUAL IS 12/17.
>> THE OTHER IS A WORKSHOP AND DISCUSSIONS ON CITY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND AUTHORITIES.
>> JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE POLICE AS WELL AS PUBLIC WORKS, WANT TO DO A PRESENTATION LIKE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DID FOR ALL OF COUNCIL.
WE'RE WORKING THEM IN THE ROTATION.
ON THE 17TH, WE HAVE A FUTURE WORKSHOPS, THE COMP PLAN, AND THE PERSONNEL MANUAL.
I'M NOT SURE TIME WISE, IF WE'RE GOING TO GET BOTH OF THEM, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT IN.
>> I HAVE ONE ITEM. I'D LIKE TO ADD FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
IT'S OUT THERE PUBLISHED, BUT REALLY I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS PREVIOUSLY THAT YOU FEEL IT'S A STAFF JOB TO IDENTIFY WHAT SHOULD BE DONE, BUT CERTAINLY LACK OF STAFF AND TIME, ETC.
I KNOW YOU ALSO THOUGHT YOU MIGHT NEED SOME HELP ON IT, SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO BRING IT UP AS AN AGENDA ITEM JUST HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE SEVERAL THINGS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OR WORKSHOPS, AND WE'RE GOING AS FAST AS WE CAN.
[02:05:02]
[LAUGHTER] AT THIS POINT, LET ME ASK, IS ANYBODY HERE FEEL A NEED OF AN EXECUTIVE SESSION? [LAUGHTER] THAT WAS AWFUL.>> IF NO ONE HAS ANYTHING ELSE, THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED.
[NOISE] IT IS 9:25 PM.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.